Drinking-water supply
Author: No author
Publisher: Gale
Publication Date: June 13, 2011
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644150392&mode=view
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644150392&mode=view
Picture:
This shows the normal water people drink. Even though it looks clean and pure, it may contain many impurities that we are not aware of.
Summary:
Ever since the Drinking Water Act was passed, most people assume their water is clean and pure. However, there are many limits to this act that prevent the water from being truly pure: millions of privately owned wells are not under the act; the act only standardizes 90 out of the 700 contaminants in the water; bottled water is not covered by the act, and even when the water is protected under the act, some companies may violate the law and cut corners. These realities, then, reveal that not all water is protected or pure. Thus, many people are drinking water with much less purity and protection than they may realize. Whether the people know so or not, the article did not say, but I am sure they are not fully aware of the health risks of drinking such water. Even when in compliance with the law, the water is still not fully free of contaminants, so there are many remaining health risks—risks of carcinogens, risks to the nervous system, risks of trace metals and minerals that can also have health hazards. Lastly, bottled water is not protected. It is a common misconception that bottled water is better for someone, but the truth is the water is just the same as tap water. Overall, the water here is still better than other countries with no protection, but there are still things that need improvements.
Opinion/Reflection:
The article I read held some real surprises for me, for I had just believed that all the drinking water in this country was safe and pure—for sure. I know now that belief is wrong. The quality and purity of the drinking water varies significantly from place to place. Also, I was surprised to learn how many contaminants remain unchecked and unregulated. What the article failed to clarify, though, is the relative risk from these remaining levels of contaminants and impurities, trace metals and minerals, fluoride and such. The article just mentions these impurities are there, but how immediate and likely are the health risks? My thought is the actual dangers cannot be too great, for there would be a real public outcry for higher protection standards if significant numbers of cancers or other illnesses could be traced back to drinking water. So I wonder if there really is all that much difference between the protection levels we now have and the absolute level of purity.
Questions:
- Even though it is possible to impose more stringent purity standards for water, is there really that much of an actual danger with the current levels?
- Is there likely to be enough good drinking water available for the foreseeable future?
- Is the technology of desalinization cost effective yet?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThis article really surprised me about drinking water and how it may not be as good as it’s supposed to be. I always thought that the water I get from my house was pure and completely safe. Until we learned in science that the water we drink is straight from the ground, I thought that it was all filtered. We learned that many contaminants and pollutants are in water which scared because I thought maybe it could get me sick. In her article it says only 90 out of 700 contaminants are standardized in water. Now maybe those other ones aren’t harmful at all and the ones we should worry about are those 90, but what if the other few hundred were bad? Bottled water also isn’t protected meaning that it’s the same as tap water and people should stop buying water bottles to help protect the environment.
Questions:
1. Are the other 610 contaminants in water that aren’t standardized harmful to us if they are present in large doses?
2. Why isn’t water filtered from the aquifers to make it almost pure with no contaminants?
3. How bad is the water that people in other countries have to use and how much of a difference is it compared to ours?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I was shocked to read about water bottles being just about the same as tap water. I always thought water bottles were better because they were from a company but not anymore. To read that only 70 out of 900 contaminants in the water are standardized by the Drinking Water Act seems like there is a risk of drinking any water. However I have not heard of anyone really having an issue with these waters before. I drink water every day and never think about how it could contain contaminants because it is from a water bottle. It is kind of scary to hear that there are risks of carcinogens, nervous system risks, and metal and minerals becoming hazardous all from the water I think that is free of contaminants. These risks and hazards though do not seem to show up anywhere on the news or people speaking out about it. With this in mind I do not think that there is a chance of people getting diseases or problems in the body because of the water. What I do think though is how contaminated can water get for there to be a problem?
Expansion: 1.Even though it is possible to impose more stringent purity standards for water, is there really that much of an actual danger with the current levels?
At the current levels of water there does seem to be possible dangers that could arise. In the article it said 70 out 900 contaminants in water are standardized by the Drinking Water Act. The fact that there are 830 other contaminants that are not standardized seems very dangerous. It could be that within one or more of those 830 contaminants there are diseases or metals and minerals that could be harmful to the body. Though it may not be now but later there could be a problem if water is not purified and all contaminants are looked at.
OPINION/REFLECTION:
DeleteDrinking water always sounds like it has an issue. It is too dirty, too hard, has too many chemicals and such. However, all these things can make water good or bad. Such as fluoride and calcium levels in water can be beneficial(good for teeth and bones) if they are not too high, as we learned in class. As the summary said, many contaminants (90 out of 700) are left alone, to harm whoever they want. I do not understand why the Water Act does not cover the other 610 contaminants since they are known, therefore tests can be done to see their existence in water samples. Also, I agree with the summary that we are privileged as a country to even have a Drinking Water Act when some countries do not even have drinking water.
Question 2:
Water is filtered through the recharge zone (percolation) and then drips into an aquifer. Humans do dig wells into these aquifers to receive groundwater, that is somewhat pure. The reason we cannot take it in large amounts is because the percolation process takes many many many years. Also, if we drain the aquifer too quickly, we run out of water and a sinkhole could occur, such as the one in Mexico City. When I looked at this question, I asked myself, is it really possible too get PURE drinking water? I think it is merely impossible because the water from the aquiferes travel up pipes, contaminating it; scooped out with buckets, contaminated it... and so on. The only possible way to receive pure drinking water is if you, yourself, went down to an aquifer and drank straight from it. I know I would not be able to do this, because that is way too much digging for me and for the US, it would cost a lot of money.
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteI was shocked by how few of the 700 contaminants were standardized. I mean when I drink water from my house, I always assume that it is cleaned and purified. But since the act only standardizes 90 of them, next time i'll take a second thought about the water I'm drinking. In class we learned about how to test water for different chemicals, and it seemed fairly easy. How come the people whose actual job it is to purify water don't check all 700? If they're known, then they can be tested. Personally I do not use bottled water, and use the water from the fridge door thingy. Even though the bottled water companies are cutting the corners with regulations, I wonder if the people who get the water from the aquifer locally cut corners as well.
Answer to Question 1
There could be a possible danger with the current levels. Since the 610 other substances aren't tested, how do we know that one of those substances isn't life threatening? The act should at least tell us the names of the other substances, and whether or not they are harmful. There is a potential that one substance is life threatening, so why don't we just regulate levels for all 700 substances? It's better to be proactive then reactive.