Slashdot Mirror


Why Portland Should Have Kept Its Water, Urine and All

Ars Technica has nothing good to say about the scientific understanding (or at least public understanding) that led Portland to drain 38 million gallons of water after a teenage prankster urinated into the city's water supply. Maybe SCADA systems shouldn't be quite as high on the list of dangers, when major utilities can be quite this brittle even without a high-skill attack.

332 comments

  1. Frosty piss by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    literally.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Frosty piss by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Completely off topic, I came here because of the daily slashdot e-mail, which apparently links to this story through something called "click.slashdot.com" that NEVER LOADS.

      I found it on the front page at the bottom of the screen in less time than it took to load, and canceled the other tab. Something is broken.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Urine gets stronger the more you dilute it.
    The uncomfortable truth is that all the water has pee in it.

    1. Re:just like homeopathy by Arker · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The uncomfortable truth is that all the water has pee in it."

      Water is filthy, fish have sex in it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is filthy, fish have sex in it.

      I think they just limit themselves to bukaku.

    3. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was the fear. Since like cure like, drinking piss cures urination. The city of Portland is just trying to keep its sewage treatment plant workers off the unemployment line

    4. Re:just like homeopathy by meerling · · Score: 2

      Don't forget all the bird poop.

    5. Re:just like homeopathy by penix1 · · Score: 1

      And here in WV the MCHM/PPH licorice aroma therapy...

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    6. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do birds masturbate?

    7. Re:just like homeopathy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      And this being Portland, it's probable that homeopathy is enforced by city ordinance.

    8. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some fish give live birth, which entails having sex.

    9. Re:just like homeopathy by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Do birds masturbate?

      With which hand?

    10. Re:just like homeopathy by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Water is filthy, fish have sex in it.

      It's okay, they are married.

    11. Re:just like homeopathy by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      Water is filthy, fish have sex in it.

      That's what they tell kids. The truth is: It's not just fish ...

    12. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No but some swallow

    13. Re:just like homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fish don't have sex (except sharks, those sneaky bastards). Females drop eggs and males swim by and ejaculate over the eggs. No dating needed, just lots of stalking.

      The More You Know.

    14. Re:just like homeopathy by djscoumoune · · Score: 1

      For non french speakers this is a quote from a song by Renaud : Dès Que Le Vent Soufflera

    15. Re:just like homeopathy by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guarantee you that there is at least 100x as much birdshit in that water as that guy's piss. But no one ever complains about all the birdshit.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    16. Re:just like homeopathy by ichthyoboy · · Score: 1

      And poecilids (i.e., mollies, swordtails, and mosquitofishes), embiotocids (i.e., surfperches), and a few other groups...

    17. Re:just like homeopathy by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sex = exchange of genetic material, of course fish have it, otherwise there would be no baby fish. Fish don't have *intercourse*, but that's just one of those bizarre reproduction rituals that mammals and a few other branches of animal life engage in.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:just like homeopathy by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      End of discussion :)

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    19. Re:just like homeopathy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Do birds masturbate?

      With which hand?

      They get a beak job.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:just like homeopathy by Arker · · Score: 1

      And this diminishes the point about water containing sexual fluids how?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  3. Ever glass of tap water in LA. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every glass of tap water in LA contains a few molecules of water that have, relatively recently, passed through my bladder.

    The only people that don't have someone 'upriver', drink cattle urine instead.

    One exception, well water, usually nasty tasting. Plus the joys of insufficient septic system setback.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't tell the homoeopaths.

    2. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well water in my area is awesome. Some places I've been it had a nasty taste to it but it really depends on the area.

    3. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Haha, no.

      It depends -where- the well is. There are entire communities that are on well water that is not farmland. Water there has a distinctly clean taste.

      Where I used to live, on one side of the river it was well water, the other side was chlorinated river water. Guess which taste gross? The chlorinated water. If you live all your life on well water, "city water" is disgustingly vile, that you won't even make coffee with it. After moving away from that place, I had to deal with two new problems:
      1. Disgustingly chlorinated city water (currently from a reservoir that is a drainage basin for creeks)
      2. Extremely low water pressure.

      The former, depends on the city. The reservoirs used on Vancouver Island, are pretty gross, owing to things like wooden pipes that leak in places, so they over treat the water so there is still treatment by the time it gets to the users. Vancouver itself is less gross, but you still smell chlorine in your sweat, and your colored clothing all gradually becomes a dingy grey or brown. (As opposed to well water which would leave a white hard-water crust on things if you left it vaporize, and required replacement of the hot water heater every 15 years.)

      The latter, is beyond my control. The well water was so powerful that it you didn't need to scrub so hard, just point the shower head. I've only ever been to one hotel that could match. Every place I've been otherwise the water ranges from wimpy to "what is this, a water fountain?"

      As for gross well water, that certainly exists, and you probably don't want to drink well water from farmland that has the well head more than 50' from the house. Septic fields usually cover a surface area 50% larger than the house itself, but will be (if built correctly) on the opposite side of where the wellhead is, down-stream of the water flow. So you may not get the crap you are flushing down the toilet, but you're certainly getting anything upstream, in trace amounts if it reaches the well. This is why fracking is huge problem.

      Fracking goes through the layer holding the well water, and contaminates it. If natural gas wasn't coming up before, it will certainly come up, along with fracking fluid compounds.

      FYI, anyone who runs a farm, gets their water trucked in, knowing damn well, that if they have any livestock, they don't want to contaminate them for human consumption.

    4. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by davester666 · · Score: 0

      fracking in the area has no affect on water taste or quality. that's what the pamphlet says that the oil company left in my mailbox and I have no way to prove otherwise.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      My understanding was also that a healthy human's urine was pretty much sterile. The Russians (and probably others in the Russian East) have a traditional cleansing routine where they drink their own urine too (with a very specific diet while doing it). It is supposed to have stuff in it that once put back in the body, causes the body to start cleansing toxins naturally. I was assured it was a great, "natural" way to get rid of kidney stones, and a lot besides. The problem is that it needs to be drunk neat, and quick before the bacteria start multiplying... Getting it straight back in is ideal :-).

    6. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by mirix · · Score: 1

      If you live close enough to glaciers you get no cattle or human urine. Still some bird and bear shit, though.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    7. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      my well tastes better than any of the local water supplies in my area, Im also in the mountains so I dont get any runoff directly

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      On the upside, if you're worried about bacteria, you can apply a match and it's self-boiling.

    9. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      And (some) South Koreans believe a fan left running overnight can kill you. People come up with the weirdest shit (no exceptions, there's nonsense everywhere)

    10. Re:Ever glass of tap water in LA. by mrex · · Score: 1

      The only people that don't have someone 'upriver', drink cattle urine instead.

      I'm not sure whether or not I have to say this, but I will: milk is not actually the cow's urine. Rather, it's exudate from mammary glands.

  4. The fuck?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    David Shaff obviously has a thing for watersports. It takes a Republican level of personal denial to drain 38 million gallons just to avoid drinking a little bit of pee.

    1. Re:The fuck?! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Informative

      David Shaff obviously has a thing for watersports. It takes a Republican level of personal denial to drain 38 million gallons just to avoid drinking a little bit of pee.

      Mr. Shaff began working for the City in 1978. He worked for the first 25 years in the Bureau of Human Resources, primarily in Labor Relations. While working in Labor Relations, Mr. Shaff was responsible for negotiating each of the City's collective bargaining agreements multiple times and ended his tenure there as the City's Labor Relations Manager in 2003.

      Funny; sounds more like a "Progressive" ...

    2. Re:The fuck?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question is why does this region of liberals have a history of peeing in their own water supply.

    3. Re:The fuck?! by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Same stupid off topic post in every thread. What a moron.

    4. Re:The fuck?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. Republicans don't drain reservoirs over pee, they drain them over fluoride.

    5. Re:The fuck?! by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      A Progressive would more likely be negotiating for the other side. Just because his position had Labor in the title doesn’t make him a union organizer.

    6. Re:The fuck?! by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      Isn't that what liberals always do, if only metaphorically?

      See Detroit for details.

    7. Re:The fuck?! by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Does Portland even have conservatives? Surely not in Portland anyway.

    8. Re:The fuck?! by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Detroit was screwed by banks such as USB. Pre-crash, Detroit bet that interest rates would go up. After the crash, rates went down, and banks and traders did shady things like the LIBOR scandal to lower rates. Detroit thus had big payments to make to USB.

      But Detroit isn't insolvent. It has cash flow. There is no reason for Detroit to go bankrupt, it can make payments. Bankruptcy is a scheme to weaken the negotiating power of city workers. If Detroit was a private company, it would be able to renegotiate its payments. Or the Fed would bail it out. Why doesn't the Fed bail out Detroit? One of the reasons the Fed cited when it bailed out banks was that pensions would be threatened otherwise. In Detroit, its precisely pensions that are being reduced. The Fed could act. Why doesn't it?

      In conclusion, Detroit should not have been making bets with big jackal banks like USB. But even now, Detroit has cash flow, it is not insolvent. It should be bailed out, because pensions are at stake.

    9. Re:The fuck?! by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

      The real question is, since it's Portland, which way do the vessum vote? Are they influenced by the Grimm?

    10. Re:The fuck?! by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      In the fifties, Detroit was one of the most prosperous cities in America, but after half a century of one party progressive government, starting in 1962, it is a bankrupt toilet.

      "Detroit bet". No, the corrupt kleptocracy ruling Detroit made that bet.

      And now that the Detroit tax base has dried up, you want a bailout from national tax payers to keep the kleptocracy going. Typical. That's the way the Takers always see it - there will always be someone else to shake down and rob.

    11. Re:The fuck?! by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      David Shaff obviously has a thing for watersports. It takes a Republican level of personal denial to drain 38 million gallons just to avoid drinking a little bit of pee.

      Mr. Shaff began working for the City in 1978. He worked for the first 25 years in the Bureau of Human Resources, primarily in Labor Relations. While working in Labor Relations, Mr. Shaff was responsible for negotiating each of the City's collective bargaining agreements multiple times and ended his tenure there as the City's Labor Relations Manager in 2003.

      Funny; sounds more like a "Progressive" ...

      I don't know the man's political leanings, but I know plenty of Republicans who have to deal with unions as part of their jobs. If you read (you know, read and understand), it says he's negotiating on the city's side, he's not part of the union.

      I don't think any of this says anything the man's political persuasions. What it does say is you and the grandparent poster both need to go sit in the same corner wearing the same dunce caps for making the same dumb ass inferences for insanely stupid reasons.

    12. Re:The fuck?! by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Does Portland even have conservatives? Surely not in Portland anyway.

