Why Chlorination Matters
Chlorination has been a cornerstone of public health for over a century, yet resistance to its use remains widespread, particularly when it isn’t already in use and people are unfamiliar with it. Over the next few posts, I will explore possible reasons for this resistance, highlight the benefits of chlorination, and provide strategies for advocating its use. My goal is to articulate why this intervention is unique as a safeguard against the ongoing risks of waterborne diseases.
DRINKING WATER
By John Dennis
1/10/20252 min read
My post content
Why Chlorination Matters
In my work as a drinking water quality specialist, I have often encountered resistance to what I consider one of the most significant public health interventions of our time —chlorination of drinking water. Despite its proven track record in preventing waterborne diseases, this resistance persists across all types of communities, from high-income urban centres to rural, lower-income settings. However, it is especially prevalent in places where chlorination has not been previously implemented or is unfamiliar.
______________________________________________________________________
Resistance, Misconceptions, and Misguided Practices
Practices Undermining Chlorination's Effectiveness
This resistance isn't merely passive; it often manifests in troubling practices. I've seen chlorine doses reduced to levels so low that there’s little to no residual protection left after treatment, essentially rendering its unique protective characteristic ineffective. I've also heard from community representatives who confidently assert that their surface water supply is safe, despite never having tested it themselves and relying instead on a single water sample collected five years ago by a health officer. That sample tested negative for E. coli but positive for total coliforms - results that, in my view, indicated a high probability of ongoing risk to consumers.
I’ve even had an experience where an influential high-level public health official advocated against chlorination, citing disinfection by-products (DBPs) and their potential links to cancer or other chronic, long-term risks while neglecting the acute dangers posed by waterborne pathogens. In my view, this completely misunderstands the public health perspective of the issue and disregards the overwhelming benefits chlorination provides in protecting health, particularly in vulnerable communities.
Balancing Valid Concerns with Acute Risks
While concerns about safety are valid and should be part of any public health conversation, they must, in my opinion, be weighed against the immediate and acute risks of waterborne pathogens. Diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and diarrhoea continue to devastate populations, especially in settings with limited access to safely managed drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. Yet, these acute threats are often overshadowed by fears of long-term risks—fears that, for many communities, remain largely theoretical compared to the very real and daily threats of unsafe water.
__________________________________________________________________________
Advocating for Chlorination
As a public health practitioner, I’ve always sought to bridge this gap—to correct misconceptions and advocate for chlorination as a critical tool for public health protection. Over the next few posts, I will unpack the benefits of chlorination, explore common concerns, and share strategies for promoting this vital intervention in communities that need it most. This is a topic ripe for discussion and diverse perspectives, so I welcome your critiques, experiences, and insights as I navigate this important conversation.
