Multidisciplinary project / Eindhoven University of Technology / October 26, 2011

1. Multidisciplinary project / Eindhoven University of Technology / October 26, 2011 The Chlorine Dilemma Interim presentation Project leader: R.G. Kleijnen Treasurer: B.G.M. Knoben Team members: B.L. Hoofwijk D.G.J. Pol G.H.L. Heintges J.F. De Visser Client: Dr. P.J. Nickel Tutor: Dr. J.C. Reijenga

2. Presentation contents • Introduction • Moral problem statement • Goals • Choice of region to investigate • Chlorine vs Alternative • Ethical analysis • Outlook

3. Introduction • One of the final steps in producing clean drinking water is disinfection. • The primary disinfection for many countries is the use of chlorine. • Although it does kill waterborne pathogens that are present in the water, its usage also has some negative side-effects. • Chlorine is not the only chemical that can be used for disinfection, because there are some good alternatives. • What should be done? Which alternative is best? Is chlorine currently maybe the best option despite the harmful side-effects?

4. Moral problem statement “Should chlorine be used as a primary and cheap disinfectant source by governments, even if this means that harmful side-effects like the production of toxic by-products could take place, and knowing that there are feasible alternatives with possibly less harmful side-effects?”

5. Goals • A critical ethical reflection on the use of chlorine as a disinfectant of drinking water. • Differentiate this ethical judgement for different areas in the world. • Compare chlorine with a common alternative.

6. Western World • Economical standard that quality of drinking water might be expected as one of the best of the world. • Best technical knowledge about methods of disinfecting drinking water. • Chlorine is by far the most commonly used disinfectant.

7. Choice of country The Netherlands because: • The most prominent country in the world when discussing high drinking water quality. • The “chlorine problem” has already been solved by using alternatives like UV and ozone. • Good base to analyze and advise other countries.

8. Choice of alternative UV because: Table 4: Dutch drinking water companies, sources and means of disinfection.

9. Chlorine vs UV Advantages chlorine: • Effective against a wide range of disease-causing micro-organisms. • Lasting residual protection from distribution system to consumers tap. Disadvantages chlorine: • Production of disinfection by-products (DBP’s). • Taste and odour drinking water.

10. Chlorine vs UV Advantages UV: • UV disinfection is effective at inactivating most micro-organisms and relatively insensitive to temperature and pH differences. • UV doesn’t produce any known toxic byproducts. Disadvantages UV: • UV-light can be scattered and therefore be ineffective in neutralizing microorganisms (turbidity). • Absence of residual disinfectant in the water (recontamination).

11. Costs chlorine vs UV

12. Ethical analysis in the Netherlands “Should chlorine be used as a primary and cheap disinfectant source by governments, even if this means that harmful side-effects like the production of toxic by-products could take place, and knowing that there are feasible alternatives with possibly less harmful side-effects?”

13. Stakeholders • Government • Advisory boards • Water purification companies • Insurance companies • Consumers • Environmental groups • Health care • Media • Chlorine manufacturers • UV technology companies • Competitors on the drinking water market

14. Relevant moral values • Health of the population • Safety • Clean environment • Reliability • Freedom of choice • Economic welfare • Bliss and pleasure

15. Options for actions • Use only chlorine as disinfectant for drinking water. • Use only UV-technology for disinfection of drinking water. • Combine chlorine and UV-technology; More specific, use UV-technology to disinfect the water at the water purification plant and add a little chlorine for residual disinfection during transport. • Do not disinfect the water. • Use UV disinfection combined with chlorine disinfection for vulnerable groups. In general this means that UV-technology is used for basic disinfection of drinking water. Next to that chlorine disinfection is used in for example hospitals and residential care homes. • Use chlorine as only disinfectant for drinking water, but also use filters to filter out the chlorine at the tap.

16. Ethical judgement Informalframework • Intuition • Dominant value Formalframework • Costs/benefits analysis • Kantianethics • Virtueethics

17. Intuition • What? Intuitivedecision: informal • Conclusion? Action 5: People protectedagainstDBP’s Vulnerablegroupsprotectedagainstinfection • Worth? Personal andemotionaldecision

18. Dominant value • What? Onevalue is selected as the most dominant: decision is made usingthisvalue • Conclusion? Action 5:dominant value is health of population: this is achieved most easilybyimplementing action 5. • Worth? Focus on onevalue, no complete ethicaljudgement

19. Costs/benefits analysis • What? Costsand benefits are weighedandcompared, the best solution offers the greatest benefits forleastcosts • Conclusion? Action 1: CausesDBP’s, disinfects water efficiently, but does notpenetratebiofilm Action 2: No DBP’s, somerisidualpathogens, smaller cost Action 3: CausesDBP’s Action 4: Too dangerous Action 5: No DBP’sforgeneral public, protectionagainstinfectionsforvulnerablegroups, highercosts Action 6: StillDBP’s • Worth? No quantification, but still a relevant conclusion

20. Kantian ethics • What? Deontology: the underlyingprinciplecouldbeused as a lawforeveryone • Conclusion? Action 1: Introducestoxicby-products: unacceptable Action 2: Onlyimprovessituation: morallyacceptable Action 3: By-products: unacceptable Action 4: Deseasecouldbestopped but we choosenotto: unacceptable Action 5: The edge of what is morallyacceptable Action 6: Same health risks: unacceptable • Worth? Reliable, but tendstogeneralize, does not take into account the consequences

21. Virtue ethics • What? Triestofind the option with the most virtue, which is the most exemplary • Conclusion? The safest option, whichexhibits expertise andnotionto detail is option 5. This is the golden mean route • Worth? Consequences of the action are normallynot taken into account: thismakesdistinguishing the options difficult

22. Choice of moral action Use UV disinfection combined with chlorine disinfection for vulnerable groups. In general this means that UV-technology is used for basic disinfection of drinking water. Next to that chlorine disinfection is used in for example hospitals and residential care homes.

23. Outlook • Factual analysis situation in Second world countries • Situation in a specific Second world country • Ethical analysis situation in a Second world country • Factual analysis situation in Third world countries • Situation in a specific Third world country • Ethical analysis situation in a Third world country • Final conclusions