Just casually throwing in 'overpopulation' when in so many places, water for actual human needs like drinking, bathing and even washing clothes, is a tiny fraction compared to much more wasteful things like grass, America's largest crop.
I live in a dry bit of the American west and municipal usage is a small fraction of water usage (about 8%). Agriculture is often not very efficient because of old water rules that give water to things like hobby farms when real farms downstream don't get what they need.
100% this. or 95%. When you say "grass, America's largest crop" I assume you are referring to lawns, but actually I think your last point is the crucial one: "...municipal usage is a small fraction of water usage (about 8%). Agriculture..."
California has plenty of water for it's people. If you add up ALL residential, commercial and industrial use, including all outdoor landscape watering, baseball fields, golf courses, etc - it all adds up to around 10-20% of the water used (depending on rainfall).
Where does the rest (80-90%) of California's water go? Agriculture. Half the produce of which is exported to other states and countries. Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol, which is naturally almost a desert? And about half of that rice is exported, much to Asia (!!)
California is rather like Saudi Arabia, with the farmers pumping out all the water and selling it in the form of agricultural produce.
But take a shorter shower please! And you don't really NEED to flush that toilet.
"Golf courses in the US occupy roughly 2 million acres, which is larger than the state of Delaware but smaller than Connecticut."
"California almond growers use between 4.7 to 5.5 million acre-feet of water annually, representing roughly 14.4% to 16.75% of the state's agricultural water consumption"
> Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol, which is naturally almost a desert?
Rice benefits from flooding for weed control (because it is unusually flood resistant), but doesn't consume a lot of water (the water from flooding is available for downstream use.)
If you want to complain about water-intenaive crops in CA, the issue is almonds, not rice.
Also, while there are parts of CA that are desert or “almost desert” (desert or semi-arid climate), the area around Sacramento is hot-summer Mediterranean.
> Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol, which is naturally almost a desert?
That's not really accurate. Much of California is Mediterranean climate, including all of Sacramento county. Yes, there's some desert in California, but most of the agriculture happens elsewhere; but it depends on what you mean by 'almost a desert', a lot of the central valley is classified as arid and that's where a lot of the agriculture happens. A lot of people also live in (different) arid parts of California though, maybe they should move to where fresh water is easier to access :P
Also, the terrain means it's relatively easy to move water from the north around the central valley, but difficult to move it from the north or central valley to the greater LA area. Elsewhere in the thread, people claim water is fungible, and it mostly is, but location is important, and moving water in Bakersfield to Los Angeles is non trivial.
Some responders have challenged my assertion that Sacramento is a desert. I concede the point - it's actually classified as Mediterranean.
That said, rice consumes a lot of irrigation water:
"In California, there is very little to no rainfall
during the rice growing season, so this is not
usually considered in water budgets. On average,
about 5 acre feet/acre (AF/ac) of irrigation water
is applied to a rice field during the growing"
Also, rice is not a particularly big water consumer compared to other crops - it's just one that came to mind. You could pick from dozens of others - Almonds, pistachios, etc.
California simply uses a LOT of water to produce a LOT of food, about half of it being exported.
I kind of understand this argument, but I kind of don't. Does this argument prefer that there is less food production in California?
> It supplies one-third of U.S. vegetables and three-quarters of its fruit and nuts. California is the country’s biggest milk producer, producing nearly 20 percent of the nation’s milk. And of all crops grown in the U.S., 19 of them – including almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives, plums and table grapes – are grown only in California.
Grass is not America's largest crop, but it is by far the most wasteful.
Agriculture in general, on the other hand, needs a lot of water, and we need agriculture to stay alive. There are optimizations you can make with regards to which kind of agriculture is done where.
If the only way you can grow almonds is by mining water out of an aquifer that will deplete in a decade, maybe we should go without almonds. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
Okay, it may seem strange to rob the homeland to feed the world, but think geopolitics.
