Simply Green News and Entertainment

Water: The Myth of Bottled


Farrah Sarafa - Columnist
Posted on Monday 5th October 2009

Oceans, rain, cascading waterfalls: countless poems derive their inspiration from the important liquid on which our emotional, physical and spiritual operations depend. Controlled addition of fluorides to the public water supply helps to keep the enamel of our teeth from wearing down. It prevents gum disease and tooth decay, the latter of which is extremely expensive to treat. Despite its benefits, such public action was initially controversial, as opponents deemed it a subversive Communist act. Fluoride opponents point to evidence that fluoride may cause tooth fluorosis in children and brittle bones in the elderly. As a result, several European countries have eliminated the additive.

Lead, sewage, pathogens, bacteria, animal waste and heavy metals regularly contaminate drinking water, so several filtration and purification methods are enforced by the government in order to reduce the presence of harmful contaminants in public water. Filtration reduces toxins by 90-99%. Reverse osmosis is the most effective method, though there is certainly no such thing as 100% pure water.

This applies to bottled water as well. Spring water, seltzer, mineral and sparkling contain chemicals and plastic leached from the bottle. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, there is no evidence that bottled water is any safer for consumption than tap water. In fact, 25% of bottled water is nothing but normal tap water.

So what’s with the illusion that bottled water comes from mountainous pristine springs? As a child, I watched my brothers go through several plastic bottles a day, even though we had a home filtration system. Whether they were sitting in front of the television or driving their SUV’s, it broke my heart to see how wasteful convenience could actually be.

Half-a billion people suffer diseases caused by water contamination. Tap water contamination is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency according to the terms of the 1994 Safe Water Drinking Act. The EPA regularly draws up Contaminant Candidate Lists (CCL’s), which provide for testing and regulation. No such laws govern bottled water contaminants. According to the International Bottled Water Association, bottled water sales have increased by 500% in the last decade—even more atrocious when we consider that a great deal of bottled water is just tap.

I do not mean to say that we should not filter our tap water. Doing so can reduce our intake of carcinogens, chlorine, lead, Methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether and VOC’s. A faucet filter over the kitchen sink or a home filtration system can guarantee the purity of the water with which we bathe, shower, wash our face, cook and drink. While Brita and Aquasana filters are very effective against lead, they are not as effective at removing TCE, benzene, MTBE toxins. Most importantly we should first educate on the cleanliness of our local, home tap then choose which filter best suits our specific circumstance.

Posted on 5 October 2009 - 1:22pm by Guest ---Jwillie6.
5
Europe is 98% fluoride free. They caught on to this hoax many years ago.
Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health. Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several articles.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Fluoride affects the immune systems -- 12
Fluoride is neurotoxic (brain, nerves, lowering IQ) -- 11
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.
Posted on 5 October 2009 - 2:33pm by jeanruss.
Bravo! So happy to see you also know about the fluoride propaganda. "The Fluoride Deception" by Chris Bryson is an excellent read on this betrayal of humanity by USA corporations and their treacherous government.
Posted on 5 October 2009 - 5:21pm by Guest.
Fluoride is bad for teeth in many ways. Dental fluorosis is only caused by fluoride.The cells that produce the collagen matrix, which forms enamel, are poisoned to the point that they can no longer produce opalescent pearl-like enamel. Fluorotic enamel is irregular in texture, porous, chalky white to brown in color, and brittle. In severe cases, the enamel forms incompletely and corners easily break off the teeth. Many more restorative measures are necessary, such as crowns, laminates,bleaching, bonding, braces, and bridges. For the American and Canadian Dental Associations, this condition is a real money-maker, because cosmetic dentistry is far more lucrative than cavity repair. In addition, there is an abundance of evidence indicating that fluoride causes a delay in the normal shedding of the "baby" teeth, and their replacement by permanent teeth. This delay has been shown to increase the number of children with malpositioned teeth. Again, braces are far more expensive than fillings.(Note: In a 1972 report by the American Dental Association, it is stated that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.) (Douglas et al., "Impact of water fluoridation on dental practices and dental manpower", Journal of the American Dental Association; 84:355-67, 1972) Mandating fluoridation without regard to established risk factors such as age, kidney function, weight, physical condition, water consumption, total fluoride intake, and mitigating dietary calcium is medical negligence. Watch the fluoride deception video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&ei=f7mBSvbxN...
Posted on 5 October 2009 - 9:37pm by Lesley McMillan.
It is well known in medical circles from studies in 1920's that fluoride affects the thyroid gland. It was prescribed by doctors to patients with hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) in 1930's. I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's disease in 2007 resulting in hypothyroidism (low thyroid function). Now that I avoid fluoridated water and all products containing it my thyroid is functioning normally and I'm on no medication whatsoever. Fluoride affects metabolism at the cellular level so it would come as no surprise that it contributes to cancer. It is also not surprising that Australia and USA have highest obesity and related diseases. My story is on www.fluoridefree.net
Posted on 6 October 2009 - 3:57pm by nyscof.
1
Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department (1).
In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC’s fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million (1b).
Fluoride in water at “optimal” levels (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L) is supposed to reduce tooth decay without creating excessive fluorosis (fluoride-discolored and/or damaged teeth). Yet cavities are rampant in NY’s fluoridated populations (1c).
Analysis of Kumar’s data and references: http://tinyurl.com/MoneyDownTheDrain
Posted on 6 October 2009 - 4:57pm by Charles Strand.
Farrah,
Your comments are quite incorrect in several areas. I have been in the water quality industry for 23 years, have 17 patents for water filtration products and am the developer of the Aquasana Home water systems.
First, Aquasna is "Certified" to remove MTBE, VOCs, TCE, Benzene and many other contaminants. Not sure what you base your statement on that it's not. See http://www.aquasana.com/CA_Cert.pdf for Department Of Health Cert or UL Water Quality listing with the same certifications.
The water filtration industry is very regulated, much more than bottled water or city tap water and a product's "Performance Data Sheet" confirms what it does and does not do... it's not an opinion, yours or mine.
Second; RO is NOT effective for removing synthetic chemicals nor was it ever designed for that. It was designed to strip minerals from water for the printing and photo processing industry 60 years ago. Unfortunately, many companies market it as a "high tech" water purifier. Without a carbon filter attached to it, it cannot remove chemicals, only solids. Again, not an opinion, see World Health Org. study on de-mineralized water, which is what RO water is; http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized/en/
There is no question that tap water and bottled water contain unhealthy chemical contaminants. The ONLY sure way to get truly healthy water is with a quality home water filter. there are no "bad filters", any filter is better than no filter and a little research can easily show which one is right for you.
Charles Strand, CEO Sun Water Systems, Inc.
Posted on 7 October 2009 - 3:09pm by Farrah Sarafa.
Thanks Charles, I appreciate your clarifying the realities of these filtration methods. My article's aim was to expose bottled water though, not a critique of the different filtration systems or their overseers. I appreciate your specificity about these filters, (is refreshing after all the fluoride debate).

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
 
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
   ____   _   _  __     __  _____  __        __  _   _ 
/ ___| | | | | \ \ / / |_ _| \ \ / / | \ | |
| | _ | |_| | \ \ / / | | \ \ /\ / / | \| |
| |_| | | _ | \ V / | | \ V V / | |\ |
\____| |_| |_| \_/ |_| \_/\_/ |_| \_|
Enter the code depicted in ASCII art style.
LED Saving Solutions