As the Guardian reported on Saturday:
The safety of tap water in the UK could be at risk because water companies are unable to use products to clean it, industry insiders have said, as all the laboratories that test and certify the chemicals have shut down.
People in the industry have called it a “Brexit problem” because EU countries will share laboratory capacity from 2026, meaning that if the UK was still in the EU, water companies would be able to use products that passed tests on the continent.
But UK rules mean products cannot be tested abroad; they have to be tested in the country in a certified lab, of which there are now none.
I am astonished that this appears to have had little news coverage because what it means is that UK water might well be unsafe, and there is no one to warn us about it.
The risk is obvious. The shit that we know is in rivers might now be in our drinking water, and we aren't being told.
This is, of course, massively helpful to private water companies, who will claim all this is beyond their control and that there is nothing they can do about it.
But then, we should not have private water companies. Water is too important for markets to be involved in its delivery.
And we should have public testing agencies. The fault here lies with neoliberal politicians, and most especially the Tories under which this system collapsed.
Meanwhile, sales of bottled water will rise. GDP will grow. But there will be no net gain to society, and for many, there will just be increased risk, or sickness.
When will we realise that markets are no substitute for good governance driven by proper governments when it comes to the delivery of core services?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There is no problem. The British public knows what it is doing. We had an oven ready Brexit. All we needed was a JCB and polystyrene wall to show how it is done. It really was that simple. What could go wrong?
Shocking Richard but no suprise once again the Brexit that keeps on giving
Scottish Water has at least one I understand. When English ones complained Brexit was stopping cleaning chemicals SW said that wasn’t true and it had no problems.
So I think that was a confected excuse because it meant they didn’t have to do anything about the sewage issue.
Prof. John Robertson’s blog at “Talking Up Scotland carried a post a couple of days ago which describes the Scot.Gov owned Scottish Water’s ground breaking accreditation of a new method of detecting viruses in drinking water, which dates from January 2024. https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2024/12/07/contrary-to-the-guardian-view-there-is-certified-water-testing-in-the-uk-post-brexit-but-its-so-far-aw
Thanks
Looks like there might be some hope on the horizon. Although not until 2026 or 2028 when it finally gets to market
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24780252.scots-uni-very-significant-water-safety-breakthrough/
Thank you, Richard.
And the government thinks / hopes investors are queueing up to invest in (and tourists visit) a country with such poor quality of life and a government that does not care and has no idea.
I remember an editorial in Newsweek International by the Scouser then in charge circa 1990. He warned about the above then.
This post should be read in conjunction with the other about Trump. My only quibble with that is the focus on Trump*. American oligarchs and politicians are the same regardless of rosette. It’s a question of PR and the tactics, not strategy, at the time.
*Please read what this Peruvian has to say about Trump and America: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/trump-wins-harris-loses.html.
Thanks
Thank you, Richard.
I forgot to add that Labour targets and listens to Big Finance, people interested in financial assets, not firms / people interested in productive assets and well being. From my engagements with the former shadow Treasury and Business teams, I wonder if they understand the differences.
The issue is with the chemicals used to treat the water. UK’s rules after Brexit required them to be tested in a British lab of which there were three, but they have since shut down. A fix will have to be found before stocks of certified chemicals run out.
I think its Victor Meldrew who sums up the whole situation best
‘I don’t believe it!’
What never seems to be discussed though and this is a case to point is that Brexit is a National Security issue and those responsible for both causing Brexit and managing the fall out – in this case the current Government miserably fail to recognise it.
I think the statement should be: how safe is our drinking water?
Nothing is absolutely safe, but the relative safety is what should concern us.
I think all water companies let you check on the quality of water, for example, United Utilities lets you check theirs via this page: https://www.unitedutilities.com/help-and-support/your-water-supply/your-water/water-quality/
… from which I can see how much aluminium, copper and lead are present. What is not clear, is what is a significant risk. I suspect that big business has a say in these quantities, and not necessarily health professions (especially those who are not influenced by Big Pharma).
I suspect this is an area where Robert F. Kennedy Jr is interested, he spent much of his career as an environmental lawyer fighting companies who polluted. Hopefully we’ll have British campaigners who put the public first.
Scottish Water is the publicly owned water company supplying the residential market in Scotland. As a result, bills are lower and the water is far cleaner. It’s a no brainer. Water, a basic public good, should never be in private hands.
Here’s a post I recently did on Scotland’s water – not all of it is publicly owned. Labour, before it was kicked out of office in Holyrood in 2007, privatised commercial water supplies with Business Stream Ltd.
https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/how-public-is-scotlands-water
And here’s a link to an article about a new method Scottish Water developed to detect viral contamination in the water supply –
https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/About-Us/News-and-Views/2024/01/090124-Somatic-Coliphages-UK-First#:~:text=Laboratory%20Team%20Member,laboratories%20in%20Edinburgh%20and%20Inverness.
