Is is OK to drink hot water from the tap?

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
All you people saying it's fine have never seen the inside of a water heater right?

You drink water from your kettle, right? Have you ever looked at the inside of it? That's why mine gets cleaned once a year whether-it-needs-it-or-not.😛

There are contaminants in tap water. There are contaminants in bottled water (more), there are contaminants in filtered water (less).

Personally, I use hot water to cook pasta, and not much else in terms of consumption. Using it all the time for consumption, or thinking that it's 'half-boiled' and somehow safer is bad thinking, but not necessarily unhealthy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
All you people saying it's fine have never seen the inside of a water heater right?

There is nothing wrong with the mineral buildup in a water heater. It's the same minerals that are in most good tasting water. Water without minerals in it is horrible.

If anything the mineral buildup in a water heater means you're getting LESS minerals in your hot water than your cold water.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
All you people saying it's fine have never seen the inside of a water heater right?

the stuff getting deposited inside the heater tank stays in the cold water, so you get all that stuff in the cold water

don't worry, people used to eat dirt all the time, we need more dirt in our diets

 

[torpid]

Thinking about this more, I don't understand the "science" behind the idea that if the water sits in pipes with minerals more, it is more contaminated. I think the opposite would be true, assuming this isn't an entirely fictional scenario. The more water runs through a pipe, the more erosion there would be. Just like if you fill a pan with cold water and let it sit there, it's not going to get clean as quickly as if you run water constantly through it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

More importantly is why would you want to drink hot water?

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: hanoverphist


if its safe for people, its safe for pets. do you understand the removal process for manganese? it has to be oxidized with chlorine and filtered out. you can google it if ya wanna, its the most used method from what ive heard. those manganese scares that you hear about arent due to the plants all of a sudden not filtering it out, its from massive changes in the process piping. theres a nice, slick coating of "stuff" on the water pipes, and large turbulence or mixing can knock loose this coating. this is also whre the manganese builds up, so you will see a large deposit in your pool filters, as well as a brown color due to the manganese being partially oxidized. you gotta stop reading the literature those water salesmen give you, they are trying to take your money. manganese is still a metal. it can be filtered. its just a lot finer than most filters, so they oxidize it first to make it easier to see as well as bigger, to be caught into filters.

I'm not sure you read my post at all. It was only safe for most people, and not people with some conditions (liver problems) or infants. The question is whether a pet is more like an infant or not. And regardless, a sick pet is certainly more susceptible to issues than a sick human since the body weight is so much lower and therefore miniscule amounts of anything are more dangerous.

yes, i did read it. youre thinking that a pet being sick would be more susceptible to sickness from tainted water than a sick human. you said you didnt get an answer, but i bet thats the same they would say. yes, my opinion.

Originally posted by: torpidSecond, I don't care how the water gets contaminated. What kind of crap are you selling here? So what... the water gets contaminated in a particular pipe or well, not the lake or whatever else. Who cares? The water is contaminated. My worry is not manganese which is obviously being monitored now. The point I was making is that the city admitted it does not test every well on a frequent basis for various contaminants that are unexpected, which may or may not come from the lake. So their filtration system normally catches those, does that mean it always will? Even if it does, that does not mean additional contamination won't happen in the lines or wells somewhere else.

i was very specific in my post (that youre having a hard time understanding) on how municiple plants usually remove manganese. im not sure where this is coming from tho, since im not trying to sell you on anything.i never said anything about the water being contaminated, you are. and HOW is the most important thing to know when trying to prevent it. 😉

Originally posted by: torpidThird, nothing of what I wrote above is from water salespeople. It's from city experts. Since you claim to be an expert i can only assume you misunderstood or something. But I'm going to trust the city when the city tells me that a typical water filter one purchases would not remove excessive manganese or that the city does not have adequate resources to test every well for every possible contaminant.

i never said or claimed to be an expert. when you called the city experts, you reached a spokesperson from their department. you got their official statement and stance. if your city cant afford to monitor every well, you need to change city managers IMO. every well site that gets constructed is set up with a PLC and a bunch of stuff that monitors the water in as well as the water going out. in this age of technology there is no excuse for not utilizing it to its fullest potential. i agree with the "cant test for every contaminant" part tho, if theres no reason to look for manganese they shouldnt be testing daily for it. when they dug that well, however, they did a huge study on the ground table, depth of the well, content of the local water as well as samples to see what would be pulled out of it. at this point they have a great idea of what to test for, and if manganese testing is needed they will do it. ive set up many temporary arsenic removal systems around many cities, only to take them out of service due to low residuals. it happens, you cant have all the contaminants everywhere.

as for the whole section you wrote about the home filters, ive never even said anything about home filtering. i have no idea how it works, so i havent said one word about it. how you equated my post with anything related to it ill never understand, but im sure youll have an answer.

