Share
David Wilson
Wilson’s world
David Wilson is editor of Engineeringtalk and Electronicstalk and associate editor of The Engineer
Still on the bottle
The tap water where I live tastes horrid. While it might be good for washing clothes and watering the garden, drinking it is not an option — at least not one that I would consider. So each time I visit the local Stop and Save, I pick up one or two large plastic containers containing five litres of spring water from Scotland.
I realise, of course, that purchasing bottled water from a store is possibly one of the most environmentally unfriendly things that any consumer could do. Aside from the energy required to manufacture the containers themselves, there’s the added cost of bottling and transporting the water all the way from Scotland to my local store. Not to mention the cost of recycling the plastic once the water has been consumed.
Despite these facts, drinking bottled water is a habit that I don’t intend to give up anytime soon. After all, the knowledge that my water naturally filtered through the volcanic aquifers makes me feel a darned sight happier than if I were poisoning myself by drinking tap water from the mains water supply, which may be contaminated with all manner of unnatural chemicals.
Now some of you might think that my attitude towards tap water is a little theatrical. After all, it would be quite mind-boggling if the UK government simply stood and watched millions of people drink a product that it knew contained chemicals with unknown side effects. Or would it?
It’s a question that certainly crossed my mind last month when I read that researchers at Brunel University had discovered that some UK tap water contains levels of chemicals used as silver polishing agents in dishwasher powders that are 10 times higher than those recommended in Australia’s guidelines for water reuse.
To reach that conclusion, they took water and effluent samples from the River Erewash near Nottingham and from the River Colne near Uxbridge, West London, which all contained the chemicals benzotriazole and tolytriazole. Tap water samples were then also taken and the chemicals were detected in all 80 samples analysed.
Revealing the results of the findings, lead researcher Dr Mark Scrimshaw from Brunel said that although the presence of chemicals in the environment and drinking water does not in itself ‘pose a threat to public health and the environment’, there is ‘some concern’ that the possible effects of long-term exposure to individual chemicals or mixtures of chemicals are ‘not fully understood’.
Needless to say, while I may have felt a little environmentally irresponsible for drinking expensive bottled water before I read this report, after doing so I no longer feel quite so guilty each time I pour myself a wee drop or two from the portable plastic highland spring.
After all, while I might well be wasting many of the Earth’s valuable resources to indulge in drinking a product that could be obtained just as easily by turning on my cold water tap, at least I feel reassured that it doesn’t contain aromatics commonly used as corrosion inhibitors whose possible chronic effects on the human body seem far from well known.
Bottoms up.
David Wilson
The Wilson’s world blog also forms part of the Engineeringtalk, Electronicstalk and Manufacturingtalk newsletters. To subscribe, go here for Engineeringtalk, here for Electronicstalk and here for Manufacturingtalk
Readers' comments (15)
Jo | 26 May 2011 12:02 pm
I take you have had your bottled water checked as the rain water feeding your natural Scottish springwater is part of the normal water cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation, which comes from any part of the world, including the rivers near Nottingham and Uxbridge!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barry | 26 May 2011 12:33 pm
What about a reverse osmosis system under your sink. It'll give you 100 per cent pure water save you money and the environment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 May 2011 12:40 pm
Interesting David, but mindful of the scandal involving a certain mineral water of French extraction a few years ago I wonder what a similar exhaustive analysis of your plastic bottled water would reveal, particularly if the full bottles had been exposed to the sun's rays for any length of time?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 May 2011 1:24 pm
Why are you convinced bottled water does not contain chemicals? You could read http://www.ewg.org/BottledWater/Bottled-Water-Quality-Investigation/Bottled-Water-Quality-Investigation-Test-Results - but I'm not sure I should advise you to do so...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Geofrey Iason | 26 May 2011 2:24 pm
Why not consider a small reverse osmosis (RO) unit. For around £70 an RO unit will produce up to 50 gallons per day. Water free from pathogens and ionic constituents is guaranteed. As with many things initial outlay is higher than the few pounds for 5L of water but the carbon footprint per litre is a lot smaller on shipping alone. Also the RO unit takes up less space than the 5L bottle.
The only problem with RO however is that many people do not like the taste of pure RO water as the chemicals present in spring water (from natural filtration and absorbtion) are now removed, these give the water some taste! Additionally a high level of waste bypass water is produced although this could be diverted to a container for garden water or even a grey water tank for use in toilet system.
Obviously pre filters and RO membranes need replacing in RO units which have attached a carbon footprint but, if only used for drinking water, due to the size, weight production and shipping quantities of filters and membranes the footprint per litre I would guess is considerably less than 5 litres of water weighing 5 KG + the bottle weight. The main unit being made of steel and polyethylene should last a lifetime.
Being of the Marine Fish Hobbyist type I regularly produce RO water in batches of 40 Litres taking about 6 hours to produce. The bypass water is then effectively used in plant tubs and baskets. The rest of the time the RO unit resides in the shed out of the way. At this rate filters and membranes should last me about two years.
Fortunately I have good quality tasty scottish water that I can drink from the tap although if I lived in the calcium laden downs areas I'm sure the RO unit would be pressed into service for drinking water.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Geoff Wilson | 26 May 2011 3:00 pm
Someone once told me that on average a litre of London tap water had been through five sets of kidneys (Human I expect). Ours in North Yorkshire has probably though just sheep and cows! Still it's a natural product.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cliff Johnston | 26 May 2011 3:05 pm
Your story of drinking water brings on an another thought. Many people today consume highly processed food and drink. If one reads the label all contain one or more chemicals we can't even pronounce let alone understand. Each alone may not be harmful at all. But in combination the result is unknown in the long run. This is a scary thought.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
colinsteam | 26 May 2011 3:32 pm
How about a carbon filter, wouldn't that save your health, the planet and your pocket?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Cardoza | 26 May 2011 4:42 pm
In the US and Canada, the situation may well be reversed: bottled water may contain chemical levels in excess of tap water. The problem is that bottled water is not closely regulated so the water sources may not be as claimed: In one situation “Spring Water” was being pumped from the ground in an industrial location with a lot of contaminants and sold to a number of bottled water companies. There is no guarantee that bottled water is better unless it is analyzed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil | 26 May 2011 6:08 pm
You may be just swapping one pollutant for another! Plastic bottles used for drinking water often leach bisphenol A into the water. This has known effects on the production and effects of hormones within the human body.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gus S. Calabrese , S.E. 99guspuppet | 26 May 2011 7:08 pm
1. What is in the spring water? Do you know?
2. Does it make economic sense for the public water system to guarantee that water delivered en-mass through long buried pipes is safe to drink ...or tastes good ? Not to me....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Walker | 27 May 2011 0:43 am
Perhaps a more environmentally friendly alternative would be to obtain a secondary filter system for your home? I say perhaps as I haven't done a life cycle total cost analysis but generally a higher upfront capital cost can be more than offset by lower operating costs over a long period.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JS | 27 May 2011 2:38 pm
But David. How can you be sure of the contents of your 'spring' water? Remember the Dasani fiasco ?
And what of the chemicals that will be leaching in from the plastic bottle ?
Surely a better way to avoid risk is to drink beer made from water of a known source - Charles Wells Bedford ales for example have their own well!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James H | 28 May 2011 10:19 pm
I think you're a bit of a wally, there's nothing wrong with British tap water!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
billy charisma | 3 Jun 2011 1:02 pm
you could always move house to Teesside! and drink our wholesome northumbrian water direct from your tap!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment