Slashdot Mirror


California Gets Past the Yuck Factor With "Toilet To Tap" Water Recycling

HughPickens.com writes: From a marketing point of view, using treated sewage to create drinking water is a proposition that has proved difficult to sell to customers. Now John Schwartz writes in the NYT that as California scrambles for ways to cope with its crippling drought and the mandatory water restrictions imposed last month by Gov. Jerry Brown, enticing people to drink recycled water is requiring California residents to get past what experts call the "yuck" factor. Efforts in the 1990s to develop water reuse in San Diego and Los Angeles were beaten back by activists who denounced what they called, devastatingly, "toilet to tap." Orange County swung people to the idea of drinking recycled water with a special purification plant which has been operating since 2008 avoiding a backlash with a massive public relations campaign that involved more than 2,000 community presentations. The county does not run its purified water directly into drinking water treatment plants; instead, it sends the water underground to replenish the area's aquifers and to be diluted by the natural water supply. This environmental buffer seems to provide an emotional buffer for consumers as well.

In 2000, Los Angeles actually completed a sewage reclamation plant capable of providing water to 120,000 homes — the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant in Van Nuys.The plan was abandoned after public outrage. Angelenos, it seemed, were too good to drink perfectly safe recycled water — dismissed as "toilet to tap." But Los Angeles is ready to try again, with plans to provide a quarter of the city's needs by 2024 with recycled water and captured storm water routed through aquifers. "The difference between this and 2000 is everyone wants this to happen," says Marty Adams. The inevitable squeamishness over drinking water that was once waste ignores a fundamental fact, says George Tchobanoglous: "When it comes down to it, water is water. Everyone who lives downstream on a river is drinking recycled water."

278 comments

  1. Yeah by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And it's got dinosaur shit in it

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ocean is 98% fish pee.

    2. Re:Yeah by o'reor · · Score: 2

      Not to mention fish cum.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    3. Re:Yeah by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that's why I only drink bottled cometary water. Artisanal too, I don't support the big comet water industries.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Yeah by Megane · · Score: 1

      More importantly, what are they going to do about all the DHMO in it? That stuff is dangerous in the quantities we're talking about here!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Yeah by bosef1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that's the best part of the fish:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milt

    6. Re:Yeah by tiberus · · Score: 1

      LOL, cuz that water was created out of the Aether and most certainly those particular water molecules never existed before in any place or time.

    7. Re:Yeah by Golden_Rider · · Score: 5, Funny

      The ocean is 98% fish pee.

      And the remaining 2% is recycled pirate corpses.

    8. Re:Yeah by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would only drink rainwater, but in norcal it's illegal to capture the rain that falls on your property due to water rights regulations that go back 150 years. essentially, the rainwater that falls on your property doesn't belong to you. in socal I can't capture rain cuz it doesn't rain.

    9. Re:Yeah by smoot123 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I only drink artisinal, free range, organic, fair trade, GMO-free, small batch, craft water.

      Oh wait, that's beer. I drink liquid water.

      I draw the line at River Ankh "water", which you can slice up and chew (Terry Pratchett, RIP, Soul Music)

    10. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of people capture rain water here. It is not illegal.

    11. Re:Yeah by lpevey · · Score: 4, Informative

      In some places in the US, this is the case with water rights, but not in any place I know of in the Bay Area. Berkeley and Oakland actively support the installation of rainwater recapture systems.

    12. Re:Yeah by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well I only drink water that's been chemically combined from hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell!

      (Your response at this point should be something like "eww, you drink car exhaust?!")

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Yeah by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Except the part where the sperm whales live.

    14. Re:Yeah by rockout · · Score: 2
      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    15. Re:Yeah by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      Actually, my response would be that drinking large quantities of perfectly pure water is not very good for you and can even be dangerous. It strips away essential minerals from your body.

    16. Re:Yeah by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      What is more important? A glass of water? Or a bag of Almonds?

    17. Re:Yeah by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Unlike on land where we only have to deal with occasional tree-cum for part of the year.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:Yeah by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      While consuming salted almonds?

    19. Re:Yeah by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      a five gallon jug of water? or five almonds?

    20. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comets are where aliens from the planet nu'Dnignrawl 5 eliminate their waste, just so you know.

      Now when people say, "don't drink the water there," they'll be talking about California too!

    21. Re:Yeah by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

      in norcal it's illegal to capture the rain that falls on your property due to water rights regulations that go back 150 years

      WHAT? Surely you jest. Please cite your source.

      Personally, the idea of drinking toilet water doesn't bother me so much because of the e.coli or whatever but rather because of the residues of birth control pills, antidepressants, painkillers, etc. that are already found in our waterways. One can only imagine that recycling wastewater will result in higher concentrations of these substances that cannot be filtered out. I'm imagining some kind of mad-cow-type disease except that instead of working on individual cells in your brain, it works on the individuals in your society, causing weird, unpredictable changes in social behavior.

    22. Re:Yeah by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      ok, take it down a notch maybe. doing more research, it was illegal a couple years ago when I lived in SF, but they changed the law in 2012.

      http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...

      "Prior to enactment of the Act, the [State Water Control Resources Board] required all would-be appropriators to apply for and obtain a permit to appropriate water from any source, including water falling in the form of precipitation. Under the Act, however, the use of rainwater - defined as "precipitation on any public or private parcel that has not entered an offsite storm drain system or channel, a flood channel, or any other stream channel, and has not been previously been put to beneficial use" - is not subject to the California Water Code's SWRCB permit requirement [California Water Code 1200 et seq.] Relief from the permit requirement enables residents, private businesses, and public agencies to create new on-site water supplies to meet landscaping needs, thus decreasing the use of potable water to meet those needs."

    23. Re:Yeah by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      my bad. it used to be illegal but they changed the state law back in 2012. I think it's still illegal in some states.

      http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...

    24. Re:Yeah by suutar · · Score: 3, Funny

      but it's been through so many kidneys it _has_ to be pure!

    25. Re:Yeah by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      story I heard was an old guy who only drank wine, "fish pee in water." though he passed away few years ago at 95.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    26. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should be growing almonds in Texas. We got room and water and everything from Texas is bigger. Oh wait we already grow tons of almonds, why doesn't Cali stop tryin to fuck up our market?

    27. Re:Yeah by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      That certainly makes more sense. I read about a fight someone in Oregon has been having for years. I think what got him was the type of caveat above: "and has not been previously been put to beneficial use".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    28. Re:Yeah by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You can have a huge multi-million gallon aquifer, with all kinds of dead animals in it, pooping in it, peeing in it, but one guy pees in it in and you have drain the whole thing and fill it up again with clean water...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    29. Re:Yeah by DEN_GUY · · Score: 1

      The thing that's most ironic is that people are drinking toilet water while Agri-business just keeps on wasting as much as they want.

  2. "an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1, Insightful

    God damned pussies.

    Leaders are -- occasionally -- supposed to actually lead. And that means pushing through unpopular items that are actually good for the citizenry.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And for those who cannot cope with this idea, I say in the tradition of Rousseau: "Let them drink bottled water". By all means offer them a choice, but at their expense.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Whiteox · · Score: 0

      Might as well drink poo water. California is in the shit anyway from what I hear.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    3. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by idontgno · · Score: 1

      By all means offer them a choice, but at their expense.

      And while we're at it, make sure the externalities of bottling are fully priced in. As a race, we already use and throw away too many plastic bottles.

      And if you want to have some good troll-face fun, make sure you're just bottling toilet-to-tap water.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Like tell the 70+% users of water in CA to tone it down?

      Unpossible.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Is this just California. I was under the impression that this was a common method of water useage and treatment?

      For nearly every city with municipal water they have a rather large water treatment plant, and a sewer system that seems connected to it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by gweihir · · Score: 2

      With democracy and a basically stupid and anti-science population, this type of leadership is not possible anymore. Politicians have to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to get elected.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good leaders get kick out of office.
      Why?
      They try to force change, people don't like change.
      They will bend the rules to get their way, this can cross the line into corruption.
      They will step on their opponents, this will toughen the resolve of their opponents so they will be stronger next time around.
      The realize the popular opinion, is based on assumptions made by a population with partial insight into the issue, and that 50% of the population has below average intelligence to really fully understand it.

      Bad leaders stay in.
      Why?
      They are the nice guy you want to have a beer with.
      They try to keep things as they are.
      They flow with public opinion.
      They try to make you feel good about yourself.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1

      A good leader will convince the populace that what they think is a bad idea is actually a good idea.

      That's how he pushes through unpopular ideas.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> democracy and a basically stupid and anti-science population

      I agree, but if you ever try to advocate for democracy participation qualifiers to weed out the stupid (e.g., high school graduate, X years of work experience, at least XX years old, living independently, having your own ID, passing some kind of literacy test) and all you'll hear is "racist", "elitist" and stories about poll taxes.

    10. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      here's the problem with targeting the 70+% users. did you know that only 20% of water in CA goes to residential, commercial and industrial sources? 80% of water is used by agriculture, who has powerful lobbies and locks on several state senators and assemblymen. Did you know that in CA some farmers grow rice? Some grow parsley, which is almost as water intensive as rice and is bundled up as hay and sent off to china to feed Chinese cows? And despite this, farmers are a third rail of water politics, and instead people are putting flyers on MY door encouraging me to "minimize toilet flushing" and now to drink pee water. No thanks.

    11. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this just California. I was under the impression that this was a common method of water useage and treatment?

      For nearly every city with municipal water they have a rather large water treatment plant, and a sewer system that seems connected to it.

      The waste treatment plant discharge goes into a river or lake, which is usually also the same body of water that the municipal water is drawn from as well. The disgust factor is the idea of the discharge going right back into the water supply without passing through nature first.

    12. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by plopez · · Score: 1

      Yep, except instead of an aquifer you use rivers. As in "upstream human and agricultural waste goes into a river and then it enters a waste water treatment plant". You are merely replacing "river" with "aquifer". By the way, I find agricultural chemicals to be more of a concern in my mind.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by plopez · · Score: 1

      And make them believe it was *their* idea in the first place.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    14. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Also,

      A bad leader will convince the populace that what is a bad idea is actually a good idea.