Originally posted by: torpidLocal News Article

From above, it would cost $800 for an oxidizing water filter at the home, and:

Unfortunately, Schlueter added, the filters such as the one used by Lehnertz on her pitcher do little to get rid of manganese. Pitcher filters do work for reducing the taste and odor of chlorine and for removing lead and copper.

The pitcher filters, such as those manufactured by Brita, are available at most large retail stores and are priced from around $20, according to Schlueter.

Homeowners have to purchase filters for the particular problem they are trying to solve. No filter works for everything, Schlueter said.

Anything else you want to add?

i already said that the filtration was done at the plant level due to its nature. i also said it was too small for most filters, thats why it gets past pool and house filters. which part of this stuff didnt i know about? i never claimed to be an expert, im just giving you parts of what ive gleaned from working in that field. you ccan be as paranoid as you like, it doesnt really change the regulations for drinking water. drinking water that comes to your house is safe to drink. if yours is discolored or tastes weird, get your plumbing replaced. my house was built in 1955, i have all new piping. my water tastes fine. i also worked on the city systems that i live in, so i know their process. they filter, treat and add stuff to make it healthy as well as safe. they even add flouride (old req from back in the 60s i think).

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: torpid
Thinking about this more, I don't understand the "science" behind the idea that if the water sits in pipes with minerals more, it is more contaminated. I think the opposite would be true, assuming this isn't an entirely fictional scenario. The more water runs through a pipe, the more erosion there would be. Just like if you fill a pan with cold water and let it sit there, it's not going to get clean as quickly as if you run water constantly through it.

thats not exactly how it works. when you have constant flow thru a large pipe, you get build ups of stuff (i say stuff due to not having a better description... mostly like mineral deposits) that doesnt wash away. you can imagine if long term water pipes were subject to erosion, how often would we have to replace them? how much would that cost? the mineral deposits on the pipe walls are a good thing for the most part, it protects the pipe as well as making a smoother surface, allowing for water to move a bit quicker. when you get a sudden shake in the water supply, it hammers backwards and starts forward again. this action breaks some of those deposits off and shoves them thru the water pipes to your houses. thes eminerals arent bad, they are just more concentrated than normal. this is when you get warnings on tv. im actually responsible for 2 of them in lake havasu. didnt make me feel good, and im not proud. but it happens. for the erosion off a dish like youre talking about, the water stream would be more perpendicular to the dish. in a pipe, its all parallel. no force against the wall of the pipe, so force to erode it.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
yes, i did read it. youre thinking that a pet being sick would be more susceptible to sickness from tainted water than a sick human. you said you didnt get an answer, but i bet thats the same they would say. yes, my opinion.

Huh? Did you write something a little imprecisely then? Your initial answer was, "if it's safe for humans, it's safe for pets" which does not actually answer the question at all, and would seem to dismiss the question entirely as being invalid. The question was, "if it's unsafe for infants, is it unsafe for pets" which you would seem to think is, yes? Or maybe you think pets are more like fully grown humans and less like infants? I can't quite figure what you are saying on this issue, to be honest. I don't need an expert to tell me that a cat with liver disease shouldn't drink contaminated water. I sought clarification on a healthy cat, which I never got, but fortunately by the time I found out about the entire issue, the well was shut down.

i was very specific in my post (that youre having a hard time understanding) on how municiple plants usually remove manganese. im not sure where this is coming from tho, since im not trying to sell you on anything.i never said anything about the water being contaminated, you are. and HOW is the most important thing to know when trying to prevent it. 😉

as for the whole section you wrote about the home filters, ive never even said anything about home filtering. i have no idea how it works, so i havent said one word about it. how you equated my post with anything related to it ill never understand, but im sure youll have an answer.

Well I wrote about the cheap home filters and then you replied with how filtering manganese works in general. I don't see why it's such a giant leap to assume you were talking about home filtering...

i already said that the filtration was done at the plant level due to its nature. i also said it was too small for most filters, thats why it gets past pool and house filters. which part of this stuff didnt i know about? i never claimed to be an expert, im just giving you parts of what ive gleaned from working in that field. you ccan be as paranoid as you like, it doesnt really change the regulations for drinking water. drinking water that comes to your house is safe to drink. if yours is discolored or tastes weird, get your plumbing replaced. my house was built in 1955, i have all new piping. my water tastes fine. i also worked on the city systems that i live in, so i know their process. they filter, treat and add stuff to make it healthy as well as safe. they even add flouride (old req from back in the 60s i think).

