Comments
gunplumber700 t1_iwhasa8 wrote
Not nearly to the degree you’re making it out to be. It’s not direct recycled water. Its water that’s generally diluted in natural freshwater by at least an order of magnitude or more.
Also, most municipalities get their water from reservoirs that receive no wastewater treatment plant effluent.
FreekFrealy t1_iwhcaui wrote
It definitely varies region to region, in water rich regions it's easier to find such sources. Of course the point of this article is that the quality of the water doesn't even have to suffer if you are sourcing from wastewater
But in water poor regions where most major cities exist along major rivers that often struggle to make it to the ocean it really isn't an over statement, and these are the regions that need closed loop wastewater recycling the most
gunplumber700 t1_iwj152i wrote
There’s only a handful of areas where it’s a major problem (cough cough LA).
Focusing on water loss and reducing that would save quite a bit of water, but for whatever reason everyone is fine with throwing away treated potable water but is gung ho for drinking wastewater.
In my 5 minutes google search LA uses 10,999 MILLION gallons a month and has 7% water loss. I know it’ll never be 0, but that 770 MILLION gallons a month isn’t negligible.
outofideastx t1_iwjco13 wrote
UCLA said that the LA area reports of 3-7% water loss are because main breaks are being counted as "Unbilled, Unmetered consumption" instead of loss in some areas, and state of the art utilities still report a 10% water loss. I also found a Reuter's article stating that over 25% of the water mains in LA are teetering on 100 years old. I think it's safe to say that their figures are incomplete at best.
The relatively large Texas city I work for ranges between 10 and 20% depending on the year.
gunplumber700 t1_iwjdpxa wrote
I wanted to use 7% to be conservative. It’s definitely much higher.
Imo distribution systems are one of the most neglected parts of the water utility system.
Why everyone thinks they’ll last forever is beyond me.
outofideastx t1_iwjf36o wrote
It's frustrating to say the least. At the pace we're going, we will have all the cast iron replaced in 50 years. By then, the ductile will be 90-110 years old, and the PVC will be 50-90. The math doesn't add up.
enemy_lettuce838 t1_iwjo4bn wrote
The US isn't the only place where water is important.
intensiveduality t1_iwkc13v wrote
Considering literally no one said it is
[deleted] t1_iwkv04s wrote
[deleted]
gunplumber700 t1_iwjrb8s wrote
No, but seeing as the article was written in California I chose a California city as an example.
greeneggsnyams t1_iwhbogh wrote
Louisville Kentucky, some of the best tap water you'll get in the world, gets its water from THE OHIO RIVER. And we're down river from Cincinnati and Pittsburgh
[deleted] t1_iwmrnmz wrote
[removed]
MpVpRb t1_iwii5za wrote
>Also, most municipalities get their water from reservoirs
that are full of living things that poop, die and decay
gunplumber700 t1_iwiw1ek wrote
Not the same as literal concentrated human shitwater. Go take a look at some raw wastewater and some raw reservoir/ well water.
I also left out wells. Reservoirs and wells.
Lake_ t1_iwk5yjh wrote
it’s treated first idiot. in a very effective multistage process. biological material is actually the easiest part to clean. it’s the chemicals from industrial waste that should be more concerning. the water from a wwtp is clear and free of microorganisms and is already treated by law where you have to treat the raw water from reservoirs for it to be drinkable.
intensiveduality t1_iwkcb2b wrote
Is a discussion over water really worth insulting strangers for absolutely no reason? Be better
gunplumber700 t1_iwl4zri wrote
Well moron, there’s a thing called grammar. Feel free to use it.
Go look at colliform samples from the average wwtp.
Wwtp effluent is NOT treated to drinking water standards. Every heard of crypto (not the currency)? Enlighten me on how a wwtp without a tertiary process treats their effluent for that to need drinking water standards?
jffleisc t1_iwj18qj wrote
My town’s water supply comes out of the Hudson river. guess where the wastewater ends up.
gunplumber700 t1_iwj4ztc wrote
So put it into perspective.
How does a wwtp work? It does exactly what occurs naturally in nature, only faster. Wastewater plant effluent continues to break down after leaving the plant. It also gets diluted when entering receiving waters.
Part of a wwtp’s npdes permit is supposed to consider other downstream users.
Edit: would you rather drink just wwtp effluent or 99.9999% fresh water diluted with 0.00001% treated wastewater.
StretchArmstrong74 t1_iwj9xir wrote
Depends on how "fresh" that water is to begin with. I'd damn sure drink our effluent before I'd chug a glass of water out of the Hudson river.
