|
Toronto Bans Bottled Water Sales (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
So, have you all failed to register that NaF is to be rinsed over your teeth, and not administered as a dental panacea for the masses in the water supply? |
says who? another one of your CIA = Nazi fluoride mind-control? again:
| quote: |
The efficacy of communal water fluoridation in reducing dental caries has been reviewed based on surveys conducted in the last decade of caries prevalence in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities in the United States as well as in Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand. The efficacy is greatest for the deciduous dentition, with a range of 30–60 percent less caries in fluoridated communities. In the mixed dentition (ages 8 to 12), the efficacy is more variable, about 20–40 percent less caries. In adolescents (ages 14–17), it is about 15–35 percent less caries. Current data on caries prevalence in adults and seniors are extremely limited and include several populations living in communities with higher than optimal fluoride levels. For these adults and seniors, a range of 15–35 percent less caries would also apply. Viewed in toto, the current data for children, adolescents, adults and seniors show a consistently and substantially lower caries prevalence in fluoridated communities. For an accurate measurement of the efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing dental caries, it is essential that only persons with a record of continuous or long-term residency in fluoridated versus nonfluoridated areas be included in such assessments. Because of the high geographic mobility in our society and the widespread use of fluoride dentifrices, supplements, and other topical fluoride agents, such comparisons are becoming more difficult to conduct. Accordingly, the effectiveness (rather than the efficacy) of water fluoridation has decreased as the benefits of other forms of fluoride have spread to communities lacking optimal water fluoridation. |
basically, fluoride in water is less important than it was 50 years ago, because of an increase in general oral health practices. but nowhere are there studies that the tiny amount of fluoride in water are problematic for the populace, especially considering that natural levels higher than what is placed in water occur in various parts of the world.
looking forward to your next non sequitur. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
You have an affinity for cliche phrases and lists, don't you? |
LOL, coming from the conspiracy theorist that's quite amusing! you guys live for the over-used catch phrase.
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I could care less, it merely lowers my expectations for the lot of you. :wtf: |
the expression is "couldn't care less" champ.
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
What wasn't posted in context, might I enquire? |
well, posting that flouride is a poison therefore it is evil and bad and should be banned. if you take enough of just about anything it can be poisonous, you still haven't provided a published study that supports your conclusion(s), merely out of context snippets that you think supports your view (they don't).
i would like to know why you think fluoride is put in water in various countries across the globe? if its oh-so-obvious to everyone that fluoride is bad, then why are we still using it and why can't you present a published study? :conf: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You
Bob Sprague
Mary Bernhardt
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water. Although fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, the scare tactics of misguided poisonmongers have deprived many communities of its benefits.
The history of fluoridation in the United States underlines its unique standing as a public health measure copied from a natural phenomenon. In the early 1900s, Dr. Frederick S. McKay began an almost 30-year search for the cause of the staining of teeth that was prevalent in Colorado, where he practiced dentistry. In his investigation, McKay found the condition common in other states, including Texas, where it was known as "Texas teeth." In 1928, he concluded that such teeth, although stained, showed "a singular absence of decay," and that both the staining and the decay resistance were caused by something in the water. In 1931, the "something" was identified as fluoride.
The Public Health Service then took over to determine precisely what amount of fluoride in the water would prevent decay without causing staining. Years of "shoeleather epidemiology" by Dr. H. Trendley Dean traced the dental status of 7,000 children who drank naturally fluoridated water in 21 cities in four states. In 1943, he reported that the ideal amount of fluoride was one part per million parts of water. This concentration was demonstrated to result in healthy, attractive teeth that had one-third as many cavities as might otherwise be expected—and no staining.
The next step was to determine whether water engineering could copy nature's amazing dental health benefit. At several test sites, the fluoride concentration of the public water supply was adjusted to one part per million.
One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply. After ten years, the children of Newburgh had 58% fewer decayed teeth than those of nonfluoridated Kingston. The greatest benefits were obtained by children who had drunk the fluoridated water since birth. Other studies showed that teeth made stronger by fluoride during childhood would remain permanently resistant to decay. As the evidence supporting fluoridation accrued, thousands of communities acted to obtain its benefits.
