Can you drink out of freshwater lakes?

Question

If you were survivorman on lake superior, could you take a can of water, boil it (to get little organisms out) and drink it?

Answer 1

Moving water is a better choice, but if you are in a life-or-death situation, fresh lake water might not be a bad idea.  It really depends on where you are.  Up in northern Canada, I didn't have to worry about strange diseases in the lake water.  But if it's a lake that attracts animals like cows, or if there is a decent-sized human population around it, there's a real risk of microbal and/or chemical contamination.

For info on drinking water from Lake Superior: http://www.great-lakes.net/humanhealth/l...

Boiling is good.  And if you have the time/patience, you should filter it.  Place a plastic cover over the bowl/cup of water, and place under the sun.  As the water evaporates, you'll get condensation/droplets forming on the underside of the plastic cover.  Slant it so the droplets roll down into another cup/bowl... now you have filtered water!

You can also do this over a fire, but make sure the plastic doesn't melt.

Answer 2

'Although Lake Superior is the cleanest and most healthy of all the Great Lakes, it is still threatened by toxic pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain and persist in the environment.'

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/greatlakes/L...

so yes, fine but dont do it for years on end or you might not be able to have babies, might get cancer etc.

Answer 3

Hey! ALL OF CHICAGO DRINKS THAT STUFF!

Answer 4

I would say yes, as long as you BOIL it and add some bleach drops.  Also, just because the water looks clean and clear there could be microscopic organisims that live in that water that could make you very sick! Be careful!

Answer 5

I supposeyou wouldn't die!!! But fresh waters are not as pure as they once were!! I would rather be safe and bring water along rather than try to treat it myself!!!

Answer 6

y wud u want 2?

Answer 7

The state is getting close to a decision on whether to allow Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co. to break ground — literally and figuratively — in the UP for a sulfide mine. Environmentalists are doing all they can to prevent it.

When government officials sit through lengthy public hearings, a glass of water can be a lifesaver. At an emotional hearing Sept. 19 at the Lansing Center, an unorthodox petitioner offered up a bit of theater, reversing the roles of rescuer and rescued.

A panel of staffers from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality watched as 14-year Upper Peninsula wilderness dweller Chauncy Moran poured a quart of crystal-clear water from one bottle into another, dramatizing a bitter fight over the state’s water resources, now heading into its final innings.

Moran, a white-haired mountain man lean as a deer, told officials the water came from the pristine Salmon Trout River, near the Big Bay area west of Marquette, not far from his own home on Moss Creek.

“You can drink this,” Moran said. “I wanted you to see how clean it is.”

The Salmon Trout, listed by advocacy group American Rivers among the five most endangered rivers in the nation, is Ground Zero of a controversial sulfide mine proposed by Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co., a subsidiary of United Kingdom-based Rio Tinto.

The proposed mine would tap into an estimated $5 billion of nickel and other ores, but environmental groups and worried U.P. residents are deeply concerned at the mine’s potential to leak acid mine drainage into the surrounding waters.

In July, Michigan’s DEQ provisionally approved Kennecott’s proposal, extending public comment to Oct. 17 and setting a Nov. 14 deadline for a final decision. The DEQ will accept public comment on the pending approval of the Kennecott mine permit until 5 p.m. Oct. 17. Comments can be made by letter of via the Internet at DEQ-Kennecott [e-mail] email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

The Lansing hearings were the last public chance for opponents to make oral statements, and some 60 citizens did so that afternoon and evening.

Kennecott predicts the mine, the first of its kind in Michigan, will create 120 jobs for about seven to eight years; the Sierra Club puts the number closer to 45.

By a ratio of more than 12 to 1, a succession of speakers Monday told officials the limited benefit of the mine is not worth the huge risk to the state’s most valued resource. One speaker called it a “myopic opportunity.”

“I could not give Kennecott or the DEQ my forgiveness if something happened,” Sarah Schillio of Lansing said.

Brad Riutta of Houghton, in the Upper Peninsula, said he came from a mining family, and trusted Kennecott to do the job safely. “I fish, hike and pick blueberries here,” he said. “If we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace and utilize the resources God gave us, we should approve this project. Let’s get going.”

But Riutta was in the minority.