      Judging by bumperstickers, oh yes.

      Conservatives in Portland are a funny bunch. They're hear, but definitely in the minority, so they're much louder about their political officiations. That's not to say I don't see liberals with cars covered in Obama and Kerry (yes, Kerry) bumperstickers. But typically conservatives in these parts have the bump stickers, signs in the windows, signs in the yard, etc etc.

      And, unrelated to the point above, every so often there is a restaurant here that seems to prefer Fox News on the TVs. And there are definitely registered Republicans in government. Our Democratic Senator even worked on several bills with Paul Ryan, so even the Dems here are a little more willing to bend.

      Short answer: Yes, there definitely are conservatives in Portland. Portland is kind of a live and let live city. Just as long as no one is bothering anyone else.

    13. Re:The fuck?! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The Fed is not taxpayer-funded. It returns profits to the Treasury each year. It can easily provide Detroit with the same zero-cost borrowing it provides to financial institutions.

      The main point is that Detroit is not insolvent. It has cash flows. It should not be in bankruptcy. Putting it in bankruptcy is a political decision to punish city workers by not honoring promises made to them.

    14. Re:The fuck?! by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Fed can basically print money, which is a crime called counterfeiting when done by anyone else.

      And that's your solution to the crime of the progressive kleptocracy of Detroit - a crime against the nation as a whole by the Federal kleptocracy.

      Someone's not insolvent if they have cash flows? Really? If you owe a billion dollars, but have cash flow of 1 dollar a day, you're "solvent"? You must be a government accountant. Ah! An accountant for Detroit City Government! Mystery solved!

    15. Re:The fuck?! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's 'Wesen.' Pronounced 'Vessen' as it's a german word, and follows their pronounciation rules. W can be prounced as V.

    16. Re:The fuck?! by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      From http://detroitdebtmoratorium.o...:

      The emergency manager, ideally in collaboration with the state, needs to increase revenue by $198 million annually to bridge Detroit’s budget gap until structural programs can be put in place and the city can benefit from increased general economic improvement. This includes enlisting state involvement on an emergency basis and restoring discretionary state revenue sharing to pre-crisis levels. The shortfall amount can be reduced as FY 2014 proceeds by factors such as improved collection of unpaid taxes (which has yielded modest results to date).

      I may have been wrong about the definition of insolvent. Detroit is insolvent because it can't make its payments. There is another kind of insolvency that businesses continue to operate under. From wikipedia:

      A business can be cash-flow insolvent but balance-sheet solvent if it holds market liquidity assets, particularly against short term debt that it cannot immediately realize if called upon to do so. Conversely, a business can have negative net assets showing on its balance sheet, making it balance-sheet insolvent, but still be cash-flow solvent if ongoing revenue is able to meet debt obligations, and thus avoid default: for instance, if it holds long term debt. Some large companies operate permanently in this state.

      One might argue that Detroit has assets and cash flows that, while unable to make its payments right now, will make it solvent in the future. Someone, the state or the federal government or the Fed, should help Detroit in the meantime.

      The case of Detroit is somewhat similar to what happened to AIG in 2008.

      AIG was exposed on credit default swaps, Detroit was exposed on interest rate swaps. But in both cases, the banks on the other side had written into the contract terms that triggered big payments, in case of a ratings downgrade for example. So when rates went down, Detroit was downgraded by the ratings agencies, and UBS (similar to what Goldman Sachs did in the case of AIG) demanded payment immediately of the future projected values of the swaps.

      The Fed bailed AIG out, though. From wikipedia:

      "AIG’s credit rating was downgraded and it was required to post additional collateral with its trading counter-parties, leading to a liquidity crisis that began on September 16, 2008 and essentially bankrupted all of AIG. The United States Federal Reserve Bank stepped in, announcing the creation of a secured credit facility of up to US$85 billion to prevent the company's collapse, enabling AIG to deliver additional collateral to its credit default swap trading partners."

      SIGTARP was created to bail out AIG.

      SIGTARP mentions "retirement accounts" as a concern of the FRBNY leading to the AIG bailout, on page one of its report. Why isn't it concerned about the retirement accounts of the inhabitants of Detroit?

    17. Re:The fuck?! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Everyone pisses in their own water supply. That was an easy one. ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re:The fuck?! by torsmo · · Score: 1

      There's a doctor-turned-politician lady I keep hearing about. Don't know how much popular support she has, though.

    19. Re:The fuck?! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Nuclear Wesens?

    20. Re:The fuck?! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      One might argue that Detroit has assets and cash flows that, while unable to make its payments right now, will make it solvent in the future. Someone, the state or the federal government or the Fed, should help Detroit in the meantime.

      Haha, sure. "I can't pay you today but I can pay you Friday. Thursday is payday and I have a hot tip on a horse. Can't lose".

      Lending money to people who can't manage their finances is a mugs game. Unfortunately, the productive have little say in the matter when it comes to government splashing our wealth around.

    21. Re:The fuck?! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The question is which is the greater harm, enforcing an unfair contract weighted in favor of the most powerful banks while breaking promises to retirees, or working to improve the General Welfare by helping Detroit in a time of crisis? Government should provide for the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution, twice.

      It was UBS who loaned money to Detroit, writing a complex contract that imposed very heavy penalties for events such as a ratings downgrade. And of course, the ratings agencies have a conflict of interest: they are biased towards the banks and traders who pay them for ratings. A downgrade of Detroit helped UBS, and UBS pays the ratings agencies.

      Detroit should not have entered into a contract with a jackal like UBS. But who will suffer, if the Fed or the federal government bail out Detroit? If they don't, innocent retirees who played no part in the events that led to Detroit's crisis will suffer.

    22. Re:The fuck?! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      He worked for the first 25 years in the Bureau of Human Resources

      Since we aren't given much to go on, gotta use what I have. The above doesn't really suggest a conservative.

      Anyway, I was replying to someone who's logic is that since someone doesn't like something, therefore he must like it. Compared to that, my post could be prize-winning in its rigorous logic and sourcing ...

  5. how many animals do their thing in it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im willing to bet the bottom of that thing has a nice big layer of bird poop at the very least.

  6. Well they are elected by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ignorant voters will fire anyone who is a member of the water board/district if it discovered they allowed piss to enter their facets.

    Unlike the corrupt state and federal governments the local ones actually listen to their constituents.

    1. Re:Well they are elected by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

      I damn sure don't want any piss in my facets. That's even worse than piss coming through my faucets.

    2. Re:Well they are elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then the governing officials better hope their constituents never learn of one of the things that made it so easy for this dude to piss in their water.

      (It's because the reservoir containing the post-processed water is completely open to nature. IE, there's probably more bird poop in there from birds flying overhead than there was piss from this one guy.)

    3. Re:Well they are elected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't blame this one on the voters, it's just this guy drumming up extra work for his contractor buddies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Well they are elected by doggo · · Score: 1

      DingDingDingDingDingDing!

      Got it right on the money!

    5. Re:Well they are elected by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      What if it was beer?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re:Well they are elected by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Oh, this old canard.

      No, it has nothing to do with contractor buddies. That is a fall back conspiracy position put out by clueless morons.
      It is strictly a PR issue. I know because I worked at the Portland WB and have talked to him several times about this issue.

      The city has a group of fear mongers trying to dictate what the WB should do, regardless of science. They are right up their with anti-vaxers and chemtrail loons.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire a top-class guard person to that area immediately. If you really can pee into the water supply, you could easily poison it too.

    1. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you would need a lot of poison? I'm not gonna do the math, but I don't think the amount you would need to poison a 38 million gallon resivor would be able to be carried by hand.

    2. Re:Guard by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... and just like urine in the water, it would take a lot of poison to have any impact on the supply.

      Viruses or bacteria that are chlorine resistant, on the other hand, could be a nasty problem.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Guard by tragedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Easily" poison 38 million gallons of water? See, this is exactly the same problem from the original article. A typical person drinks a lot less than 1 liter of water at a time, but we'll be generous to your poisoning idea and base our required dose of poison on 1 liter of water. Probably the most deadly known poison by unit mass is Batrachotoxin. In order to poison 38 million gallons of water so that every liter contains a fatal dose, you would need about 15 tons of it. 15 tons of poison produced by a particular species of frog, and then only when they eat a particular species of beetle, is pretty hard to come by. If you went with something more generally available, such as some form of cyanide, you'd need about 228 tons.

      So, your plan to poison the water supply is dastardly, evil, possibly even insidious... but not remotely practical. Sure, you could do it, but the expense would be high and the effictiveness would be relatively low since the water can be shut off centrally. You'd have a lot more luck just getting your henchmen to go on a rampage through the main street with conventional weapons.

    4. Re:Guard by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Urine doesn't contain any of the above unless the person has a bladder infection. Your kidneys are pretty good at removing those from your urine for this exact reason (avoiding bladder infections.)

    5. Re:Guard by sjames · · Score: 2

      And then there's trying to get away with it. If one teenager peeing was enough to set off the alarms and get the reservoir drained, I'm pretty sure a fleet of dump trucks would be noticed.

    6. Re:Guard by gyepi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your calculation is way off, only 14kg of Batrachotoxin would be needed to render 38m gallon of water lethal, not 15 tons. One can carry that much in a backpack, not to mention that this is for doses that are lethal to everyone (if evenly distributed); much less would be sufficient to cause serious health issues for the majority who drinks from it.

      (According to wikipedia sources 100 microgram of Batrachotoxin is lethal for a 68kg person. 100 microgram in every liter of 144,000,000 l (=38m gallon) of water requires 144,000,000*100microgram = 14.4 kg poison.)

      This is of course not a justification for draining this amount of water from the pool every time the pool is micturated upon in the fair city of Portland.

      --
      Attitudes make the difference between Space and Time: we want to MAX our temporal, and MIN our spatial extension.
    7. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a few pounds of peanut? You're bound to kill a few people, and isn't one enough to spread fear and panic? Just look at what a bit of harmless piss has accomplished.

    8. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could do it, but the expense would be high and the effictiveness would be relatively low since the water can be shut off centrally. You'd have a lot more luck just getting your henchmen to go on a rampage through the main street with conventional weapons.

      Supervillany isn't about delivering the most damage at the lowest cost. You're thinking of MBAs. If a supervillain succeeds he's out of a job, and finding another planet to practice EVIL is not as easy as it sounds.
      So the right way to do it is by taking the frogs to the moon, extracting the poison there, then landing the payload on an asteroid, changing its course to fall on Earth, then have a henchman extract the frog poison from the meteor and contaminate the water. And if it looks like you're almost succeeding you can always explain the whole plan to the retarded hero.

