Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FreekFrealy t1_iwgxcde wrote

What a lot of people that are squeamish about waste water recycling fail to grasp is that you live in a city that gets its water from a river you already are drinking recycled waste water. To say nothing of recycling of the water cycle in general

If there are a few cities on a river that is essentially a river of (hopefully) treated waste water.

We can make this process much more efficient by recycling water in more closed loop systems but for some reason people think drinking the recycled waste water from people upriver is preferable to drinking the recycled waste water from your neighbors

258

gunplumber700 t1_iwhasa8 wrote

Not nearly to the degree you’re making it out to be. It’s not direct recycled water. Its water that’s generally diluted in natural freshwater by at least an order of magnitude or more.

Also, most municipalities get their water from reservoirs that receive no wastewater treatment plant effluent.

97

FreekFrealy t1_iwhcaui wrote

It definitely varies region to region, in water rich regions it's easier to find such sources. Of course the point of this article is that the quality of the water doesn't even have to suffer if you are sourcing from wastewater

But in water poor regions where most major cities exist along major rivers that often struggle to make it to the ocean it really isn't an over statement, and these are the regions that need closed loop wastewater recycling the most

33

gunplumber700 t1_iwj152i wrote

There’s only a handful of areas where it’s a major problem (cough cough LA).

Focusing on water loss and reducing that would save quite a bit of water, but for whatever reason everyone is fine with throwing away treated potable water but is gung ho for drinking wastewater.

In my 5 minutes google search LA uses 10,999 MILLION gallons a month and has 7% water loss. I know it’ll never be 0, but that 770 MILLION gallons a month isn’t negligible.

6

outofideastx t1_iwjco13 wrote

UCLA said that the LA area reports of 3-7% water loss are because main breaks are being counted as "Unbilled, Unmetered consumption" instead of loss in some areas, and state of the art utilities still report a 10% water loss. I also found a Reuter's article stating that over 25% of the water mains in LA are teetering on 100 years old. I think it's safe to say that their figures are incomplete at best.

The relatively large Texas city I work for ranges between 10 and 20% depending on the year.

https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/news/california-water-agencies-dont-know-much-pipes-leak-ucla-report-finds/

2

gunplumber700 t1_iwjdpxa wrote

I wanted to use 7% to be conservative. It’s definitely much higher.

Imo distribution systems are one of the most neglected parts of the water utility system.

Why everyone thinks they’ll last forever is beyond me.

4

outofideastx t1_iwjf36o wrote

It's frustrating to say the least. At the pace we're going, we will have all the cast iron replaced in 50 years. By then, the ductile will be 90-110 years old, and the PVC will be 50-90. The math doesn't add up.

3

enemy_lettuce838 t1_iwjo4bn wrote

The US isn't the only place where water is important.

1

gunplumber700 t1_iwjrb8s wrote

No, but seeing as the article was written in California I chose a California city as an example.

0

greeneggsnyams t1_iwhbogh wrote

Louisville Kentucky, some of the best tap water you'll get in the world, gets its water from THE OHIO RIVER. And we're down river from Cincinnati and Pittsburgh

24

MpVpRb t1_iwii5za wrote

>Also, most municipalities get their water from reservoirs

that are full of living things that poop, die and decay

8

gunplumber700 t1_iwiw1ek wrote

Not the same as literal concentrated human shitwater. Go take a look at some raw wastewater and some raw reservoir/ well water.

I also left out wells. Reservoirs and wells.

9

Lake_ t1_iwk5yjh wrote

it’s treated first idiot. in a very effective multistage process. biological material is actually the easiest part to clean. it’s the chemicals from industrial waste that should be more concerning. the water from a wwtp is clear and free of microorganisms and is already treated by law where you have to treat the raw water from reservoirs for it to be drinkable.

−4

intensiveduality t1_iwkcb2b wrote

Is a discussion over water really worth insulting strangers for absolutely no reason? Be better

2

gunplumber700 t1_iwl4zri wrote

Well moron, there’s a thing called grammar. Feel free to use it.

Go look at colliform samples from the average wwtp.

