Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:31:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
> > Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
> > skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
> > haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
>
> You don't need to use tax dollars to let government employees play with
> "controlled burns" that sometimes get out of control, cause air
> pollution and waste resources. You can have private logging companies
> pay to selectively harvest and thin the long overgrown forests, have no
> fires to get out of control, produce no pollution and provide valuable
> resources that can be used for such things as home building further
> providing jobs as well.

We need more forest rangers, not private business goons raping the
land.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 12:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:51:59 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>>>>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>>>>>
>>>> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
>>>> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was touch & go for a while.
>>>
>> I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
>> reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.
>>
>> Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
>> future risks?
>
> It is surrounded by national forest, so they're doing whatever the
> powers that be have decided is supposed to happen fires in a
> national forest. I think how forests are managed is still
> controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
> clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.

The Yellowstone stratagem, natural but wildly unsafe also with
overcrowded forests.

> Unfortunately, the Rim Fire area was too close to Hetch Hechy,
> Yosemite Valley and other populated areas to let it burn out
> naturally. Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
> Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
> skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
> haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.

The park staffing is less an issue as they do not fight fires.

As for the national fire budget:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/featur...deple/17587645

The U.S. Forest Service has already exceeded its firefighting budget by
$178 million, as more than 100 active wildfires rage on at the start of
the season's peak.
This marks the sixth year the wildfire budget has been exceeded since 2002.
After rescissions and the national sequester, the U.S. Forest service
had $922 million available for wildfire suppression in 2013. This
included $510 million in appropriations from Congress, $113 million of
carryover from prior years and $299 million in the FLAME fund.
The 2013 budget has decreased by approximately 5 percent from 2012.

I do not believe the Republicans are "strangling the budget", any more
than I believe they created the Sequester.

> http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2013...-forest-fires/

Key quote:

"After the nation faced massive devastations from unwieldy fires such as
the Peshtigo Fire and the Great Fire of 1910, the forest service began
implementing strict policies stating that all wildfires were to be
quickly suppressed. This practice continued until the 1960s, when
policies towards fire suppression were changed as a result of new
studies that recognized wildfires as a vital process for forest
regrowth. Now, nearly a century later, many of our national forests have
become dense with growth. This increase in forest density allows
wildfires to burn at a higher speed and intensity, resulting in greater
overall devastation to the area."

We're paying the price for decades of improper management and fuel
growth, and that is not the fault of any one party.

http://perc.org/sites/default/files/...in%20Smoke.pdf

> http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=711

So this kind of answers my question about future wildfire threats,
they're still the

"Approximately 1% of total Hetch Hetchy Reservoir watershed was within
the fire perimeter, and based on initial field assessments significantly
less area has actually burned. The northern watershed, where most of
the annual inflow originates, was still outside the fire perimeter."

> http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/0...m-fire-update/
> http://www.motherjones.com/environme...mite-explainer

Good coverage, especially the NASA imagery.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 12:21 PM, sf wrote:
> I think how forests are managed is still
> controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
> clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.

http://perc.org/sites/default/files/...in%20Smoke.pdf

Aside from the money that fire suppression brings into the Forest
Service, firefighting is
big business in many areas. ìA new ëfire-dependentí class of government
agencies and private
corporations has accumulated enormous power and profits from
firefightingî (Ingalsbee 2006,
223). Firefighting receives about a quarter of the Forest Serviceís
resource management funding 10
every year (Nelson 2000, 4). Local businesses and federal contractors
have come to depend on
an influx of firefighting dollars.


In sum, since fighting fire enjoys widespread support from businesses,
property owners,
Congress, and the Forest Service itself, only a small percentage of
fires are allowed to burn
unfettered on national forests. This risk-avoidance strategy is typical
of ìbureaucratic myopiaî
(Shughart 2006)óno politician or bureaucrat wants fire damage or
casualties to occur on their
watch. But suppressing fires in the present can result in greater
problems in the future. As fuels
accumulate, many forests stray further from their historical range of
variation, and fires threaten
to be more damaging and dangerous.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 1:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:31:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
>>> Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
>>> skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
>>> haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
>>
>> You don't need to use tax dollars to let government employees play with
>> "controlled burns" that sometimes get out of control, cause air
>> pollution and waste resources. You can have private logging companies
>> pay to selectively harvest and thin the long overgrown forests, have no
>> fires to get out of control, produce no pollution and provide valuable
>> resources that can be used for such things as home building further
>> providing jobs as well.
>
> We need more forest rangers, not private business goons raping the
> land.
>
We may, but in many cases the private yield growth-managed forests are a
lot healthier than our national forests.

