Just generally, you can get a report of your municipal water testing. The biggest safety variable that I would be worried about testing at home for is lead in the pipes between me and the treatment plant. That includes my house/building and the municipal pipes.
Now taste, that's a to each their own situation. Sulfury water is my limit for sure. No thanks!
I think hey are talking about the chloramine that Minneapolis uses to disinfect. It is more stable and isn't just chlorine, so it would be in a "combined" result. The levels are page three of this report https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/residents/2022-Consumer-Confidence-Report-FINAL.pdf It looks like 2023 isn't posted yet, but I doubt it changes much year to year.
Are you talking about using chloramine in disinfection? I think conflating pool water and drinking water standards is a bit of a mistake. Things get added to pools from people's bodies after chlorination that cause weird combined results. Drinking water is disinfected (chlorinated) as a final step. I would object to my municipality using chloramine, but not because I wouldn't drink it.
Suppression of fire in North America has been a huge mistake. Results include bigger fires, habitat loss to succession, and vilifying of indigenous land management techniques.
The computer is constantly both bricked and not bricked. No way to know until you push the power button
This is for the 'good' neighborhoods. They'll be where enforcement happens, and it will be selective.
Yes, and I have been hassled for it (not in Florida). Small town cops are the worst by far. I imagine if you have a nice car you might slip by though.
Alternative title: High Tension Power Line Plan Causes Tensions to Run High
Me talking at dinner: "Will you pass me the peas?" Cut to 5 people confused about whether I mean just one of them or if I want the whole table to all hand me the peas.
I get why they/them can be confusing because of the plural thing, but we are used to a quirky language. With a little practice, the tone and context clear up nearly all confusion. The rest is as easy or hard as what we have to do with an ambiguous "you."
PS Sorry to the "yous/yous guys" people. I am not trying to turn a blind eye to you obviously superior usage. It just really ruins my point.
Their point is that if plants can suffer, and assuming we still want to eat, less plants die or are maimed on a vegan diet than on an omnivorous diet because livestock eats plants too and the conversion to meat is inefficient.
That means vegan diet is the way for less plant suffering even though you eat them directly. In fact it is because you would eat them directly.
What? All of that tracking data isn't just being used to make cars better? I am sure they'll fix this in the next mandatory update.
Nice work on the write up! It is hard sorting things out when they're half true. For me, drinking water is especially important to get the fact straight on because of how bad it can go if the system fails. It would be silly to disregard anyone saying water wasn't up to a safe standard, but separating things I would care about out from the fluoride and chlorine background noise is tricky. Thanks for the deeper dive!