Well, part of it is me assuming that since you accused me of getting information from bottled water companies, you must think that the rest of your post was a counterargument. And the other part is, you actually seem to believe that it is unwarranted concern that people have over their water supply. As to the first part, I guess it was my mistake to assume that when you accused me of listening to saslepeople, you were otherwise being helpful in the remainder of your past. As to the second part, I'm afraid I'm not going to be confident in any city water management system until I know that they are being proactive and not reactive. It's the same thing TSA does. Once someone discovers a threat they then disallow that particular specific threat instead of coming up with a better system of monitoring all possible threats.

Same thing with our water. They don't test for manganese because their initial analysis doesn't show excessive manganese. Then there is suddenly excessive manganese. So now maybe they'll be more careful about manganese. How does that help? Am I really supposed to believe that whatever happened here is going to be solved by just monitoring manganese? Because it seems rather silly to me. We need more than just a new guy in charge, we need action by the city and/or state to be more proactive about things.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: torpid
Thinking about this more, I don't understand the "science" behind the idea that if the water sits in pipes with minerals more, it is more contaminated. I think the opposite would be true, assuming this isn't an entirely fictional scenario. The more water runs through a pipe, the more erosion there would be. Just like if you fill a pan with cold water and let it sit there, it's not going to get clean as quickly as if you run water constantly through it.

thats not exactly how it works. when you have constant flow thru a large pipe, you get build ups of stuff (i say stuff due to not having a better description... mostly like mineral deposits) that doesnt wash away. you can imagine if long term water pipes were subject to erosion, how often would we have to replace them? how much would that cost? the mineral deposits on the pipe walls are a good thing for the most part, it protects the pipe as well as making a smoother surface, allowing for water to move a bit quicker. when you get a sudden shake in the water supply, it hammers backwards and starts forward again. this action breaks some of those deposits off and shoves them thru the water pipes to your houses. thes eminerals arent bad, they are just more concentrated than normal. this is when you get warnings on tv. im actually responsible for 2 of them in lake havasu. didnt make me feel good, and im not proud. but it happens. for the erosion off a dish like youre talking about, the water stream would be more perpendicular to the dish. in a pipe, its all parallel. no force against the wall of the pipe, so force to erode it.

OK, so if there is actually a "cold pipe" and a "hot pipe" then the "cold pipe" if used more frequently has more build up than the hot pipe. I didn't mean actual erosion of the pipe, I meant erosion of the sediment on the wall of the pipe. While there is more depositted in the pipes as water flows, what about how much is eroded off the sediment by high throughput? At the least I think it's illogical to assume that water that does not move is going to absorb more of it than water that does move.

Also, I'm not sure about the perpendicular vs parallel thing. I usually try to get the water to run parallel so it doesn't splatter all over my shirt. The question is parallel movement vs no movement at all. The former seems more likely to remove junk off the walls of the pipe than the latter.

 

[vizkiz]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I have a chemist friend that works at the city water purification facility. From what she told me, don't drink the water from the faucet, ever. Boil it first.

Yeah, but what city is that? Our water around here (Long Island, NY, specifically Huntington), is some of the cleanest water in the country.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: vizkiz

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I have a chemist friend that works at the city water purification facility. From what she told me, don't drink the water from the faucet, ever. Boil it first.

Yeah, but what city is that? Our water around here (Long Island, NY, specifically Huntington), is some of the cleanest water in the country.

I hate how your water tastes so damn chlorinated. Here in Bethpage it tastes great.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: torpid
Thinking about this more, I don't understand the "science" behind the idea that if the water sits in pipes with minerals more, it is more contaminated. I think the opposite would be true, assuming this isn't an entirely fictional scenario. The more water runs through a pipe, the more erosion there would be. Just like if you fill a pan with cold water and let it sit there, it's not going to get clean as quickly as if you run water constantly through it.

Simple;

If you have "soft water" or low pH or "acidic" water, which is typically "suface water" (from rain or run-off; Lake or River) as it sits in the pipe it corrodes the pipe and leaches the material in the pipe or its connections into the water....this is where the majority of lead/copper in drinking water comes from. Water is known as the "Universal Solvent" for a reason 😉

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: supafly
I've never even heard that rumor, but it sounds ridiculous.

I've heard it more than once. I never do it. And I never heat water in a microwave unless I'm testing the microwave. I always heat it on my stove.

The microwave is faster and more convenient...why bother with the stove?

