BARBELITH underground
 

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


Water

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:55 / 30.01.06
Um.. I don't think i mentioned rock/table salt at all

You didn't, which is why those comments in my post follow a qoute from cube, who did, and not you.

However, you cannot extract 'Nothing in the world is naturally good for you' from the statement 'Everything taken to excess is bad for you'. There is a large difference between these two statements.

It's no doubt possible to do injury to yourself with excessive consumption of, say, alfalfa sprouts, or sprouted mung beans, if only by tearing the lining of the stomach through overfilling.

That doesn't mean they are not 'naturally good for you', though, does it?
 
 
sleazenation
12:43 / 30.01.06
You didn't, which is why those comments in my post follow a qoute from cube, who did, and not you.

Ah, I assumed you were still adressing me because I didn't spot any quotation marks or bolded section in your post referring to anything other than my post. An easy mistake I'm sure you'll agree.

As for the question of things that are 'naturally', (ie inherently) good for you. A diet that exclusively consists of mung beans could be harmful in a variety of ways in addition to the over-eating scenario you outline. Such an exclusive diet (which, I'm sure you would agree, would be excessive) could lead to possibly harmful doses of some vitimins and minerals present in Mung beans while leaving possibly equally harmful deficiencies of vitamins and minerals that are not present in mung beans...

I hope this is clear.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:30 / 30.01.06
Interesting thread, and I'll join in a bit more when I have more time. Initially I'd like to address the comments regarding chlorine.

Right up at the top of p1 Money writes:

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.

He's not wrong you know, it's nasty nasty stuff in gaseous form. Although I feel I should point out that it was only deployed in WW1 and was crude and inefficient as far as chemical weapons go.

Looking at wikipedia (also known as Teh Source of all Knowledge) we see that chlorine gas produces the following effects:

Chlorine irritates respiratory systems especially in children and the elderly. In its gaseous state it irritates mucous membranes and when a liquid it burns skin. It takes as little as 3.5 ppm to be detected as a distinct odor, but it takes 1000 ppm or more to be fatal. Because of this, chlorine was one of the gases used during World War I as a war gas. (See: Use of poison gas in World War I)

Exposure to this gas should therefore not exceed 0.5 ppm (8-hour time-weighted average - 40 hour week.).

Acute exposure to high (but non-lethal) concentrations of Chlorine can result in pulmonary edema, or fluid in the lungs, an extremely unpleasant condition. Chronic low-level exposure weakens the lungs, increasing susceptibility to other lung disorders.


So just to correct you on a this. Chlorine gas is toxic and attacks the respiratory system (which is why it was used as a weapon). It isn't automatically fatal though, so calling it a "supertoxin" is inaccurate. Now nicotine, that's what I'd call a supertoxin.

when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic compounds found in the water supply. The most common of these are trihalomethanes (THMs), which include chloroform. The World Health Organization has stated that the "[r]isks to health from DBPs are extremely small in comparison with inadequate disinfection."

Consider the hundreds of thousands who die, and die bad, from diarrhoea caused by water-bourne diseases carried in non-treated water. I think you need to show a shed-load more info than what's been posted here.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:49 / 30.01.06
because I didn't spot any quotation marks or bolded section in your post

Apart from your link pointing to my suit, not my post, that's strange, because on my screen the quote is absolutely in bold type. Whatever.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:53 / 30.01.06
I think you need to show a shed-load more info than what's been posted here.

The links I've provided are really all I have the energy for. Sorry, but I'm not all that bothered, really. Drink what you like, believe what you like.

I've stated the case as I see it, and thge alternatives. It's your health. It's only incumbent on me to demonstrate my reasoning, nothing else. Your wellbeing is your own lookout.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:06 / 30.01.06
But I don't think it's as easy as "drink what you like", Money, because I don't think we've reached an answer to my earlier question... Assuming that we are already campaigning for an improvement in the quality of tap water in the UK, what can those without their own micro-filtration systems or chemist brothers consume in the meantime? The massive expense that drinking only bottled water entails, surely makes it a very problematic option - if it can be called an option at all - for many people.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:10 / 30.01.06
It's only incumbent on me to demonstrate my reasoning, nothing else.