Thanks
Adding halides to the water is – contrary to US advice – very dangerous. Fluoride, chloride, (but bromide too when added to bakery products) and perchlorate added to drinking water cause severe metabolic and carcinogenic health problems
These chemicals in the halide family reduce the thyroid gland’s ability to absorb iodine. This can lead to thyroid dysfunction, especially in people with underlying thyroid problems or iodine deficiency. Perchlorate cin particular an also affect the development of infants if pregnant women are exposed to high levels of it.
Profiteers not cleaning our drinking water well-enough is no-doubt dangerous, but the US-led policy of using as many halides as possible where good health would requires only iodine is criminally dangerous.
FWIW before the marvelous socialist Aneurin Bevan caused the creation of the NHS – and before the said NHS became little more than drug dealers for the pharmaceutical industry – Iodine was called “the universal medicine” and inadequacy in it can be, in my opinion, a major cause of metabolic illness and cancer.
I have seen conmtradictory evicence on flouride
I cannot answer the question
Indeed. Flouridation can reduice cavities in weakly enamelled (usually children’s) teeth. However, research also correlates its use to neurological conditions like dementia. Point is, even the claimed cavities-benefit of fluoridation is short term and then counter-productive; An adequate intake of micronutrient boron and magnesium would equally ensure reduced cavities, osteoporosis, rheumatism, arthritis life-long.
FYI.
Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6320968/
The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/
Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
Simplistic and utterly misleading.
“chloride plays a vital role in various physiological processes essential for overall health and well-being. From maintaining electrolyte balance to supporting digestion, muscle function, and nerve signaling, chloride is an indispensable nutrient…” (nursingenotes.com)
” Iodine is needed to make the thyroid hormones thyroxine and triiodothyronine, which assist with the creation of proteins and enzyme activity, as well as regulating normal metabolism. Without enough iodine, these thyroid hormones do not work properly and can lead to an under-active or overactive thyroid gland, causing the medical conditions of hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism with various negative side effects in the body. (Source: https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/iodine/)”
Of course not all halides are the same, and as with everything else – even water – an excess out of proportion to the body’s needs may be problematic.
Very true, Bill Thomlinson but chlorination of drinking water in UK and USA and increasingly across the EU is done to much higher levels than the WHO prescribes for disinfection purposes. Yes, the body produces and uses chlorine endemically, but my comments are addressing the addition of supplemental/synthetic chlorine/chloride to drinking water – and its probable contribution to iodine deficiency a condition which can affect up to 80% of the human race to the detriment of their health.
I am beginning to think this is not relevant here.
People will be forced to boil water sending fuel bills rocketing further impoverishing lower income groups. Also increasing emissions further excaserbating the climate crisis.
Indeed Bill Hughes.
I distil water routinely – and it costs .5 £Kw hour per litre.
These blair/clinton-loving neoliberals (and capitalism’s innate ever-more-profit ‘contradiction’) increase the cost of health daily. Starmer will no-doubt find several ways to make it completely unaffordable.
@ Richard,
The Guardian, and its contributors, often conflate Britain, England and the UK.
In the few minutes of my coffee break, I’ve established;
– Scottish Water has a lab, in Edinburgh, although I didn’t have time to click on any links, so I’ve no idea what the lab actually does;
– The DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate), referenced in the link, covers England and Wales only;
– The Scottish Parliament has passed (2022) a “Drinking Water Directive” that aligns standards with EU law; this was a follow up to the EU Continuity Bill (2020). – I’d guess that means EU labs could be used, if needed; the standards being the same?
Sorry for patchy detail; there’s only so much that can be done in a short break.
Scotland showing the way, as usual
Scottish Water has labs in both Edinburgh and Inverness and, per its website, it is also playing a leading role in the new http://www.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/water-test-network/
Scottish Water’s website – https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/business-and-developers/development-centres/water-research-and-test-facilities
This was highighted recently in Prof John Robertson’s blogsite
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2024/12/07/contrary-to-the-guardian-view-there-is-certified-water-testing-in-the-uk-post-brexit-but-its-so-far-away-from-england-in-edinburgh/
It looks like Scottish Water has the only UKAS accredited labs for drinking water in the UK.
Scottish Water earlier this year received accreditation from the U.K Accreditation Service, (U.K.A.S.), for it’s new method of testing for viruses in its water supply. At the time, the first in the U.K, and even today maybe the only one, and one of the first in Europe. It supplies 1.5 billion litres of clean drinking water every day throughout Scotland, and it has two testing centres, one in Edinburgh, the other in Inverness.