Faster? More convenient? I don't think so. On the stove I generally boil water. I can hear and see if it's boiling. In a microwave, I can't hear it because the damn oven is real loud what with the fan. If I'm standing so close to the oven that I can see inside to see if the water is boiling I'm exposing my head to high levels of EMF's (yes, I've measured them). EMF's fall off by the inverse square of the distance. Fry your head, I'll spare mine. How bad are those EMF's for you? It's been debated for decades, but I figure the less I suffer, the better. I'd rather burn a little gas on my stove than pump 1000+ watts in my microwave. Besides, microwave ovens burn out (I'm on my 3rd right now). I've never had a gas stove burn out. I could go on...

i hear wearing a tin foil hat will cut those emissions down a lot! 😛


i have an electric range, it would take longer than 3 minutes to boil water. i can stick a bowl of water in the micro and set it for 3 minutes, walk away and know that when i come back it will be about to boil. too hot to drink as coffee, and hot enough to cook noodles. how is this so different than your "i can hear it boil" thing? you dont have to watch the micro cook, just assume that its a standard oven and let it work.

and gas stoves can explode yer house down! microwave ovens cant do that.

I guess it's OK. I don't know what the energy usage considerations would be. I'm used to boiling water in one of those SS coffee decanters. It's amazingly fast - faster than whistling water boiler. One of the best reasons to use a microwave is so you don't have to get an extra item into the sink for cleaning, i.e. a pot. Heat it on a plate and eat it. But boiling water, or heating it, you don't get that benefit. Like I say, the noise bothers me too. I mean the sound of a microwave. I'd rather not suffer that if I can help it. It's sort of personal choice. If you like it, it's fine.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Muse
Faster? More convenient? I don't think so. On the stove I generally boil water. I can hear and see if it's boiling. In a microwave, I can't hear it because the damn oven is real loud what with the fan. If I'm standing so close to the oven that I can see inside to see if the water is boiling I'm exposing my head to high levels of EMF's (yes, I've measured them). EMF's fall off by the inverse square of the distance. Fry your head, I'll spare mine. How bad are those EMF's for you? It's been debated for decades, but I figure the less I suffer, the better. I'd rather burn a little gas on my stove than pump 1000+ watts in my microwave. Besides, microwave ovens burn out (I'm on my 3rd right now). I've never had a gas stove burn out. I could go on...

Well, I usually use the method of setting it for the amount of time that water always takes to heat to the appropriate temperature, and walking away. It's worked so far.

Funny, I've never had a microwave burn out, and I get mine free from craigslist. You sure you're doing it right?

Not sure, but pretty sure. Microwaves sometimes last a long time, but sometimes they don't last real long. I guess I've had two stop working in about 20 years. OTOH, my gas stove, I've been using for longer than that. The oven's thermostat is acting a little weird lately, but I can maybe replace that or just live with it.

Free microwave from craigslist? You mean people giving them away? Come to think of it, the one I'm using right now was one I found on the sidewalk, IIRC. 🙂

 

[markgm]

Wow, I'm surprised at the responses here. I was told the same thing as a kid (don't drink water from the hot water faucet), though I don't remember the source. We never had lead pipes in the house, so that wouldn't have been an issue. Years later I heard one reason was that a certain bacteria can live in water heaters as one poster pointed out.


Text
Bacteria

In 2000, the Walkerton disaster had sent a wake-up call about the safety of Canada?s drinking water. While standards for domestic hot water must consider scald prevention, they must also address the broad spectrum of public health and safety issues. To minimize bacteria contamination, water must be stored at 60 C or higher.

For example, temperatures under 50 C may increase the risk of Legionnaires? disease, a form of pneumonia, due to bacterial growth in the tank. That disease is caused by Legionella bacteria, which live in water. Temperature is a critical factor for Legionella to grow. The risk of colonization in hot water tanks is significant between 40 and 50 C.

Legionella bacteria most often enter the lungs due to aspiration. (Aspiration means choking such that secretions in the mouth bypass the choking reflexes and enter the lung.) Drinking contaminated water is not a major cause of Legionnaire?s disease.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 8,000 to 18,000 Americans contract the disease annually. Five to 30 percent of the cases are fatal. While Canada has no national statistics, Hydro-Québec says about 100 people a year are hospitalized in that province for pneumonia caused by contaminated residential water heaters.

 

[atomicacid55]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: torpid
Thinking about this more, I don't understand the "science" behind the idea that if the water sits in pipes with minerals more, it is more contaminated. I think the opposite would be true, assuming this isn't an entirely fictional scenario. The more water runs through a pipe, the more erosion there would be. Just like if you fill a pan with cold water and let it sit there, it's not going to get clean as quickly as if you run water constantly through it.