      The problem is, nobody wants to evaluate ideas on their own merit, they want others to tell us what to think.

      I have no issue with drinking recycled water, because I was taught about the great water cycle in grade school. Its all recycled water at this point. The fact that people have irrational feelings about it is besides the point.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      God damned pussies.

      Leaders are -- occasionally -- supposed to actually lead. And that means pushing through unpopular items that are actually good for the citizenry.

      Or they just split the water into drinking water and farming water. Why did people have to drink bleeched pee just so almond farmers can water with pure drinking water?

    16. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Troll

      if you ever try to advocate for democracy participation qualifiers to weed out the stupid (e.g., high school graduate, X years of work experience, at least XX years old, living independently, having your own ID, passing some kind of literacy test) and all you'll hear is "racist", "elitist" and stories about poll taxes.

      None of the things you listed are correlated with "non-stupid". If you think IQ and education mean non-stupid political views, you should go discuss politics with some university professors.

    17. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that is exactly the problem.

      Also, the solution.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    18. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Why did people have to drink bleeched pee just so almond farmers can water with pure drinking water?

      You're one of those anti-science idiots like who torpedoed water recycling 15 years ago.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR: 80% is a lie

      Did you know that you've bought into a campaign to steal water rights that's built on an elegant set of lies? Yes, 80% of pumped water gets used for agriculture. And of course, like water pumped to LA, it drains directly into the sea, never again to re-enter the ecosystem. In reality, of that 80%, roughly 1/3 of it directly returns to ground water, a large fraction goes into your stomach because you insist on eating, and most of the rest drops on the foothills as rain and gets returned to the ecosystem. It's not magic. Water used in agriculture doesn't magically disappear.

      As for rice, well, that water gets drawn while it's raining in the central valley, and a large fraction (don't have numbers handy) soaks down into the shallowest aquifer under the central valley. So, while, yes, 80% OMFG, that 80% has a much smaller impact to the ecosystem than the water exported from the central valley.

      The real answer is to stop building in SoCal and mandate that all wastewater in SoCal be injected into the West Coast Basin to slow the saline intrusion that's going to destroy the usefulness of that aquifer in the next decade or two.

    20. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, we have to take the clean water from the waste treatment plant, dechlorinate it, return it to nature, then retrieve most of it from nature, clean it again to get all the nature out, and then chlorinate it again to kill off any nature we missed.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    21. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Just had a thought...Assuming agriculture has complete domain over the water on their land only, if residential, etc users end up with a 100% sustainable system from reprocessing, conservation and non farm sources, agriculture users can go fuck themselves when their wells dry up! Sure the price of food will double for a generation while everything gets resorted but hey, that's way easier than addressing the issue ahead of time.

    22. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure these toilet-to-tap facilities are free.

    23. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 80% ag usage figure also doesn't account for water alloted "to the environment", which is 50%.

    24. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nah. here's your breakdown.
      * "1/3" goes back into the groundwater." [citation needed]. I don't think it's self evident that just cuz some water soaks into crops and isn't used by the plants it goes back to the groundwater.
      * "1/3 goes into rain and falls on the foothills." or it falls in Arizona, or Kansas, or the pacific ocean. There's no reason to think that evaporation stays in-state.
      * "1/3 goes into my belly". Or into your belly, or Chinese belly, or shucked and thrown away. We're exporting water out of the state.

      I will "minimize my toilet flushing" when the state enacts commonsense crop rationing methods that emphasize water-efficient crops over water-wasting crops.

    25. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought too. My toilet bowl drains into the same sewer pipe my kitchen sink and shower drain does, and my toilet tank is filled from the same water line as my kitchen faucet and shower head. I thought maybe socal kept separate water lines or something until reading further below.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    26. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or your average engineer...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just use tolet-to-tap water in agriculture then? The plants surely won't mind. And people certainly seem to have accepted the fact that plants eat shit as fertilizer, so why not recycled toilet water?

    28. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Leading is best when the leader convinces people to do things willingly.

    29. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      An interesting statistic is that 96% of the people use only 4% of the water, the rest goes to Ag. Given this drought, maybe over farming is occuring? But you got to eat? Just how many almonds are required to live?

    30. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Gliscameria · · Score: 2

      Except that there's about a million other things they can use the processed toilet water for... Use the water from the aquifers for drinking, and use the processed water for irrigation, cooling, etc. The amount of water they are going to save by doing this still doesn't get them anywhere near being neutral. This is a silly thing to do.

      --
      X
    31. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the normal uses for reprocessed water, to use it on plants. Problem is, even if you reclaimed water from all city and suburbia waste water with 100% efficiency, it would still fall way short of what the agriculture requires to maintain the status quo.

    32. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water used in agriculture doesn't magically disappear.

      And yet I remember when there were many orchards in the central valley that are now gone and replace with less water demanding crops or in some places just gone completely and replaced with near-arid land that can barely support roaming livestock.

    33. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reclaimed water would be good for the fields. Elevated nitrate levels in reclaimed water would reduce the need for fertilizer. Why not recycle the water to the farmer's fields?
      It may even be more economical to do so since they would not automatically need to do as much purification as would be required for "potable" water.

    34. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, the midwestern US had a "drought" a couple of years ago that resulted in the Mississippi River almost going down to under 9 feet deep in the main navigable channel. Almost. In December. And then it flooded in spring, just like it always does.

      Quit growing watery vegetable crops in the high desert like a bunch of dumbfucks, California.

    35. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Copid · · Score: 1

      The implication there is that if we don't grow these things in California, they'll never be grown anywhere. It's a pretty good be that that's not true.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    36. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Copid · · Score: 1

      That's amazing! Sounds like agriculture has all that water in a nearly closed system with almost no net loss!

      So why are they running out of water in those aquifers again? Am I drinking their milkshake?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    37. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by hackaxle · · Score: 2

      Sometimes having enough or too much water leads to problems as well.

      Being from Iowa it's hard for me to comprehend this huge use of water for agriculture. I have lived across 3/4 of the state now, work at an Ag company, and I rarely ever see any sort of irrigation system in place to water the crops- that is, corn and beans. Have seen a few systems setup for creating sod. When we experience drought the crops don't do so well- irrigation systems are just too expensive to implement for most farmers. Conversely we tile all of our fields and created a network (districts) of drainage ditches. This provides a nice path for all that agricultural waste to flow right into the rivers, which is where all that tiling and drainage ditches lead to- ultimately to either the Missouri and Mississippi.

      Unfortunately for all of the states below along the Missouri and Mississippi our abundance of water provides them with all of our nitrates (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/04/11/data-shows-nitrates-higher-improving-iowa-rivers/25606321/), our hog waste (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/hog-wild-factory-farms-are-poisoning-iowas-drinking-water) and the Mississippi delta gets a ton of nice pfisteria from that hog waste to kill off all those pesky fisheries.

    38. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Sigh.

      Do you not realize that:
      (1) Municipal sewerage systems are *not* allowed to dump "black water" into rivers & lakes? Los Angeles is no different.
      (2) Municipal water supplies all across the country have been processing nasty river water for 100 years?

      (We live at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and get our drinking water from there. What comes out of the tap is... clean.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    39. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's also a pretty good bet that as California's agriculture scales back, food prices go up.
      Drive those prices high enough, and interesting things start to happen.

    40. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They're "elected public servants", not "leaders".

    41. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1

      One way to serve the public is to tell them what they need to here.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    42. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      Some grow parsley, which is almost as water intensive as rice and is bundled up as hay and sent off to china to feed Chinese cows?

      Alfalfa, not parsley. And the reason that happens is the farmer makes the most money sending alfalfa to China. (sarcasm) Don't you like capitalism? Are you a Commie? (/sarcasm)

    43. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      here's the problem with targeting the 70+% users. did you know that only 20% of water in CA goes to residential, commercial and industrial sources? 80% of water is used by agriculture, who has powerful lobbies and locks on several state senators and assemblymen. Did you know that in CA some farmers grow rice? Some grow parsley, which is almost as water intensive as rice and is bundled up as hay and sent off to china to feed Chinese cows? And despite this, farmers are a third rail of water politics, and instead people are putting flyers on MY door encouraging me to "minimize toilet flushing" and now to drink pee water. No thanks.

      First off, all water in earth was, at one time, "pee water" just as most nitrogen you breath in has, at one time, been flatulence. So this is only an emotional, but not a practical concern.

      Secondly, there are other states to live in if you are strongly against your current state's path and feel that you cannot influence any change. Most other states have more water and less people as well.

    44. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I must admit, there is some sense in instilling myself, with my advanced understanding of what would be truly good for America, as a dictator; but I believe there is more profit in keeping with our current system, using the sway of politics to educate and inspire Americans to demand those things which they would benefit from by providing understanding and enthusiasm instead of the rule of an iron fist. Perhaps a critic will arise who will point out some wrongness in my ideas, and so I can correct these problems before it is too late; the real power of democracy is to challenge such plans and, on occasion, highlight their flaws so they may be improved.

    45. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Why did people have to drink bleeched pee just so almond farmers can water with pure drinking water?

      You're one of those anti-science idiots like who torpedoed water recycling 15 years ago.

      I doubt it ;)

      I am not even American. I just think you guys are coming up with unpopular and expensive solutions to problems that only exists because you have created them, and suggest you stop creating them in the first place.

    46. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1

      using the sway of politics to educate

      That's how you tell them what they need.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    47. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Here is a test of your "emotions" when drinking water. Go to Exploratorium in San Francisco, they have a drinking fountain but the base is a toilet (toilet was new and bought new and fabricated into a drinking fountain). I admit I chickened out like most people and didn't drink. OK, so now I confessed I guess that means I need to man up and go there and take a drink! And post footage on FB.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    48. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by suutar · · Score: 1

      That's beyond good leader and into really great leader, and those are unfortunately rare.

    49. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Modern politicians tend to just steamroll shit nobody wants down their throats, or smear their opponents so people default ("Senator McKinley is a faggot and likes fucking 16-year-old paiges in the ass; of course he wants to destroy our moral fiber by legalizing gay marriage!").

