this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
165 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43956 readers
1111 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like UV and reverse osmosis are better, but if your city is already purifying it's probably overkill. From my very quick research it sounds like it's a good option only if your local tapwater is currently failing, which honestly some american towns and cities are. In that case - go for it, but if you're city is passing, then it sounds like you're purifying already perfectly safe to drink water.
https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/home/reverse-osmosis-water-pros-cons/
I guess what I'm concerned about is if the current purification methods used by my city is not good enough. By that I mean they do all the stuff they should be doing, but by not doing reverse osmosis or UV they let some things through that can hurt you.
I'm worried that by doing everything BUT those latter two, the city could be putting me and people I care about at risk.
Are you saying this is an unreasonable worry? Am I understanding you correctly?