American Parkour Forum

Fitness and Training => General Fitness => Diet => Topic started by: David M. on October 24, 2010, 03:33:51 PM

Title: Water Consumption
Post by: David M. on October 24, 2010, 03:33:51 PM
Maybe this should be 'how much is too much' or something of the like. Anyway, for the past week I've been trying to up my water intake. Before I didn't think I was taking in enough. So anyway, the past week I've taken in about a gallon of water per day. Some people say this is too much but I don't think it is.

Obviously the first day or two it felt like I had to pee every 10 minutes. After that I was fine though.

I'm about 5'10" 167 pounds 15 years old. Do you think that much water is fine? What would you recommend?
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 24, 2010, 04:30:37 PM
Just make sure your drinking distilled or filtered water, youd be smart to stay away from tap or unfiltered, or water with anything ''added'' to it...
They say your suppose to drink half your body weight in ounces, but i just drink whatever i feel like drinking for that day. But side note, 95% of the time all I drink is water, unless I make juice from fresh squeezed fruit, I dont consume any other form of liquid by choice which is also wise.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Sparklefish on October 24, 2010, 04:45:24 PM
@Artisticflow: Sweet Bill Hicks quote in your sig.

@OP:  Recommended water intake for most people is half a gallon to a gallon.  You should be golden.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: David M. on October 24, 2010, 05:30:56 PM
Thanks guys.

Artisticflow - it's been filtered.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 24, 2010, 07:55:16 PM
There's nothing really wrong with tap water...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 24, 2010, 10:25:08 PM
There's nothing really wrong with tap water...

Umm are you serious... Yea theres nothing wrong with it other than its concoction of chemicals, and pharmaceuticals and metals, and chlorine, and our loving gov't is even adding lithium and sodium fluoride to it (like in your toothpaste) which in reality is a poison...
Just in case your not being sarcastic, ill provide some information which only took me 2 minutes to provide below of a few reasons why not to drink tap..

Fluoridated water truth
http://www.infowars.com/fluoride-direct-engagement-to-incite-public-inquiry/

Pharmaceuticals in our water supply causing bizarre mutations in wild life.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/59305/

10 Reasons to not drink tap water
http://ezinearticles.com/?Dont-Drink-Tap-Water---10-Reasons-Why-Not-to-Drink-Tap-Water&id=2086422

Retired brain surgeon interview on the truth of the deliberate added chemicals like fluoride to municipal water supplies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLI5jBN_oyo

I wont go hard core with this topic here, but we are being poisoned people, like I said, drink filtered water, it should only be common sense anyways...

Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 24, 2010, 10:29:03 PM
I can provide links too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

The fact that humans made it through millions of years of evolution consuming water with "chemicals" (minerals, salts, and metal compounds), I am not too concerned about the water that comes crystal clear through my tap.

Distilled water is pure H20 and missing out on the chemicals (minerals and salts, in particular) is not necessarily good.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 24, 2010, 10:44:25 PM
I can provide links too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

The fact that humans made it through millions of years of evolution consuming water with "chemicals" (minerals, salts, and metal compounds), I am not too concerned about the water that comes crystal clear through my tap.

Distilled water is pure H20 and missing out on the chemicals (minerals and salts, in particular) is not necessarily good.

Ok so I just watched your link, ( and I implore you to view mines)
The video you linked is more concerned about bottled water which doesnt justify or invalidate anything I said regarding tap...
Also that link is meant to keep someone sort of compartmentalized, it doesnt cover any of the issues Ive addressed with tap water.
Where i will agree with your link is that bottled water is usually a scam, and just a way to market tap water. Some have better quality like Zephyrhills, but most i.e. Dasani (coke product) and Aqua-Fina (Pepsi) are just as bad as tap.

I personally have reverse osmosis on my house and is were I get all my drinking water from, anyone who avoids tap for long enough, try drinking it again you will get a bad headache every time, thats speaking from experience..
You say because your water comes out of your faucet crystal clear that its ok to drink? Thats messed up logic, bleach can be clear but does that mean to drink it? Also you say humans made it through millions of years drinking water with chemicals (humans + millions of years doesnt sound right, try a couple hundred thousand lol), well this shouldn't have to be said, but the water then was very different than it is now. There was not as many chemicals in existence that mankind has forged together, and their water supply wasn't nearly as toxic due to basic pollution, and recyclation through a vastly more massive population, and even with that said, in pre industrial society, a lot of the health issues actually came from water sanitation.

Unfortunately, most people may not have water filtration on their home, which in that case they are better off buying distilled gallon jugs from the store. Its nonsense that you will have any 'deficiencies from lack of 'minerals' from drinking distilled water.. And if some how you did, that would just mean that your diet is deficient in said minerals ( which the typical American diet unfortunately is very dead and deficient.) Thus, you should not exactly be relying on water for 'minerals' in the first place,  and even IF there was some worry about missing said minerals, the ''poisons'' you will be avoiding from not drinking tap will far out weigh whatever negative stories that are out there of drinking distilled water.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Patrick Witbrod on October 25, 2010, 05:48:21 AM
What about well water? It has minerals in it but no chemicals. Well some wells do but mine doesn't.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 06:51:57 AM
Id say better if it was still filtered, its probably going to be a hit or miss with well water.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 06:56:36 AM
There is nothing wrong with filtering your water, but the hysteria of avoiding tap water is nonsensical.

Most of the links you posted are not what I would call reputable sources.  For example, from EZinearticlees.

Quote
1. Roughly 10% of all the water we drink has been used before; there's no such thing as NEW tap water!

What the hell does that even mean?  All of the water on earth has likely been used before.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 07:25:42 AM
There is nothing wrong with filtering your water, but the hysteria of avoiding tap water is nonsensical.

Most of the links you posted are not what I would call reputable sources.  For example, from EZinearticlees.

What the hell does that even mean?  All of the water on earth has likely been used before.

I had a feeling your only response was going to be in the form of saying what I posted was not credible, because you really have no counter argument for
the points Ive brought up other than your opinion. Like " the hysteria of avoiding tap water is nonsensical" - which is completely wrong, and Ive already explained why, but how about you emphasis on what you said.
 
As far as the article, I didnt sit and study the article picking the best article to post, like I said, links found in a 2min search just to make a quick point.
If you really want me to invest time into dropping a load of information of why not to drink tap water ( which should be common sense) then we can do that...

To be blunt, drinking tap water is not healthy for many reasons, and poisons are being added to municipal water supplies, that is a fact.
Regardless of what you 'think' is credible, Infowars.com is a site full of healthy alternative truth seeker information breaking the controlled false paradigms of the mainstream. Youd learn a lot there...
http://www.infowars.com/poison-tap-water/

Why dont you get a water analyst to test your tap water (ive done this) and youll see what your really filtering out for yourself, and if you do, youd be delusional to still think tap water is ok...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 07:39:56 AM
So angry.

Yes, public drinking is underfunded and it is not ideal...but if you drink tap water you won't die instantly like these sites are saying you will.  90% of the population today is living well into their 70s and 90% of them drink tap water.  Figures are speculative, of course, but its not shocking.

I have yet to see peer reviewed journal articles that show any sort of negative effects of prolonged tap water consumption.  Your sites are speculative.  Filtered water is probably safest, but the hysteria is uncalled for.

Of course, I have no "counter proof" because no such counter proof exists.  No reputable studies have been produced on this, and there isn't even strong anecdotal evidence that tap water "kills you" or is "poison" aside from water testing kits that prove there are compounds within the water.  These compounds are only a problem if you consume more of them than your body can flush out which is apparently not the case because we aren't all dead yet.

Its not like Roman times when lead in roman aqueducts was driving everyone mad.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 08:17:42 AM
Quote
So angry.

Not at all, but since you brought it up, now this is a point that needs to be made, nothing against you personally.

Quote
Yes, public drinking is underfunded and it is not ideal...but if you drink tap water you won't die instantly like these sites are saying you will.  90% of the population today is living well into their 70s and 90% of them drink tap water.  Figures are speculative, of course, but its not shocking.

No you will not die instantly, the sites are not claiming that either. A term for this is soft kill, which is something that is degenerative and kills you slowly while putting you in a state of dependence on pharmaceuticals while dramatically shortening the average lifespan.. They are doing this with the food supply also... You say 90% of the population today is living well into their 70s? Well human lifespan naturally is suppose to be over 100, but even if you dont believe that, thats fine but you must at least understand that people who are now 50+ years old, they did not grow up having the same poisons in their water, food, and air as we do now. The current young generations will not out live their grand parents, or maybe not even their parents, unless they are fully educated in proper natural organic eating and avoidance of these poisons and drugs..

Did you know that its already admitted by the CDC that cancer and heart disease will affect every 1 in 3 Americans; and close behind, but ever increasing diabetes 1 in 4 Americans, and etc... To think we are living longer is naive.