I know for a fact the stream we feed into is cleaner downstream of our dump than it is upstream, which means drinking it after it was diluted would be worse than drinking it straight.
yacht_boy t1_iwjd09d wrote
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And it appears you have a very little knowledge.
gunplumber700 t1_iwje4wh wrote
Oh yea? Since you’re so smart you have something constructive to add to the discussion right?
Please enlighten us with your wisdom…
yacht_boy t1_iwk6482 wrote
Well, I'm bound by legal provisions that curtail my ability to speak freely on social media. I could lose my job and be subject to fines, etc. So I can't just school you, much as I'd like to.
But I can say that I am a co-author on a shelf full of books and peer-reviewed journal articles about this exact topic. I know the intricate details of water reuse and resource recovery from wastewater very, very well.
Over the last 20 years of work in this field, I've gotten good at determining who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. And you don't.
Please shut up, you are out of your depth.
intensiveduality t1_iwkc9cz wrote
Your comments have taught me nothing except that you have a bad attitude and zero professionalism.
leonra28 t1_iwk7xao wrote
Are you also trained in gorilla warfare?
yacht_boy t1_iwlyd0v wrote
I prefer to fight bored apes.
[deleted] t1_iwl60n9 wrote
[removed]
ScientificSkepticism t1_iwlqdv9 wrote
You have the biggest Navy Seal energy.
yacht_boy t1_iwlx71l wrote
Just hate seeing people trashing a subject I have devoted my entire career to with misinformation and innuendo. Water reuse is safe, effective, and achievable.
ScientificSkepticism t1_iwly3nc wrote
Mate at some point if multiple people are reading your "serious post" and are waiting for the rest of the Navy Seal copypasta, you done went wrong.
yacht_boy t1_iwlzwsr wrote
Meh, what can I say. I am legitimately not allowed to give out any identifying details that would tie me to my employer on any social media channel, because then I would be considered to be representing that employer. I can only represent my employer by going through all the official channels, which involves public affairs people, managerial review, blah blah blah. I have to take an annual training on this exact topic. Nowhere near as exciting as a Navy Seal, but similar levels of bureaucracy.
[deleted] t1_iwm1s0m wrote
[removed]
Manofalltrade t1_iwjs409 wrote
Natural freshwater that fish spawn in, animals die and rot in, and everything poops in?
gunplumber700 t1_iwl32m1 wrote
So since you seem to think raw freshwater is so dirty go take some colliform and ecoli samples. Let me know how clean you think wastewater effluent is after that.
Manofalltrade t1_iwlp9x9 wrote
I’ve been around a bit more than you know. Disease and toxins are what they are and after you hit a certain threshold the concentration essentially doesn’t matter anymore. Water molecules are all the same (unless you are getting pedantic about radioisotopes). Once it’s clean, it doesn’t matter where it came from.
gunplumber700 t1_iwlu17e wrote
I don’t care how long you've been around.
If you think ANY amount of pathogens are acceptable in drinking water you have the science understanding of a 5 year old.
If you want to live in theory land water entering a wastewater treatment plant is 99% pure.
Drinking water regulations are different than wastewater for a reason…
Manofalltrade t1_iwmvpzz wrote
Not how long I’ve been around, it’s what I’ve been around. Clearly you are suffering from thinking you know more than you do. I’m haven’t bothered typing out the nuance of all this as it is truly beside the point. I’m also not going to spend anymore time trying to improve your understanding because your attempts at condescension demonstrate that it would be a waste of effort. Good day.
gunplumber700 t1_iwn7oq2 wrote
Yea, because your last comment wasn’t condescending at all…
Your literally being a know it all that has to get the last word in or you wouldn’t have commented that you’re done.
Your comment toward “improving your understanding” proves that you’re just being a know it all without actually providing anything of substance.
If you have something of substance then you would have posted it…
Man of all trades, master of none.
Since you’re in need of knowledge that you clearly don’t have I’d like to direct you toward these few specific courses.
Geology 101, hydrology 101, and limnology 301.
Radiant_Ad_4428 t1_iwh8gio wrote
If you've ever visited a wastewater treatment facility you'd understand people's apprehension.
Just a sea of floating tampon applicators and condoms.
FreekFrealy t1_iwh8pc8 wrote
I understand perfectly well that that very same water is released into the river after treatment only to be uptaken into the next city's water system.
