Posted by H2O on September 11, 2004 at 23:02:21:
In Reply to: Re: Will a filter really remove chlorine posted by well on September 11, 2004 at 22:07:13:
If you don't trust the labs testing the water then you could always drink bottled water? But then bottled water from groundwater as opposed to a lake such as Lough Mask will have much higher levels of nitrates - so don't give it to young babies especially. There's no published public (or private) testing data available for bacteria in bottled water - online or offline - so you have even less chance of knowing what you are drinking. Basically you have some assurance with public supplies but little or none with bottled water. Ditto for bringing a bucket to a stream or a well - taking your life in your hands.
With regard to mottling of teeth it's the concentration rather than the quantity of water you drink that counts due to the physiology of concentrations - that's why they have an upper concentration limit that's tested for. Provided the water stays below the concentration the safety factor allows for the maximum amount of water that a human can drink in a day.
We can't add fluoride for public health reasons so logically we shouldn't add chlorine or treat water in any way? Leave it to Sean citizen to do it himself - just like the group schemes which were a public health disaster.
Adding chlorine - is as much a public health measure just as making people drive on the left hand side of the road is a designed to protect us from ourselves. Speed limits, one way streets, restrictions on emissions such as lead - all forced on us by the Nanny State? If I want rotten teeth I should be allowed to have them just as I am perfectly entitled to drive on the RHS of the road should I choose every now and then?
If we didn't chlorinate our water we would all be permanently sick with gastro-enteritis, typhoid and cholera epidemics the norm rather than the exception. Treating water by adding chemicals to it is one of the big breakthroughs in modern medicine and public health. So we do add substances to our water for public health reasons.
As for differences between labs that's quite normal. Water quality varies from day to day so it really does depend on when the sample is taken. Unless they analyse the exact same sample you would not expect the result to be the same. A sample could be perfectly clear following a long dry spell and then by contaminated to the nth following a wet spell. Also make sure that the lab doing the test is actually accredited for the test in question - one finger print in the wrong place and a positive test for bacteria can result simply because they don't apply proper sterile technique. There are a lot of crap labs out there.
The point about group schemes being worse than public is merely a response to 'water man' above who said that group schemes 'could be' better than public schemes. For sure they could but the reality is that they certainly are not as it stands today. Our wish to live in fields miles from towns and villages means that our water supply is a mess - no one wants to pay for the huge costs of supplying decent water infrastructure to remote areas and it has been run on an amateur basis for years. Recently they have finally begun to be funded by central government once the realisation that most of our one-off houses literally had 'crap' water supplies - i.e. they supplied sheep and cattle and human crap directly out of the tap!
[Photo Galleries ]
[Polls Discussion ]
[Nostalgia Board ]
[Go to Castlebar ]
In posting I agree to the Terms and Conditions of the Disclaimer