Oppose Where is the proof that the scope is correct, i.o.w. that that source is unsafe?. -- Lycaon 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) better scope. Lycaon18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lycaon. To satisfy VIC4 in context of scope, the description needs to show why the source is unsafe. – flamurai20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, it is pretty evident that the water source is unsafe. It is still water openly accesible for insects and parasites. Evidently the water is taken directly from the open source without any cleaning first. For me that is an unsafe water source. -- Slaunger22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its turbidity and accessibility to birds and mammals are prima facie evidence that it is contaminated. "In Meatu district, Shinyanga region, Tanzania, water most often comes from open holes dug in the sand of dry riverbeds, and it is invariably contaminated."[1]Walter Siegmund(talk)17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong picture that says alot about primitive conditions. Suggestion to rename the scope into "Primitive water supply". --Foroa06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