Too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which, in its mildest form, causes small, white, virtually invisible opaque areas on teeth. In severe form, fluorosis results in brownish mottling. However, dental fluorosis is not caused by artificial fluoridation, because the levels are kept low enough to avoid this effect.
In recent years, fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults. The reduction is less than it used to be, probably due to improved dental hygiene and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. Currently, more than 140 million Americans live in fluoridated communities. But 80 million others receive public water supplies that are not fluoridated—thanks largely to the efforts of poisonmongers.
How Poisonmongers Work
The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them—because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.
A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.
A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate—expecting that it will increase readership.
The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.
Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances—even pure water—can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.
"Experts" are commonly quoted. It is possible to find someone with scientific credentials who is against just about anything. Most "experts" who speak out against fluoridation, however, are not experts on the subject. There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective.
Innuendo is a technique that has broad appeal because it can be used in a seemingly unemotional pitch. Some antis admit that fluoridation has been found safe "so far," but claim that its long-range effects have "not yet" been fully explored. The waiting game is a related gambit in which antis suggest that waiting a bit longer will help to resolve "doubt" about fluoridation's safety. No doubt, some antis will continue to use this argument for a few hundred more years.
A few antis have offered a "reward" for proving that fluoridation is safe. During the 1970s, a $100,000 offer required the pros to post a bond "to cover any costs which the offerers of the reward might incur if the proof is deemed invalid." The offer did not state who would judge the evidence, but it was safe to assume that the antis themselves would have appointed the judges. If a suit had been filed to collect the reward, the court might have ruled that the offer was a gambling bet that should not be enforced by a court. Such a suit would have required at least $25,000 for the bond and legal fees. Even if it had been won, however, there was no assurance that the money would have been recovered from the individuals who sponsored the reward. Most of them were elderly and scattered widely throughout the United States and Canada.
Since the scientific community is so solidly in favor of fluoridation, antis try to discredit it entirely by use of the conspiracy gambit. The beauty of the conspiracy charge is that it can be leveled at anyone and there is absolutely no way to disprove it. After all, how does one prove that something is not taking place secretly? Favorite "conspirators" are the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the aluminum industry. Apparently, in the minds of the antis, these groups could all be working together to "poison" the American people! Years ago, conspiracy claims would work primarily with the very paranoid. But modern-day government scandals may make them seem realistic to a wider audience.The "slippery slope" claim is a related gambit. "This is only the beginning!" the antis wail. "First they will add fluoride, then vitamin pills, and the next thing you know it will be birth control pills!" Who "they" are need not be specified.
Scare words will add zip to any anti campaign. Not only the more obvious ones like "cancer" and "heart disease," but also more specialized terms like "mongoloid births" and "sickle-cell anemia." Ecology words are also useful. Calling fluoride a "chemical" (rather than a nutrient) can strike fear in the minds of many Americans who fear we are already too "chemicalized." The fact that water itself is a chemical and the fact that responsible use of chemicals is extremely helpful to our society will not reassure everyone. Fluoride is also called "artificial" and "a pollutant," which is "against nature."
Faced with the fact that fluoridation merely copies a natural phenomenon, the antis reply that "natural" fluoride differs from "artificial" fluoride—a "fact" as yet undiscovered by scientists.
Suggesting alternatives is another common tactic. Here the antis propose that the community distribute free fluoride tablets to parents who wish to give them to their children. The suggested program sounds "democratic," but it will not be effective from a public health standpoint. Most parents are not motivated to administer the 4,000+ doses needed from birth through age twelve. The plea for alternatives is often made by a "neutral" individual who sounds like he will support an alternative program if water fluoridation is defeated. Don't bet on it. Such advocacy is almost always a propaganda ploy.
Once fluoridation has begun in a community, antis can resort to the "cause-of-all-evil" gambit—blaming fluoridation for everything that occurred after it started. An example of this tactic, one that backfired on opponents, took place in Cleveland on June 1, 1956—when fluorides were to be added to the city's water supply. That day, the phone calls began: "My goldfish have died." "My African violets are wilting." "I can't make a decent cup of coffee." "My dog is constipated." Although the basis of such complaints is emotional rather than physical, this time fluoridation's innocence was beyond question. Last-minute problems had delayed its start until July!
