BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Water

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:26 / 27.01.06
Over in this thread we started drifting from the topic at hand to discuss water.

So lets discuss it here instead.

The thread linked to by Haus in that thread contains absolutely no mention whatsoever of the fact that, if you live in a major urban centre in the Western world, your home water supply is almost certainly contaminated - deliberately, by your Government - with extremely toxic poisons. One of these - sodium fluoride - is an insecticide, a byproduct of the aluminium manufacturing process, used to exterminate cockroaches and believed by the Nazi's and subsequently Stalin's Communist Russia to increase docility and suggestibility in the human brain. It undoubtedly is disastrously poisonous to many of the organs in the human body and structures within the brain.

I don't have time to corroborate this with links, but feel free to do your own research.

The other is chlorine, a gas at room temperature which was used extensively as a chemical weapon in WW1, and continues to be stockpiled as one of those pesky WMD's by all the governments who are allowed to have them.

Some rather dubiously funded scientific research way back when suggested that adding these supertoxins to the water supply you and I have to drink and bathe in (both chemicals are absorbed into the body far more through the skin than by consumption was a good idea...they produced data, since rubbished and proven to be opposite to the actual truth, that these poisons protect your teeth. Insecticide and chemical weaponry added to your water, the source of your life, for your dental hygiene.

In spite of subsequent demonstration that this was a crock of shit, the chlorination and fluoridation of water continues to this day.

Yes, yes, precious bodily fluids, General Jack D. Ripper, etc.

I don't have time right now to go further, but I start this off by making the case again that if you are not bothered by any of this, that's great. But I am. I don't want to drink it, or bathe in it.

Lets discuss the issues around this, political, environmental and scientific.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:43 / 27.01.06
I'm not convinced that the onus is on other readers and contributors to this thread to do the research to supply the evidence to back up your claims, dude.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:53 / 27.01.06
Have to wait, then.
 
 
Morgana
13:03 / 27.01.06
That's really a weird thing to do, as the quantity of water a citizen comsumes can range from a couple of litres to nothing, I guess. So how could they account for that everybody gets the right amount of that stuff?

It's not done where I live, but little children are supposed to take fluoride tablets. I had to, and I remember I hated them. Also it's added to many brands of toothpaste. I've only heard it's carcinogen, but don't know much more about it.

But what should a government gain by poisoning citizens...?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:11 / 27.01.06
That's really a weird thing to do

My point exactly.

There are areas of the UK that still are free of it, but one, where I was looking to move, funny enough, is about to have it introduced to their supply. 96% of the residents who live there have signed a petition to the local and national government insisting that they do not want it.

But they are going ahead anyway.

They must really care about our teeth, eh? Except, er, sodium fluoride strips the body of calcium, so...um...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:13 / 27.01.06
right amount

Yes, what is the right amount of insecticide for a typical human child? Or adult? There must be a pamphlet somewhere.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:16 / 27.01.06
Well, in 2003 the scientific advisor to the British Dental Association said:

"Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist. Targeted water fluoridation is the one public health measure that would cause the largest improvement in the oral health of those in greatest need."

In September 2004, the BBC investigative affairs show 'Should I Worry About...?' apparently concluded that there is no need to worry about tap water (although that link goes to a site that operates on behalf of the UK Water industry, so impartiality must be allowed for).

The Drinking Water Inspectorate is the regulatory body for public water supplies in England and Wales. They do have pamphlets on this sort of thing, unsurprisingly. Here's what they have to say about chlorine:

Chlorine has to be used carefully, but it is harmless when used in very small amounts as a disinfectant to treat drinking water. It is also commonly used in various brands of sterilisers for baby feeding bottles and equipment. It is also used in higher concentrations to disinfect water in swimming pools.

Why use chlorine?
It is absolutely essential that drinking water should be safe to drink and contain no harmful bacteria capable of causing diseases. Chlorine is a very effective disinfectant. It has been used for 100 years. The addition of chlorine in small amounts at water treatment works gives maximum disinfection action before water reaches your tap.

...

