I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
"green" movement. They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
there is a green raindrop on their labels now. Also, their new tag
line is "every drop is green". This whole thing brings a few things
to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.

Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
ships. Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"

Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
initiated.

Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
Fiji is all good?

writes:

> I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
> "green" movement. They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
> there is a green raindrop on their labels now. Also, their new tag
> line is "every drop is green". This whole thing brings a few things
> to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
>
> Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
> bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
> country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
> ships. Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
> based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
>
> Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
> there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
> initiated.
>
> Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
> Fiji is all good?

I guess the premise of Fiji's advertising is that the company is doing
things with consumers' money that end up reducing airborne carbon. Of
course, that doesn't mean that a consumer who wants to fight global
warming couldn't invest the money more effectively.

I suppose that means, yes, they do think consumers are that stupid.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html
recent addition: Bian Jing Cha

> so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
That's right. What could be green about a water that's shipped from
such a long distance, packaged in plastic bottles that will take
centuries to biodegrade?
And what's wrong with local water? I always use a good source of local
water - sometimes straight from the source (like the tap), hahahaha.

wrote:
> I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
> "green" movement. They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
> there is a green raindrop on their labels now. Also, their new tag
> line is "every drop is green". This whole thing brings a few things
> to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
>
> Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
> bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
> country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
> ships. Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
> based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
>
> Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
> there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
> initiated.
>
> Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
> Fiji is all good?

Yes. And most consumers *are* that stupid. That's why advertising &
marketing works. Remember, human achievement is not accomplished by the
species as a whole, but by the contributions of a few unique
individuals. Most people are drones who plod through life accepting
everything that is fed them by society and the media, and rarely think
about the world around them. Of course this will attract and retain
consumers. And it's a brilliant marketing campaign for the time, even
though the premise is a complete and utter lie. That is what marketing
is all about...

--
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/ The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/ The Sushi Otaku Blog
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/ Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/ The Tea FAQ
HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/ The Jerky FAQ
HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/ The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

On Jul 23, 10:28*am, Warren > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
> > "green" movement. *They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
> > there is a green raindrop on their labels now. *Also, their new tag
> > line is "every drop is green". *This whole thing brings a few things
> > to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
>
> > Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
> > bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
> > country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
> > ships. *Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
> > based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
>
> > Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
> > there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
> > initiated.
>
> > Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
> > Fiji is all good?
>
> Yes. And most consumers *are* that stupid. That's why advertising &
> marketing works. Remember, human achievement is not accomplished by the
> species as a whole, but by the contributions of a few unique
> individuals. Most people are drones who plod through life accepting
> everything that is fed them by society and the media, and rarely think
> about the world around them. Of course this will attract and retain
> consumers. And it's a brilliant marketing campaign for the time, even
> though the premise is a complete and utter lie. That is what marketing
> is all about...
>
> --
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/The Sushi FAQ *...><((((º>
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/The Sushi Otaku Blog
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
> HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/The Tea FAQ
> HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/The Jerky FAQ
> HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with you that is how advertising and marketing work. But I
just feel like this campaign is so over the top transparent that it
actually makes me angry that they think no one will remember what they
are shipping and where it is coming from and a green raindrop makes it
all OK. I do not remeber having this gut reaction to a simple ad
before? Almost like I've been insulted personally.

wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:28 am, Warren > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
>>> "green" movement. They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
>>> there is a green raindrop on their labels now. Also, their new tag
>>> line is "every drop is green". This whole thing brings a few things
>>> to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
>>> Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
>>> bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
>>> country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
>>> ships. Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
>>> based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
>>> Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
>>> there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
>>> initiated.
>>> Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
>>> Fiji is all good?
>> Yes. And most consumers *are* that stupid. That's why advertising &
>> marketing works. Remember, human achievement is not accomplished by the
>> species as a whole, but by the contributions of a few unique
>> individuals. Most people are drones who plod through life accepting
>> everything that is fed them by society and the media, and rarely think
>> about the world around them. Of course this will attract and retain
>> consumers. And it's a brilliant marketing campaign for the time, even
>> though the premise is a complete and utter lie. That is what marketing
>> is all about...
>>
>> --
>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/The Sushi Otaku Blog
>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
>> HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/The Tea FAQ
>> HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/The Jerky FAQ
>> HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree with you that is how advertising and marketing work. But I
> just feel like this campaign is so over the top transparent that it
> actually makes me angry that they think no one will remember what they
> are shipping and where it is coming from and a green raindrop makes it
> all OK. I do not remeber having this gut reaction to a simple ad
> before? Almost like I've been insulted personally.

