$$$$Lotto

http://www.e-vwd.com/m.asp?m=17584FE&m5=1






"Bobby Fischler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > Joe Schmoe <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > > Can anyone comment on whether the drinking water in southern Germany
    > > is very pure, and are there companies there that deliver purified or
    > > distilled water to residential homes?
    > Southern Germany is still pretty good and has fewer Muslims living
    > there than in the north. The Bavarians are very clean and the
    > sanitary standards are very high. The Bavarians still attand church
    > and do not engage in the eating of halil meat like the more muslim
    > north.
    > The northern parts of Germany have more leftists and SPD (socialist)
    > voters. This is the area you want to avoid. They are supposedly
    > closing the churches in the north and turning them into mosques.

Inge

Bobby Fischler wrote:
    >
    > Joe Schmoe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > > Can anyone comment on whether the drinking water in southern Germany
    > > is very pure, and are there companies there that deliver purified or
    > > distilled water to residential homes?

Some supermarkets deliver to your home.

Water is generally good, depends on the town, and even more on the
building you're in. If the pipes in the building are not good, no matter
how good the water that goes in, what comes out in your flat might have
a funny taste. Especially in southern Germany there are some cities
which have a lot of calcium in the water, so if you're a tea or coffee
conaisseur, you might want to use bottled water.

However, bottled water comes commonly in PET bottles, which leave an
aftertaste in the water. If you're paying the supermarket to deliver to
your home anyway, chose water in glass bottles.

You can put questions on water quality in your town to the "Stadtwerke".


    >
    > Southern Germany is still pretty good and has fewer Muslims living
    > there than in the north.

Which, in wingnut logic, is tied to water quality in what way?

    > The Bavarians still attand church
    > and do not engage in the eating of halil meat like the more muslim
    > north.

While I do not know about the bavarian muslims eating habits, your
observation on church going was obviously made on chrismas eve.


    >
    > The northern parts of Germany have more leftists and SPD (socialist)
    > voters. This is the area you want to avoid. They are supposedly
    > closing the churches in the north and turning them into mosques.

Plus, there are all those protestants...

inge

--
It is easier to stay out than get out.
- Mark Twain
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
===
To send me priority mail, replace 'wildwusel' with 'lyorn'.

Tim Challenger

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:

    > In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    > artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.

Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?

If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
awful. The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
distributed.

Tim Challenger

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:56:43 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >>make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >
    > If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
    > awful. The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
    > distributed.

Not if there are no bactieria in the pipes or tank. That's the point. If
the place is a "kurort" the water quality is exemplary. It neither needs
nor benefits from adding chorine.
--
Tim C.

nitram

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:37:28 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:56:43 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>>> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>>> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>>Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >>>make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >>
    >> If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
    >> awful. The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
    >> distributed.
    >Not if there are no bactieria in the pipes or tank. That's the point. If
    >the place is a "kurort" the water quality is exemplary. It neither needs
    >nor benefits from adding chorine.

The local water is supplied from deep wells in the local dunes.
Normally it isn't chlorinated, but every now bacteria gets into the
system and chlorination is used for a short time.

Tim Challenger

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:23 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:37:28 +0200, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:56:43 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>>>> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>>>> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>>>Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >>>>make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >>>
    >>> If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
    >>> awful.

I grew up on chlorinated water too.
It depends on the water and the pipes.

    >>>The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
    >>> distributed.
    >>Not if there are no bactieria in the pipes or tank. That's the point. If
    >>the place is a "kurort" the water quality is exemplary. It neither needs
    >>nor benefits from adding chorine.
    >
    > The local water is supplied from deep wells in the local dunes.
    > Normally it isn't chlorinated, but every now bacteria gets into the
    > system and chlorination is used for a short time.

That's fair enough. When it's needed. Blanket chlorinating where it's not
needed is useless and a waste of money.

Our tap water here (near Linz, Austria) isn't chlorinated, except when
we've had heavy rains etc. and then normally only for a day or so.