If only England took note….
Maybe not as easily do-able as claimed by Scottish Water, Alex.
Waterborne viruses are usually present in very low concentrations. Concentration and detection are necessary and not straight-forward. This is because viruses in water and cannot be directly detected (immunostaining techniques, and molecular biological procedures like PCR are used, but to contested effectivess). Concentration methods involve exploiting the properties of viruses, such as their ionic charge, particle size, and density. The most commonly used methods include adsorption/elution, ultrafiltration, and ultracentrifugation. These methods have different levels of efficiency and cost, and may require secondary concentration steps (no-body knows). The choice of method depends on the type of water sample and the viruses being targeted.
Better informed brains than mine suggest that most of the claims being made currently by the likes of Scottish Water and other prospective stakeholders are more akin to PR and covid’s “The Science Inc” (TM), than real, do-able empirical science.
Me? I’ve no idea, but I can detect when a scientific scam when one seems probable.
During the Covid crisis the health authorities were using water samples to track spread and back up personal tests. I wonder what happened to those facilities??
was that not wastewater testing, Simon?
The data showed very interesting results the showed most of Boris J’s “The Science inc”(tm) to be total bunkum, but regular epidemiology to be spot on.
Aaaagh, I thought I’d posted this earlier – foggy-brain day!
Richard’s article: ” I am astonished that this appears to have had little news coverage because what it means is that UK water might well be unsafe, and there is no one to warn us about it.”
It might be standard MSM mis-information, Richard. Most of the chemicals used in water treatment are basic and abundant (https://camachem.com/en/blog/post/top-10-water-treatment-chemicals) and could be produced in high-school chemistry labs. Brexit story, or yet another bit of fear-mongering to keep us all susceptible for another dubious Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)?
I reckon the former – a carefully placed story to embarrass the reprobate currently serving as His Majesty’s Prime Minister. Didn’t Sir Keir (of the BlackRock) big-up his hatred of brexit and his serious intention to minimise its harm when he was demeaning Jeremy C and not yet Leader of the Opposition? He did! But he also had other “pledges” that were equally transient and duplicitous (as is his way).
The problem may not necessarily be with the water treatment chemicals as such, but with the reagents and reference materials needed to test those bulk chemicals – basically made from whatever comes out of the quarry – to ensure they are sufficiently pure and free from undesirable contaminants for a safety-critical use. Without some such testing you really do not know what you are drinking, and to be of any use the test materials themselves have to be precision, toolroom, stuff. Not something just anyone could knock up with sufficient accuracy and repeatability in a school chem lab., even assuming they had the physical capacity to do so.
It looks like there could be an Enron style scandal brewing up over at Severn Trent Water. Apparently, a bogus shell company was set up and sold to a Severn Trent subsidiary called Tripley for £2. It then issued shares which it sold to the master holding company Severn Trent Water for £3bn, paid for not in cash, but with an IOU. On the back of this, the company was able to pay dividends in excess of its net profit last year due to said subsidiary’s reporting future of profits in the present. Watch Panorama tonight at 8pm!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd75nqwdpj7o
I can fairly say I got to this issue a while ago. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/Transfer%20pricing%20and%20artificial%20profit%20generation%20AL%2019%202%2021%20FINAL.pdf
It defies belief that parent companies can legally create a synthetic loss in a subsidiary, and then by way of a dividend payment received from another subsidiary reporting a synthetic profit, inflate its own reported profits. From reading your paper on the subject of transfer mispricing, it turns out that subsidiary companies can use the UK FRSs as an accounting framework, while at the same time, a parent company can follow IFSs (to secure its international reputation). Shouldn’t all companies be ethically made to follow a single set of legally enforced accounting principles and rules instead?
There is no ethical justifocation for this – but it is incredibly commonplace
Severn Trent’s PR people have issued a response. It was initially reported that STW would not use Trimpley to report future earnings in the present, and its accounts seem to bear this out. The £3bn IOU (with interest added) has increased the value of its balance sheet, nearly half of which has appeared in the parent company’s accounts. STW will still have paid corporation tax at 25%, albeit on a synthetic profit – how would its shareholders feel about that?
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10690056/filing-history
But have they paid tax on that?
Or is an intra-group offset available?
Richard:
Might you please repeat your message on the worthlessness of our polluting water companies and the prospects for nationalising them on the cheap before they are “refinanced” through the proposed massive increases in the public’s water bills.
Noted
I might do a video
There is at least £1.5 trillion to resolve this issue according to the Whole of Government Accounts on which you blogged. The labs could be underwritten by HMG, as such there is no excuse for HMG