"Let the People Decide"
The antis' most persuasive argument, both to legislators and to the general public, is to call for a public vote. On the surface, this appears to be the democratic way to settle the issue. But the antis are dealing from a stacked deck. First, the people who need fluoridation the most—the children—do not vote. Second, it is not difficult to confuse voters by flooding the community with scare propaganda. Average citizens do not have the educational background to sort out claim and counterclaim or to judge which "authorities" to believe. To turn against fluoridation, they don't need to accept all the anti arguments—only one. The sheer bulk of the controversy is itself likely to arouse doubt in the minds of most voters.Antis who say, "Let the people decide," may sound as if they wish to use a democratic process to make the decision, but experience in many cities has shown otherwise. If fluoridation wins a referendum, the usual anti response is to work for another one. In some communities that allow repeated referendums on the same subject, fluoridation has been in and out, and in and out again. When this happens, not only do children suffer, but taxpayers are saddled with the cost of the referendums.Curiously, studies have shown that referendums can lose even in communities where public opinion favors fluoridation. People will usually go to the polls to vote against what they don't like. So the crucial factor in many referendums is the ability of proponents to mobilize the supporters. A 1998 Gallup Poll commissioned by the American Dental Association found that when asked "Do you believe community water should be fluoridated?" 70% of respondents believed that community water should be fluoridated, 18% did not, and 12% were undecided. Yet small numbers of vocal critics still manage to impede its implementation in many communities.
Cancer Scares
In the mid-1970s, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. and another anti began issuing a series of reports claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that these reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. They had compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to consider various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the claims, but they still surface today in many communities that consider fluoridation.In 1990, the cancer charge was raised again following an unauthorized release of data from an experiment in which rats and mice were exposed to high dosages of fluoride. The experiment was conducted by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The agency's final report stated that there was no evidence of cancer-causing activity in female rats or in male and female mice and only "equivocal evidence" in male rats. Subsequent review by a U.S. Public Health Service expert panel concluded that the data were insignificant and that fluoridation posed no risk of cancer or any other disease.
Don't Be Misled
As a public health measure, fluoridation is unusual in several ways. It is a copy of a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is supported by libraries full of articles that document its safety and effectiveness—more so than any other public health measure. It is supported by a variety of health, scientific, and civic groups that could hardly be expected to agree on any other single measure. But most significant, it is the only health measure that is often put to public vote.If you live in a community with fluoridated water, consider yourself lucky. If you do not, don't let the poisonmongers scare you. Fluoridation is still a modern health miracle.
For More Information
* The American Dental Association offers a large amount of additional information on fluorides and fluoridation. The American Dietetic Association has a position statement on fluoride and dental health. U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statement The National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research has links to a large number of informative sites.
* Fluoridation: A Roadmap for Legislators
* Fluoridation status of 50 largest U.S. cities (PDF document) Fluoride supplementation for children in nonfluoridated communities Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoridation Opponent, Dead at 58. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (1991): Public Health Service report Statement of support from Dr. Linus Pauling
* Statement of support from Dr. Benjamin Spock
* Database: Status of Fluoridation in Your Community
_______________________
This article was adapted from The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America. In 1993, when the book was published, Bob Sprague was an assistant professor of journalism at Emerson College in Boston. Mary Bernhardt, a freelance journalist who specializes in dental topics, was administrator of the Research and Education Foundation of the American Association of Endodontists. From 1968 to 1976, she served as secretary of the American Dental Association's Council on Dental Health. Dr. Barrett has updated portions of this article.
This article was revised on March 4, 2001.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthP...n/fluoride.html |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
So -without being redundant- (this is stating something more than once, needlessly) can you back that statement up?
I understand that you have poor reading comprehension, and something longer than a paragraph understandably would confuse you.
Let me reiterate for your benefit: Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminimum smelting, |
Since you can't read either numb nuts (and, might i add, resorted to personal attacks).......
First and foremost.... note the word hypothesis as to why your statistic might not be so black and white as you think it is (ie where is the data behind your abstract statistic that you so nicely threw out into discussion). What was the study group size, how was control established, did the study group have similar lifestyle and diet etc etc.
