Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>
> 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.

Sadly the 60%+ who are solidly in the center like I am, are not
sufficiently politically active to force the extremists out of both
parties and get some rational centrist candidates running. The two
extremist wings can't comprehend that there is even a center so they
both attack any centrist as being one of "them".

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:26:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"B. Server" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> [...]
>> >
>> >I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong. Bottled water does not contain
>> >chlorine or fluoride, both highly toxic chemicals, nor does it contain
>> >the numerous additional toxic reaction products these two toxins produce
>> >when they contact the decades of sludge in every municipal water system.
>> >Bottled water is absolutely safer than municipal tap water in every
>> >scientifically provable way.
>>
>> So. Has anyone gotten around to scientifically demonstrating the
>> "proof" or are we to take it as a given that is too axiomatic to test
>> and just rely on lurid imagination?
>
>Yes, however I suspect you are too biased to look for it. Perhaps try
>looking for the MSDS for sodium fluoride and sodium hypochlorite (or the
>other variants of the two chemicals) at a .gov site?

No Pete, not biased. Literate and numerate.

What I requested was a double blind study that demonstrates the
dangers of treated water, not nutty linking of unrelated information
and unsupported outcomes. A valuable aside, given the high cost and
pollution burden imposed by bottled water would be for the same study
to demonstrate any positive differentiation with respect to health
among consumers of bottled water.

I find it amusing how fixated you are on chlorine and fluorine while
ignoring sodium. Ever handled sodium? Nasty stuff that surely you
would not want to have in your body under any circumstances...

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...

> Sadly liberals lack the critical thinking skills to research and
> understand solid facts such as those you have posted.

What an absolute load of unmitigated CRAP!
Graham

Bottled water... Safer?
 

"B. Server" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:26:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"B. Server" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >> >
> >> >I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong. Bottled water does not contain
> >> >chlorine or fluoride, both highly toxic chemicals, nor does it contain
> >> >the numerous additional toxic reaction products these two toxins produce
> >> >when they contact the decades of sludge in every municipal water system.
> >> >Bottled water is absolutely safer than municipal tap water in every
> >> >scientifically provable way.
> >>
> >> So. Has anyone gotten around to scientifically demonstrating the
> >> "proof" or are we to take it as a given that is too axiomatic to test
> >> and just rely on lurid imagination?
> >
> >Yes, however I suspect you are too biased to look for it. Perhaps try
> >looking for the MSDS for sodium fluoride and sodium hypochlorite (or the
> >other variants of the two chemicals) at a .gov site?
>
> No Pete, not biased. Literate and numerate.
>
> What I requested was a double blind study that demonstrates the
> dangers of treated water, not nutty linking of unrelated information
> and unsupported outcomes. A valuable aside, given the high cost and
> pollution burden imposed by bottled water would be for the same study
> to demonstrate any positive differentiation with respect to health
> among consumers of bottled water.
>
> I find it amusing how fixated you are on chlorine and fluorine while
> ignoring sodium. Ever handled sodium? Nasty stuff that surely you
> would not want to have in your body under any circumstances...

I'm fixated on toxic chemicals deliberately introduced to the water
supply.

Chlorine is a necessity to try to control the bacteria that live in the
miles and miles of decades old municipal water systems, but it's not
good to be drinking it so that is the first reason to filter all
drinking and cooking water at your home if you are on a municipal water
system.

Fluoride is not at all necessary for the operation of a municipal water
system. It was introduced decades ago with the idea of reducing cavities
in a populace that at that time had less access to fluoride toothpaste,
and as someone else posted, with a lot of support from companies that
wanted to sell the fluoride they had in abundance as industrial waste.
The time when there was any valid reason to add fluoride to municipal
water supplies is long past if there ever was a valid reason.

There is growing evidence that is showing that the total load of toxins
is important, even if the level of individual toxins is below the
threshold for adverse effects when tested in isolation in a lab. Thus
you add "safe" levels of chlorine to "safe" levels of fluoride to "safe"
levels of other environmental toxins and you end up "unsafe". Those
toxins need not all be in the water either, they can be additive with
toxins from other sources as well such as pesticide contamination of
food.

The bottom line is that it is not overly expensive to remove those known
toxins from your drinking water and thus lower the total load your body
has to deal with. You wash your produce to try to remove any pesticide
residue that may be present, is it not also reasonable to "wash" your
drinking water with a good filter to remove the toxins you know are
there?

Bottled water... Safer?
 

graham wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Sadly liberals lack the critical thinking skills to research and
> > understand solid facts such as those you have posted.
>
> What an absolute load of unmitigated CRAP!
> Graham

The truth hurts I see...

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 11:44 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Sadly the 60%+ who are solidly in the center like I am, are not
> sufficiently politically active to force the extremists out of both
> parties and get some rational centrist candidates running. The two
> extremist wings can't comprehend that there is even a center so they
> both attack any centrist as being one of "them".
>
So very sadly true.

Don't lose hope.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 11:35 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.
>
Have you read the book 'Toys' by James Patterson? LOL I recommend it.

Jill

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:38:05 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/7/2013 11:44 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Sadly the 60%+ who are solidly in the center like I am, are not
> > sufficiently politically active to force the extremists out of both
> > parties and get some rational centrist candidates running. The two
> > extremist wings can't comprehend that there is even a center so they
> > both attack any centrist as being one of "them".
> >
> So very sadly true.
>
> Don't lose hope.