    9. Re:Guard by thoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I wanted to "easily poison" a water supply, I'd just form a corporation, say one that stores chemicals meant for coal mining, and build my facility near a river that supplies a small city's water supply.

      That way, not only would I get limited liability if there was an "unforseen accident", my corporation could declare bankruptcy and dodge all lawsuits.

    10. Re:Guard by Mephistro · · Score: 1

      A gallon or two of methylmercury would probably kill thousands of people, and make many thousands more very, very sick.

    11. Re:Guard by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Besides, aren't most residents of Portland accustomed to consuming a little urine every now and then?

    12. Re:Guard by The123king · · Score: 1

      Chuck 500 grams of ricin in would be more effective, and likely be easier to get.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    13. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      100 microgram of Batrachotoxin is lethal for a 68kg person

      So you'll need to double the dose for American sized humans.

    14. Re:Guard by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to be really nasty you could just drop a bunch of Irukandji in the tank.

      "I didn't think it was possible for anyone to endure that level of pain without turning into a vegetable." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

    15. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/38,000,000 means 0,0263 ppm. To put things in perspective, regular cans of light tuna contain on average about 0,17 ppm of methylmercury.

    16. Re:Guard by tragedy · · Score: 0

      Whoops. I feel a bit foolish. I seem to have mixed up something. I looked at a bunch of poisons and I must have mixed up the numbers for cyanide (which comes out to about 15 tons) and Batrachotoxin. Not sure now which one was the 228 tons. In any case, batrachotoxin is still not very realistic. I brought it up because it was the deadliest poison by mass I could find. 15 tons was an absolutely ridiculous amount of the poison. 15 kilograms is still an unrealistic amount to obtain considering that you have to get it from wild-captured frogs in tiny amounts. Aside from that, I don't think it's actually water soluble, and I'm not sure whether it's as lethal taken orally. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of people don't drink a liter of water all at once. They take a sip and, if there's a potent, instantaneous poison, they notice it instantaneously. It's still a serious potential health issue, as you say, but far less than a lethal dose, at which point they call emergency services. After a few such calls, someone hopefully realizes what's going on and has the city water supply shut down and sends out a warning through every available emergency channel. That's a fatal flaw with many possible poisons.

      Someone suggested Ricin in another post but, taken orally, that would require nearly ten tons in the water supply to be lethal. Overall, the poisoning plan seems to be less effective than getting a bunch of henchmen to just shoot up the town with conventional weapons.

    17. Re:Guard by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I mixed up some poisons in my first post, but I did look at ricin. It would be more like nearly ten tons of ricin since oral exposure is far less dangerous than inhalation. If you had a lot of ricin, it would seem to be more effective to actually gas attack a large populated area.

    18. Re:Guard by amaurea · · Score: 2

      Botulinium toxin is the most deadly poison known, with an LD-50 of about 1.4 ng/kg (though that's when injected - I'm not sure what it is when drunk. I think it's broken down pretty rapidly outdoors too). With that, you would need about 15 mg to make all 143 million liters deadly (for 68 kg persons drinking 1 liter each). It it also mass produced for use in cosmetics, so it's easier to get than Batrachotoxin. Thouh as I said I think it's broken down pretty quickly under normal conditions (was it by exposure to oxygen?), so it's not anything to worry about in this context. But it's a good illustration of how potent poisons exist.

    19. Re:Guard by kefkahax · · Score: 1

      Just ask Dorma

    20. Re:Guard by Mephistro · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that people consume hundreds of times more water than tuna.

    21. Re:Guard by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only in your fantasy land.

      Great hyperbolic story about "evil corporation$" but not remotely close to what would really happen. If you tried to do what you claim, you would find the regulation, permitting, and legal requirements would far outstrip your ability to meet them. You want to build a plant by a river? Hah! The EPA says otherwise. You want to handle poisons? Hah! OSHA will be all over you before you start. You want to put water back into a river? Go see the EPA again. Wash, rinse, and repeat until all government bureaucrats for all government agencies are satisfied.

      Translation: you wouldn't even get to step 1 of your diabolical scheme because the world does not work the way you describe, even though it sounds great

    22. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you really not been following the news?

    23. Re:Guard by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      So all you would need is a microwave device big enough to vaporize the cities water supply.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    24. Re:Guard by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      My water comes from a popular local reservoir which allows people to swim in it and has about 9 miles of shoreline. A water supply is never going to be secure, it's impossible.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    25. Re:Guard by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Now, now, let's be fair, we shouldn't leave out those that would require triple the dose.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    26. Re:Guard by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'd rather skip the unforeseen accidents and just get the American Dental Association (or similar) to vouch for its wondrous therapeutic benefits. That way I can get the fools to dump it into the water themselves.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    27. Re:Guard by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's poison when ingested as opposed to insert directly into the blood stream

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:Guard by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much draining the water would help if the contaminant was actually batrachotoxin.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    29. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To continue with gyepi response. A lethal dose it not needed. Only enough to create illness and paranoia. That is far more dangerous weapon and tactic than killing anyone. A group fearing for their lives will do anything to survive; even turn on their own neighbors. Once chaos has begun the the terrorists can do more damage while the government is focused on the original victims.

    30. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    31. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is for sub-cutaneous exposure. From the material safety datasheet:

      SWALLOWED
        Accidental ingestion of the material may be harmfeul; animal experiments indicat that ingestion of less than 150 gram may
      be fatal or may produce serious damage to the health of the individual.

    32. Re:Guard by tacokill · · Score: 1

      That company was formed back in 1992. Are you suggesting they formed that company for the purposes of polluting the environment and escaping liability by declaring bankruptcy? They thought of this 31 years ago and only now are implementing their plan?

      Two questions: a) Are you serious? b) why would they wait so long for the grand prize? Why not pollute and go bankrupt in year 2 and save the trouble of the other 29 years?

    33. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must have used milligrams not micrograms

    34. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not that this was their intent but that this story shows that the plan is feasible, regardless of the intent. If this had been their intent, the only difference is the chemical spill would have happened 10-15 years ago.

    35. Re:Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, except that is exactly how the world worked. Large plant, beside river, whoosh.

      You may have overlooked the power that money has over regulatory bodies, particularly politicians.

      AC

    36. Re:Guard by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have been clearer. I just meant viruses or bacteria in general. Not anything passed from the urine.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  8. And yet birds die in it... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...all the time. It's all psychology, it's human urine - therefor it is oh so terrible. Think of all the bird-droppings, huge flocks of birds flying by...doing their thing. They carry far more diseases with them than we dare to even think of, never-mind mention in the news. But human urine? Yuck ;)

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:And yet birds die in it... by gtall · · Score: 3

      Who's worried about the birds, it's the bears I worry about. Ever see one of them piss? Niagara Falls would blush. And they are pissing in our reservoirs.

    2. Re:And yet birds die in it... by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      I looked it up and this Grizzly piss is far from impressive:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    3. Re:And yet birds die in it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simpler than that. If an animal does it is natural and therefore good. If a human does it it's unnatural therefore bad.

    4. Re:And yet birds die in it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy thing is human urine is one of the best sterilizing agents on the planet. When it comes to diseases in water supply I think I'm more worried about the ones carried by cold blood and fast moving creatures since those can survive the temperature and turbulence in the pipes.

    5. Re:And yet birds die in it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear whizz beer, it's in the water!

  9. Don't tell them that... by silviuc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fish crap in their drink along with frogs, birds and who knows what else. They have water treatment plants to make it drinkable, how the fuck do these morons get into such high positions?

    1. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Portland doesnt treat its water after this resivour. This doesnt imply that I agree with their decision.

    2. Re:Don't tell them that... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Actually, Portland doesnt treat its water after this resivour. This doesnt imply that I agree with their decision.

      In other words... the water already has enough chemicals in it that nothing will grow.

      They still gotta do something to keep the turbidity down, from dirty in the reservoir... however....

    3. Re:Don't tell them that... by drolli · · Score: 4, Funny

      Better nuke the reservoir form orbit, the only way to be sure.

    4. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fish crap in their drink along with frogs, birds and who knows what else. They have water treatment plants to make it drinkable, how the fuck do these morons get into such high positions?

      We don't filter the water. We have an EPA waiver not to have to filter our water. Only one in the country, since the water up in the Bull Run Watershed is so pristine (no human activity allowed in the entire watershed area, over a hundred square miles, 1/3 of the water is supplied by dew drip off of fir trees). Our water comes from the source much cleaner than would come out of the filtration systems used in other cities.

    5. Re:Don't tell them that... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Do they ban bears, birds, deer, etc? Just because there's no humans doesn't mean that there isn't poop and stuff in the water. Also, what about fish? I'm sure that the fish poop and have sex in the water.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    6. Re:Don't tell them that... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Changing that plan a bit... maybe with a little less mass murder...

      Putting spent nuclear fuel in such a tank could kill many of the microorganisms and make the water safer for consumption.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:Don't tell them that... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      We don't filter the water. We have an EPA waiver not to have to filter our water. Only one in the country, since the water up in the Bull Run Watershed is so pristine (no human activity allowed in the entire watershed area, over a hundred square miles, 1/3 of the water is supplied by dew drip off of fir trees).

      That doesn't change the fact that fish, birds, frogs, etc crap in the water. This whole thing is the same reason a lot of people believe in homeopathy - the idea that extremely diluted quantities of a beneficial substance still carry the same benefits. Homeopathy is basically the converse of the disgust reaction we have to inconsequentially miniscule contamination - the idea that extremely diluted quantities of a harmful substance still carry the same harm. The ISS has one of the most sophisticated water reclamation systems ever made, whose filtration provides cleaner water than what you get out of the tap. But people are still "grossed out" over the fact that astronauts are effectively drinking their own pee. Out of sight, out of mind.

      The environment is dirty, and our bodies are fully capable of surviving with that dirt. This incessant demand for absolute cleanliness is probably the cause of the rapid increase in allergy rates. The prevailing theory is that allergies are result of over-cleanliness. Our immune systems are supposed to gradually build up resistance and tolerance to all sorts of pathogens and contaminants. But our modern, ultra-clean standard of living deprives our immune systems of gradual exposure to those substances. Then when we encounter it for the first time, our body goes nuts and overreacts, causing an allergic reaction.

      Our water comes from the source much cleaner than would come out of the filtration systems used in other cities.