John Lindenmayer of the League of Michigan Bicyclists invoked the state’s “Pure Michigan” ad campaign.

“These are the kinds of places the film crews go out and film when they want to bring tourists into Michigan,” Lindenmayer said.

Two rivers that run through the proposed site, the Yellow Dog and Salmon Trout, flow into Lake Superior. Several speakers feared that any damage to the rivers would contaminate the lake as well.

“The largest freshwater lake in the world doesn’t need to be polluted by a wrongheaded decision,” Moran told the group.

In the lobby outside the hearing room, DEQ officials explained the safeguards planned by Kennecott to protect water from touching the ore-bearing rocks and leaking sulfuric acid.

DEQ geologist Steve Wilson said that after treatment at the mine site, water would be pure enough to drink.

Moran had a tart reply. “If the water is so good, they should put a bottling plant there too,” he said.

Several of the day’s speakers urged the state to adopt a sulfide mining moratorium, as Wisconsin did in 1998. The Wisconsin moratorium requires applicants for sulfide mining permits to show that a sulfide mine has operated for 10 years in the United States or Canada without acid drainage and hasn’t leaked acid for 10 years after closure. Wisconsin has not approved a sulfide mining permit since the moratorium passed.

A broad constellation of environmental groups have long opposed the mine, including the Sierra Club, Save the Wild UP.org, and the National Wildlife Federation. At the Lansing hearings, a new group was heard from: a coalition of 117 Marquette-area physicians urging the DEQ to deny the permit.

One of physicians in the opposition group, Scott Emerson, cited the potential for Lake Superior contamination, particulate dust, and the widely shared fear that approval of this mine would “open the gates to 20, 30 or more.”

A sulfide mining law signed in 2006 by Gov. Jennifer Granholm placed the burden of proof on applicants to prove they will not “pollute, impair or destroy” natural resources.

Brian Beauchamp of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters laid out three areas of concern: the prospect of subsidence, or cave-in, causing acid mine drainage; the technique proposed for backfill, or filling up the tunnels when the mine is exhausted; and provision for safely transporting the hundreds of truckloads of bouncing, dusty ore from the mine.

Reflecting a widely held opinion that the permit is a foregone conclusion, the DEQ’s Wilson stood in the lobby all evening, explaining the mine’s safety features to anyone who would listen.

“Is the mine going to collapse on itself?” he said. “It’s a fair question.”

Wilson pointed to a diagram of the proposed mine, a matrix of subterranean tunnels resembling a water slide.

“This is what I jokingly refer to as the ‘theme park,’” he said. Cement and rock barriers would be set into the abandoned “park” to prevent collapse and protect surrounding groundwater from drainage.

“People say this is a natural area,” he said. “I say that in 10 years, you won’t know they were here, aside from the water treatment plant,” he said.

Wilson said every effort would be made to prevent acid mine drainage, but he hedged his bets by taking some sting out of the term “acid.”

“One of the reasons why blueberries grow up there is that the soil is acid,” he said. “The vast majority of rocks have sulfides in them.” He was quick to aver, however, that “nobody’s going to pour acid on the ground” to make blueberries grow.

Wilson’s overarching analogy for Kennecott’s array of safeguards did little to assuage lingering fears. “It’s like we’ve got a couple of kids and we lay in a supply of Band-Aids,” he explained.

IT"S POSSIBLE BUT YOU CAN TAKE THE RISK.

Answer 8

If it was necessary for survival then yes, boiling the water then drinking it would probably be needed.  You need water, and if thats all you can get then you should take advantage of it.

Answer 9

The short answer is yes.  The best option if you're going to be survivorman with perhaps a little more reality is to bring one of those little camping filters along with you.

Answer 10

if you boil any water  then you can drink it

Answer 11

Sure if it is boiled you can drink it.  I would however not do it too often unless it was the only water you had.  As there are other things in water that can't be boiled out, like pesticides and mercury.  Just in case I would take some immodium with you in case you find yourself "running" to sit on a toilet (or dig a deep hole in the ground, so it doesn't run all over your feet). Also, with Lake Superior being the example, there is alot of acidity there due to being mostly on granite, and having little buffer of alkalinity from limestone to neutralize the acid.