Talk:Drinking water/Archive 3

Planetary boundaries

Add Consumption for freshwater per person is a Planetary boundaries metric. 99.19.46.34 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what? 99.109.126.34 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource for Planetary boundaries: "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet" by Jonathan Foley, Gretchen C. Daily, Robert Howarth, David A. Vaccari, Adele C. Morris, Eric F. Lambin, Scott C. Doney, Peter H. Gleick and David W. Fahey Scientific American April 2010 99.190.85.150 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're advertising the topic, just as you were advertising 350.org when I first noticed you. However, even assuming it were an appropriate topic to link, drinking water is not the primary use of "freshwater consumption]]", so you'd need to find another article to spam the link to Planetary boundaries to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for not the primary use of? If this is not original research please add that here; since per Talk:Planetary boundaries Potable water (which is drinkable water) is a Planetary boundary. Even if it were not, what article link would you suggest (just curious from Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin your comment An example of political commentary on Talk:Individual and political action on climate change as a caption for File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif linked from a Wikipedia:Good articles Sustainability)? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "freshwater". If you meant "potable water", then you should have said that. However, the question of the notability of the topic "Planetary boundaries would still be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Planetary boundaries the planetary boundary in the table is Global potable water use and the description is consumption for freshwater per person (metric). 108.73.113.97 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were accurate, potable water is not drinking water. However, it's not accurate: Subtitles in real articles (reliable sources) are not considered "reliable"; how much less is a subtitle in a Wikipedia article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check for yourself where Potable water goes ... 99.190.80.212 (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The other 3 arguments are still good, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What subtitles? 99.190.87.1 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm reluctant to involve myself in this discussion that may have antecedents of which I am not familiar, and although I don't think "planetary boundaries" merits inclusion in the WP:LEDE, I would not objected to brief inclusion in the article body with the Scientific American citation. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent solution, provided that the Scientific American article refers specifically to drinking water or potable water in the text, not just as a subtitle or table heading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I found no mention of the two terms you mention in the Scientific American article. Careful reading of the article indicates that it is fresh water that is a Planetary Boundary. Drinking water is a miniscule portion of fresh water. So, my corrected opinion is that it is fresh water that may and should reference Planetary boundaries (with the Scientific American citation) . Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water quality and contaminants discrepancy

Fifth paragraph, the article is talking about the ineffectiveness of boiling water as a method of decontamination. It mentions specifically that parasites such as Cryptosporidium had somewhat of an immunity to the process, which interested me, so I checked out the Cryptosporidiosis page where it's cited that boiling water is the preferred method of preventing it.

99.229.179.21 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Cryptosporidium is that it usually exists as a resting stage or spore which is very resistant to boiling. Various authorities generally agree that about 3 minutes at a roiling boil is required to ensure that Cryptosporidium is inactivated. However, for domestic users this is still probably the best way as chlorine based products are rather ineffective. In modern water treatment works, UV radiation is now the preferred means of disinfection in situations where Cryptosporidium may be present. Thus the current content does not present a discrepancy with the Cryptosporidiosis page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A daily diet of fruits, vegetables and grains requires more than 1,500 litres of water, as compared to 4,300 litres needed for a diet rich of animal protein."

What does this mean? My assumption is that it pertains the amount of water required to cultivate the amount of fruit and vegetable matter a person might eat in a day, versus the amount of water required to raise the amount of meat one might eat in a day, but this is very unclear. --67.218.17.97 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A daily diet of fruits, vegetables and grains requires more than 1,500 litres of water, as compared to 4,300 litres needed for a diet rich of animal protein.<ref>{{cite news|title=Water is not an infinite resource and the world is thirsty|first=Gianfranco|last=Nitti|date=May 2011|newspaper=The Italian Insider|page=8|location=Rome}}</ref>

I've cut the above out. It can be reinserted if we can make sense of it.MacStep (talk)

Drinking water safety

This article provides no useful information about drinking water safety standards. What are the safety standards? What levels of e-coliforms, coliforms and bacteria, for example, are considered safe in various countries? Greenman (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the Water Quality Regulations prescribe maximum values for substances that affect wholesomeness - follow links for figures. MacStep (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government Accountability Office and EPA-related resource

Is It Safe to Drink? The Problem with the Nation's Drinking Water Standards; The government may not be doing enough to regulate contaminants in tap water by Melinda Wenner Moyer in September 26, 2011 Scientific American. Excerpt ...