"The struggle continues".

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

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/7/2013 6:54 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:38:05 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/2013 11:44 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sadly the 60%+ who are solidly in the center like I am, are not
>>> sufficiently politically active to force the extremists out of both
>>> parties and get some rational centrist candidates running. The two
>>> extremist wings can't comprehend that there is even a center so they
>>> both attack any centrist as being one of "them".
>>>
>> So very sadly true.
>>
>> Don't lose hope.
>
> "The struggle continues".
>
The message of Mandela we all need to remember is forgiveness,
compromise and conciliation.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:13:03 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/7/2013 6:54 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:38:05 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/7/2013 11:44 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Sadly the 60%+ who are solidly in the center like I am, are not
> >>> sufficiently politically active to force the extremists out of both
> >>> parties and get some rational centrist candidates running. The two
> >>> extremist wings can't comprehend that there is even a center so they
> >>> both attack any centrist as being one of "them".
> >>>
> >> So very sadly true.
> >>
> >> Don't lose hope.
> >
> > "The struggle continues".
> >
> The message of Mandela we all need to remember is forgiveness,
> compromise and conciliation.

Thank you for recognizing it and expanding the concept.

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

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Get a water filtration system, who knows what's in those plastics that hold our water (or pop... or juice... etc)

Michael Lalonde
Sudbury
M&K Mining

Bottled water... Safer?
 

I grew up on well water. When my boys were born, our pediatrician told
us tap water was just fine for mixing bottles. She said she knew what
was in our local water; she did not know what was in any random bottle of
water.

Tara

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Tara wrote:
>
>I grew up on well water. When my boys were born, our pediatrician told
>us tap water was just fine for mixing bottles. She said she knew what
>was in our local water; she did not know what was in any random bottle of
>water.

Actually there's no way to know what's in well water unless it's
tested and each well in the same area will have different water. I
have two wells, about two hundred feet apart and the water from each
is very different as to mineral content, the water from one is twice
as hard as from the other. Anyone on a private well needs to monitor
their water carefully because it also changes constantly, both
chemically and biologically... also the volume production changes too,
my well with harder water produces about 16 gallons a minute, the
other well produces about 10 gallons a minute, and both volumes
fluctuate over time. I have my well water tested chemically once each
year to adjust the water softeners, I have both tested for biologicals
every two years. The water from both wells are treated with UV, still
each required being shocked with chlorine once over ten years. Even
with municipal water if it doesn't contain chlorine (and most doesn't)
it's important to have water tested for biologicals because the pipes
will become infected... often people are constantly sick because the
water in their house is sick. And bottled water is no better, all
bottled water is water from someone elses tap, odds are your tap water
is better. I drink RO water... I suggest everyone install an RO
filter, they cost very little. I also susggest everyone install a UV
device, that costs more but if it saves one doctor bill you're way
ahead... UV treated water is important for bathing, can save a family
the agony of all sorts of skin diseases and the price of many visits
to a Dermatologist plus all those medications.

Bottled water... Safer?
 

On 12/9/2013 8:45 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> my rural mailbox post and they didn't make ten years. Here we have
> deposit soda bottles, we feed them into a machine that grinds them
> into bits and spits out a receipt good for a nickle each... I wonder
> what they do with that ground up plastic...

They make clothing out of it.
http://www.polartec.com/

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Here we have
>> deposit soda bottles, we feed them into a machine that grinds them
>> into bits and spits out a receipt good for a nickle each... I wonder
>> what they do with that ground up plastic...
>
>They make clothing out of it.
>http://www.polartec.com/

Interesting:
http://www.polartec.com/videos/PolartecProcess.htm

Bottled water... Safer?
 

Modern science indicates that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health Rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride will change that

Fluoride is a drug with adverse side effects that never should be dispensed via the water supply with no consideration for age, health, weight, drug interactions and need.

Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing

Over 4,600 professionals (including 365 dentists and 566 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because science shows fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/researc...tatement/text/

Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”


On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:54:59 AM UTC-5, graham wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 2013-12-04, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>
> >> In article >,
>
> >> Pete C. > wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong. Bottled water does not contain
>
> >>>chlorine or fluoride, both highly toxic chemicals, nor does it contain
>
> >>
>
> >> Purity of Essence.
>
> >
>
> > I don't know what the above is, but I do know Pete, as usual, is dead
>
> > wrong. It's quite difficult to find bottled water that does NOT
>
> > contain small amts of chorine and salt, both allowed by the FDA. As
>
> > for flouride, it is offered as option from some brands of bottled
>
> > water, like Alhambra water in CA. This because some municipalities,
>
> > like the one where my granddaughters live, have commie fearing morons
>
> > in the city govt and no flouride in the water. This means my GDs will
>
> > be plagued with cavities, jes like I was. My daughter never had a
>
> > single cavity (almost 10 yrs) till we moved from a fluoridated town to
>
> > a non-fluoridated town. I would buy fluoridated water for my GDs.
>
> >
>
> The same thing happened in Calgary. Some halfwit councillors believed
>
> everything they read on the internet. The others were right-wingers who
>
> hated the idea of putting fluoridated water on their lawns.
>
> Graham