Are these low amounts of residual chlorine harmful?
No. The small amounts of chlorine in your water prevent harmful bacteria growing in the water mains or your pipes. You can rest assured that the usual amount of chlorine in water leaving treatment works is safe and well within the World Health Organisation guidelines.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:17 / 27.01.06
Link

You're a lazy Shaftoe, so you are.

Look, here's, some more.

[homer]Mmmmmm. Sodium Fluoride....[/homer]
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:24 / 27.01.06
Trust who you like. Drink what you like. To your health, Sir!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:25 / 27.01.06
Yes, I'm very lazy. Could you pick out for me, from the first link, the relevant evidence indicating that the levels of fluoride currently found in UK tap water are harmful?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:27 / 27.01.06
I particularly like : Chronic exposure may cause mottling of teeth and bone damage (osteosclerosis) and fluorosis. Symptoms of fluorisis include brittle bones,weight loss, anemia, calcified ligaments, general ill health and joint stiffness.

I'll come back later with a thorough run down of why, if you care for it.

Which begs the question, why would the head of the BDA be seen in public promoting a system which is actually bad for your teeth? Chronic exposure or no, this is a deadly poison.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:34 / 27.01.06
It's worth noting that the current treatment for scabies was also used as a poison - primarily because it kills things. I;m not convinced that research shoiwng that concentration x of substance y is toxic can be applied to concentration x/100000 of the same substance.

Not saying tap water is safe or deadly. Just saying.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:34 / 27.01.06
From the downloadable pdf in your first link:

"Fluoridation takes place at the water treatment plant where a solution of fluoride is injected into water under close control to adjust the natural level to the optimum for dental health - one part per million (1ppm)."

and, from my second link

"Concern is also expressed over the prevalence of dental fluorosis in the US. The National Research Council of America, in its 1993 publication “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride”14 admitted that by the 1980s where the fluoride content of the water was around 1 ppm, 22% of the population now had dental fluorosis, compared with 10% in the 1930s. At 1.8–2.2 ppm, 53% of the population had dental fluorosis and at concentrations greater than 3.7 ppm, 84% had dental fluorosis. In effect, between one fifth and four fifths of the fluoridated population of the US is showing visible signs of fluoride toxicity."

You asked.
 
 
Morgana
13:46 / 27.01.06
Of course little doses of toxines can be healthy in fighting illnesses - but, as I asked above, how can they be sure nobody gets over this dosis? Medication usually is regulated.

Anyway, everybody who's unhappy about their drinking water should consider moving to Berlin - I just found out we have the healthiest tap water, which doesn't even need chlorine to be added, because it's naturally filtered.

Let's drink to this!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:56 / 27.01.06
Let's assume that agree that (man-made as opposed to naturally occuring) water fluoridation is a bad thing and that we should campaign for it not to be done. What can those without their own micro-filtration systems or chemist brothers consume in the meantime? Bottled water does not seem to be a solution.

This article has a lot to say about the relatively unregulated nature of the bottled water industry in the US, and the environmental costs:

More and more environmentalists are beginning to question the purpose of lugging those heavy, inefficient, polluting bottles all over the Earth. The WWF argues that the distribution of bottled water requires substantially more fuel than delivering tap water, especially since over 22 million tons of the bottled liquid is transferred each year from country to country. Instead of relying on a mostly preexisting infrastructure of underground pipes and plumbing, delivering bottled water -- often from places as far-flung as France, Iceland or Maine -- burns fossil fuels and results in the release of thousands of tons of harmful emissions. Since some bottled water is also shipped or stored cold, electricity is expended for refrigeration. Energy is likewise used in bottled water processing. In filtration, an estimated two gallons of water is wasted for every gallon purified.

The WWF estimates that around 1.5 million tons of plastic are used globally each year in water bottles, leaving a sizable manufacturing footprint. Most water bottles are made of the oil-derived polyethylene terephthalate, which is known as PET. While PET is less toxic than some plastics, the Berkeley Ecology Center found that manufacturing PET generates more than 100 times the toxic emissions -- in the form of nickel, ethylbenzene, ethylene oxide and benzene -- compared to making the same amount of glass.