The GAO report asserts that the agency has been ruling only on the “low-hanging fruit”—contaminants for which regulatory decisions are easy rather than those that might be the most dangerous. “They’re not actually doing anything to protect public health,” says Mae Wu, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related to fresh water, from Talk:Planetary_boundaries ... Why the World May Be Running Out of Clean Water by Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011 Time (magazine); excerpt

A parched lake in Texas illustrates the effects of a record-breaking drought that hit the state and much of the American Southwest this year

99.181.134.6 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

Sorry, but it seems silly, but just what is the correct pronunciation of "potable". I have been corrected on this by friends, (not remembering which way I pronounced it then), and always a skeptic as to my friends' accuracy. I find most words do not have this problem. I think it may be possible there is a dialect issue, such as the English word "coupon". Bcwilmot (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do it mean. Bcwilmot. 2600:6C63:6EF0:B90:C806:67BE:4669:D4DB (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking Water Article Has Multiple Issues

I certainly agree with the multiple issues tag recently attached to this article. I plan to edit some of the sections and I encourage others to weigh in. I have made a few changes to the opening paragraphs to make them more readable. Also, I changed "pure" to "safe." We will never have enough money to remove all constituents from water except hydrogen and oxygen, nor should we try. Our goal should be to make the water safe for human populations to consume it. We can discuss what is safe, but that usually boils down to meeting the required drinking water standards of a country or community. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... in developed countries, 700 children under five years old died...

"During the same time period, in developed countries, 700 children under five years old died from diarrheal disease." -- this is ambiguous, does it mean 700 per country (average) or 700 from all developed countries combined (sum)? I cannot get to source, so I'm unable to verify personally. Hopefully someone can.

Include rare book on history of drink water

James Salzman (2012) Drinking Water: A History Overlook Hardcover

99.119.129.121 (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book may or may not be worth including. Could you give a brief annotation about its contents and significance, and/or a pointer to useful reviews? Reify-tech (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea would be to include some interesting fact from the book in the article, and then use it a cited source. That's much better than having yet another wp:external link. - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: dangers of drinking too much water

This article doesn't say enough about the medical problems caused by drinking too much water. Missing are RS estimates of how much water is too much for an adult male or female, or per kilogram of weight. Drinking water has killed people (reference: Scientific American, "Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill") David Spector (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section/article needed: Potable water additives

As per the discussion on Talk:Pyriproxyfen, we need to add a list of water additives: the aforesaid Pyriproxyfen, Water fluoridation (what else am I missing?) and the legal aspects of their introduction. Here is a partial list of their uses that I could quickly find online:

[Agents for] Scale control, biocidal control, corrosion control, foam control, cleaning agents, dispersant agent, halite control, scavenger control in your processes.

Let me also ping MjolnirPants hereby. Zezen (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course additives intended to remain in the water up to the consumers tap which include chlorine, chloramine, fluoride ion, calcium and phosphate ions to combat plumbo-solvency and calcium carbonate to increase pH . Other chemical species that are added as part of the treatment process may also be present in low concentrations at the consumer tap. These include sodium carbonate to remove temporary hardness, aluminium sulphate , polyelectrolytes, and alum( all settlement aids) and copper sulphate to control algae in raw water. There may be many more. However, this should be presented in a balanced way with a list of chemicals that occur in potable water but which are not aded but which form part of the inevitable anthropogenic load from modern living. This list includes synthetic hormones from intensive animal husbandry, intractable pharmaceuticals, low level radiation from the multiplicity of radioisotopes in use in commerce, radio-isotopes from medical use, persistent organics from past industrial and agricultural uses, persistent organics from domestic use of plastic products (plasticiers etc) etc. Treatment methods are rarely designed to remove this cocktail of contaminants but they may be present in concentrations that are equally bio-effective as some of the materials added in the treatment and distribution stages. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The discussion at Talk:Pyriproxyfen did not arrive at a consensus that there is a need to create such a list. It merely consisted of two editors saying that the request for such a list should likely be taken up here. For the record, the OP's proposal on that page began with a rant against the use of additives, and the creation of such a list for the reasons espoused in that edit would be in violation of Wikipedia policy with regards to what Wikipedia is not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Velella - thank you for your in-depth and extensive contribution with this list. Let us thus create such a list for reasons other than those in the (self-reverted) edit. Alas, I am not competent to take a stab at it. Zezen (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before making a list here, it is worth looking ar Drinking water quality standards and considering whether it might be easier to supplement that article rather than incluing potentially duplicate information here. One significant issue in publishing a list is finding good sources. Many water suppliers are obliged to report compliance against relevant standards but not to publish data where there are no relevant standards. Surface water quality is sometimes published by regulatory organizations and an inference might be drawn that some chemical species in the surface water might be present in water abstracted from that water for drinking. However inference is not what Wikipedia does. To make progress it probably needs somebody with access to a good University library coupled with a knowledge of the water industry. Could be tricky. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "safe"

