[AretNCarlsen]

"[I]f you have people imagine the water going into an underground aquifer, for example, and then sitting there for 10 years, the water becomes much more palatable to the public. It budges even those most unwilling to drink the water. ... 'When you do introduce a river or even groundwater ... you run the risk of deteriorating the water that's been treated. You can make the water quality worse.'"

I am singularly amused at the possibility of contaminating treated post-sewage water with river water, resulting in a medically less safe but socially more acceptable water supply. The results of a public vote (as to whether to mix river water with the treated water) would at least tell us who needs to be mailed a printed copy of lesswrong.com.

[pavel_lishin]

> a printed copy of lesswrong.com.

Does such a critter exist? Not as an actual printed copy, but a way of diving into it that's not quite so ... scary? The closest thing I see to a "table of contents" is the list of Sequences.

[mstevens]

ciphergoth produced an ebook of Eliezer's posts recently which I'm finding useful:

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/72m/an_epub_of_eliezers...

[ScottBurson]

> I am singularly amused at the possibility of contaminating treated post-sewage water with river water

It is bizarre, isn't it? I don't know about anyone else, but I've spent most of my life thinking of rivers as quite polluted. Even when hiking in wilderness I take a giardia filter.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Water rights in Colorado are...complicated. Aurora, Colorado doesn't have enough for its population.

So it pumps water out of the river, sends it to people, purifies the result, and pumps it back into the river.

Three times. At different locations. So really they're already drinking their sewage water, only slightly diluted with the water from Denver's sewage water...and heading downstream to supply water to Utah, Nevada, and Southern California.

Can't find the reference, though. Sorry.