Obviously an apprehension over unsafe water sources is a natural and healthy response but the point is that we are already drinking that tampon water, so we may as well be more efficient about it
Back_Alley_Sack_Wax t1_iwhm7j7 wrote
>drinking that tampon water
More commonly known as “vampire tea”.
sawbladex t1_iwj14b0 wrote
... I don't know man, I want to cut that tampon water with other water and shuffle the mixture around a bit.
Shuichi123 t1_iwj91oo wrote
Are you being misleading on purpose?
KarateKid72 t1_iwirp6e wrote
If you worked in the industry, you’d know that what gets caught in a bar screen isn’t what makes to the outfall. The variation between pretreatment, influent and effluent is quite large. To say nothing of the differences in Coliform bacteria populations upstream, downstream. Influent and effluent.
[deleted] t1_iwjgko3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwhj41p wrote
[removed]
yacht_boy t1_iwjdqtr wrote
I've been to over 100 of them. The whole point is that we take stuff out of wastewater and make the water clean again. I don't care how dirty the water coming in is. I care how clean it is when the job is done.
What's missing from this thread is the realization that there are different levels of treatment. You can take any grade of dirty water and turn it into any grade of clean water. It's just a matter of how much time, energy, and money you want to spend.
gunplumber700 t1_iwjfyps wrote
While that’s a good point are you really that naïve that you think it’s going to be a widespread standard of operation at every water system?
If you’ve truly been to 100 plants in a meaningful capacity I can’t believe you have the ignorance to say it’s how much you want to spend. Especially in places that do not have a high water reuse need.
yacht_boy t1_iwk5duj wrote
Not everyone needs to reuse water. They can spend less to get water to the quality that is what meets their 1970s or 1980s permit limits.
But water reuse is entirely achievable for those who need it. You seem to be stuck on the ick factor. Get over it.
Radiant_Ad_4428 t1_iwk9j5o wrote
Hey I'm fully aware about how bacteria and tampons can be removed. My question to you is about that guy whose water supply was fucked by the oil fracking.
Remember that video? Is that water that can be salvaged? You seem to know a lot.
yacht_boy t1_iwlyakt wrote
All water is infinitely recycled. Anything that can be put into water can be taken back out. It's just a matter of how much time, energy, and money you want to spend.
I don't know enough about what was going on with that guy's water to comment on specific fixes to his well water. But when you get into issues with rural communities where people are using individual wells, it can get really, really expensive to try to treat all those individual wells. Like many other technologies, water technologies benefit from economies of scale. So for a guy who's private well is suffering from contamination, the costs to remove that contamination can be nightmarish because he's got to pay for the whole thing himself. But if that same contamination was present at a municipal facility serving 1000s of people, the total equipment and operational cost might be much bigger than for the private well but the cost per person amortized out over 20 years might be quite manageable.
[deleted] t1_iwl42f5 wrote
[removed]
littlegreenrock t1_iwj1jmt wrote
People still cling to a centuries old idea that river from a stream or lake is as pure as mother nature gets. recycled waste water is always going to be superior to dam water because they take the water component out of the waste water, rather than taking dirty water, and making it "treated" dirty water. If we applied the same methods used for recycled water, with dam water, dam water would be equally perfect. Equally
[deleted] t1_iwjf8w9 wrote
[removed]
Strazdas1 t1_iwkn9gq wrote
What if you get your water from underground reserves that were dormant for millions of years?
EasterBunnyArt t1_iwhcons wrote
Nah, I like the headline where we basically admitted to having polluted the world so badly waste water is better though viewed as the opposite.
gunplumber700 t1_iwgw5oo wrote
I’ve spent several years as a potable water and wastewater treatment plant operator. This is super misleading.
For example the average wastewater plant does not produce an effluent turbidity low enough to meet federal drinking water requirements. It’s not unattainable but the first thing water system owners will cry about is cost. The first thing people will say is gross. With the trend of plants moving toward liquid instead of gas chlorine cost will go up quite a bit there too.
Also, if we’re worried about water conservation how about fixing water loss in potable water (essentially tap) systems. The amount of water loss in US potable water distribution systems is insane.
ErroneousRecipe t1_iwh6h70 wrote
I'm assuming you operate a CAS system?
I work on potable-reuse membrane plants and we see turbidity easily less than 0.1 NTU, and a lot of WW plants are seeing IPR.
DPR isn't far off, and was recently approved by Colorado regulators in that state.
gunplumber700 t1_iwhn5t5 wrote
I’ve worked at several plants and used most major system types.
Relative to DISTRIBUTION systems. There is a huge need for system upgrades to combat water loss. Having worked all over the US I can say that, imo, we should be focused on upgrading leaking/ crumbling distribution systems first.
Recycled water for drinking is a hard sell. I’ll believe it when I see it, when it’s being used in any significant amount.
scotus_canadensis t1_iwibvd4 wrote
I'm currently looking into recycling our wastewater effluent (kind of a background project right now). It's certainly not as clean as our well water, but it's feasible for use.
As you say, the first hurdle is people saying "ick".
The second hurdle is that our effluent goes into a reservoir used for irrigation, and the reservoir users would likely object to any new diversion.
gunplumber700 t1_iwiymd2 wrote
Im not really sure what are you getting at. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
Why make potable water from recycled water from wastewater when you can more than make up for slight demand increases with addressing water loss?
scotus_canadensis t1_iwizhnf wrote
I run a small system, with minimal loss. We go from a regular summer high of 1800-2000 m3 daily to around 700 m3 daily at this time of year. I'm comparing effluent recycling to the cost (and load on our local aquifer, which I worry about during dry years) of drilling new wells. There is not enough loss in our distribution system to offset the need for a new water source if any of our wells drops off.
outofideastx t1_iwjeco4 wrote
The obvious answer would be that treating wastewater more is cheaper than replacing hundreds, if not thousands of miles of mains. Treating wastewater more is also forever, while you're going to have to replace all the mains again in 50-75 years if you want to prevent water loss from skyrocketing again.
The city I work for is doing proactive leak detection (the program I run), DMAs, transient monitoring, meter calibration, etc. to lower water loss. We've been doing some of these programs for years now, and we were one of the first in the state to do proactive leak surveying. We still have high water loss. We're talking thousands and thousands of leaks over the course of a year. Our system is old, and we don't have the money to replace it all at once, nor the physical resources.
As I said, I run the proactive survey program, so I'm a big proponent of reducing water loss. That being said, cutting 1-2% of water loss is difficult to do, and very costly. Any city that needs to drastically reduce consumption in the next decade will only be looking at water loss as a longer term plan.
gunplumber700 t1_iwjkqeq wrote
And what’s the life of a wastewater plant? It’s not forever…
Failing to replace distribution systems pipes is failing to properly maintain a system. When customers complain about main breaks they have a point. When they complain about their bill being skyrocketing because they have to pay for upgrades because of managers that neglect their systems they have a point.
I don’t get why the industry is so ok with wasting such large volumes of water but “it’s hard” is the excuse I guess.
If you went to the gas station to fill up your cars 20 gallon gas tank and paid 25 but received 20 would you think it’s ok?
outofideastx t1_iwjr7uq wrote
I completely agree with you.
The people in power don't care, and they don't intend to spend more money on main replacement. And they'd rather spend a few million here and there, so they can put off spending a couple billion until they are no longer in office. At the end of the day, recycling wastewater would be cheaper than replacing the mains, especially when you add in the fact that many cities have to buy their raw water from an outside entity. In Texas, we buy raw water from water districts. There are cities here that built reservoirs before the water districts ever existed, but now they have to pay for raw water coming out of their own lakes. Recycling wastewater means you pay for it once, and use it over and over. If I discharge it into a river and then pick it up again downstream, I get to pay for it all over again.
Another thing to add perspective to the main replacement thing: Chicago alone has over 400,000 lead service lines. These lines are an active, major health risk and they are only removing dozens of them per year, when they should be doing thousands. If death and lawsuits aren't bringing replacements, they definitely aren't going to go replacing mains over some water loss.
Lastly, forcibly reducing irrigation is the lowest hanging fruit, as we can see on the west coast right now. Irrigation use is much more than 10% of the treated water in the south. Eventually, I'm hoping we will get on board with mass-scale desalination, hopefully powered by nuclear power.
gunplumber700 t1_iwjt5kj wrote
Nah that’s too smart for CA.
They’ll continue to take water from farms to send to a place with 10 million people to feed that has no farms. Then they’ll continue to allow pg&e (the big electric company out there) to start wildfires and burn down cities amidst water shortages all while not installing one of the safest and most reliable forms of power (nuclear).
[deleted] t1_iwjlmm2 wrote
[removed]
IBeDumbAndSlow t1_iwgwvyd wrote
Can you share any information you may have on the amount of Rx medicine that's in waste water? I read years ago about how our wastewater is getting polluted by medication from renal excretion. I'm curious as to how known or unknown this phenomenon is.
gunplumber700 t1_iwgzwv4 wrote
Im sure it’s there, but not something that’s measured on a daily basis. It’s usually university researchers doing that type thing. It’s not really in the realm of day to day operations.