http://www.wfpa.org/page/healthy-forests/

Washington’s private forest landowners protect their growing forests
from fire, insects, and disease, while safeguarding wildlife and water
quality

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/privatefor...tiveshfrp.aspx

Restore and enhance ecosystems and habitat for threatened and endangered
species while promoting sustainable timber harvests on working forest
lands.
Those who enter into a Permanent Easement receive 100 percent of the
appraised easement value and 100 percent of the average cost of
practices. Those who select a 10-Year Easement receive 50 percent of the
average cost of practices.
The property must be 40 acres or more of private, working forest land
that will contribute existing northern spotted owl habitat.
The participant develops a Forest Stewardship Plan and participates in a
Safe Harbor agreement for the protection of spotted owl habitat.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:12:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > sf wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
>> > > > > You do have choices.
>> > > >
>> > > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
>> > > > to install.
>> > >
>> > > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
>> > > have a higher one?
>> >
>> > The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
>> > means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
>> > water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
>> > as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
>> > water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
>> > have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
>> > consumption.
>> >
>> > A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
>> > produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
>> > only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
>> > ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
>> > to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
>> > a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
>> >
>> > If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
>> > other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
>> > similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
>> > issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
>> > reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
>>
>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>
>Not really, and it's an easily calculable expense. Your cost for
>filtered water is the cost of the RO and pre filters divided by their
>service life in gallons, plus the cost of the reject water for that many
>gallons of filtered water. given the specifications for a particular
>unit and the water cost it's easy to calculate the extra cost per gallon
>of filtered water. It's likely in the range of $0.03-$0.05 per gallon.

I have my own well. My _drinking_ water is prefiltered, UV treated,
and RO filtered... it calculates to about 5¢/gallon. All the rest of
the water in my house is softened, prefiltered, and UV treated, never
had reason to cost out that water. My hose bib water is not treated,
however I have a hose bib at the garage door that has softened and
tempered water but I never use it... the last owner installed that
because he was a stickler for washing his car even in frigid weather.
I occasionally hand wash my car and occasionally it goes through a car
wash (in cold weather when coated with road salt, there's a car wash
not too far that even washes the undercarriage), but mostly my car
gets washed when it rains... sometimes when there's a heavy rain I
drive my car out of the garage, drive down the road a minute's worth
to wash its undercarriage and then leave it in the driveway. I'm
really not much into washing cars.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:12:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > sf wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> >> > > > > You do have choices.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> >> > > > to install.
> >> > >
> >> > > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
> >> > > have a higher one?
> >> >
> >> > The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
> >> > means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
> >> > water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
> >> > as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
> >> > water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
> >> > have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
> >> > consumption.
> >> >
> >> > A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
> >> > produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
> >> > only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
> >> > ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
> >> > to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
> >> > a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
> >> >
> >> > If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
> >> > other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
> >> > similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
> >> > issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
> >> > reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
> >>
> >> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> >> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
> >
> >Not really, and it's an easily calculable expense. Your cost for
> >filtered water is the cost of the RO and pre filters divided by their
> >service life in gallons, plus the cost of the reject water for that many
> >gallons of filtered water. given the specifications for a particular
> >unit and the water cost it's easy to calculate the extra cost per gallon
> >of filtered water. It's likely in the range of $0.03-$0.05 per gallon.
>
> I have my own well. My _drinking_ water is prefiltered, UV treated,
> and RO filtered... it calculates to about 5¢/gallon.

Exactly, it's not a large expense. For a small under counter RO setup
it's ~$150-$200 for the unit and a low continuing cost per gallon for
the reject water and replacement filters.


> All the rest of
> the water in my house is softened, prefiltered, and UV treated, never
> had reason to cost out that water. My hose bib water is not treated,
> however I have a hose bib at the garage door that has softened and
> tempered water but I never use it... the last owner installed that
> because he was a stickler for washing his car even in frigid weather.
> I occasionally hand wash my car and occasionally it goes through a car
> wash (in cold weather when coated with road salt, there's a car wash
> not too far that even washes the undercarriage), but mostly my car
> gets washed when it rains... sometimes when there's a heavy rain I
> drive my car out of the garage, drive down the road a minute's worth
> to wash its undercarriage and then leave it in the driveway. I'm
> really not much into washing cars.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> injipoint wrote:
> > Yep - if it was THAT bad for you, everyone in Australia who's been
> > drinking it for 51 years would be dead. Quite clearly, they're not.
>
> Adverse health effects from chronic exposure to toxic substances are
> well known. One need not die to suffer such effects.

My grocery store has Reynold's Wrap on sale this week.