Next, your claims of fluoride salts being a derivative of aluminum smelting
| quote: | | Fluoride compounds are found naturally in the ground water in some regions, such as Colorado.[4]. Fluoridation chemicals are typically added to potable water in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid (also known as hydrofluorosilic acid or fluorosilic acid).[5][6] This acid is largely a byproduct of phosporic acid plants which process phosphate rock.[7] Since 2005, reduced phosphate processing has led to an increase in the price of fluorosilic acid, with one community seeing a 105% price increase in the past two years.[8] |
Aluminum is not produced from phosphate rock, its produced from bauxite.
While i'm at it.....
MSDS is not a smoking gun for any chemical or compound. Hand soap looks like serin gas on an MSDS sheet. for Sodium Fluoride this is the LD50 dosage listed on the MSDS "LD50, oral (goat, sheep) 100 mg/kg". It also lists no other observed side effects from moderate doses.... |
|
|
| culorut |
LOL, PKC is still upset and ruining threads?
Ban his stupid ass already. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
let me guess, you subscribe to that ancient conspiracy theory, that adding fluoride to the water supply is a means of mind control? :haha: |
:rolleyes:
Absolutely 100% retarded. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
LOL, PKC is still upset and ruining threads?
Ban his stupid ass already. |
Says the guys who has started a thread over the conspiracy of tap water.
First and foremost, this will eliminate tons of useless plastic from entering the dumps, which means less trucks per day hauling Toronto's garbage to Michigan. Ignoring the fluoride conspiracy..... chlorine is one of the most economical bulk treatment options for potable water supplies. Do you expect the city of Toronto to build the worlds largest RO unit to filter all the water that comes into the city from their two 1.8m intake pipes?
currently the only alternative to chlorination for the removal of bacteria and microbes is uv treatment. The largest installation of which for drinking water ever installed was for Seattle Washington, which has a supply base for about 600,000 people, where as toronto has a little over 5.5 Million. This technology has never been attempted on a scale of that magnitude.
Most new drinking fountains have built in secondary filtration systems in them. Bottled water is the biggest consumeristic scam since the chia pet. I can buy 1 cubic meter of water in ottawa for just over 1.15$ and a 500 mL bottle of water costs almost 2$ and is only 1 2000th of the volume. not to mention it comes in a nice snazy non biodegradable container, that usually ends up in a trash can, or on the ground somewhere.
In conclusion..... I hope they ban bottled water across the board. (and FFS your outraged that you cant buy a bottle of water at CITY SERVICE CENTERS!!! boo hooo, city hall and hockey rinks cant sell you water anymore.....) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
In conclusion..... I hope they ban bottled water across the board. (and FFS your outraged that you cant buy a bottle of water at CITY SERVICE CENTERS!!! boo hooo, city hall and hockey rinks cant sell you water anymore.....) |
as a side note, i know a professor from the New Jersey Institute of Technology that is working on the design of plastic bottles created from Corn (which as everyone knows, the US grows too much of to begin with). These bottles are biodegradable and recyclable. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
as a side note, i know a professor from the New Jersey Institute of Technology that is working on the design of plastic bottles created from Corn (which as everyone knows, the US grows too much of to begin with). These bottles are biodegradable and recyclable. |
I have huge issues with the use of a viable food source for packaging or as a fuel additive..... we have millions of starving people on the planet, and we are trying to convert cornbread to water bottles and ethanol.....
its a stupid process really. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | Says the guys who has started a thread over the conspiracy of tap water. |
I started a topic which stated bottled water was banned, if the author felt that tap water has issues it is his opinion you moron. Besides tap water contains tons of bacteria and fluoride within it and it is toxic so I would have to heavily favor the authors point.
They should have banned soda which is full of sugar and has a lot more serious health concerns. Diabetes anyone?
Instead of banning it outright they could have created a solution, removing something that was a much more healthy choice was absolutely the wrong decision when there is now no alternative.
You and PKC like to jump to conclusions and are just mad because no one gives a fuk what you say anymore.
