The reason being that (except some cases of corruption...) legal limit are much stricter for tap water.
Better in impurities at the very least, the taste is usually quite worse.
The reason being that (except some cases of corruption...) legal limit are much stricter for tap water.
Better in impurities at the very least, the taste is usually quite worse.
As an anecdote: you can let your tap water be tested for free if you have a newborn to ensure and confirm that you can use it for baby food without doubt.
Without doubt? We just found out that they are microplastics in bottled water, how can you be sure there aren't things in tap water that we haven't discovered yet?
That said I’ve never been a fan of bottle water anyway, I’ve always preferred what my Nan used to call ‘council pop’ (tap water).
I think for some people this might seem to be true. That said, for folks who are able to taste such things, clean water from different sources definitely can have tastes that differ based on the minerality of the water.
I used to think this was BS, but I changed my mind after doing a deep dive into wine, in which flavors like minerality of the soil, local flowers, and the like are definitely represented in finer wines.
For an over-the-top water example, check out this video:
Pure water is tasteless - the one we drink has a bunch of stuff.
Dasani and Aquafina are both from the tap. Probably lots of others, but we never buy bottled water of any source.
One story that goes around a lot is for example the claim that tap water contains a lot of hormones from all the contraceptive pills women take and then flush out of their body into the water system. That seems to not be controlled for. Not sure how serious the issue really is.
More controls also doesn't change the quality of water. It only detects bad water of some variants. If you had an excellent "mineral water" and an OK tap water, more controls wouldn't make the tap water any better.
Not saying you shouldn't drink the tap water. I drink it most of the time.
Pittsburgh (in 2017) didn't even have enough people to run the necessary water audits.
Milwaukee's city health commissioner resigned in 2018 because they didn't warn about unsafe lead levels in the water.
In 2018, around half of the samples from Newark's water system showed lead levels above the EPA's threshold.
Large parts of Texas' water contain elevated amounts of radium[1]. Brady, TX, has water that's green, brown, orange[2] - it changes - and has 9 times the EPA limit of radium
California has a statewide sanitation problem.[3]
And that's just a starter set.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drinking-water-radium-contamina... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/14/63-million-am... [3] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/art...
Making people unreasonably afraid of tap water just seems irresponsible.
The third link from GP has a headline which reads “360,000 Californians have unsafe drinking water. Are you one of them?”
That’s approximately 1% of CA’s population. That’s not even a long tail.
So I believe what’s happening here is that they took the total population coverage of any water district that ever had at least two reports of a water quality or monitoring violation in the last decade.
I think ”potentially” is the key word here which makes this claim particularly washy. Are they looking at violations which actually resulted in measurably unsafe water, which were likely to cause or result in unsafe water, or merely violations which could possibly resulted in unsafe water, or perhaps monitoring lapses which would have failed to detect potentially unsafe water, but without any evidence that water was actually ever unsafe?
It’s a newsroom investigative report, not a scientific study. Take this with a huge grain of salt.