G.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 8:20 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>
>> If fluoride is (allegedly) so bad why is it added to toothpaste? Why do
>> they sell fluoride rinses? Why do dentists give fluoride treatments? I
>> really don't understand the paranoia about fluoride.
>
> Have you read the warning not to swallow more than a pea sized amount of
> fluoride toothpaste? It's on every single tube of fluoride toothpaste
> since fluoride is highly toxic. If you don't understand the significant
> difference between topical application of fluoride toothpaste to teeth
> followed by a rinse, vs. drinking the toxic fluoride (and it's reaction
> by-products) daily then you need to go back to grade school level
> science classes.
>
You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)

Jill

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
> > Hmmm...oil spill dispersants....is the Gulf dead yet?
>
> Nope, it seems to be doing pretty well as confirmed by scientists from
> Wood's Hole who investigated.

Pollution of the oceans didn't get much worse than the many years of
WW2 and all the shipping sunk. Our earth is pretty good at recovery.

G.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
> don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
> It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
> I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
>

I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
went to the one closer to home.

As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
thing... just saying....

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:40:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
> > don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
> > It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
> > I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
> >
>
> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
> went to the one closer to home.
>
> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
> thing... just saying....

Who got which gene probably played a role in that.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
> > don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
> > It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
> > I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
> >
>
> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
> went to the one closer to home.
>
> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
> thing... just saying....

I never said anything about a conspiracy. Fluoride in the water supply
may have made sense 80 years ago when people couldn't readily get /
afford fluoride toothpaste. Today fluoride toothpaste is readily
available and affordable so there is no longer any justification for
deliberately adding a highly toxic substance to the water supply.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 6:53 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:40:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
>>> don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
>>> It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
>>> I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
>>>
>>
>> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
>> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
>> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
>> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
>> went to the one closer to home.
>>
>> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
>> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
>> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
>> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
>> thing... just saying....
>
> Who got which gene probably played a role in that.
>
Yep, genes. My mom had bad teeth. She was wearing a full set of
dentures by the time she was in her 40's. My dad had good teeth, and
most of his natural teeth when he died at 83. My oldest brother and I
have good teeth. Middle-bro got the crappy teeth. Trust me, it didn't
have a thing to do with fluoridated water.

Jill

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/2013 7:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
>>> don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
>>> It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
>>> I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
>>>
>>
>> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
>> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
>> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
>> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
>> went to the one closer to home.
>>
>> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
>> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
>> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
>> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
>> thing... just saying....
>
> I never said anything about a conspiracy. Fluoride in the water supply
> may have made sense 80 years ago when people couldn't readily get /
> afford fluoride toothpaste. Today fluoride toothpaste is readily
> available and affordable so there is no longer any justification for
> deliberately adding a highly toxic substance to the water supply.
>
Except you haven't convinced me the amount of fluoride in the drinking
water supply *is* toxic. Besides, there is probably fluoride in a lot
of the bottled water sold across the US. So back to the original post
which was about bottled water... you're saying it's safer just because
it comes in a bottle? I'm not buying it.

Jill

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:10:19 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> I never said anything about a conspiracy. Fluoride in the water supply
> may have made sense 80 years ago when people couldn't readily get /
> afford fluoride toothpaste. Today fluoride toothpaste is readily
> available and affordable so there is no longer any justification for
> deliberately adding a highly toxic substance to the water supply.

People have easy access to the pertussis vaccine too, but they choose
not to vaccinate their children. As a result, whooping cough is a
growing epidemic - with more and more adults getting it every year.
People (especially children) die from it, but idiotic parents continue
to risk their children's lives.
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

jmcquown wrote:
>
> On 12/5/2013 7:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >>> You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
> >>> don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
> >>> It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
> >>> I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
> >> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
> >> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
> >> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
> >> went to the one closer to home.
> >>
> >> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
> >> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
> >> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
> >> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
> >> thing... just saying....
> >
> > I never said anything about a conspiracy. Fluoride in the water supply
> > may have made sense 80 years ago when people couldn't readily get /
> > afford fluoride toothpaste. Today fluoride toothpaste is readily
> > available and affordable so there is no longer any justification for
> > deliberately adding a highly toxic substance to the water supply.
> >
> Except you haven't convinced me the amount of fluoride in the drinking
> water supply *is* toxic. Besides, there is probably fluoride in a lot
> of the bottled water sold across the US. So back to the original post
> which was about bottled water... you're saying it's safer just because
> it comes in a bottle? I'm not buying it.
>
> Jill

Please provide an example of a commercial bottled water that contains
fluoride (or chlorine) and isn't some niche specialty product touting
that it contains fluoride.

