On 12/4/2013 10:51 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/3/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:36:16 AM UTC-8, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/embed/XfPAjUvvnIc
>>>>
>>>> The truth about tap water:
>>>>
>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-..._birth-defects
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/faq/water-treatment.html
>>>>
>>>> But if it's safe for pregnant women to drink, and it's not killing your fish,
>>>> it's not too bad. But after years of drinking bottled water, drinking, say,
>>>> Chicago water is like jumping into a swimming pool.
>>>>
>>> I dunno about Chicago water. I get an occasional 'water report'. I
>>> drink tap water. I don't pay for bottled water. The only reason I ever
>>> had to buy bottled water was when we lived in Bangkok.
>>>
>>> Memphis water was from natural aquifers. Just fine and not toxic. Here
>>> I drink filtered water from the tap. Bottled water is a waste of money
>>> and everyone thinks it is "healtier". I say BS. Just more plastic bottles.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> 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.
>
> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
> ass.
>

Not all:

http://www.calistogawater.com/NaturalSource.aspx

Calistoga® Brand Sparkling Mineral Water comes from a source deep in the
earth below the town of Calistoga.

Calistoga® Brand Sparkling Mineral Water’s geothermal source is a
uniquely important factor in safeguarding water quality. Natural forces
heat the mineral water to the boiling point; to be bottled it must be
cooled to 36 degrees Fahrenheit.

The interaction of geothermal forces with local volcanic rocks give
Calistoga Sparkling Mineral Water its own mineral base. Not only does
Calistoga® Sparkling Mineral Water help restore a fluid base, but its
minerals add a distinctive, refreshing taste.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:05:03 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/4/2013 10:51 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/3/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:36:16 AM UTC-8, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/embed/XfPAjUvvnIc
> >>>>
> >>>> The truth about tap water:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-..._birth-defects
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/faq/water-treatment.html
> >>>>
> >>>> But if it's safe for pregnant women to drink, and it's not killing your fish,
> >>>> it's not too bad. But after years of drinking bottled water, drinking, say,
> >>>> Chicago water is like jumping into a swimming pool.
> >>>>
> >>> I dunno about Chicago water. I get an occasional 'water report'. I
> >>> drink tap water. I don't pay for bottled water. The only reason I ever
> >>> had to buy bottled water was when we lived in Bangkok.
> >>>
> >>> Memphis water was from natural aquifers. Just fine and not toxic. Here
> >>> I drink filtered water from the tap. Bottled water is a waste of money
> >>> and everyone thinks it is "healtier". I say BS. Just more plastic bottles.
> >>>
> >>> Jill
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
> > ass.
> >
>
> Not all:
>
> http://www.calistogawater.com/NaturalSource.aspx
>

Arrowhead water comes from springs too.

According to this California is stricter than most states with
enforcement of rules and regulations for bottled water, but it ends by
saying "The long-term solution to our water woes is to fix our tap
water so it is safe for everyone, and tastes and smells good."
http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp

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

On 12/4/2013 12:17 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:05:03 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2013 10:51 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/3/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:36:16 AM UTC-8, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/embed/XfPAjUvvnIc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The truth about tap water:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-..._birth-defects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/faq/water-treatment.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it's safe for pregnant women to drink, and it's not killing your fish,
>>>>>> it's not too bad. But after years of drinking bottled water, drinking, say,
>>>>>> Chicago water is like jumping into a swimming pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno about Chicago water. I get an occasional 'water report'. I
>>>>> drink tap water. I don't pay for bottled water. The only reason I ever
>>>>> had to buy bottled water was when we lived in Bangkok.
>>>>>
>>>>> Memphis water was from natural aquifers. Just fine and not toxic. Here
>>>>> I drink filtered water from the tap. Bottled water is a waste of money
>>>>> and everyone thinks it is "healtier". I say BS. Just more plastic bottles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are truly an imbecile... bottled water IS tap water... what a dumb
>>> ass.
>>>
>>
>> Not all:
>>
>> http://www.calistogawater.com/NaturalSource.aspx
>>
>
> Arrowhead water comes from springs too.

That's tasty stuff too, has a real nice flavoring in the cherry version.
>
> According to this California is stricter than most states with
> enforcement of rules and regulations for bottled water, but it ends by
> saying "The long-term solution to our water woes is to fix our tap
> water so it is safe for everyone, and tastes and smells good."
> http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp
>
Hard to argue that.

A Britta only goes so far...

On 12/4/2013 11:54 AM, graham wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/4/2013 9:41 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>> 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.
>>
> One of the loonie fringe arguments is that it is industrial waste! But hell,
> the lanolin used in a plethora of women's cosmetics is too. In fact, it used
> to be extracted from sewage in towns where wool processing was a major
> industry!
> Graham
>
>
Lanolin makes for wonderfully soft hands. My mother said when she
was a young adult she'd sleep wearing white cotton gloves. Bag balm:

http://bagbalm.com/uses.htm?gclid=CN...FSdp7AodRC0AtQ

Jill

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:26:50 -0500, 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.
>
> I'm firmly in the fluoride is good camp although I don't like how it
> makes water taste. Here are some of the arguments "against"...
> http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
>
The trouble with such sites is that they make unsubstantiated claims that
have the appearance of veracity. The studies they often allude to are
usually misquoted or even fictional or anecdotal.
Always be suspicious of statements that start with: "Studies show that...."
Their only valid argument is the fact that they cannot choose whether or not
to have it in their tapwater.
Graham

On 4 Dec 2013 14:29:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2013-12-04, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Probably rust. Could be the pipes along the way. Our town is replacing
>> some that are 100+ years old.
>
>In some gas fracking areas, the pollution is so severe the tap water
>will burn!
>
>nb

The TAP WEATER is not burning! DUH! Water does not burn, ever!