Not surprisingly, a considerable number of used water bottles end up as litter, where they can take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. Pat Franklin, the executive director of the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), says nine out of 10 plastic water bottles end up as either garbage or litter -- at a rate of 30 million per day. According to the Climate Action Network, when some plastic bottles are incinerated along with other trash, as is the practice in many municipalities, toxic chlorine is released into the air while heavy metals deposit in the ash. If plastics are buried in landfills, not only do they take up valuable space, but potentially toxic additives such as phthalates may leak into the groundwater. "It's ironic that many people drink bottled water because they are afraid of tap water, but then the bottles they discard can result in more polluted water," says Franklin. "It's a crazy cycle."

The independent study commissioned by the WWF, 'Bottled Water: understanding a social phenomenon', may be a good relatively impartial source of information on various aspects of bottled water. One of the key points it makes is about cost:

The price of bottled water is tremendously high, compared to tap water. The production cost of one bottle of water, whatever its capacity, is extremely low: under 0.05 FF for one bottle of Evian. Most of the price of a bottled water consumers actually pay corresponds to its transport, marketing and retailers’ profits. Bottled waters end up being an average 500 to 1000 times more expensive than tap water.

The report concludes:

[B]ottled water should not be considered a sustainable alternative to tap water, as it is not exempt from periodical contamination. In addition, tap water is more energy-efficient as it is provided through underground pipes, compared to fuel and energy needed for filling bottles and transporting them around the world. Tap water is and should remain a public service meant to deliver good quality drinking water.

Now, if we established tap water in the UK is not fulfilling its purpose as defined in that last sentence, then that is something we could all agree we should work to change.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:01 / 27.01.06
Morgana:

Of course little doses of toxines can be healthy in fighting illnesses - but, as I asked above, how can they be sure nobody gets over this dosis? Medication usually is regulated.

Well, the doses are regulated. From the DWI website I linked to earlier:

The Drinking Water Inspectorate checks that water companies comply with all drinking water regulations. This includes checking that water supplies do not contain more than 1.5mg/l of fluoride.

I think the argument that is being made is that this is an unsafe level and that the DWI cannot be trusted.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:03 / 27.01.06
Oh - got a source for the Berlin water stat?

(Get it, a SOURCE, do you SEE, etc.)
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
15:06 / 27.01.06
I recall reading the argument that fluoridation is good for your teeth because it hardens enamel (also turns your teeth grey in the process - why wouldn't a dentist endorse it? Oh, right, ethics)...

doesn't chlorine bind with organic material in water?
if this is so, then some of the chlorine content doesn't evaporate.

Vancouver doubled its population in very short order in the late 80s, and the infrastructure has yet to catch up (except the postal service is outstanding for some reason). Some parts of town, the water has a distinct sewage smell, other parts, the usual crystal clean chlorine-tainted aroma.

in a country such as this, which has more fresh water than anywhere, why is water more expensive than gasoline?

good thread. I look to Bolivia with the means of dealing with privatisation of water resources.

--not jack
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:43 / 27.01.06
I've no argument whatsoever that bottled water has a potentially damaging environmental impact, particularly when people don't give a monkey's about recycling their waste...as many people clearly don't...

But I think we've arrived at the main political point, really...I, and many other people, do not want poisons added to my water, for the spurious and scientifically highly dubious reason of 'dental care'...what a crock!...a few areas still do not have fluoridation and do not want it, but are being forced to take it...why? And how can I, and anyone else, object to the present scenario in an effective way likely to bring about a change of policy?

I don't know, but it's one of those situations which does not have an easy, 'correct' answer, and needs to be judged by the individual around their own priorities and behaviours, I think. There is enormous bodies of research available to investigate both camps claims - harmful, or not harmful.