AFAIK tap water in Austria tends to be sterilised by UV rather than by
chlorine. I'm pretty sure the tap water water for Vienna is. It has to come
a long way from the mountains so it needs a bit of help regardless.

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:23:50 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:23 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:37:28 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:56:43 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>>>>> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>>>>> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>>>>Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >>>>>make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >>>>
    >>>> If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
    >>>> awful.
    >I grew up on chlorinated water too.
    >It depends on the water and the pipes.
    >>>>The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
    >>>> distributed.
    >>>Not if there are no bactieria in the pipes or tank. That's the point. If
    >>>the place is a "kurort" the water quality is exemplary. It neither needs
    >>>nor benefits from adding chorine.
    >>
    >> The local water is supplied from deep wells in the local dunes.
    >> Normally it isn't chlorinated, but every now bacteria gets into the
    >> system and chlorination is used for a short time.
    >That's fair enough. When it's needed. Blanket chlorinating where it's not
    >needed is useless and a waste of money.

Maybe, the trigger for chlorination is usually an epidemic of upset
stomachs.

Tim Challenger

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:18:08 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:23:50 +0200, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:23 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:37:28 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:56:43 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:02 +0200, Tim Challenger
    >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>>>>>> In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>>>>>> artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>>>>>Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >>>>>>make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you are raised on chlorinated water, unchlorinated water tastes
    >>>>> awful.
    >>I grew up on chlorinated water too.
    >>It depends on the water and the pipes.
    >>>>>The bacteria is picked up in the pipes, when the water is
    >>>>> distributed.
    >>>>Not if there are no bactieria in the pipes or tank. That's the point. If
    >>>>the place is a "kurort" the water quality is exemplary. It neither needs
    >>>>nor benefits from adding chorine.
    >>>
    >>> The local water is supplied from deep wells in the local dunes.
    >>> Normally it isn't chlorinated, but every now bacteria gets into the
    >>> system and chlorination is used for a short time.
    >>That's fair enough. When it's needed. Blanket chlorinating where it's not
    >>needed is useless and a waste of money.
    >
    > Maybe, the trigger for chlorination is usually an epidemic of upset
    > stomachs.

Monitoring the water quality is always a good idea. But I suppose that's
the cheapest way :-(
--
Tim C.

Devil

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:23:50 +0200, Tim Challenger wrote:


    > Our tap water here (near Linz, Austria) isn't chlorinated, except when
    > we've had heavy rains etc. and then normally only for a day or so.
    >
    > AFAIK tap water in Austria tends to be sterilised by UV rather than by
    > chlorine. I'm pretty sure the tap water water for Vienna is. It has to come
    > a long way from the mountains so it needs a bit of help regardless.

Some places use ozone nowadays. No residual. Quality control performed
by trouts.

In our pool, we use bromine, which smells quite a bit less than chlorine
but, as I understand it, is more expensive.

Doug McDonald

Tim Challenger wrote:

    > On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >
    >
    > Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    > make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?

yes, and yes


It is official and adamant policy that water, no matter what the
source, CANNOT be safe by testing, period. It can ONLY be
safe by treatment. And filtration alone is not considered
adequate, since it does not guarantee destruction of viruses.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Tim Challenger wrote:

    >
    > AFAIK tap water in Austria tends to be sterilised by UV rather than by
    > chlorine.

There is a severe problem with this .... there is no residual
agent to kill bacteria introduced later in the system, such as from
sediment at the bottom of pipes. The US system is designed
to guarantee by design a zero bacteria level ... not by "test
and hope".

Whether anything less is a differentl question ... the
US tends to be very conservative about public health.

