I don't see why people think they can drink clean water from a bottle. Or why they deserve to. If they keep drinking that "clean" water, they will definitely be forced to buy the plastic bottled water for drinking as well as bathing as well as watering the plants because all the ground water will be a toxic public pool due to all the plastic bottles leaching bleck into it.
Not to mention, the plastic leaches while it is waiting for you in the store. And leaches some more as you drink from it.
Leach away, Leacher.
And another reason you can't drink clean water from a bottle is because the karma surounding that bottle, karma leaching into your water, is dirty. Dirty karma running through your body. Dirty karma and leaching toxins and alien dildos, these plastic bottles.
So you tell me - for your health, which water do you choose to drink? Pretty soon we'll be purchasing clean air. Eventually the poor will suffocate cause they can't spare a dime for the necessities of life.
12 comments
Links to this post
12 Comments:
live under certain conditions your whole life, assume those conditions will always continue. haven't experienced it? doesn't exist.
Well said. In fact, I personally, have no proof that MY body is going to perish. I will implement your theory and call it the Live Forever Axiom!
"I am immortal until proven otherwise"-a very wise man.
so watcha drinkin' these days TK?
i admit my greatest sin against MommyG is the consuption of bottled water...
except when i don't.
then i get meeeeeaaaaan.
have a wet day
nemo
http://www.biotaspringwater.com/bottle
Now Portland just needs a place to recycle these bottles!
Yes, Biota Spring Water is the only water bottled in compostable plastic - what a pioneer! The cost per bottle is right down the center of the bottled water market. Check out http://biotaspringwater.com. Don't be misled though: compostable plastics, made of corn and wheat instead of petroleum, return to soil ONLY IF THEY ARE DEPOSITED IN A COMMERCIAL COMPOST HEAP (these tempuratures reach over 120 F - that's the difference). This means they do not compost in your personal compost heap, they do not compost if you throw them in the trash can, they do not compost if you through them out your car window.
The good news is that as more and more plastics become corn and wheat based (out of necessity), commercial compost deposits will become more readily available to mainstream disposal (the green residential garbage bin in Hollywood goes to commercial compost sites, but likely, they would mistakenly think the Biota bottle was made of petro and remove it!). Of course there are commercial compost sites in almost every city and the dedicated composter can hand deliver their compostable plastic there directly.
Portland may not have commercial compost pick up, but I have heard they have a Metro Store that recycles perfectly good objects from the landfill. If you know that link, hook me up. Pioneers.
Also, here in Venice/Santa Monica CA, the raw restaurant http://euphoriacompany.com uses compostable plastics and has a segregated deposit bin on site so they can deliver the compostables to the commercial site themselves!
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp
It's not true. I know it's a great cause for the passionate environmentalist, but it's just not true. Yes, they won't degrade. Yes, they last for a long time and we shouldn't throw them away. But they do not cause biological damage to the body. There is NO proof. It is simply not true. Sorry.
Studies have confirmed that BPA's do indeed leach into water. Here is "proof" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12586156&dopt=Abstract.
Being a raw foodist has taught me more about health - true health - than any Reader's Digest article or Cosmo Magazine feature. Mostly, that studies concerning plastic water bottle degradation, petroleum fuel combustion impacts and cell phone radiation exposure (for example) with regards to our health is conservative at best. How many times in 20th century history has a product been yanked from the shelves due to conservative health testing. Often times with grave results.
As a raw fooder, I refuse to wait for Reader's Digest to tell me when something is safe or not safe for me. I do my own research - mostly on my own body. I listen to the signals and my intuition and go from there.
My body has told me through taste, observation and feeling that plastic water bottles are bad for my personal health and the environments health. Proof positive.
I read the link you posted. Since I do not have a background in chemical engineering, I did not understand the more technical aspects, but it seemed to me that it was explicitly referencing SALT-water, not fresh water. I drink fresh water.
Did you even read the link I posted? Did you even consider for a moment that what I had to say was relevant or could possibly be true? Or did you ignore the link and place me unceremoniously into the category of "people who do not agree with you"?
I read the link you posted. I understood it to the best of my ability, as it is highly technical information meant for people with much higher intelligence than myself. Now I ask you to show me the same respect and read the link I posted earlier:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp
As well as these two:
http://cnpublications.net/2006/11/07/dioxin-expert-dispels-rumors/
http://walking.about.com/od/fluids/f/reusingbottles.htm
The latter article includes references for further research. I am very sorry that you think of me as an uneducated lout who reads what you consider to be "low-class" material. However, please understand one, very important thing:
My link is that of a reputable research source, the proprietors of which attempt to be as thorough and objective as possible. I made no reference to Reader's Digest or Cosmo.
