Susan wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> But that would be BETTER water.
>>
>> Why people would pay for water that may be NO better is the
>> question. And many tests have shown the bulk of bottled water is
>> just tap water drawn into a bottle and sold on the shelves.
>
> Yes, I realized after I posted that we were talking about bottled,
> not filtered water.
>
> Forget the content, what about the endocrine disruptors in plastics?
>

Endocrine disrupters and hormones can be present in the water before it
is bottled. This is especially true in water taken from rivers that have
treated sewerage from upstream. Think birth control pills.

<http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18553728>

> Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors in
> South Korean surface, drinking, and waste waters.

> The elimination of these chemicals during drinking water and
> wastewater treatment processes at full- and pilot-scale also was
> investigated. Conventional drinking water treatment methods were
> relatively inefficient for contaminant removal, while efficient
> removal (?99%) was achieved by granular activated carbon (GAC). In
> wastewater treatment processes, membrane bioreactors (MBR) showed
> limited target compound removal, but were effective at eliminating
> hormones and some pharmaceuticals (e.g., acetaminophen, ibuprofen,
> and caffeine). Membrane filtration processes using reverse osmosis
> (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) showed excellent removal (>95%) for all
> target analytes.

Sounds like reverse osmosis isn't all that effective against disrupters.

Matthew

--
"You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him
confess to the Sharon Tate murders." -- Jesse Ventura