    50. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the sewage water for agriculture would give both water and fertilizers to the soil, and would leave the better water free for residential use.

    51. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to change the rules of the game, you must first win the game by the existing rules.

    52. Re: "an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said water going into the ocean will never return to your ecosystem. Where do you think your rain comes from in a coastal state?

    53. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      Why process it to the point that it is safe for the reservoir when there are plenty of needs for grey water? Use it for irrigation and let the earth do the rest of the filtering. We're irrigating with drinkable water when we could process our waste a little and use that to supplement.

      --
      X
    54. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      First off, all water in earth was, at one time, "pee water" just as most nitrogen you breath in has, at one time, been flatulence. So this is only an emotional, but not a practical concern.

      Secondly, there are other states to live in if you are strongly against your current state's path and feel that you cannot influence any change. Most other states have more water and less people as well.

      *fewer

    55. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Depends on which is more practical: move the reservoir water to the city, or the the grey water to the farms?

      We *know* that the people-generated grey water is already where the people are, and I'm betting that the reservoir water is closer to the irrigation needs.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    56. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Targeting 70+% users can be just first step. After drinking pee and ripping off a perfectly healthy lawn you get them motivated to support you in confronting the real problem of water use by the agriculture and, possibly, reexamining water rights in general. And with the agricultural lobby against, you will need these 70% of the electorate. However if this is only about telling you how to flush your toilet then I am in total agreement with you.

    57. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot, anything you don't agree with is "stupid."

    58. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot.
      all water is recycled; it's just a matter of how my layers of systems it does through that will make it safe, potable, drink-quality water, either by nature or by technology.
      and everyone suffers because of idiots like you.

    59. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Copid · · Score: 1

      As California ag scales back, one of two things will happen:

      1) The increase in food prices makes agriculture elsewhere in the giant-ass United States more viable and those locations bring their own ag industries online, stabilizing food prices.
      2) That doesn't happen and food prices spiral out of control and we all starve to death after the riots and zombies have their way with us.

      I know where I'd place my money. Really, "food prices" is not something Americans as a whole have had to be concerned about for some time.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    60. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by jblues · · Score: 1

      None of the things you listed are correlated with "non-stupid". If you think IQ and education mean non-stupid political views, you should go discuss politics with some university professors.

      I agree. Paul Keating was one of Australia's most successful politicians and held the position of Treasurer and then Prime Minister, after having left school at 14. Meanwhile the current Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, was a Rhodes Scholar, and earned the moniker Tony Dumb Dumb.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    61. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The far northeast corner of CA is high desert. S Cal is normal desert. N Cal central valley is semi arid. The coast is temperate rain forest.

      Dumbfuck.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    62. Re: "an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Beg your pardon, sire?" - Ser Davis Seaworth.

    63. Re: "an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by hagalaz0271 · · Score: 1

      "Pardon?" - Ser Davos Seaworth

    64. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You define 'great leader' as 'great marketer'!

      Do you realize what site you are posting on?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re: "an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      "Nothing."

    66. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by suutar · · Score: 1

      well, from prior comments I assumed the factor that what he's pushing is something that's actually to their long term benefit, even if they don't realize it, which is usually a harder sell than short term gratification that most marketers get to work with. "Leader" also tends to relate more to shifting society's mindset more than just convincing some subset that product A is sexier than product B, which is more work, and it's frequently an unrewarding position, which means the leader has to actually buy in to the notion rather than just selling it to others.

    67. Re:"an emotional buffer for consumers as well." by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

      I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify (sic) all of our precious bodily fluids.... Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water? Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water? On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason. Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, you realize that.. seventy percent of you is water. And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.... It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.

  3. water has memory! by kimvette · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
    Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit.
    Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
    If you show me
    That, say, homeopathy works,
    Then I will change my mind
    I'll spin on a fucking dime
    I'll be embarrassed as hell,
    But I will run through the streets yelling
    It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
    Water has memory!
    And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
    It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!" --Tim Minchin

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:water has memory! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think homeopathy is bullshit, but it's nonsense to think that they don't think that the imprint of whatever minuscule thing was waved over the water wears off. Homeopathic "cures" typically have expiration dates. If they lasted forever, why would you ever buy more?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:water has memory! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Of course :)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:water has memory! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Modded down? How can anyone think that post is serious? The whole point of Tim Minchin's "Storm" is that homeopathy is total bullshit and people who ignore science are absolute morons. It's called "sarcasm."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:water has memory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll be embarrassed as hell," - That's where the bullshit in science is rooted. Nobody likes to be thought of as a fool. Especially people that believe themselves to be the end-all-be-all of human cognitive accomplishment.

    5. Re:water has memory! by GlennC · · Score: 1

      How can anyone think that post is serious?

      Welcome to the Internet, where the unbelievable is often mistaken for the gospel truth.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    6. Re:water has memory! by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

      kimvette! Thank you so much for this quote! I've never encountered Tim Minchin before, and he's f***ing brilliant!

  4. NASA by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    NASA has been doing this for a while... I remember when they announced it as "yesterday's coffee is now today's coffee"... everybody thought it was witty and cool. I guess Californians don't make good astronauts.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this was my first thought too. If California bottled it and called it "Astronaut Water" poeple would pay a premium for it.

      I guess Californians don't make good astronauts.

      Here, I'm going to disagree with you. California, like the rest of the country, has given us some excellent astronauts.

    2. Re:NASA by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      If California bottled it and called it "Astronaut Water" poeple would pay a premium for it.

      Ohh FFS -- Astronaut Water? That would sell about as good as Astronaut Ice Cream -- remember that crap? Who buys that anymore? Whens the last time you saw anything "astronaut" related being "cool" or trendy?

      Nrg2O, PowerWater, UltraDrizzle -- those are the names todays market requires -- names that evoke health, fitness and POWER, names that will get your average fat-fuck moron to scoot on over to their nearest Walmart and buy a case.

    3. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whens the last time you saw anything "astronaut" related being "cool" or trendy?

      Interstellar: $672,720,017 gross (Worldwide - 26 April 2015).

      Call it Interstellar, and say it's made from 100% recycled star stuff.

    4. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh FFS -- Astronaut Water? That would sell about as good as Astronaut Ice Cream -- remember that crap? Who buys that anymore? Whens the last time you saw anything "astronaut" related being "cool" or trendy?

      Amazon sells it, and it has 4.7 of 5 stars with 149 reviews

    5. Re:NASA by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      iPiss!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:NASA by Vermifax · · Score: 1

      Most other places in the country already do this. It's only not "normal" in California.

      --

      Vermifax

      Logout
  5. What they will really drink by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My experience in living in places with "bad water"(wells with ultra high mineral content) and visiting people who live in those types of places(Phoenix...) has shown me that people will either buy five gallon plastic jugs of water at the grocery store or get their drinking water delivered somehow from a "reputable source".

    Of course there will also be those who invest in high end in-place water filtering systems.

    Human behavior dictates that no one with the financial ability will knowingly drink recycled sewage. I see a boom market for water distributors of all flavors.

    With that being said I applaud the efforts in So-Cal to be better users of their precious little water.
    Let us raise our glass and give a cheer!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:What they will really drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of all flavors.

      Probably not the best choice of words for toilet to tap beverages.

    2. Re:What they will really drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that being said I applaud the efforts in So-Cal to be better users of their precious little water.

      Wouldn't long-term planning dictate that farms be shut-down in California and relocated to areas of the country where water is naturally plentiful? The largest water consumer in California is the agricultural industry not the latte-sipping hipsters.

    3. Re:What they will really drink by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      +100000. at the very least, give the poo water to the crops. nutrients.

    4. Re:What they will really drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In quite a few civilized countries ALL of the tap water comes from purified sewage water. This has nothing to do with human behavior but is common sense to most people. There is only so much water to go around and industrialized, highly populated countries need to recycle their water faster than nature can do it. It actually boggles my mind that there are places that do not do it. People that think they get "purer"(more expensive) water are kidding themselves. It's been proven that most water from "natural sources" (springs etc) are actually dirtier than tap water because natural sources have been contaminated by humans for decades. It would be pretty easy to explain to people that the purified sewage water is actually cleaner than what they've been drinking from bottles.
      But who am I kidding, this is the U.S. we are talking about: the news will be about how "you are drinking someone else's poo, like straight from his anus! Now over to a few commercial messages from Evian".

    5. Re:What they will really drink by quantaman · · Score: 1

      My experience in living in places with "bad water"(wells with ultra high mineral content) and visiting people who live in those types of places(Phoenix...) has shown me that people will either buy five gallon plastic jugs of water at the grocery store or get their drinking water delivered somehow from a "reputable source".

      Of course there will also be those who invest in high end in-place water filtering systems.

      Human behavior dictates that no one with the financial ability will knowingly drink recycled sewage. I see a boom market for water distributors of all flavors.

      I'm not so sure. You're conflating taste with stigma. If the water tastes gross then it tastes bad every time you drink it so of course a lot of people are going to buy better tasting water.

      But if it's just some stigma over the fact that the water cycle is slightly easier to track then that's something people will get over within 5 minutes of the changeover. I live in a major prairie city, I've always assumed the water was "Toilet To Tap" and the idea never bothered me in the slightest.

      People still swim in the ocean afterall, and I find the stuff you dump in there to be far more disturbing.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:What they will really drink by lpevey · · Score: 1

      Millions of people across the country drink recycled sewage every day. That's the nature of water--it just gets recycled.

      Maybe I just find this odd because I was always under the impression that every city did it this way. When I was little, one of my uncles worked at the waste water treatment plant in a small city on a small river in the middle of the country. I thought it was common knowledge that the water flowing in the water treatment plant (for city taps) came from the river, and the water flowing from the waste water treatment plant flowed back into the river. So we were drinking the treated waste water from towns and cities upriver, and the towns and cities downriver were drinking ours. So we had a valid interest in the proper operation of treatment plants upriver, and those downriver had a valid interest in ours.