Firstly, the water mostly doesn't leave california. If they're exporting dried rice and almonds and things like that, most of the irrigation water is staying right where it was used, correct? You say water is consumed, as if it goes away or vanishes? Evaporated water or underground water is also water.
Secondly, you're giving jobs and supporting the local economy. Farmers purchase supplies, capital goods, they pay property taxes, and first and foremost they employ people. They employ large workforces. All that revenue they received from selling wherever they sell is stimulating local economies.
Lastly, exporting food is great international relations. What country will attack you when they depend on you for food? What nation will not be grateful for receiving such basic sustenance from overseas? And if we would go to war, and if you want to shut down all this agriculture, what will we eat on the home front? If we can't import food, we'd better have infrastructure to support our own needs. Any nation [state, county, city] that produces excess food is more likely to withstand siege, blockade or attack.
Liquor and soda bottlers can pivot to producing and distributing hand sanitizer or bottled water. If beer or Coke is bad for you, keep drinking it anyway, because you never know when that industry will become indispensable.
The "real farms" (Ie beef, dairy, grains, corns) you mentioned are absorbing on the order of 80 percent of the water, not commercial and private lawns/grass.
Hobby farms with several cows and a shop that sells maple syrup consum eabout 1/10000th a percent of water as for example con-agra suppliers, nestle etc.
There is the constantly rotating story of "this one small family farm in colorado uses more of california's water than LA county". That is a LARGE conglomerate farm which is part of the corporate farm problem, not mom and pop farms.
I assure you;In the USA specifically, your families ability to eat and provide food for the things we eat WILL be more important in the long run than bathing or washing clothes, until we decide that beef proteins aren't the msot sustainable.
While that's true it has very little to do with Mexico City's specific issues. It's at 7300 feet elevation surrounded by a ring of mountains that keep out a lot of the rain and moisture, and there's already not that much agriculture going on given the limited space.
I don't know anything about water allocation and provisioning in Mexico City, but the article itself doesn't limit itself to Mexico city either:
"It exemplifies a future that cities worldwide could face if global warming and overpopulation continue."
The city where I live is, I'm sure, very different from Mexico City, but we have reduced our water usage while the population has grown, thanks to things like xeriscaping. I imagine things are more difficult in Mexico City because there is less money, and orders of magnitude more people.
I hate when they promote the use of low-flow toilets which save 1-2 gallons when compared to irrigation of farm land measured in acre-inches of water. A acre-inch of water is 27,000 gallons. Corn needs 12 acre-inches to grow to maturity, or over 325,000 per acre.
I live in Mexico. About 30 mins from where I live, Amazon and others have built data centers (presumably for AI) which consume water. This is affecting agriculture in a region that is already suffering from drought.
I would imagine you are talking about Queretaro. Google and Microsoft also have data centers there.
This is a thing that has been more than a decade in the making, mostly because Queretaro does not have seismic activity and is only a couple of hours north of Mexico City.
While the water sources are completely different, both regions are prone to intense water seasons and, in the last couple of years, intense droughts.
More specifically, Queretaro is a semi-desert, so this behavior is a bit more expected.
Aside: Coming from personal experience I don't think that current agricultural methods are the best and are pron to wasting water, at least what I remember from Queretaro
Genuinely curious, how much water do data centers consume? I would think they might need a good amount of water at startup, but any use would be in a closed system. Am I misunderstanding their water use? Do they lose a lot of it to the atmosphere somehow?
One thing I'd like more info on is in what ways Nestlé and other water companies have contributed to the problem.
I've long heard that they lobby to prevent the local Government in CDMX from providing potable water in order to protect their bottled water and water-delivery business, but I actually don't know how well substantiated those accusations are.
On the positive side of things, Mexico City gets a ton of rain during the wet season which can be harvested with rooftop collectors.
When I lived in Oaxaca it was a massive issue with portable water only being available through private means from private springs in the nearby area. All hotels and tourist attractions had access to water, while the rest went without, some for months.
