Saturday, September 09, 2006

Here's an open scenario and question:

You're out on a hike, and you're getting thirsty. It's getting to the point that you're ready to take your empty water bottle and fill up at the closest source of water.

The first one you come across is a small pond. It's not terribly large, but the water looks okay, provided you can avoid some of the floating twigs and algae. You can see the bottom of the pond in the more shallow areas, and it's mostly sand covered but has an embedded beer can or two. It's likely stream-fed, but you'd have to look hard to find the trickle that's been feeding the pond. Still, it's probably safe to drink.

The other option is a nearby river. It's moving along, albeit not terribly fast. You can see a few rocks jettisoning out of the moving current, but little else due to the somewhat muddy nature of the water. You've seen fisherman up the trail in the past. The river goes for miles and has come for miles. Through farmland and towns, it is fed by both fresh spring and drainage runoff. It also is probably safe to drink.

Which one would you choose?


Blogger BC said...

First off, if you're out on such a hike without a filter you're just crazy. Or at least you should have some iodine packs and a gatorade mix. But, if left without these handy items, I would have to choose the pond. But that's because I am visual and your description of being able to see the bottom of the pond versus the muddy river, appealed more to my particular sensiblities. I hope this isn't a personality question that says something profound about me. If so, I hope it means I'm shallow and very easy to see the bottom of. Now I'm getting uncomfortable.

8:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home