Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EPA's Drinking Water Report, is the glass half full or half empty?

Options
  • 24-01-2002 10:17pm
    #1
    Typedef
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭


    http://www.epa.ie/Press%20Releases/press_releases.htm#dwr2000
    Overall, the quality of public water supplies was found to be satisfactory with 91 per cent of samples tested being acceptable........

    The quality of group water schemes (supplying 7 per cent of the sampled drinking water) continues to be unsatisfactory with only 59 per cent of samples tested being acceptable.

    A disturbing feature identified during some EPA audits was evidence gathered that all drinking water quality data was not returned by the Local Authorities to the EPA for inclusion in the annual drinking water report. The EPA will now insist that all results are submitted by the end of April each year.

    According to the year 2000 summary on the report 6.8% of water is derived from group supply schemes, 92.8% is derived from a state body of some description and 0.3% is derived privately.

    Interestingly the summary suggests that Coliforms in the drinking water are too high and that this evidence suggests that the drinking water is not being treated properly, in fact the summary [here] suggests that the biggest culprit in this instance is the group water scheme section of water derivation.

    Clearly there is a substancial difference between 'Group water schemes' and state derived sources, with respect to Faecal/Coliform/E.Coli contaminants, state derived drinking was found to be 96.7% in line with EPA criteria, while 'Group schemes' were found to be 70.8% in accordance.

    The summary goes on to highlight that between 1999 and 2000 the instances of Coliform contaminants in 'Group schemes' water doubled.

    In otherwords, if you don't live in an area that is directly supplied with water by the state you stand a three in ten chance of consuming water that has been tainted by mamilian exrement (or the tiny lifeforms that live in human intestines), as opposed to living in a state supplied area where your chances of consuming water tainted by Coliforms is roughly three in one hundred. Is this another way the state has sidelined it's rural citizens or simply the reality of what living away from state provided amenities is and part of the price you pay for living away from urban areas? Lets not forget most 'Group schemes' are in remote rural districts.


Advertisement