I would not drink American tap water, at least not in the cities that I travelled. It always smelt like chlorine and from what I googled apparently up to 4 milligrams per liter are regularly allowed in the US. This is definitely not a thing in western Europe. We don't need to talk about the things that you cannot taste or smell and what happened in Flint.
Yes, if it already smells after chlorine, how can I know what else is in there. If it was from a clean source, it would not need chlorine in the first place.
> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."
No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.
> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.
I advise you look into the Flint water crisis, because your understanding doesn't sound accurate. The decision to change the source from one body of water to another was a municipal decision - made by the city's Emergency Manager (indicted on felony charges) - not one made by a private company.[0]
The EPA (another governmental agency) mandates contaminate limits and testing. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, another government agency) was not properly testing to federal requirements. Still, the issue was known by residents long before it was fixed, due to... private testing.[1]
What happened in Flint was criminal negligence, but it had nothing to do with water supply being privatized (it wasn't), or a lack of monitoring requirements (although it's believed testing may have been manipulated... by government workers.[2])
I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that privatization played a significant role in the Flint water crisis. For example The Intercept headlined "FROM PITTSBURGH TO FLINT, THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING PRIVATE COMPANIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR AILING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS".[1]
That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.
If you read The Intercept article, you'll see that the company was hired to test the water after the Flint water crisis began, in response to citizen complaints.
This is entirely separate from the federally mandated requirements around testing that was performed by government agencies.
> That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.
We arrived here in response to your misinformed claim that "A disaster like Flint could not happen here" because "Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here."
I've demonstrated that the US has similar policies in place, and neither the water supply nor the mandated testing for metals were privatized, yet the Flint disaster did happen. People and governments are fallible. Corruption and criminal negligence happens everywhere.
I don't think my claim is misinformed and I don't think the US and Germany are similar at all when it comes to water supply. Here we have multiple levels of security that would definitely have prevented a crisis similar to the one in Flint, even considering that corruption and criminal negligence could be at play.
I also think we have different views what privatization means. Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. There is just no scenario where something like in Flint could play out because the incentives are not there.
If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.
Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water.
> Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building.
As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing.
Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap water has been an issue in Europe.
"As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing."
If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation.
"Although lead pipes have not been used here since 1973, they can still be found in old buildings."
As long as it is not a rental building the state's responsibility ends where the pipe enters the house. We do not have any lead pipes in public water supply anymore and for rental buildings we have mandatory water analysis.
Also we are talking about a limit of 5 μg/l where the us limit is three times that.
The occasional home owner that refused modernization could hardly be described as a water crisis.
Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up.
Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't.
"Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city."
The disaster was that harmful substances ended up in citizens body's. Veolia had very well a responsibility in that outcome, evidenced by the fact that they paid huge damages to the victims.
"Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't."
Of course not and that was never up for debate. I brought that point up after your claim that the water supply in Europe and the US are on par, which is just not the case.
Germany's water supply is secured by multiple layers in a swiss cheese model of security and has set up the incentives of the involved such that the holes will not align.
What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.
> The disaster was that harmful substances ended up in citizens body's. Veolia had very well a responsibility in that outcome, evidenced by the fact that they paid huge damages to the victims.
Once again: Veolia's role was in addition to the normal requirements and testing required by the US federal government (which is very similar to what Germany requires.) This was not privatization in lieu of public services, it was an additional stop-gap that failed.
The point being that privatization is not the issue - the same roles performed by the government in Germany are performed by the government in the US. All of which is a response to you stating it could not happen in Germany, because water isn't privatized.
> Of course not and that was never up for debate.
This was literally your evidence for saying it couldn't happen in Germany.
>> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."
> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties.
(Again, same as the US.) Followed by...
> If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.
Your arguments have honestly been so disingenuous I can't even continue this.
> What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.
You are clearly still missing something if you think that Veolia had any hand in creating the water crisis, lol. They were hired as an outside party to keep the city (i.e. the government) honest after it became clear to citizens that the water supply had issues - and the government covered it up. Why do I keep having to repeat this?
Your argument has been that the water supply issues cannot happen in Germany because it's a public utility, controlled and monitored by the government. The same was true of Flint, and yet the government was responsible for creating the crisis and for failing to resolve it.
I just think we have different opinions on what privatization means.
If so much control has been shifted from the municipality to a private entity that said entity had to pay damages, it very well means that part of the system was effectively privatized.
My point still stands: The system in Germany is different (different incentives, different form of checks and balances) and would have prevented an incident analogous to what happened in Flint.
In addition to that I have a hard time to understand your point that Veolia is not responsible for the crisis just because it was not responsible for the root cause.
That is why you monitor the water supply. It is done in my rented apartment by a company commissioned by the landlord and it is done daily at the water works. If there are to many living organisms they add chlorine and inform the public, which happens only every couple of years.
The alternative is dead organisms plus a quite toxic substance in your water.
> The alternative is dead organisms plus a quite toxic substance in your water.
Chlorine being toxic in drinking water is your personal opinion. Your opinion is not shared by the people who are experts in drinking water treatment in the US. Chlorine kills microorganisms that aren’t filtered out in previous water treatment steps.
Please cite some evidence that chlorine in drinking water is dangerous to humans at concentrations lower than 4mg/L.
The CDC says the TLV for chlorine is 1.5 mg/m3. Note, that this is per cubic meter and not per liter. So a TLV of 0,0015 mg/l vs 4 mg/l in US drinking water.
The threshold limit value (TLV) is a level of occupational exposure to a hazardous substance where it is believed that nearly all healthy workers can repeatedly experience at or below this level of exposure without adverse effects.
So much for that, but it is only half the story. Chlorine is a gas and therefore volatile. The measured chlorine in the waterworks says little about the amount that ends up in your body.
What it does though is, that it forms compounds with organic substances (the microorganisms it kills) in the water, which in turn can be toxic or carcinogenic.
Instead of regulating the volatile chlorine it makes much more sense to regulate the harmful compounds, which is exactly what many European countries do.
I'm a bit of a tap water connoisseur, and tap water in the US varies greatly. I grew up in the northeast US, in a town where the water comes from a mostly spring-fed lake. The water has zero chlorine taste or smell. I currently live in another town in the US where the water mostly comes from a local reservoir, and also has no taste or smell. In both cases, water pipes are buried to avoid frost, resulting in cold water from the tap all year.
San Francisco area also has surprisingly good tap water, likely due to the clay/soil in the areas the water is sourced from. In other places, like Florida, minerals and sulphur give the water a distinctly unpleasant taste, and shallow pipe depth keeps the water from getting cool.
Absolutely in taste. In terms of safety I think it is okay pretty much everywhere. If you live anywhere long term you should definitely look up the municipal water testing results at least once though.
I cannot add to my post above, but since people don't seem to take it well, I'd like to add some data to back it up.
Here is the link to a paper that compared contaminants in drinking water in various developed countries. When it comes to residual chlorine the USA demonstrated the highest levels followed by Singapore and Canada. After these three countries there was a huge gap before the UK and other countries which much lower levels.
Could it be that you are all so used to the chlorine, that you don't notice it anymore?
From your first link, Table 1, I see that the United States EPA regulates chlorine to 0.2-4 mg/L. The upper bound is lower than the rest of countries with regulations. Some countries - including the European Union, United Kingdom, and Ireland - appear to have no regulations at all.
Residual levels show 3 mg/L of chlorine in the United States which is higher than most other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, excluded.) What I don't understand is why you see these levels, which are considered safe by most health agencies, as a cause for concern. As another commenter pointed out, the chlorine exists to ensure the water is safe to drink.
"From your first link, Table 1, I see that the United States EPA regulates chlorine to 0.2-4 mg/L. The upper bound is lower than the rest of countries with regulations. Some countries - including the European Union, United Kingdom, and Ireland - appear to have no regulations at all."
The European Union is not a country and it is not surprising that it has no guideline, because the member states have. That the United Kingdom and Ireland are similar to the US is not surprising. I could not find a source for the value of 5 mg/l for Germany, most sources say 0,3 mg/l but the actual text of the current law doesn't corroborate that. What it does is strictly regulate the reaction products of chlorine, which makes sense from a health standpoint.
"Residual levels show 3 mg/L of chlorine in the United States which is higher than most other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, excluded.)"
I am not a native English speaker, so forgive me if I read this wrong, but the paper says of all the considered countries the US has higher residual chlorine levels than all the other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, included)
In other words US is highest, followed by Singapore and then Canada.
"As another commenter pointed out, the chlorine exists to ensure the water is safe to drink."
As the paper shows most developed countries have safe drinking water without chlorine. So the question is not why I am against it but why the US needs it in the first place .
Safety is always a trade-off. If I am in an area with cholera epidemic I gladly will consider the chlorine in my drinking water safe. Where I live the water is clean and adding chlorine does make it definitely less safe.
Chlorine is a very hazardous substance after all.
According to the CDC the TLV for chlorine is 1.5 mg/m3. Note, that this is per cubic meter and not per liter. So a TLV of 0,0015 mg/l vs 4 mg/l in US drinking water.
The threshold limit value (TLV) is a level of occupational exposure to a hazardous substance where it is believed that nearly all healthy workers can repeatedly experience at or below this level of exposure without adverse effects.
The TLV you cherry picked refers to concentration in breathable air, not drinking water.
Most health authorities agree that chlorine is safe at 4 mg/l.
Ultimately proactive and reactive approaches both have pros and cons. But implying levels of chlorine in US drinking water are unsafe has no scientific backing.
"The TLV you cherry picked refers to concentration in breathable air, not drinking water."
Chlorine is a gas. I started this subthread with my claim that I always experienced a smell of chlorine in American tap water. Now the threshold to smell chlorine is 3 ppm while the TLV is 0.5 ppm. In other words, when you can smell it is already way above the TLV.
But it is even worse:
While chlorine is absorbed when ingested, this is a lesser problem.
Copyed from my comment above:
"Chlorine forms compounds with organic substances (the microorganisms it kills) in the water, which in turn can be toxic or carcinogenic. Instead of regulating the (volatile) chlorine it makes much more sense to regulate the harmful compounds, which is exactly what many European countries do."
"Most health authorities agree that chlorine is safe at 4 mg/l."
Authorities agree that chlorine is safer than dying from the pathogens in dirty water. We all agree on that. If you have the choice of dying from cholera next week or bladder cancer in 15 years, you sure will pick the cancer. (Yes, there is a link between chlorinated drinking water and bladder as well as colorectal cancer).
Safety is always a trade-off and the EPA's task is to find a compromise [1]. That is where the 4 mg/l come from.
Other authorities and organizations have different priorities, which result in different thresholds.
For example, The International Botteled Water Association limits chlorine in botteled water to 0.1 mg/l.
In Germany, the level for water in swimming pools is 0.3 mg/l.
And by the the way the current SDWA encourages alternate treatment methods too.
Ultimately proactive and reactive approaches both have pros and cons. But implying levels of chlorine in US drinking water are unsafe has no scientific backing.
It is not about proactive and reactive approaches. That point is that with clean drinking water chlorine is unneccessary as evidenced by all developed countries except the US, Sinagpore and Canada.
[1] "EPA must conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis for every new standard to determine whether the benefits of a drinking water standard justify the costs."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act
> That point is that with clean drinking water chlorine is unneccessary as evidenced by all developed countries except the US, Sinagpore and Canada.
And once again, whether necessary or unnecessary, the original question was whether the water supply is safe to drink in the United States. And - at least in regards to municipal water (houses on well, e.g. in rural areas, obviously vary) - it is.
I think we just have different opinions what safe drinking water means and I won't repeat the arguments and sources from my previous comments, with one exception: I'd like to stress again the point I already made, that even the SDWA encourages alternative water treatment methods now.
I don't think that WHO list is particularly useful. Included in the numbers of "people without access to safe drinking water" is everyone who draws from a well or a spring. The US is huge and well water is extremely common in rural areas; most well-water users have their own in-house water treatment equipment. Nevertheless they'd be classified as not having access to an improved water source under this survey.
I just read this whole thread, and it's all very silly. You've laundered "I don't like the water" into "it is not recommended that you drink the water" which are really different things. The latter implies that there is a consensus understanding about this, the way there is for, say, Guatemala. 200+ million Americans drink their tap water, and most visitors do too. There are many parts of the US where water could be improved, especially in lower-density places and especially for recently-discovered contaminants, but the idea that travelers need to be careful about it as a matter of safety just isn't true. Flint is a huge news story precisely because it is so aberrant in a country with otherwise good water.
