• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Those chemicals are not easy to remove, especially compared to traditional water treatments. New solutions need to be developed or a new, uncontaminated source found for some areas. Reverse osmosis could probably reduce the toxic chemicals, but reverse osmosis is expesnive to install and operate and very energy intensive. Getting the toxic chemicals out is easier said than done.

    • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      There are ways that we can currently do it, not putting an imperfect system in where there currently is none is waffling. How long till we see imperfect implemented to mitigate?

      I’m not touching on cost or complexities as I don’t think that would be useful in this particular conversation.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Cost is an important factor. Someone has to pay for installation, maintenance etc. It needs to be clear how much is going to fall on municipalities, provinces, and feds to tackle this issue. Dumping all the costs on a municipality is unreasonable.

        A partial solution could be something like a rebate for in home RO installations for drinking and cooking water. This tackles the biggest health concern while only treating a small fraction of the total water a city pumps.

        • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Like I said we don’t need those sorts of details when there is only the smell of a plan.