Nezahualcoyotl/Neza, Naucalpan, and Ecatepec (the municipalities mentioned) are not in Mexico City proper.
They along with Iztapalapa are the former slum towns. How much of the water crisis can be attributed to the fact that these were all unplanned muncipalities, with split governance between Mexico State and CDMX
Edit: Yep, looks like only 15% of water in Mexico is allocated to human consumption and the rest is for agriculture and manufacturing [0].
Now I'm curious how many seats in Estado Mexico's assembly are within the CDMX metro and how many are not. If majority of them aren't within the CDMX metro then it's the classic democracy dilemma you see in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc as well.
Edit 3: My hypothesis about state impact doesn't hold (forgot that Mexico follows the same system as the US of direct governer elections plus a mix of direct and proportional representation).
That said, now I'm curious about how public funds are disbursed to localities. How do local municipalities and unincorporated areas get services funded in Mexico?
It is never mentioned that electricity from fossil fuel generation consumes a lot of water.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, electric power generators are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals and account for about 40% of total water withdrawals in the United States:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37453
Thermoelectric power plants—including coal, nuclear, and natural gas plants—boil water to create steam, which then spins a turbine to generate electricity. Cooling water is passed through the steam leaving the turbine to cool and condense the steam. This step reduces the steam's exit pressure and recaptures its heat, which is then used to preheat fluid entering the boiler.
I live in Mexico City and a large part of this is the odd compulsion that chilangos have to put concrete over absolutely everything. It rains but there is very little unpaved surfaces to absorb any of that water and return it to underground sources. I've had friends and family members inexplicably rip out nice gardens at their houses and replace it with paved surfaces. My in-laws have a large yard that only has a few square meters of unpaved ground left. My street has flooding problems during intense rains every couple years in large part because no water can be absorbed anywhere and if the small street drains get clogged with branches it is a disaster.
Xeriscaping is a thing. Also are other greenery options than grass. We had a dust/mud patch, but then planted 100% clover (by simply throwing seeds on the ground). Now we have completely unmanaged greenery. It's not neat, we don't even water it - it's green in the spring, golden/brown in other seasons. Easy peasy.
Hi all -- I'm Long Lead's editor, John Patrick Pullen. Thanks for the compliments (those of you who have) and for those who have other thoughts, we hear you.
I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself, but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't stuff that in a reader-mode — and really we don't want to.
We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you ask? Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce feature films that look great in the right or best contexts. Watching on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as good as a TV or a projector. Similarly, our features journalism is built to scale (we do actually build separate mobile layouts) but isn't designed to leave our site. Also, all of them are bespoke builds made to support the reporting that they're housing, because every feature has its own needs. We work in every medium, too, from podcasts to documentaries to photo features like this one.
We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of journalism, because it used to exist. Remember a time when magazines arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and fact-checked features that took months to make? That's what we're doing, but online.
I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting stuff ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops is by subscribing to our newsletter at www.longlead.com/newsletters.
A couple pieces of feedback from someone who loves your content
1. I can't find an RSS feed anywhere?
2. Your homepage (https://longlead.com/#stories) is — and there's no gentle way to put this — borderline unusable. All I want is a simple list of your stories.
With a little bit of "undesigning," you'd have an amazing site :)
It's pretty for sure, but it breaks reader view which I use a lot, so I don't like it. also it requires a lot of unnecessary scrolling to read since the text is broken up so much
Works great in firefox on android. Text takes exact screen width and is not too small nor too big, and there are no stupid floating right side icons overlapping the text, what more do you need
It does have an unneeded text-scrolling-up effect, and breaks reader view which means they're doing something sinister, but at least reader view isn't actually necessary in this one for the way it looks
Counterpoint: it's super clear and easy to read on Firefox mobile. No popups or interstitial ads. Yes it's quite lengthy and there are many pictures, but you know what you're getting into with any long article like this one. This is exactly what I want for reading on mobile.
