"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?

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...

"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?