It's the natural gas in the water lines that burns!

John Kuthe...

"John Kuthe" > wrote in message
news
> On 4 Dec 2013 14:29:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2013-12-04, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> Probably rust. Could be the pipes along the way. Our town is replacing
>>> some that are 100+ years old.
>>
>>In some gas fracking areas, the pollution is so severe the tap water
>>will burn!
>>
>>nb
>
> The TAP WEATER is not burning! DUH! Water does not burn, ever!
>
> It's the natural gas in the water lines that burns!
>
And often, if not in all cases, the gas was in the water before they started
fracking. It was only the fearmongering form the enviroloons that caused
people to check.
Graham

John Kuthe wrote:
>
>The TAP WEATER is not burning! DUH! Water does not burn, ever!
>It's the natural gas in the water lines that burns!

If you'd quit shoving those gas pipes up your filthy faggot ass
there'd be no burn.

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.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:26:50 -0500, 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.
>
> I'm firmly in the fluoride is good camp although I don't like how it
> makes water taste. Here are some of the arguments "against"...
> http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

Fluoride is good when topically applied to teeth in the form of
toothpaste and then rinsed thoroughly. Note the warning on every single
tube of fluoride toothpaste not to consume more than a pea sized amount,
and to get medical attention if you do. That warning is there due to the
fact that fluoride is highly toxic. Fluoride is very bad when consumed,
as are the various reaction by-products it creates in a municipal water
system.

"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?

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?

"Pearl F. Buck" 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.
> >
>
> With one caveat, bacteria count.
>
> Sometimes that can be out of range.

In a municipal water system? Absolutely. Depending on your location in
the system the analysis of your tap water can be far outside allowable
standards, something the anti bottled water loons pretend doesn't exist.
Municipal water systems test at the source plant daily, but they only
test at the extents of the system to a minimal amount to meet annual
testing requirements. Even those annual testing requirements allow a
percentage of the samples from the far reaches of the system to exceed
allowable contaminant levels.

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.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:38:44 -0500, 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.
>
> There's more than taste wrong with nasty water and I don't trust a
> carbon filter to remove it.

A reverse osmosis system is not a "carbon filter", though they do
include a carbon pre-filter to protect the RO membrane since the
chlorine in municipal water will destroy a RO membrane. Do you really
want to drink water that can destroy a RO membrane?

In article >,
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.

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.

Cindy Hamilton
--

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?

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

"Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2013 7:29 AM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2013-12-04, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> Probably rust. Could be the pipes along the way. Our town is replacing
> >> some that are 100+ years old.
> >
> > In some gas fracking areas, the pollution is so severe the tap water
> > will burn!
> >
> > nb
> >
> A very isolated occurrence given how much fracking here is.

It's also been known to occur in areas with no fracking and long before
fracking even existed. Just an extremely rare oddity that those with a
political agenda will seize upon to claim as false proof for their
agenda.

graham wrote:
>
> "John Kuthe" > wrote in message
> news
> > On 4 Dec 2013 14:29:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> >>On 2013-12-04, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Probably rust. Could be the pipes along the way. Our town is replacing
> >>> some that are 100+ years old.
> >>
> >>In some gas fracking areas, the pollution is so severe the tap water
> >>will burn!
> >>
> >>nb
> >
> > The TAP WEATER is not burning! DUH! Water does not burn, ever!
> >
> > It's the natural gas in the water lines that burns!
> >
> And often, if not in all cases, the gas was in the water before they started
> fracking. It was only the fearmongering form the enviroloons that caused
> people to check.
> Graham

Additionally, water can indeed burn when it is exposed to ultra high
temperature fires that can disassociate the H and O2.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> In article >,
> 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.
>
> 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.

If you don't comprehend the difference between 0.7 ppm consumed, vs.
1000 ppm spit out and rinsed, you have failed all science classes.

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.

On 5/12/2013 4:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> In article >,
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
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.

injipoint wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2013 4:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > In article >,
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> 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.

On 2013-12-05, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
> In article >,
> Pete C. > wrote:
>>
>>Have you read the warning not to swallow more than a pea sized amount of
>>fluoride toothpaste?
>
> 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.

It's hilarious how some ppl can be in complete denial about some
issues that are truly scary, then go completely ballistic over
another, which is actually fairly benign and beneficial. Yeah,
fracking, oil spill dispersants, and global warming are totally bogus,
but fluoride! ...now there's a real killer!

morons....

nb

In article >,
Pete C. > wrote:
>
>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>If you don't comprehend the difference between 0.7 ppm consumed, vs.
>1000 ppm spit out and rinsed, you have failed all science classes.