The reality is that bottled "drinking water" (as opposed to spring
water) is pretty universally reverse osmosis filtered, sometimes UV
treated as well and contains zero (or a few PPB) fluoride or chlorine,
and I've seen the bottling plants in person. Similarly spring waters
contain no fluoride or chlorine either, though they are not filtered
like "drinking water" is.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:10:19 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I never said anything about a conspiracy. Fluoride in the water supply
> > may have made sense 80 years ago when people couldn't readily get /
> > afford fluoride toothpaste. Today fluoride toothpaste is readily
> > available and affordable so there is no longer any justification for
> > deliberately adding a highly toxic substance to the water supply.
>
> People have easy access to the pertussis vaccine too, but they choose
> not to vaccinate their children. As a result, whooping cough is a
> growing epidemic - with more and more adults getting it every year.
> People (especially children) die from it, but idiotic parents continue
> to risk their children's lives.
> http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

Quite true, those anti-vaccine idiots ignore the science that shows
vaccines have no connection to autism much the way the pro-fluoride
crowd ignores the science that shows the toxicity of both fluoride and
it's reaction by-products. For me, I go with the science, so I'll take
every vaccine I can get my hands on, and I'll only take fluoride in my
toothpaste.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

jmcquown wrote:
> On 12/5/2013 6:53 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:40:06 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-12-05 5:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're assuming I *had* science classes when I was in grade school. I
>>>> don't remember any, but we moved a lot and every school was different.
>>>> It doesn't matter. I've been drinking fluoridated water all my life.
>>>> I'm fine. (And no, I don't swallow toothpaste.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may have beat you on the shortest stay in a school. We didn't move a
>>> lot but we did when I was half way through grade nine. I had to a
>>> school a lot further away because I was taking instrumental music. I
>>> only went to that school for one day. I opted to take art instead and
>>> went to the one closer to home.
>>>
>>> As for fluoride... they started to fluoridate the water when I was a
>>> kid. My younger brother and I bother ended up needed veneers due to
>>> tooth enamel problems. My older brothers did not. They were older when
>>> the fluoride was introduced. Not getting on a fluoride conspiracy
>>> thing... just saying....
>>
>> Who got which gene probably played a role in that.
>>
> Yep, genes. My mom had bad teeth. She was wearing a full set of
> dentures by the time she was in her 40's. My dad had good teeth, and
> most of his natural teeth when he died at 83. My oldest brother and I
> have good teeth. Middle-bro got the crappy teeth. Trust me, it didn't
> have a thing to do with fluoridated water.
>
> Jill
Where did you get the bad hair?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 2013-12-05 23:52:49 +0000, jmcquown said:

>> I had science in grade school and they didn't teach comparative analysis
>> of outcomes and side effects in a risk-benefit study of various delivery
>> methods of therapeutic substances. But hey, maybe we were deprived.
>
> LOL I can't see having grade school kids busy in science class
> analyzing the possible future effects of flouride in drinking water. ;)

Yeah, teaching real-world problems is the domain of the church.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

injipoint > wrote:

>> If you don't understand the difference between 0.7 ppm fluoride
>> in drinking water and 1000 ppm fluoride in toothpaste, then you
>> need to go ack to grade-school level science classes.
>>
> Yep - if it was THAT bad for you, everyone in Australia who's been
> drinking it for 51 years would be dead. Quite clearly, they're not.

Is that really the cut off of when things that are good are deemed bad? Death?

I don't think being dead is the purported effect of flouride, it's
mostly bone desease, adverse effects on children's IQ (a recent Harvard
study), "arthritis" mis-diagnosed, and many other potential ailments.
Somewhere between "good for you" and "dead" lie most of life's pesky
problems.

The first chapter on PR and/or propaganda usually starts out with
Edward Bernays, and the sales of water supplies contaminated by
flouride with arguably it's sole sales-point, reduced cavities in teeth:

http://tinyurl.com/mtblfqo

Where we find the summary:

"The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the
stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated
by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive.
[Ewing was the chief counsel for Alcoa aluminum company, and fluoride
is a by-product of aluminum production.] For Ewing hired none other
than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called
the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud,
was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the
Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday
in late 1991."
[...]
"In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays
tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is
wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a
mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the
advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the
psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians."
(Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18,
49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and
substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the
Bernays propaganda campaign.

"Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public
mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign,
it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming
smiles."

