←back to thread

102 points Brajeshwar | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
cma ◴[] No.45112118[source]
>Chicago has the highest number of lead water service lines in the nation, with an estimated 412,000 of about 491,000 lines at least partly made of lead or contaminated with the dangerous metal.

Sounds like a crisis, but it's the third largest city and much older than LA. Isn't a per-capita, above a certain city size, the more relevant number?

> A plumber estimated it would cost about $26,000 to replace the private side of the home’s service line. Swapping out his internal lead plumbing would cost thousands more. At this point, having just purchased the home, the couple doesn’t have the money to replace their service line. For now, they’ll keep testing and filtering their water.

Reverse osmosis systems for the main drinking water sources are around $200 each now, 100X less than the cost of fixing if it's just the kitchen sink that they drink out of. They do require maintenance that many won't do, but it seems like there could be an app for that or some kind of automatic timed shutoff with a reminder to buy at least one extra filter at a time.

Annual filter costs are 10X-15X less than interest earnings on $26,000. I think you can usually install easily with no plumber with a couple shark bite press fittings and a pipe cutter.

It sounds like that may be what they are already doing, but isn't it basically a good enough solution?

replies(3): >>45112235 #>>45112281 #>>45118040 #
Night_Thastus ◴[] No.45118040[source]
Even if whole-home RO is feasible from a money perspective, it's horrible from a water conservation standpoint.

The very best units with high pressure achieve something like 1:2 ratios. Meaning for every 1 gallon of clean water you get 2 of waste.

Clean water is previous and should not be wasted so casually.

RO is OK if it's for something very small scale, like a sink for filling up water bottles - but it should never be used for things like showers/tubs, appliances, etc.

replies(2): >>45118291 #>>45118366 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[] No.45118291[source]
Residential water consumption is less than a non-issue for the ~2/3 of the US population that lives east of approximately the Missouri river (also where most of the lead pipes are).

Municipalities might have to adjust their forecasting and step up the numbers on their next planned purchase of water equipment but that's about it.

replies(2): >>45118521 #>>45119545 #
2. Night_Thastus ◴[] No.45118521[source]
Fresh water usage should never be so casually dismissed. Extracting more has significant consequences - both environmental and human-oriented, regardless of where it comes from.

While residential is small compared to commercial, it's still important. Multiply anything by a couple hundred million citizens and it does add up.

replies(4): >>45120226 #>>45120609 #>>45120723 #>>45126035 #
3. ◴[] No.45120226[source]
4. ◴[] No.45120609[source]
5. potato3732842 ◴[] No.45120723[source]
The fact that it "adds up" is basically irrelevant considering the size of the water sources these municipalities typically have access to.

They can use 5x the water if they want and only the water treatment plant employees will care. They take from the river, and they put back into the river after treatment.

6. lazide ◴[] No.45126035[source]
Water is not readily fungible. No matter what Chicago or any other more-than-enough water location does, it makes zero difference to someone in Phoenix or Las Vegas.

If someone’s in a location with more than enough water, there is really no point in trying to get them to care, because this really really doesn’t matter to them. Typically whatever they don’t use just runs off anyway.