Fair enough.
 
 
sleazenation
15:13 / 30.01.06
Apart from your link pointing to my suit, not my post, that's strange, because on my screen the quote is absolutely in bold type. Whatever.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? On the off chance you aren't here is the corrected link to your post. Do you now follow the previous points I have made?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:24 / 31.01.06
No, sleaze, I'm not. Are you?

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

That bit, my friend, is the bold quote in my post, from cube's post, which I then refer to and discuss. I didn't actually label it 'cube' or anything, but it's fairly clear to anyone who is reading the thread and has a memory just slightly beyond that allegedly possessed of goldfish that it refers to the post from cube, because that post precedes it with little in the way but a short aside from, again, cube. So it should still be fresh, I guess. Maybe I'm wrong.

Does that help clear things up a little bit? Or is that quote in my post from cube's post not appearing in bold on your display?
 
 
sleazenation
11:34 / 31.01.06
I'll think you'll find it is actually a quote from my post here, right at the end, before cube's post.

So, yeah, I guess maybe you are indeed wrong.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:51 / 31.01.06
My bad. The response to your quote is bolded.

The response to cube's post, which precedes mine, is the bit about salt, and is not quoted at all, as you point out.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:42 / 31.01.06
The massive expense that drinking only bottled water entails, surely makes it a very problematic option - if it can be called an option at all - for many people.

Well, there's sthe financial expense, but also the environmental damage. Which is where things get ethically interesting - is it better to accept that your lifespan, already artifically lengthened by things like modern medicine, the availability of vegetables all year round and so on, will be shortened potentially by consuming tap water, or to resist that by consuming bottled water despite the environmental impact of bottling and shipping it? Then there's a spiritual question, I guess - if you have a magical requirement to have no fluoride in your gut, then that's another issue...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:11 / 31.01.06
Is the environmental damage caused by the shipping of bottled water of concern because there *is* a piped-into-the-home option available?

It doesn't, after all, differ from all the other produce available in supermarkets in that respect. Everything you buy in a supermarket (or almost anywhere else, for that matter) has an associated environmental cost...the herbs available in Budgens come from Israel, for crying out loud. New Zealand lamb, anyone? In fact, a typical British Sunday Roast could very easily contain produce which has cumulatively travelled well over 6,000-10,000 miles to arrive on a pub or home dinner plate...Most produce from no nearer to the consumer than 100 miles or more. Especially for people who live in urban centres and don't really have the local markets and micro-business options available out in the cundree...the issue of truckloads of water coming down from Scotland, because there is a perfectly viable, tasty option with just a smidgen of highly toxic carcinogenic poisons deliberately added at source seems...well...whatever...its still a concern, no doubt.

Petey - Chlorine is, fortunately, very cheap and easy to filter out of domestically supplied water. Not so sodium fluoride, though.

Since neither are particularly bothersome to most people (in this thread, at least), it seems a somewhat academic and moot point to spend much more time on.
 
 
■
21:20 / 31.01.06
Ok, coming back to this quickly as I have a big tidying job going on, I'd like to set out my position. I have no problem at all with chlorine in water. The benefits of using it massively outweigh the risks, in my opinion.
I'm sceptical about the research you've quoted as they seem (with the exception of the EPA, which I must admit did surprise me a little) link back via a whois to either companies selling filtration or people who I would regard as being little more than snake-oil salesmen.
I dispute the idea that because sodium chloride has an ionic bond it is not available to the body, but that's not really relevant. As you've said, if you think salt is a toxin (I don't, I'm even quite sceptical about the whole hypertension link) then my comparison is irrelevant. Let's drop the salt thing, it's an unnecessary diversion. Sorry to bring it up.
I would still, though, like to explore how all that chlorine in our stomachs in the form of hydrochloric acid manages to pass through our system without incident but low concentrations in chlorinated water are a serious risk. And where that chlorine comes from.
I am ambivalent, though, about the benefits of fluoridation. I had fluoride treatment as a kid and it seems to have done a great job of stopping all the caries I was having at the time. Enforcing that on the population is a bit, for want of a better term, iffy. A one-off big dose is going to be different to a low constant dose, but I'm not enough of a chemsit to know the difference.
I think it's a bad move to conflate the two issues. Most people accept chlorination as a minor but necessary evil. Unlike chlorine, fluorine is an additive which has questionable benefits. It's also far more reactive. Can we concentrate on that?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:17 / 01.02.06
The stomach is the only part of the digestive system which is acidic. The rest of the human body must, essentially, imperatively, maintain an alkaline pH balance or dis-ease will result.