Whenever you hear one of the scores of items like "4 out of 5
doctors..." you're listening to a Bernaysian argument.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/5/13 8:27 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
>> ass.
>
> If you actually believe that, you are the dumb ass. How much time have
> you spent in a bottling plant? Have you actually seen the process?
>
IIRC, Consumer Reports did a test on bottled water years ago and found
that *some* of the bottled water was just that- tap water from whatever
place they bottled.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Goomba wrote:
>
> On 12/5/13 8:27 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
> >> ass.
> >
> > If you actually believe that, you are the dumb ass. How much time have
> > you spent in a bottling plant? Have you actually seen the process?
> >
> IIRC, Consumer Reports did a test on bottled water years ago and found
> that *some* of the bottled water was just that- tap water from whatever
> place they bottled.

You recall incorrectly then since no municipal water supply is
sufficiently clean to be bottled with any commercially viable shelf
life. The "source" may have been the municipal water supply as opposed
to some spring, but the product that was bottled was filtered to a
higher standard then the municipal supply so that it can have the
typical 2 yr shelf life.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:50:30 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

>On 12/5/13 8:27 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
>>> ass.
>>
>> If you actually believe that, you are the dumb ass. How much time have
>> you spent in a bottling plant? Have you actually seen the process?
>>
>IIRC, Consumer Reports did a test on bottled water years ago and found
>that *some* of the bottled water was just that- tap water from whatever
>place they bottled.

TY

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/6/2013 3:11 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Goomba wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/13 8:27 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
>>>> ass.
>>>
>>> If you actually believe that, you are the dumb ass. How much time have
>>> you spent in a bottling plant? Have you actually seen the process?
>>>
>> IIRC, Consumer Reports did a test on bottled water years ago and found
>> that *some* of the bottled water was just that- tap water from whatever
>> place they bottled.
>
> You recall incorrectly then since no municipal water supply is
> sufficiently clean to be bottled with any commercially viable shelf
> life. The "source" may have been the municipal water supply as opposed
> to some spring, but the product that was bottled was filtered to a
> higher standard then the municipal supply so that it can have the
> typical 2 yr shelf life.
>
I wish I believed that extra filtration was done. I seem to remember a
product called Appalachian Spring that was just Brooklyn tap water. It
did no harm I guess!

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:52:40 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> > Honestly, I can't draw that parallel. Tree farms are on private land,
> national forests are not. Tree farms are for profit, national forests
> are not. :)
>

I've heard arguments from RWingers who reckon the Canadian National Parks
should be completely privatized. They maintain that commercial development
would be self-limiting since if there were too much, tourists wouldn't
come.
Graham

Bottled water... Safer?
 

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 12/6/2013 3:11 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Goomba wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/5/13 8:27 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
> >>>> ass.
> >>>
> >>> If you actually believe that, you are the dumb ass. How much time have
> >>> you spent in a bottling plant? Have you actually seen the process?
> >>>
> >> IIRC, Consumer Reports did a test on bottled water years ago and found
> >> that *some* of the bottled water was just that- tap water from whatever
> >> place they bottled.
> >
> > You recall incorrectly then since no municipal water supply is
> > sufficiently clean to be bottled with any commercially viable shelf
> > life. The "source" may have been the municipal water supply as opposed
> > to some spring, but the product that was bottled was filtered to a
> > higher standard then the municipal supply so that it can have the
> > typical 2 yr shelf life.
> >
> I wish I believed that extra filtration was done. I seem to remember a
> product called Appalachian Spring that was just Brooklyn tap water. It
> did no harm I guess!

Find your local bottling company and take a tour. When you see their
water filtration setup you'll realize what lying douches the anti crowd
is.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 2013-12-06 5:15 PM, graham wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:52:40 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Honestly, I can't draw that parallel. Tree farms are on private land,
>> national forests are not. Tree farms are for profit, national forests
>> are not. :)
>>
>
> I've heard arguments from RWingers who reckon the Canadian National Parks
> should be completely privatized. They maintain that commercial development
> would be self-limiting since if there were too much, tourists wouldn't
> come.
>


They may be a little confused about the privatization. It usually means
that the work down by the government agency and its employees is
contracted out to private companies and in accordance with their agenda
that dictates that anything done by private business is guaranteed to be
cheaper than if it is done by government employees. They don't get to
change the rules about park use and development.

I don't buy into that agenda. I worked for the government and saw how
idiotic the management and political decisions were. I also saw how
contractors but the screws to the government. I worked for the
provincial highways department maintenance section for a while and in my
early years I drove a snow plow.

I can give you a prime example of how the winter maintenance contract
worked out for tax payers. We used to do all our own snow plowing and
the salt and sanding part of it was contracted out. Sanders and salters
are out before, during and after plowing. Plowing makes up only about
10% of snow removal operations.

One of our patrols had 8 plow trucks but dropped down to 4 and the
contractor picked up the other four but to be on standby, used only if
the patrol's trucks could not handle it. The contract for that winter
was $650,000. The next year the contractor took over all the plowing,
so that meant that they now did all of that 10% of the work instead of
half of the 10%..... a 5% increase. The contract jumped from $650K to
$1.2 million.