      The cleanest water you can get is distilled. You slowly raise the temperature to boil off contaminants with a boiling point lower than water. At the boiling point of water you're getting pure H2O. The residual is everything with a boiling point higher than water. While it's absolutely clean, it's actually bad for you because it lacks minerals and salts your body needs, and the lack of dissolved content means metal from the pipes carrying it leech into it at an accelerated rate. So it's instead packaged in plastic or glass bottles and sold in stores. Rainwater is effectively distilled, except it picks up a lot of contaminants as it floats through the air, then falls down to the ground.

      The next cleanest you can get is reverse osmosis filtered. The pores in the filters are so small that nearly all contaminants are removed. Like distilled water, it's actually too pure. They have to add minerals and salts back into it for health and taste reasons. While it's too expensive to use for most municipal water supplies, a few cities on islands or in extremely dry regions do use them to provide tap water.

      Then come the spring waters, which are naturally filtered through miles of sand and rock.

    8. Re:Don't tell them that... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      (You know, ignoring the radioactivity of all the corroded stuff that might be in the water... meh, run it through a Brita, it'll be alright.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    9. Re:Don't tell them that... by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      People get into high positions by rising as those above are destroyed in the public eye. Those above are destroyed in the public eye when they fail to respond to every absurd panic with equal panic and alarm. A rational leader is soon removed from power.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Don't tell them that... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      Better yet, nuke greater Portland and be done with it.

    11. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, look. It's /this/ joke again.

    12. Re:Don't tell them that... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but that WAS tried before. USSR experimented with using gamma-sterilization to treat tap water. It worked fine, but turned out to be impractical, because radiation sources required for that are way too expensive.

    13. Re:Don't tell them that... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

      And yet it is an "open air" resivour... Meaning, birds, bats, insects, frogs, rats, squirrels, and other rodents and amphibians still crap and piss in the water.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    14. Re:Don't tell them that... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I imagine they at least run it through a filter before it hits the pipes.

    15. Re:Don't tell them that... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      2 mistakes in your post:
      >extremely diluted quantities of a harmful substance
      Urine is not considered a harmful substance.
      > to boil off contaminants
      No, distilled water is water that was boiled, then the steam is condensed to water then it is distilled water. Campers will boil water to make it microbiologically safe, but that is not distilled water, you can only distill by condensing the steam (FYI I am pretty sure RO water is also considered more pure than distilled water as well, definitely cleaner than boiled water.)

    16. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But people are still "grossed out" over the fact that astronauts are effectively drinking their own pee.

      Which makes it really funny when they grab a beer.

      (Not a jab at American breweries. Alcohol == Yeast Urine)

    17. Re:Don't tell them that... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      They do add chlorine but the Bull Run water needs little treatment or filtering.

    18. Re:Don't tell them that... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      I imagine they at least run it through a filter before it hits the pipes.

      I believe so. The water needs to be enclosed before they can test that the water is in compliant with state and federal standards: I am pretty sure, they must be doing something else... or the people in the area are already at risk (Not from Urine, from lax water safety standards).

      The reservoir is "open" and accessible to animals such as birds who can deposit feces containing pathogens such as cryptosporidium: which form oocysts (spores) that can pass through a number of types of filters and survive in high-chlorine (and otherwise chemically treated) waters.

      Therefore... they need to either be doing UV or ozone treatment after pulling water from the reservoir, or using a membrane/diatomaceous earth/slow sand filter to successfully filter out most crypto s..

      I wonder if this incident shouldn't raise alarm bells, that the post-reservoir treatment is ineffective, and members of the public might be endangered if an infected bird shits in the lake!

    19. Re:Don't tell them that... by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not true. From their site:

      How is my tap water treated?

      Bull Run water is not filtered.
      Chlorine is added to disinfect the water of any potential natural contaminants.
      Ammonia is added in a process called chloramination to ensure that water throughout the system meets federal and state drinking water regulations. Without ammonia the chlorine would evaporate by the end of the supply line.

      So, it's treated with chlorine and ammonia. And though it's not "filtered" in the decontamination sense, of course it's run through coarse filters to get large objects out of it before it goes into the pipes.

      The ammonia is especially ironic, since urea is basically what the body creates to make ammonia *less* toxic.

    20. Re:Don't tell them that... by AlabamaCajun · · Score: 1

      Birds, Fish and most of the non-human animal kingdom don't do drugs except those on the farms far from this piss hole. But how many parts per 38 million are we talking here. As what others have said that pee is not the bigger worry but a potential for poisoning gets pushed to the top of worries. Puts some steel walls around this pond for crying out loud. Except for the urea the pee is a lot cleaner then just about everything else getting into that water.

    21. Re:Don't tell them that... by Kotoku · · Score: 1

      I'd be greatly concerned. Not only could they reduce their costs by using an enclosed reservoir (those cleaning costs of $35,000 bi-annually? We do that each decade), but they would also limit exposure to harmful bacteria, as you mentioned. Those, most likely, the crypto and giardia inactivation is high enough at the point they are at that they can skirt it and still comply with all health department regulatory requirements.

    22. Re:Don't tell them that... by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      Actually, considering how well water works as a radiation shield, it would kill very little of them.

    23. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But our modern, ultra-clean standard of living

      You clearly haven't seen my kitchen.

    24. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.
      The second one is not a mistake.
      Just think about it. If just heat the water to 100 quickly, then your distilled water will still contain everything with a boiling point lower than water.

    25. Re:Don't tell them that... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      (a) what have drugs got to do with it and (b) what potential for poisoning are you referring to?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    26. Re:Don't tell them that... by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      People get into high positions by rising as those above are destroyed in the public eye. Those above are destroyed in the public eye when they fail to respond to every absurd panic with equal panic and alarm. A rational leader is soon removed from power.

      Or, more succinctly, shit floats!

    27. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the United States, anything labelled as "Spring Water" can't be tampered with by the bottler - no purification or treatment is permitted. It is not required to meet drinking water standards, and often doesn't meet drinking water standards.

    28. Re:Don't tell them that... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Is that a common process? Granted, I've got only a very elementary (no pun intended) understanding of chemistry, but I remember Mr. Wizard often telling us in no uncertain terms that mixing bleach (chlorine) and ammonia was a Bad Thing (tm).

    29. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent opportunity to give a prankster a hefty fine and clean out the basin
      at the same time. Lack of due respect for the drinking water of others should not be free of charge.
      Give him 5 years of military service as well. It might do some good. (Keep him out of the kitchen will you :-)

    30. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a clarification: The water pond (yes, open air, "pond") in question holds *pre-treated* water. In other words, it had already recieved all treatment when it was urinated in...it goes directly from the pond to faucets. Apparently Portand is under orders to cover the reservoir by federal regulators, but that is still a few years away.

    31. Re:Don't tell them that... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is not run through a filter at any time. The water from Bull Run is exceptional in many regards, and considered one of the best, if not the best, water sources in the world.

      They are trying to build a proper treatment facility, but fucktwads keep fighting them on it based on conspiracy theories.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Don't tell them that... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is not. Due to loug and stupid public outcry, the WB has been trying to get an exemption for those rules for a number of years at the cost of 10's of millions of dollars.
      The just recently got the final word saying no exemption, it has to be covered. Finally. The funny thing is., the original pan called for green way with fountains, and a track to be guilt of the enclosed reserves, but becasue the people fought them so long there isn't money in the budget for it so now they get ugly tanks.Until it is covered, the water is tested 2 times a week, for cryptosporidium along with a myriad of other safety processes.

      "hey need to either be doing UV or ozone treatment after pulling water from the reservoir, or using a membrane/diatomaceous earth/slow sand filter to successfully filter out most crypto s.."
      They new plants they finally get to build will be UV. They also wanted to fluoridate, and many the loons came out then. And where given a disproportionate amount of media time.
      So it got shot down. Welcome to Portland, where "Herp Derp" outweighs science.
      Not that it bothers me....

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Don't tell them that... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a common process.

      The reason mixing bleach and ammonia is bad is because it produces large amounts of chloramine as gas, which is harmful. In the bleach, the chlorine is bound in a liquid and hence you'd have to drink it in order to hurt yourself.

    34. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they find a spider?

    35. Re:Don't tell them that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking, but that WAS tried before. USSR experimented with using gamma-sterilization to treat tap water. It worked fine, but turned out to be impractical, because radiation sources required for that are way too explosive.

      FTFY

    36. Re:Don't tell them that... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't know which part is the reservoir.

      Here in Ã-rebro Sweden we take our water from a river which passes through the city, that water isn't all too good (you're not supposed to take a bath in it ..) and that passes the water treatment plant, after that the water is pumped to 3 or 4 what I assume would be called reservoirs and from there it passes .. hum, can't find the translate word for it, stone rich ground after which it's collected again and pumped into the water tower and then distributed outwards.

      If the reservoirs is for the treated water of course you're not supposed to mess with it. Then again a piss in 100+ million liters of water won't do much.

      Over here just a month ago the toilets at the top of the water tower had a leakage so sewage water from those had ran into the water reservoir underneath .. (there's a restaurant and one can travel up the water tower and look at the city from the top.)

      So similar issue though more nasty and a smaller reservoir and over here the recommendation was to cook the water until they had three clean samples (which the three following samples was so it became four days.)

  10. They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most important line in the article is the very last:

    The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean

    $35k is nothing when compared to even the lawyer fees of a single potential frivolous lawsuit over this. All it would take is one kid getting sick (likely for completely unrelated reasons). And then they'd have to start publicly defending the decision to not clean it. I'm not saying the cleaning is the practical choice. Just that the absurdity of the U.S. legal system makes it fiscally irresponsible for the city to do anything else.

    1. Re:They're just avoiding liability by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      Frivoulous lawsuits are yet another problem too.

    2. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most important line in the article is the very last:

      The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean

      $35k is nothing when compared to even the lawyer fees of a single potential frivolous lawsuit over this.

      How much would a judge charge to say "Don't be so fucking stupid. Case dismissed with prejudice."?

    3. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. kid said he never actually pee'd in the water, hit a wall before that...
      2. the amount is so miniscule, it makes homeopathy look dense...
      3. urine is essentially sanitary...
      4. people are 'tards...
      5. i would like to pee on people MORE as a result of this story and the reactions...

    4. Re:They're just avoiding liability by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously, the government is covering something up . . .

      . . . maybe the guy dumped a oil drum full of pure LSD into the water, before pausing to take a leak. The authorities are not mentioning the LSD to avoid panicking the public. You don't want to panic the public, while they are tripping their balls off.

      . . . or they spotted the Loch Ness Monster, and are draining the reservoir, to catch it in the shallows.

      . . . or maybe the guy showed signs of being a zombie, and they need to wait to see if he morphs into one.

      Ya gotta try to see through the headlines these days . . . the government is out to stuff you with disinformation . . . and they're always up to something not good . . .