Most of it is pretty dilute. I don’t have any numbers for you, so I can’t give you an answer other than I don’t know and my speculating that it’s pretty dilute. I would be carful of apply research from specific cases and instances to the industry as a whole.
Percyheckendorf t1_iwi6gtq wrote
As someone who’s been in on this research. It is the main, non-policy related, impediment to DPR. They don’t degrade so they will get increasingly less dilute in a closed system.
hormones such as estrogen will likely be an issue for every application
gunplumber700 t1_iwiyrop wrote
So for me that’s another reason to avoid it.
Percyheckendorf t1_iwj2lks wrote
Which may not be an option, as southwestern cities such as Phoenix and LA are likely to fail within the century without it.
gunplumber700 t1_iwj5sfa wrote
From one of my other comments:
“This is for places like LA (who steals water from everywhere else) and Las Vegas. Look at LA’s water loss. In my 5 minute search it looks like they use 10,999 MILLION gallons of water a month. Their water loss is 7%. That means the lose 770 MILLION gallons of clean treated water a month. 770 MILLION gallons of clean potable water is wasted. We’re going to clean and reuse wastewater but we can’t even keep from losing clean water? I don’t think so. When LA stops stealing water from everywhere and they start doing this I’ll believe it.”
Percyheckendorf t1_iwj8j3y wrote
Well Vegas is already world class in water reuse. Basically only Israel beats them. we will certainly go to water reuse before we repair/replace LA’s entire pipe system. That is crazy difficult and expensive and an ordinary problem for most networks (though probably worse in la due to the seismic activity) Meanwhile there are already wastewater plants producing drinking quality effluent. It’s clear cut the cheaper solution short term
gunplumber700 t1_iwjcxy6 wrote
So the “it’s cheaper” excuse only works as a short term solution.
Look at all the municipalities with constant main breaks because they think “it was made better” back in the day.
I’m not saying replace the entire system overnight but it needs to be replaced as it ages, which include metering equipment that under report, meaning you’ll underbill someone as they age as well.
Still not saying there aren’t places that do it, just that it’s unnecessary given the alternatives that have to be addressed anyway.
It kind of avoids the fact that many plants don’t have the ability to just turn up chemical dosing and call it good.
Percyheckendorf t1_iwjgzh9 wrote
They will eventually, when they are done they will start again, because pipes will always leak. its only a max 7% increase, which is not enough
Yes the plants will need to be retrofitted with more advanced processes.
[deleted] t1_iwjrk06 wrote
[removed]
jkally t1_iwhs9sh wrote
There was recently a release about the amount of meth in the waste water in Shreveport Louisiana being the most in the country. https://www.ktbs.com/news/study-shreveport-wastewater-leads-the-nation-in-methamphetamines/article_1ede67a4-6084-11ed-ba96-f3dfba001cd9.html
AdultEnuretic t1_iwhd5hx wrote
I always wonder about this as well. I feel like I'm a walking pharmacy (13 scripts daily) so I know I'm excreting a lot. Most people are obviously a lot less, but I know the Rx contamination is out there.
smoked_papchika t1_iwj1v0o wrote
It certainly depends on the state and what the WWTP design looks like. From my experience, true direct potable reuse projects (known as toilet to tap) essentially use the WWTP effluent as the source water for the DPR plant. The onus will be on the DPR plant to be designed for worse-case water quality scenarios - typically what the discharge permit allows.
The key factor in these DPR projects is being able to achieve pathogen inactivation credits to drinking water standards. We’re talking upwards of 12-log depending on the state regulators. So these plants typically use low pressure and high pressure membranes and advanced oxidation treatment. UV as well.
And I completely agree with you regarding water loss in distribution. Finding alternative source waters for drinking water is admirable, but when 20-30% of your TREATED water is lost to the pipe gods, then it deserves the same consideration.
[deleted] t1_iwgxrsx wrote
[deleted]
gunplumber700 t1_iwh284l wrote
There are lots of very specific very unique processes out there. I’m sure there’s somewhere that has particularly high constituents of interest and a process for it that works for them.
Whether it’s widespread and needed I don’t know.
I do know that cost is a relative term. A manager of a half million gallon a day plant will cry about spending 15 grand on a broken pump. A 20 million gallon a day plant usually has spares on the shelf and considers it part is maintenance.
