[Roguegal]

Originally Posted by telegraph.hill

Do you drink tap/fawcett water or bottled water?


Do you worry about the pollution of drinking water?

When I was a kid I used to drink the tap water here in Phoenix, Arizona. But not anymore, it tastes funny. I now drink bottled water. And yes I do worry about pollution of drinking water. As a people here in the US recently discovered most of the fancy bottled water companies are not giving us what they said, (from a mountain stream) but are actually selling "filtered" water to everybody. So I agree that filter water is better than the original from the tap. Now of course, I would definitely prefer fresh from the spring if it were clean. But there will come a day that all water is filtered.

[Timetrvlr]

We are on a community well rather than city water. I hope it's safe, I've never had it tested but I do know that our water is heavily mineralized, what we call hard water. My wife is happy with the taste of our tap water but I don't like the taste of it so we buy 2-1/2 gallon bottles of distilled water for my iced tea and drinking. We install the bottled water on a decorative ceramic dispenser base. This works out well for us and is inexpensive although we do go to the distiller and pick up the water rather than having it delivered.

I did install a dual filter system under the kitchen sink and installed a drinking water tap on the corner of the sink. We use that water for drinking and cooking. I also ran a supply line from the filter pack to the refrigerator icemaker. The first filter is a sediment filter while the second is a ceramic micro-pore filter treated with silver iodide to sterilize the water. I have to change the sediment filter cartridge every year and clean the ceramic filter with the supplied scraper.

[katharina]

Originally Posted by mrs.tinsley

I usually drink from the tap, but my husband hates that and refuses to drink it. He'll only drink bottled water.

My tummy won't allow me to drink the chlorine from the faucet, so I have to do the other route. We had a Brita in the past, but that's before we moved and still had well water.

[Simon47]

Paying the price for safe drinking water

National survey finds Canadians willing to accept higher water bills

A Canadian Water Network-sponsored survey will provide local governments and provincial regulators with a comprehensive economic model for determining how much taxpayers are willing to spend to keep their communities safe from water-borne diseases and cancer-causing contaminants. It represents the largest social sciences projects ever funded by the CWN.
By Debbie Lawes
Canadians face a higher risk of contracting bladder cancer from chlorine in drinking water than they do of becoming ill or dying from bacteria in tap water. Despite that fact, the majority of Canadians say they worry more about life-threatening pathogens than cancer-causing agents in their municipal water, and they're willing to pay about $200 more each year on their water bill to reduce these perceived health risks.
With funding from the Canadian Water Network (CWN), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other sources, Dr. Diane Dupont of Brock University led the largest and most comprehensive survey of its kind ever taken, involving 1600 Canadians over the summer of 2004. Internet-based surveys and focus groups were used to understand consumer perceptions of the health risks from tap water, whether these fears cause people to spend more on bottled and filtered water, and if Canadians are willing to pay higher water bills to safeguard this essential resource.
"Here's the issue: we put a lot of money into our municipal systems, but people are subverting that by buying their own protection because of perceived health risks. We need consumers to understand the importance of investing in municipal water systems instead of buying bottled water and filtration systems."
Dr. Diane Dupont
Brock University
One of the survey's most startling findings was that perception often trumps scientific fact when it comes to consumers' views of drinking water quality. Scientific studies have shown that most municipal water is as safe - if not safer - than bottled water.
Yet, some 15% of survey respondents said their tap water poses a moderate to serious problem for their families' health, while 24% said their tap water poses a minor health risk. Forty percent of respondents indicated that they did not drink any water coming from their tap unless it was home filtered either with a container filter or an in-tap filtration system. Another one-third said they purchased bottled water because of health concerns over their tap water.
"With the exception of a few small agricultural areas, our municipal water systems are really good. In light of this, we were stunned at the extent that people thought they were protecting themselves by buying all this bottled water and filtering their water. We didn't really know a lot about Canadians' water choices prior to this survey," says Dr. Dupont, an applied micro-economist who has published extensively on the valuation of public resources, including water and fish.
Survey Highlights

• Women, parents with young children and Canadians living in agricultural areas showed the most willingness to pay higher water bills for safer water.
• Canadians' biggest concern with drinking water is microbial contamination (E. coli, cryptosporidium, giardia) rather than the potential cancer-causing effects of chlorine.
• - Family income is not a significant factor in determining whether people are willing to spend more money for safer water.

The "Walkerton Effect"