US ranks 49th in life expectancy, and 1st in Health care costs-
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/25/us-performance-on-life-expectancy-and-health-care-costs.aspx

To get a little more hardcore for you, none of this is by mistake either. I wasnt trying to touch on this here but this IS profitable depopulation. And as far as what you said about public water being underfunded, well our corrupt government is actually FUNDING the addition of lithium and sodium fluoride to your water for  "Behavioral modification on the populace." which has been admitted-
( Btw, fluoride is also a active ingredient in prozac.)

Lithium in drinking water ( Keep in mind these news reporters aka media gate keepers, they will not tell you the truth, almost everything is wrong with what they are saying about adding these chemicals to the water, their job is to train the ignorant public to think its ok to be forced medicated.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRqC5Z6sGs

http://thedailybite.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/neoconservative-think-tank-considers-adding-lithium-to-public-water-supply-to-control-crime-using-suicide-reduction-as-excuse/

Sodium fluoride and forced drugging of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GG3wTAx6Q

In the beginning of this next link, what more proof do you need?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqW0Hu3yGY&feature=related

Quote
I have yet to see peer reviewed journal articles that show any sort of negative effects of prolonged tap water consumption.  Your sites are speculative.  Filtered water is probably safest, but the hysteria is uncalled for.

Side note, now days most mainstream peer reviewed journals are fraudulent anyways when you understand that the very same institutions that are pushing their poisons or points of views on the masses are the same ones funding the research. Smoke and mirrors...

Also you say my sites are speculative, no they are just giving the hardcore facts, especially when earlier I linked to you a retired brain surgeon Dr Russell Blaylock, who is specially speaking on the points I have brought up.


Quote
Of course, I have no "counter proof" because no such counter proof exists.  No reputable studies have been produced on this, and there isn't even strong anecdotal evidence that tap water "kills you" or is "poison" aside from water testing kits that prove there are compounds within the water.  These compounds are only a problem if you consume more of them than your body can flush out which is apparently not the case because we aren't all dead yet.

No, there are plenty of counter points that exist, its just what you consciously choose to believe that matters. It is well studied of what the effects of said chemicals do to the human body. What isnt well studied is what said chemicals simultaneously mixing with other chemicals from numerous different sources do to the body throughout ones life span, which adds to my points even further of reasons to avoid...
Also once again its not about you dieing or getting extremely sick after you consume it, that would be idiotic and too obvious.
Specifically speaking on whats been added to the water supplies rather than whats naturally finding its way in there, sodium Fluoride, and a lot of the compounds in the water fall under the category of soft kill, and behavioral modification because they are modifying YOU...
This was done in the holocaust with the fluoride-
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=fluoride+used+in+holocaust&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-892

Another side note- Im sorry folks but yes this is the same fluoride thats in your toothpaste too, your best bet buy alternative brands of toothpaste from a health food store that have no fluoride, or use aluminum free baking soda to brush- old school.

Quote
Its not like Roman times when lead in roman aqueducts was driving everyone mad.

But on the contrary, it is...

I know this is a bit hardcore, but this is the truth, and I was provoked to tell it...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: TimothyJS on October 25, 2010, 09:12:52 AM
Those are some big stats you're using but they aren't that relevant.  Let me know when you succumb to fluorosis.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 09:21:13 AM
Those are some big stats you're using but they aren't that relevant.  Let me know when you succumb to fluorosis.

Emphasize? If your talking about life expectancy stats, no they are not directly related to tap water if thats what your saying, obviously there are many variables, but it was a supporting point I wanted to make.. Trying to find were what you said fits in this debate, fluorosis yes, its another side effect of fluoride... I understand this information is not popular or convenient to know, things of this nature never are, but if your going to debate it cool, but please emphasize your points against the points I have made, and against whats being said in the links Ive provided, lets keep this simple.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Steve Low on October 25, 2010, 09:32:16 AM
lol

unles there's heavy metals in your water supply you probably shoudl be focusing more on what you eat than the water you're drinking
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 10:13:22 AM
lol

unles there's heavy metals in your water supply you probably shoudl be focusing more on what you eat than the water you're drinking

Sigh, well im pretty sure heavy metals will be in just about everyone's tap water. Look im not trying to be a dick about this guys but how I see it, considering our bodies are more than 50% water, under what basis is the quality of the water we are drinking less significant than the food we are eating? Honestly this is not something you can compare between the two, you should be worried about your food AND your water. It is what it is...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 11:11:43 AM
Re: Your first post

TL;DR

Re: Your following posts

I understand you feel passionately about this and I am conceding/agreeing with you that filtered water is the best option - but villainizing tap water when it isn't all that bad for you is not something I am on board with.

FYI, in a good diet, a fair amount of your water intake comes form your food, not from your drinking habits.  Just another reason to focus more on ethical eating (locally grown produce, pasture-reared animal sources, etc.).
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 11:15:33 AM
To give you a bit of perspective, when I read your posts, I think of the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax that happened a while back...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

I feel your fears are misplaced...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 11:41:36 AM
Im glad you at least agree that water is better when filtered, but sorry nothing against you sir, but I AM ABSOLUTELY villianizing tap water for reasons given above. There is no hoax, these are not misplaced fears, my conclusions are well researched observations of whats actually going on, with personal experience backing it, I couldnt make this stuff up myself. Your attempts to invalidate anything I am saying is done by discrediting and lack of investigation to my claims,which is typical, were as I am being very clear and detailed in all of my responses... So lets try this, view this link which is one of the links I posted earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqW0Hu3yGY&feature=related

-and then in your 'opinion' give a point by point rebuttal about whats wrong with the information discussed in the link.
This is so at least we are looking at the same target to continue this discussion because so far you've been looking past everything Im saying...

**Example of the type of response Im looking for; according to this lone link, tell me how whats being put in the water is either
A.) Not really being put into the water, its all lies, conspiracy theories or made up.
B.) Not in any way harmful, or as Ill put it, poison, and that tap water is still not bad for you even with it in there.
c.) Ok that its being put into the water, no need for filtration, everyone should just shut up and accept it.

And that goes for anyone else who disagrees, I want to hear why ^...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 12:09:10 PM
I am not convinced - this is a news/radio/web cast that is clearly rooted in fear mongering.

Sodium fluoride is toxic - but so is water.  Water is brutally toxic if you overconsume, just like sodium fluoride.  Most anything is toxic if you overconsume.  You would find similar warning labels on pure sodium, as well, as that can be toxic if consumed directly in concentrations that are too high.  That doesn't mean that sodium or water are harmful, though.

There is no proof here.  There is no proof that these compounds, in these concentrations is so unhealthy that it will kill you.  10 point IQ drop?  I don't see see the data or our methods.  Truth is, religiosity is more of a predictor of IQ than tap vs. filtered water.

Truth is, filtering doesnt even really fix the "problems" you are putting on the table.  Activated charcoal only really gets rid of chlorine, IIRC.  More advanced filtering (that includes heavy metals such as silver) is necessary to get rid of other impurities.

I understand your concern but your sources are not compelling to me.  The guy in this broadcast claims there is a lot of science to back it up but pubmed and google scholar don't agree...so if you have other sources, bring them forward.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Daniel Arroyo on October 25, 2010, 03:45:57 PM
WOW you guys really dont understand what Artistic is trying to say.. It is not about the quantity of anything but rather the quality. why settle for something that is only 70% when you can get the full 100% somewhere else.

Chris you are trying to justify consuming Fluoride, after reading your last post it is equivalent to saying if you only consume teaspoon of bleach you wont necessarily die. BUT, don't forget that your body doesn't need bleach. Sodium Fluoride is not needed by the body however you may be mixing up Sodium Fluoride with Calcium Fluoride which is produced naturally.

Here
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/calcium-fluoride-vs-sodium-fluoride/

Now if that doesn't change your mind or let you at the very least reconsider the quality of your body-intake then I definitely refuse to respond to any rebuttal, because most of everything you are saying is conjecture.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 04:05:36 PM
Yet another site that is dedicated to conspiracy theories and propaganda.

Do you guys seriously not have one single source that is respectable?  Surely, if it was so easy to poison people with these compounds  in the quantities that are put into our water then somewhere, someone must have this documented.  What are you guys posting?  News articles from shady sites that are dedicated to conspiracy theories.

Now don't get me worng, I am not saying tap water is some godsend sent to us from the heavens to cure our diseases or something obscure.  (Both of) you are making extremely strong claims with zero credible evidence.  Where is the evidence?  Politriks and YouTube?  All of these videos are making bold claims but no one has cited a single source...

Doesn't it alarm you that you have been convinced to change your life, actions and line of thinking without any sort of credible backup?  You are taking these people's word for it without any proof.

If that is how you choose to life your life, then go for it.  That is not how I choose to live mine.  I don't really care if you respond because of my "conjecture".  I am saying that I am refusing to be of any opinion that strays from what is reasonable - you are the one who is conjecturing - making a bold claim with incomplete information that is provided by fear mongering websites and propaganda machines.

Seriously, this conversation is a bit ridiculous -- it reminds me of this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Quote
I am not convinced - this is a news/radio/web cast that is clearly rooted in fear mongering.