We had our own sign shop and several crews that erected signs. They got
rid of all but one crew and the contractors took over most of the sign
erection. A few years later I ran into some of my old friends from the
sign crew who had come around to put exit number signs on the overhead
structure. It took two guys 10-15 minutes to climb up and bolt the signs
on. The contractor had been charging the ministry $1200 per sign. These
two guys were putting up a dozen or more a day.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-12-06 5:15 PM, graham wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:52:40 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Honestly, I can't draw that parallel. Tree farms are on private land,
>>> national forests are not. Tree farms are for profit, national forests
>>> are not. :)
>>>
>>
>> I've heard arguments from RWingers who reckon the Canadian National Parks
>> should be completely privatized. They maintain that commercial
>> development
>> would be self-limiting since if there were too much, tourists wouldn't
>> come.
>>
>
>
> They may be a little confused about the privatization. It usually means
> that the work down by the government agency and its employees is
> contracted out to private companies and in accordance with their agenda
> that dictates that anything done by private business is guaranteed to be
> cheaper than if it is done by government employees. They don't get to
> change the rules about park use and development.
>
> I don't buy into that agenda. I worked for the government and saw how
> idiotic the management and political decisions were. I also saw how
> contractors but the screws to the government. I worked for the provincial
> highways department maintenance section for a while and in my early years
> I drove a snow plow.
>
> I can give you a prime example of how the winter maintenance contract
> worked out for tax payers. We used to do all our own snow plowing and the
> salt and sanding part of it was contracted out. Sanders and salters are
> out before, during and after plowing. Plowing makes up only about 10% of
> snow removal operations.
>
> One of our patrols had 8 plow trucks but dropped down to 4 and the
> contractor picked up the other four but to be on standby, used only if the
> patrol's trucks could not handle it. The contract for that winter was
> $650,000. The next year the contractor took over all the plowing, so that
> meant that they now did all of that 10% of the work instead of half of
> the 10%..... a 5% increase. The contract jumped from $650K to $1.2
> million.
>
>
> We had our own sign shop and several crews that erected signs. They got
> rid of all but one crew and the contractors took over most of the sign
> erection. A few years later I ran into some of my old friends from the
> sign crew who had come around to put exit number signs on the overhead
> structure. It took two guys 10-15 minutes to climb up and bolt the signs
> on. The contractor had been charging the ministry $1200 per sign. These
> two guys were putting up a dozen or more a day.
>
Have you heard the latest? The Preston Manning Foundation has proposed that
the City of Calgary privatize just about everything including the public
library.
All this talk of privatization ****es me off! To do the service for the same
money means that you must reduce the service by at least 15% to allow for
profit.
Graham

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 2013-12-06 6:32 PM, graham wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2013-12-06 5:15 PM, graham wrote:
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:52:40 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, I can't draw that parallel. Tree farms are on private land,
>>>> national forests are not. Tree farms are for profit, national forests
>>>> are not. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard arguments from RWingers who reckon the Canadian National Parks
>>> should be completely privatized. They maintain that commercial
>>> development
>>> would be self-limiting since if there were too much, tourists wouldn't
>>> come.
>>>
>>
>>
>> They may be a little confused about the privatization. It usually means
>> that the work down by the government agency and its employees is
>> contracted out to private companies and in accordance with their agenda
>> that dictates that anything done by private business is guaranteed to be
>> cheaper than if it is done by government employees. They don't get to
>> change the rules about park use and development.
>>
>> I don't buy into that agenda. I worked for the government and saw how
>> idiotic the management and political decisions were. I also saw how
>> contractors but the screws to the government. I worked for the provincial
>> highways department maintenance section for a while and in my early years
>> I drove a snow plow.
>>
>> I can give you a prime example of how the winter maintenance contract
>> worked out for tax payers. We used to do all our own snow plowing and the
>> salt and sanding part of it was contracted out. Sanders and salters are
>> out before, during and after plowing. Plowing makes up only about 10% of
>> snow removal operations.
>>
>> One of our patrols had 8 plow trucks but dropped down to 4 and the
>> contractor picked up the other four but to be on standby, used only if the
>> patrol's trucks could not handle it. The contract for that winter was
>> $650,000. The next year the contractor took over all the plowing, so that
>> meant that they now did all of that 10% of the work instead of half of
>> the 10%..... a 5% increase. The contract jumped from $650K to $1.2
>> million.
>>
>>
>> We had our own sign shop and several crews that erected signs. They got
>> rid of all but one crew and the contractors took over most of the sign
>> erection. A few years later I ran into some of my old friends from the
>> sign crew who had come around to put exit number signs on the overhead
>> structure. It took two guys 10-15 minutes to climb up and bolt the signs
>> on. The contractor had been charging the ministry $1200 per sign. These
>> two guys were putting up a dozen or more a day.
>>
> Have you heard the latest? The Preston Manning Foundation has proposed that
> the City of Calgary privatize just about everything including the public
> library.
> All this talk of privatization ****es me off! To do the service for the same
> money means that you must reduce the service by at least 15% to allow for
> profit.


