This article seems to contradict the Requirement section. I'm not sure if it deserves to be added as a counterpoint. -- Elliskev 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This:
There is a persistent myth that people should try to drink 8 cups of water per day but there is no evidence to support that.
Seems to be a flat contradiction to
Thus, a person needs to drink approximately 2–3 L of water per day.
...
drinking 2 L of water, along with normal diet will suffice in replenishing fluids.
2 L is just about 8.5 cups, so if there isn't any "evidence to support that" then the second block should probably go. If there is evidence to support those numbers, then the first line should probably go. -- Avedomni ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
See following site on extra info on this topic which needs to be added to the article: Water imbalance problems
Thanks, KVDP ( talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs much more physical data, density etc of real typical drinking water. Actual concentration levels of various typical dissolved materials. All of the other water articles only have data for pure-theory water, not real water! - 69.87.199.87 ( talk) 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What? So it is unsafe, but not harmful, so we're taking some risk by drinking it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.13.138 ( talk) 17:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for this page to deal extensively with bottled water since this is dealt with on another page. I will delete the content added here on this subject. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There are several hand drawn diagrams on this page which I don't think should be included here. I would suggest that User:KVDP moves these images to pages on Survival skills or similar. I will delete them from these pages unless it is considered appropriate to allow them to remain. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the paragraph under "Indicators of Safe Drinking Water" is particularly clearly written, nor am I too sure what this is attempting to explain. It seems that there is a lot of text here to basically explain that areas with developed drinking water infrastructure are likely to have higher quality drinking water. I think it needs rewriting or deleting. Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The provision of drinking water can be considered a public health measure. At present the way the article deals with the health aspects of drinking water is rather confused. I would suggest that sections should be developed that deal separately with:
Perhaps mention might also be made of acute disease caused by high levels of chemical contaminants (e.g. Camelford water pollution incident, Arsenicosis in Bangladesh.) Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Plans to improve availability of drinking water". This title suggests that the UN has a concrete plan for achieving increased access to water. The Millenium Development Goals actually represent objectives, rather than plans. Member states sign an agreement to meet these objectives - how they do so is to a large extent up to them. Jimjamjak ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone with information about regulatory procedures/entities outside the USA please add information to the Drinking water regulation section. -- AD talk 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be added to the article that in the "developed countries" up to 31% of (potable water-grade) water is simply flushed (for toilet use), only 5% or less is consumed (often by bought, commercial water; not those from the water supply system) and the remaining 64% is used for hygiene and dishes.
This while in some African countries (example of Luanda-Angola's capital) the water is sold in bags and is extremely pricy (5$ is think) and eg the water amount for body hygiene is very small (often washing is done with a cup; eg in most Sahel-countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.161.76 ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Water_filter#Homemade_water_filters are also an appropriate water filtering technology. Include in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.157.124 ( talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This edited text was reverted:
Access to sanitary water comes hand in hand with access to improved sanitation facilities for excreta. These facilities include foremost systems based on ecological sanitation (ideally composting toilets), or -if this is not possible- regular toilets connecting to public sewers, or connecting to closed septic systems, or in the worst case drainage-based septic systems, and latrines as the pour-flush latrine and ventilated improved pit latrine. Other unimproved sanitation facilities include public or shared latrine, open pit latrine, or bucket latrine [1].
Please reformulate and reintroduce or implement guidance on ecological sanitaton somewhere else in article. It makes it sound as if feces and organic waste is something to be disposed off (which is incorrect, it is fertiliser and a valuable resource!), and gives credit to latrines!, which are a major source of the water contamination in the first place as they use drainage (meaning the feces is given free runoff into the soil, under the top layer of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.182.166 ( talk) 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be interesting to cover the differences in this respect, e.g. how animals can get away with drinking from puddles and other "unclean" sources that would make humans ill. EdX20 ( talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that the alternatives presented are described as suffering "from the same problems as boiling methods." Which problems are these? Does this refer to the problems of storage? Jimjamjak ( talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps 2 links and or images can be added: 1 of the WaterPyramid/Aqua Aero WaterSystems BV 1 of Hatenboer-Water/TU Delft water-desalination wind turbine, see http://www.drinkingwiththewind.com/ 91.182.202.5 ( talk) 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are far too many images on this page. Several of them are strikingly uninformative e.g. the photograph of mineral water. I will remove a couple unless there are good objections. Jimjamjak ( talk) 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It may be useful to implement the info above on how we can increase the water availability to reduce the amount of polluted or insufficient drining water in developing countries. 87.64.62.124 ( talk) 09:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Dew harvesters are not described at the acess-section. These include nets, aswell as Andrew Parker's new device based on the stenocara beetle; see http://www.rain-barrel.net/water-harvesting-through-biomimicry.html, http://www.prx.org/pieces/20376-african-stenocara-beetle-inspires-technology 91.180.228.95 ( talk) 14:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The lead statement in this section is badly misquoted from its source document. There is a world of difference from saying that "Over 90% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases in the developing world today occur in children under 5 years old." to saying that "diarrhea causes 90% of deaths of under 5's. As of 2004 pneumonia had passed diarrhea as the primary killer of under-five's at 19% and diarrhea had dropped to 17% ( [2]). I believe there an even lower, widely published, more recent estimate as of 2008 at around 14%, but will come back with the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konaallan ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to contradict the Requirement section. I'm not sure if it deserves to be added as a counterpoint. -- Elliskev 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This:
There is a persistent myth that people should try to drink 8 cups of water per day but there is no evidence to support that.
