I get drinking water from a local water store, where it is sold for 25 cents per gallon. Not exactly the same realm as gas prices. Water stores like the one near me have all their filtration equipment on display behind the counter, and since their livelihood depends on keeping the filters clean, you can usually trust them. There are also some good filtered water dispensers in front of supermarkets that use a more compact filtration system. These places start with municipal water, then filter for the crap that gets dumped in "for our health", like chlorine and fluoride, or whatever leftover hazardous chemicals can get pushed through congress this week.

But in the end, it really comes down to what tastes better. And believe me, I wouldn't have bothered finding out all this information in the first place if LA water didn't taste like concrete.

>> ^AceOfKidneys:
no, that's wrong. Swimming 5 hours a day is MUCH healthier then smoking weed, AT ANY POINT, IN ANY POOL, in comparison TO ANY WEED.
I've been a toker for about 5 or 6 years, everyday, excessively and I've had to stop recently because I became a pathetic, lazy, non-contributing member of society, not to mention socially awkward, and often paranoid, and I doubt I could say the say if I spent all that time exercising.
I'm not going to say that chlorine isn't bad for you, but you can't say marijuana's better for you than TAP WATER, when you have no scientific reasoning to back it up, sounds a little religulous doesn't it?


By the way, I agree for Phelps not saying anything about this, lets remember, he himself did not apologize, his publicists did, and besides that, I don't think Phelps should become a marijuana advocate, because he doesn't know any god damn thing about it. I agree with the legalization of ALL drugs, but I am a even stronger supported of EDUCATING people about drugs, like Bill maher.
PS, please don't say I don't know what I am talking about, a couple of months ago, I would be shouting at the comments I just made, but we can't just blindly follow lifestyles because someone else is telling us not to, we can keep being dogs.


Nobody is here saying you should sit on your ass all day and toke up for years. Pot, like anything else, yes even swimming 5 hours a day, can have detrimental effects from over-use. And yes even swimming will have negative side-effects long term. Nobody is saying that swimming for 5 hours is worse then smoking pot for 5 hours. But over long term their is a plethora of scientific research that shows that it can, particularly with Chlorine. Obviously a glass of water isn't going to hurt you, but consuming gallons of chlorine over years is VERY bad for your health as Chlorine is one of the most dangerous carcinogens that we consume, most of us multiple times daily.

Mahr is a major advocate for legalization, I'm sure he knows a great deal about the subject. Again I agree with you that Education is very important, though personally I would be against voting for all drugs personally. But there is zero sense in the criminalization of personal use of pot. In moderation of course.

Shit when Phelps got in a car accident after drinking and driving 4 or 5 years ago there was less of an outcry and he got into less trouble over it. He didn't even loose a sponsor. But a picture of him smoking a bong some years ago.. thats the worst damn crime he could have committed apparently.

no, that's wrong. Swimming 5 hours a day is MUCH healthier then smoking weed, AT ANY POINT, IN ANY POOL, in comparison TO ANY WEED.

I've been a toker for about 5 or 6 years, everyday, excessively and I've had to stop recently because I became a pathetic, lazy, non-contributing member of society, not to mention socially awkward, and often paranoid, and I doubt I could say the say if I spent all that time exercising.

I'm not going to say that chlorine isn't bad for you, but you can't say marijuana's better for you than TAP WATER, when you have no scientific reasoning to back it up, sounds a little religulous doesn't it?


By the way, I agree for Phelps not saying anything about this, lets remember, he himself did not apologize, his publicists did, and besides that, I don't think Phelps should become a marijuana advocate, because he doesn't know any god damn thing about it. I agree with the legalization of ALL drugs, but I am a even stronger supported of EDUCATING people about drugs, like Bill maher.

PS, please don't say I don't know what I am talking about, a couple of months ago, I would be shouting at the comments I just made, but we can't just blindly follow lifestyles because someone else is telling us not to, we can keep being dogs.

He is right that the guy was harmed far more by being dipped in chlorine for the past 8 years more then that bong of pot smoke. He's also right that you shouldn't drink tap water unless it's from a well as it's assuredly had a tun of chlorine dumped into it to kill off any contaminates, though it's not as good at it's job as other more benign, though more expensive, methods.

I personally have a water cooler with a local companies spring water. Not only does it taste far better then my tap water but it's free of chlorine, which is a significant cancer causing agent over long periods of use. It's also been known to increase chances of strokes and heart attacks.

My point is the chlorine in the pool he swam in every day for 8 years was significantly more detrimental to his health then the bong he smoked. I swear every year the outrage over pot criminalization grows. IMHO it should be up to each individual state whether pot be illegal or not. This is the United STATES of America after all. I think, when it comes to medical use at any rate, President Obama agrees with that statement and it won't be long before he puts a stop to federal raids that waste billions every year.