      If you're in Portland, I would suggest just drinking pure grain alcohol . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the absurdity of people in general. Anti-vaxers (whom none were pro-unix), neurotic hand washers, colloidal silver...you name it.

    6. Re:They're just avoiding liability by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If you're in Portland, I would suggest just drinking pure grain alcohol . .

      I take it that you have been following your own advice....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:They're just avoiding liability by loshwomp · · Score: 2

      All it would take is one kid getting sick

      Urine is sterile. It literally can't make you sick at the concentrations in question. Case dismissed.

    8. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      In a just world when they catch the person that tampered with the water, they would foot them with the bill. Actions have consequences.

    9. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one kid getting sick (likely for completely unrelated reasons)

      Likely? That's an immense understatement!

    10. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly well typed for that level of intoxication, no?

    11. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Frivoulous lawsuits are yet another problem too.

      A non-problem much like statistically insignificant voter fraud. Voter ID is really about keeping the "wrong" sort of people from voting, and tort reform is really about immunizing the powerful from liability for even the most grievous corruption or negligence.

    12. Re:They're just avoiding liability by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And let's be honest, 38 million gallons of water isn't really very much.....it's probably not even a single day's usage. So it's not really a big deal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:They're just avoiding liability by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      The most important line in the article is the very last:

      The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean

      $35k is nothing when compared to even the lawyer fees of a single potential frivolous lawsuit over this. All it would take is one kid getting sick (likely for completely unrelated reasons). And then they'd have to start publicly defending the decision to not clean it. I'm not saying the cleaning is the practical choice. Just that the absurdity of the U.S. legal system makes it fiscally irresponsible for the city to do anything else.

      The vaccinations crowd is bad enough. How much is the first lawsuit going to cost when some parent decides that their kid got autism because they drank pee in the water?

    14. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. We're on the verge of drought this Summer. They have systems to clean the water system. There's no reason to even assume sickness from drinking the water is possible, and they could spend a couple thousand lobbying the public on the science of cleaning your water supply via the local media. Fucking idiots.

    15. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely different things. The *possibility* of a frivolous lawsuit causes a lot of stupid, wasteful things to be done (such as draining a reservoir or throwing away food instead of giving it to the homeless guy who is asking for it while watching hopelessly as it goes in the trash).

      I agree with you about Voter ID laws being pointless; all voting is statistically insignificant, it makes no sense for anyone to even bother (unless they vote third party).

    16. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe the guy dumped a oil drum full of pure LSD into the water, before pausing to take a leak. The authorities are not mentioning the LSD to avoid panicking the public

      If someone dumped a barrel of LSD into the Portland water supply, people would be tearing down the fence to get a drink.

    17. Re:They're just avoiding liability by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I take it that you have been following your own advice....

      ColdWetDog, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once it's out of the body it's no longer sterile and have plenty of nutrients for bacteria to grow. It's also possible for the kid to have a infection, the clap, or some other disease that got into his urine. I agree no one would have gotten sick because of this, but the cleaning cost vs the possible legal cost makes cleaning it worth it.

    19. Re:They're just avoiding liability by kimvette · · Score: 1

      It's portland. Most of the populace is already tripping so I don't think they would notice a few tons of LSD poured into the water. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    20. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Well the sun isn't over the yard arm yet, so probably still on the rainwater/distilled water.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re:They're just avoiding liability by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Urine may be mostly harmless, but if someone can get close enough to pee, they can get close enough to dump small quantities of something else. It sounds like the reservoir has a security problem, not a urine problem. Now that it has been publicized, the government is open to lawsuits or even false alarms from people who want to cause trouble without actually going anywhere near the water.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    22. Re:They're just avoiding liability by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because you are stupid and crazy?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:They're just avoiding liability by skydyr · · Score: 1

      ... tort reform is really about immunizing the powerful from liability for even the most grievous corruption or negligence.

      That can't be right. They're already much more immune than the rest of us.

    24. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my memories of Portland are correct, to get to the reservoir, you go to a park a bit outside downtown, walk up to a chain-link fence in the park, and spit through the fence about 10' downhill. It may be closer than that.

    25. Re:They're just avoiding liability by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Because you are stupid and crazy?

      Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water? Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      38 million gallons of water isn't really very much....So it's not really a big deal.

      38 million gallons, that's almost 150 million litres. That's not much, is it? Maybe in your land of plenty, that's probably the case, but in places like mine with per capita availability of only 40-60 lts of water per day, wasting that amount of water will cause considerable chagrin. Not that I'm envious of you or your lifestyle, or trying any guilt-tactics, but were it that this had happened here, we'd have utilized the water without second thoughts. I don't know, having faced water scarcity all our lives, it seems almost criminal to throw away perfectly good water.

    27. Re:They're just avoiding liability by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Jack. Eh? Look, eh? And I drink a lot of water, you know. I'm what you might call a water man, Jack - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Jackie.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    28. Re:They're just avoiding liability by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To do the math a little more accurately, looking at the population of the Portland area, they have about two million people in the area. So that means 19 gallons per person, which would be about 2 days worth, if they are drinking 40-60 liters per day (1 gallon = very roughly 4 liters). Not a whole lot.

      And yeah, Portland gets 38 inches of rain a year, so they aren't hurting for water at all. It feels really good to visit a place with plenty of water because then you can take as long a shower as you want and not feel bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:They're just avoiding liability by torsmo · · Score: 1

      Wow, Portland gets only 38 inches of rain? Why then, do Portlanders, keep whining about rain all the time?

    30. Re:They're just avoiding liability by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think because it comes in mist? On the other hand, Portlanders do give the impression of being a bunch of whiners

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:They're just avoiding liability by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    32. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Completely different things.

      Completely the same reasoning behind both fake memes: pretend something is a problem when it's not to shove through a right-wing agenda.

      The *possibility* of a frivolous lawsuit causes a lot of stupid, wasteful things to be done (such as draining a reservoir or throwing away food instead of giving it to the homeless guy who is asking for it while watching hopelessly as it goes in the trash).

      Does nothing of the kind. Real lawsuits are hard enough to bring to court, much less fake ones. You do know this is the same month where it came out that GM killed at least a dozen people because they were too cheap to spend an extra 50-odd cents a vehicle for a better ignition switch?

      "Frivolous lawsuits" are a right-wing boogyman, like "vote fraud" or "teacher's unions".

    33. Re:They're just avoiding liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gmhowell why do you post such farts for replies?

  11. 36 million gallons? by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

    What's that in something understandable? Like how many Olympic size swimming pools or Pacific Oceans?

    1. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like 3,500 backyard pools

    2. Re:36 million gallons? by CBravo · · Score: 2

      or libraries of congress, or liters

      --
      nosig today
    3. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, come on. Noone uses esoteric units of measurements like "liters"

    4. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you might be joking, but it's about 100 acre-feet, which is roughly the annual usage of 100 households. Portland has 250,000 households so we are talking about 4 hours' worth of water for the city of Portland.

      That is part of the reason they are so willing to dump the water. If it were 10,000 acre-feet they would certainly not be dumping it.

    5. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      36 million gallons of milk.

    6. Re:36 million gallons? by mapinguari · · Score: 2

      About 0.0000000000002 Pacific Oceans.
      Hope that helps.

    7. Re:36 million gallons? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      rough estimate, about 60 times the volume of the 3 main Library of Congress buildings combined

    8. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get your army new boots if there's that many achey feet...

    9. Re:36 million gallons? by olau · · Score: 2

      Are you sure you got the calculations right? You seem to be a factor ten off. According to Google, 36 million gallons are about 136,000 m^3, which with a typical (Danish) household annual water usage is around 1000 households.

    10. Re:36 million gallons? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

      1,505,144.03 cubic cubits. 57.575 nominal volume "Olympic size" swimming pools. 4,750,000 bushels. 25,313,380 imperial pints. 0.00000000000020300 Pacific Oceans. I hope that clarifies things. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:36 million gallons? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      rough estimate, about 60 times the volume of the 3 main Library of Congress buildings combined

      36 million gallons is about 140 million liters, or 140,000 m^3. 1/60th of that is about 2000 m^3.

      Are the three main Library of Congress buildings really as small as 700 m^2 (call it 7000 square feet) combined? Or did you drop a decimal somewhere?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I got them right, although now that I look up Portland's water usage (PDF) it turns out they are pretty good at conserving water, so I was off by a factor of 2. I would have been accurate in most American cities.

      First of all, the estimate I used includes businesses (i.e. if you want to know how much water a city uses you can estimate that it is about an acre-foot per household per year, even though some of this isn't used by the households). Second, unfortunately, Americans just use a lot more water. (Lawns, etc.)

    13. Re:36 million gallons? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Definitely. The first floor of the building I work in is 10,000. The government never builds anything that small.

    14. Re:36 million gallons? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I dropped the estimated number of floors somewhere.

    15. Re:36 million gallons? by sjames · · Score: 1

      192 million teaspoons. If it was cough syrup, it would be a full day's supply if every child in the U.S. got sick at once.

    16. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although now that I look up Portland's water usage (PDF) [portlandoregon.gov] it turns out they are pretty good at conserving water

      Hippies don't bathe, so ya their usage is well below average.

    17. Re:36 million gallons? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No. We use the international standard 'litre'.

    18. Re:36 million gallons? by Maritz · · Score: 2

      The litre (note the spelling) is the most perfect unit of volume, being as it is half the volume of a big bottle of coke.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:36 million gallons? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      What is that in Volkswagen Beetles?

    20. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An Olympic swimming pool holds about 660,430.25 gallons, so 36 million gallons is about 54.5 swimming pools.

    21. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's equivalent to 144 million quarts of milk.

    22. Re:36 million gallons? by sChatwin · · Score: 1

      38 M gals approx = 114 acre.ft 1 acre-ft will supply 2 average households for a year So this is water to support ~228 households for a year. Frankly this is not such a lot of water! The smallish lake that supplies my town's water is 245,000 acre-ft capacity (currently at 60% with the drought) and this handles ~65k households

    23. Re:36 million gallons? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      An African or European Volkswagen Beetle?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    24. Re:36 million gallons? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Well, when you put it like that, it's only a drop in the ocean.

    25. Re:36 million gallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

      I live in a metric country. Coke comes in 600ml, 1l, 1.5l and 2.25l bottles. Milk comes in 1l and 2l bottles.