Doug McDonald

Tim Challenger

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:41:27 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:

    > Tim Challenger wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Olivers wrote:
    >>
    >>>In much of the US state health rules mandate that even water from deep
    >>>artesian wells (very common in many smaller communities) be chlorinated.
    >>
    >> Even if the water is perfectly fit to drink and by chlorinating it would
    >> make it taste awful? Red tape, eh?
    >
    > yes, and yes
    >
    > It is official and adamant policy that water, no matter what the
    > source, CANNOT be safe by testing, period. It can ONLY be
    > safe by treatment. And filtration alone is not considered
    > adequate, since it does not guarantee destruction of viruses.
    >
    > Doug McDonald

But there are a number of treatments. Chlorination is only one.
--
Tim C.

Olivers

Tim Challenger extrapolated from data available...


    >
    > But there are a number of treatments. Chlorination is only one.

1. Chlorination is inexpensive, using a treatment chemical which is widely
available as a byproduct.

2. Chlorination is about the only treatment which has substantial residual
effect, remaining in the water for a long enough period to destroy
bacteria, etc. introduced in the distribution system or a residence or
building's water supply lines.

The US is a very young country by European standards, and well into the
last century experienced substantial outbreaks of disease and high
fatalities from "bad water". Much of the country's public health/water
treatment perspective is based on a "within modern man's memory" view of
potential problems with untreated water. Additionally, compared to Europe,
much of the US, even some heavily populated portions, is either arid
wasteland or without substantial flowage of potentially potable streams in
which water resources must be carefully collected, managed, apportioned and
reused. Especially in the Southwest and West, cities of any size are
entirely depenent upon artificial impoundment and with rapidly swelling
populations, the big "new" cities operate under constant capital programs
to acquire more land and flowage rights for future dams and lakes.

Los Angeles was the earliest example of a city "created" by importing water
at substantial cost and effort. Las Vegas would be no more than a desert
crossroads without the Depression era public works program that built
Hoover Dam. Even cities located where rainfall seems adequate such as
Houston must spend vast sums to impound water and are subject to future
shortages if upstream neighbors continue their rapid growth and expansion.
One small city near Houston, Baytown, traditionally took its water supply
from wells as did nearby pertochemical plants which required enormous
amounts of "clean" cooling and treatment water. A few years ago, all that
pumping had caused enough surface subsidence that an entire nighborhood in
Baytown had slipped below sea level and Galveston Bay filled the streets,
not quite so romantic as venice, and with far less public outcry to savea
few hundred homes instead of a cultural and architerctural artifact of the
dimensions of Venice.

Shucks, for most of Europe, there's simply too much water, while big
chunks the arid areas of Spain and Southern Italy remain as undeveloped as
parts of the Southwestern US.

I would suspect that water supply (in quality, quantity and consistency)
remains a real problem along Spain's "Vacation Coasts". Would the French
Riviera even exist were it not for all nearby sources of natural water
flow?

TMO

Devil

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:45:26 -0500, Olivers wrote:

    > Tim Challenger extrapolated from data available...
    >
    >
    >>
    >> But there are a number of treatments. Chlorination is only one.
    >
    > 1. Chlorination is inexpensive, using a treatment chemical which is widely
    > available as a byproduct.
    >
    > 2. Chlorination is about the only treatment which has substantial residual
    > effect, remaining in the water for a long enough period to destroy
    > bacteria, etc. introduced in the distribution system or a residence or
    > building's water supply lines.


I would think that bromine, which is what I use in my pool, would too.
With much less smell and taste. But it's more expensive.

This said, residuals are a mixed blessing. If you piping is good,
with no leaks or points below atmospheric pressure and no
contamination, and a reasonable residence time, a residual is not
necessary. Obviously water with no residual is much nicer.

If your piping is antiquated and you don't trust it (which I suspect is
more or less the state of affair in most of the US) then clearly you need
a residual. In Sao Paulo, the way they handled a poor piping which they
knew had high points where dirty stuff was sucked in, they maintained a
very high residual. more or less requiring filtration before drinking.

In some European countries, ozone is used, with obviously no residual, and
there does not seem to have led to any public health issue.