The answer to why it does that is because it only drinks water right after it's licking its own ass. Hence why the leg is up.

Let's see, $450,000,000 would buy 56 million MMR vaccinations, treat every case of malaria in Africa for a year, drill 150,000 wells for clean drinking water...

...or, you could have a badass yacht with missiles and lasers and stuff.

Alternatively, you could buy three F-22 jet fighters or 2/3 of a Stealth bomber.

The world is a weird place.


>> ^BoneRemake:

450 Million. Hmm I wonder how much Infrastructure and support service that could do undeveloped nations. Oh but he obviously needs another boat. Any Charity this guy gives however little it is compared to what he spends on himself, doesn't make him any better of a person, I am grossed out by such spending on such gaudy horrid atrocities.

I always hated to drink water (unless THIRSTY)... like pulling teeth for me. I am having problems now that dehydration can partially explain. After the surgeons who cut me up last January told me DRINK MORE WATER - HYDRATE YOUR DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, I'm a believer all of a sudden.

You make a good point Kreegath, but I don't think he was talking about "need" so much as "recommended". Why is a certain amount of water recommended? There seems to be no literature to back it up. For a healthy person, your thirst is a perfectly valid indicator of how much you need.

On the other hand, mild dehydration can lead to minor problems like fatigue, irritability, and insomnia. For some people, they don't notice their thirst until they are already experiencing these symptoms, and they never thought to relate it to dehydration. So it's a good idea to simply plan certain times throughout the day to drink a glass or two.

But beyond what he said about active people, conventional wisdom among fitness professionals is that you should drink water frequently when you are trying to improve your fitness level. They claim (and I have no idea if this is backed up by any studies) that by the time you get thirsty, your body has already shut down the "recovery" mode that is needed for athletic improvement. So it's important for people losing weight or building muscle to stay ahead of your thirst.

So even though it isn't proven scientifically, there is no reason you shouldn't be drinking plenty of water. You might even see real improvements from paying attention to you hydration level. And that is going to be a different amount for every person.

A few years ago, a bunch of us were going camping. I realized after we had left that I had forgotten to bring drinking water for our trip. We pulled into a grocery store where I could buy some bottled water, but I found that the prices for water were all very high, around $2.00-$4.00. Instead I picked up a 2L bottle of coke for $0.77, walked outside the store, dumped it in the parking lot and refilled it with water in the bathroom. One of my friends was shocked that I was wasting the cola. I explained that I was paying for the bottle, not the contents. We had a great trip.

>> ^direpickle:

jwray: Aquafina tastes much more strongly of chlorine than my tap water. And the only states that don't add fluoride to their drinking water have a much higher rate of tooth decay.

Rubbish, plenty of countries that don't fluoridate water or salt have lower rates of tooth decay than us. There isn't even any correlation between water fluoridation and lower tooth decay among populations that regularly use fluoridated toothpaste. EPA admits the entire benefit is posteruptive and topical. There is no reason to ingest a treatment that acts topically.

>> ^direpickle:

And if you're super-terrified of chemicals, what do you think you're ingesting when you're drinking water out of plastic bottles? Haven't you noticed that the water tastes like the plastic?

I actually don't use any plastic bottles. I use glass or stainless steel for a variety of reasons:
1. More durable
2. Easier to clean (primarily due to being permanently very smooth, unlike plastic which is easily scratched)
3. Cheaper in the long run
4. Possible avoidance of BPA and other toxic chemicals that can leech out of plastic.

>> ^direpickle:

Anyway, some bottled water tastes good, but I don't buy it unless there's no free water to be had. But Aquafina and Dasani are just disgusting.

They don't really have any taste at all. I don't know what you're talking about.

jwray: Aquafina tastes much more strongly of chlorine than my tap water. And the only states that don't add fluoride to their drinking water have a much higher rate of tooth decay.

And if you're super-terrified of chemicals, what do you think you're ingesting when you're drinking water out of plastic bottles? Haven't you noticed that the water tastes like the plastic?

Anyway, some bottled water tastes good, but I don't buy it unless there's no free water to be had. But Aquafina and Dasani are just disgusting.

And then they add salt to it.

At least it hasn't been spiked with foul tasting compounds of Cl and F that are intended to kill bacteria and to get you to ingest things that are really only useful topically to slow the erosion of teeth and have no additional benefit (but likely unwanted side effects) when taken systemically. Just search Google scholar for fluoride neurotoxicity in rats or check the CDC's recommendations on upper limits for fluoride levels in drinking water and consider how impossible it is to control the dose when people are drinking different amounts of water.

