You went to the wrong place for info. The Taiwanese government will tell you a lot of BS – the HST has a sufficient earthquake emergency system; the nuclear plants are safe; the water meets the highest standards in the world…Have you been aware of all the food safety scandals. I have a hard time believing that the relative government officials were completely unaware of them for so many years…You should of heard the load of shit they were saying during the nuclear plant meltdown in Japan…You could send samples of the water off to Germany for testing. That would get you decent results…
You went to the wrong place for info. The Taiwanese government will tell you a lot of BS – the HST has a sufficient earthquake emergency system; the nuclear plants are safe; the water meets the highest standards in the world…Have you been aware of all the food safety scandals. I have a hard time believing that the relative government officials were completely unaware of them for so many years…You should of heard the load of shit they were saying during the nuclear plant meltdown in Japan…You could send samples of the water off to Germany for testing. That would get you decent results…[/quote]
There are three canards in this world to induce people to act irrationally and against their own best interests:
the one-child policy
For DeMille, young fur-henchmen can’t be rowing.
“The Government!”
Anything can be justified with “If it saves even one child, then it’s worth it.” I mean, who wants a child to die, right? But people run all kinds of calculated risks all the time, and any single risk can reasonably be called foolish by people whose basket of risks don’t happen to include that one. But it’s really the basket that matters, and the cherry-picked risk probably doesn’t represent the whole picture very well. What’s more, eliminating the risk can trigger others that actually result in more dead children. For example, I could lobby people to spend a lot of their resources to own a large, heavy vehicle because it’s safer for driving their children around. Meanwhile, it could hurt those same children by reducing the family’s resources, result in more long term unseen harm to children from pollution that results in more lifeyears lost by a mass of people than that dead child lost. Etc.
That’s a famous pun on “Forty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” If 23 million Taiwanese do it, then I’d be a fool to do otherwise. Crowdsourcing is actually a rational basis for validity in a lot of demonstrable cases. But food-based paranoias are way too virulent and can overwhelm and corrupt mass opinion. The more hot-button the issue, the less trustworthy is crowdsourcing. 23 million Taiwanese can be wrong when it’s based on a deeply entrenched fear like food contamination.
A “vast conspiracy of the X,” where X represents the usual suspects. Lots of variety there depending on people’s prejudices, but who ever feels guilty when it comes to prejudicial views against a government agency? I mean, there have been demonstrably true cases, just like there have been bad people who have come from any X. Meanwhile, in some countries the government is The People, but never mind.
Up till now, I was a bit surprised that “The Government!” wasn’t represented, but now we’ve got a quorum. I suppose this is where the thread goes off the rails, but I’ll bite. You sling such a smorgasbord of mud, that one of them must be correct, right? In that case, the Water Department and the data they publish would be a remarkably detailed and extensive conspiracy that falls like a house cards in the face of your rational analysis. On the other hand, your analysis might be nothing but a smorgasbord of mud slinging without offering any response that’s in tune with the rather circumspect information the government agency publishes.
I’m not so optimistic that this thread can keep a rational eye on this important issue any longer, but the attempt would be appreciated. In any case, I think I’ve got a good sense of the situation and how to get better informed, so sincere thanks to every single person here for their input.
That’s funny. You are aware that the food scandals are proven and have been highly reported on. It’s not a conspiracy. I know for a fact a government leak was the source of one. They knew. It is a fact that this island is heavily polluted with heavy metals. It is a fact that Taiwanese engineers went with a earthquake emergency system for the high speed train over the Japanese one. Which geologic situation is more suitable for Taiwan. The current system here has been heavily criticized. The HST has derailed at least one time due to an earthquake. These are facts. Government says the current system is fine. It is a fact that buildings with radioactive concrete were built and covered up for many years. It is my understanding some of these buildings are still up. There are countless other cases, I’m sure. Go ahead and drink the water.
I won’t doubt you on any of those off-topic issues, but is there any sort of concrete evidence of them dropping the ball when it comes to water? In other words, “where’s the beef?” By the way, they did say the situation could be quite different in other cities, and they specifically mentioned Taizhong. It’s not that I wish to go ahead and make your day by drinking the water, but rather to point out how hard it is to get an informed opinion on a topic like this one.
With any knowledge at all of Taiwan’s industrial development trajectory, any sane person would assume the groundwater is heavily polluted. Rainwater is also polluted in all industrial countries, mostly from shit that dissolves out from the atmosphere, and piping infrastructure cannot be guaranteed safe. The prudent solution is to just install the standard three-stage filter. They’re not too expensive (~NT$3000-6000) and they get rid of most things you’d otherwise worry about. It’s ridiculous that the individual ends up paying the cost of filtering out crap that rich people were allowed to dump into the environment for free, but hey, that’s what economists tell us is good for development, so that’s what everyone does.
With any knowledge at all of Taiwan’s industrial development trajectory, any sane person would assume the groundwater is heavily polluted. Rainwater is also polluted in all industrial countries, mostly from shit that dissolves out from the atmosphere, and piping infrastructure cannot be guaranteed safe. The prudent solution is to just install the standard three-stage filter. They’re not too expensive (~NT$3000-6000) and they get rid of most things you’d otherwise worry about. It’s ridiculous that the individual ends up paying the cost of filtering out crap that rich people were allowed to dump into the environment for free, but hey, that’s what economists tell us is good for development, so that’s what everyone does.[/quote]
But what about the action of Taiwan’s (in this case, Taipei’s) water treatment plants? Otherwise, it’s the “if it saves even one child…” logic. In any case, apparently we generally agree that these post-filtration boilers add no health benefit. It’s either filter or ride bareback.
It seems to me a reliable third party water test could settle the issue. Are there such things, or is that yet another can of worms?
No, it wouldn’t - because a water test only gives you a result for one particular sample on one particular day. The next day, a rat might die in the rooftop watertank. Or some factory might “accidentally” discharge a few tonnes of chemicals into a water source, as happens on a regular basis. It’s better to assume something is unsafe unless safety is designed-in - which it clearly isn’t.
You’re rather missing the point with the “just one child” logic. The cost of filtering your water is minimal. The risks of not doing so are high.
Having said that, I’ve never heard of people getting sick from water-borne diseases, so boiling seems unnecessary. AFAIK the better filters will remove bacteria by filtration anyway.
Instead of worrying about it, why not just buy bottles from a commercial service? The original water source might not be any better, but using someone else’s industrial-size filter is a lot less hassle than installing your own.
Recommend any services? Periodic delivery of a huge container for a floorstanding unit would be reasonable, but I’ve never seen that kind of service here.
A water test or two would still be useful to verify the Water Department’s claims.
So if I am reading this correctly, the Water Department believes its product is either equivalent to or better quality than much of the bottled water on the shelves in convenience stores.