Give it a rest already, the internet and only the internet made people like you two twats feel like you are important. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I started a topic which stated bottled water was banned, if the author felt that tap water has issues it is his opinion you moron. Besides tap water contains tons of bacteria and fluoride within it and it is toxic so I would have to heavily favor the authors point.
They should have banned soda which is full of sugar and has a lot more serious health concerns. Diabetes anyone?
Instead of banning it outright they could have created a solution, removing something that was a much more healthy choice was absolutely the wrong decision when there is now no alternative.
You and PKC like to jump to conclusions and are just mad because no one gives a fuk what you say anymore.
Give it a rest already, the internet and only the internet made people like you two twats feel like you are important. |
:o from cbc today
| quote: | Is bottled water safer than tap water?
Broadcast: Feb 8, 2000
Producer: Ines Colabrese; Research: Jenny Wells
Canadians have taken to bottled water like -- fish to water
Water, water, everywhere. So why are we drinking it from plastic bottles?
In the last two decades Canadians have taken to bottled water like -- fish to water.
"I think it's cleaner and purer and I don't really particularly like the idea of drinking tap water," says one woman we talked to.
Canadians bought more than 700 million litres of bottled water last year. We spent about half a billion dollars on it. In a country with lots of fresh, free water, what we pay for it by the bottle is astonishing.
The big, bold headline from one recent story says it all.
But water treatment systems do fail from time to time. News stories can drive people from the tap to the bottle.
Instead of turning away from the tap when there is the occasional problem, many people chose to drink bottled water all the time. And labels showing pure pristine environments further fuel the fad.
Many types of water
* spring water. Yes it comes from a spring. If it doesn't say spring, it isn't;
* mineral water, which is spring water containing minerals;
* and purified water.
Some is cleaned by adding ozone. Some is passed through high-tech filters. And a quarter of all bottled water comes originally from a municipal water source -- a tap.
We asked people why they choose bottled water over the stuff coming out of their taps.
"It's supposed to be better for you," says one woman. "It's supposed to be cleaner. Doesn't have as many chemicals in it."
We also asked if people notice any difference between bottled water and tap water:
"Not at all. No," says one man. Then why does his wife buy it? "I think it's a fad."
Then we asked if people would be surprised to find that scientists tell us that there is virtually no difference between tap water and bottled water and that tap water is totally drinkable.
"Actually no, I wouldn't be surprised," says one woman. "It's this mental block that I have that drinking water is better than tap water."
Pierre Payment
Pierre Payment says that "in most [of the] US and Canada water distributed as drinking water in the tap is very safe."
Payment is an internationally recognized microbiologist at the Universite du Quebec. He tested tap water in Quebec and found that a third of all gastrointestinal illnesses -- usually that means diarrhea -- are caused by the tap water. But such cases are rare, roughly translating into one mild illness every three years.
And that's not enough to make Payment switch to bottled water. But he has a more fundamental reason to drink tap water.
"I'm not an advocate for bottled water or water filtration devices," he says. "The main reason is a matter of cost for society… One cubic meter of water, of tap water, one thousand liters, costs about 50 cents, at the most, in most North American cities. Think about the cost of your bottled water at maybe... a dollar a bottle, it's extremely costly.
Think about the cost of your bottled water at maybe... a dollar a bottle, it's extremely costly.
Pierre Payment
"What I'm saying is that the risk is so low that I prefer to tell my city authorities that I need better water, [I'm] willing to pay for it and put the rest of the money on something else which I like."
Elizabeth Griswold represents the biggest of the Canadian companies that sell water by the bottle.
"I think that it's up to the citizens of Canada to make that decision," she says, "and if they feel that they want to invest that type of money in the infrastructure of municipal water sources and have drinking water quality to wash their cars and flush their toilet, that's a huge expense for something that really is never consumed."
Does she think that bottled water is safer than tap water?
Elizabeth Griswold
"When you compare bottled water to tap water, you're really comparing apples to oranges," she says. "And the reason why is because bottled water is regulated through the food and drugs act with Health Canada. And it is regulated just as any other food product is that you purchase in the grocery store. A lot of people don't understand that but it is a food product."
But aren't we simply comparing water with water?