That radio show has numerous guest of different levels of credibility and expertise regularly discussing real issues outside of the controlled paradigm of the dumbing down mainstream news sources... Youd do good investing time in alternative media.

As far as not being convinced, In the last link I posted ( if you actually watched the whole thing) it even goes to a mainstream news clip at the water treatment facility and discusses 'that the sodium fluoride is being imported from China, and it has so many other additional chemicals and compounds mixed in it that they cant even call it sodium fluoride anymore'.  Not to mention its admittedly toxic by ingestion.. I mean it doesnt get anymore clearer than that, you have to be literally shutting off all your logic and discernment to not understand, unless you have become too determined to simply prove me wrong
.
Quote
Sodium fluoride is toxic - but so is water.  Water is brutally toxic if you overconsume, just like sodium fluoride.  Most anything is toxic if you overconsume.  You would find similar warning labels on pure sodium, as well, as that can be toxic if consumed directly in concentrations that are too high.  That doesn't mean that sodium or water are harmful, though.

I feel like this is a weak attempt to try to justify something that is wrong, instead of just admitting in the first place that it should not be in our water or going into our bodies, especially without full public consent, which fall under the category of forced medication.

Quote
There is no proof here.  There is no proof that these compounds, in these concentrations is so unhealthy that it will kill you.  10 point IQ drop?  I don't see see the data or our methods.  Truth is, religiosity is more of a predictor of IQ than tap vs. filtered water.

There are many other studies regarding that, but you probably wont look for them anyways.
There is so much opposing information out against fluoride now days as many people have awoken to these truths that its not even funny-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP7IPDfC3yg&feature=related
http://www.google.com/search?q=fluoride+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Fluoride truth hits Australia-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBRBPgTOt0

Quote
Truth is, filtering doesnt even really fix the "problems" you are putting on the table.  Activated charcoal only really gets rid of chlorine, IIRC.  More advanced filtering (that includes heavy metals such as silver) is necessary to get rid of other impurities.

Reverse osmosis, or distillation, which is the only kind of filtering ive ever mentioned in this thread. Are you now claiming that they do not work...

Quote
I understand your concern but your sources are not compelling to me.  The guy in this broadcast claims there is a lot of science to back it up but pubmed and google scholar don't agree...so if you have other sources, bring them forward.

Maybe Iam wrong to assume this but it appears that no matter what I post its obvious your only going to say that your not convinced or that its not credible... At what point does your own conscious intuition kick in and you realize something is wrong here on your own. At this point, I feel nothing will be credible with you unless its what you want to believe, and for someone in such strong opposition, I have seen nothing from you arguing against the post Ive made, other than your personal disagreement...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Sparklefish on October 25, 2010, 04:42:50 PM
Maybe Iam wrong to assume this but it appears that no matter what I post its obvious your only going to say that your not convinced or that its not credible... At what point does your own conscious intuition kick in and you realize something is wrong here on your own. At this point, I feel nothing will be credible with you unless its what you want to believe, and for someone in such strong opposition, I have seen nothing from you arguing against the post Ive made, other than your personal disagreement...

You've posted a lot of youtube videos and news articles.  Chris is asking for peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Happy Fries on October 25, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
The Internet is truly a wonderful thing. It can cater to everyone, and really democritizes the flow of information. EG, google something, and it will point you to what you want to see. Want to see evidence that tap water kills? Google it and bingo. Want to find scientific studies regarding "x"? You can find it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet. But, that doesn't mean it's correct or right.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 04:57:25 PM
I really am not trying to be a dick, but the sources you keep posting (youtube videos, news broadcasts, propaganda machines) are not credible at all.  Mainstream news media is fear mongering, too, probably just as badly as the propaganda machines you keep posting.

I did some google scholar searches for peer reviewed articles.  Really I dont care much about this topic, I just hate when people villainize something that isnt evil.  If you want to villainize HFCS, then go ahead, but tap water?  Thats a little absurd.  Here, look at these scholarly articles that are peer reviewed and you will see the difference between these and your hysterical/radical videos.

A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/

This study looks at fluorosis (adult staining of the teeth) and proves inconclusive that drinking water (As well as being compounded by other sources) has any effect on flurosis.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, the methods are sound.  Just look at the abstract if you like.  At worst, some children appear to be at an increased risk of stained teeth.  I am not exactly shuddering.

From the other studies I have read, the toxic for fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg.  The lethal dose is 500 mg in infants or 5-10 g (32-64 mg/kg) in humans. If you consume water with an absurdly high amount of flouride (5 ppm, lets say, thats .0005% of your water) you would need 1,000,000 g of water to read a 5 g lethal dose.  For TOXICITY (negative effects) you would need 1000g of water, which is about 1 liter per KILOGRAM.  That means I would need to drink about 90 liters a day.  If I am mistaken, correct my math...but that is the toxicity levels that are published.

EDIT: Math error...

BTW, whenever someone compares something to the Nazis, I am immediately turned off...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 05:20:30 PM
Just found this on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning#Chronic_toxicity


A weakening of bones, leading to an increase in hip and wrist fracture. At the level used in fluoridated water, decreased fractures are expected,[10] but the U.S. National Research Council found the overall evidence "suggestive but inadequate for drawing firm conclusions about the risk or safety of exposures at [2 mg/L]", but states that fractures do seem to increase as fluoride is increased from 1 mg/L to 4 mg/L, suggesting a "continuous exposure-effect" dose-response relationship at these levels.[12]:170


This states that you get an increase of negative effects as you go from 1-4 mg/L -- thats 1 ppm to 4 ppm.  If this is a true dose response curve, the LOGEC50 should be somewhere at about 2 ppm.  So the negative effects kick in probably between 1 ppm and 4 ppm depending on your unique self with 2 ppm producing a  reliable change in most people.


Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the recommended dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.[12]:281 Those with impaired kidney function are more susceptible to adverse effects.[12]:292

12 mg/day would be 3 liters at 4 ppm or 12 liters at 1 ppm.  Thats a lot of water - unless you have a lot of fluoride in your water.  So how many of us have over 4 ppm in our water?  Get it tested and find out....i guess.  I am not too sure that I should be scared about that though.

Little research has been done on possible liver damage, although some studies suggest negative effects at chronic ingestion of 23 mg/day.[12]:292

23 mg/day?  I'm not snorting this stuff.  Thats a lot of fluoride.  Not even touching that one.

Chromosomal damage and interference with DNA repair.[12]:304 Overall, the literature from in vitro and rodent studies does not indicate genotoxicity, but the in vivo human studies are inconsistent.[12]:316

No doses are listed so I can't comment on this at all...and neither can you. :P  For all we know, these studies were done by people using 100 g/kg or something.

Four epidemiological studies have noted a correlation between increased fluoride and low IQ.[12]:205-223 The most rigorous of these compared an area with mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18–0.76 mg/L) to an area with 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57–4.50 mg/L). Most of these studies did not publish important details, making them difficult to evaluate. If these correlations are caused by fluoride, the mechanism is not known, but the National Research Council speculates that effects on the thyroid could lead to poor test results.[12]:208 Two Chinese meta-analyses which included the previously mentioned studies have also noted this correlation.[16][17] The high-fluoride areas studied had fluoride levels above those used in water fluoridation.

Epidemiological studies are f#cking worthless, especially in a domain such as this.  These data and studies are worthless.  Like I said, religiosity is more closely correlated to IQ than tap water consumption.  Correlations do not imply causation, especially when used in studies such as these.  I can correlate car accidents in the US to annual lemon imports with an r=.99.  Just sayin.

The NRC report stated that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx [aluminum fluoride] complexes".[12]:219 This topic has been identified previously as cause for concern.[18] The NRC noted that rats administered fluoride had twice as much aluminum in their brains.[12]:212 When water (1 ppm fluoride) is boiled in aluminum cookware more aluminum is leached and more aluminum fluoride complexes are formed. However, an epidemiological study found that a high-fluoride area had one-fifth the Alzheimer's that a low-fluoride area had,[19] and a 2002 study found that fluoride increased the urinary excretion of aluminum.[20]

If you don't understand this - it's ok.  Its practically meaningless to this discussion.  High Fluoride areas in the brain actually reduced alzheimers and it causes aluminum to excrete in higher quantities.  Big deal.  I don't understand the implications of this and therefore cannot comment and since it is wikipedia, if there were known implications, I feel as though they would be listed.

Fluoride's suppressive effect on the thyroid is more severe when iodine is deficient, and fluoride is associated with lower levels of iodine.[18] Thyroid effects in humans were associated with fluoride levels 0.05–0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01–0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.[12]:263 Its mechanisms and effects on the endocrine system remain unclear.[12]:266

This is somewhat compelling.  Make sure you get your iodine and this shouldn't be something to worry about.  .05 mg/kg is about 3 mg/day for a 155# male.  If you have water with even 1 ppm this is still a factor in your thyroid function - but the effects of a fluorid and what it means to have a suppressed thyroid are not listed.  I can only assume that metabolic regulation is suppressd in some way, but the data is still listed as "unclear" which means it can't be so significant that we are dropping like flys.  I am still not seeing the cause for alarm.