      My uncle used to tell me how he would sometimes have to give tours, which were billed as sort of educational exchanges, for people from other treatment plants in the state who wanted to visit. But they were always only from the treatment plants down-river--it was sort of spy/audit trip. And that was considered okay, our city did the same thing. Keep in mind this is a pretty small river, not an extreme amount of dilution going on here.

      Are there any cities that truly have a landfill of sorts for treated sewage water? A place where it can go that it will not end up back in the drinking water? Because I think that is what would be extremely rare.

      I think CA politicians are marketing this all wrong and causing resistance where there shouldn't be any. This is just how it's done. Water gets recycled. There is no absolutely pure water source unless you create it in a lab. How the water you intend to drink is treated is the key.

    7. Re:What they will really drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:What they will really drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human behavior dictates that no one with the financial ability will knowingly drink recycled sewage.

      Not in the Northeast. The rich people own land with wells and septic fields and drink their own recycled sewage. Everyone else drinks municipal water that comes from from lakes and reservoirs. It's a region where the word "frugal" is associated with wealth, not poverty.

    9. Re:What they will really drink by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1

      Are there any cities that truly have a landfill of sorts for treated sewage water? A place where it can go that it will not end up back in the drinking water cities? Because I think that is what would be extremely rare.

      It's called the ocean. Coastal cities often place the out fall from their waste treatment plants in the ocean or a convenient bay. As there is no one downstream of them they either have to add the treated water directly to their potable water system, or pump it back uphill into tower aquifers.

    10. Re:What they will really drink by donkwich · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised at how powerful psychology is in convincing someone that something is true. If people think that tap water is disgusting, then they'll psyche themselves out to taste it as disgusting even if it's perfectly fine. The stigma of tap water already motivates people to buy and drink bottled water, even though it's the same product with even less regulatory oversight. You and I might know there's no problem, but the emotionally-driven proles out there will disagree, and they make the decisions around here.

    11. Re:What they will really drink by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      The amusing part will be that the water bottlers will most likely just run the "recycled" water through an industrial RO unit (if we're lucky) so we'll still be getting the same damned water, just with a shiny label and a higher pricetag.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    12. Re:What they will really drink by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Of course there will also be those who invest in high end in-place water filtering systems.

      You make it sound as if you have to spend big bucks. That is not the case. Those 5 gallon plastic jugs at the grocery store are just tap water run through a reverse osmosis water filter. You can get a good 5-stage RO filter from Amazon for around $200. Not exactly a huge "investment" and it's the same end product as the grocery store water you're referring to. Sure, I guess you could get a water filter that costs thousands, but if you're just filtering tap water you're not going to notice a difference between an iSpring $200 filter and something more expensive.

    13. Re:What they will really drink by vinlud · · Score: 1

      This is actually common practice in my country, The Netherlands. And we don't exactly have a lack of rivers etc, or money for that matter.

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  6. I Wonder by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone pooh-pooh the idea?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  7. What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon they will be using fertiliser on crops to grow food.

  8. Virus by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Viri: good luck removing it.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides chemical or electrostatic capture methods, the latest generation of filters can filter out anything larger than better than 0.02 microns. That's fine enough to filter out viruses.

    2. Re:Virus by everett · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it's so very difficult to boil water...

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    3. Re:Virus by Copid · · Score: 1

      Boiling water on the scale of a water treatment plant would require an ungodly amount of energy.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    4. Re:Virus by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      UV and/or ozone treatment destroys them quite well. And you really don't have to kill them all. It's quite easy to make em cleaner than the aquifer water (which is recycled dinosaur pee).

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  9. isn't this how it's always been done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought recycling sewage into drinking water was the status quo and norm. I thought that was the whole point of sewage treatment plants -- to take the toilet water and turn it back around into the potable water system.

    If that's not what is typically happening, what is? What are sewage treatment plants for then? Where is potable water coming from if not from treated sewage water?

    1. Re:isn't this how it's always been done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as not to contaminate large bodies of water and cause outbreaks in oceans, lakes, rivers.

      Google pig run off for interesting articles.

  10. what about medication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Like birth control and other meds we are finding in the natural water supply? Wouldn't it end up at the taps too? I personally wouldn't trust it.

    1. Re:what about medication? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Given that this is already a concern in ordinary municipal supplies, it was the first thing I thought of. I'm glad I'm on a well.

    2. Re:what about medication? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Given that this is already a concern in ordinary municipal supplies, it was the first thing I thought of. I'm glad I'm on a well.

      Since some municipalities pump their wastewater back into the ground, being on a well doesn't keep you safe from wastewater contaminants.

      And in some areas, untreated fracking water is also pumped back into the ground (presumably deeper than "normal" aquifers, so just hope that the water doesn't percolate upwards (and that you don't need to drill a deeper well to reach water). Oh well, I guess it's better than releasing it into streams like they used to do.

  11. Inept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Authorities can't even keep chemicals out of the regular drinking water, yet we are supposed to believe they will be able to provide clean water from sewage?

    I predict all the diseases of Africa will soon be common in California.

  12. "Diluted" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because that will make a difference.
    Every water molecule is the same.

    So what you are then saying is the water coming out the plant isn't absolutely scrubbed of shit, piss and whatever else was in the sewage system water, in essence.
    Nice one.

    Fucking Calitards.

  13. The only one who assumed it was this way already? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    I kind of just always assumed that treated water was put back in the reservoirs anyway. I mean, it has been TREATED right? Wouldn't that make it cleaner than most lake water anyway?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. Drink Brawndo instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water. Like out the toilet?

  15. Huh? by chris200x9 · · Score: 1

    Pardon my ignorance but I thought this was happening since forever. I mean doesn't conservation of matter pretty much guarantee everything is just recycled?

    1. Re:Huh? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Interesting

      doesn't conservation of matter pretty much guarantee everything is just recycled?

      * internet advises people to drink 2-3 L of fluids per day.
      * 365 days per year, 70 year lifespan -> 70k liters -> 70 m^3 over lifetime.
      * 7b ppl alive today. Everybody alive today will drink 500 m^3 of fluids.
      * the handwavey estimate is that half of the people who have ever lived are alive today. if this is true, then the entire human species has drunk 1000 m^3 of water.
      * the volume of the ocean is 1.3 10^9 km^3 -> 1.3 10^18 m^3.

      so even if no water has been recycled, there are a billion trillion liters of water in the oceans that have never been drunk by humans.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      * internet advises people to drink 2-3 L of fluids per day.
      * 365 days per year, 70 year lifespan -> 70k liters -> 70 m^3 over lifetime.
      * 7b ppl alive today. Everybody alive today will drink 500 m^3 of fluids.
      * the handwavey estimate is that half of the people who have ever lived are alive today. if this is true, then the entire human species has drunk 1000 m^3 of water.
      * the volume of the ocean is 1.3 10^9 km^3 -> 1.3 10^18 m^3.

      You say "7b ppl alive today", but then multiply 70m^3 by 7. Either b=1, or your estimate is off by just a smidge, or 9 orders of magnitude.

    3. Re:Huh? by chris200x9 · · Score: 1

      Yea but we release our treated sewage so the new water has been tainted so it is basically recycled water, also I'm sure our intake is not in a remote ocean location. There might be "clean water" out there but I'm fairly certain we are still using recycled water even if we aren't directly recirculating sewage into the tap.

    4. Re:Huh? by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      But it has probably been drunk by at least one dinosaur.
      https://what-if.xkcd.com/74/

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you go from 70 m^3 per person to 1000 m^3 for the entire human race? Think you missed a few decimal places there.

      The figure that half the people who have ever lived are alive today is also off. Last I saw, estimates put the total figure at 100-115 billion.

      But your conclusion is still right. The amount of water on earth vastly exceeds what the human race could have consumed. The same is probably not true if you include all extant and extinct species, but I'm too lazy to check that.

    6. Re:Huh? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      * internet advises people to drink 2-3 L of fluids per day.

      This is great advice. I used to try drinking only solid matter, but it was rather tedious. I now generally drink about 1 L of gasoline, mercury and alcohol every day.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re:Huh? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      doesn't conservation of matter pretty much guarantee everything is just recycled?

      * internet advises people to drink 2-3 L of fluids per day.
      * 365 days per year, 70 year lifespan -> 70k liters -> 70 m^3 over lifetime.
      * 7b ppl alive today. Everybody alive today will drink 500 m^3 of fluids.
      * the handwavey estimate is that half of the people who have ever lived are alive today. if this is true, then the entire human species has drunk 1000 m^3 of water.
      * the volume of the ocean is 1.3 10^9 km^3 -> 1.3 10^18 m^3.

      so even if no water has been recycled, there are a billion trillion liters of water in the oceans that have never been drunk by humans.

      I think your math is rather off...

      7e9 x 70m^3 ~= 500e9 m^3 x 2 = 1e12 m^3

      But yes, that is still a tiny fraction of 1.3e18 m^3.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    8. Re:Huh? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      wow you're totally right. so what, I'm just off by 10^9 :) thanks for being the smart guy in the room and catching the stupid mistake.

  16. Mississippi River drinker here by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the Midwest it's common for a city or town to draw from the nearby major rivers like the Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Des Moines, and Ohio then treat that water for the tap. Then they take the sewage, separate out the solids, treat the liquids, and release that downstream.

    I'm not sure I'd bitch so much about drinking what my own city or county was purifying on both ends. In the Midwest people are drinking what's been treated for drinking by their city, town, county, or water district but which was treated as wastewater by whoever was upstream. In the spring, sometimes the sewage treatment plants upstream flood. (A few cities and towns even continue to get fines from the EPA for their stormwater and sewage drains combined, so that flash flooding brings sewage up into their own streets.)

    It's worked for decades elsewhere to re-treat wastewater as drinking water. California's supposed to be the progressive leader on this sort of thing. It's time they caught up.

    1. Re:Mississippi River drinker here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California's supposed to be the progressive leader on this sort of thing. It's time they caught up.

      Give Californians a couple of stillsuits. That should do the trick.

    2. Re:Mississippi River drinker here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then they take the sewage, separate out the solids, treat the liquids, and release that downstream."