  12. Budweiser trucks seen nearby by BlazingATrail · · Score: 5, Funny

    Budweiser sent trucks to take some of the piss water away to make American style beer

    1. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ladys a gents, What we have here is Pißwasser

      Rockstar, Buddwiser, And the City of Portland are proud to present Pißwasser.
      Every one loves American Beer, Video Games, America.
      Now you Can Drink the Beer that embodies every thing that is American.
      Look for it in your local stores everywhere, For the low low price of $19.99 a 6 pack.

    2. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's too thin, even by Budweiser standards. Maybe for Bud DietXTRAlite(tm).

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Piss is a step up from Budwieser.

    4. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Coors. Commonly known as "Rocky Mountain Piss Water".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says who? An American who knows how a good beer should taste? Nah. Go to Europe a few years and drink the good stuff in Germany, Czech Republic, Austria (where the Kangaroos live :D), and then say again that Piss is a step up from Budweiser (btw. not wieser). Probably the "Budweiser" that is sold in America tastes worse than piss, maybe it's like with Heineken(Netherlands) or Guinness(Ireland), which tastes in Countries outside Netherlands/Ireland absolutely horrible.

    6. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't work. It's horse piss in Budweiser, not human.

    7. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I spent 3 years in Germany from 85-88. Great beer and I drank many different varieties. I've had Czech beer also, in fact the best beer I ever had was from the Czech Republic. I mostly drank a german beer called Muenster Brau or some such. I used to get a case or so delivered to my door every week where I lived near Mainz. It came in a brown heavy bottle with a white flip top. The wines there were off the chain as well. I enjoyed many a winefest. Man I enjoyed those 3 years, I highly recommend Germany to anyone. Lots of history and really nice people. Clean and beautiful and some great food. So you see I speak from experience.

    8. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by jjbenz · · Score: 1

      Amen brother!

    9. Re:Budweiser trucks seen nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't work. It's horse piss in Budweiser, not human.

      Clydesdale, to be specific. You didn't think all they did was pull the wagon, did you?

  13. ambient bird pollution by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I suspect the ambient daily bird and other critter droppings in the reservoir per day exceed what these stupid kids did. 38M gallons will dliute it all safely. only idiot public officials would worry about a miscule harm.

  14. Lanted Ale.. by malkavian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the "old days" (medieval), Beer was preserved by adding Lant, to give Lanted Ale.
    Lant is stale urine, and it acted as a marvelous preservative. So, adding urine in this fashion to that volume won't be a problem. It's just one of perception..

    1. Re:Lanted Ale.. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      And they say American beer tastes like...

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Lanted Ale.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Who's going to sell it to the hipsters? Sounds perfect. They already drink coffee beans picked out of shit and yeast infected wheat 'beer'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Lanted Ale.. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You mean the time during which the Black Plague devastated the population?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:Lanted Ale.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and half of the population died before age 5.

      But that was safe because everything was organic and there were no vaccines.

  15. Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog. Long story short: The draining is part of a political fight between two groups who want to control and monetize the water supply. All in a city of nuts who, in this day and age, drink untreated water direct from uncovered reservoirs and streams. A lot of things to worry and wonder about there...

    1. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, astroturf. That makes things a lot clearer.

      The biggest user of water in Portland is also the largest financial backer of a May ballot measure to strip utility rate-setting responsibility from the Portland City Council.

    2. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      New York City water is untreated and it has some of the best water in the country.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by Alsn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Untreated" when referring to drinking water is an incredibly vague statement. Where I live, the city of Helsingborg, Sweden the water is "untreated" in the sense that it is pumped as is from a lake 80 km away through a long tunnel. It is then pumped into the groundwater at the edge of the city where it is pumped up and into the city's plumbing system which supplies almost 100k households.

      It's untreated in the sense that no artificial chemicals or filtering is taking place, but soil sediment filtering is one of the most ancient and effective ways of filtering water so there is a massive difference compared to an untreated open air reservoir where pretty much anything can go die and decompose.

    4. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Portland does add chlorine to the water but that's about all.

    5. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by Smurf · · Score: 3, Informative

      New York City water is untreated and it has some of the best water in the country.

      Really? Cause I've read otherwise:

      Before entering City pipes, all drinking water is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food-grade phosphoric acid, and sometimes with sodium hydroxide. Water quality and infrastructure are overseen by the City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in coordination with the EPA and New York State 's Department of Health.

      Source

    6. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by Kotoku · · Score: 1

      I've done enough lab work that I can confidently say this: Your groundwater is not clean. It might be safe enough though. But you have a much higher risk of contamination through natural and artificial pollutants and natural fluoride levels should (hopefully) have been checked to prevent enamel damage from overexposure. Good, clean, pure water would come (in my recommendations) from a reverse osmosis filtration system, UV treatment, and chloramines (or Ozone if you can keep a residual with it) to provide a residual in the pipeline. The costs go down as the project scales up and more natural redundancies take over because of the need for maintenance applications.

    7. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by BareSingularity · · Score: 1

      In the west side of the Netherlands we drink dune-water, i.e. water pumped from reservoirs deep beneath our dunes. It takes centuries for rain-water to trickle through the sand to where it collects and no-one is even allowed to walk in the area above these reservoirs. There is some treatment, i.e. fluorite is added, but other than that, it's straight from ground to tap. I wouldn't like to drink anything directly from an open water reservoir, not where I live anyway.

    8. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Per-home ROs are cheap as hell now. A system that was up to a grand (if you were being robbed) a decade ago is just over a hundred bucks now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So the Croton filtration system doesn't exist under the VanCortlandt park?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      It most certainly does, but the Croton system has been out of use for several years (source). When they get around to using it again, it only accounts for ~10% of the water - and in any case they're treating it mostly for color (turbidity) and not safety (the state's DOH doesn't distinguish, but the federal does). The city's water is untreated in the sense that it doesn't really pass through a treatment plant - they do put chemicals in it (a very small amount of chlorine, not enough to taste, and some fluoride) and it it is definitely unfiltered

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    11. Re:Discussed to death on Bruce Schneier's blog... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I was on a phone on a train when I typed that - knew it'd come back to bite me :/

      So NYC water is untreated in the sense that it doesn't pass through a treatment plant. They're working on a plant for the Croton system, which has been out of use for several years due to color (turbidity) reasons, not health. When it's done, the Croton system is expected to supply ~10% of the water.

      They do add the chemicals you mention, although the latter two are for the benefit of the pipes (cuts down on corrosion), not the people, so it's not really a water quality issue. I did know about the flouride, but that's a public health (teeth strength) thing so I don't really consider that a water quality issue either. They do add an small amount of chlorine, which I didn't realize - there's no taste or odor whatsoever. Frankly, it tastes like well water to me.

      It most definitely is unfiltered (100% now, ~90% when the Croton plant comes online), which is extremely rare, so there's no treatment plants as such. But it is "treated" in the sense that it's not exactly as it was when it left the reservoir for the pipe.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  16. Purity of Essence by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you realize that in addition to urinating in water, why, there are studies underway to urinate in salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  17. How does Ars feel about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using real units of measure?

  18. A little ditty by The123king · · Score: 2

    Here i sit
    In awe and wonder
    Would chaff drain a lake
    For a bit of chunder

    For the amount
    The kid did pee
    Is in the reals of
    Homeopathy

    But doesn't chaff know
    Fish and birds
    Will fill the lake
    With piss and turds

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  19. Why didnt they just call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American beer?

    Its Fucking close to water anyways.

  20. Perhaps it was because the prankster was the son, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of a homeopath, and the dilution only makes his pee taste stronger.

  21. It's not organic. by JustShootMe · · Score: 3, Funny

    I live in Portland. They'd probably allow it if he was a free-range drunkard with organic piss.

    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  22. Not Uncommon for Portland by windwalker13th · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not the first time that Portland has emptied a reservoir. This is the only time that it has made national news. One of the times that they drained the reservoir was for when somebody was attempting to pee in it and it was unclear if the intoxicated individual had actually urinated into the reservoir.

    The reservoirs in Portland are a bit of a contentious subject. We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs however the City Water Bureau does not. Despite a large public outcry to keep our open air reservoirs our water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs, did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air. While most Portlanders recognize the importance of controlling access to our water supply we wish that the water department listened to public comment more and acted less like a dictator.

    1. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

      I think there are some rare cases where public opinion is wrong, and this would be one of them. I also think this is a horribly passive-aggressive way of doing it. If you feel that strongly, just set in motion the process of capping them, and if it fails, well, you tried.

      I keep thinking of places down south who need all the water they can get, and we're just wasting a whole reservoir full. That saddens me.

      (I live in Portland, but I'm in the Tualatin Valley water district, so it doesn't affect me much.)

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    2. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by windwalker13th · · Score: 2

      I don't remember the exact details and I can't find the articles on the stupid website of the Oregonian but basically the process was sleazy. There was something about the way they awarded the contracts for the caping was inappropriate. The issue that I think pissed off the people trying to keep the reservoirs uncovered was that the Portland Water Bureau didn't bother filing the paperwork for an exemption from the Department of Homeland Security which then forced the City of Portland to cap/discontinue use of the open air reservoirs. Rochester NY which has the same kind of open air reservoirs applied for and was granted exemptions to keep their open air reservoirs. Yet in Portland despite the outcry to keep the reservoirs uncovered, didn't bother filing the paperwork to keep that option open.

    3. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Teun · · Score: 1
      I agree, these reservoir should be covered because these piss artists need some privacy.

      Especially in a country that hides toilets and WC's behind doors marked Restroom, Ladies and Gents or even Powder Room.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking of places down south who need all the water they can get, and we're just wasting a whole reservoir full. That saddens me.

      To put it in perspective, this is about two minutes worth of water use by the State of California. It's a long way from a significant amount.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs however the City Water Bureau does not. Despite a large public outcry to keep our open air reservoirs our water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs, did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air.

      What the hell... WHY?

      I used to live in Portland for about three years and regularly drank the tap water The idea that I was drinking water straight from an open-air reservoir post-treatment nauseates me. Why would anyone want this?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    6. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because pigeon poo is delicious, didn't you know?

    7. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not put an electricified screen fence around it?

    8. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The idea that I was drinking water straight from an open-air reservoir post-treatment nauseates me. Why would anyone want this?

      Maybe they like their water to have more body?

      Not me though.

      --
    9. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Because there is so far no scientifically validated reason to think it's a health problem: the water is regularly tested at the point where it's drawn from the reservoir, to monitor the water quality, and it's of excellent quality. Water quality isn't some weird mystical thing that depends on what you personally find the right thing to do, but is measurable.

    10. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least it didn't contain scarcely detectable amounts of (human) piss.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs"
      As a Portlander, I say "Speak for your self."

      "City Water Bureau does not."
      False, they just chose safety and meeting Federal standards of the open air system and it's costs.