---------------

I guess this was the kind of list I was expecting form you, as opposed to links from the propaganda machine.  Even with all of these points, I am not really convinced there is anything wrong with tap water.  I guess it is worthwhile to get tested to see if you have absurdly high amounts (3-5 ppm in your water).  Even then, your risk is related to kidney function and weaker bones.  Since I dont have weak bones (i dislocate joints more than break bones bc my bones are so strong) and have had no kidney problems, I am personally not too worried.  It may be worthwhile to get a few cheap testing strips just to be sure I am not being OMGOVERDOSED but I am not too alarmed.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 07:38:15 PM
Quote
“The Internet is truly a wonderful thing. It can cater to everyone, and really democritizes the flow of information. EG, google something, and it will point you to what you want to see. Want to see evidence that tap water kills? Google it and bingo. Want to find scientific studies regarding "x"? You can find it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet. But, that doesn't mean it's correct or right.”

Im kind of tired of talking about this also but im going to respond in full anyways.  The internet catering to everyone searching for what they want to see, yes that is very true, you cant help that. Which is why I originally included my personal experience with water analysis being done on my tap, and why I choose filtered water. I KNOW as a fact that I get a bad headache anytime I drink tap, which Ill also add that the same thing happens to my close friends whom also avoid tap.. Thus a water analysis, nor information from the internet is not needed to tell me anything my body didnt already know was bad for it in regards to tap water...I am very in tuned with my body, and not numb to the poisons (wont even eat fast food), and I feel that any conscious, open minded human being should generally be able to literally feel for himself what is right or not right for their body with out government think tanks, scientist, doctors, media outlets, or his peers thinking for him, but its sad that most of the public doesnt even know when they are being deliberately poisoned through various methods...

Quote
I really am not trying to be a dick, but the sources you keep posting (youtube videos, news broadcasts, propaganda machines) are not credible at all.  Mainstream news media is fear mongering, too, probably just as badly as the propaganda machines you keep posting.

I didnt go into this conversation thinking the debate would go this far to begin with, youtube videos, and quick internet searches detailing a certain point of view are a easy way to communicate information, especially when the average person is not going to sit and read a large document or ‘peer edited review’, especially when the OP of the thread has already said he drinks filtered water. But just because it’s a youtube video or a website not promoted by the establishment does not void it of truth, because that is the oldest and most commonly used trick by the establishment to discredit alternative media sources by attacking their credibility, and training people to believe that only large government funded institutions are correct, especially in these types of issues.. Im not trying to just void out everything you are saying but I want it to be said that not everything needs 'credibility' to be the truth, the truth can be in a minority of one and still be the truth...

Quote
I did some google scholar searches for peer reviewed articles.  Really I dont care much about this topic, I just hate when people villainize something that isnt evil.  If you want to villainize HFCS, then go ahead, but tap water?  Thats a little absurd.  Here, look at these scholarly articles that are peer reviewed and you will see the difference between these and your hysterical/radical videos.

Well I think its absurd; that you find my supported views of tap water not being healthy- to be absurd. You havent posted anything to support the claims that tap water is not bad, which is what started my rant. Also dont forget, we only discussed a couple reasons of why not to consume unfiltered tap, there are numerous other components that could be added to this conversation to further weaken the original point that tap is not bad. Fluoride is one example out of many, and to make it worse, there are known knowns, and known unknowns, we are only talking about what we KNOW thats in the tap water, which is usually less than what we do not know, especially with so many different chemicals and pharmaceuticals finding their way through into the water supply reacting with each other daily...

Quote
A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/

Im going to have to say, I personally dont trust this link; just as you decided not to trust mines, and its simply because I understand that Gov funded studies on something that the government is doing, is self regulation, to say the least.. We dont live in a world were you should just automatically trust anyone, or any source of info, most especially not from the government... And I can tell the link is meant to compartmentalize its reader into only being concerned about dental fluorosis, even though it says that the CDC ( Centers for disease creation) claims that the scientific community agrees with water fluoridation for prevention of cavities which is not true anymore either, so why is it still in the water... Also if I was to use your way of thinking I have to say that your two links are about as credible as the two doctors videos I posted from youtube...Though Im glad that you tried to respond fully this time, with something to support your counter argument.

Quote
This study looks at fluorosis (adult staining of the teeth) and proves inconclusive that drinking water (As well as being compounded by other sources) has any effect on flurosis.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, the methods are sound.  Just look at the abstract if you like.  At worst, some children appear to be at an increased risk of stained teeth.  I am not exactly shuddering.

From the other studies I have read, the toxic for fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg.  The lethal dose is 500 mg in infants or 5-10 g (32-64 mg/kg) in humans. If you consume water with an absurdly high amount of flouride (5 ppm, lets say, thats .0005% of your water) you would need 1,000,000 g of water to read a 5 g lethal dose.  For TOXICITY (negative effects) you would need 1000g of water, which is about 1 liter per KILOGRAM.  That means I would need to drink about 90 liters a day.  If I am mistaken, correct my math...but that is the toxicity levels that are published.

I never tried to talk about fluoride and teeth, but let me point out the insanity if that is the claimed reason of fluoridation of the public water supply in the first place, umm because its good for your teeth.... Laughable, even if it was good for your teeth would you drink your toothpaste? The same toothpaste that has the active ingredient sodium fluoride, the same toothpaste that says contact poison control if swallowed, and you keep reading youll find the amount they are talking about is a pea sized amount. Also why would you put something in your mouth that youd have to contact poison control for? The mouth is a high absorption area, and what kids dont swallow their tooth paste almost daily. Come on people use reason, think past the mindwash... Even if it was good for your teeth which it is not, would you drink cologne to make you smell better? Would you drink sun tan lotion to protect your skin? What is the logic of fluoridating the water supply anyways, you tell me?

Maybe thats what shouldve been said in the first place, because even with everything you just posted, it still doesnt speak for any of the simple points that my links or I have brought up, like also why are we drinking sodium fluoride imported from f#cking China? Do you really think there is nothing wrong with that? What is your opinion of what was being said in the video at the water treatment facility? And once again, why are they putting it in the water ?
Maybe I should dig up governments own admission that they want to do ' behavior modification' to the public, in their own words. What does that mean to you? Even if you assume the amount of fluoride being put into the water is not a large enough amount to have any negative side effects,then why would they put it in the water at all or talk about behavioral modification?

And your wikipedia reference lightly admits in toxicity, and rambled off numbers of what would be considered toxic levels. Well wouldnt it be a massive assumption to assume that the amount going into the water is A.) the same mixture,batch- of fluoride used in their studies, and B.) A safe amount actually being dumped into the water supply.
I mean seriously, how do any of YOU know how much is in actuality reaching you at your faucet? I mean shit, even if the studies you posted are not fraudulent and accurate, why are we being forced medicated anyways, why is a large amount of money being spent by the governments to fluoridate its population, especially during an economic recession. Stop and think about that simple basic question a little...

Quote
BTW, whenever someone compares something to the Nazis, I am immediately turned off...

There is nothing to say about that other than- To study history, you can also understand the present...

Peer edited reviews, whatever, the information is out there that is not sugar coated, and I stand by my point that the population is being poised by forced medication of fluoride in its municipal water supply, which at a basic level explains one of the many reasons why I disagree with you about tap water not being bad...

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
http://www.fluoridation.com/calgaryh.htm
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3911-2.pdf


Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 08:31:23 PM
If you are seriously comparing American drinking water to Nazi war/genocide tactics, then this conversation is over.

I am upset that you will likely have a lifetime filled with fear and worry about smoke and mirror shows.  Be sure to stay away from the Dihydrogen Monoxide too...its scary stuff.

If you read the studies and facts I posted, they are based in truth, with real solid methods.  If you read a paper and don't like its findings, you need to have a reason why.  For example, I dont like studies that "prove" vegetarianism is healthy because their statistical analysis is shabby and the links are not proved causal by any means.  You don't like my studies because you want to be right.  I don't like your "proof" because it doesn't prove anything reliably.

Apparently, in your opinion, for one to be correct, one just needs to be the first person to tell you something.  Preferably mix a lot of fearful, doomsday rhetoric in there.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 09:01:38 PM
If you are seriously comparing American drinking water to Nazi war/genocide tactics, then this conversation is over.

I am upset that you will likely have a lifetime filled with fear and worry about smoke and mirror shows.  Be sure to stay away from the Dihydrogen Monoxide too...its scary stuff.

If you read the studies and facts I posted, they are based in truth, with real solid methods.  If you read a paper and don't like its findings, you need to have a reason why.  For example, I dont like studies that "prove" vegetarianism is healthy because their statistical analysis is shabby and the links are not proved causal by any means.  You don't like my studies because you want to be right.  I don't like your "proof" because it doesn't prove anything reliably.

Apparently, in your opinion, for one to be correct, one just needs to be the first person to tell you something.  Preferably mix a lot of fearful, doomsday rhetoric in there.