      They don't even necessarily do that. I don't know if the EPA has finally forced them to fix it or not but I know that as recently as a few years ago during storms Chicagos combined sewage/stormwater system would dump completely untreated sewage into Lake Michigan/Mississippi River watershed. Also at least in some states wastewater treatment plants have allowances for untreated (but solids removed) in case of emergencies/maintenance and whether or not they need to some plants DO use that allowance. People seem to have willful blindness in regards to where their water is coming from, imagining that they're special and that their drinking water plants is pulling "clean" water from upstream and their wastewater plant dumping treated water downstream for all of the "other people".

    3. Re:Mississippi River drinker here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dear memphis:

      how's our shit tasting these days?

      signed,
      your neighbors to the north.

    4. Re:Mississippi River drinker here by matfud · · Score: 1

      There is a reason Chicago placed its water intake "cribs" miles offshore in lake Michigan.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    5. Re:Mississippi River drinker here by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Here in Sacto we refer to taking a piss as 'fixing a drink for LA'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  17. I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The yuck factor is childishness. If the water is safe then the water is safe.

    One of the things I've been looking at are things like pee-ponics and similar very short cycle waste processing systems. It sounds gross, but most of the grossness is just a bacteria issue. I saw someone pushing a solar toliet that subjects the poop to a couple thousand degrees of temperature and basically kicks out desiccated charcoal. That charcoal could be ground up and added to fertilizer. No poop smell because the bacteria are dead and in any case that temperature causes the poop to change chemically into something else. As to pee, you can filter the urine through bacterial cultures that will convert the the urine quite quickly into liquid fertilizer.

    I think NASA said that it takes about six liters of algae to produce enough oxygen for one person? I don't know if that is six liters compressed and in a much larger volume of water or not. I assume so. But you could build personal biodomes for people that recycle all the biological waste from the house on a daily basis. Mix some worms in to chew up the kitchen scraps and maybe some eddible mushrooms to break down wood.

    All these systems tend to need is sunlight enough sense to understand you don't mix certain things together, and a bit of patience.

    I'm currently building a climate control system that manages all sorts of environmental factors in my house using some ardinios and a pi. Just for fun. And I think this could just be expanded out to manage a much more dramatic life support system.

    People should also give a look at the Earth Ships which have a similar quality in that they're capable of keeping people alive for years without outside support... providing their own power, recycling water about 4 times in the house before replacing it, and fully able to generate enough food to feed the residents. And all that while being in the otherwise inhospitable locations like the middle of the desert or something.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The yuck factor is childishness. If the water is safe then the water is safe.

      Now, prove that its safe.

      The problem is if they say "absent proof this is dangerous, we'll assume it's safe".

      And, I'm sorry, but in a context where to can be guaranteed human pathogens and disease will be present, you need much more proof that it's safe.

      So, yes, if it's safe that's great. But can they prove it's safe? Or are they inferring it is?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The one nasty trick, even with residential effluent; but especially if commercial/industrial gets mixed in thanks to antiquated, defective, or illicit sewer piping; is that sewage is only mostly dangerous because of the bacteria.

      Drugs of various sorts show up in residential sewage all the time, and have widely varying resistance to breakdown by low cost measures(if you throw enough resources at a chemist just about anything can be separated out, right down to isotopes; but if you can't biodegrade it, destroy it with UV exposure of modest intensity and duration, settle it out with flocculants, or similar cheap bulk methods, the cost will be high enough to be dubiously relevant to water treatment even in the first world); heavy metals show up from time to time and don't do much degrading at all, nasty persistent organic compounds are always a possibility. People just dump all kinds of ghastly stuff down the drain.

      There is a certain...history... associated with people trying to dispose of the byproducts of sewage treatment, where most of these goodies end up, by means cheaper than landfilling. The current strategy involves re-branding them as 'biosolids', composting them long enough that the bacterial pathogens are (mostly) weeded out, and then trying to find suckers willing to use them as fertilizer.

      It's too bad, really. If it were just shit, moderately competent composting practices would turn it quite readily into a safe, useful, soil additive. Dealing with the modest; but very much nonzero, levels of heavy metals and persistent organic compounds has proven to be really hairy.

    3. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What would you consider proof?

      I'm always baffled by people that ask for proof on things without bothering to state what they would consider valid evidence. I'm sure I could get you a report from some scientists and engineers that said it was safe. But I'm rather certain you wouldn't accept that as evidence.

      Which means I'm somewhat at a loss as to what you even mean when you ask for proof? Theoretically, what could I possibly say or post or provide that you would accept and then say "okay, I accept it is safe"?

      As to proving safety versus inferring it... that is a good point, however, I'll point out that if they're wrong millions of people are going to get very sick very quickly.

      So I frankly doubt they're cutting too many corners with the safety because if they do... politicians might literally go to jail. Which is normally almost impossible.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That is a good point about drugs or various industrial chemicals getting in there.

      I'm not entirely sure how you process all that out. One would assume and hope that they have some quality control system monitoring what is actually in the water.

      You might be right that that is just a general deal killer. The toxic chemicals is something you could deal with pretty easily. You just track toxins in the water and try to follow them back to the source. Then you fine the shit out of the company and shunt future toxic run off into a separate treatment facility.

      The point you're making that is very compelling is the drugs. Those are going to be everywhere and people can't really help peeing out trace amounts of the drugs they take. Filtering those drugs out might be hard and more importantly some of them have big effects on our bodies even in very trace amounts.

      So yeah... good point. I don't know how you'd deal with that.

      As to composting human waste, I'd point out that it smells like pretty much the worst thing ever. I don't think composting as many people understand it is scalable.

      I think for human waste, the first step has to be subjecting it to extreme temperatures. Charcoal it. THEN you can compost it. That will kill all microorganisms in it and render it biologically inert. You could technically eat someone else's poop at that point and it wouldn't pose a health risk. It would taste like charcoal... which isn't great but... it won't really hurt you.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw someone pushing a solar toliet that subjects the poop to a couple thousand degrees of temperature and basically kicks out desiccated charcoal.

      Um, you should probably watch your expressions there. Or tell whoever is selling that toilet to stop the marketing BS. A couple thousand degrees of temperature is not going to be reasonable to do with insolation, and that amount of heat would hardly be necessary or desirable anyway.

      Charcoal may burn at thousands of degrees, but it is produced at lower temperatures.

      Not that dealing with such wastes is new, it has been done for centuries in various ways.

    6. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      They're calling it biochar... whatever.

      It works. I didn't say you could burn the stuff or use it as fuel. I was saying it had the consistency of charcoal.

      Regardless, you do that to the waste and it is inert and can be safety used as fertilizer in pretty much any application without worrying about biological contamination.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I don't know the details of proposed and actual treatment mechanisms for non-pathogen problems (though here is an outline of the regulations surrounding levels of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc permitted in the US. Regulation of organic pollutants and hydrocarbon levels were considered; but dropped and don't currently apply); but my understanding is that 'composting' on a wastewater treatment scale is not much like what people do in their back gardens, and is generally done in relatively vast hardware far from the neighbors. If anything, doing it properly probably scales up better than it scales down(amateur composters frequently fail to achieve optimal temperatures, moisture, etc. That's merely inefficient if you are dealing with grass clippings; but potentially fatal if dealing with intestinal pathogens; professionals can afford expertise, instruments, and process control, if they care).

      Unfortunately, once you get past metals and pathogens(metals are at least measured, pathogens are acknowledged as a threat), you get a whole lot of 'more research needed'(the usual answer on endocrine disruptors and pharmaceutical persistence); or 'ooh, it's just a teensy bit, and we aren't required to model bioaccumulation from populations exposed to higher levels of contaminants in food producing biosolids higher in contaminants, which produce more contaminated food, and so forth..'(this is why dioxins, dibenzofurans, and similar known-nasty carbon/chlorine creations aren't covered by final regulations).

      In the long run, we've obviously survived exposure to this planet, trace metals and all; and more than a few unpleasant chemicals, so I'd hope that the problems can be worked out; but the financial pressure from people who just don't want to deal with the cost of incineration or landfilling has led to some rather questionable decisions. You tell someone that if they spread the stuff over a large enough area, they get to call it 'soil treatment'; but if they bury it all in one place they need to abide by standards for non-permeable landfill construction to keep the contaminants from leaching out, you create a deeply perverse incentive.

      Better separation of industrial sources is an obvious first step(it's always more expensive to un-mix things after the fact than it is to keep them separate); but I get a lot of 'more research needed' when it comes to household disposal and drug excretion.

      On the bright side, we don't use pig toilets anymore! So there is that.

    8. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fish are being affected by this, hopefully they have better control over drinking water:
      http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/pharmaceuticals-in-the-environment-a-growing-problem/20067898.article

    9. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to composting human waste, I've seen facilities that do it... easily the most horrifying smell you can imagine. Seriously unbearable.

      As to pig toilets... gross. My ancestors for better or worse never used those. Not that they were paragons of health or anything... that particular method of being disgusting never caught on.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current strategy involves re-branding them as 'biosolids', composting them long enough that the bacterial pathogens are (mostly) weeded out, and then trying to find suckers willing to use them as fertilizer.

      http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C5306%5Carticles%5C9255%5C206.pdf

      We do that in Sacramento. Downtown has a combined system. We get nickel, cadmium, lead, and drugs. The drugs is actually the worst part. There are extremely high concentrations of birth control drugs in the effluent. It is all sold as fertilizer for farmers in the central valley.

    11. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is with the thousands of degrees part, not the product existing.

      And no, I wasn't saying it was used like charcoal, just pointing out that the temperatures used to make it were far lower than the expression you used to describe this solar toilet's operations.

      It's much cooler.