A pea-sized amount at 1000 ppm appears to be different from
for example, a liter at 0.7 ppm.

Wikipedia (and I realize what quality of information they have) tells
me that 50% of fluoride is excreted in a day.

Don't drink tea, Pete. It's got fluoride in it.


Cindy Hamilton
--

On 12/5/2013 6:38 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" 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.
>>>
>>
>> With one caveat, bacteria count.
>>
>> Sometimes that can be out of range.
>
> In a municipal water system? Absolutely. Depending on your location in
> the system the analysis of your tap water can be far outside allowable
> standards, something the anti bottled water loons pretend doesn't exist.

Yes.

> Municipal water systems test at the source plant daily, but they only
> test at the extents of the system to a minimal amount to meet annual
> testing requirements. Even those annual testing requirements allow a
> percentage of the samples from the far reaches of the system to exceed
> allowable contaminant levels.
>
True also.

On 12/5/2013 7:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/2013 7:29 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-04, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably rust. Could be the pipes along the way. Our town is replacing
>>>> some that are 100+ years old.
>>>
>>> In some gas fracking areas, the pollution is so severe the tap water
>>> will burn!
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>> A very isolated occurrence given how much fracking here is.
>
> It's also been known to occur in areas with no fracking and long before
> fracking even existed.

Also true.

> Just an extremely rare oddity that those with a
> political agenda will seize upon to claim as false proof for their
> agenda.

Methane pre-dates fracking, true.

On 12/5/2013 8:45 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2013-12-05, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Pete C. > wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you read the warning not to swallow more than a pea sized amount of
>>> fluoride toothpaste?
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's hilarious how some ppl can be in complete denial about some
> issues that are truly scary, then go completely ballistic over
> another, which is actually fairly benign and beneficial. Yeah,
> fracking, oil spill dispersants, and global warming are totally bogus,
> but fluoride! ...now there's a real killer!
>
> morons....
>
> nb
>
Hmmm...oil spill dispersants....is the Gulf dead yet?

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Pearl F. Buck wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm...oil spill dispersants....is the Gulf dead yet?

Actually yes. A large area due to the pollution coming down the Mississippi. I don't remember how large an area but I believe it's larger than Texas.

http://www.richardfisher.com

"Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>
> On 12/5/2013 8:45 AM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2013-12-05, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Pete C. > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have you read the warning not to swallow more than a pea sized amount of
> >>> fluoride toothpaste?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > It's hilarious how some ppl can be in complete denial about some
> > issues that are truly scary, then go completely ballistic over
> > another, which is actually fairly benign and beneficial. Yeah,
> > fracking, oil spill dispersants, and global warming are totally bogus,
> > but fluoride! ...now there's a real killer!
> >
> > morons....
> >
> > nb
> >
> 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.

On 12/5/2013 10:48 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/2013 8:45 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-05, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Pete C. > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you read the warning not to swallow more than a pea sized amount of
>>>>> fluoride toothpaste?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It's hilarious how some ppl can be in complete denial about some
>>> issues that are truly scary, then go completely ballistic over
>>> another, which is actually fairly benign and beneficial. Yeah,
>>> fracking, oil spill dispersants, and global warming are totally bogus,
>>> but fluoride! ...now there's a real killer!
>>>
>>> morons....
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>> 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.
>

Something, iirc, about natural bacterium which actually consumed the oil...

https://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4362

Researchers from the University of Rochester and Texas A&M University
have found that, over a period of five months following the disastrous
2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, naturally-occurring
bacteria that exist in the Gulf of Mexico consumed and removed at least
200,000 tons of oil and natural gas that spewed into the deep Gulf from
the ruptured well head.


Funny how this planet can literally heal itself, isn't it?

Almost makes the GAIA hypothesis plausible, no?

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.

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

We have never gotten sick from well water and have been drinking it for 45 years. I don't buy bottled water unless we are on vacation out of the country, and one location in the US where the chlorine taste was excessive(to my palate).
Our refrigerator has a filter that takes the minerally flavor out of our tap water, but we only use it from drinking, not cooking water.

I agree the bottled water tripe is nonsense, and is surely damaging the eco systems of the world, and especially the ocean where it collects in spots to be eaten by birds and kills them.
Nan in DE

On 12/5/2013 11:07 AM, Nanzi wrote:
> We have never gotten sick from well water and have been drinking it for 45 years. I don't buy bottled water unless we are on vacation out of the country, and one location in the US where the chlorine taste was excessive(to my palate).
> Our refrigerator has a filter that takes the minerally flavor out of our tap water, but we only use it from drinking, not cooking water.
>
> I agree the bottled water tripe is nonsense, and is surely damaging the eco systems of the world, and especially the ocean where it collects in spots to be eaten by birds and kills them.
> Nan in DE
>

Bottled water is killing birds, really?

Who knew...

On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, 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.
>
You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
summer, that had to be a bit tense.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=711
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/0...m-fire-update/
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...mite-explainer

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

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.