I wonder about the privatization of driver testing. Do examination
centres want to attract applicants by having a high pass rate, or do
they want a high failure rate so that everyone has to pay twice?

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Friday, December 6, 2013 5:16:29 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-12-06 6:32 PM, graham wrote:
>
> > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> On 2013-12-06 5:15 PM, graham wrote:
>
> >>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:52:40 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>
> >>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>>> Honestly, I can't draw that parallel. Tree farms are on private land,
>
> >>>> national forests are not. Tree farms are for profit, national forests
>
> >>>> are not. :)
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I've heard arguments from RWingers who reckon the Canadian National Parks
>
> >>> should be completely privatized. They maintain that commercial
>
> >>> development
>
> >>> would be self-limiting since if there were too much, tourists wouldn't
>
> >>> come.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They may be a little confused about the privatization. It usually means
>
> >> that the work down by the government agency and its employees is
>
> >> contracted out to private companies and in accordance with their agenda
>
> >> that dictates that anything done by private business is guaranteed to be
>
> >> cheaper than if it is done by government employees. They don't get to
>
> >> change the rules about park use and development.
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't buy into that agenda. I worked for the government and saw how
>
> >> idiotic the management and political decisions were. I also saw how
>
> >> contractors but the screws to the government. I worked for the provincial
>
> >> highways department maintenance section for a while and in my early years
>
> >> I drove a snow plow.
>
> >>
>
> >> I can give you a prime example of how the winter maintenance contract
>
> >> worked out for tax payers. We used to do all our own snow plowing and the
>
> >> salt and sanding part of it was contracted out. Sanders and salters are
>
> >> out before, during and after plowing. Plowing makes up only about 10% of
>
> >> snow removal operations.
>
> >>
>
> >> One of our patrols had 8 plow trucks but dropped down to 4 and the
>
> >> contractor picked up the other four but to be on standby, used only if the
>
> >> patrol's trucks could not handle it. The contract for that winter was
>
> >> $650,000. The next year the contractor took over all the plowing, so that
>
> >> meant that they now did all of that 10% of the work instead of half of
>
> >> the 10%..... a 5% increase. The contract jumped from $650K to $1.2
>
> >> million.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> We had our own sign shop and several crews that erected signs. They got
>
> >> rid of all but one crew and the contractors took over most of the sign
>
> >> erection. A few years later I ran into some of my old friends from the
>
> >> sign crew who had come around to put exit number signs on the overhead
>
> >> structure. It took two guys 10-15 minutes to climb up and bolt the signs
>
> >> on. The contractor had been charging the ministry $1200 per sign. These
>
> >> two guys were putting up a dozen or more a day.
>
> >>
>
> > Have you heard the latest? The Preston Manning Foundation has proposed that
>
> > the City of Calgary privatize just about everything including the public
>
> > library.
>
> > All this talk of privatization ****es me off! To do the service for the same
>
> > money means that you must reduce the service by at least 15% to allow for
>
> > profit.
>
>
>
>
>
> I wonder about the privatization of driver testing. Do examination
>
> centres want to attract applicants by having a high pass rate, or do
>
> they want a high failure rate so that everyone has to pay twice?

The latter from what I hear...here in Alberta.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/6/2013 6:32 PM, graham wrote:

> All this talk of privatization ****es me off! To do the service for the same
> money means that you must reduce the service by at least 15% to allow for
> profit.
> Graham
>
>

Maybe, but maybe not.. Many government functions are very inefficient
so privatization can reduce cost and improve service. Government
employees usually get an average pay, but higher benefit costs.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 2013-12-07 04:01:17 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:

> Maybe, but maybe not.. Many government functions are very inefficient...

And the other things they do are more efficient that whittling off
15-25% for the capitalism for their owners and handlers.

> ...so privatization can reduce cost and improve service.

So they keep telling us.

> Government employees usually get an average pay, but higher benefit costs.