    12. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I was spit balling out of memory. it doesn't matter. The point is that it works.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Speaking of waste processing systems (this topic sure has generated a lot of water interest from me), aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans area where the water was grossly polluted from all kinds of waste of everything "natural" and inorganic industrial. Some agencies came in with water reverse osmosis systems on trailers. Put the hose in the river where the water looks really gross, takes some time out comes fantastic drinking water. Expensive though and not waste it using for showers but it works.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    14. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps that is another idea. Have multiple plumbing. Pump gray water and drinking water. With the idea that one is for gardening, washing, etc and another is for drinking. So long as you don't actually drink the diluted drugs they're unlikely especially in those concentrations to have any effect. And that system should of course be applied at the house hold level as well by reusing drinking water as gray water before flushing it into the sewer.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      I'm always baffled by people that ask for proof on things without bothering to state what they would consider valid evidence. I'm sure I could get you a report from some scientists and engineers that said it was safe. But I'm rather certain you wouldn't accept that as evidence.

      That's because anybody who presents evidence that contradicts my fear-driven preconceptions is clearly a paid shill!

    16. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It matters in the sense that it helps for you to understand the temperatures at which various processes occur, especially when you're endorsing one.

      Otherwise you might end up saying the Earth's Core was at millions of degrees or something.

      You wouldn't want to make that mistake, would you?

    17. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by matfud · · Score: 1

      Ask him how many peoples recycled/processed water entered the Colorado river before it even entered Cali.

    18. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      When someone spit balls something out of vague memory you are expected to understand that and cut them a bit of slack.

      You are not permitted to be sit there like some autistic computer and nitpick every tiny largely irrelevant inconsistency when none of them have any undermininig influence on the inital statement or on the context of the discussion.

      I regret if that sounds offensive to you but as Cicero said, there are only two types of insults. True and False. If an insult is true you have no right to be offended for it is the truth. If an insult is false then you have no reason to be offended because it is false. Thus one never has a reason to be offended for all insults are true or false.

      As such, process what I've said... and determine if it is true or false and respond to it accordingly... without offense.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As such, process what I've said... and determine if it is true or false and respond to it accordingly... without offense.

      your comment history shows you suck epically at taking that advice yourself. how many people have to cursed at or directed to kill themselves this week? get help, son.

    20. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Hey look, an AC wants to question someone's posting history.

      You're a such a fucking clown, bingo.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    21. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you somehow think that comment that you wrote would support your argument? You are quite confused there, son.

    22. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, exactly what slack did you want me to cut you? I said you probably wanted to watch your expression, that seems a reasonably polite level of slack to offer when somebody makes an statement like yours that is off by a considerable margin when describing a particular process.

      The only opprobrium in my post would be towards some marketing BS that might have misled you, but if you're saying it was your own mistake, that's fine.

      Now hopefully you know better, and won't make the same mistake in describing the operating temperatures of solar toilets again.

      It's a helpful suggestion.

    23. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but as Cicero said, there are only two types of insults. True and False. If an insult is true you have no right to be offended for it is the truth. If an insult is false then you have no reason to be offended because it is false. Thus one never has a reason to be offended for all insults are true or false.

      Just curious -- do you have a reference confirming that statement originated from Cicero? I have not encountered it before.

    24. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I don't know where I picked that one up but I heard it ages ago and it is axiomatic in my mind at this point.

      I do not actually ever get offended. I will express offense when it is socially expected of me or when I need to communicate with someone that communicates on that level. But comments do not offend.

      I will respond to them. If you act in a hostile manner then I will respond accordingly. But I won't be offended while I do it.

      I'm a big fan of responding to things cold... at least within my self. Externally I can emote anything. There are a great many people that are very animalistic in their social patterns and require instinctual social cues to understand what you're saying. This annoys me but it is quite common so I make a point of expressing myself enough along those lines that such people can follow along. But when I know I am in the company of people that don't need that, I drop the act.

      I am a profoundly philosophical creature. I do what I do by choice. I have emotions but they means as much to me as any other sensation. Hot or cold... pressure... pain... pleasure... I am aware of the emotion in the same sense that you are aware your finger is touching something warm or cold. That is all. I have the emotions but I am not my emotions. I am rational. The emotions are just sensory information.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    25. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where I picked that one up but I heard it ages ago and it is axiomatic in my mind at this point.

      Interesting. I did a bit of searching and couldn't find any mention of Cicero having said it. Of course, a maxim's value little depends on who originally said it, but it's always nice to know whether a given attribution is actually correct.

    26. Re: I don't see why people are so childish on it by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I believe Cicero did say it. It was in and around his little monologue on how all you need to be happy is some peace and a good library.

      He was going on about how people value the wrong things in life. It is a little rich from such a wealthy guy but the point is still well taken.

      People value stuff and they value what people think.. especially people you don't know, don't know you, and that you might not even respect. And really you should value a thing for the right reasons. It is fine to value a thing. Just know why you ACTUALLY value it and then value it within that context. And as to people... that we care at all what most people think is a vestigial remnant of our hunter gatherer past. We lived in much smaller social units. There was no opinion you could be exposed to that was not from someone you knew somewhat intimately. These were people that could effect your life in some way. Their opinions mattered to some extent.

      But the average person to another average person? Utterly irrelevant. Person A can't effect person B because they probably don't have any social ties or economic ties or political ties. There's nothing there but temporary proximity and happenstance.

      And on that basis who gives a shit what they think whether it is true or false?

      And even if they can effect you, your "care" should be associated with something "real" and "material". Care to the extent that whatever is going on is going to matter to you in fact.

      People just get too emotional, reactionary, and apelike with each other.

      Our ape instincts do not serve us well outside of their evolutionary context. Which naturally precludes employing them on the fucking internet.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:I don't see why people are so childish on it by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Now, prove that its safe.

      If continuous sampling proves it confirms to both these standards it is safe.
      Seriously. Any decent muncipal water supply in the Netherlands continously monitors not only for baterial cultures but also PH and various chemical concentrations. If a test fails there is a major problem. I haven't had any trouble with our water (all toilet to tap) in my 30 years. The problems I heard of were things like broken pipes where mud got into the water. That'll give you bacteria.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  18. TFS: FTFY by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    "...using treated sewage to create drinking water is a proposition that has proved difficult for customers to swallow."

  19. Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    For years there have been reports of trace amounts of drugs in treated wastewater that could be harming wildlife and "no one seems to know which compounds need to be removed or how to remove them from the water safely", so are they filtering out these drugs before reusing the water for drinking water?

    http://www.scientificamerican....

    Aga said even without knowing exact impacts, consistently seeing antibiotics show up in effluent is concerning.

    “Even at low levels you don’t want to have people ingest antibiotics regularly because it will promote resistance,” she said.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art...

    It looked at samples from 50 large-size wastewater treatment plants nationwide and tested for 56 drugs including oxycodone, high-blood pressure medications, and over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and ibuprofen. More than half the samples tested positive for at least 25 of the drugs monitored, the study said. High blood pressure medications appeared in the highest concentrations and most frequently.

    1. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      That is also my main concern, primarily revolving around hormones. You always hear about various hormones seeping into waste water and affecting wildlife. The other pharmaceuticals are even more dangerous as you mentioned.

    2. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No wonder the fish seem so happy these days. They get Prozac, Oxycontin, etc.

    3. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered looking into the concentrations of these hormones and pharmaceuticals you are so concerned about? You don't have to live in fear.

    4. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend who worked at a water utility in my area once mentioned to me that Fluoride (toothpaste) and Estrogens (pregnancy prevention pills) are some of the most difficult substances to remove from drinking water at utility quantities.

      So are we to expect a lot more effeminate Californians with perfect teeth in the future?

    5. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Have you considered looking into the concentrations of these hormones and pharmaceuticals you are so concerned about? You don't have to live in fear.

      Can you point to the studies showing the levels of these hormones and pharmaceuticals that are present in wastewater treated for reuse as drinking water? Can you point to any regulations that require that water agencies even test for them, and studies showing what a safe level of pharmaceutical ingestion is?

      People have lived off of groundwater for many thousands of years and we have a good handle on the effects of consuming minerals (even radioactive elements like radon) in water, but consuming low levels of pharmaceuticals in their water is a relatively new phenomena that as far as I can tell, has not been well studied.

    6. Re:Are they filtering out the pharmaceuticals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The closer to the coast they are, the gayer they are already.

  20. Not a giant surprise... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Desalination is still expensive and thirst can be very, very, motivational. That, and thanks to their totally fucked water rights distribution, California will probably still be exporting alfalfa and bottled water as they are installing deathstills to reclaim the body's water of the dead.

  21. Hmm by koan · · Score: 1

    Well i isn't just poo and pee in there, there's a lot of chemicals as well.
    Would the purification process remove everything? That sounds very very expensive.
    And if it wouldn't remove everything then you will get exposure to SSRI's, antibiotics, and whatever else spawns up in that chemical soup.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  22. Wrap it up in Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrap it up in Patriotism. Wrap up anything in the American flag, and Americans will line up claiming to be the first to drink their neighbors piss before anyone else did.

    You can wrap up s**t sandwhiches in an American Flag printed taco, and people will be clamoring to be the first ones to eat it.

  23. People are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They worry about indisputably harmless stuff like this when the real threat is actually more likely to be other idiots who think it's a good idea to flush prescription drugs (or other controlled substances) down the toilet. Not to mention used antifreeze or even motor oil.

  24. Orange County's system by taustin · · Score: 1

    and to be diluted by the natural water supply

    You have that backwards. What they pump in the ground is more pure than what's already there. It's reverse osmosis water, and far, far cleaner than what comes out of the tap. (And the plant is a technological marvel.)

    1. Re:Orange County's system by QuebecNerd · · Score: 2

      Most people don't know what that but you are 100% correct.

      I do 2 things to earn a living. I'm an IT Consultant and I operate a maple farm. We use Reverse Osmosis to separate most of the water from the maple sugar crystals. For me, pure water is the waste and the rest is my base product that I boil later.

      My small RO machine can produce around 800 gallons of pure water in an hour depending on the pressure I apply on the membrane. With a properly maintained membrane, only H2O is produced, no viruses, no bacteria and no antibiotics can get beyond the membrane.. So yes, it is purer than well or tap water even the natural minerals are removed (they need to be re-added later). The pure water then created will often get polluted by the distribution pipes themselves however.

      I would have no problem at all drinking waste water from Reverse Osmosis Filtrate.