SoigneBest t1_iwgz3u7 wrote
Please eli5- a low effluent turbidity.
Also could tell us the reasoning of moving from gas to liquid Cl?
gunplumber700 t1_iwh4cia wrote
Turbidity is the cloudiness or opaqueness of water. Essentially how clear it is, an indicator of how much stuff is in water.
Effluent is water leaving somewhere, the context in which I used it is leaving the plant.
Chlorine gas is cheap and effective as a disinfectant, but is one of the most hazardous substances to work with. I’m a little rusty from being out of the industry since I was forced out of my job, but the osha limit is 1ppm over a 15 minute period and the idlh (immediately dangerous to life and health) threshold is 10ppm. It expands roughly 430 times it’s volume when moving from liquid to gas, a small leak can quickly fill a room and incapacitate someone. This is relative to
Most people that don’t control the budget for things like that prefer some type or variation of sodium hypochlorite (bleach, much safer) because it’s much safer to work with.
SoigneBest t1_iwhos0x wrote
Thank you for the great explanation and I didn’t want to assume.
Oh so they’re moving to liquid sodium hypochlorite, not to using liquid chlorine. Knowing that chlorine is a gas under normal circumstances I was curious why would water treatment plants choose to move to it. Now liquid “bleach” makes sense from a defect and cost standpoint.
Water is so essential to our very being and waste so much of it.
markerBT t1_iwhe0sn wrote
I lived in Orange County where potable water is treated waste water. So water from the WWTP goes to the water district's potable WTP which they then feed into the aquifer. They use RO. I also worked in the water industry though not as an operator.
How much is the loss in your district's distribution? There is financial benefit in fixing NRW, unless it's already quite low.
spudmarsupial t1_iwhjsg7 wrote
I'd be worried about a buildup of a specific chemical they didn't know to test for.
Ratnix t1_iwi3op5 wrote
>For example the average wastewater plant does not produce an effluent turbidity low enough to meet federal drinking water requirements
Why would they though if it's not going to be treated for drinking and instead be dumped back into the water cycle to be treated further down the road?
I understand what you're saying but i think it's that way simply because they don't have to do any more than that. If it was going to be drinkable water i believe it would be treated to the standards needed.
gunplumber700 t1_iwid8w8 wrote
Do you know how wwtp’s work? It’s not as simple as turning up polymer dosing. Most processes and plants could probably handle it, but not without major upgrades.
The average wwtp has a hard enough time managing effluent quality during “high volume rain events” let alone the hundred year flood that seems to happen every 2 years now…
Add in old, antiquated, crumbling systems, poor planning and upgrading of wwtp’s and it’s not something that’s realistically going to be widespread.
This is for places like LA (who steals water from everywhere else) and Las Vegas. Look at LA’s water loss. In my 5 minute search it looks like they use 10,999 MILLION gallons of water a month. Their water loss is 7%. That means the lose 770 MILLION gallons of clean treated water a month. 770 MILLION gallons of clean potable water is wasted. We’re going to clean and reuse wastewater but we can’t even keep from losing clean water? I don’t think so. When LA stops stealing water from everywhere and they start doing this I’ll believe it.
Ratnix t1_iwitczq wrote
>Do you know how wwtp’s work?
Yes. We do water treatment at my work and I work with it.
>but not without major upgrades.
Of course. But again, why would they do more than they absolutely have to right now if people don't want to drink treated waste water?
gunplumber700 t1_iwiwp6f wrote
I literally told you why. Obviously you’re not an actual water plant worker or you wouldn’t be asking something so stupid right after I told you. If you were you wouldn’t have asked to begin with.
You literally are arguing with yourself right now.
S-contra t1_iwodq94 wrote
It's funny you bring up cost. If you're in the water sector you know the biggest impediment to dealing with non revenue water is the cost of pipe replacement vastly outweighs the value of lost water. My utility estimates we lose around 10-20% of our water to leaks/old pipes, which amounts to several million dollars a year in lost revenue and billions of gallons of water. That sounds insane right? Of course the cost of fully replacing all the past service life lines is in the billions, thus the driver for spending all the capital is tough to sell to rate payers. As water professionals it's our job to evaluate the best health outcomes for our customers against the reality of infrastructure costs that rate payers will accept. Basically if the solution someone is peddling for improving water security involves building a bunch of pipelines (eg. piping Mississippi out west) there's almost always a more economical alternative.