Hence the importance of eating lots of fruit and veg...the electrolytes are alkaline inducing within the digestive system, essentially to good health.

After the mixture of food and acids (chyme) is passed through the pyloric valve into the duodenum, it is made extremely alkali in a healthy digestive system, before returning to a comfortable pH 7.8 or so and passing down the intestines reducing in pH all the way.

I'll dig out the exact processes and figures if you really want...what is this, biology and anatomy 101? If, as seems the case, you are interested, why not find out for yourself?

I'm afraid as well, that it is a very well known fact that inorganic minerals cannot be used by the human body through the digestive system. Only minerals chelated to a protein molecule can be assimilated by the digestion process.

This is why most people, in spite of a very high salt diet, merely have coronary problems and sodium deficiency...sodium deficiency is, you recall, the number one deficiency in the human body...why would this be, considering the amount of salt in a typical diet? (They are even running adverts on TV recommending to people that they try to restrict their salt intake to 6 grams a day...6 grams!) The sodium in salt is useless to the body, which tries to expel it as rapidly as possible since it recognises it as a toxin.

Organic sodium, on the other hand, is retained like water in a camels hump on a very hot day in the Sahara.

Would you like the research which has conclusively demonstrated this?
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:13 / 01.02.06
I'm afraid as well, that it is a very well known fact that inorganic minerals cannot be used by the human body through the digestive system.

Quick point here. There is no such thing as "organic" sodium chloride. It's an inorganic compound, and is, in fact, absorbed via the digestive process. It is also one of the most essential electrolytes in the human body. It's involved in water regulation.

The reason high-salt intake is damaging is because it's more salt than the body actually needs rather than it being innately toxic. As has been mentioned upthread, you could severely damage your renal system by drinking excessive amounts of water. It doesn't mean we should reclassify water as poison.

I personally agree that people should eat much less than 6g of the stuff a day.

Regarding the chlorine/hydrochloric acid points raised. Chemically speaking the two are quite dissimilar. You can not expect them to be treated similarly in the human body.

BTW, Money's breakdown of digestive pH is a nice summary of how stomach acid doesn't burn it's way through our guts.
 
 
■
11:47 / 01.02.06
Chemically speaking the two are quite dissimilar. You can not expect them to be treated similarly in the human body.

That's what I was looking for. So the chlorine compounds in water would not be neutralised in the same way as HCl acid. Right, that shoots down my objection. Simple enough. Stikcing with scepticism, though. It's my natural state.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:26 / 01.02.06
Quick point here. There is no such thing as "organic" sodium chloride. It's an inorganic compound, and is, in fact, absorbed via the digestive process. It is also one of the most essential electrolytes in the human body. It's involved in water regulation.

*sigh* Who mentioned "organic" sodium chloride? Who mentioned absorption? I said organic sodium, meaning sodium present in organic compounds which the body is able to make use of. Unlike most salt.

You are absolutely right about its funtion in the human body. But, last time now, rock salt, table salt and sea salt are useless to the human body. The only salt of any use whatsoever is salt chelated to protein molecules by the process of photosynthesis, found in plants (you know, vegetables?)...Sodium is extremely important to the healthy funtioning of the body, but the sodium available in rock salt, table salt and sea salt is not used by the body. It is rejected, and eliminated, sharpish. Inorganic. The term is not one I made up.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:53 / 01.02.06
Stikcing with scepticism, though. It's my natural state.

You think? It seems to me that you accept with very little questioning the hegemony of modern allopathic medicine, handed you at birth (in hospital, probably) and perpetuated by the media, society and all the 'common sense' of this thread, and merely casually raise an eyebrow when somebody begs to differ with the actual status quo of received wisdom...

