http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/draining-reservoir-after-urination-incident-shows-tenuous-grasp-of-science/
In an interview<http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/portlands-teen-urinator-speaks-whiz-seen-round-world/>with Vocativ, the teenager in question, Dallas Swonger, denied urinating in the reservoir at all, stating he actually hit a wall instead. "I leaned up against the wall and pissed on it," Swonger said. Swonger also contested the cleanliness of the reservoir prior to his actions: "I’ve seen dead birds in there. During the summer time I’ve see hella dead animals in there," Swonger told Vocativ. In 2011, Shaff told the *Mercury* that the reservoir is not shut down for nature's transgressions. "If we did that, we'd be shutting it off all the time. We fish out animals or things that have blown in all the time," Shaff said. The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean and had just had one of its twice-yearly cleanings three weeks ago. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > A recent news item: > > http://time.com/66459/portland-reservoir-pee/ > > "Portland Dumps 38 Million Gallons of Water After Man Pees in Reservoir > > April 17, 2014 > > The city plans to dump 38 million gallons of water after authorities say a > 19-year-old urinated in a large, uncovered reservoir during an early > morning jaunt with two other friends, even though the contamination likely > poses little risk . . ." > > "Little risk" is incorrect. This poses absolutely no risk. Birds and other > animals defecate into reservoirs at a far higher rate than this. > > This is an example of the kind of unscientific thinking that has dogged > society in recent years. I say it is OFF TOPIC in the title, but it is > actually somewhat on topic. Some of the resistance to cold fusion comes > from this kind of anti-science attitude. > > Here is a comment about this I wrote on Slate: > > > This is an example of unscientific, irrational thinking. This is same kind > of nonsense that causes people to doubt the efficacy of vaccinations. The > city of Portland should resist doing this because it is not scientific and > there is absolutely no technical or medical justification for it. Officials > who understand science should not give in to mass hysteria based on > ignorance. That is a dangerous thing to do. In this case it merely wastes > water, energy and money. In other cases it may endanger the public. > > Irrational fears cause decision makers to put far too much emphasis on > some preventive measures, which means they do not have the resources to > deal with other measures that would do more good. > > > - Jed > >