DPR has a huge value proposition in many areas because you can avoid a ton of cost from additional distribution infrastructure. Comparing the non-potable reuse system (purple pipe) in California, which is estimated to cost 8k/acre-ft, while building a full scale water purification plant like San Diego is around $500-$600/acre foot. This compares very favorably against desalination ($1000>), ipr and especially building new reservoirs (which in drought stricken areas really doesn't do much good).
I see some folks have brought up phaceuticals and other trace chemicals, another great benefit is dpr systems using UF to RO will exclude most of these organic compounds, pfas included.
Of course in places where water scarcity isn't a driver, added treatment systems will be excessive, but there are increasingly regions of the country experiencing long term drought and the need to secure stable water supply. In many cases, the costs make sense
gunplumber700 t1_iwpw40w wrote
The bigger point is look where source water comes from in LA. Look at all the water they steal from everywhere else. Don’t claim you NEED water if 10-15% of it gets thrown away.
If you went to a gas pump to fill your 20 gallon tank, paid for 25, but still only got 20 would you say there’s a problem? Why it’s acceptable in this industry BeCaUsE iTs ExPeNsIvE is beyond me.
Failing to maintain a distribution system because you don’t want to pay to fix it is just neglect. Regardless of whether poor management practices have set the precedent it’s ok to be negligent they still need to be maintained.
Rate payers will always complain whether valid or not. Years of poor managing and failing to raise rates creates its own set of problems. Incompetent water managers acting like rates can stay the same forever is half the problem.
thecr0tch t1_iwh1r7y wrote
So it seems like it would be best to NOT drink tap water?
gunplumber700 t1_iwh9o5t wrote
Tap water is generally safe. Yes, mains break, places occasionally (very infrequently) f up, but overall it is safe.
The source water for drinking water are reservoirs, wells, etc.
Wastewater enters the sanitary sewer system from toilet water, shower water, sinks, etc and goes to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment then to the environment. Some places use wastewater plant treated water to make recycled water. This is generally a cleaner and more treated version of that same water and used for for grass, golf courses, certain agricultural resources, etc… it’s not used for drinking water unless your an astronaut drinking your own recycled urine in space.
dbag127 t1_iwhbavd wrote
No, it's best not to drink the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant. In the US, wwtp effluent is generally cleaner than the natural water body it flows into, which is where a drinking water treatment plant gets it's raw water.
fostertheatom t1_iwgud0b wrote
A lot of things are scientifically proven to be "perfectly fine" or even beneficial.
If people think it sounds nasty they aren't gonna do any of those things. It's all about perception.
cosaboladh t1_iwh1d98 wrote
The water on this planet is the same water that was here 4 billion years ago. Odds are good everything that has passed through your kidneys passed through a few sets before yours. Anyone who thinks that's nasty is just being childish.
fostertheatom t1_iwhtcxx wrote
And if you walked around a large city with glasses of wastewater trying to tell people it was just as good as regular tap water or try to say what you are saying you wouldn't get a single person to take a sip all afternoon. You need to change people's perception before you will get any meaningful dialogue.
People perceive it as nasty. That's just how it currently is. Calling people childish isn't going to change any minds or do anything positive. It's just going to make people double down and possibly tell you to "Go F*** Yourself".
Shuichi123 t1_iwj9hc6 wrote
I've got some filtered piss you can drink
psyon t1_iwj0ptr wrote
Wasn't there a study that showed that eating boogers boosted your white blood cell counts, and yet people still aren't digging around for juicy morsels in their noses.
fostertheatom t1_iwjgjve wrote
Exactly, several studies have come out corroborating that study that said eating boogers and bugs and dirt and whatnot as a kid boosts your immune system.
But since people still perceive it as nasty, they still shun the practice. Same as with drinking former waste water, even if it properly treated and completely safe. Hell, 99.9% of people (in the so-called "first world") think the water in the holding tank of your toilet (that is literally just regular uncontaminated tap water until it is used to flush waste) is nasty and won't drink it.
blade_torlock t1_iwgystm wrote
In my area there was a proposal to pump the treated water to the top of a local mountain and let it refill the aquifer. Except for the pump cost it seems like a reasonable idea.
[deleted] t1_iwh1btf wrote
[removed]
IKENTHINGS t1_iwh06dx wrote
They reverse osmosis water and then fill an aquifer that filters the water further in San Jose.
futureshocked2050 t1_iwgwbwb wrote
...depending on the pipes in your home and neighborhood.