I replaced the word "safe" with a more explicit definition which is taken from memory but I believe was part of the European Drinking Water Directive. I can't access a full version to check. However, the concept is important in that it requires that water contains nothing that, not only protects from immediate effects but also contributes nothing that lead to later problems. The issue of arsenic in shallow tube in Bangladesh is a worrying example of the risks of chronic effects. If somebody could track down and reference the original source of the definition, that would be good . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drinking water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cite duplication / Unit abbreviation

Checked on the Russian SanPiN file, cite 64 and 65 seems to be duplicates, and I found no keyword related to 1116-02 in the downloaded PDF. That's one. Plus, in a table found in the Russian PDF there are a lot of boxes under the "Unit (Единицы измерения)" column filled by the - " - thing. Does this mean "Same as above" or something else? Varxo (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drinking water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Improved water

I took out "improved drinking water" from the first sentence.EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is used here[1] ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the term is in use but in a very specific context: developing countries, MDG or SDG targets, defined by JMP. So I think it's important to explain thi well in the article but not in the very first sentence of the lead - where it would only confuse lay persons. We have the same for sanitation by the way: improved sanitation, unimproved sanitation, shared sanitation and safely managed sanitation - all terms as defined by JMP. EMsmile (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OKay sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Water resources

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am thinking of combining the sections "Water resources" and "Regulations" because both sections talk about certain countries, and I think the article would flow better if under each country, resources and regulations came hand in hand. Does anyone have any suggestions on this? Mxranda (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Mxranda (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Sections

Reading through the article, I believe the section of "Water quality" should come before "Health aspects," because the quality of water should be expressed before presenting the problems concerning a person's health from the quality of drinking water. I also noticed how the "Health aspects" section fails to include information about the duration one needs to drink poor water in order to have the presented health diseases. I want to try including more information about that, as well as restructure the sections. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Mxranda (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to health aspects

Hi, Wikipedians! I plan on adding a subsection dubbed "Benefits of proper hydration" to the health aspects section. I will briefly mention that proper hydration affects different processes and systems within the body. Does anybody have any other suggestions? Bpalpallatoc (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New content addressing human health requires a WP:MEDRS source. I suggest avoiding discussion of "different processes and systems" - which implies biochemical processes - as WP:OFFTOPIC content for this article. Zefr (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at it again, I will add this subsection under "Importance of access to safe drinking water." Bpalpallatoc (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your input. Bpalpallatoc (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Climate change aspects

Hello Wikipedians. I'm planning to add more details to the section "Climate change aspects." I will add the current and estimated situation in the Hindu Kush Himalaya area, where there are Himalaya mountains and important rivers producing water resources for residents. Does anyone have any suggestions on this? Ni.chih (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content that you added about the Himalaya mountains to water scarcity. It's an important topic but I think it fits better there. EMsmile (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with drinkable tap water

I was wondering if the article needs examples of countries with drinkable tap water. In the lead, it says "Typically in developed countries, tap water meets drinking water quality standards, even though only a small proportion is actually consumed or used in food preparation" but I thought it doesn't say what countries actually meet drinking water quality standards. The source from United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can be used, but I'm not sure if this information is important and if yes, where it should be placed. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Ni.chih (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-arranged, culled, streamlining with water supply

I've just done a major restructuring effort of this article. I found the article was rather messy, probably lots of people (including students) had added to it over the years. This is a high level article so it should interlink well with other articles and sub-articles and not go into too much specific detail. Therefore, I have moved quite a few of the specific country examples to the related sub-articles. I am going to take a break now, hopefully get back to it tomorrow or the day after. The section on global access is still rather messy, outdated and repetitive. Also the section on health information overlaps with health information at WASH and at water supply, so this needs to be sorted out. In general I tried to streamline it a bit better with the water supply article but there is still some overlap which we need to work on. EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took out an unsourced paragraph about nanoparticles

I have removed the following paragraph about nanoparticles because it was unsourced and overly detailed. Move to the sub-article on water quality maybe?: There is increasing concern over the health effects of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) released into the natural environment. One potential indirect exposure route is through the consumption of contaminated drinking waters. To address these concerns, the U.K. Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has published a "Review of the risks posed to drinking water by man-made nanoparticles" (DWI 70/2/246). The study, which was funded by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), was undertaken by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team of experts including scientists from the Institute of Occupational Medicine/SAFENANO. The study explored the potential for ENPs to contaminate drinking water supplies and to establish the significance of the drinking water exposure route compared to other routes of exposure. EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

neccesary solvents ingredients ? medical advice for ion concentration ??

i see no information about what ions must be in distilled water to be useful as drinking water . in germany the law about drinking water gives only maximum concentrations of ions but not the minimum concentration , this implies distilled water can be used as drinking water , but i think is wrong.--Konfressor (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just see there is a bit information here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water --Konfressor (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]