Wwtp effluent is NOT treated to drinking water standards. Every heard of crypto (not the currency)? Enlighten me on how a wwtp without a tertiary process treats their effluent for that to need drinking water standards?

1

jffleisc t1_iwj18qj wrote

My town’s water supply comes out of the Hudson river. guess where the wastewater ends up.

3

gunplumber700 t1_iwj4ztc wrote

So put it into perspective.

How does a wwtp work? It does exactly what occurs naturally in nature, only faster. Wastewater plant effluent continues to break down after leaving the plant. It also gets diluted when entering receiving waters.

Part of a wwtp’s npdes permit is supposed to consider other downstream users.

Edit: would you rather drink just wwtp effluent or 99.9999% fresh water diluted with 0.00001% treated wastewater.

−1

StretchArmstrong74 t1_iwj9xir wrote

Depends on how "fresh" that water is to begin with. I'd damn sure drink our effluent before I'd chug a glass of water out of the Hudson river.

I know for a fact the stream we feed into is cleaner downstream of our dump than it is upstream, which means drinking it after it was diluted would be worse than drinking it straight.

2

yacht_boy t1_iwjd09d wrote

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And it appears you have a very little knowledge.

−4

gunplumber700 t1_iwje4wh wrote

Oh yea? Since you’re so smart you have something constructive to add to the discussion right?

Please enlighten us with your wisdom…

1

yacht_boy t1_iwk6482 wrote

Well, I'm bound by legal provisions that curtail my ability to speak freely on social media. I could lose my job and be subject to fines, etc. So I can't just school you, much as I'd like to.

But I can say that I am a co-author on a shelf full of books and peer-reviewed journal articles about this exact topic. I know the intricate details of water reuse and resource recovery from wastewater very, very well.

Over the last 20 years of work in this field, I've gotten good at determining who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. And you don't.

Please shut up, you are out of your depth.

−2

intensiveduality t1_iwkc9cz wrote

Your comments have taught me nothing except that you have a bad attitude and zero professionalism.

2

ScientificSkepticism t1_iwlqdv9 wrote

You have the biggest Navy Seal energy.

0

yacht_boy t1_iwlx71l wrote

Just hate seeing people trashing a subject I have devoted my entire career to with misinformation and innuendo. Water reuse is safe, effective, and achievable.

1

ScientificSkepticism t1_iwly3nc wrote

Mate at some point if multiple people are reading your "serious post" and are waiting for the rest of the Navy Seal copypasta, you done went wrong.

1

yacht_boy t1_iwlzwsr wrote

Meh, what can I say. I am legitimately not allowed to give out any identifying details that would tie me to my employer on any social media channel, because then I would be considered to be representing that employer. I can only represent my employer by going through all the official channels, which involves public affairs people, managerial review, blah blah blah. I have to take an annual training on this exact topic. Nowhere near as exciting as a Navy Seal, but similar levels of bureaucracy.

1

Manofalltrade t1_iwjs409 wrote

Natural freshwater that fish spawn in, animals die and rot in, and everything poops in?

0

gunplumber700 t1_iwl32m1 wrote

So since you seem to think raw freshwater is so dirty go take some colliform and ecoli samples. Let me know how clean you think wastewater effluent is after that.

0

Manofalltrade t1_iwlp9x9 wrote

I’ve been around a bit more than you know. Disease and toxins are what they are and after you hit a certain threshold the concentration essentially doesn’t matter anymore. Water molecules are all the same (unless you are getting pedantic about radioisotopes). Once it’s clean, it doesn’t matter where it came from.

0

gunplumber700 t1_iwlu17e wrote

I don’t care how long you've been around.

If you think ANY amount of pathogens are acceptable in drinking water you have the science understanding of a 5 year old.

If you want to live in theory land water entering a wastewater treatment plant is 99% pure.

Drinking water regulations are different than wastewater for a reason…

0

Manofalltrade t1_iwmvpzz wrote

Not how long I’ve been around, it’s what I’ve been around. Clearly you are suffering from thinking you know more than you do. I’m haven’t bothered typing out the nuance of all this as it is truly beside the point. I’m also not going to spend anymore time trying to improve your understanding because your attempts at condescension demonstrate that it would be a waste of effort. Good day.

