[bpodgursky]

You can not trust the EPA and still drink tap water. Test it yourself if you want (I actually agree that their lead levels are way too generous).

In Seattle it's basically raw snowmelt with 0 metals (had mine tested for heavy metals, register 0). Lots of places in the US have perfect water even if you don't trust the EPA's warning thresholds.

[s0rce]

Our area publishes the water quality tests. Not sure how that would really depend on the EPA you can also easily just get it tested as you said

[woleium]

get yourself some clams :)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124403-500-clam-up-...

[s0rce]

I'll call it a water canary.

[hanniabu]

I think oysters are more efficient than clams, no?

[hanniabu]

Getting it tested doesn't do that much when the quality changes drastically day to day.

[bpodgursky]

That's technically true I guess?

But that does not happen unless the municipal water source changes day-to-day, or is catastrophically badly run in a really inconsistent manner... which is almost never the case in the US. Even in Flint, it's not like the water changed day-to-day; it just became consistently acidic, which pulled lead from pipes.

Aquifer-pumped water is consistent, reservoir-fed water is consistent, groundwater is consistent.

[hanniabu]

Anecdotal but in my area (NJ) we're notified numerous times a year not to drink the water. The kicker is that many times we recieve the mail after the time where we supposedly shouldn't be drinking it. Also messed up that we're still charged for that water, but that's another topic.

[bpodgursky]

Yeah E. coli is the one thing that can change seasonally, that's fair. Still testable or filterable if you want to get a cheap purifier.

(also personally the contaminant I'm least fussed about)

[hanniabu]

Usually the notices are for lead. Other times they don't specify and just say don't use it so I can only assume it's something worse if they don't want to mention why.