Ha! yep, i understand and agree. It's pretty idiotic. But, and sorry to
repeat myself, people are stupid. They *don't* think about this stuff.
Look at the state of the world today and you can see that if humans
actually gave a damn about anything then all these horrible situations
around the world would not exist. But they don't, and the few of us who
do care can't fix things ourselves. So drink up! Pretend all is well
like everyone else! Because Fiji Water Company LLC signed a 100 year
deal with the Island to bottle it's water, so there are plenty more of
these campaigns to come. *sigh*

--
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/ The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/ The Sushi Otaku Blog
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/ Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/ The Tea FAQ
HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/ The Jerky FAQ
HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/ The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

Warren wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 10:28 am, Warren > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
>>>> "green" movement. They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
>>>> there is a green raindrop on their labels now. Also, their new tag
>>>> line is "every drop is green". This whole thing brings a few things
>>>> to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
>>>> Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
>>>> bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
>>>> country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
>>>> ships. Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
>>>> based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
>>>> Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . . .
>>>> there must be Algae in the water and a prompt recall should be
>>>> initiated.
>>>> Do they really think all consumers are so stupid as to be convinced
>>>> Fiji is all good?
>>> Yes. And most consumers *are* that stupid. That's why advertising &
>>> marketing works. Remember, human achievement is not accomplished by the
>>> species as a whole, but by the contributions of a few unique
>>> individuals. Most people are drones who plod through life accepting
>>> everything that is fed them by society and the media, and rarely think
>>> about the world around them. Of course this will attract and retain
>>> consumers. And it's a brilliant marketing campaign for the time, even
>>> though the premise is a complete and utter lie. That is what marketing
>>> is all about...
>>>
>>> --
>>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
>>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/The Sushi Otaku Blog
>>> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
>>> HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/The Tea FAQ
>>> HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/The Jerky FAQ
>>> HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I agree with you that is how advertising and marketing work. But I
>> just feel like this campaign is so over the top transparent that it
>> actually makes me angry that they think no one will remember what they
>> are shipping and where it is coming from and a green raindrop makes it
>> all OK. I do not remeber having this gut reaction to a simple ad
>> before? Almost like I've been insulted personally.
>
> Ha! yep, i understand and agree. It's pretty idiotic. and sorry to
> repeat myself, people are stupid. They *don't* think about this stuff.
> Look at the state of the world today and you can see that if humans
> actually gave a damn about anything then all these horrible situations
> around the world would not exist. But they don't, and the few of us who
> do care can't fix things ourselves. So drink up! Pretend all is well
> like everyone else! Because Fiji Water Company LLC signed a 100 year
> deal with the Island to bottle it's water, so there are plenty more of
> these campaigns to come. *sigh*
>
Ha Ha... and look what I came across just now coincidentally while
reading some news:
http://www.terrachoice.com/Home/Six%...e%20Six%20Sins



--
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/ The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/ The Sushi Otaku Blog
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/ Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/ The Tea FAQ
HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/ The Jerky FAQ
HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/ The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

On Jul 23, 1:02*pm, Warren > wrote:
> Warren wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 23, 10:28 am, Warren > wrote:
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I see that Fiji has a new advertising campaign that centers around the
> >>>> "green" movement. *They have a new website that is fijigreen.com and
> >>>> there is a green raindrop on their labels now. *Also, their new tag
> >>>> line is "every drop is green". *This whole thing brings a few things
> >>>> to mind and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about it.
> >>>> Firstly, I see Fiji everywhere and if they are trully filling their
> >>>> bottles in Fiji, then not only are they trucking water all over the
> >>>> country (world too) but they have to bring the stuff over in cargo
> >>>> ships. *Not to mention that the plastic bottles are all petroleum
> >>>> based, so how is this enormous fuel guzzling machine truly "green"
> >>>> Also, when I hear "every drop is green", I immediately think "Oh . .

writes:

>I agree with you that is how advertising and marketing work. But I
>just feel like this campaign is so over the top transparent that it
>actually makes me angry that they think no one will remember what they
>are shipping and where it is coming from and a green raindrop makes it
>all OK. I do not remeber having this gut reaction to a simple ad
>before? Almost like I've been insulted personally.

Whoever even considers green and "bottled water" together bar dichotemy
ought to retake Common Sense 101.

Green Advertising in general is just another way of appealing to the
already extant hypocrisy of a people consumed with reactionism.

Aaron Hsu

--
+++++++++++++++ ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) +++++++++++++++
Email: > | WWW: <http://www.sacrideo.us>
Scheme Programming is subtle; subtlety can be hard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

I don't think I've agreed more with an RFDT posting in quite a while.
It's also timely; I just read an article in Technology Review which
shows that the average US resident is responsible for 20 metric tons
of CO2 emissions annually. Compare that to 4 metric tons as the
worldwide average (US included). Even a homeless person in the US is
responsible for 8.5 metric tons per year!

I've long been an opponent of bottled water. Much has been written
about the phenomenon, so I won't repeat it here. My objections are
along the lines stated he the environmental cost of shipping heavy
bottles of water around the globe is ludicrous. I make a point of
"ordering" tap water (or "ice water" as it's referred to in many
places; gives it more cache) over bottled water when I eat out. In Las
Vegas I will usually order a round of "Lake Mead's finest".

The bright side is the emergence of "localvores". While it's nice to
be able to eat any fresh food year-round, with modern preservation
methods we can still enjoy most out-of-season foods in some form.
We've had the luxury of eating tomatoes (albeit mealy and flavorless)
in winter; let's get back to seasonal produce that we can appreciate.
I believe we would appreciate and enjoy particular foods more if we
couldn't have them for part of the year.

Also, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that people are
stupid. Present company excepted.

Alan

I do drink bottled water quite simply because it
tastes much better. My preference in regards to
taste of water is: Poland spring .5L bottles >
Poland spring 5Gal > Fiji, Evian, etc > filtered
water > unfiltered tap.