I happen to take a very, very dim view of allopathic medicine, and the enormous industry which underpins it, and the consequent media supported hegemony that it is effective, beneficial and the best course of action for combating illness and dis-ease. I, in fact, beg to differ. The issue of water and toxifying agents therein are tied into this wider issue, and the environmental damage wrought by transportation of and bottling of mineral waters only tangentially so. It's not an easy situation, having that upon which your life depends controlled by bizarre fucking idiots.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:59 / 27.01.06
Like this one, quoted in your post, Petey:

Chlorine is a very effective disinfectant.

Disinfectants, by their very nature, are toxic. They are designed to kill organisms. There is no such thing as a non-toxic disinfectant.

It is 'very effective' because it kills everything that is alive, harmful, beneficial, in your gut, in the water, in the trenches at the Somme, everything.

Mmm, mine's a pint.
 
 
Axolotl
17:51 / 27.01.06
I can't believe I'm defending these people, but...
Let's say that the claims for toxicity are correct. What reason do the various governments, NGOs and corporations involved in water supply have for poisoning the general population? I know if I ran Thames Water or similar I'd prefer my customers to be alive tomorrow, if only so I can continue to sell them stuff. What motivations does the scientific community have for colluding in this cover up? After all they use tap water, as do their families.
I think while chlorine may have certain health risks, the alternative is much worse: I know which one I'd pick if I had to choose between cholera and chlorine in my water.
Fluoridation I am less certain on. However the evidence against it is less than definitive, and the side effects seem to be fairly minor, so without some really good evidence against it, I'll be quite happy to continue drinking tap water.
I think more interesting is the growth of water as a resource that people will fight over. Various parts of the Middle East situation have water sources as a major source of conflict. Parts of India suffer from flooding due to deforestation upstream, Russia is currently dealing with the consequences of a toxic spill in China. How long till 2 countries at loggerheads start a fight over water, or use control of that water as a weapon against the other?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:44 / 27.01.06
fluoride is very expensive to dispose of.

adding it to drinking water is inexpensive.

chlorine kills potentially hazardous organisms and evaporates. If it's cheap enough, why not use it?

for the record, I think we're better off strengthening our immune systems and dealing with the sources of pollution to the water cycle in the course of fixing all this mess.

and I don't believe adding toxins to the mix is a good idea.

in terms of International politics, the US pretty much has free run of all of Canada's fresh water.

I think there was discussion by the government of Minnesota to drain water from Lake Superior and run it South to irrigate the Mid-West.

The Ural Sea is a tragic example of the consequence of industrial disregard.

as are fireworks - phosphorus, sulphur, magnesium. Launched, ignited, the debris from the explosion, pretty as it may be, invariably drifting down into our water.
at least in every fireworks display to which I've been.

I think we need to deal with our waste in a big way in order to resolve this issue, whether it be fluoride, chlorine, anti-freeze, sewage, and what-all-else we dump into our lakes, rivers and oceans.

not to mention the piles of refuse that ends up by accident or neglect, draining into ground water.

i helped edit a thesis that delineated land into bioregions, which were typically defined by a watershed. In part, a focus on the native flora, fauna, fungi and the support system: water, nutrition, shelter, mates or socialites, might serve us better in reducing our use of transportation in feeding/watering/caring for ourselves.

"May you never thirst."
from Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein.

--not jack
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:51 / 27.01.06
What motivations does the scientific community have for colluding in this cover up?

Which community and what cover-up? The facts are widely available for critique and debate, the various body's in disagreement largely out in the open.

As I said, it's a matter of choice, if you have one.

If the choice is between cholera and chlorine, I know which one I'd pick

Can you show me the research which demonstrates that this is 'the choice', or are you regurgitating superstition and swallowing (do you see what I did there?) the hegemony you have been handed, hook, line and sinker?

You might find this article interesting

On the off chance that you can't be arsed, here are some choice snippets:

"Nothing can negate the incontrovertible fact the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities, such as heart attacks and most common forms of stokes is chlorine. The chlorine contained in processed drinking water." (1)

This conclusion is based on experiments using chlorine in the drinking water of chickens. The results: 95% of the chickens given chlorine added to distilled water developed atherosclerosis within a few months.