That's not really scepticism, is it?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:57 / 01.02.06
The only salt of any use whatsoever is salt chelated to protein molecules by the process of photosynthesis, found in plants (you know, vegetables?)...Sodium is extremely important to the healthy funtioning of the body, but the sodium available in rock salt, table salt and sea salt is not used by the body. It is rejected, and eliminated, sharpish. Inorganic. The term is not one I made up.

Sorry Money, but this is not correct. Sodium chloride is the electrolyte used by the body. Chemically exactly the same as the sodium chloride found in table salt (which incidentally is most likely processed sea salt). You appear to be suggesting that sodium chloride needs to be first processed by plants before we can utilise it (I apologise if that is not what you are saying, but that's how I'm reading your posts).

Considering that the level of sodium chloride in the soil of a given area is going to vary vastly considering on local environmental conditions (and that high salinity kills plantlife), and that there are plenty of areas where plants do not exist in great enough numbers to allow their use as food (ie desert, polar regions) yet which are populated by humans. To suggest that only plant-processed sodium is accessible by the human digestive system makes absolutely no sense.

Nearly every animal on the planet (herbivores included) has been observed making use of natural salt licks (sodium chloride in the form of rock salt). Evolutionarily speaking it would be a chronic problem for humans not to be able to do the same.

On a slight aside, is "chelate" an appropriate usage? I thought it just applied to a ligand binding to a metal ion? Just me being either picky or dumb.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:03 / 01.02.06
You think? It seems to me that you accept with very little questioning the hegemony of modern allopathic medicine, handed you at birth (in hospital, probably) and perpetuated by the media, society and all the 'common sense' of this thread, and merely casually raise an eyebrow when somebody begs to differ with the actual status quo of received wisdom...

That's not really scepticism, is it?


Should we blindly accept your theories instead? I reserve the right to question supposition, hearsay, and use of loaded inaccurate terms such as "supertoxins".
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:57 / 01.02.06
Where have I suggested that? Or implied it? Your rights are reserved without question.

I just think describing your 'natural state' as 'scepticism' because you question novel information regarding matters which in all probability (though I don't know, I'm just guessing) you had never previously questioned is a trifle suspect as a self-identification.

What you mean is 'I am distrusting of new ideas and information' not 'I am distrusting of all ideas and information'.

"Accept nothing unreasonable; discard nothing as unreasonable without proper investigation" as Buddha supposedly said. That's scepticism. Or, perhaps more rightly, zeteticism. Scepticism these days tends to mean exactly what is described above, an outright immediate rejection of anything which doesn't slot neatly into the hegemony of the status quo. We digress.

I'll respond to your other post later on, Evil S. :-)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:09 / 01.02.06
Very briefly, 'til later :

'In ecology chelation compounds are related to the mobilization of metals in the soil, the uptake and the accumulation of metals into plants and micro-organisms and as a mechanism for resistance and hyperaccumulation adaptations. Such chelation of heavy metals can be used in bioremediation.'

That's from Wikipedia. More anon.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:18 / 01.02.06
I'm sceptical about the research you've quoted as they seem (with the exception of the EPA, which I must admit did surprise me a little) link back via a whois to either companies selling filtration or people who I would regard as being little more than snake-oil salesmen.

Inteeresting. Can you share your findings here? It seems relevant.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:18 / 01.02.06
Also, how come nobody pulled Petey (except me) for using the BDA as a useful repository of information, then? Never mind...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:16 / 01.02.06
OK, back from work, and here is my last word on this topic (Hah. Famous last words, more like), which is vaguely rotting this thread.

Ideal pH of Body Fluids:

Saliva - 6.4 - 6.8
Gastric - 0.4 - 0.8
Brunners Glands - 8.9 - 9.1
Bile - 8.3 - 8.6
Pancreatic - 8.0 - 8.3
Small Intestine - 7.5 - 8.0
Large Intestine - 6.0 - 7.0
Blood - 7.35 - 7.45

When we eat, we chew food and pass it to the stomach. Here it is saturated in HCl, which activates pepsinogen enzymes. This results in creation of a proteolytic enzyme known as active pepsin. This enzyme helps digest protein. All foods, except oils contain protein. When the stomach has finished the job, it releases the food through the pyloric valve, and the chyme, now very acidic indeed, enters the duodenum. Here, it is saturatd by very alkaline fluids secreted by the Brunners glands, bile and pancreatic juices. This is essential, becasue pancreatic enzymes canonly function optimally in a pH environment above pH 7. Not only that, before the body can absorb useful nutrients into the bloodstream and use them, the pH of the food must be 7.4.