Fluoride is rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream via the kidneys and uptake by calcified tissues. However, people who lack proper kidney function are vulnerable to being poisoned by fluoridated water. The mechanism of action as a poison is essentially interfering with all kinds of enzymes. It has very broad dose-dependent systemic effects. The upper limit for safety is only 2x the "optimal level" used for preventing cavities, which is an absurdly small margin of error given the uncontrolled quantities of tap water people consume.

It's also immoral to force a specific medical treatment on everyone without their consent UNLESS abstention from the treatment endangers people other than themselves (i.e., vaccines).

Fair enough...

For more than half my life, No I didn't pay for water - I had a well!
But yes, I do now pay for my tap water - no where near the cost of "bottled water" though, which is what we are talking about here.
• And when I go to restaurant, and I order a water, I don't pay for it!
• If I am anywhere a water fountain can be found, I use it - I don't go elsewhere and pay for it.
• If I am at an event in the hot, hot sun and my kids are dehydrated (I usually bring water with us but...)and I've looked everywhere for a fountain or accessible tap water and I can't find any - then, yes I pay for it because I am forced to. (I curse every time )
••• BUT we shouldn't have to be "forced" to pay for bottled water with hijacked pricing when city water is available right there and being denied to us. I am already paying for water usage from the city, so why should I be denied access to it.

• Also to note, In Quesnel (pop. 25,000), where I grew up and where a large percentage of the population uses well water. The city provides a (high volume) public tap for anyone who has undrinkable well water. This water is free of charge - no one is denied clean drinking water! People stop by with their large tanks and fill them once a week, and so on.

>> ^jimnms:
So tap water is free where you live? I get a bill from the city for my tap water.

I can think of a few reasons for bottled water to exist. Primary reason I buy it is when I work outside or at different locations, you can be reasonably sure the water isn't going to make you sick.

I've been to jobs where the water coming out of the hose on their house smelled like rotten eggs, made me queasy just from the smell. And if you work anywhere commercial you can't even be reasonably sure that the water they are pumping through their building is even considered drinkable unless it comes straight from a drinking fountain. One place actually had it's own system to mix liquid fertilizer into the water supply and pumping it through the building...one day it'd be pure water, one day it'd be a blue-green color. Had to use water for the equipment and to clean up, but I never trust drinking water at any location because I'd rather not get a stomach bug from it..or worse.

As for places where the water is SUPPOSED to be drinkable, like public parks, schools, etc. Drinking from water fountains when you watch people spit on it openly, or look like they are trying to deep throat the water nozzle, or have their kids who were just playing with dog shit run up and rub their unwashed hands all over it. Then imagine what people do that drinking fountain/sink/whatever when it's dark out and people can't easily see them.

I know my reasons for drinking bottled water...they don't necessarily exclude tap water. But it's easier to buy the bottles, stick em in a cooler with ice and be good for the rest of the day. Used to do the big water cooler setup, fill it up from a known clean tap water source..wash it out every day (it got pretty nasty in just a days period from the ice, dirty hands, and just dirt/dust). Then you had to worry about cups or something else to drink out of.......and after having a few co-workers who were just nasty. IE fill up their cup without even attempting to clean or cover their dirty hands while they did it...or drinking out of other people's cups because they wouldn't pay attention. I stopped doing that.

So, if your reason for drinking bottled water is because you don't trust other people not to get ass matter and worse all over the handles and spout of water spigots, etc....then I understand.

>> ^marinara:
BFkisses, why you asking about fluoride? r u a mother or something?

on t
I became interested in this topic after seeing the news report by Team 5 about the issues they're having with Chinese purchased fluoride. I was kind of surprized to find out that they haven't yet figured out what the insoluable substance is yet. It's as if safeguards are not in place to ensure the quality of this "additive" to our water supply.

I like to drink water, as I'm sure everyone does. Does one really need a reason be concerned about the quality of the most essential element that our body needs?

Anyway, they say it's safe and good for us but I wonder if that's entirely true. I've seen lots of cases for the banning of fluoride and the extremely negative response by the "Science" channel administrator here on the sift about any claims that it's unsafe so I thought I'd find some information that supports Fluoride. I was hoping to find a video that would prove the case that it's a truly a great idea to add this chemical into our water, however the case "for" fluoride seems a bit weak and there appears to be contradictory evidence by those whom oppose fluoride, yet this research is generally disregarded by individuals that are for fluoridation.

