One of the main water lines supplying the houses in a town has broken. The town officials have issued an order telling everyone to boil their drinking water until the water supply has been retested and found safe. If some of the people chose to drink the water without boiling it first, how might their health be affected differently than that of people who boiled their drinking water?

Question

anonymous · Answer

A broken water line may be contaminated by soil components and potentially harmful microorganisms. Boiling will hardly remove any of the debris, but it may (will) kill the microorganisms, rendering them unable to survive and propagate in man, i.e. in 'people'. Thus, the risk of harmful infections are reduced by boiling the water.

anonymous · Answer

They might get infected with living organisms that could make them sick.

Any heavy metals that got into the water could cause birth defects in their children.

The silt in the water could be carrying fertilizer residue which could kill them.

They could potentially develop cancer if pesticides got into the water. 

which one would it be?

anonymous · Answer

You have listed four well known and relevant risk factors... but only of them applies (or is the correct one) in this 'short term' setting. Which one?

anonymous · Answer

the first one???

anonymous · Answer

(Hint: What can boiling actually do in this case? Remove anything? Or 'immobilize' anything? What is your conclusion - and, consequently, your answer?)

anonymous · Answer

Indeed! :)

anonymous · Answer

okay thank you