Hi all -- I'm Long Lead's editor, John Patrick Pullen. Thanks for the compliments (those of you who have) and for those who have other thoughts, we hear you.
I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself, but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't stuff that in a reader-mode — and really we don't want to.
We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you ask? Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce feature films that look great in the right or best contexts. Watching on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as good as a TV or a projector. Similarly, our features journalism is built to scale (we do actually build separate mobile layouts) but isn't designed to leave our site. Also, all of them are bespoke builds made to support the reporting that they're housing, because every feature has its own needs. We work in every medium, too, from podcasts to documentaries to photo features like this one.
We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of journalism, because it used to exist. Remember a time when magazines arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and fact-checked features that took months to make? That's what we're doing, but online.
I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting stuff ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops is by subscribing to our newsletter at www.longlead.com/newsletters.
Been in Mexico almost 7 years- it's common knowledge, you don't drink the tap water, ever. The destitute who can't afford bottled water might be the exception.
I’ve lived here for 3 years and been drinking the tap for about a year. I’ve got lots of friends with “filters” that don’t actually do anything for microbes, and they drink that water. Anyways, very very few people can’t afford a garrafón.
It's not the microbes in my experience, it's the heavy metals suspended in the water.
It's like a 0.1% damage over time effect. A few days drinking it? Fine. A few weeks? Still fine. Months? I started feeling just a bit more sick until I cut it out for filtered water.
Try drinking tap water in Africa, India, Bangladesh, most of South America and South Asia, in fact most of the 3rd world... good luck. Ie India had (maybe still has) high infant mortality due to water-transmitted diseases. Once you can't effectively 100% separate waste water from natural water table or other sources for drinking, everything becomes contaminated.
Readit News
I live in a dry bit of the American west and municipal usage is a small fraction of water usage (about 8%). Agriculture is often not very efficient because of old water rules that give water to things like hobby farms when real farms downstream don't get what they need.
California has plenty of water for it's people. If you add up ALL residential, commercial and industrial use, including all outdoor landscape watering, baseball fields, golf courses, etc - it all adds up to around 10-20% of the water used (depending on rainfall).
Where does the rest (80-90%) of California's water go? Agriculture. Half the produce of which is exported to other states and countries. Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol, which is naturally almost a desert? And about half of that rice is exported, much to Asia (!!)
California is rather like Saudi Arabia, with the farmers pumping out all the water and selling it in the form of agricultural produce.
But take a shorter shower please! And you don't really NEED to flush that toilet.
"Golf courses in the US occupy roughly 2 million acres, which is larger than the state of Delaware but smaller than Connecticut."
"California almond growers use between 4.7 to 5.5 million acre-feet of water annually, representing roughly 14.4% to 16.75% of the state's agricultural water consumption"
WHAT THE H#$%?
Rice benefits from flooding for weed control (because it is unusually flood resistant), but doesn't consume a lot of water (the water from flooding is available for downstream use.)
If you want to complain about water-intenaive crops in CA, the issue is almonds, not rice.
Also, while there are parts of CA that are desert or “almost desert” (desert or semi-arid climate), the area around Sacramento is hot-summer Mediterranean.
That's not really accurate. Much of California is Mediterranean climate, including all of Sacramento county. Yes, there's some desert in California, but most of the agriculture happens elsewhere; but it depends on what you mean by 'almost a desert', a lot of the central valley is classified as arid and that's where a lot of the agriculture happens. A lot of people also live in (different) arid parts of California though, maybe they should move to where fresh water is easier to access :P
Also, the terrain means it's relatively easy to move water from the north around the central valley, but difficult to move it from the north or central valley to the greater LA area. Elsewhere in the thread, people claim water is fungible, and it mostly is, but location is important, and moving water in Bakersfield to Los Angeles is non trivial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California#/media/F...