Slave labor is always cheaper: Ship it to Bengladesh for real savings.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 21:36:14 -0800, gtr > wrote:

> On 2013-12-07 04:01:17 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:
>
> > Maybe, but maybe not.. Many government functions are very inefficient...
>
> And the other things they do are more efficient that whittling off
> 15-25% for the capitalism for their owners and handlers.
>
> > ...so privatization can reduce cost and improve service.
>
> So they keep telling us.
>
> > Government employees usually get an average pay, but higher benefit costs.
>
> Slave labor is always cheaper: Ship it to Bengladesh for real savings.

Thank you. Basically that's what government contractors are too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/6/2013 10:36 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2013-12-07 04:01:17 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>> Maybe, but maybe not.. Many government functions are very inefficient...
>
> And the other things they do are more efficient that whittling off
> 15-25% for the capitalism for their owners and handlers.

Some...it varies of course...

Think USPS.

>> ...so privatization can reduce cost and improve service.
>
> So they keep telling us.

It's an AMTRAK train that's left the station...

>> Government employees usually get an average pay, but higher benefit
>> costs.
>
> Slave labor is always cheaper: Ship it to Bengladesh for real savings.

Or eat the USPS pension benefit costs.

I dunno about Chicago water. I get an occasional 'water report'. I
drink tap water. I don't pay for bottled water.

ask experts medical questions | ask medical question | ask medical questions | ask online doctor | ask the doctor

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 12:45 AM, sf wrote:

>>> Government employees usually get an average pay, but higher benefit costs.
>>
>> Slave labor is always cheaper: Ship it to Bengladesh for real savings.
>
> Thank you. Basically that's what government contractors are too.
>

So they ship the streets to Bangladesh to be repaved? Who knew!

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Sadly liberals lack the critical thinking skills to research and
> understand solid facts such as those you have posted. They rely solely
> on misguided emotion and willfully blind themselves to any facts that
> don't support their emotion, calling those who disagree and present
> factual data "racist", "neocon", "tea bagger" or any other derogatory
> term that helps them avoid looking at facts.

I should add that this has not always been the case. 30-40 years ago
liberals had their emotional biases, but were still able to engage in
rational debate and analyze factual data. Somewhere since that time the
liberal indoctrination became akin to religious indoctrination and that
capacity for introspection and rational debate was replaced with the
same blind hatred you find when a religious believer is challenged with
facts that don't fit their indoctrination. The new "neolibs" are every
bit as big a threat to the stability and future of the US as the far
right is.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pete C." wrote:
> I should add that this has not always been the case. 30-40 years ago
> liberals had their emotional biases, but were still able to engage in
> rational debate and analyze factual data. Somewhere since that time the
> liberal indoctrination became akin to religious indoctrination and that
> capacity for introspection and rational debate was replaced with the
> same blind hatred you find when a religious believer is challenged with
> facts that don't fit their indoctrination. The new "neolibs" are every
> bit as big a threat to the stability and future of the US as the far
> right is.

Well said. Liberals these days seem to think everything evil except
their own narrow views. This is not a healthy attitude. Both sides
have valid points and people should pick and chose their beliefs and
not just swing with one party or another.

G.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 9:14 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> Sadly liberals lack the critical thinking skills to research and
>> understand solid facts such as those you have posted. They rely solely
>> on misguided emotion and willfully blind themselves to any facts that
>> don't support their emotion, calling those who disagree and present
>> factual data "racist", "neocon", "tea bagger" or any other derogatory
>> term that helps them avoid looking at facts.
>
> I should add that this has not always been the case. 30-40 years ago
> liberals had their emotional biases, but were still able to engage in
> rational debate and analyze factual data. Somewhere since that time the
> liberal indoctrination became akin to religious indoctrination and that
> capacity for introspection and rational debate was replaced with the
> same blind hatred you find when a religious believer is challenged with
> facts that don't fit their indoctrination. The new "neolibs" are every
> bit as big a threat to the stability and future of the US as the far
> right is.
>


Ditto on the far right.

The manifestation is completely analogous.

Good catch.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 9:35 AM, Gary wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>> I should add that this has not always been the case. 30-40 years ago
>> liberals had their emotional biases, but were still able to engage in
>> rational debate and analyze factual data. Somewhere since that time the
>> liberal indoctrination became akin to religious indoctrination and that
>> capacity for introspection and rational debate was replaced with the
>> same blind hatred you find when a religious believer is challenged with
>> facts that don't fit their indoctrination. The new "neolibs" are every
>> bit as big a threat to the stability and future of the US as the far
>> right is.
>
> Well said. Liberals these days seem to think everything evil except
> their own narrow views. This is not a healthy attitude. Both sides
> have valid points and people should pick and chose their beliefs and
> not just swing with one party or another.
>
> G.
>
And that is also well stated advice, be objective and make sound choices.