On the other hand I don't have a car so I don't
create co2 by driving one and I don't fly airplane
for vacations, and I don't eat meat which is more
costly environmentally than vegetarian food.
So, it's a matter of comparing the total co2
and other pollution that your lifestyle leads
to. What is the co2 cost of one 4-hour car
ride vs. shipment of spring water first by
train and then by truck? What is the cost of
one airplane roundtrip compared to shipment of
bottled water from Poland Springs to NYC?

You also have to consider indirect costs. Many
people will buy a bottle of water instead of
buying some other type of bottled drink. Other
drinks are more co2-costly because they still
contain water that has to be shipped, and other
ingredients have to be processed, too.

Another way to look at indirect costs is that
drinking water instead of other beverages can
improve health, and health services are co2-costly
as well, because hospitals have to be built,
doctors and nurses have to drive to medical
schools, then drive to their place of work,
medical equipment has to be manufactured. If
people have a choice of drinking the best tasting
bottled water vs. tap water, they may choose to
drink something else entirely if tap water does
not taste good, out of misguided care for
environment, and end up doing far greater
environmental damage.

I don't see why shipping bottled water has to be
so costly. It should be shipped by train from
source and bottled in every large city, and then
shipped in diesel trucks. Certainly more costly
than tap water but less costly than pretty much
any other drink.

I only drink water and tea made with spring water
- I want my water to taste good. Tap and filtered
water most definitely do not.

I'll agree, though, that buying Fiji and Evian is
silly, they taste worse than Poland Spring
(especially Evian!), and are more costly to ship.
But railing against them is pointless without
some hard numbers comparing their use vs.
other common co2-heavy expenses, e.g.
manufacture of a car, of home electronics,
driving a car, raising cattle for meat, running
an air conditioner, heating, etc etc.

On 2008-07-24, Alan > wrote:

> I don't think I've agreed more with an RFDT posting in quite a while.
> It's also timely; I just read an article in Technology Review which
> shows that the average US resident is responsible for 20 metric tons
> of CO2 emissions annually. Compare that to 4 metric tons as the
> worldwide average (US included). Even a homeless person in the US is
> responsible for 8.5 metric tons per year!
>
> I've long been an opponent of bottled water. Much has been written
> about the phenomenon, so I won't repeat it here. My objections are
> along the lines stated he the environmental cost of shipping heavy
> bottles of water around the globe is ludicrous.

<soapbox>

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to get that giving up
meat would have a much greater impact on one's carbon footprint than
giving up bottled water. I am kind of doubting that bottled water
(rather than food production, energy costs, and personal transportation)
plays a huge role in US citizens' carbon footprints.

</soapbox>

I do try to use a mixture of filtered water and bottled rather than only
bottled water (and sometimes I'll even just use filtered), but I find
that filtered water is usually either *too* filtered (i.e., doesn't have
enough mineral content to make good tea), or else isn't filtered enough
(off-tastes, flouride, etc.). I think I'm actually more picky about the
water that I use for tea than I am for the water I drink or cook with.

Some folks here have had good luck with re-mineralizing RO-filtered
water.

I grew up drinking tap water (the tap water where I grew up is great),
but the (unfiltered) tap water here in Southern California, while safe
to drink and not anywhere near as bad-tasting as the tap water in, say,
Shanghai, is not very delicious.

w

> Fiji and Evian ... taste worse than Poland Spring
> (especially Evian!)

really?!

i was just about to buy some of those 'special' brands to see if they
make my tea better
(if i'd taste any difference that is)

On Jul 25, 1:43*am, SN > wrote:
> > Fiji and Evian ... taste worse than Poland Spring
> > (especially Evian!)
>
> really?!
>
> i was just about to buy some of those 'special' brands to see if they
> make my tea better
> (if i'd taste any difference that is)

IMHO for tea it doesn't matter what
brand you use, as long as the
water doesn't smell like plastic. But
spring water based tea tastes a lot
better to me than one made with
filtered water. I didn't try bottled
filtered water, though, maybe it's
filtered more thoroughly. I get
poland spring water in bulk so
filtered bottled water would not be
any cheaper.

Will Yardley wrote:
> On 2008-07-24, Alan > wrote:
>
>> I don't think I've agreed more with an RFDT posting in quite a while.
>> It's also timely; I just read an article in Technology Review which
>> shows that the average US resident is responsible for 20 metric tons
>> of CO2 emissions annually. Compare that to 4 metric tons as the
>> worldwide average (US included). Even a homeless person in the US is
>> responsible for 8.5 metric tons per year!
>>
>> I've long been an opponent of bottled water. Much has been written
>> about the phenomenon, so I won't repeat it here. My objections are
>> along the lines stated he the environmental cost of shipping heavy
>> bottles of water around the globe is ludicrous.
>
> <soapbox>
>
> I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to get that giving up
> meat would have a much greater impact on one's carbon footprint than
> giving up bottled water. I am kind of doubting that bottled water
> (rather than food production, energy costs, and personal transportation)
> plays a huge role in US citizens' carbon footprints.
>
> </soapbox>
>
> I do try to use a mixture of filtered water and bottled rather than only
> bottled water (and sometimes I'll even just use filtered), but I find
> that filtered water is usually either *too* filtered (i.e., doesn't have
> enough mineral content to make good tea), or else isn't filtered enough
> (off-tastes, flouride, etc.). I think I'm actually more picky about the
> water that I use for tea than I am for the water I drink or cook with.
>
> Some folks here have had good luck with re-mineralizing RO-filtered
> water.
>
> I grew up drinking tap water (the tap water where I grew up is great),
> but the (unfiltered) tap water here in Southern California, while safe
> to drink and not anywhere near as bad-tasting as the tap water in, say,
> Shanghai, is not very delicious.
>
> w
>

Perhaps the issue is that bottled water is an *unneeded* addition to the
carbon footprint of our species. That's how I see it. I drink bottled
water on road trips, camping, etc, but never just day to day. I see it
having it's place, but to market it as "green" is just plain misleading
IMHO.