Why do people see a risk where none exists? Dr. Dupont expects that consumers' perceptions have been influenced by high-profile outbreaks in Walkerton ON (E. coli, May 2000) and North Battleford SK (cryptosporidium, Spring 2001), as well as increased media coverage of water quality issues.
Eroding consumer confidence in the safety of public-supplied tap water compounds the problems cash-strapped municipalities already face in their struggle to keep pace with the mounting repair and maintenance costs for water systems and other aging infrastructure. These municipalities will be encouraged to hear that consumers are willing to pay more for safe water, although as Dr. Dupont cautions, it's important that consumers understand the difference between real and perceived risks.
For example, consumer fears over pathogens such as E. coli and giardia ("beaver feaver") could put pressure on municipalities to use more chlorine to disinfect the water. Unfortunately, chlorine has been implicated in the production of trihalomethanes, which are linked to bladder cancer.
"You don't want to increase a real risk factor in order to minimize a perceived one," she explains. "There are alternative disinfectant technologies, such as ultra-violet light, which are effective at reducing the health risks associated with both cancer and microbial illnesses and deaths. However, these programs are more costly."
Understanding consumers' perceptions is a critical first step in helping municipalities effectively and cost efficiently manage water supply systems. Through her CWN research, Dr. Dupont has also developed an innovative economic model to determine how much more consumers are willing to pay to reduce the risk of pathogens or contaminants in their drinking water.
For example, estimates from the contingent valuation questions in the 2004 survey showed that Canadians arewilling to pay about $157 more on their annual water bill for fewer bladder cancer cases and deaths. When it comes to pathogens, however, they are willing to about $211 more for fewer microbial illnesses and deaths.
Data from the survey will help municipalities make informed choices for infrastructure renewal and to justify these expenses through better consumer education. "Once the risk perceptions are better understood, then municipalities can develop the tools and methods that communicate actual health risks more effectively," says Dr. Dupont.
The survey will also help guide policy decisions and regulators at the provincial and federal levels. "When water guidelines are set, they have to back them up with a benefit-cost analysis. With this survey, we now have the benefit numbers that can be put into a calculation that looks at the net benefit of going to a more stringent regulation, for example."
Preliminary findings from the survey have been published in scientific journals and presented at several conferences. Meanwhile, Dr. Dupont and her team of researchers and graduate students from across Canada are continuing to sift through the data, which have so far supported several Masters and Ph.D. papers. Conducting research under the CWN umbrella has also helped to raise project's project nationally and internationally.
"The CWN has provided national exposure for an area of research (micro-economics) that doesn't tend to get that much attention," says Dr. Dupont. "I've also made new connections with professionals from across Canada and in the U.S. and U.K. that I probably wouldn't have made without the NCE's (Networks of Centre of Excellence) involvement."

[travelforever]

Bottled Water? I think not because of the plastic.

Tap Water? Install a filter to make it safe for drinking and only open tap 1/2 at the sink as not to waste water. Also fix any drips.

[3plus3]

I have bought bottled water when I was at work, because well, I don't care for their water too entirely much. But other than that I use tap water.

[debrajean]

We no longer drink bottled water, there is no guarantee that this is any better than our own tap water. We now drink our water from the tap. We had a water test done when we bought the house and our well water was given a clean slate.

[Canadian]

I drink Tap water and would not waste money buying bottled water. Thankfully tap water here tastes pretty good in my opinion.

[Simon47]

Just as a matter of practicality; I often tell people that it doesn't make sense to pay for bottled water when it often originates from your own municipal water source. Nothwithstanding imported municipal water from other communities. You pay taxes to have your water resold to you. Not to forget the warnings and potential hazards from biphenyls in plastic and other toxins.

In a way of empowering people; I tell many that the water quality reports for your community are available to you. Go get them and get informed and above all, get involved. It's your life and a service you pay for. It's your responsibility. The example is our member that took his own samples of his water to be tested. That's it. It doesn't matter how good Fred's water is 6 blocks over; How is yours. Don't worry; soon there will be home water testing kits readily available at the pharmacy next to the PH strips.

I was able to download the reports of my community off the web. It is something that should be available to everyone as part of keeping the community advised. Access to information and learning. I am throwing a lot of buzzwwords.Other isues are subjects that impact local wells and many municipalities draw water from wells or protected bodies of water.Landfill leakages and drainage; watersheds and their development: farming and chemical runoff; the type and intensity of inland lake and lakeshore development. There's regional deforestation and mining operations and highways and crud and crude that enter the water table and the air.

Then there is the issue of sewage systems and what we flush down to cost us extra to clean sewage and how much is leaking into the lake or deliberately being pumped out with the runoff or extraneous flow as it is called. We make a heck of a mess that we don't think about as a whole. How many restaurants are pumping millions of tons of grease into sewers. We're all paying for it. So why pay extra so pepsi can bottle your tax money. Is it the jobs? The sustainability question; is the cost necessary. Do you really need to buy bottled water or are you too lazy to find out. I certainly recommend having bottled water on hand because stuff happens and it happens to bottled water company's too. RECALL.

Don't go with perceptions; go with facts and know what reality really is. You may find you are spending a lot of extra dollars. I was on a shallow well near a highway and then spent a goodly amount to install a deep well; tested and found it clean. I drink the water. Am I sure it's safe? Testing is ongoing. So far so good. Just like our attention to the state of our community services should be. Ongoing. People are making decisions and exercising controls on your behalf and it is wise to know the standard the municpality has set. It may be inadequate and you still ingest the water you won't drink out of the tap. It is good to know where the next landfill is proposed and hope it isn't upstream from the bottled water plant in Wisconsin that markets your favourite raspberry refresher water.

Sim

[Simon47]

Just a note:

The water in wells that are deep is anywhere from 6- 13000 years old; notwithstanding fractures or faults occurring over time that permitted younger water to permeate. This is a concern where deep well incarceration of toxic chemical is worrying and threatesns deep water reserves if the strata don't contain it. Water is fast becoming a precious resource. Fresh is already in short supply globally.

If you've ever seen commercials that declare their water is ; filtered; filtered again ; then filtered again. Welcome to natural process. Be reminded that water also flows through and erode rocks and rocks naturally contain all kinds of nasties. Even if you're water isn't contaminated with arsenic or mercury it may contain high sodium levels, zinc or copper. If you are health restricted somehow there might be implications to your health from something that is otherwise benign and generally found at safe levels. Just another reason to be informed. Some people have environmental allergies. Maybe there is that one thing in the water you never thought about. Look at iodine studies and thryroidism in ocean fairing communities. It's in the water. Water means our life.

Sim