  25. here's a problem by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Apparently there is no water filtration plant in the US that can get rid of the hormones from birth control pills. So in heavily populated areas, enjoy your lady hormones, guys.

    1. Re:here's a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corrupting our precious bodily fluids.

    2. Re:here's a problem by digsbo · · Score: 1

      It seems like there's a convincing conspiracy theory to peddle there. That this is a leftist feminist plan to eradicate masculinity. Except without the fun that comes from video games and porn.

  26. Icky water? by thogard · · Score: 2

    This works so well on cruise ships as hardly anyone ever gets sick on those. A tiny hole in a filter membrane is huge to bactera and viruses.

    Lots of people are worried about bacteria but 99% of the bacteria on the planet doesn't like humans and is safe to consume. The bacteria that lives with humans or comes out of humans is what will kill people.

    Then there are prions which will pass through these filters which is why the systems that don't concentrate diseases always have a large natural buffer that is full of creatures that mess with whatever manages to get pass the sewage treatment systems. The places that are talking about bypassing a large natural reserve is asking for trouble. A large lake or a river have plenty of life that will kill off most of the nasty things but if that cycle is short circuted, there are plenty of things that survie in fairly pure water for days or weeks.

    With the cost of deslinating water, it makes more sense to use ocean water than water with too high of human waste and the health risks are far lower as well.

  27. I have no hesitation with distilled or desalinated by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    ... which is mostly what you get on the Caribbean islands. In fact I prefer distilled after I have been soaking in salt water in my wetsuit for five or six hours per day. So the question is, How purified is "recycled"? If someone can make the seawater off Grand Cayman drinkable . . .

  28. Prescription drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least for me, the poop isn't what I would be worried about. It would be all the prescription drugs in the recycled water.

  29. Life Imitates Idiocracy by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    "Water? You mean like from the toilet?"

  30. Toilet tap is not as safe as we are told by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proponents claim that recycled water has better quality than EPA standards. Such argument means little because many substances found in water are not regulated since they do not occur (in non recycled water) in significant quantities or toxicity is unknown or debated (as in Arsenic).

    Another item not being discussed is amount of drugs in recycled water.

  31. Why Not Work With This by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    California, your fucked up agricultural water rights system is making you drink your own pee. Enjoy.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  32. Re:The only one who assumed it was this way alread by smoot123 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, the water in our reservoirs is pretty skanky, filled with algae, fish pee, and critters, yet the water coming out of my tap is perfectly clear and safe. I find it hard to believe treated sewage water is dirtier than lake and river water.

  33. Rotavirus -- you have a point by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Somehow river water supplies get rotavirus in it, and the treatments in use don't seem to remove it completely.

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

    Excerpt from that article:
    "Rotaviruses are stable in the environment and have been found in estuary samples at levels up to 1â"5 infectious particles per US gallon, the viruses survive between 9 and 19 days.[23] Sanitary measures adequate for eliminating bacteria and parasites seem to be ineffective in control of rotavirus, as the incidence of rotavirus infection in countries with high and low health standards is similar.[1]"

    So in fact, it seems that "recycled" water is NOT *completely* safe.

    That said, it's better to drink recycled water than to die of thirst, or drink untreated water directly from the environment.

    --PeterM

  34. WTF? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry, but why do you shit in drinking water to begin with? Just use a compost toilet. The composting process kills almost every known disease, and if it is your own toilet, you know what diseases went in, so you know what can come out (it probably won't, and if it does, your body has learned to cope with it). It's literally dirt cheap, low-tech, and can be implemented almost anywhere. And you get better compost as well. See the Humanure Handbook for all the details.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:WTF? by itzly · · Score: 1

      What are you going to do with all the shitty compost when you live in a city apartment ?

    2. Re:WTF? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      The same as you do with the regular waste, I think. Where I live, compost is collected separately. Anyway, collecting compost is a lot easier that purifying water.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  35. Almonds, rice, and alfalfa drink 80% of rainfall by Snufu · · Score: 1

    and humans drink recycled sewage water.

    Stop big Ag subsidies and archaic water rights.

  36. Farms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the greywater for farm irrigation. This is what they do in the Middle East. The farms can consume all the water you could ever treat and more. We already know they're using more water than the settlements, so this will always be true. Once this is done there will be no need to conserve domestic water in the cities except for the capacity of the treatment plant. There will only be a need to conserve irrigation water in the cities because that water doesn't end up in the sewer.

    1. Re:Farms by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      I was going to suggest that but realized that there currently isn't a way to transport the poopwater from urban areas where it's generated to rural areas where the farms are without using the existing potable water transport systems. If you're going to make it clean enough for that, there's no point in transporting it.

    2. Re:Farms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not adequately treated, I hope you enjoy E Coli in your lettuce.

    3. Re:Farms by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      So wait, you're saying that the infrastructure in CA is inadequate?

      --
      X
  37. It's not recycled sewage by Pollux · · Score: 2

    Stop calling it recycled sewage. It's recycled water. And everyone drinks it.

    As this page eloquently explains (or you can go to the Wikipedia page to get a lot more details), the wastewater that flows out of your house goes to a water treatment plant where it goes through four stages:

    1) Pre-Treatment - large objects (tampons, leaves, wet wipes, etc.) are removed
    2) Primary Treatment - fat & grease is removed; organic solids are removed
    3) Secondary Treatment - remaining organic matter is broken down and removed; soaps & detergents and other contaminants are removed
    4) Tertiary Treatment - nitrogen & phosphorous compounds are removed & oxygen levels are balanced; further processing & cleaning (depending on state laws)

    What remains is dumped back into a river, which, surprise, gets pumped out to supply water to the next urban community downstream!

    Again, it's recycled water. Whether it's pumped out of the river for tap, or whether it's pumped, filtered, bottled, and sold at your supermarket, it's recycled water.

    1. Re:It's not recycled sewage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea about the quality of water that comes out of treatment plants.. Hint: People working in the field wouldn't drink it.

  38. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You're assuming that rotavirus is immortal or something. If the existing practices for water sanitation are insufficient to kill it, then clearly those need to be looked at so it is killed.

    We already put a certain amount of chlorine in our water. Does your water recycling concept take that into consideration? There are other things... a fine filter would remove the virus. Those are expensive but maybe that's just a requirement?

    Also you can look at UV treatment... that works sometimes... I'd say boil it, but if you're doing that you might as well just use sea water.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  39. Flush twice by kevmeister · · Score: 1

    When I grew up in Colorado Alamosa disposed of treated sewage into the Arkansas River. Pueblo used Arkansas River water, treated it, and sent it right back into the river. La Junta took its water from the Arkansas, treated it and used it. It then treated the sewage and put it back into the river. Everyone seemed aware and untroubled by this simple fact: Everyone downstream from at least Alamosa was drinking some treated sewage and nobody bought bottled water.

    Standard bathroom graffiti in Alamosa read "Flush twice! Pueblo needs the water!!!". In Pueblo you saw the same thing with La Junta substituted for Pueblo.

    --
    Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    1. Re:Flush twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never thought I'd see anyone mention Alamosa, CO on Slashdot.

      The water sucks, well unless you like tons of sulfur.

    2. Re:Flush twice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You see the same thing in Sacramento. With Los-Angles substituted for La Junta.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  40. Re:Almonds, rice, and alfalfa drink 80% of rainfal by itzly · · Score: 1

    So you want to spray sewage over the almond trees instead ?

  41. Amazed.... again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm always fascinated and amazed by the lengths Californicators will go to continue living in a place that isn't conducive to natural mass populations. Go ahead. Drink your shit.

  42. Re:The only one who assumed it was this way alread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most waste water discharge is not dirtier than reservoir water. It is cleaner.

  43. comment subject here by Falos · · Score: 1

    - I thought lots of municipalities already did this stuff. For ages. Bunch of physical, chemical, mechanical filters/treatments. We simply avoid thinking about it, like with many things we do/ingest. Including the affluents. "Everyone poops."

    - Poop ain't shit. It's an infectious slurry at first, but the components under that aren't particularly important. Bunch of carbon. Fibers, fats. Carbon, hydrogen. Organic material - as in, what you eat. The point (as seen above repeatedly) is we should be far more concerned about chemicals that get dumped (flushed) into the water. And I even reckon one guy flushing a pill or two will be diluted to homeopathic (lol) tier - it's an office or factory dumping a bottle of something every week, all year round, that I'd be nervous about.

    > beaten back by entitled, squeamish whiners who denounced
    - FTFY. See above point. Sell them bottled water at gouge rates. We've already observed that (1) people don't know or care about what it actually is so long as it has a picture of mountains or fields or glaciers on the tin (must not have a bear next to a river); and (2) they can't judge which contents matter anyway.

  44. Button-Activated Showers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The technology already exists. Motion-sensing faucets. Motion-sensing hand dryers. Motion-sensing towel dispensers. Press a button and you get 30 seconds of shower water. You shampoo and scrub without wasting water. When you're ready to rinse, you press the button again. At the end of your shower, you've used two or three minutes of water, instead of wasting 10 or 15 minutes. Combine this with flash-heating technology, and you could save another 30 seconds from being wasted while waiting for the water to warm up.

    The interesting thing is that here on Slashdot an idiot who whines about almonds/rice/alfalfa actually gets modded up. How many makers read Slashdot? If you want to save water, then STFU and do it. Better get busy, or the finger-wagging Nazis will have us all eating Soylent.

  45. Grey Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't we recycle the shower water into toilet water? Some RVs do this to save water, why don't homes?

  46. Re:The only one who assumed it was this way alread by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

    It's not so much the pooh factor, it's all the chemicals we pour down the drain.

    --
    X
  47. already being done in Texas by CaptainPhoton · · Score: 1

    This is old news for a different part of the country. North Texas has been in drought for several years now, and they put this idea into practice:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toilet-to-tap-wastewater-recycling-begins-in-wichita-falls-texas/

  48. Nuclear Power Plants by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm reminded of nuclear power plants: everything is great when brand-new; everything functions, maintenance is top-notch and top-priority.