--
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/ The Sushi FAQ ...><((((º>
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/ The Sushi Otaku Blog
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/ Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/ The Tea FAQ
HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/ The Jerky FAQ
HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/ The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

On Jul 25, 11:05*am, Warren > wrote:
> Will Yardley wrote:
> > On 2008-07-24, Alan > wrote:
>
> >> I don't think I've agreed more with an RFDT posting in quite a while.
> >> It's also timely; I just read an article in Technology Review which
> >> shows that the average US resident is responsible for 20 metric tons
> >> of CO2 emissions annually. Compare that to 4 metric tons as the
> >> worldwide average (US included). Even a homeless person in the US is
> >> responsible for 8.5 metric tons per year!
>
> >> I've long been an opponent of bottled water. Much has been written
> >> about the phenomenon, so I won't repeat it here. My objections are
> >> along the lines stated he the environmental cost of shipping heavy
> >> bottles of water around the globe is ludicrous.
>
> > <soapbox>
>
> > I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to get that giving up
> > meat would have a much greater impact on one's carbon footprint than
> > giving up bottled water. I am kind of doubting that bottled water
> > (rather than food production, energy costs, and personal transportation)
> > plays a huge role in US citizens' carbon footprints.
>
> > </soapbox>
>
> > I do try to use a mixture of filtered water and bottled rather than only
> > bottled water (and sometimes I'll even just use filtered), but I find
> > that filtered water is usually either *too* filtered (i.e., doesn't have
> > enough mineral content to make good tea), or else isn't filtered enough
> > (off-tastes, flouride, etc.). I think I'm actually more picky about the
> > water that I use for tea than I am for the water I drink or cook with.
>
> > Some folks here have had good luck with re-mineralizing RO-filtered
> > water.
>
> > I grew up drinking tap water (the tap water where I grew up is great),
> > but the (unfiltered) tap water here in Southern California, while safe
> > to drink and not anywhere near as bad-tasting as the tap water in, say,
> > Shanghai, is not very delicious.
>
> > w
>
> Perhaps the issue is that bottled water is an *unneeded* addition to the
> carbon footprint of our species. That's how I see it. I drink bottled
> water on road trips, camping, etc, but never just day to day. I see it
> having it's place, but to market it as "green" is just plain misleading
> IMHO.

In fact, all of carbon footprint of our species is " unneeded ".
Our species was a species before it had an appreciable
carbon footprint. You might go over co2-producing
activities and argue which ones are more or less
unneeded and which ones are more/less costly:

activity X: unneedness-factor: 0.2; co2 cost: 1cm3 per unit/liter/kilo/
etc
activity Y: unneedness-factor: 0.35; co2 cost: 2.5cm3 per unit/liter/
kilo/etc

By the way I found an explanation for Fiji green drop thingy:

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...rbon-negative/

Anyway, I wouldn't call water unneeded. I can probably
last a few weeks without food, much less cars and
radios, but not more than a couple days without water.
And if I have a choice of foul tasting water and nothing,
I will often choose nothing (of course to a point).

Good tasting water should be counted as one of
basic human rights.. By the way, I'm particularly
sensitive to water taste - I can feel much difference
between tea made with slowly boiled water,
quickly boiled water, boiled with an electric
range, an electric pot. It may be beacause I
almost always avoid spicy, seasoned, salty foods
and strong-tasting drinks. For example, I noticed
that if I drink gongfu-prepared oolongs or pu-erhs,
on the next day my usual brewed whites and
greens taste too bland. Once one more day
passes, my taste readjusts and I can enjoy
whites and greens again. -ak

