Kind of makes you rethink those eight glasses of water a day. (Thomas Northcut/Getty Images)

The New York Times has released its sweeping look at the U.S. public water supply, nicely timed to coincide with Copenhagen, and the news isn’t good. You might say it’s not all that potable, much like the water laced with contaminants that more than 49 million people have drunk since 2004, reports Charles Duhigg.
 
The pollution problem isn’t confined to particular states or particular contaminants. The more than 500,000 violations of water pollution laws such as the Clean Water Act are an equal opportunity bunch. Have a look for yourself here. The Times has pulled together an enormous database that allows you to find a water polluter near you. I plugged in Atlanta and was greeted with a map of Georgia that had more (environmental) blemishes than a teenager with a raging case of acne.
 
All those blemishes, indicated by orange dots, indicate facilities that are allowed to discharge pollutants and have failed to comply with the parameters of those permits. So, for example, when I plug in Atlanta, I can see that the Vulcan Construction Materials SE division is such a facility and has racked up 130 violations and incurred exactly $0 in fines, according to data that the New York Times compiled from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California State Water Resources Council.
 
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention two things. First, a “violation” doesn’t necessarily mean that the facility is discharging pollutants. Second, states aren’t  exactly nodding their heads in agreement with the Times’ take on the water-quality situation. For example, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division responded that the U.S. EPA data used in the report was corrupted and that the Georgia figures were incorrect.
 
Still the first thing that went through my head last night after reading the story was why the h-e-double-hockey-sticks aren’t we using a water filter on our home fridge anymore? The second thing was, would said water filter protect me and my family from the pollutants that may be in the public water supply?
 
To get that answer, I paid a visit to NSF International. I never would have known about this place if I hadn’t worked there years ago when I was living in Ann Arbor, Mich. It’s NSF’s job, along with other certification organization such as Underwriters Laboratories (you know, the people listed on your Christmas lights, for example), to certify that products meet certain standards.
 
Take Brita. Its NSF-certified Brita faucet filtration system OPFF-100 claims to reduce a long list of stuff you don’t want to be drinking, like lead, the weed killer atrazine, asbestos and many other contaminants. A certification organization verifies those claims in the lab, for a fee, of course. You can plug in whatever water filtration device you’re eyeing here to see how it fares. And note these products are claiming to reduce contaminants from your water, not eliminate them.

It will be interesting to see if the new EPA chief Lisa Jackson will start cracking down on all those violations. What do you guys think?
 
Read more about the wondrous substance that we appear to have a love-hate relationship with at HowStuffWorks.com:

How Water Works
Atrazine: How Much Weed Killer’s in Your Water?
How the EPA Works
Is there really water on Mars?
Does drinking eight glasses of water really hydrate skin?
How Water Slides Work (just in case you need a little levity)