I can understand the case for wanting to reduce cavities for the population yet I'm not so sure the safeguards are in place to prevent poor quality fluoride from being used (obviously since the fluoride from china hasn't been tested and we've been told it's safe). I also have an issue with the fact that this fluoride is essentially a toxic waste byproduct.

What exactly constitutes "pharmaceutical-grade" and "industrial-grade" fluoride? Is it the same thing? Does industrial-grade contain other toxic elements comparatively? These seem like important questions, seeing as we all NEED to drink water to live and they add this toxin to our water.

Am I being irrational in my thinking? Do we have the right to question these things? Are there special interests involved that promote the use of fluoride?

The ADA, NSL and CDC all state that flouride is not harmful to us and advocate it's use in our water supply to help prevent tooth decay. It's GOOD for you!

Ok.. fine what's a little bit of extra toxin in our daily diet... it's not like we're getting this fluoride from a dictatorship-style run country with a health violation record regarding it's products exported.

I mean, we're getting top-grade pharmaceutical quality fluoride from nature (according to the ADA). Our politicians and corporate CEOs overseeing the process would have nothing less because they care for their end users.

I mean, it's not like they're siphoning these toxic chemicals (complete with arsenic, lead and radons) in an unrefined and unprocessed state directly from fertilizer plant smoke-stacks. The same ones where they used to emit these fluorides as gasses into the environment and kill off the animal and plant life in the township near the plants (until regulation prohibited them from this process). Now we have an effective method of discarding these toxic chemicals - by putting it in our drinking water.

Absolutely Genius!!!

We should be thankful they're giving us fluoride. According to the Health Science Channel our daily fluoride dosage is what is keeping our tooth enamel from falling apart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKgZeeBpBQc

I do find it strange though that this water treatment facility has turned off their fluoride integration and have still yet to investigate why this Chinese fluoride is clogging up their system. The CDC and NSL says it's safe though so we can put away any fears of contamination. Why would they lie to us? That would be scandalous would only serve to harm their reputation on the subject of fluoride. Still, how long would a spectroscopic test take? I don't understand why they haven't shown proof of it being safe. Some empirical data on this batch of fluoride might reassure the public.

Duckman:
While your statistic is accurate according to the CDC, that is in reference to Autism Spectrum Disorder; there are varying degrees of the disorder, and not every child diagnosed has that severe Autism that everyone is so on edge about. Yes, having the disorder is bad in and of itself, but there are varying levels of the disorder. Here's a list of statistics on the prevalence of types of PDDs from the Autism Society of Canada's website:

"Prevalence of specific PDDs

* CDD Rare: ~ 0.2 in 10,000= ~ 500 Canadians
* Rett's Rare: ~ 1 in 10,000= ~ 3,150 Canadians
* Autistic Disorder: ~ 20 in 10,000= ~ 73,000 Canadians
* PDD-NOS: ~ 15 in 10,000= ~ 47,000 Canadians
* Asperger's: ~ 5 in 10,000= ~ 15,000 Canadians

Reference:
Fombonne, E., 2003: Modern Views of Autism, Can. J. Psychiatry, 48:503-505.
Fombonne, E., 2003: Epidemiology of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders: an update. J. Autism.Dev. Disord. 33:365-381\"

http://www.autismsocietycanada.ca/asd_research/research_prevalence/index_e.html

Why are the levels of Autism increasing? A very good explanation could be the same reason the levels of diagnosis on other diseases seems to spike with the progression of medical science: We get better at diagnosing illnesses.

If something is causing the disorders to become more common in children, and the public at large, it will be discovered, but at this point there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that anything in our vaccines or our drinking water is creating a neurological disorder epidemic. The burden of proof lies on those who claim it is "not natural", just like those who say God created the Cosmos. For all we know right now it could be natural, and we have just never realized it before.

But, to paraphrase Tim Minchin: "If you can show me how it works and why it works I will spin on a fucking dime, and I'll be embarrased as all hell, but I will admit it with evidence, and I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my cock."

NordlichReiter:
I completely agree with you that it doesn't appear that way with our politicians, nor does the mass media help in anyway with the preponderance of getting celebrities to pitch in their own "opinions" on the current state of affairs within our societies. To go back to the Anti-Vax nonsense, Jenny McCarthy is a perfect example; she believes her "mommy instinct" trumps all known medical science and evidence, and now it appears her kid never even had Autism in the first place, but an entirely different neurological disorder:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796-1,00.html


>> ^Duckman33:
Whether this video is bullshit or not. The fact remains that 1 out of every 110 children born has autism. That is unacceptable. So what is the cause if not fluoride in the drinking or vaccines?? I find it hard to believe this is natural. Anyone of you geniuses disputing the video have an answer?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases.