Rainy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:05 am, Warren > wrote:
>> Will Yardley wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-24, Alan > wrote:
>>>> I don't think I've agreed more with an RFDT posting in quite a while.
>>>> It's also timely; I just read an article in Technology Review which
>>>> shows that the average US resident is responsible for 20 metric tons
>>>> of CO2 emissions annually. Compare that to 4 metric tons as the
>>>> worldwide average (US included). Even a homeless person in the US is
>>>> responsible for 8.5 metric tons per year!
>>>> I've long been an opponent of bottled water. Much has been written
>>>> about the phenomenon, so I won't repeat it here. My objections are
>>>> along the lines stated he the environmental cost of shipping heavy
>>>> bottles of water around the globe is ludicrous.
>>> <soapbox>
>>> I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to get that giving up
>>> meat would have a much greater impact on one's carbon footprint than
>>> giving up bottled water. I am kind of doubting that bottled water
>>> (rather than food production, energy costs, and personal transportation)
>>> plays a huge role in US citizens' carbon footprints.
>>> </soapbox>
>>> I do try to use a mixture of filtered water and bottled rather than only
>>> bottled water (and sometimes I'll even just use filtered), but I find
>>> that filtered water is usually either *too* filtered (i.e., doesn't have
>>> enough mineral content to make good tea), or else isn't filtered enough
>>> (off-tastes, flouride, etc.). I think I'm actually more picky about the
>>> water that I use for tea than I am for the water I drink or cook with.
>>> Some folks here have had good luck with re-mineralizing RO-filtered
>>> water.
>>> I grew up drinking tap water (the tap water where I grew up is great),
>>> but the (unfiltered) tap water here in Southern California, while safe
>>> to drink and not anywhere near as bad-tasting as the tap water in, say,
>>> Shanghai, is not very delicious.
>>> w
>> Perhaps the issue is that bottled water is an *unneeded* addition to the
>> carbon footprint of our species. That's how I see it. I drink bottled
>> water on road trips, camping, etc, but never just day to day. I see it
>> having it's place, but to market it as "green" is just plain misleading
>> IMHO.
>
> In fact, all of carbon footprint of our species is " unneeded ".
> Our species was a species before it had an appreciable
> carbon footprint. You might go over co2-producing
> activities and argue which ones are more or less
> unneeded and which ones are more/less costly:
>
> activity X: unneedness-factor: 0.2; co2 cost: 1cm3 per unit/liter/kilo/
> etc
> activity Y: unneedness-factor: 0.35; co2 cost: 2.5cm3 per unit/liter/
> kilo/etc
>
> By the way I found an explanation for Fiji green drop thingy:
>
> http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...rbon-negative/
>
> Anyway, I wouldn't call water unneeded. I can probably
> last a few weeks without food, much less cars and
> radios, but not more than a couple days without water.
> And if I have a choice of foul tasting water and nothing,
> I will often choose nothing (of course to a point).
>
> Good tasting water should be counted as one of
> basic human rights.. By the way, I'm particularly
> sensitive to water taste - I can feel much difference
> between tea made with slowly boiled water,
> quickly boiled water, boiled with an electric
> range, an electric pot. It may be beacause I
> almost always avoid spicy, seasoned, salty foods
> and strong-tasting drinks. For example, I noticed
> that if I drink gongfu-prepared oolongs or pu-erhs,
> on the next day my usual brewed whites and
> greens taste too bland. Once one more day
> passes, my taste readjusts and I can enjoy
> whites and greens again. -ak
>
i never called water unneeded, i called bottled water unneeded. awhile
there are areas of the world where safe water cannot be found and water
may need to be shipped in, putting water in little bottles and shipping
them halfway around the globe to someone who can just as easily turn a
faucet for the same quality is pretty much an unneeded item. It's yet
another example of how stupid humans are, and how easily they fall
victim to marketing.

--
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/ The Sushi FAQ ...><((((While>
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/ The Sushi Otaku Blog
HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/ Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/ The Tea FAQ
HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/ The Jerky FAQ
HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/ The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

On Jul 28, 7:33*am, Warren > wrote:

> there are areas of the world where safe water cannot be found and water
> may need to be shipped in, putting water in little bottles and shipping
> them halfway around the globe to someone who can just as easily turn a
> faucet for the same quality is pretty much an unneeded item.

This is the gist of the matter, isn't it? Water is necessary to life,
but bottled water may be anything from a frivolous luxury to a
necessity depending on one's circumstances.

Yes, I'll drink bottled water if I am thirsty and there are no other
options for water or some other thirst-quenching drink. However, I
don't buy bottled water by the case or jug because I'm satisfied with
the water I get out of the municipal water supply and filter myself.
If I lived in an area with horrible water, I'm sure I'd be making more
use of bottled water. Or one of those drive-up RO water kiosks.

Alan

On Jul 28, 10:33*am, Warren > wrote:
> Rainy wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Good tasting water should be counted as one of
> > basic human rights.. By the way, I'm particularly
> > sensitive to water taste - I can feel much difference
> > between tea made with slowly boiled water,
> > quickly boiled water, boiled with an electric
> > range, an electric pot. It may be beacause I
> > almost always avoid spicy, seasoned, salty foods
> > and strong-tasting drinks. For example, I noticed
> > that if I drink gongfu-prepared oolongs or pu-erhs,
> > on the next day my usual brewed whites and
> > greens taste too bland. Once one more day
> > passes, my taste readjusts and I can enjoy
> > whites and greens again. -ak
>
> i never called water unneeded, i called bottled water unneeded. awhile
> there are areas of the world where safe water cannot be found and water
> may need to be shipped in, putting water in little bottles and shipping
> them halfway around the globe to someone who can just as easily turn a
> faucet for the same quality is pretty much an unneeded item. It's yet
> another example of how stupid humans are, and how easily they fall
> victim to marketing.