Also

Can chlorine be linked to cancer too? In the chlorination process itself, chlorine combines with natural organic matter decaying vegetation to form potent cancer causing trihalomethanes (THM’s) or haloforms. Trihalomethanes collectively include such carcinogens as chloroforms, bromoforms carbon tectachloride, bischlorothane and others. The amount of THM’s in our drinking water is theoretically regulated by the EPA. Although the maximum amount allowed by law is 100 ppb, a 1976 study showed 31 of 112 municipal water systems exceeded this limit.

And

'‘The continued use of chlorine as the main drinking water disinfectant in the United States only adds to the organic chemical contamination of drinking water supplies. The current federal standard regulation of trihalomethanes do not adequately protect water consumers from the multitude of other organic chlorination by-products that have been shown in many studies to be mutagenic and toxic’(5)

"Chlorine is so dangerous" according to biologist/chemist Dr. Herbert Schwartz," that It should be banned. Putting chlorine In the water is like starting a time bomb. Cancer heart trouble, premature senility, both mental and physical are conditions attributable to chlorine, treated water supplies. It is making us grow old before our time by producing symptoms of ageing such as hardening of the arteries. I believe if chlorine were now proposed for the first time to be used in drinking water it would be banned by the Food and Drug Administration."'

It's really worth reading the whole thing, apologies for the lengthy pastes, I'd like to include more, but recommend reading the link, really.

This gives you a good idea of just what is going into your belly with every glass. Mmm.

Four very good articles 'quality reviewed' for publication on Expert-Expert.com regarding the largely undisputed links between Chlorinated Water and Cancer.

Yes - chlorination of your water supply, that lovely taste you get from the tap, in all likelihood, causes premature ageing and cancer. Didn't you know? The scientific community does, and are not in any way 'covering it up'. It simply makes far to much economic sense to do anything about it. After all, we're a bit overpopulated anyway, right?

Once you've got the mutagenic cells going on you can have a radiological treatment likely to shorten your life four times faster than if you didn't have it, with absolutely no evidence of its efficacy whatsoever, and a course of chemo drugs which effectively completely destroy your immune system.

Seems like a great way to fight illness and dis-ease, eh? Destroy the immune system. Yep, that'll do the trick all right.

Did you know that after cancer (already covered) and heart dis-ease (chlorine in there as well, hardening the arteries), the number three killer of people in the Western world is medical drugs, and number five is infections contracted while in hospital? Rather sobering, no?

So, the question is 'why?', yes? Does this make any cents at all? Can you see any cents in it? Or am I talking noncents? [/laboured pun]. The pharmaceutical industry and medical industry lag *just* behind the oil and arms trade as the repository of great power and wealth.

Most people, though, don't care. They feel fine. If anything goes wrong, they'll just go to the Doctor.

Wakey wakey.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
21:02 / 27.01.06
btw, the alternative is not cholera but the rather more expensive than chlorination method called ozonation

Though this produces Co2.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
 
paw
21:09 / 27.01.06
Moneyshot, do you know of any links to companies that sell household water filtering equipment? i've done a quick search and theres so many sites out there claiming this and that that i don't know who to trust.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
21:18 / 27.01.06
A good Wikipedia entry on fluoridation

This Wiki article makes the point that quoting from the BDA(well, the ADA, but same difference), as was done upthread, is not really that useful, since they are a union set up to protect the interests of their members, practitioners of the Dental Industry, and not a public health body at all.

Here is a lengthy but excellent article about fluoride generally and fluoridation.

And here is a little more about the Nazi / Communist belief in fluoride as mind control drug, and its inclusion in, among other things, Prozac, Nerve drugs and Sarin gas. Please note this site is a tad gun-totin' rootin-tootin' xenophobic and right wing, but the article has some useful info.

Sorry for all these linkages, but the lab seems somewhat like the place where such things are more required, perhaps, than elsewhere.
 
 
Morgana
15:31 / 28.01.06
Well, the doses are regulated. From the DWI website I linked to earlier:

Sure, the dosis put into the water is regulated. But it's not regulated, how much water people consume. If you get a medication it's usually like "take three of these a day" isn't it? So how many pints of tap water should the average UK-citizen drink to save hir teeth and not be poisoned?