It is essential for the body to maintain a good pH balance. If the balance is lost, the conditions in which dis-ease and ill health take root are given prevalence. I would estimate that 90% + of the populations of the Western world have lost this critical balance.

Fortunately for them, the body is miraculous. It has the benefit of millions of years of evolution behind it, it can withstand sixty odd years of being left in the charge of a total imbecile. It thus has many coping mechanisms for maintaining a correct pH balance.

One of these systems is called the buffer system, or regulation of acid base balance. Without getting overly technical, we can say that one step is for the body to buffer the acids by absorbing the acid with sodium bicarbonate. Each time an acid is buffered i this way, the pH rises. The body brings the acids to a level they can be safely removed out of the body through the kidneys, and increases the pH of the food so that it can be assimilated. Hence the need to restrict acid forming foods in the diet and up the intake of alkaline forming foods...to prevent the body depleting its own reserves of alkaline to buffer the acids which have tipped the system (the reserves are needed for, among other things, exercise, fighting illness and stress and so on).

Table aalt, sodium chloride, is rampant in the Western diet, yet sodium deficiency is the number one mineral deficiency.

Can the naysayers riddle me that, please?

Table salt has been demonstrated, time and again, to raise blood pressure...this is fairly compelling evidence, for me, of its toxicity. It cannot be used in the buffer system.

Salt which has passed from soils through the plant kingdom has been covalently bonded, not ionically. The sodium is chelated to a protein. Thus the bonds are easily broken down and the compound utilized (M.T Morter, Jr. B.S, M.A, DPh.C - "Correlative Urinalysis - The Body Knows Best" (Rogers, AR: B.E.S.T. Research Inc, 1987)pg 43-44).

The conventional medical profession does not acknowledge this, but it is perfectly obvious to many doctors and has been proven by clinical trials. Even if ionically bonded sodium chloride can be, just about, broken down by the digestive system, the body rushes so quickly to remove it from the system, it has no time in which to be of much use at all compared to its organic mineral relation.

One study has shown that when spdium chloride was given to research subjects, blood pressure rose, and the administering of organic sodium returned blood pressure to normal. It was also found that sodium chloride induced the body to lose calcium , whereas organic sodium decreased calcium loss. The reason for thsi is that when organic sodium is unavailable to be used to buffer acids, calcium may be used in its place. The reason table salt induces thebody to lose calcium is because the sodium chloride cannot be used as a buffer, because it is not in the organic (chelated to a plant protein) form that the body requires. In fact, sodium chloride causes an increase in acidity, which further depletes calcium. Organic sodium, conversely, can be used as a buffer, and will decrease calcium loss. Another interesting result emerged from this study, which baffled researchers - when sodium chloride was administered, the body did all it could to rid itself of it. But when organic sodium was given, the body retained it. It would not release it. It naturally expelled a toxin, and naturally retained a useful organic mineral. (Theodore W. Kurtz, M.D, A. Hamoudi, M.D, R. Curtis Morris Jr., M.D "Salt-Sensitive Hypertension in Men", New England Journal of Medicine, 1987; Vol.317(17), pg. 1043-1048)

I love my body. It is much cleverer than me.

Organic sodium is used formany things in the body, such as keeping calcium from hardening, conducting electrical currents, and it is one of the main electrolytes used in the buffer system. The sodium buffer can be bring acid fluids up to pH 6.1. Then other buffers bring the balance up to the essential 7.4. The body, miracle that it is, knows exactly what to do.

However, if the berk in charge keeps eating acid-forming foods (like NaCl - table salt, processed food, meat, bread, cereals, chocolate, fags, booze, dairy, lentils, pasta, soy, white sugar, wheat and so on), he or she can very easily use up the stores of sodium and other electrolytes and deplete the body of the precious minerals used in the buffer system. When the body becomes low in its supply of an electrolyte such as sodium it will go to a reserve somewhere in the body and extract it from whence it can to maintain the critical pH balance.