1. My point is that good-tasting water is not " unneeded "
to me and apparently many other people.
2. In some areas indeed there is no safe water. This means
that for them, I'd use a stronger word and say it's crucial
for their survival, not merely needed.
3. Water out of my faucet has a metallic aftertaste.
Filtered water still tastes wrong in a way that's
harder to characterize but it's still very far off.
4. It would be much smarter of you not to suspect
people of being too gullible viz. water marketing
campaings when it's apparent that your tongue
is " not smart enough " to tell foul tasting faucet
water from delicious spring water.
5. People have different priorities. It would seem
that you like sushi, jerky and tea. I also like to
make sushi and obviously love tea but I'd never
make a claim that either of them is more
" needed " than good tasting water.

Exactly in the same way, you might argue that
air is needed for life but fresh air is not " needed ",
as you can survive without it. And yet few would
be willing to live downwind from a city dump,
regardless of the argument that there are cities
or countries who have it even worse.


>
> --
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/The Sushi FAQ *...><((((While>
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiotaku/The Sushi Otaku Blog
> HTTP://www.sushifaq.com/sushiyapedia/Sushi-Ya-Pedia Restaurant Finder
> HTTP://www.theteafaq.com/The Tea FAQ
> HTTP://www.jerkyfaq.com/The Jerky FAQ
> HTTP://www.omega3faq.com/The Omega 3 Fatty Acids FAQ

Not according to any tap water versus bottled water blind tasting
taste I've ever seen on the News@5 community service segment required
by the FTC for a broadcast license.

Jim


Rainy wrote:
....down the drain...
> 4. It would be much smarter of you not to suspect
> people of being too gullible viz. water marketing
> campaings when it's apparent that your tongue
> is " not smart enough " to tell foul tasting faucet
> water from delicious spring water.

> 2. In some areas indeed there is no safe water. This means
> that for them, I'd use a stronger word and say it's crucial
> for their survival, not merely needed.

Not only that, in some areas, there isn't enough water. Tap water
totally undrinkable (or so they say) - in some parts of China. But in
Fuzhou, it seems most people drink the tap water - but boil it first.
Except the kettle turns all brown on the inside after awhile. But the
boiled water tastes pretty sweet - but not quite as good as what's
available bottled. I don't know where the source of Fuzhou's tap water
comes from - maybe from the mountains surrounding Fuzhou I guess.

Water is kind of a scarce commodity in some areas - that's kind of
scary when you think about it.

Space Cowboy wrote:
> Not according to any tap water versus bottled water blind tasting
> taste I've ever seen on the News@5 community service segment required
> by the FTC for a broadcast license.
>
> Jim

I tried it just now and there is a clear difference. There's
many factors that can be at hand here.. As I mentioned
before, spicy and salty food makes it hard to appreciate
taste of light teas and water. Once my friend tried
filtering NYC tap water through a paper towel - after 1gal
bottle was filled, there was a black/rust coloured stain
on the towel. When I kept tap water in a bottle in the
fridge for a few hours, there was quite a bit of sediment
on the bottom, and it didn't look like mineral sediment,
it looked like some grayish flakes. Sometimes, every
once in a few months, the water here is not clear but
brown, like weak tea.

Bottled water is not all the same. Some of it comes from
tap, too. If they compared tap water from faucet to
tap water from bottles, no wonder they could not tell
the difference (although bottled tap water should be
filtered..). They sell water in cloudy-plastic bottles
that has a very strong plastic aftertaste - even much
worse than tap water. And yet people keep buying them.
If these same people were involved in the blind tests
than I'm not surprised at the result.

As far as I understand it's a common advice here
to filter tap water for tea. Is that wrong, then?
How many people here use plain tap to make
tea?

>
>
> Rainy wrote:
> ...down the drain...
> > 4. It would be much smarter of you not to suspect
> > people of being too gullible viz. water marketing
> > campaings when it's apparent that your tongue
> > is " not smart enough " to tell foul tasting faucet
> > water from delicious spring water.

Rainy > writes:

> [...]
> As far as I understand it's a common advice here to filter tap water
> for tea. Is that wrong, then? How many people here use plain tap to
> make tea?

I use filtered NYC tap at home.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

My water comes from an aquifer 500 feet below me. My tea kettle looks
like the Grand Canyon. When I change out the batteries on the smoke
detectors I clean out the faucets and washing machine filters. I've
gotten use to the mineral taste and when I drink other water I find it
odd tasting. People say my water taste better than theirs.

Jim

Lewis Perin wrote:
> Rainy > writes:
>
> > [...]
> > As far as I understand it's a common advice here to filter tap water
> > for tea. Is that wrong, then? How many people here use plain tap to
> > make tea?
>
> I use filtered NYC tap at home.
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /
> http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

> My water comes from an aquifer 500 feet below me. My tea kettle looks
> like the Grand Canyon. When I change out the batteries on the smoke
> detectors I clean out the faucets and washing machine filters. I've
> gotten use to the mineral taste and when I drink other water I find it odd
> tasting. People say my water taste better than theirs.
> Jim

> Lewis Perin wrote:
>> I use filtered NYC tap at home.
>> /Lew --- Lew Perin /
>> http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html



Hey and Hi,

I use NYC tap water too. It tastes just fine, and brews tea well for the most part. Water taste, as we all know, is, to a very large degree, a matter of what we're used to. But, there is a strong concensus that NYC water, which comes from reservoirs upstate, is clean and healthy.