      "Despite a large public outcry"
      less then 1000 people is not large. Loud, obnoxious and lying? yes.

      " water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs"
      It's Bureau and not a department, and they did work hard and spend a lot of money to get exemptions.

      "did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air."
      Gosh, it's not up to them, is it? What a nonsense statement.

      "the water department listened to public comment more and acted less like a dictator."
      the WB listen to the public. They have open meeting, and get input all the time. Frankly., they are too open becasue the only people who have time for input are idiots like you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There was something about the way they awarded the contracts for the caping was inappropriate."
      no, there was nothing wrong with it at all. Some people don't like it so the made shit up.

      "the Portland Water Bureau didn't bother filing the paperwork for an exemption from the Department of Homeland Security"
      nonsense.

      Do you know why Rochester NY is allowed to have SOME open reserves? hmm? no? I thought not. Another ignorant fucktwad Portlander who think what he feels is correct.
      I know, it's so much easier to scream and shout and believe in conspiracy theories then it is to research and think.
      YOU, and you ilk are harming portlanders and cause millions to be wasted.
      http://public.health.oregon.go...

    13. Re:Not Uncommon for Portland by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Because there is so far no scientifically validated reason to think it's a health problem"
      You are wrong. Factually wrong.
      Crypto has been found a number of times now.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. I don't drink water... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    ...fish fuck in it.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:I don't drink water... by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

      Trees fuck in the air. What do you think pollen is?

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    2. Re:I don't drink water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trees fuck in the air. What do you think pollen is?

      You are mistaken: trees reproduce by alternation of generations. Pollen is actually tiny... well, I call them "cumbots". When pollen lands on an ovary it drills a hole in it and jizzes sperm down the tube it drilled. So the tree is sending something that fucks for it by proxy.

      You can't make this shit up.

    3. Re:I don't drink water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but do bears shit in the woods?

    4. Re:I don't drink water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a diversity of reproduction methods in trees - not all trees flower or produce cones, and some flowering trees do not have a senso strictu gametophyte form at all (i.e., no viable sex cells are produced), even though there is clear structural anisomorphism. In the sorts of trees under discussion (i.e., ones that produce pollen), the structure of pollen grains, their development and germination, and the formation of pollen tubes is pretty varied as well, and it requires significant generalizing to argue that all of them follow the alternation of generations pattern. Finally, there are ample examples of vegetative reproduction of trees in unexploited forests all over the world, while conditions that favour clonal spreading are generally suppressed by modern forestry.

      However your point that tree pollen grains are almost never directly analogous to -- say -- sea urchin spermatazoa spawned into the sea, is fair.

    5. Re:I don't drink water... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how the good people of Portland know that the bears are not shitting in the reservoir.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  24. no one in PDX cares... by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    no one in PDX cares one way or the other... seriously the only ones that seem too dont even live there.

  25. The Parents Are To Blame by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    If those parents had left well enough alone and never taught the kid not to pee in his pants the kid never would have done this. If it was a young girl I wouldn't bother to dump the water.

  26. Get over it by mbone · · Score: 1

    It's an open reservoir. Birds use it. That is true of the vast majority of terrestrial water supplies, at some point in their use cycle. (Water in Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, comes from the Occoquan River.) What more do you need to say?

    1. Re:Get over it by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      The city of New Orleans gets their drinking water from the Mississippi River...

    2. Re:Get over it by Longjmp · · Score: 1

      You misspelled Missipissi...

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    3. Re:Get over it by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      So does Memphis. It's some of the cleanest drinking water in the world.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    4. Re:Get over it by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      And then Memphis dumps all their crap in the river and it flows downstream... New Orleans gets the river AFTER almost 2/3 of the country has dumped their crap in it.

  27. Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city knew full well that there was no problem with the water, but too many of its citizens would have created an uproar. Yes, they're uniformed, but the city just didn't want get bogged down with morons who would never ever understand.

  28. No one understands the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Oregon and this kind of thing happens in the Bull Run watershed quite regularly. Water is dumped, not for any "public safety's sake", but to cause thousands of dollars in "damages" to the city of Portland in order to justify raising the level of the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.

  29. When there is a problem action must happen by RubberDogBone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a classic example of governments and problems. When some sort of problem is identified, and "the people" want action to happen, the government has two choices to deal with the problem.

    One, they can take appropriate action, if they can do that and know what to do and how to do it. Even better if doing so is relatively cheap. In this case, you do the cheap thing to make it go away.

    Two, they can do everything in their power to suppress knowledge of the problem. A problem nobody knows about is one that doesn't need to be solved. This is especially important if the problem is big or serious, or affects a lot of people in a negative way, and to which the government has no solution. The only thing worse than a big problem is having "the people" aware of it and that their government is unable to act. So is is essential that the government take this route when they cannot solve the problem or don't know how, or can't afford the solution. Or there's some other reason they don't want to solve it but they can't admit that either.

    So type one problems, you dump the reservoir. It's cheap to clean it out and, well, water is cheap anyway.

    A good example of type two problems are the side effects from the chemical disposal mishandling at Groom Lake. To admit the problem exists would invite a huge liability mess. So by denying it, they avoid the problem. Because they can.

    It has been speculated one reason the governments generally dodge the UFO issue is that if they were ever identified as a real force(s) of some kind, then the people would demand that something be done about stopping it. It's not clear anyone would have the ability to DO anything about it and when your government can't protect you, what good is the government? So a problem like this would have to be denied.

    Thankfully there are no UFOs. So this is not a problem.

    --
    Sig for hire.
    1. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      There are many UFOs. All a UFO is is a flying object that hasn't been identified.

    2. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It has been speculated one reason the governments generally dodge the UFO issue is that if they were ever identified as a real force(s) of some kind, then the people would demand that something be done about stopping it. It's not clear anyone would have the ability to DO anything about it and when your government can't protect you, what good is the government? So a problem like this would have to be denied.

      Another reason to deny it is that it's bollocks. We aren't being visited by space aliens and anyone who thinks we are is delusional.

      When it comes to issues like this, the government should do whatever the best scientific advice says to do. To 'let the baby have his bottle' by caving in to a rabid public just illustrates people in government for what they are - unprincipled dicks who will say and do anything to get the job.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yep, true. And precisely none of the are alien space ships.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You missed one:
      They can do the scientifically accurate thing regardless of public outcry.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully there are no UFOs. So this is not a problem.

      So you claim!

    6. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "water is cheap anyway".

      Yeah, we probably wouldn't have just tossed it out down here in Tucson. Just sayin'....

    7. Re:When there is a problem action must happen by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How do you know none of them are alien space ships? It would surprise me to find out that there was one, and I certainly wouldn't want public money spent on the possibility, but I don't know enough to rule it out completely.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. but republicans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They love waste.

  31. "reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean" by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    Well there you have it. One man's costs are another man's revenue, after all, so don't explain with stupidity what you can explain with the sheriff boning the wife of the CEO of the company that cleans the reservoir. It's the least he can do to ease his guilt.

  32. Hah ! Homeopathic Terrorist Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the TSA program of confiscating bottles of water on planes was smart after all.

  33. Hey western united states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please continue to piss away your drinking water. It's not like it will be more valuable than gold come the end of the 21st century as you pollute more and more.

  34. Sigh... it's *math,* people by zorro-z · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the City of Portland's Website (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/Water/article/328963), the total capacity of the Portland reservoir system is about 220 million gallons, with "distribution storage reservoirs" ranging in size from 1000 to 10 million gallons. How much urine did this kid evacuate into the reservoir? According to the National Institutes of Health (cites in Livescience- http://www.livescience.com/323...), the average healthy human bladder can hold "nearly 2 cups of urine comfortably."

    Let's err on the side of caution on both sides- assume that this kid both had an insanely huge bladder capable of holding 2-1/2 cups of urine *and* that he peed into a 1000 gallon distribution storage reservoir- the worst-case scenario, in other words. 2-1/2 cups of urine is 20 ounces, which is equal to 0.156 gallons (128 oz/1 gal). 0.156 gallons/1000 gallons = 0.00015625- 0.00156% pee in the reservoir. And this is *before* the processing that happens to all water *after* it exits the reservoir and before it enters the city's pipes.

    The reason this is absurd is the same reason that fear of poisoning a city's water supply via open reservoirs is stupid: you'd both need so bloody much of whatever it is to have a significant amount *and* that something would have to survive various filtration, purification, etc. processes after that.

    No, scratch that... draining a reservoir b/c a kid peed into it isn't absurd, it's mind-blowingly stupid and a horrid waste of taxpayer money. Any lawyer who couldn't defend against a lawsuit the way I did above deserves to not only be disbarred, but to also have his college + HS diplomas revoked.

    --
    -Z
  35. Sovereign Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't sue the government unless you have its permission. Unless there is a law that permits you to raise doubt about the city's water quality in court, that's a non-issue.

  36. Lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lol... they're closing the resivour next year anyway:

    "Those natural contaminants are a key part of the Environmental Protection Agency's justification for a rule that requires all open-air reservoirs to be covered. Portland is scheduled to disconnect the open-air reservoirs on Mt. Tabor from the drinking water system by the end of 2015.

    Shaff said there isn't much the bureau can do about those natural contaminants in the meantime, and that they don't pose a serious health risk."

    http://www.oregonlive.com/port...

    So this is actually twice as stupid as it sounds.

  37. Solution to this repeated problem by runningduck · · Score: 1

    I have a solution this this repeated problem. They should run an electric mesh fence around the edge of the reservoir. When idiots decide to take a leak they will be in for a serious shock. If expense is an issue they can set up cameras and live stream then next idiot. The ad revenue of the video going viral should cover the costs.

    --
    -rd
    1. Re:Solution to this repeated problem by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Mythbusters weren't able to replicate the 'getting a shock through a stream of piss' thing. So I suspect it doesn't really happen. The real solution to the repeated problem would be to give the citizens and public officials of Portland a sense of reality such that they understand a little of something in a huge fucking amount of something is nothing to give a fuck about. ;) Especially when there are birds shitting in that same something.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  38. What fills the reservoir? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    My city's water supply comes from Shoal Lake, via a near 100 year old aqueduct. There are local reservoirs to store some in case of disruption.

    http://www.ryerson.ca/~amacken...

    Of course the native bands that live there are not really happy about the whole thing.....

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.c...

    I rather expect a lot of them piss in the water quite purposely every day, and people here know it.

    It is an act of symbolism, but it does not stop normal people from drinking the water.

  39. Don't drink the water by PPH · · Score: 1

    Fish shit in it.