We've found out in the US over the past couple of years how many lead pipes are still left in the country.
reddiots-lmao t1_iwhahhr wrote
We've had something similar in Singapore for years! (NEWater)
ubermeisters t1_iwhxx4a wrote
> water that has been cleaned, is cleaner than water that has not been cleaned to the same degree.
- these scientists, just now
_stray_kitty_ t1_iwi8hvq wrote
My town does this. Water tastes like ass sometimes
perspicacity- t1_iwiuv20 wrote
Drink the poowater, eat the soy, eat the seed oils, do not eat meat, do not eat eggs, raw milk is bad
wazserd t1_iwiwvsm wrote
but here's the deal
I'd rather live 50 years drinking mountain spring water, than live 500 years drinking million-man poop water
KristinaHeartford t1_iwix561 wrote
Gimme that space-ship pee water.
xeneks t1_iwjfrs1 wrote
Tell me more. At the biological levels, how risky are single stray atoms? That PFAS accumulation in rainwater, are those compounds single molecules subject to brownian motion, buffeting around, or do they attach and form clusters?
[deleted] t1_iwkbmxh wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_iwgp1np wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iwh57mh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwh5qv9 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iwhkcuv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwhlvnl wrote
[removed]
Not_a_throwaway_999 t1_iwhqthl wrote
‘is it necessary to drink wastewater!? No, but i do it anyway because it’s been proven safe and i like the taste’
[deleted] t1_iwi481z wrote
[deleted]
MpVpRb t1_iwii0ja wrote
Reservoirs are full of living things that poop, die and decay, but some silly people refuse to drink properly treated wastewater
houstonman6 t1_iwijuer wrote
Dirty drinking water? Better cut taxes and deregulate to fix that issue.
[deleted] t1_iwio79k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwiqr8o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwis50i wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwisd5o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwit7o0 wrote
[deleted]
sickmanspitefulman t1_iwiv6w3 wrote
all water is recycled wastewater
uav_loki t1_iwj5qp7 wrote
How do plants treat hazardous chemicals poured down drains? What happens to the large amounts of paint solvents, glysophate or worse in the water?
uav_loki t1_iwj5rs1 wrote
How do plants treat hazardous chemicals poured down drains? What happens to the large amounts of paint solvents, glysophate or worse in the water?
[deleted] t1_iwkcfi3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwjc01u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwjwus9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwkmjhr wrote
[removed]
jcope480 t1_iwlf8cj wrote
Here’s a fact. People getting radiation and chemo treatment. Guess where the piss goes? Into our water. The same piss that can’t touch their skin because it will burn.
Toilet cleaners etc just imagine.
Generations of recycled piss and contaminants
No thanks rather drink rain water
doubtful_guest22 t1_iwln5hh wrote
Do they filter out pharmaceuticals? If they do, great I’ll drink it. But I don’t want meds in my water.
[deleted] t1_iwi57it wrote
[deleted]
Goddddammnnn t1_iwih09w wrote
“Don’t sell me piss and tell me it’s water” or what ever my dad used to say.
Im_Talking t1_iwiiztr wrote
It's insane to think that we are squeamish about recycled water when we have little care about the pollutants/toxins that we breathe in every day.
Bobtheguardian22 t1_iwj2jh9 wrote
sure, sure, but have they factored in the Ick factor?
ImperiousMage t1_iwjt5os wrote
This is all about “ick” factor. You can educate as much as you want but no one is going to give a damn until they’re forced to.
Ragnar_Dragonfyre t1_iwiqjue wrote
Eat bugs. Drink grey water. Be happy.
South5 t1_iwhi5nh wrote
Are you talking about american water?!
Xennon54 t1_iwi3he7 wrote
True but my grandma said that drinking radioactive toxic sludge makes me hardened and improves my immune system. After all, thats hoe it was done back in the good old days and thats hoe people have been surviving until the ripe old age of 50 for all of our history
Obvious-Invite4746 t1_iwhib29 wrote
Then they should bottle it and sell it in the grocery store. Let the Free Market decide!
FreekFrealy t1_iwgxcde wrote
What a lot of people that are squeamish about waste water recycling fail to grasp is that you live in a city that gets its water from a river you already are drinking recycled waste water. To say nothing of recycling of the water cycle in general
If there are a few cities on a river that is essentially a river of (hopefully) treated waste water.
We can make this process much more efficient by recycling water in more closed loop systems but for some reason people think drinking the recycled waste water from people upriver is preferable to drinking the recycled waste water from your neighbors