On a recent trip to central Washington State, I drank tap water from an aquifer. It tasted excellent, and brewed tea better than NYC tap does. The story of my flight back, and why and how I failed to arrive here in NYC with a bottle of said water, is a story for another day. I will say that the WA water was not minerally, but very well adapted to tea brewing.

An experiment recently conducted at The Tea Gallery -- you might remember that place frm previous discussion -- placed two waters side by side, one NYC tap, filtered and stored for some few days in a very large ceramic basin, and the other newly drawn and filtered NYC tap. The former was noticably sweeter, less sharp, and brewed tea nicely. The results of blind (semi-blind) tastings were universal: Everyone reported the same thing, to one degree or another. I replicated the experiment at home and came up with similar results, even though my ceramic bowl was small by comparison (perhaps holding two quarts).

And that's my contribution to the water discussion.

Michael

Michael Plant > writes:

> [...]
>
> I use NYC tap water too. It tastes just fine, and brews tea well for
> the most part. Water taste, as we all know, is, to a very large
> degree, a matter of what we're used to. But, there is a strong
> concensus that NYC water, which comes from reservoirs upstate, is
> clean and healthy.
>
> [...]
>
> An experiment recently conducted at The Tea Gallery -- you might
> remember that place frm previous discussion -- placed two waters
> side by side, one NYC tap, filtered and stored for some few days in
> a very large ceramic basin, and the other newly drawn and filtered
> NYC tap. The former was noticably sweeter, less sharp, and brewed
> tea nicely. The results of blind (semi-blind) tastings were
> universal: Everyone reported the same thing, to one degree or
> another. I replicated the experiment at home and came up with
> similar results, even though my ceramic bowl was small by comparison
> (perhaps holding two quarts).

This is really interesting. But I wonder how much of the effect is
the ceramic and how much is that the water was allowed to breathe the
salubrious NYC air for a few days? Maybe a plastic basin would work
as well?

I'm not joking, except for praising NYC air...

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On 07/31/2008 18:36:15 Lewis Perin > wrote:

> [...]

>> I use NYC tap water too. It tastes just fine, and brews tea well for the
>> most part. Water taste, as we all know, is, to a very large degree, a
>> matter of what we're used to. But, there is a strong concensus that NYC
>> water, which comes from reservoirs upstate, is clean and healthy.

>> [...]

>> An experiment recently conducted at The Tea Gallery -- you might remember
>> that place frm previous discussion -- placed two waters side by side, one
>> NYC tap, filtered and stored for some few days in a very large ceramic
>> basin, and the other newly drawn and filtered NYC tap. The former was
>> noticably sweeter, less sharp, and brewed tea nicely. The results of
>> blind (semi-blind) tastings were
>> universal: Everyone reported the same thing, to one degree or another. I
>> replicated the experiment at home and came up with similar results, even
>> though my ceramic bowl was small by comparison (perhaps holding two
>> quarts).

> This is really interesting. But I wonder how much of the effect is the
> ceramic and how much is that the water was allowed to breathe the
> salubrious NYC air for a few days? Maybe a plastic basin would work as
> well?

> I'm not joking, except for praising NYC air...



Well yes, I realize you are not joking. The issues you raise did come up. The next step is to store water in various types of vessels to ascertain differences. It's OK to try this trick at home.
Michael

On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, Michael Plant > wrote:
> > My water comes from an aquifer 500 feet below me. My tea kettle looks
> > like the Grand Canyon. When I change out the batteries on the smoke
> > detectors I clean out the faucets and washing machine filters. I've
> > gotten use to the mineral taste and when I drink other water I find it odd
> > tasting. People say my water taste better than theirs.
> > Jim
> > Lewis Perin wrote:
> >> I use filtered NYC tap at home.
> >> /Lew --- Lew Perin /
> >>http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html
>
> Hey and Hi,
>
> I use NYC tap water too. It tastes just fine, and brews tea well for the most part. Water taste, as we all know, is, to a very large degree, a matter of what we're used to. But, there is a strong concensus that NYC water, which comes from reservoirs upstate, is clean and healthy.
>
> On a recent trip to central Washington State, I drank tap water from an aquifer. It tasted excellent, and brewed tea better than NYC tap does. The story of my flight back, and why and how I failed to arrive here in NYC with a bottle of said water, is a story for another day. I will say that the WA water was not minerally, but very well adapted to tea brewing.
>
> An experiment recently conducted at The Tea Gallery -- you might remember that place frm previous discussion -- placed two waters side by side, one NYC tap, filtered and stored for some few days in a very large ceramic basin, and the other newly drawn and filtered NYC tap. The former was noticably sweeter, less sharp, and brewed tea nicely. The results of blind (semi-blind) tastings were universal: Everyone reported the same thing, to one degree or another. I replicated the experiment at home and came up with similar results, even though my ceramic bowl was small by comparison (perhaps holding two quarts).
>
> And that's my contribution to the water discussion.
>
> Michael

I'd guess that was a result of the chlorine coming out of the stored
water. We have really good tap water too but it is no comparison when
I go to a local spring coming straight out of a mountain side near my
home. I've found that a good triple or quad filter on my tap gets it
very close to the spring water though.

And that's my contribution to your contribution to the water
discussion.

