Water & Wastewater Treatment

www.wwtonline.co.uk | WWT | OCTOBER 2014 | 13 Comment I recently had the pleasure – in one of my first assignments as editor of WWT - to attend the Water Network conference held at Cranfield University, where Scottish Water director and Cran- field alumni Professor Simon Parsons was giving a talk to mark his acceptance of the Royal Society of Chemistry Sustainable Water Award. Held on the same day as the referendum on Scottish independ- ence, the professor prefaced his remarks by saying that he and his colleagues had made sure that their train back to Scot- land arrived in time for them to get to the polling stations and cast their vote. Which way the Scottish Water delega- tion were casting their vote was unclear, but on such a momentous day for UK democracy, Professor Parsons couldn't Thinking the Unthinkable resist carrying out a small democratic experiment of his own. With the theme of his lecture being the future of water treatment, he asked the audience of water engineers and scientists to vote on the fu- ture of three existing techniques which he predicted might soon be banished to the scientific history books: colour measure- ment, coagulation and chlorination. Unlike the Scottish referendum, which was decided by the relatively close margin of 55 percentage points to 45, the verdict from the distinguished attendees in the room was extremely clear-cut. In the three shows of hands, almost 100% were happy to predict that colour measurement and coagulation would soon bite the dust – perhaps because alternatives to the latter, such as ion exchange, advanced oxidation processes (AOP) and activated carbon, are gaining visibility. However, the result was reversed in the case of chlorine, with almost nobody in the room willing to envisage the end of the ubiqui- tous disinfectant. As chlorine use in water treatment in the UK dates back to 1897, the water industry's attachment to it is understand- able. But as Professor Parsons pointed out, others in the world are beginning to think differently: Holland uses no JAMES BrockEtt EDItor JamesBrockett@fav-house.com chlorine in its drinking water and it is of higher quality, with 99.9% coliform compliance compared with 99.7% for the UK, and lower bottled water sales in the country imply that Dutch citizens prefer its taste. While we in the UK could not easily copy the Dutch model (Holland has a more sterile pipe network and thus its water needs less disinfection) there is at least an argument for developing alternative modes of disinfection which have fewer by-products, and Germany and Australia are among other nations investigating what a post-chlorine future would look like. While the near-unanimous votes il- lustrated that there is a clear consensus in this country in favour of chlorine, a con- sensus in science is not always a healthy situation for creating progress. That's why innovators such as Professor Parsons, who are willing to challenge the received wisdom, should be applauded. To get to a better future, it's sometimes necessary to think the unthinkable. Just as Scotland will no doubt emerge stronger for having a debate about its future, perhaps a little more debate and free thinking – even on something as apparently unthinkable as removing chlorine from our drinking water – is to be encouraged. We have the complete range of rental products and services. Get in touch today to fi nd out more... ...when you need it most Turn to the experts in emergency, turn-key pump and power rental solutions. Call: 0800 146 763 / Email: info@sldpumpspower.co.uk / Visit: www.sldpumpspower.co.uk — Diesel Pumps — Electric/Hydraulic Submersibles — Specialist High Heads — Wellpoint Dewatering — Generators — Heating & Cooling Solutions Your complete rental solution...

• Cover