Dont be upset because I wont live a lifetime filled with fear and worry, Im not worried about my water, its filtered. YOU should be worried smart guy.
And your telling me that if I read a paper and dont like its finding that I need to have a reason why, well um I did have a reason, and its funny that you say that because you have been dodging key points in almost every post Ive made thus far. And you dont like my proof because it doesnt prove anything? Ok whatever no proof.
I could post a link that the Epa headquarts professionals oppose fluoride, but its not credible so f#ck the Epa right?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride090105.html
http://skyfind.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/water1.jpg?w=400&h=423

Or that sodium fluoride was used as rat poison, but dont believe in any of numerous hits you can easily find on google about it, out of the numerous different links that pop up none of them are true, so no point looking in any of them for yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sodium+fluoride+rat+poison&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/images?q=sodium+fluoride+rat+poison&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=858
Or that sodium fluoride causes calcification of the pineal gland in the brain, but who cares about that stupid thing anyways.
You said fluoride has no affect on the brain according to the studies you've read, well this disagrees-
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf

But it wouldnt matter to you because none of it is credible and supposably theres no proof just because you dont want to believe its out there.
You said im just trying to be right? I dont even have to be right about 50% of what I said to still prove the point that tap water is not ok to drink...
For there to even be such a massive debate on the subject youd be naive to blindly consume this stuff.
Whos to assume whats actually credible anyways? How about you answer the simple questions I asked in my last posts, screw posting links, a lot of stuff I said only requires common sense. But if your done with the convo because you dont like something I said then thats fine also, I think enough has been said here...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kyle on October 25, 2010, 09:11:06 PM
First off, calm down.

Secondly, Chris doesn't have to prove anything. You do. He's in the situation where, "He'll believe it when he see's it." It's a understandable and logical position of someone who has something put before him that doesn't have solid proof. You really might be right, the issue is that the research you've found is either unreliable or exaggerates the potential risk behind tap water. It's certainly not healthy. I'd agree with you there - survival training has made me very paranoid of ALL water sources. The issue is that if tap water really was as bad as you say it is, it would have very obvious effects that would have already been a global truth backed by many acclaimed scientists.

It isn't, though, and until it is we will remain skeptical. I promise that you are allowed to say, "I told you so," if that day comes.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 09:21:45 PM
First off, calm down.

The issue is that if tap water really was as bad as you say it is, it would have very obvious effects that would have already been a global truth backed by many acclaimed scientists.


Just because you dont look for those people willing to speak out and oppose it doesnt mean they arent there. Ive already posted more than a handful, and even a link how fluoride truth has hit Australian Tv. I wouldnt have any of this information Ive been posting since my first post if it wasnt being violently opposed, but truth is always surpressed, thus why its not well known... Whatever im done here, im not going to run in circles enough has been said. I dont care what people believe, nor do I feel I have to prove anything. I was only directing people to the information,  I made my points, Chris made his people can digest it how they want. Nuff said.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 09:25:34 PM
You convinced me that I needed to look into it.

I looked into it, and still haven't found anything alarming.

You have not presented me with anything alarming.

I am confused as to how you think I should be alarmed when no alarming evidence has been put forward.

Please link me to the EPA.  There was a rather long paper on the drawbacks of Fluoride that I found compelling.  It was linked from Wikipedia.  It had many considerations and there was suggestive evidence.  However, the scientists still said the results were inconclusive.  If you have found some evidence that is not inconclusive, then please post it as I would be eager to read it.  If you read my posts above, I even said that checking the concentration of fluoride in your tap water would be worthwhile if you had a reason to believe the concentrations were too high.

Until you present something to me that is downright alarming, I will not be alarmed.  Filtering your water is of course ideal (distilling is not filtering, btw...its distilling) but it isn't necessary.

No truth is being suppressed.  Don't you see that you aren't presenting truth?  You are presenting hysteria.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kyle on October 25, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
Just because you dont look for those people willing to speak out and oppose it doesnt mean they arent there. Ive already posted more than a handful, and even a link how fluoride truth has hit Australian Tv. I wouldnt have any of this information Ive been posting since my first post if it wasnt being violently opposed, but truth is always surpressed, thus why its not well known... Whatever im done here, im not going to run in circles enough has been said. I dont care what people believe, nor do I feel I have to prove anything. I was only directing people to the information,  I made my points, Chris made his people can digest it how they want. Nuff said.

You've found a lot of theories. Not proof. Proof is a different animal.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 09:31:53 PM
You convinced me that I needed to look into it.

I looked into it, and still haven't found anything alarming.

You have not presented me with anything alarming.

I am confused as to how you think I should be alarmed when no alarming evidence has been put forward.

Please link me to the EPA.  There was a rather long paper on the drawbacks of Fluoride that I found compelling.  It was linked from Wikipedia.  It had many considerations and there was suggestive evidence.  However, the scientists still said the results were inconclusive.  If you have found some evidence that is not inconclusive, then please post it as I would be eager to read it.  If you read my posts above, I even said that checking the concentration of fluoride in your tap water would be worthwhile if you had a reason to believe the concentrations were too high.

Until you present something to me that is downright alarming, I will not be alarmed.  Filtering your water is of course ideal (distilling is not filtering, btw...its distilling) but it isn't necessary.

No truth is being suppressed.  Don't you see that you aren't presenting truth?  You are presenting hysteria.

Kangaroo's poisoned by fluoride, ABC news...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827687.htm
or
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride090105.html
But your just going to say its not credible and its inconclusive. Nothing I posted was inconclusive or I wouldnt have posted it.
And just because a couple of unknown scientist in your link said something was inconclusive doesnt mean they were right. Expand your search..
Or better yet believe what you want, you obviously will not be alarmed on this subject so Im not trying to "Alarm you" whatever that means.
If you want to continue talking about this answer my questions I asked you like why is it in the water, do you not agree this is forced medication on the public, do you trust the people force medicating the public? Any of the various questions I presented which were meant for you to answer them and think for yourself. Other wise Im not going in circles on this and theres no reason to continue.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kyle on October 25, 2010, 09:34:14 PM
He already stated the problem with the news. Yet you still site the news. Surely you should see the problem with this. The news likes to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion.

Also, the kangaroo's were obtaing that level of fluoride from things that weren't tap water.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 09:45:24 PM
He already stated the problem with the news. Yet you still site the news. Surely you should see the problem with this. The news likes to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion.

Also, the kangaroo's were obtaing that level of fluoride from things that weren't tap water.

Who cares how it got in the Kangaroos, thats not the point, the point is that its evidence that fluoride IS poisoning them.There was nothing inconclusive at all about what the EPA said.
Who cares that it came from the news, I understand that news can be a propaganda machine but in this scenario the first headline shows that its actually the EPA's call, damn you guys are dense. What about the other link I posted about the EPA scientist and workers call for end of water fluoridation because of cancer risks.
Honestly theres obviously nothing I could post that you people wont try to discredit or say is not worthy information, when ALL of it is and Im not even trying hard to find it, so this convo with you guys has became pointless. Be happy believing what you believe Ill believe what I know and anyone else can believe what they want to, and enjoy your government forced medication of fluoride and whatever else through your tap water..

Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kyle on October 25, 2010, 10:04:10 PM
Who cares how it got in the Kangaroos, thats not the point, the point is that its evidence that fluoride IS poisoning them.There was nothing inconclusive at all about what the EPA said.
Who cares that it came from the news, I understand that news can be a propaganda machine but in this scenario the first headline shows that its actually the EPA's call, damn you guys are dense. What about the other link I posted about the EPA scientist and workers call for end of water fluoridation because of cancer risks.
Honestly theres obviously nothing I could post that you people wont try to discredit or say is not worthy information, when ALL of it is and Im not even trying hard to find it, so this convo with you guys has became pointless. Be happy believing what you believe Ill believe what I know and anyone else can believe what they want to, and enjoy your government forced medication of fluoride and whatever else through your tap water..



I believe the lack of fluoride in your diet has made you excitable.
(Sorry. Resistance failure.)
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 25, 2010, 10:21:30 PM
No one is saying that fluoride is an inert substance that isn't harmful in mass quantities.  However, EVERYTHING in mass quantities can and will kill you, including things that we NEED on a daily basis including vitamins, minerals, salts and even water.

The fact that something can kill you does not make it an evil toxin.  It is only a toxin when you consume enough of it that your body can't handle - that's called the toxicity level.  When one consumes enough within within a certain period of time (substance comes in faster than it leaves) then problems are caused -- this is called toxicity.  Based on the data above, toxicity is extremely difficult to reach with drinking water concentrations that are even ridiculously high (5 ppm).  There seem to be negative effects at 1-4 ppm, but the data is inconclusive.  If you believe that 1-4 ppm is a problem, then get your water tested.  If you aren't concerned, I don't think you need to worry about it because it won't kill you (since a lethal dose is very high for fluoride).

I agree with you that it is a form of mass medication that is arguably unnecessary.  It may even be worthwhile to campaign to eliminate reduce fluoride in drinking water.  I can assure you, though, that this form of hysteria is not how you generate a movement to make such a change.

Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 25, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
No one is saying that fluoride is an inert substance that isn't harmful in mass quantities.  However, EVERYTHING in mass quantities can and will kill you, including things that we NEED on a daily basis including vitamins, minerals, salts and even water.

The fact that something can kill you does not make it an evil toxin.  It is only a toxin when you consume enough of it that your body can't handle - that's called the toxicity level.  When one consumes enough within within a certain period of time (substance comes in faster than it leaves) then problems are caused -- this is called toxicity.  Based on the data above, toxicity is extremely difficult to reach with drinking water concentrations that are even ridiculously high (5 ppm).  There seem to be negative effects at 1-4 ppm, but the data is inconclusive.  If you believe that 1-4 ppm is a problem, then get your water tested.  If you aren't concerned, I don't think you need to worry about it because it won't kill you (since a lethal dose is very high for fluoride).

I agree with you that it is a form of mass medication that is arguably unnecessary.  It may even be worthwhile to campaign to eliminate reduce fluoride in drinking water.  I can assure you, though, that this form of hysteria is not how you generate a movement to make such a change.



Hysteria lol call it what you want, it makes no difference. And stop twisting what I was saying, I never said its going to out right kill you, thats the 2nd time ive had to say that.Fluorides affects are cumulative, thats a fact. They build up, and after XX years of consuming the unknown amounts of fluoride you receive every day in your tap water, and food sources, you will have degenerative fluoride damage regardless if you dont personally notice it. There are numerous things Ive posted that is of concern by many credible sources that it does do to the body, it doesnt matter if my information is ignored as I am not here to generate a movement of this nature on a parkour forum, I didnt care to go this far into this conversation anyways. The movement is already out there, and those people know that fluoride is just one component being used in this nwo agenda thats taking place, which falls among many points I deliberately left out of this conversation. At least you are against forced medication and agree that is what this is. Bottom line here as of today, tap water is not ok to drink in my opinion, and I wouldnt even give it to my dog, but its ok that you disagree because no one cares what anyone else does anyways, and so far you have freedom of choice still so drink what you want and be happy with your decision. Have a good night, im done here...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Sparklefish on October 25, 2010, 11:05:06 PM
He never said you were arguing that fluoride=death, he was pointing out that many substances are beneficial in small amounts and toxic at high doses.

You've gotten louder, and angrier, and called people names, but you still haven't produced a peer-reviewed source on the subject.  I find it ironic that initially you said that the question of water intake wasn't one of quantity, but quality, however when you were asked for a different quality of source, you responded first with quantity, then insults.

This isn't a place to debate the New World Order drugging everyone with fluoride.  You're certainly welcome to say things like "I don't believe tap water is safe because there isn't a lot of research about the long-term cumulative effects of daily micro-exposure to pollutants, contaminants and fluoridation."  However, please don't start calling people "smart guy" and rattling off page after page of vitriol because they disagree with your opinion, then insinuate that we're the closed minded ones.

We're not saying your wrong, we're saying you haven't proved you're right.

The point about long-term microexposures is valid, and persuasive to me, because that hasn't been studied on a large scale, nor has it been proven safe in a human population.  Fluoridation is almost certainly unnecessary and could be harmful, but please save the New World Order stuff for other websites.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 26, 2010, 01:29:18 AM
He never said you were arguing that fluoride=death, he was pointing out that many substances are beneficial in small amounts and toxic at high doses.

You've gotten louder, and angrier, and called people names, but you still haven't produced a peer-reviewed source on the subject.  I find it ironic that initially you said that the question of water intake wasn't one of quantity, but quality, however when you were asked for a different quality of source, you responded first with quantity, then insults.

This isn't a place to debate the New World Order drugging everyone with fluoride.  You're certainly welcome to say things like "I don't believe tap water is safe because there isn't a lot of research about the long-term cumulative effects of daily micro-exposure to pollutants, contaminants and fluoridation."  However, please don't start calling people "smart guy" and rattling off page after page of vitriol because they disagree with your opinion, then insinuate that we're the closed minded ones.

We're not saying your wrong, we're saying you haven't proved you're right.

The point about long-term microexposures is valid, and persuasive to me, because that hasn't been studied on a large scale, nor has it been proven safe in a human population.  Fluoridation is almost certainly unnecessary and could be harmful, but please save the New World Order stuff for other websites.

I misread what he said about fluoride/death excuse me.
Also i never said anything about the question of water intake being about quantity/quality.
And give me a break, saying smart guy hardly results as a insult, and about me not proving im right, i guess i am wrong to disagree with the comment that tap water is not bad, this entire convo was derived from that, and a debate between his point of view that you dont need to filter water, and my point of view that you do.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 26, 2010, 06:48:40 AM
My point of view is not that you don't need to filter tap water.

My point of view is that you never proved that one needs to filter tap water.

There are plenty of other movements to be riled up on that actually have proof behind them.  The food in the public education system being markedly unhealthy is well proven and there is little effort going to fix food in public education.  Since I am behind this movement, I support Jamie Oliver and donate money to Salad Bars in Schools.  It is very easy to get my support, and create an influential community, when there is proof.

Get some proof and I am sure that you will generate a movement.  Get your degree in biochemisty, then get an MD/PhD and dedicate your life to researching the effects of fluoride.  Then you can have some peer reviewed data that may be worthwhile enough for a movement.

The proof shall set you free.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Patrick Witbrod on October 26, 2010, 06:51:03 AM
You're allowed to put forth your opinion that Tap water is bad. No one is arguing that. I find some of the evidence compelling on both sides. Also Saying "Smart guy" and "dense" may not be big insults but you did mean to insult our intelligence with sarcastic remarks. Also you convince that getting water tested might be a good idea. He just wanted independent peer reviewed sources that seems like a logical thing. No reason to get angry (not all "credible" scientific studies are done by the government.) But please calm down really. You have made some points. And If you have shown me at least one thing. Not a lot of research has been done. On the good or bad.    
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 26, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see I am actually trying to make a case for you, btw.  I just can't do it because the proof isnt out there.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 26, 2010, 07:33:40 AM
Quote from: Chris Salvato
My point of view is that you never proved that one needs to filter tap water.

In your world, I suppose not... As far as I see it the majority of what I posted should be enough reason for the average person who doesnt care to sit and read a bunch of documents to avoid it, especially due to fluoride,which has no benefits for you, its not a nutrient... I guess I dont need the kind of "proof" that you guys do to make my own decision on how I feel about something. Im not trying to change your mind anymore, your opinion is yours. Ill just repost these sites below, those websites have a lot of different fluoride related research, credible or not credible, whose to decide? I really dont care, you can look at all the information I have provided in this thread or not, im sorry if nothing i posted is up to your standards of compelling evidence against fluoride, but I still stand by everything I have said...

Quote-
"This whole thing is politics. You're not talking science at all."
- Dr. Robert Carton, President of EPA Headquarters Union, November 25, 2005

Quote-
"There are more than 40,000 studies published in medical and biochemical journals, many of which attest to the dangers of exposure to fluorides from all sources, including water fluoridation. The adverse effects are numerous - they include cancers, thyroid dysfunction, skin disorders, kidney and brain damage, and more." Jane Jones, National Pure Water Association

http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/010202/fluoridation.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/index.html

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/

Fluoride more acutely toxic than lead?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/f-lead.html
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on October 27, 2010, 10:09:15 AM
oh my god guys! i just found out there is protein in my milk... too much protein can cause your kidneys to fail. 
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 27, 2010, 11:43:44 AM
"This whole thing is politics. You're not talking science at all."
- Dr. Robert Carton, President of EPA Headquarters Union, November 25, 2005

Show me the science.  That is all I am asking.

"There are more than 40,000 studies published in medical and biochemical journals, many of which attest to the dangers of exposure to fluorides from all sources, including water fluoridation. The adverse effects are numerous - they include cancers, thyroid dysfunction, skin disorders, kidney and brain damage, and more." Jane Jones, National Pure Water Association

Show me at least one of the 40,000 studies that corroborates this quote.

Fluoride more acutely toxic than lead?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/f-lead.html

Water is more acutely toxic than lead if you consume enough of it.
oh my god guys! i just found out there is protein in my milk... too much protein can cause your kidneys to fail. 

If you use more science-sounding jargon I am sure that you could create a cult following behind this if you want.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Sparklefish on October 27, 2010, 01:51:49 PM
If you use more science-sounding jargon I am sure that you could create a cult following behind this if you want.

That's exactly what one of the Kellogg brothers did!
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Leland on October 27, 2010, 02:03:01 PM
Isn't there already people saying milk is really bad?
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Patrick Witbrod on October 27, 2010, 02:13:12 PM
They also thought that the original gram crackers and Kellog's corn flakes would stop a bad male habit.....(If you know what I mean) because it would keep them occupied. True story. How does this relate because with pseudo science you can prove anything which is why I would just like proof from a university or scientific study or something similar. Until the research was done people were buying the whole grahm cracker thing.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 28, 2010, 11:01:59 AM
Show me the science.  That is all I am asking.