0

gunplumber700 t1_iwn7oq2 wrote

Yea, because your last comment wasn’t condescending at all…

Your literally being a know it all that has to get the last word in or you wouldn’t have commented that you’re done.

Your comment toward “improving your understanding” proves that you’re just being a know it all without actually providing anything of substance.

If you have something of substance then you would have posted it…

Man of all trades, master of none.

Since you’re in need of knowledge that you clearly don’t have I’d like to direct you toward these few specific courses.

Geology 101, hydrology 101, and limnology 301.

0

Radiant_Ad_4428 t1_iwh8gio wrote

If you've ever visited a wastewater treatment facility you'd understand people's apprehension.

Just a sea of floating tampon applicators and condoms.

9

FreekFrealy t1_iwh8pc8 wrote

I understand perfectly well that that very same water is released into the river after treatment only to be uptaken into the next city's water system.

Obviously an apprehension over unsafe water sources is a natural and healthy response but the point is that we are already drinking that tampon water, so we may as well be more efficient about it

26

sawbladex t1_iwj14b0 wrote

... I don't know man, I want to cut that tampon water with other water and shuffle the mixture around a bit.

3

KarateKid72 t1_iwirp6e wrote

If you worked in the industry, you’d know that what gets caught in a bar screen isn’t what makes to the outfall. The variation between pretreatment, influent and effluent is quite large. To say nothing of the differences in Coliform bacteria populations upstream, downstream. Influent and effluent.

11

yacht_boy t1_iwjdqtr wrote

I've been to over 100 of them. The whole point is that we take stuff out of wastewater and make the water clean again. I don't care how dirty the water coming in is. I care how clean it is when the job is done.

What's missing from this thread is the realization that there are different levels of treatment. You can take any grade of dirty water and turn it into any grade of clean water. It's just a matter of how much time, energy, and money you want to spend.

1

gunplumber700 t1_iwjfyps wrote

While that’s a good point are you really that naïve that you think it’s going to be a widespread standard of operation at every water system?

If you’ve truly been to 100 plants in a meaningful capacity I can’t believe you have the ignorance to say it’s how much you want to spend. Especially in places that do not have a high water reuse need.

−1

yacht_boy t1_iwk5duj wrote

Not everyone needs to reuse water. They can spend less to get water to the quality that is what meets their 1970s or 1980s permit limits.

But water reuse is entirely achievable for those who need it. You seem to be stuck on the ick factor. Get over it.

−1

Radiant_Ad_4428 t1_iwk9j5o wrote

Hey I'm fully aware about how bacteria and tampons can be removed. My question to you is about that guy whose water supply was fucked by the oil fracking.

Remember that video? Is that water that can be salvaged? You seem to know a lot.

2

yacht_boy t1_iwlyakt wrote

All water is infinitely recycled. Anything that can be put into water can be taken back out. It's just a matter of how much time, energy, and money you want to spend.

I don't know enough about what was going on with that guy's water to comment on specific fixes to his well water. But when you get into issues with rural communities where people are using individual wells, it can get really, really expensive to try to treat all those individual wells. Like many other technologies, water technologies benefit from economies of scale. So for a guy who's private well is suffering from contamination, the costs to remove that contamination can be nightmarish because he's got to pay for the whole thing himself. But if that same contamination was present at a municipal facility serving 1000s of people, the total equipment and operational cost might be much bigger than for the private well but the cost per person amortized out over 20 years might be quite manageable.

2

littlegreenrock t1_iwj1jmt wrote

People still cling to a centuries old idea that river from a stream or lake is as pure as mother nature gets. recycled waste water is always going to be superior to dam water because they take the water component out of the waste water, rather than taking dirty water, and making it "treated" dirty water. If we applied the same methods used for recycled water, with dam water, dam water would be equally perfect. Equally

7

Strazdas1 t1_iwkn9gq wrote

What if you get your water from underground reserves that were dormant for millions of years?

1

EasterBunnyArt t1_iwhcons wrote

Nah, I like the headline where we basically admitted to having polluted the world so badly waste water is better though viewed as the opposite.

−1