    But in the fullness of time (and the penny-pinching greed of both privately and publicly-held entities), along with all too human facets of complacency and sloth... that is when the shit comes down. In this case, more than just figuratively.

  49. Can I have some Prozac with that? by careysb · · Score: 1

    Over the years there have been articles about what kinds of chemicals they are having difficulty filtering out. Prozac was just one such example.

    1. Re:Can I have some Prozac with that? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      The simple solution would be to boil the water as Prozac, birth control medication and the other chemicals we dump wholesale into the water system wouldn't be a problem.

      Once you get enough built up crud you would scrape it off and burn it to help produce the energy necessary to boil the water.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Can I have some Prozac with that? by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      THIS. What happens when we double or triple the concentration of Prozac/Wellbutrin/Lithium/whatever in our water supply because we drink it over and over?

    3. Re:Can I have some Prozac with that? by suutar · · Score: 1

      gonna have to move to distillation at some point, I guess.

  50. Stop saying Toilet to Tap by donkwich · · Score: 1

    Even people who approve of this idea are saying toilet-to-tap. You may as well be saying ass-to-mouth.

    And you never go ass-to-mouth.

  51. it's more than that by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Actually, closer to 100% of water is recycled. Possible exceptions being that underground lake they found in Antarctica (Lake Vostok) that has been sitting there for the past 15-25 million years, and a few places like it.

    Still doesn't mean that it's not recycled dinosaur toilet water. There's been a few nights I thought I recycled all the fresh water myself, or that's what my kidneys (and their damned stones) were telling me.

  52. It works in porn by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Hell, just about every porn video out these days has "toilet to tap" scenery. Should be easy to get by the "activists" these days.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  53. Bad news to all these recycled water protesters... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    ...you have been drinking "toilet to tap" your entire lives. You think animal urine doesn't make it into the rivers and groundwater supplies? Where, exactly, do you think all that stuff that goes into septic tanks goes?

  54. Re:The only one who assumed it was this way alread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you serious? How can a human being be so clueless? Do you have any idea of all the various things that are put down the drain? Treatment of waste water is only to the point where biological and chemical oxygen demand is reduced such that wildlife is not immediately killed where the effluent is expelled or some distance from this...maybe. There has to be such a great imaginary construction of physics defying energy consumption and mass transportation (where does all the non water stuff go?) to even begin to imagine that wastewater is anywhere near as clean as collected rain that it is difficult to believe that you are being honest.

  55. Not that green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    using treated sewage to create drinking water is a proposition that has proved difficult to sell to customers

    And I thought you people fancied yourselves as green.

  56. Commie Logic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of food is bad. Well stocked grocery stores are evil. Now get back to the labor death-camp and starve.

  57. A better solution by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Take the 'recycled' water and use it for agriculture, industry, and landscaping, and leave the 'first use' water for people.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  58. SCADAtage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open the valve between input and output and ...

  59. What about drug residues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that the stream from a municipal waste treatment plant includes an unhealthy concentration of un-metabolized pharma.

    The way to get rid of these is distillation as in let it evaporate and fall back as rain.

    So direct recycling is problematic.

  60. Not homeopathically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the water in the world is about a 7C dilution of Adolf Hitler's piss.

  61. Why not Desalinization? by pastafazou · · Score: 1

    Considering how much California seems to be willing to spend on dubious infrastructure such as not so high speed trains, why aren't they building desalinization plants to solve their water shortage?

    1. Re:Why not Desalinization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desalination is more expensive, as has been mentioned numerous times before when this California drought discussion has come up.

      That said, there ARE such plants in California.

  62. Re:Bad news to all these recycled water protesters by itzly · · Score: 1

    The length of the path makes a difference. The longer the waste products stay in a lake, river, or in the ground, the bigger the chance that some organism will interact with it, and break it down.

  63. Municipal Seawater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need for nukes. Pump disinfected seawater (not desalinated) to the homes and businesses. You can bathe/swim/flush to your heart's content. Drinking water can be obtained from table-top desalination appliances, probably no bigger than a coffee maker. Solar powered desalination is another option for those who own a home. Solar or solar-electric hybrid could also supply enough for lawn irrigation. The desalination brine would be diluted by the overwhelming use of ordinary seawater. Plus, the drought will not last forever.

    Some adjustments would be necessary. Drinking fountains would need to be retrofitted. Some businesses might be impacted. But the technology already exists, so it's not the end of the world.

  64. Toilet to tap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bear Grylls has been doing it for years!

  65. Rebranding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sell it as lemonade or fudge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeiSx5MNDvg

  66. Seawater Independence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water shortage? The entire freaking ocean is right there. A large slice of California's population lives within a few miles of the coast. In-home desalination can be accomplished by a device no more complicated than a table-top coffee maker. Everyone desalinates exactly what they need, using either solar power or low cost off-peak electricity.

  67. Christopher Columbus here by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    A chemistry book (forgot title, this was 40 years ago I read) when discussing vast amount of water molecules it said a glass of water will contain about 3 of them from the same glass of water that Columbus drank from.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  68. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think the appropriate public health measure vs. rotavirus is already in place. Immunize children against it. It's probably a cheaper intervention than stricter water purification standards.

    However, there are other possible risks with recycled water, such as residual drugs from human excretions. These should be studied, weighed, and something sane done about them. If the risk is really small, the sane thing to do is nothing.

    --PM

  69. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Others have brought up the residual drug issue and that's a very good point. I don't have an answer for that. If they can't sort that out, then you are correct... we can't do this...

    A possible solution as unpopular as it is would be to require drugs be biodegradable. That is unlikely to be accepted but absent that... I don't know how you recycle the water...

    without... filters? The issue with filters is that they clog up really fast and it is absurdly expensive to replace them. But assuming you had that issue licked... filters.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  70. All water is recycled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dinosaurs pissed into the water now coming from the tap. Figuratively. Not Literarily.
    Rain is recycled water. As such water is recycled since 4 billion years. Get over it.

    People are idiots.

  71. Re:The only one who assumed it was this way alread by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    I kind of just always assumed that treated water was put back in the reservoirs anyway. I mean, it has been TREATED right? Wouldn't that make it cleaner than most lake water anyway?

    Stop it! Logic has no place in politics!

  72. Not People. Dinosaurs. by tsqr · · Score: 1

    * internet advises people to drink 2-3 L of fluids per day. * 365 days per year, 70 year lifespan -> 70k liters -> 70 m^3 over lifetime. * 7b ppl alive today. Everybody alive today will drink 500 m^3 of fluids. * the handwavey estimate is that half of the people who have ever lived are alive today. if this is true, then the entire human species has drunk 1000 m^3 of water. * the volume of the ocean is 1.3 10^9 km^3 -> 1.3 10^18 m^3.

    You say "7b ppl alive today", but then multiply 70m^3 by 7. Either b=1, or your estimate is off by just a smidge, or 9 orders of magnitude.

    Either way, most of the water we drink has not been previously drunk by another human. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, are a different story (obligatory xkcd).

  73. My horndog cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So my cousin will finally get his wish to drink Angelina Jolies bathwater?

    1. Re:My horndog cousin by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've considered renting a hotel room downstairs of Jolie drilling into the bath drain and making a fortune.

      How much would a Jolie pube bring on ebay?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  74. Idiocracy by MinamataHG · · Score: 1

    was indeed a visionary movie...

  75. Water is water - BUT! by TomRC · · Score: 1

    It's all very fine and scientific to say that H20 is H20 - but I think many distrust that there won't be occasional 'leaks' in the system.

  76. Re:Almonds, rice, and alfalfa drink 80% of rainfal by TomRC · · Score: 1

    Almond trees, for example, take about 10% of agriculture water, or 8% of all human-used water.

    So if you are willing to pay the $ billions to compensate the almond farmers you would bankrupt by stealing their water, you could get about a 40% increase in the 20% share of non-agricultural water, to water your lawn and fill your swimming pool. California has sufficient water to drink and bathe after all - it's the lawns and pools that "suffer" in a drought. So you're really arguing in favor of reducing food production in favor of keeping lawns green and pools filled.

    Oh, BTW - agriculture actually gets only about 40% of total human managed water - half of water that could be directed to human use goes to conservation areas. Yep - those water-hogging birds and animals and trees use more water than "big agriculture". Truly shameful of them not to give up some of that to make sure you can go swimming in your home pool, or golfing on soft green grass.

  77. well and septic anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My well and septic system takes our waste, letting the liquid part leach back into the soil. Some distance away, my well sucks water out of the same general aquifer. The wonder of nature keeps the bad stuff far enough away.

  78. Re:Almonds, rice, and alfalfa drink 80% of rainfal by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Umm, price water the same for everyone. Problem solved.

  79. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Drugs delivered via patch directly to the blood stream put a lot less residue into sewage vs. pill form.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  80. Seawater is Free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason that California residents (who live near the ocean and have plentiful sunlight) cannot get their drinking water from a solar still?
    http://water.usgs.gov/edu/drinkseawater.html
    Is there an actual engineering reason? Because, while I'm not an engineer, it seems to me that the only thing archaic is that some people don't understand that the ocean is a source of water.
    http://www.waterscarcitysolutions.org/assets/2030WRG_case_study_hong_kong.pdf

    Some people might live in apartments where a solar still would be unworkable. But they could use electric-powered stills. If they were powered during off-peak hours, would this be a burden on the power grid (or the carbon footprint, if you prefer to think that way)?

  81. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    that's an idea

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  82. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Not an original one, or I'd patent it.

    Ducking

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  83. Dual Water Systems in San Jose, CA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    San Jose, CA, already has a dual water system. Reclaimed water is used in city buildings for flushing, and in city parks for irrigation. San Jose is a coastal city and has access to unlimited free ocean water from the Bay of San Francisco.

  84. Re:Rotavirus -- you have a point by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    Most drugs are quite large molecules and not UV resistant. If it becomes a problem then we, in the Netherlands, will start installing UV installations after our sewage treatment plants. For now it is only done in large hospitals because there the medicine concentration is significantly higher. There are monitoring systems in place to test for drugs in the cleaned water after the sewage water treatment but the need to clean them out of there is just not all that big.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.