I thought it was pretty clear,humans are effecting the increase in temperature on the planet. I don't think I can make it more precise. Someone has already linked the science proving that, and if you desire more, then I will provide it. But it is more than C02 production, it's a combination of other things as well, that have to deal with pollution.

eg. Why are the oceans warming up at such a pace? A great visual example of that is the Gulf of Mexico. The waters are so damn warm there, that any tropical storm gets whipped up into a hurricane in no time flat. Why? Because of all the crap coming down the Mississippi and settling into the Gulf.

Is it all C02? No, but it does play its part. You can't disprove this, because they've been researching it for decades now. You think that tossing that amount of Carbon into the air wouldn't do anything to the atmosphere? Or dumping tons upon tons of crap into our oceans and drinking water, wouldn't have some kind of effect on the environment around it?

It's actually pointless to introduce the solar energy input into the equation at all Crake. The sun has shone and will shine for far longer than human beings will ever manage to survive on this planet. When I and many others look at agricultural reform we look at those aspects of the food production chain that humans can control and can change. The 'facilitation' you talk about is the entire crux of the modern day agricultural dilemma. There are an infinite number of ways that facilitation could happen, and the concern and debate is whether or not the road industry has chosen for us is the one that will bare the most fruit. Clearly it has not. The reasons, myriad, I don't want to write a thesis on the sift.

And I agree, when you start looking at government crop subsidies the energy calculation does lose its relevance. Why? Because you have jumped a 100 steps up a chain that was problematic at its root. The agricultural subsidy issue is a whole other Pandora's box.

Again, it's not the Haber process itself that is unsustainable, it is the entire industrial agricultural framework. The Haber process's dependence on natural gas is problematic, and even with future technological developments aside, it's a reductionist solution that undermines the multitude of complimentary farming techniques that could naturally introduce nitrogen into the soil. It's the kind of simplified agricultural solution that corporate agribusiness monopolies love, and it's this mutual reinforcement that causes concern. Again, the Haber process is a small piece of huge puzzle, we digress.

And with regards to future developments, let me illustrate why future developments are almost irrelevant to many of the problems at hand. In India for example there is a 500 year old tradition of aquaculture, for shrimp specifically. Most of the farms are small, local and sustainably run using various aquaculture farming methods (if you are interested you could read up on the Bheri system of aquaculture, just one of the many traditional systems).

This 'third world' farming technique as some might call it is just as profitable and has yields just as large as the more intensive commercial and industrial aquaculture methods. It has stood the test of time and it also forms the back bone of India's shrimp export economy, the largest in the world.

Industrial shrimp farming has had dismal success around the world. Taiwan, China, Mexico, Ecuador, all these countries have had huge issues keeping commercial shrimp farming sustainable. Wherever commercial shrimp farming has been tried, it has failed to a large degree, usually due to major disease outbreaks. That's why the call it the 'rape and run' industry.

Isn't it strange that the more industrial shrimp farms are introduced in India (due to government subsidies and incentives), the more 'environmental issues' they have to deal with that just didn't exist with the 'traditional third world systems' . . . mangrove destruction, drinking water pollution (from antibiotics and pesticides add to the shrimp ponds to minimize disease) , salinization of groundwater, etc.

Now you might argue with me that the solution to this problem potentially lies with future developments . . . a better antibiotic maybe, perhaps genetically engineering shrimp to be more resistant to disease and pollution, etc, or maybe the solution lies in adopting farming techniques that have been slowly perfected for the last 500 years and are proven to work, where the only interventions that could be made were natural ones and success was determined by how well you could maintain a balanced relationship with your local ecosystem. It is these farming systems and the mindset that they embody that I would like to see the world adopt, improve upon and gravitate towards.

Pinning your hopes for improvement on future developments and technology is totally misguided, especially when the core of the modern industrial agricultural foundation is so rotten. I have nothing against technology, but I'm not going to let the problems, born of brutish and unsophisticated industrial thinking, be overlooked by a corporate apologist futurist mindset. I'm not implying that's how you feel about the issue, but that the stance that many people have. There is an utter lack of holistic thinking in the industrial agricultural world (and everywhere else pretty much) and the direction it is leading us in is potentially frightening.