- Dominic
PS I'm back, and crazily jet-lagged

"Dominic T." > writes:

> On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, Michael Plant > wrote:
> >
> > An experiment recently conducted at The Tea Gallery -- you might
> > remember that place frm previous discussion -- placed two waters
> > side by side, one NYC tap, filtered and stored for some few days
> > in a very large ceramic basin, and the other newly drawn and
> > filtered NYC tap. The former was noticably sweeter, less sharp,
> > and brewed tea nicely. The results of blind (semi-blind) tastings
> > were universal: Everyone reported the same thing, to one degree or
> > another. I replicated the experiment at home and came up with
> > similar results, even though my ceramic bowl was small by
> > comparison (perhaps holding two quarts).
> >
> > And that's my contribution to the water discussion.
>
> I'd guess that was a result of the chlorine coming out of the stored
> water. We have really good tap water too but it is no comparison when
> I go to a local spring coming straight out of a mountain side near my
> home. I've found that a good triple or quad filter on my tap gets it
> very close to the spring water though.

He said both samples were filtered, though.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On Aug 1, 10:09*am, Lewis Perin > wrote:
> He said both samples were filtered, though.
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /

Yes, but there is chlorine and there is also chloramine which is often
used (chlorine and ammonia so it is more stable and doesn't aerate out
of treated water quickly) Most tap filters remove most of the *taste*
of chlorine but not all of the actual chlorine, so filtering and then
letting it sit will always remove more of it than just filtering or
just sitting. If it is treated with cholramine then tap filters do
less of a job of removing it.

Tap/pitcher/etc. filters are also highly variable in quality to begin
with and then you add on to it the flow rate, when it was last
changed, and on and on... so filtering often is doing less than most
would like to think. I'm not a scientist (don't even play one in my
free time) so anyone is free to disagree/challenge/agree with me, I'm
just going on my basic understanding and experience.

I'm lucky to have grown up in a fairly remote area of PA where there
were tons of well maintained natural springs and now in an area with a
few still and the water from them is amazing. Often "sweet" and
probably has pretty good mineral content which makes amazing tea. That
is what I compare to and even with a fairly high-end tap filter and
then into a filtered pitcher I still prefer to let my water sit for a
bit before using and get good results.

- Dominic

"Dominic T." > writes:

> On Aug 1, 10:09*am, Lewis Perin > wrote:
> > He said both samples were filtered, though.
> >
> > /Lew
> > ---
> > Lew Perin /
>
> Yes, but there is chlorine and there is also chloramine which is often
> used (chlorine and ammonia so it is more stable and doesn't aerate out
> of treated water quickly) Most tap filters remove most of the *taste*
> of chlorine but not all of the actual chlorine, so filtering and then
> letting it sit will always remove more of it than just filtering or
> just sitting. If it is treated with cholramine then tap filters do
> less of a job of removing it.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if anyone has reliable numbers on
filtration of chloramine and how fast it'll dissipate in water. A
little Googling found a site that said chloramine in water basically
won't dissipate at all, but it was definitely an anti-chloramine
advocacy site.

> Tap/pitcher/etc. filters are also highly variable in quality to begin
> with and then you add on to it the flow rate, when it was last
> changed, and on and on... so filtering often is doing less than most
> would like to think.

Right, the details matter with filtering (and water in general.)

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On Aug 1, 2:06 pm, Lewis Perin > wrote:
> "Dominic T." > writes:
> > On Aug 1, 10:09 am, Lewis Perin > wrote:
> > > He said both samples were filtered, though.
>
> > > /Lew
> > > ---
> > > Lew Perin /
>
> > Yes, but there is chlorine and there is also chloramine which is often
> > used (chlorine and ammonia so it is more stable and doesn't aerate out
> > of treated water quickly) Most tap filters remove most of the *taste*
> > of chlorine but not all of the actual chlorine, so filtering and then
> > letting it sit will always remove more of it than just filtering or
> > just sitting. If it is treated with cholramine then tap filters do
> > less of a job of removing it.
>
> Thanks for the info. I wonder if anyone has reliable numbers on
> filtration of chloramine and how fast it'll dissipate in water. A
> little Googling found a site that said chloramine in water basically
> won't dissipate at all, but it was definitely an anti-chloramine
> advocacy site.
>
> > Tap/pitcher/etc. filters are also highly variable in quality to begin
> > with and then you add on to it the flow rate, when it was last
> > changed, and on and on... so filtering often is doing less than most
> > would like to think.
>
> Right, the details matter with filtering (and water in general.)
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /

Yeah I could have better explained myself in my first reply, sorry...
I blame it on the jet lag I'm no expert on chloramine, the only
reason I even knew of it is because I've heard a bunch of warnings for
aquarium water if you live somewhere that does use it. It is used in
large cities, so NYC may use it. I'm sure it will leech out eventually
but how long, I have no clue. I'd say normal chlorine can be
noticeably dissipated in anywhere from a couple hours to a day
especially if it is poured vigorously initially or aerated in some
way. I fill my pond by keeping the hose way up high and letting it hit
hard so that it aerates as it fills instead of laying the hose in and
letting it fill.

From what I've seen as far as making aquarium water safe is chlorine
tap water needs 1-2 days, and chloramine needs a week. Again, how true
or scientific this is I have no idea. And aeration speeds it up, so in
theory simply boiling the water and letting it boil a short while
would also eliminate chlorine.

- Dominic