Comment by semi-extrinsic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by semi-extrinsic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> There was not a single trustworthy test I could find to say here is a decent test profile we ran on your sample, and here is the water quality score.

The local authorities are the ones you should be reaching out to here, not random Amazon test kits. Testing for microbial contamination is difficult and requires specialized equipment and training. There is no reliable way to DIY it, unless you have a couple of years training in a microbiology lab.

Of course the local water works in any first world country test the water every day at the water production station, but a common failure mode is that sewage and water lines run in the same ditch, and both suffer a breach.

For this reason, water works are typically very interested in receiving reports from the public and testing samples.

For Amsterdam, two minutes on Google tells me you should contact Waternet. I also found a service page where you can check whether your area is within a known fault, a and submit your complaint/info. Google Translate works well for reading this:

https://www.waternet.nl/service-en-contact/problemen-met-wat...

> The local authorities are the ones you should be reaching out to here, not random Amazon test kits. Testing for microbial contamination is difficult and requires specialized equipment and training. There is no reliable way to DIY it, unless you have a couple of years training in a microbiology lab.

Absolutely not. Remember what happened in Flint, MI? Moreover, there can be hyperlocal differences in water quality due to factors outside of a water utility's control, such as old pipes.

The best approach is to find an independent, non-government associated testing facility and send them your water for a fee. They have high-end equipment that no consumer would reasonably want to acquire and will provide unbiased results.

Note that I wrote "in any first world country". I'm sorry if your country does not qualify as such. Then the best solution is to keep paying for bottled water, or to move.

I'm not being flippant here. If, on a general basis, you can't trust the country where you live to provide you with access to clean drinking water, then you have literally failed the UN's Sustainable Development Goal no. 6: "By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all." This is something that every nation on earth aims to achieve during this decade.

To add an example, Berlin just had a “boil water and don’t shower” order out for some regions because 2 samples of their continuous water testing regime showed low amounts of some specific bacteria. The problem was rectified within a day. Tap water is taken serious here, regulations are far stricter than for bottled water.

Same in the UK - we do it so well that water safety isn't a thing anyone thinks about because tap water is simply safe.

I'm 41, I've drank "council pop" (what my grandma sweetly called it) since I was old enough to turn the tap and never once gotten ill.

Local water company does half a million tests a year - 99.949% of all tests are excellent and of the remainder vast majority are within acceptable guidelines (they go way beyond the mandated standard).

> Note that I wrote "in any first world country". I'm sorry if your country does not qualify as such.

> I'm not being flippant here.

Sorry to say, (Canadian here), yes you came off as being flippant. The issues with Flint seem to be larger than my understanding, but it was not the least contributed by issues and injustices with the demographic (majority black) and the lack of federal aid. Saying it's not a first world country isn't wise of you for these reasons and more.

> Then the best solution is to keep paying for bottled water, or to move.

Obviously not the best solution, just a bandaid over the problem in lieu of the fact that "Bottled water is 3,500 times worse for the environment than tap water".

> you can't trust the country where you live to provide you with access to clean drinking water, then you have literally failed

No. The government around the citizen failed. Saying the the victim failed is quite telling of your assumption that the individual is to blame if the government has in some capacity, in some municipal area, failed.

> literally failed the UN's Sustainable Development Goal no. 6

The goal is tied to a future date, you cannot fail it by definition in 2021. I'm sorry to say, and I'm also not being flippant here, basic math and logic is taught in "first world countries", your comment here is obviously a failure of such, and I'm sure, there's probally a UN goal I could quote as well. See what I did?

"contributed by issues and injustices with the demographic (majority black) and the lack of federal aid"

How is thus an excuse? South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues. either have objective criteria, or we don't

> How is thus an excuse?

Because it is a causal factor and not an excuse?

> South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues.

I agree. See, we have so much in common.

> either have objective criteria, or we don't

I am not invested in any criterion discussion, merely because I'm not into political science, I am merely firing back at the original poster at their "first world" vs. "third world" views and obvously flippant tone in their message with the audacious preface of not being flippant.

The specific causal factor I understand is white flight and the associated downstream effects. That's pretty objective and measurable (tax base), but it's more of a powder keg analysis. The real cause of fault is in the pipes as the other commentor shared, something I did not fully understand until now.

The immediate cause of the issues in Flint was mismanagement. Treating the source water to moderate the PH would have prevented lead from leaching into it (the cost would have been very small). And then layered on top of that, they didn't need to switch to the source that needed that treatment. And so on.

Removing the possibility of lead leaching into drinking water is an ongoing activity in Michigan, but we are ahead of much of the country at this point (in that we are doing it).

That the US has plumbing that uses lead is of course not unique.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/worried-about-lead-in-your-wat...

I'm not saying that first world countries don't have sporadic issues with water supply. They do.

What I'm arguing is that if as a general rule you can't trust the results when your local officials testing the water quality, then your country has failed at meeting the standard for a first world country.

I agree that "you have failed" would have been better framed as "your country has failed you". That was my thinking, but the sentence did not make it clear.

Yes, the UN SDG6 is a goal for 2030 - for developing nations. If you haven't already met this goal, you are a developing nation, not a first world nation.

The parent is wrong. Yes, contact government officials if you suspect the drinking water is dangerous.

I think you also are being flippant when you suggest a nation is not developed because there are isolated regions with faulty infrastructure. Flint is a tragedy, but most of the country has waterworks that pay close attention to the health of their product.

>Remember what happened in Flint, MI?

If memory serves, the contaminants in Flint were introduced after the water treatment, and could have been identified if the community had said "this is weird, come test it". That being said, if memory serves, there were also several points of corrupt/incompetent leaders who failed their leaders.

This is generally viewed as anomalous. To be clear, what happened to the residence of Flint ABSOLUTELY SUCKED. It should not have happened anywhere to anyone, and as someone who pays federal tax dollars, I'm very disappointed that my federal government let them down. I'm also suspicious that similar problems are happening in other places, but I'm not sure how to detect it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com