That said, rice consumes a lot of irrigation water:
"In California, there is very little to no rainfall during the rice growing season, so this is not usually considered in water budgets. On average, about 5 acre feet/acre (AF/ac) of irrigation water is applied to a rice field during the growing"
https://ucanr.edu/sites/RiceTestSite/files/328501.pdf
Also, rice is not a particularly big water consumer compared to other crops - it's just one that came to mind. You could pick from dozens of others - Almonds, pistachios, etc.
California simply uses a LOT of water to produce a LOT of food, about half of it being exported.
> It supplies one-third of U.S. vegetables and three-quarters of its fruit and nuts. California is the country’s biggest milk producer, producing nearly 20 percent of the nation’s milk. And of all crops grown in the U.S., 19 of them – including almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives, plums and table grapes – are grown only in California.
- https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/campaigns/powernews/features/c...
Perhaps the key insight required to explain the 20th century.
It has the force of truth: now that I see it put so simply, I struggle to understand why no one has been able to do so before.
Agriculture in general, on the other hand, needs a lot of water, and we need agriculture to stay alive. There are optimizations you can make with regards to which kind of agriculture is done where.
If the only way you can grow almonds is by mining water out of an aquifer that will deplete in a decade, maybe we should go without almonds. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
Firstly, the water mostly doesn't leave california. If they're exporting dried rice and almonds and things like that, most of the irrigation water is staying right where it was used, correct? You say water is consumed, as if it goes away or vanishes? Evaporated water or underground water is also water.
Secondly, you're giving jobs and supporting the local economy. Farmers purchase supplies, capital goods, they pay property taxes, and first and foremost they employ people. They employ large workforces. All that revenue they received from selling wherever they sell is stimulating local economies.
Lastly, exporting food is great international relations. What country will attack you when they depend on you for food? What nation will not be grateful for receiving such basic sustenance from overseas? And if we would go to war, and if you want to shut down all this agriculture, what will we eat on the home front? If we can't import food, we'd better have infrastructure to support our own needs. Any nation [state, county, city] that produces excess food is more likely to withstand siege, blockade or attack.
Liquor and soda bottlers can pivot to producing and distributing hand sanitizer or bottled water. If beer or Coke is bad for you, keep drinking it anyway, because you never know when that industry will become indispensable.
Hobby farms with several cows and a shop that sells maple syrup consum eabout 1/10000th a percent of water as for example con-agra suppliers, nestle etc.
There is the constantly rotating story of "this one small family farm in colorado uses more of california's water than LA county". That is a LARGE conglomerate farm which is part of the corporate farm problem, not mom and pop farms.
I assure you;In the USA specifically, your families ability to eat and provide food for the things we eat WILL be more important in the long run than bathing or washing clothes, until we decide that beef proteins aren't the msot sustainable.
"It exemplifies a future that cities worldwide could face if global warming and overpopulation continue."
The city where I live is, I'm sure, very different from Mexico City, but we have reduced our water usage while the population has grown, thanks to things like xeriscaping. I imagine things are more difficult in Mexico City because there is less money, and orders of magnitude more people.
https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug... is really informative.
https://www.context.news/ai/thirsty-data-centres-spring-up-i...
This is a thing that has been more than a decade in the making, mostly because Queretaro does not have seismic activity and is only a couple of hours north of Mexico City.
While the water sources are completely different, both regions are prone to intense water seasons and, in the last couple of years, intense droughts.
More specifically, Queretaro is a semi-desert, so this behavior is a bit more expected.
Aside: Coming from personal experience I don't think that current agricultural methods are the best and are pron to wasting water, at least what I remember from Queretaro
If you check the link in my comment these are not the data centers close to the city which everyone knows but newer ones in Colón.
> Having it generate a 100-word email consumes about 500ml of water (17 oz).
> 10 to 50 queries consume about 2 litres of water (½ gallon).2
Deleted Comment
I've long heard that they lobby to prevent the local Government in CDMX from providing potable water in order to protect their bottled water and water-delivery business, but I actually don't know how well substantiated those accusations are.
On the positive side of things, Mexico City gets a ton of rain during the wet season which can be harvested with rooftop collectors.
They along with Iztapalapa are the former slum towns. How much of the water crisis can be attributed to the fact that these were all unplanned muncipalities, with split governance between Mexico State and CDMX
Edit: Yep, looks like only 15% of water in Mexico is allocated to human consumption and the rest is for agriculture and manufacturing [0].
Now I'm curious how many seats in Estado Mexico's assembly are within the CDMX metro and how many are not. If majority of them aren't within the CDMX metro then it's the classic democracy dilemma you see in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc as well.
[0] - https://www.axios.com/2024/11/26/mexico-water-crisis-claudia...
But American sewage systems are also functional and maintained/upgraded.
I'm not sure how DPW-style work is funded or managed at the municipality level in MX.
That said, now I'm curious about how public funds are disbursed to localities. How do local municipalities and unincorporated areas get services funded in Mexico?
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, electric power generators are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals and account for about 40% of total water withdrawals in the United States:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37453
Thermoelectric power plants—including coal, nuclear, and natural gas plants—boil water to create steam, which then spins a turbine to generate electricity. Cooling water is passed through the steam leaving the turbine to cool and condense the steam. This step reduces the steam's exit pressure and recaptures its heat, which is then used to preheat fluid entering the boiler.
U.S. thermoelectric plants are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals, accounting for more than 40% of total U.S. water withdrawals in 2015:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50698
The reason why 1st world cities look "cleaner" is because every single sq inch is either paved or turfed with grass.
I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself, but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't stuff that in a reader-mode — and really we don't want to.
We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you ask? Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce feature films that look great in the right or best contexts. Watching on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as good as a TV or a projector. Similarly, our features journalism is built to scale (we do actually build separate mobile layouts) but isn't designed to leave our site. Also, all of them are bespoke builds made to support the reporting that they're housing, because every feature has its own needs. We work in every medium, too, from podcasts to documentaries to photo features like this one.
We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of journalism, because it used to exist. Remember a time when magazines arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and fact-checked features that took months to make? That's what we're doing, but online.
I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting stuff ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops is by subscribing to our newsletter at www.longlead.com/newsletters.
Thanks so much for reading!
1. I can't find an RSS feed anywhere?
2. Your homepage (https://longlead.com/#stories) is — and there's no gentle way to put this — borderline unusable. All I want is a simple list of your stories.
With a little bit of "undesigning," you'd have an amazing site :)
Deleted Comment
Wouldn't want to read this on a phone though I tell you hwhat.
It does have an unneeded text-scrolling-up effect, and breaks reader view which means they're doing something sinister, but at least reader view isn't actually necessary in this one for the way it looks
Most decently designed sites know how to respond to different screen sizes.
Hi all -- I'm Long Lead's editor, John Patrick Pullen. Thanks for the compliments (those of you who have) and for those who have other thoughts, we hear you.
I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself, but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't stuff that in a reader-mode — and really we don't want to.
We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you ask? Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce feature films that look great in the right or best contexts. Watching on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as good as a TV or a projector. Similarly, our features journalism is built to scale (we do actually build separate mobile layouts) but isn't designed to leave our site. Also, all of them are bespoke builds made to support the reporting that they're housing, because every feature has its own needs. We work in every medium, too, from podcasts to documentaries to photo features like this one.
We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of journalism, because it used to exist. Remember a time when magazines arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and fact-checked features that took months to make? That's what we're doing, but online.
I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting stuff ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops is by subscribing to our newsletter at www.longlead.com/newsletters.
Thanks so much for reading!
It's like a 0.1% damage over time effect. A few days drinking it? Fine. A few weeks? Still fine. Months? I started feeling just a bit more sick until I cut it out for filtered water.
Deleted Comment