    And birds, deer,bigfoot, bear, racoons. And since our city reservoir is a lake surrounded by residences, I'm sure numerous kids swimming the city park just don't bother getting out to take a whiz.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Where do the fish go? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Does the Portland city water supply reservoir has special aqua johns for all the fishes and frogs and all sorts of things that live there? And where do *they* go?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  41. I like the lobsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lighthhouses and Casco Bay. Oh wait, wrong Portland.

  42. People still drink tap water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? no water purifier at home? What's wrong with Americans these days?

    Our first purifier came from some USA brand and that's how we learned the correct way to drink.

  43. Ick factor by TJEx · · Score: 1

    It is not about science and logic but the ick factor and feelings. If they did not dump it someone would sue once they found out for the supposed danger even if there was none.

    1. Re:Ick factor by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Point out that they don't appear to mind drinking bird shit, win the case.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  44. Homeopathy by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    150mL urine in 150 million liters?

    1/10^9; that's a 9X potentiation! Holy shit, that piss would have been potent!

  45. Qualification by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    What is the qualification of the person that took that decision. I suspect once again we hit the problem of pure manager in charge of technical decisions.

  46. Well water is nasty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's well water have you been tasting? Well water in many areas is among the best tasting water, hands down. Zero processing. A natural balance of minerals. No chlorine or fluoride. How can you go wrong with that?

    1. Re:Well water is nasty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever had well water that was high in sulfur content? It's pretty nasty smelling. High iron content can make the water taste.. strong, as well. When I grew up, I liked our well water, but some neighbours had water even they wouldn't drink.

    2. Re:Well water is nasty? by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      In my area the well water often has naturally high levels of fluoride that causes fluoride stains. Don't let the dentist fool you though. There's nothing "damaged" about those teeth.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    3. Re:Well water is nasty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High levels of fluoride are required during tooth development in utero, and in the first two years of life. After that it's worthless.

    4. Re:Well water is nasty? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you kidding? Sure, there may be decent well water out there, but not in many areas. Much of the midwest US that uses well water has to use water softeners because of the mineral content, and some still have occasional boil orders for safety.

      I remember when my Chicago suburb switched from well water to Lake Michigan water. The lake water was not only much better tasting, but usually 10 degrees colder out of the tap...

    5. Re:Well water is nasty? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      and in many areas it's crap.

      otoh some areas have spring water pumped straight to the water utility.

      however, very few people choose where they live based on that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Well water is nasty? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Nope

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:Well water is nasty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never ingest fluoride. It causes fluoride spurs in your bones. High levels of Calcium are required during development in utero, and in tooth development in the first two years of life. After the adult teeth come in, fluoride is used to replace the natural enamel with something stronger so that simple acids like carbonic acid and citric acid don't cause tooth decay.
      http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/10/fluoride-can-damage-your-bones.aspx

    8. Re:Well water is nasty? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm in the midwest, and I find the well water pumped out of the aquifers tastes great. I'd rather have water straight out of the tap than most bottled waters, which always seem to taste like the bottle it came in. You're right about the mineral content though - it's hell on water heaters and it can make keeping a clean-looking shower a bit more challenging.

  47. Found a person with common sense !! by burni2 · · Score: 1

    And it's you, thank you & the guys at ars.tech.

    Also the comments from "David Shaff" a.k.a. "The Drain Man" are contradictory to the extreme

    "we fish out nature transgressions(dead brids, leafs ..)"
    and
    "do you want to drink someone's pee"

    "Do you want to drink the rot fluids of a dead bird" - yes because if we would clean the pool to often.

    Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Salem witch trail style reasoning.

  48. Homeopathic urine...great for new age yogis and ok by julian67 · · Score: 1

    ...great for yogis and ok for you.

  49. Both sides are silly by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes it's silly to dump all that water just because of a tiny bit of pee but it's also silly for people to say "Oh, but LA is sooo thirsty."
    Water is a local resource. It can't just be piped down to LA. And for the people of Portland it's not that much water. When I lived there one thing I never needed to worry about was saving water. It rains a lot there. 38M gallons is about 20 seconds flow of the Columbia river. My water bill was so low as to be negligible; I literally never had to think about it. That may be hard for people in drier parts of the country to grasp but there's no reason to Portland should feel bad. For all we know that reservoir was due for a cleaning anyway.

    1. Re:Both sides are silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is already being diverted over 700 miles down to LA from Northern California. Even pumped over a 2000' elevation mountain range. Whats another 300-400 miles? LA would be a desert if it were not for the water they ship in from Northern California and the Colorado River.

    2. Re:Both sides are silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Water is a local resource. It can't just be piped down to LA."

      Stimpy, you Eeeeeeeediot.....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catskill_Aqueduct

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No._3

      http://www.aquafornia.com/index.php/where-does-southern-californias-water-come-from/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars

    3. Re:Both sides are silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Portland too and my monthly water bill varies between $200 and $300. If that is so low as to be negligible I have to wonder how much money you are making. I'm obviously in the wrong job.

    4. Re:Both sides are silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I live alone, in Tucson, and my water bill is rarely over $50. What the heck are you doing?

    5. Re:Both sides are silly by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, the reservoir had been recently cleaned before the 3ppb contamination occurred. 3 weeks, I think.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  50. Water quality higher than most of the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Portland city water supply is continually tested, and those tests have repeatedly shown the water to be of higher quality (in terms of dissolved solids/minerals and contaminants) than most of the city/municipal water supplies in the United States -- despite the lack of treatment and open reservoirs. There's a 12,000 foot tall mountain with some of the cleanest natural springs in the world flowing directly in to the city water supply; a bottle of Perrier or San Pellegrino is probably dirtier.

    This whole thing is astroturf anyway; someone wants to take away the city's ability to set water rates.

    1. Re:Water quality higher than most of the US by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      The Portland city water supply is continually tested, and those tests have repeatedly shown the water to be of higher quality (in terms of dissolved solids/minerals and contaminants) than most of the city/municipal water supplies in the United States -- despite the lack of treatment and open reservoirs.

      Yep. Looking at kidney death rates on this map tends to agree with that:
      http://www.worldlifeexpectancy...

  51. Where is Harry Reid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would the boy that peed into the water supply be considered as domestic terrorist? If Reid think that Bundy supporters are domestic terrorists, than what should this boy be considered as?

  52. Don't tell Portland by Dasher42 · · Score: 2

    But every bit of water we've got has been dinosaur piss and shit at some point.

  53. And we thought Flouride was the big IQ killer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insensitive clod!

  54. Don't bother with facts please ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, any competent author of a nuisance lawsuit will be prepared to appeal and will (in this case) aim for a jury trial. Meanwhile he would signal being open to an out of court settlement to the tune of half a million plus legal costs.

    With that in mind, would you bet against his ability to manoeuver for a jury that will be swayed by rethoric about the ickiness of drinking pee?

    I'm afraid the grandparent post has nailed it: it's cheaper to waste a few million gallons of perfectly good drinking water than to risk a lawsuit.

    1. Re:Don't bother with facts please ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope he didn't. This is pure PR. nothing more. There is no risk form lawsuit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. More shockingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People pee in the water supply EVERY secondofevery minute of everyday !..

      Also the probability thata molecule of water that was inside adolf hitler is in each glass of water you drinkis actually very high. circa 90%.

      So you're not just drinking pee, you're drinking hitler's pee. And also showering in hitler's pee.

      The people who took this decision should be exiled to Somalia. Fuck them. Seriously.

  56. Demographics works against Detroit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is full of native Democrat voters.

    1. Re:Demographics works against Detroit. by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Then the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, the principle that the least popular person has the same rights as the most popular person, is violated.

  57. Nah, aliens would be the opportunity of a lifetime by Marrow · · Score: 1

    The government would gorge itself on military contracts, studies, and all manner of contracts. They would build entire schools to study the critters even if they didn't have a single cell to study.
    UFOs are the perfect enemy: They never attack (except when a little more fear is necessary) , your average human is terrified of them. Hunting rifles won't work against flying saucers. We would be totally dependent on the government to protect us from the grey devils.

    I can feel my taxes going up just thinking about it.

  58. More sanitary than the dirt he pissed on. by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    In survival manuals they will often tell you to piss on open wounds if you are unable to find a source of clean water to help clean out a dirty wound. Why? Because not only will the urine fluid flush out the bacteria but it will also kill a percentage of them.

    In the early days (colonial and uses-of-urine-442390/?no-istbefore) it was common for people to brush their teeth with urine, because it helped whiten the teeth and the ammonia can kill some of the bacteria that caused gum disease.

    Historic uses for urine
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

  59. Portlandia... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    I'm banking on Fred and Carrie writing this into "Portlandia" somehow.
    Good Lord what a gift from the people of Portalnd to comedy fans everywhere!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  60. Accountability anyone???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Undoubtably this mad pisser was held accountable for his actions, and either went 2 jail or paid some fines to the societal overlords. How about holding the overlords responsible for throwing away all this water. Maybe we could drown them. As a friend of fish I am pissed off that these tyrants can get away with this deed. I lost several good friends who happened to be living in all this water at the time. Now they are all gone. Devestation on a massive scale like 10 million voices screaming out in the night. We will not go quitely, and the more the portland overlords tighten their grip the more we will slip through. No rest until the overlords of portland have paid the price just like my friends did.

  61. uhh.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    It really is BS what has happened, as the water in the reservoir is going through a filtering system before it actually hits the pipes, at least that's something I hope it is, otherwise there are much MUCH worse things to worry about.. Hell one dead animal in the reservoir is much MUCH worse than even a football team pissing in the reservoir.. IMHO they should fire the person who decided to drain the reservoir..

  62. Homeopathy anyone? by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    Don't worry folks, the dose was at approved homeopathic dilution.

  63. It's about peace of mind by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I know the water is fine, but if I lived in Portland and they hadn't emptied the reservoir I would have been looking at the tap water a little more suspiciously, and if I was someone who sometimes bought bottled water I probably would have been a little more likely to buy some. I have no doubt many of you are the same.

    Someone peeing in the tap water is icky, it doesn't matter if it's irrational, we are irrational, and as costs of irrationality goes emptying a single reservoir is pretty damn cheap. There's times to stand on scientific principal, this isn't one of them. There's no point in grossing out an entire city, reducing confidence in the municipal water supply, and impacting human health and the environment by pushing people towards bottled drinks, just because it's irrational. Sometimes the most rational thing you can do is accommodate your irrationality.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  64. Water secretly sold to the highest bidder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a cover up. Portland is selling the water to a Fracking company or a Bottled Water company and just needs an excuse to explain why 38 Million gallons has gone missing. Water is gold these days. Quite brilliant really!