Show me at least one of the 40,000 studies that corroborates this quote.


When you keep saying show me proof, or show me the science, it really makes me think you either didnt spend time in the links I posted, or maybe your immediately assuming they all are 100% wrong in every claim made, and that those peoples claims are not based on any real evidence or science, and if thats what you think, I dont know what makes you think theres no science backing anything posted...  Also considering that the internet is literally loaded with dissenting information against fluoride from all over the world in any search engine you want to look in, I dont see why you guys feel this isnt a big deal to be happily drinking it every day, especially if your smart enough to know not to eat High fructose Corn syrup Chris.. But I guess it does come down to what you've already said, that your not too concerned, because If any of the many research points, articles, and videos, ive brought up did concern any of you, you wouldnt wait for me to provide for you and you'd look further into this yourself, and perhaps on your own you would've came across how EPA scientist stand together objecting against water fluoridation, which has zero benefits anyways, and on your own you'd research who, and why numerous people from different areas are against it... I also presented the question asking why is it being done, which no one chose to give an opinion on... But I dont care what your opinions are anymore, and in conclusion, I really wasnt trying to spend this much time on this topic. Regardless of whatever you want to believe about fluoride, I find it funny that I am being mocked against the disagreement that tap water needs to be filtered which to me is redundant enough. And even worse, you arent considering that I only pointed out 1 reason of why people should filter their tap water. We didnt even get into chlorine, heavy metals, led, or pharmaceuticals drugs in the tap etc, and as I said already, even if I was less than 50% right about all the claims made just against fluoride, its still enough reason to say tap water is bad for you, which goes against the original argument... So no disrespect to you, I wasnt trying to make this convo turn into this, but whatever you want to drink, that's your business, I wont lose any sleep over it. The original poster of this thread has already stated that he drinks filtered water anyways, so Ive said all Im going to say...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 11:21:14 AM
TL; DR

Maybe if you used line breaks I would have.

Either way, i Have LOOKED for the supposed 40,000 studies, even though I care so little about this topic and I found nothing that was conclusive (including papers published by the EPA).  People saying something is bad does NOT make it bad.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 28, 2010, 11:35:09 AM
TL; DR

Maybe if you used line breaks I would have.

Either way, i Have LOOKED for the supposed 40,000 studies, even though I care so little about this topic and I found nothing that was conclusive (including papers published by the EPA).  People saying something is bad does NOT make it bad.

Absolutely, it is true that people saying something is bad does not make it bad, but at this point in the conversation, i dont find it that relevant, other than another attempt to discredit... As far as conclusive, I disagree with what you consider conclusive. To be even simpler, conclusive for me is, I had water analyst done on my home proving to me the dangers of my tap water, thus got reverse osmosis filtration on my home water supply. I have been drinking this filtered water for the past couple years. When I drink tap water now I get a bad headache, this also goes for most of my friends who have been avoiding tap water for a long time as well... Enough evidence for me. In conclusion, I think people should filter their tap water and that its bad for you... You think that there is no reason to filter tap water and that its not bad for you. That is all there is to it, uh nice talking to you at least you continued to respond, and maybe you will get your water tested since you at least agreed with that much. Id be interested to hear the results if you came back here with them... 
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 11:42:50 AM
it has nothing to do with "conclusive to me"....

the papers, written by the scientists, say "this data is inconclusive and more research needs to be done."

It seems like you are falling victim to the same sins as the people you are listening to - you are villainizing me because you can't prove your point.

You say you got your tap water tested?  For what?  a high Fluoride PPM count?  a high concentration of heavy metals?  For all I know, you could have misinterpreted those results...or you think a fluoride concentration of 1 PPM is dangerous...whereas the data only marginally agrees with you.

If you, by now, do not see the flaw in your logic and presentation, then I fear that nothing will get through to you.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 28, 2010, 11:57:25 AM

You say you got your tap water tested?  For what?  a high Fluoride PPM count?  a high concentration of heavy metals?  For all I know, you could have misinterpreted those results...or you think a fluoride concentration of 1 PPM is dangerous...whereas the data only marginally agrees with you.

If you, by now, do not see the flaw in your logic and presentation, then I fear that nothing will get through to you.

It is conclusive (from numerous various sources) that fluoride is bad for you, and has no benefits (especially not by ingestion), even in that sugarcoated article you posted. But no one here even knows the amount of that plus the many other known said bad things that they are drinking from their tap, that IS what is inconclusive about this. In that one article you linked talking about fluoriode & ppm (which lets assume that information is even right) how can anyone know what, or the amount of what, is actually coming out of their faucet? Do you? So that in itself voids your whole argument that tap water is not bad for you since you dont even know whats coming out of yours, and you certainly cant speak for everyone in this thread/planet. As far as my water results, which tested for various things in amounts that no one should want to consume, there is nothing I misinterpreted, nor did the water analyst specialist, who was not related to the company I bought the water filtration unit from. If I had the results from two years ago to post, I wouldve, even though that'd be irrelevant also since my house is not someone elses, so I didnt go into it. And as far as your last sentence that I quoted, for you to say that, guess ill say I feel that way for you. Theres no need for further discussion, you made your conclusion I made mines..

Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 12:21:17 PM
My article wasn't sugar coated... I don't see HOW it is sugar coated when it is a fact that has been experienced through experimental procedure.

You are a conspiracy theorist and now everything I see you post will be tainted with that fact.  It is unfortunate.  For example, I saw in another thread that you say that drinking soda is bad for you.  This is something with which I agree, but I shudder to think WHY you think soda is bad for you.  I assume it is just as fearful and conspiracy based as your reason why tap water is bad for you.  This worries me, since you and people like you are the loudest voices who are heard most often.

Excuse my diatribe, but it is discussions such as this that make me wholly worry about our future as a nation and a people.  I can only hope that our next generation is slightly less conspiracy driven and FOX news and CNN and all local news stations silently fizzle out because everyone is too intelligent to watch them.  That is a pipe dream, of course, because people love to be in fear as much as they love to have fun..
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 28, 2010, 12:32:58 PM
My article wasn't sugar coated... I don't see HOW it is sugar coated when it is a fact that has been experienced through experimental procedure.
Thats your opinion, just like me saying its sugarcoated is my opinion.. I say that because you dont know if those results are accurate or farbed anymore than I do.Anything can be b.s , you even said this yourself
"If you use more science-sounding jargon I am sure that you could create a cult following behind this if you want."
So is there some magic firewall that only makes that statement true for what I post? Either way, thats all irrelevant too because i didnt even try to say the article was wrong, I even said lets assume its right, so stop trying to invalidate anything I said there...


Quote
You are a conspiracy theorist and now everything I see you post will be tainted with that fact.  It is unfortunate.  For example, I saw in another thread that you say that drinking soda is bad for you.  This is something with which I agree, but I shudder to think WHY you think soda is bad for you.  I assume it is just as fearful and conspiracy based as your reason why tap water is bad for you.  This worries me, since you and people like you are the loudest voices who are heard most often.

Now your trying to insult me personally,and take the discrediting to another level saying people like you, but dont worry im not offended though. I really dont care what you think; At all... I said soda is bad for you because it is... Theres loads of evidence behind that, and even you said on your own not to eat high fructose corn syrup, which that and aspartame, is what all sodas just so happen to have in them... But wait HFCS is in most processed food also, So does that make you a conspiracy theorist too? lol And instead of wildly generalizing, you should understand that there is a difference of researching something that happens to be a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theorist, and I have nothing against it either way knowing that all of human history has been full of massive conspiracies. So even if someone did conspiracy research, that doesnt and shouldnt invalidate them of truth or degrade their image in comparison to a person who didnt research conspiracy,(actually itd make them more versed in whatever conspiracy subject they were researching) and it doesnt make them inferior just because someone saw fit to label them with that title. Sometimes theres a such thing as conspiracy fact...

Quote
Excuse my diatribe, but it is discussions such as this that make me wholly worry about our future as a nation and a people.  I can only hope that our next generation is slightly less conspiracy driven and FOX news and CNN and all local news stations silently fizzle out because everyone is too intelligent to watch them.  That is a pipe dream, of course, because people love to be in fear as much as they love to have fun..

I dont even watch tv, and I hate the news, but thats irrelevant, you are just rambling off the topic now because you dont even want to agree with the conclusion of this discussion which is what I said in my last two posts, which is you cannot claim that tap water is not bad for you, and speak for everyone when you have not even had your own water tested, that was the whole basis of this argument...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Steve Low on October 28, 2010, 01:12:55 PM
The burden of proof is on you to prove that tap water is bad.

Any type of study of municipal water supplies would suffice..... except all your links are going to crazy sites...
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Ryan Coker on October 28, 2010, 01:15:45 PM
Guys! Stop fighting! We can all just have a nice civil discussion over a couple of glasses of nice, cool, tap water. ;D
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Artisticflow87 on October 28, 2010, 01:28:33 PM
The burden of proof is on you to prove that tap water is bad.