Oh - got a source for the Berlin water stat?

Yupp
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:48 / 28.01.06
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from that image - were you saying that Berlin has the healthiest tap water in Germany, Europe, or even wider?
 
 
sleazenation
08:12 / 29.01.06
sure, the dosis put into the water is regulated. But it's not regulated, how much water people consume. If you get a medication it's usually like "take three of these a day" isn't it? So how many pints of tap water should the average UK-citizen drink to save hir teeth and not be poisoned?

Dude - taking anything to excess is going to have consequences. Even drinking pure, unadulterated water to excess can be harmful.

It's all about managing risks and having a good idea about the true scale of those risks. Unfortunately, nothing in this world is naturally good for you, without potential harmful effects or risk of contamination. So it's all down to risk management. Large groups of scientists and government workers of various ilks have assessed that risk and put measures in place to manage it. They have also provided information on what they are doing an why they are doing it.

To continue to view this a some strange plot strikes me as serious tinfoil hat territory.
 
 
■
22:05 / 29.01.06
By what significant percentage could the chlorine in a glass of water increase the overall chlorine levels in your stomach given that it tends to be full of hydrochloric acid anyway?
I also would have thought a single grain of salt is likely to contain several magnitudes more chlorine than the 0.0001g allowed in a whole litre of water by a 100ppb concentration.
[Goes to kitchen, happily ingests another glass]
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:22 / 30.01.06
Unfortunately, nothing in this world is naturally good for you

Fascinating statement. Can you unpack that a bit?

To continue to view this a some strange plot strikes me as serious tinfoil hat territory.

Possibly, though not necessarily, because your definiton of a 'plot' involves a notion of conscious volition and scheming.

Salt is also not even vaguely useful to you, because unless the sodium is chelated to a protein molecule by the miracle of photosynthesis, then the bonds of the molecule are ionic, and unavailable for use within your body. Only organic minerals...the salt found in, say, celery, can be used by yur body.

Sodium deficiency is the number one mineral deficiency. It automatically leads to potassium deficiency, which is second.

Your point hinges on a notion that salt (table, rock or sea salt) is not bad for you (hence chorine in your water can't be that bad), which is patently not true. It therefore doesn't hold much weight, with me, that chlorine is harmelss. You have merely indentified another toxic manifestation of chlorine in relationship to living tissue.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:25 / 30.01.06
By 'chlorine is harmless' in that sentence, I of course mean 'chlorne in concentrations of 1 ppm'.

Have you read the links? On what grounds do you reject their findings?
 
 
sleazenation
09:02 / 30.01.06
Unfortunately, nothing in this world is naturally good for you

Fascinating statement. Can you unpack that a bit?

I thought I already had when I went on to give the example of drinking too much water having harmful effects. The idea being that many, if not most, things when consumed to excess can have harmful effects. Which kind of links in with managed risk. What is excess, and what is a safe dose can admittedly be difficult to calculate, but it certainly seems that a collection of governmental and scientific agencies have had a pretty good stab at it.

Your point hinges on a notion that salt (table, rock or sea salt) is not bad for you (hence chorine in your water can't be that bad), which is patently not true. It therefore doesn't hold much weight, with me, that chlorine is harmelss. You have merely indentified another toxic manifestation of chlorine in relationship to living tissue.

Um.. I don't think i mentioned rock/table salt at all... I pointed to a health magazine article that talked of excessive hydration leading to the dilution of essential salts in the blood stream. Which is not something you appear to be disputing...
 
 
Morgana
10:36 / 30.01.06
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from that image - were you saying that Berlin has the healthiest tap water in Germany, Europe, or even wider?

I meant the best water in Germany, sorry. You can click on the blue boxes in the image, to get the values for the different waterworks.
 
 
Morgana
10:59 / 30.01.06
Aaaah, now I got what you mean by "Berlin water stat". Excuse my non-nativespeakerness. Now I don't know anymore what I've googled last week and can't find the source. If I do so, I'll let you know - but it was in German, anyway.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply