I have read so many publishing’s regarding the pros and con’s of H20, bottle or tapped. The New York Times published an article on August 1, 2005, called “Bad to the Last Drop” by Tom Standage, who is the technology editor of The Economist. He did a blind taste test of ten tapped and bottled waters. The results? Well, according to his test no one could make out the difference, so he concluded that people are wasting there money when they buy the latter. I read this and was floored that such a man would come to a conclusion so witless and perhaps even half-baked at the time.
It’s been shown that the subjective taste of water changes in accordance to one’s habit, therefore one should never have any faith in these taste tests. But what Mr. Standage and others overlook is the major reasons why people such as myself stay clear of anything less than bottled spring water, this being to avoid the toxic chemicals added to the tap water. He does however, for a moment, address the issue but discards it just as fast. He states (briefly) that if you want to avoid the chemicals in tap water then you must also be wearing a gas mask in the shower and when unloading the dishwasher. He never addresses the chemicals, and ends on that note. My reason behind avoiding tap water is simple, chlorine and fluoride. Let’s now take a deep look at the two.
Fluoride is a by-product of steel manufacturing as well as the manufacture of the atomic bomb in the late 1940’s. I’ve also found that fluoride combined with uranium forms the gas uranium hexafluoride, when passed through a semi permeable membrane, separates bomb grade, fissionable uranium-235. Fluoride is then released into the environment as waste thus damaging livestock, crops, and human beings. So then what? Where do they go from here? Let’s take a look. The U.S government, prodded by officials and industrialists involved in the Manhattan Project (remember this experiment gone bad?) decided to give fluoride a friendly face, I mean why not, there’s enough of it to circle the earth a few million times at any given hour. So they decided (1945) to medicate municipal water supplies with it, (one part per million last time I checked) to keep children under the age of six from getting cavities. Little attention however, is given to the fact that this medication may be harmful to anyone above the age of six. Ok, so medicating the water supply does not seem to be very democratic to me.
There are a whole covey of health problems associated with fluoridation, such as cancer, dental fluorosis, (fluoride-induced toxicity and tooth mottling) lower fertility rates, osteogenic sarcoma, malignancy, increased rate of bone fractures as well as higher bone mass to name just a few. At this point please repeat after me, “Fluoride is a poison” It is the thirteenth most common and one of the most toxic elements in the earths crust. Long term use results in serious health effects (negative) Let’s take a look at how it effects living beings shall we, we ways other than what I have already shown above.
Disruption of Enzymes by changing there hydrogen bonds, preventing them from doing there job of producing proteins, collagen in particular, which is the structural protein for bone and teeth, ligaments, tendons, and muscles! It also disrupts and damages DNA repair enzymes preventing the formation of acetyl cholinesterase in the brain. Hmmm, now were getting somewhere. We have all heard the rumors of how fluoride dumbs people up right? Perhaps here lies the truth. Did you also know that many European countries banned fluoride from their water supplies years ago? Fluoride disrupts the synthesis of collagen leading to the breakdown in bones, tendons, cartilage, skin, kidney, lungs, and trachea. Wow, how’s that for a list. Fluoride also inhibits the formation of antibodies in the blood. Thus confusing the immune system causing it to attach its own tissue.
Fluoride also increases tumor growth as well as the general cancer rate. Fluoride has been linked to cancer, low IQ’s genetic disorders, muscle and degeneration. I mean it’s used in bombs, what does one expect?
From all this I would assume there would be plenty of studies regarding the dangers of fluoride right? One would presume so, as I’m sure you already have, but it’s not so! Donald J. Miller, MD, wrote in an article titled “Fluoride Follies”: In evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews are considered to be the best, most “scientific” evidence. A systematic review of water fluoridation studies, posted in a British Medical Journal says .The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was also to poor to establish with any confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of dental fluorosis. I’m standing up doing circles as I write this. What is going on?!
I don’t want to sound like a cynic, but is everyone to busy spending each others money to give any care about the rest of society? That’s a tough one to answer.
Well, on with the show!
Let’s now take a look at chlorine and it’s incredible effects on the body.
Chlorine is a corrosive, poisonous, greenish-yellow gas that has a suffocating odor and is 2 1/2 times heavier than air. Chlorine belongs to the group of elements called halogens. The halogens combine with metals to form compounds called halides. Chlorine is manufactured commercially by running an electric current through salt water. This process produces free chlorine, hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Chlorine is changed to its liquid form by compressing the gas, the resulting liquid is then shipped. Liquid chlorine is mixed into drinking water and swimming pools to destroy bacteria.
Until recently, concerns about drinking water focused on eliminating pathogens. The chlorine used to reduce the risk of infectious disease may account for a substantial portion of the cancer risk associated with drinking water. Chlorination of drinking water was a major factor in the reduction in the mortality rates associated with waterborne pathogen. The use of chlorine was believed to be safe. This view is evident in an article, which appeared on the back page of the New York Times. The report stated that with the use of chlorine, “Any municipal water supply can be made as pure as mountain spring water. Chlorination destroys all animal and microbial life, leaving no trace of itself afterwards”. This statement reflected opinion accepted until recent years when halogenated organic compounds, such as chloroform, were identified in chlorinated drinking water supplies. Recent surveys show that these compounds are common in water supplies throughout the United States.
These concerns about cancer risks associated with chemical contamination from chlorination by-products have resulted in numerous epidemiological studies. These studies generally support the notion that by-products of chlorination are associated with increased cancer risks.
Chlorine is used to combat microbial contamination, but it can react with organic matter in the water and form dangerous, carcinogenic Trihalomethanes. According to Dr. Joseph M. Price, MD, in Moseby’s Medical Dictionary, “Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. It is an insidious poison”.
In a 1992 study that made front-page headlines, and was reported on in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee found that people who regularly drink tap water containing high levels of chlorine by-products have a greater risk of developing bladder and rectal cancers than people who drink unchlorinated water. The study estimates that about 9 percent of all bladder cancer and 18 percent of all rectal cancer cases are associated with long-term consumption of these by-products. This amounts to over 20,000 new cases each year.
Morris, with epidemiologist Thomas C. Chalmers and his colleagues at Harvard, used a new technique called meta-analysis to combine the results from the 10 best studies, yielding the new findings. They report that people drinking chlorinated water over long periods have a 21% increase in the risk of contracting bladder cancer and a 38% increase in the risk of rectal cancer. “I am quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water.”, says Robert D. Morris of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who directed the new study.
Here’s What the Experts Have to Say: (not that you don’t get the point by now.)
“The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer.”
Health Freedom News, January/February 1987
“Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person’s risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80%,” according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer.
St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987
“Although concentrations of these carcinogens are low…it is precisely these low levels which cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States.” Report Issued By The Environmental Defense Fund
“Chlorine itself is not believed to be the problem. Scientists suspect that the actual cause of the bladder cancers is a group of chemicals that form as result of reactions between the chlorine and natural substances and pollutants in the water.” (organic matter such as leaves and twigs.)
St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987
Greenpeace reports have found chlorine-based compounds to be the most common toxic and persistent pollutants in the Great Lakes.
Summary and Prevention Strategies
In its proposal for revamping the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has recommended examining chlorine’s impact on health and the environment (SN: 1/22/94, p.59). The agency’s proposed $2 million, one-year chlorine study would look at the effects of the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds in the manufacture of paper, solvents, and plastics and in disinfecting waste water and drinking water, says EPA’ James F. Pendergast.
Tap or Bottled? You decide.