Swimming Song

Lyrics: Loudon Wainright III
Music: Loudon Wainright III

This summer I went swimming
This summer I might have drowned
But I held my breath, I kicked my feet
And I moved my arms around
I moved my arms around

This summer I swam in the ocean
And I swam in a swimming pool
Salt my wounds, chlorined my eyes
I'm a self-destructive fool
Self-destructive fool

This summer I did the back stroke
And you know that that's not all
I did the breast stroke, the butterfly
And the old Australian crawl
The old Australian crawl

This summer I swam in a public place
And a reservoir to boot
At the latter I was informal
At the former I wore my suit
I wore my swimming suit

Oh, this summer I did swan dives
And jack-knives for you all
And once when you weren't looking
I did a cannon-ball
I did a cannon-ball

This summer I went swimming
This summer I might have drowned
But I held my breath, I kicked my feet
And moved my arms around
I moved my arms around

I don't understand German, so I'm not sure exactly what they're saying in this, but I assume it has something to do with the dangerous amount of chlorine in the water to help balance out the pee that every single rider leaves behind."

lol, no. They dont talk about chlorine at all. They are testing it for the first time. The narrator talks about how much it costs (500.000 Euro) and if the TÜV accepts the construction. The men and the girl just talk about how awesome it is. The girl seems to be a little bit hysterical, though.

>> ^my15minutes:
thanks for the chlorine!


<3

thanks for the chlorine!

Always love to vote for stupid people putting a little chlorine in the gene pool. Not sure if this really counts as horrorshow though... *nochannel

*wtf *comedy *eia

"...and furthermore, missy, why does your breath smell like chlorine?"

What does chlorine do for humans' systems that is beneficial besides kill harmful organisms? Is fluoride toxic in large/small amounts to humans? Trust science to certain facts, and throw it out the window at the point it collides with common sense-some "science" involved in pharmaceutical and chemical research and manufacturing is proprietary need-to-know, and you and I are not privy to all data with which to arrive at valid conclusions-read tomes of published materials if you like-I'd rather drink from above the snow-line in the world of the now-

I think the pools are just chlorinated water. The slide and the stuff the contestants put on before sliding is baby oil.

I think it should be in science but it's not my channel. They do refer to real scientists in the clip, at least it appears so. Though most of the sources in the clip that I quickly searched for turned up mostly anti-fluoride sites, which didn't do much to boost credibility. Here is a clip of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix who is referred to at the end of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9daqPRUWpMc&feature=related
I've also found an interesting Channel 4 documentary on the subject, the much used clip of Mullenix seems to come from this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVP12DnBvU&feature=related

I don't know much about the fluoride issue though and I haven't read all these huge posts. The science is controversial and not settled. Why not let viewers of the science channel decide for themselves (by also reading the comments) whether or not it's true science. I must say I'm glad that I live in the Netherlands though and that my water is not fluoridated nor chlorinated. Why the hell would anyone add stuff to water? Why not add vitamins to your water then, they're good for you? NO it's supposed to be water, if people want to use fluoride for their teeth then let them buy it somewhere. I used to use fluoride in primary school, we sloshed a solution in our mouth and then spat it out, not swallowed it.

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

some more info for ya

#661 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 1, July 29, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1534.pdf

#662 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 2, August 05, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1543.pdf

By Charlie Cray
Rachel's Democracy & Health News

.. . A careful examination of alternatives is precisely what the chlorine industry seeks to avoid. Their primary strategy has been to bog down the debate in interpretations of the toxicological evidence -- the "dueling risk assessments" strategy invented long ago by the tobacco industry.

The main front group for this strategy has been Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH receives 76% of its funding from industry sources, including Exxon, the largest phthalate manufacturer in the world.[1]

ACSH hired Dr. C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, to spearhead ACSH's "blue ribbon" panel of 17 "experts," most of whom have ties to the chemical industry, examining PVC safety. Koop and ACSH concluded that vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful.

In its extensive critique of Koop's study, Health Care Without Harm pointed out that ACSH only weighed the risks and benefits of medical products made flexible with DEHP (a toxic phthalate --see REHW #661), while ignoring the available alternatives --cost-competitive nonPVC products that are perfectly good substitutes. For instance, Koop said, "removing the phthalate [from the PVC product] would actually pose a significant health risk to individuals who depend on these devices [IV bags]." Koop ignored the fact that an FDA-approved phthalate-free IV bag produced by McGaw already has about 20% of the IV bag market.[2]

[1] Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991). See also: "Public-Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. For an excellent review of ASCH's ties to the chemical industry and Koop, see: "The Junkyard Dogs of Science," and "Flying the Koop: A Surgeon General's Reputation On the Line," PR WATCH Vol.5, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pgs. 1-6. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html .

In reply to this comment by persephone:
Great sift! We need more chemical toxicity awareness videos like this. People's homes are full of this stuff and they are largely ignorant of the effects it has on their health and well-being.

Even Nike is phasing out the use of PVC. I would like to have seen this video go a little further into describing the effects of the VOCs emitted by PVC. One that women need to be aware of, is the estrogen mimicking effect of VOCs, which basically messes up our menstrual cycle.