"Well once you put it in a sealed container it is considered a food product in Canada and it has to meet the food and drugs act," says Griswold. "Municipal water supplies are not regulated by the federal government."
Many bottled water firms do claim their industry is more regulated than tap water. Scientists disagree, though.
Aren't we simply comparing water with water?
"There's more regulation in fact for tap water," says Payment. "If you look at the number of the samples that have to be taken for the water that gets to your tap, it's huge. I mean, each distribution system has to be tested on a regular basis almost daily.
"There are regulations for chemicals. In fact, some people have been saying we would like to see bottled water to be regulated as much as tap water."
Payment says there are two reasons bottled water sells so well -- marketing and fear.
"The risk of chemicals in drinking water is low," he says. "Some people say it's a soup out there of chemicals. Well, if it's a soup, it's a consommé that's so diluted that there's almost nothing in it. So in that sense, chemophobia is part of the equation. The other is marketing."
And what marketing. Coke and Pepsi are now selling bottled water. So, on a positive note, it may be that bottled water is replacing less healthy sugar-laden pop.
'Oxygenated water' is the latest trend in bottled water.
But some bottled water marketing people will try anything. Consider their latest, oxygenated water. It comes in brands like Clearly Canadian O2, flo2 and OxEnergy.
The high oxygen in these bottled waters is supposed to be especially good for high performance athletes.
"The bulk of our water goes to the National Hockey League," says Tom Mohr, vice president of OxEnergy in Woodbridge, Ont. "We have teams like the Detroit Red Wings, the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Buffalo Sabres, the Dallas Stars; it goes on."
In fact, some of the players on the Dallas Stars, such as Mike Modano and Darryl Sydor, said OxEnergy gave them the boost they needed to win last year's Stanley Cup.
But scientists are skeptical. Duncan MacDougall is a kinesiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"That would have no effect on performance at all," he says. "In fact, if an athlete were counting on getting his oxygen through this medium, then he would have to drink several hundred litres of water during his hockey game."
So what does MacDougall thinks happened with the Dallas Stars?
"I've worked with a number of athletes and they can be a pretty gullible, gullible group and I suspect that nine out of ten athletes, if we gave them a product and said this is going to make you perform better, then nine out of ten of them would actually perform better," MacDougall says.
"So it's really the placebo effect or the suggestion effect of these products."
Tom Mohr says it's not just the pros who are winning with his oxygenated water.
"We have one gentleman that comes in who has a teenage daughter playing high school hockey," says Mohr. "And she suffers from asthma and has to use a puffer when she plays. And since she started drinking OxEnergy, she can play an entire game without using it at all. And we get a lot of those kinds of stories."
Consider another use for high-oxygen water, though, says MacDougall: "Pour them in your fish bowl and your fish will be able to exercise a lot better because of course, fish exchange oxygen directly from water, unlike humans."
|
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/...ater/index.html
Beyond the fact that saying tap water is toxic because it contains fluoride is the stupidest thing that has come off your keyboard outside the 911 threads. The municipal water falls under much tighter regulation than the bottled water industry does.
The city did not ban water at all their facilities, they banned bottled water. You are arguing that they took away the healthy choice, well they didnt, can still get water, from a fountain, or in a glass (if they have a concession stand). either way people will still be hydrated, sure they won't have a nice bottle to throw away after. lets put this into perspective, If you have ever gone to wemf, you will know that on sunday morning when everyone is leaving, the venue looks like a bloody garbage depot. there are literally mountains of plastic bottles.
I feel bad for the morons who honestly think that drinking bottled water is healthier for them. But i think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks of this ban. The elimination of all the plastic waste is more than enough to rationalize banning these things.
Point me to one credible study that shows that fluoridation of drinking water at currently regulated levels is toxic to humans? Why is it that web searches on the topic of "hazards associated with potable water fluoridation" turn up nothing but the usual conspiracy drivel.....
As usual culrout, you copy and paste these disingenuous articles that are full of conjecture and blatant BS, and then when someone questions the validity of the fruits of your internet sleuthing capabilities, you just resort to personal attacks.....
your entire contribution to this thread has been ONE Copy-Paste, and TWO lame insults...... I bet you consider this a pretty productive thread by your standards....... |
|
|
|
|
