[weinzierl]

> "Why is this a problem? Flavor?"

Yes, if it already smells after chlorine, how can I know what else is in there. If it was from a clean source, it would not need chlorine in the first place.

> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."

No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.

[radlad]

> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.

I advise you look into the Flint water crisis, because your understanding doesn't sound accurate. The decision to change the source from one body of water to another was a municipal decision - made by the city's Emergency Manager (indicted on felony charges) - not one made by a private company.[0]

The EPA (another governmental agency) mandates contaminate limits and testing. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, another government agency) was not properly testing to federal requirements. Still, the issue was known by residents long before it was fixed, due to... private testing.[1]

What happened in Flint was criminal negligence, but it had nothing to do with water supply being privatized (it wasn't), or a lack of monitoring requirements (although it's believed testing may have been manipulated... by government workers.[2])

[0] https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2014/04/closing_the_valve_o...

[1] https://flintwaterstudy.org/2015/09/commentary-mdeq-mistakes...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/21/us/flint-lead...

Edit: Here's a good place to start - https://mphdegree.usc.edu/blog/the-flint-water-crises

Edit 2: Citations added.

[weinzierl]

I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that privatization played a significant role in the Flint water crisis. For example The Intercept headlined "FROM PITTSBURGH TO FLINT, THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING PRIVATE COMPANIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR AILING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS".[1]

That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-...

[radlad]

If you read The Intercept article, you'll see that the company was hired to test the water after the Flint water crisis began, in response to citizen complaints.

This is entirely separate from the federally mandated requirements around testing that was performed by government agencies.

> That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.

We arrived here in response to your misinformed claim that "A disaster like Flint could not happen here" because "Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here."

I've demonstrated that the US has similar policies in place, and neither the water supply nor the mandated testing for metals were privatized, yet the Flint disaster did happen. People and governments are fallible. Corruption and criminal negligence happens everywhere.

[weinzierl]

I don't think my claim is misinformed and I don't think the US and Germany are similar at all when it comes to water supply. Here we have multiple levels of security that would definitely have prevented a crisis similar to the one in Flint, even considering that corruption and criminal negligence could be at play.

I also think we have different views what privatization means. Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. There is just no scenario where something like in Flint could play out because the incentives are not there.

If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis

[radlad]

Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water.

> Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building.

As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing.

Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap water has been an issue in Europe.

From an initial search, here's evidence to the contrary. Ctrl+F "Germany": https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-...

[weinzierl]

"As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing."

If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation.

"Although lead pipes have not been used here since 1973, they can still be found in old buildings."

As long as it is not a rental building the state's responsibility ends where the pipe enters the house. We do not have any lead pipes in public water supply anymore and for rental buildings we have mandatory water analysis.

Also we are talking about a limit of 5 μg/l where the us limit is three times that.

The occasional home owner that refused modernization could hardly be described as a water crisis.

[ssl-3]

If it already smells like chlorine, you can know what isn't in there: Living organisms that want to kill you.

[weinzierl]

That is why you monitor the water supply. It is done in my rented apartment by a company commissioned by the landlord and it is done daily at the water works. If there are to many living organisms they add chlorine and inform the public, which happens only every couple of years.

The alternative is dead organisms plus a quite toxic substance in your water.

[quickthrowman]

> The alternative is dead organisms plus a quite toxic substance in your water.

Chlorine being toxic in drinking water is your personal opinion. Your opinion is not shared by the people who are experts in drinking water treatment in the US. Chlorine kills microorganisms that aren’t filtered out in previous water treatment steps.

Please cite some evidence that chlorine in drinking water is dangerous to humans at concentrations lower than 4mg/L.

[weinzierl]

The CDC says the TLV for chlorine is 1.5 mg/m3. Note, that this is per cubic meter and not per liter. So a TLV of 0,0015 mg/l vs 4 mg/l in US drinking water.

Here is the source, as you requested:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/7782505.html

And here the definition of TLV from Wikipedia:

The threshold limit value (TLV) is a level of occupational exposure to a hazardous substance where it is believed that nearly all healthy workers can repeatedly experience at or below this level of exposure without adverse effects.

So much for that, but it is only half the story. Chlorine is a gas and therefore volatile. The measured chlorine in the waterworks says little about the amount that ends up in your body.

What it does though is, that it forms compounds with organic substances (the microorganisms it kills) in the water, which in turn can be toxic or carcinogenic. Instead of regulating the volatile chlorine it makes much more sense to regulate the harmful compounds, which is exactly what many European countries do.