Simple;

If you have "soft water" or low pH or "acidic" water, which is typically "suface water" (from rain or run-off; Lake or River) as it sits in the pipe it corrodes the pipe and leaches the material in the pipe or its connections into the water....this is where the majority of lead/copper in drinking water comes from. Water is known as the "Universal Solvent" for a reason 😉

Um, if water runs, then you have oxygen replenished water.

What does that mean? More corrosion.... but often this analysis is quite complex. I'm going to say that when you run water through, corrosion increases. I know that water will corrode the copper/lead no matter what even if it sits there, but as your red-ox reaction takes place, your water loses oxygen, and if you've studied reduction curves, you know that hydrogen is not as strong of a reducer as oxygen is...

pH has effects too, but once again O2 concentration is far more important. Moreoever, a lot of water companies prefer to use higher pH water. 8 is usually the standard.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Muse
Not sure, but pretty sure. Microwaves sometimes last a long time, but sometimes they don't last real long. I guess I've had two stop working in about 20 years. OTOH, my gas stove, I've been using for longer than that. The oven's thermostat is acting a little weird lately, but I can maybe replace that or just live with it.

Free microwave from craigslist? You mean people giving them away? Come to think of it, the one I'm using right now was one I found on the sidewalk, IIRC. 🙂

fair enough. I guess if you have a gas stove, you don't really need a microwave, but water takes FOREVER on my crappy electric.

 

[michaeltheplumber]

Hey everyone, not so fast. If you have a storage tank water heater, as most people do, there is a metal anode rod inside the tank. It disolves over time and mixes with the hot water protecting the glass-lined wall inside of the tank.
I wouldn't drink hot water from the tap. Take the extra time and heat it another way!

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64


However, we did find out that the water period from the faucet was killing all the plants in the house. They tried using bottled water and the plants are fine now. Stupid, I know.

What's a water period?

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: torpid
Cloudy water is just from aeration. When the water is warmed it excites the stuff so you notice the cloudiness.

When heating water on the stove, it will go thru a phase where it looks like that. Your water is probably hard.

 

[imported_Baloo]

I would not drink hot water period. But hot water from tap is no more hazardous than cold water. If you are worried about contaminants, which would not be coming from the water heater, FYI, get a chemical/sediment water filter.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
However, we did find out that the water period from the faucet was killing all the plants in the house. They tried using bottled water and the plants are fine now. Stupid, I know.

Not stupid. Its called chlorine. Plants don't like it.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I have a chemist friend that works at the city water purification facility. From what she told me, don't drink the water from the faucet, ever. Boil it first.

Wow...

LA county drinking water is perfectly safe. In fact, it's more tightly regulated than bottled water and usually cleaner.

I grew up in LA. I drank the tap water every day of my life from a baby until I left LA in my late teens. I am 40 now with no issues whatsoever.

Your "friend" is an idiot.

I'll get the exact technical details later for your viewing pleasures. As already pointed out, the water once it leaves municipal is up to the pipping. Not only that, there are already a certain amount of bacteria, chemical and others that aren't completely filtered out from the municipal. I don't remember the exact details, but in the long run, it's not all good for ya.

Going by your same argument, people in third world country are drinking unfiltered water forever and they seem fine. Now, how we define "fine" is another entire subject.

Okie dokie. Be a dupe for the bottled water and filter companies. It's your money, not mine... or should I say it's their money now, not yours?

If snake oil works for you, more power to ya!

On tap filters remove chlorine and other chemicals, not just the stuff that isn't supposed to be in municipal water anyway. Reverse osmosis filters remove anything. Does anyone know if it's possible for an on tap filter to remove flouride??

There's some chemical, trisomething, that is proven to be harmful at levels lower than the regulation. I don't know why some people place such unwavering faith in local (and federal) government's regulations-- the same governments that allowed lead in paint and fuel, and a host of other chemicals we now know to be harmful... Regulatory bodies are not omniscient or perfect, and we all know they are subject to lobbying.

 

[mercanucaribe]

http://www.waterfiltercomparisons.com/Water_Filter_Comparison_Matrix.cfm

Recent studies have linked trichloroethylene (TCE) to multiple cancers and many other health effects. Trichloroethylene is very prevalent in this society, and has known health effects at lower levels than the EPA has set for safe drinking water standards.


The water treatment industry is extremely regulated. Companies that market undocumented products, or make uncertified claims are heavily restricted as to how and where they can sell their products. Beware of products that offer different Performance Claims in different states. CA, WI, IA, and several other states, prohibit uncertified claims.

 

[mercanucaribe]

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/removefluoride.htm