Don't Drink The Water

(More insanity at the EPA)

I’m having a hard time understanding this issue and to date I’ve avoided publicly commenting, but after reading the latest hysterical news story, thinking about it for a while this afternoon thereby getting up a good head of steam, I believe it is time to cut loose and see what happens. Here goes…

It seems that the EPA still has a problem with the quality of the drinking water stored in the holding tanks of some airliners. This story has already made the rounds once last fall on the local and national TV news shows and in the newspapers. Everybody…quick… wrinkle up your noses and make a face like your smelling cat poo and yell a collective “yuck!”

“About one in six airliners in the latest round of tests conducted in November and December had drinking water that failed to meet federal safety standards, EPA said. Similar tests in August and September showed the water in one in eight aircraft testing positive for coliform bacteria.

The latest round of testing produced positive results for presence of the bacteria in 29 of 169 randomly selected passenger aircraft carrying domestic and international passengers. The tests were done on water from galley water taps and lavatory faucets on planes at 14 airports throughout the United States.

The coliform bacteria — usually harmless itself but an indicator of the possible presence of other harmful organisms — was found in the planes ranging from small commuter aircraft to jumbo jets. None had E. coli bacteria (news - web sites ), which can cause gastrointestinal illness.

"It's an issue that's of concern," said Thomas V. Skinner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "It's not an indication that anyone needs to panic."

Despite the increased rate of aircraft testing positive over a previous round of testing, Skinner said he "would still maintain that the vast majority of planes do not come up positive."

He said the government does not plan a third round of tests.”

First things first. Finding coliform bacteria in 1/8th of the airliners in one test and 1/6th of the airliners in another is not a trend.

Why?

They only looked at 169 airplanes, that's why!

There are over 13,000 McDonald Douglas, Boeing, and Airbus airliners in service today worldwide. There are also a bunch of other smaller "regional jets" flying around not included in that number.

I suspect that at least half of them are operating domestically or arrive in the US occasionally on international flights. How in the world can the EPA honestly tell us anything about the quality of water on airliners by looking at only 169 airplanes twice? Did they look at the same planes each time or choose different ones?

And why would anyone actually care? Don’t we all usually drink bottled water served off of the little cart that comes rolling down the isle, served by the frowning flight attendant, five minutes before the airplane begins it’s “initial descent into the airport area” thereby forcing you to relinquish you much awaited cup of ice and water into the trash after you’ve “returned your tray table and seatback into the upright and locked position?” It’s not like I’m running into the urine-spattered restroom and lapping up handfuls of water out of the sink, you know?

I suspect that if they did two more tests involving the same number of airplanes they’d get two different sets of results, again. And the most damming thing about this story is this. If we are really supposed to be concerned about water quality issues on airliners, why isn’t the EPA going to do another set of follow up tests?

BECAUSE THE EPA IS GOVERNMENT, THAT’S WHY.

Based on my past experience with “water quality” issues on recreational vehicles (motor homes and cabin cruisers,) the best that you can do is keep the water looking relatively clear and not smelling like Okefenokee Swamp water. All you can do is basically change the water every now and then and dump a few caps of Clorox in for good measure and that’s about it. Bathing in the holding tank water and washing some pots and pans is OK, but bottled water is the way to go in your Winnebago or Sea Ray. Why should it be any different on a Delta Flight?

And really, if the airlines wanted to and could actually afford to worry about and ensure that they have surgically steralized water meeting the vaulted "EPA standards" on an airliner, I would hope that they could do it. Otherwise, how can we expect them to ensure that the fuel tanks aren't also contaminated with rat turds and that the freaking General Electric gas turbines will actually reliably operate for three and one-half hours between Atlanta and LA, turning at 30,000 RPM and flying at 40,000 feet in minus 20 degrees Celsius air?

Once again people, what we have here is a bored reporter and a slow news day and the end result is…

Much Ado About Nothing! Now find something that actually matters to worry about...

Update...January 19, 2005, 6:45 PM, after some more thought.....

If I were the EPA or the FAA, I would start checking the TANKER TRUCKS that are delivering the water to the offending airliners rather than pontificating about the water quality of the airplanes themselves. Do they think that somehow the airplanes are catching raindrops in flight or have really long wicks or siphon hoses that pick up water in route from the Rio Grande or Loche Ness or what.???

I can just hear the announcement over the intercom now..."Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen... Please remain calm, but do we have Jesus on board the aircraft ...we're a bit short on our wine inventory and the water looks a little bit tepid???"

Can't we just change my headline to "DON'T DRINK THE WATER (from the tanker trucks in the parking lot)??

Damn, I'm really stupid for not thinking of this angle from the outset when I first posted my ranting and raving. Come on People...HELP ME THINK for a CHANGE...Plueaseee ...Don't make me work so hard!