Any type of study of municipal water supplies would suffice..... except all your links are going to crazy sites...

Saying all my sites are crazy is purely opinion.. Also there is no more burden on me anymore than there is on Chris to prove that tap water is not bad.
He is the one who made the claim that tap water is not bad, so prove it... Stop putting all of this on me.
Its funny how you guys are only going to defend your buddy Chris here and look past everything Im saying, which is fine.
I dont belong in this thread, and nothing I had to say is going to cater to this crowd that has been responding, I understand that- thats why
I summed up the argument - That no one can make the claim that tap water is not bad for you, especially when they are speaking to a mass audience, and the person making the claim hasnt even tested his own water.
Thats all there is to it at this point in my opinion, If you disagree with that, go ahead, but i have nothing else to say..
Forget the sodium fluoride then, that was only one variable.
If you or anyone is to respond to this post, the underlined portion is all that needs to be responded to, so we stop this side stepping, and you wont be responding to me, you'll be responding to your audience wanting to know why you think tap is not bad. Ive already said more than I care to say to this crowd on this subject..

Quote from: Ryan Coker
Guys! Stop fighting! We can all just have a nice civil discussion over a couple of glasses of nice, cool, tap water.  ;D

Ill definitely stick with the filtered water my friend, you guys have fun.  8)
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 01:50:04 PM
Asparteme has no solid conclusive evidence that shows it is harmful...

Only artificial sweeteners with a conclusive link to anything is phenylalynine - but that is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Steve Low on October 28, 2010, 04:43:22 PM
The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. YOu are making a claim that says tap water is harmful. So the burden of proof is on you to prove this.

I'm not going to sift through those sites. Post some study information directly into this thread that proves your point.

Otherwise, stop whining.

Also, learn to write in paragraph form....
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 06:27:56 PM
People aren't defending me...they are AGREEING with me because you aren't proving anything.  They just want proof too.  Something they can believe...not something that they need to believe in.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: mark w on October 28, 2010, 06:52:57 PM
http://fluorideinfo.org/FAQ.html#anchor2

^^ Apparently fluoride helps prevent cavities which I recall hearing when I was really young.

<3 tap water, trust the governement enough to have consumption safe water for the masses. Been drinking it pretty much forever and it's filtered nicely so :) unless I OD on it think I'll be good.

Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Charles Moreland on October 28, 2010, 10:16:42 PM
Artistic,

I just spent roughly 45 minutes reading through this thread, and with every post of yours, my heart jumped at the thought that you might actually see that Chris would LOVE for you to post something that would seriously change his mind. However, I'm thoroughly disappointed. Time and time again you turn to youtube and websites that link to NO raw, empirical data.

At this point, all I want you to see is that "evidence" for "average people" does not come in the form of a loud-mouthed, youtube webcaster who points you to nothing of real substance. Average people are not sheep. If you expect to be taken seriously for your views, they must be rooted in sound logic and be in a form that is available to all people, so they, too, can look it over and personally assess the conclusions. If this does not occur, well, I don't need to get into that. Chris already linked to the Dihydrogen Monoxide case which shows what happens when people not only blindly follow what another person says is true, but then act politically for it.

Not every research article is sound. You could have just as easily pointed us to a PubMed article and we would have said the same thing if the article's methods were unpractical.

We're not unreasonable people. We like evidence that displays raw data, pertinent methods and results, with a conclusive p value. I don't want to be told what to think by a guy with a microphone. I want to discover that for myself.

edited last sentence in second paragraph - grammar
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 28, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
I am really surprised no-one commented on my video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Alec Furtado on October 28, 2010, 11:55:23 PM
I really did not want to run through this thread... maybe I will later, I don't know.

But to add my own thoughts, when a friend showed me what a filter can get out of tap water here in Santa Clara, I was more than happy to get myself my own filter:
(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4035/dsc00036ul.jpg)
(http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2489/dsc00035cw.jpg)
(http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8954/dsc00033gu.jpg)
Like, what the hell is that^

Pretty sure that was supposed to be a years worth of use? (that particular filter is rated to last "1 year or 1320 gal" so...)


EDIT: Chris, I liked your video! ;)
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kyle on October 29, 2010, 05:09:37 AM
I am really surprised no-one commented on my video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s

I laughed pretty hard, lol
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 29, 2010, 07:39:07 AM
Alec,

It looks like you are more scared of the unknown as opposed to what is actually in the water.  For all you know, that could be something that is healthful.  I dont know either, but it may or may not be.  The point it, you can't make decisions about health based on emotions and fear.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 29, 2010, 10:58:10 AM
^^ Apparently fluoride helps prevent cavities which I recall hearing when I was really young.



yea but you can kill someone with flouride poisoning. your not supposed to eat or drink flouride.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 29, 2010, 11:06:59 AM
Read the rest of this post.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Alec Furtado on October 29, 2010, 11:16:18 AM
A good point Chris, though it clearly looks nasty. I can say the water definitely tastes much better (no longer bitter and gross) which is definitely a plus. The unit is built to allow "the good" minerals and whatever (magnesium was one of them...) to pass through.

Maybe there's some lab on campus where I could get the remnants tested after a year... be kinda fun. Obviously the results wouldn't necessarily indicate the effects of whatever nasties might be in there.

I'll follow up later if necessary once I go through the details of this whole thread (in class right now)
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on October 29, 2010, 12:52:37 PM
A good point Chris, though it clearly looks nasty. I can say the water definitely tastes much better (no longer bitter and gross) which is definitely a plus. The unit is built to allow "the good" minerals and whatever (magnesium was one of them...) to pass through.

Broccoli looks nasty too, though...especially when its steamed and soggy.  It smells nasty too.  Just sayin.

Maybe there's some lab on campus where I could get the remnants tested after a year... be kinda fun. Obviously the results wouldn't necessarily indicate the effects of whatever nasties might be in there.

I'll follow up later if necessary once I go through the details of this whole thread (in class right now)

It would be interesting to put it in a mass spectrometer and see what it is, or some sort of litmus test with strips.  However, that is over a year.  If you accumulate 5g of fluoride, for example, over 1 year, thats not a whole lot - but looks horrible at the bottom of a filter.  5g of fluoride in one shot would kill you, but according to the studies I found, 5g spread over a year is a very small amount per glass, which is insignificant and doesnt have conclusive ill effects - unless there is some other study I am missing.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Alec Furtado on October 29, 2010, 02:08:53 PM
Broccoli looks nasty too, though...especially when its steamed and soggy.  It smells nasty too.  Just sayin.
I take offense to that. I love broccoli  :P

However, that is over a year.
Well yea, that's why I said the results wouldn't indicate anything useful.


But the taste... oo the taste. Especially when you've been out to class for they day and your water bottles are all warm, unfiltered water here is simply gross [tasting] (edit: at home, it's totally unnecessary since we are on really good well water). That's really the only real positive I think we all could happily agree on. On the rest, I agree with Chris and Steve, though I'm still happy with my filter. ;D
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Xiras on November 28, 2010, 04:52:26 PM
Chris I lawls pretty damn hard at that vid. "we as a nation have to ask what the hell is going on!"
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Kim Martin on November 28, 2010, 08:56:32 PM
Anything in large quantities can be poisonous even pure air.

Fact you need some of the minerals found in tap water, those minerals are also bad in large quantities
Fluoride is bad but not enough for the government to stop putting it in the water.
I'm not to fond of the plasticy taste bottled water has I'm wondering what sort of chemicals are in that. filters are ok but there is no way they can get everything

my solution? I drink both a glass or two of tap water a day isn't going to harm me much.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: tibo on November 29, 2010, 01:37:48 AM
its possible to drink to much water
when you drink too much (im not sure how much is too much) the water flushes your electrolytes along with bad chemicals, which means you will have reduced energy. thats why they say powerade gives you energy, because theres lots of electrolytes
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Steve Low on November 29, 2010, 04:23:18 AM
its possible to drink to much water
when you drink too much (im not sure how much is too much) the water flushes your electrolytes along with bad chemicals, which means you will have reduced energy. thats why they say powerade gives you energy, because theres lots of electrolytes

hyponatremia is a serious issue if you drink too much water, yes.

However, reduced eletrolytes doesnt mean less energy. After they get outside a certain range your nervous system has problems conducting and your brain swells up and you die.

Also, powerade is terrible
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Sparklefish on November 29, 2010, 04:30:15 AM
"Brawndo's got electrolytes, it's what plants need."

Couldn't help it.
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: Chris Salvato on November 30, 2010, 02:27:58 PM
However, reduced eletrolytes doesnt mean less energy. After they get outside a certain range your nervous system has problems conducting and your brain swells up and you die.

Wow that's really fatalist :P
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: max eisenberg on December 14, 2010, 07:22:52 PM
thank you for the laughs, i had a whole bunch of them  ;D
Title: Re: Water Consumption
Post by: mickeynotmouse on December 14, 2010, 08:33:40 PM
"Brawndo's got electrolytes, it's what plants crave."

Couldn't help it.


lol