Here are some more articles that support Tonya's views in some respects. As the earlier poster stipulated, I have tried to use only objective, non-biased sources. Seems to me that there's more than one side to this story...
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2004/08/02/umbra-bottles/
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200311/lol5.asp
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfeet7.htm
I did indeed read all of the articles posted here and thank you so much Anonymous #1 and Anonymous #2 for sharing this riviting reading material.
Anonymous #2, I really appreciate your support siting actual studies with actual findings and not just the typical FDA/corporate rebutal of "there simply isn't any proof" so full speed ahead revenue generating tactics. Anonymous #1, I'm sorry if you took personal offense to my writers' impact choices of siting Cosmo and Reader's Digest as the main source of health information for the majority of the United States. No where did I imply that the readers of either of these magazines are "uneducated louts" or "low class material" as you offered, nor did venture implication that you yourself read either. Obviously you would never. My appologies for the misunderstanding.
I feel a bit misunderstood myself and I think it comes down not to validity of information or correctness of perspective, but what we choose to do with our information and perspetives. Some people wait for proof before they make changes. When it comes to my environment and especially my body, I say, "better safe than sorry."
If we still wish to site web references, I will remind readers that the FDA still refuses to say that Red Dye #2 causes cancer when indeed multiple studies have found this to be the case, even in small doses. (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=red%20dye%20%232) AND although the FDA has banned Red Dye #2 from additives to any foods and cosmetics to this day - it still refuses to publically state the facts. The reluctance to state that a substance intentionally added to our food has been foudnd to specifically cause an increase in malignant tumors has more to do with avoidance of responsibility and monsterous potential law suits than health care.
Has anyone ever actually read the 12 pages of obligatory statements mandated by the government to be printed in the back of your cell phone manual? Pay attention to the note about the United Kingdom's approach to cell phone warnings with children vs. our governments "no proof" radiation theory.
And that is how I approach my body's and environment's health. Instead of trying to get away with as much as possible, I will stive to live as cleanly as possible. There is no harm done to you or your children in that.
Thank you, I accept your apology. I did take your statement a bit personally; I got irritated because it sounded like you were ignoring my post entirely and making an ad hominem attack based on "all mainstream media is stupid". I also apologize to you for my occasionally antagonistic attitude; it's harder to get these things across in print. Also, I am beginning to have my own doubts about plastic bottles, especially concerning those BPA things. I have to do more research to find out what the deal is with those.
Having said that, it's interesting that the data you agree with are "actual studies with actual findings" and the data you don't agree with is "just the typical FDA/corporate rebuttal of 'there simply isn't any proof'". I admit to not using professional scientific journals, but that is because I am not a scientific person. The first link, Snopes, is an objective married couple who try to find the truth in urban myth and rumor. They are not funded by the FDA or Big Oil, so I can't understand why their conclusions are not substantiative.
Similarly, the CNN news report is an interview with "Rolf Halden, PhD, PE, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences and the Center for Water and Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Halden received his masters and doctoral degrees researching dioxin contamination in the environment." I can't find any evidence that his testimony is influenced by the evil FDA, so I conclude that he is probably more informed than myself.
The third article cites from the American Plastics Counsel (which, understandably, wants us to buy plastic), but it also cites research from the University of Minnesota and Society for Risk Analysis 2001 Annual Meeting. These articles are available in the hypertext at the bottom, and don't seem to be funded or influenced by corporate interests.
So why aren't these sources "actual studies with actual findings"? Is it because they contradict you? If they are published in peer-reviewed journals, why can't they be weighed with the supporting evidence? That's how research is done; you can't just use the data you agree with. I had a person in one of my college classes do a thesis on how the U.S. only reports negative stories about Africa. To support that thesis, he only used headlines and newscasts with negative reports on Africa. When asked about headlines that did not paint Africa negatively, he responded "I didn't use any of those, because they don't support my thesis." That is faulty research. To properly understand a subject, you MUST weigh all evidence. A hypothesis is, by definition, able to be true or false, or somewhere in between. If you presuppose the hypothesis to be true, then only use positive evidence in your conclusions, you miss the entire purpose of scientific research.
(None of this has anything to do with your own experiences and body reactions. Those are your own to interpret as you feel necessary. If you find that not using plastic bottles is better for your personal health, good. Make that decision. I'm getting so argumentative mainly because people, myself included, often have ideological blinders to the possibility that they could be wrong. It bugs me.)
Also, if the FDA is so evil and lies about Red#2, then their testimony about the carcinogens in grilled meat must be lies too, QED. Otherwise, the mere fact that they BANNED Red#2 should be enough to satisfy you.
Cell phones are not relevant here.
We are debating differernt points here. I am concerned with the individuals' proactive approach to health, you are concerned with concept of bias vs. open mind.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link