Seems to be a flat contradiction to
Thus, a person needs to drink approximately 2–3 L of water per day.
...
drinking 2 L of water, along with normal diet will suffice in replenishing fluids.
2 L is just about 8.5 cups, so if there isn't any "evidence to support that" then the second block should probably go. If there is evidence to support those numbers, then the first line should probably go. -- Avedomni ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
See following site on extra info on this topic which needs to be added to the article: Water imbalance problems
Thanks, KVDP ( talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs much more physical data, density etc of real typical drinking water. Actual concentration levels of various typical dissolved materials. All of the other water articles only have data for pure-theory water, not real water! - 69.87.199.87 ( talk) 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What? So it is unsafe, but not harmful, so we're taking some risk by drinking it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.13.138 ( talk) 17:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for this page to deal extensively with bottled water since this is dealt with on another page. I will delete the content added here on this subject. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There are several hand drawn diagrams on this page which I don't think should be included here. I would suggest that User:KVDP moves these images to pages on Survival skills or similar. I will delete them from these pages unless it is considered appropriate to allow them to remain. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the paragraph under "Indicators of Safe Drinking Water" is particularly clearly written, nor am I too sure what this is attempting to explain. It seems that there is a lot of text here to basically explain that areas with developed drinking water infrastructure are likely to have higher quality drinking water. I think it needs rewriting or deleting. Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The provision of drinking water can be considered a public health measure. At present the way the article deals with the health aspects of drinking water is rather confused. I would suggest that sections should be developed that deal separately with:
Perhaps mention might also be made of acute disease caused by high levels of chemical contaminants (e.g. Camelford water pollution incident, Arsenicosis in Bangladesh.) Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Plans to improve availability of drinking water". This title suggests that the UN has a concrete plan for achieving increased access to water. The Millenium Development Goals actually represent objectives, rather than plans. Member states sign an agreement to meet these objectives - how they do so is to a large extent up to them. Jimjamjak ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone with information about regulatory procedures/entities outside the USA please add information to the Drinking water regulation section. -- AD talk 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be added to the article that in the "developed countries" up to 31% of (potable water-grade) water is simply flushed (for toilet use), only 5% or less is consumed (often by bought, commercial water; not those from the water supply system) and the remaining 64% is used for hygiene and dishes.
This while in some African countries (example of Luanda-Angola's capital) the water is sold in bags and is extremely pricy (5$ is think) and eg the water amount for body hygiene is very small (often washing is done with a cup; eg in most Sahel-countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.161.76 ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Water_filter#Homemade_water_filters are also an appropriate water filtering technology. Include in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.157.124 ( talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This edited text was reverted:
Access to sanitary water comes hand in hand with access to improved sanitation facilities for excreta. These facilities include foremost systems based on ecological sanitation (ideally composting toilets), or -if this is not possible- regular toilets connecting to public sewers, or connecting to closed septic systems, or in the worst case drainage-based septic systems, and latrines as the pour-flush latrine and ventilated improved pit latrine. Other unimproved sanitation facilities include public or shared latrine, open pit latrine, or bucket latrine [1].
Please reformulate and reintroduce or implement guidance on ecological sanitaton somewhere else in article. It makes it sound as if feces and organic waste is something to be disposed off (which is incorrect, it is fertiliser and a valuable resource!), and gives credit to latrines!, which are a major source of the water contamination in the first place as they use drainage (meaning the feces is given free runoff into the soil, under the top layer of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.182.166 ( talk) 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be interesting to cover the differences in this respect, e.g. how animals can get away with drinking from puddles and other "unclean" sources that would make humans ill. EdX20 ( talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that the alternatives presented are described as suffering "from the same problems as boiling methods." Which problems are these? Does this refer to the problems of storage? Jimjamjak ( talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps 2 links and or images can be added: 1 of the WaterPyramid/Aqua Aero WaterSystems BV 1 of Hatenboer-Water/TU Delft water-desalination wind turbine, see http://www.drinkingwiththewind.com/ 91.182.202.5 ( talk) 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are far too many images on this page. Several of them are strikingly uninformative e.g. the photograph of mineral water. I will remove a couple unless there are good objections. Jimjamjak ( talk) 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It may be useful to implement the info above on how we can increase the water availability to reduce the amount of polluted or insufficient drining water in developing countries. 87.64.62.124 ( talk) 09:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Dew harvesters are not described at the acess-section. These include nets, aswell as Andrew Parker's new device based on the stenocara beetle; see http://www.rain-barrel.net/water-harvesting-through-biomimicry.html, http://www.prx.org/pieces/20376-african-stenocara-beetle-inspires-technology 91.180.228.95 ( talk) 14:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The lead statement in this section is badly misquoted from its source document. There is a world of difference from saying that "Over 90% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases in the developing world today occur in children under 5 years old." to saying that "diarrhea causes 90% of deaths of under 5's. As of 2004 pneumonia had passed diarrhea as the primary killer of under-five's at 19% and diarrhea had dropped to 17% ( [2]). I believe there an even lower, widely published, more recent estimate as of 2008 at around 14%, but will come back with the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konaallan ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)