When, due to a deficiency, organic sodium may be removed from the stomach, HCl production will be reduced or stopped entirely. For sodium is needed in the stomach to serve as a buffer against the acids it creates through the parietal cells. The stomach cells are not acid. Even when the stomach lumen has a pH as low as 2.0, the epithelium cells maintain a healthy 7.0, or thereabouts. If this were not so, ulcers would develop. Yep, its organinc sodium that prevents ulcers. So, a lack of sodium usually means a shut down of acid production, so then pepsinogen is not activated. Effective digestion is seriously impaired, and, even worse, without the normal acids in the stomach, potentially pathogenic bacteria , parasites and yeast are able to enter the gastrointestinal tract.

The entire body then becomes exposed to these microorganisms. When hydrochloric acid is unavailable, we become much more vulnerable to dis-ease, digestion becomes inefficient, and even good food can then be highly toxic.

I'd say this is a major problem affecting a large proprtion of the Western world.

But then I probably lack the critical scepticism of the majority. I'm basically a sucker.

When organic sodium is removed from joints, which is common, then arthritis, osteoporosis and other bone problems may occur. When removed from muscles, they become weak and flabby; from the liver, it becomes weak and inefficient, and then you're up shit creek. A lack of sodium automatically depletes potassium. Potassium is abundant in fruit and veg. It's practically impossible to be deficient in it unless 1) You are fasting 2) You cannot digest food properly 3)You are deficient in sodium.

Potassium deficiency isl inked to heart dis-ease, muscle pain, depression, mood swings, sagging organs and edema, among others.

Evidence also suggests that a deficiency in these two organic minerals will lead to calcium and magnesium deficiencies.

The easiest place for the body to extract sodium from is the bile. When sodium is removed from the gall juices (bile) a chain reaction occurs which will effect the entire body. As sodium is removed from bile, its pH is lowered. In a healthy person, bile pH should be as high as 8.6. In an unhealthy person, on a typical Western diet, it can be as low as 4.5, but normally somewhere between 4.5-8.0.

The more acid it becomes, the higher the lieklihood of gallstones forming. The highest rates of gallstones occur in countries with high animal protein diets, the lowest in countries where vegetarianism is prevalent.

Medical science is very aware that gallstones are related to acid conditions, but does not accept that our bodies cannot use inorganic minerals. Thus it is unlikely to accept that high protein diets and stress (very acid forming) cause the foundation of gallstones and acid bile.

Believe what you will.

If a person has acid bile and consumes table salt, their bile pH will drop further. If that same person consumes large amounts of organic sodium (in fruits and vegetables) the bile pH will move towards normal. The same shifts are reflected in urine and saliva pH tests. You can do these yourself if want proof. I can;t be arsed to tell you how, though, since this already represents some considerable rotting of a thread about water.

If you like, start a new one about salt. Very interesting subject.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:29 / 01.02.06
A diet that exclusively consists of mung beans could be harmful in a variety of ways

Now who is being obtuse? Exclusivity? Where di dthat come from? I really can't be bothered to go into the innumerable ways in which this argument is totally irrlelevant to the point that lead to you using it, ridiculous, and essentially useless as a demonstration of your assertion that 'Nothing on Earth is naturally good for you'.

Just to be absolutely clear about this, because usually I'm pretty open to relativism and all that: 'Nothing on Earth is naturally good for you' is an absolutely absurd statement.

I might even start a thread in Convo to list all of the things we can think of that are naturally good for you, and we'll see how big it gets before there are objections. That's if I find out I'm going to live forever, of course.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:22 / 01.02.06
Money $hot, can you name something that is naturally good for you that wouldn't be harmful in extreme doses?

I think the point is that flouride is good for parts of your body in small doses and that chlorine doesn't effect you at a certain level so how are these things different to any other product that we take into our bodies? Because they're harmful when we overdose? Because they're poisonous in larger quantities or specific forms? I'm a little confused.
 
 
sleazenation
06:55 / 02.02.06
Money $hot - I'm not entirely sure it's worth going through all this again in the vague hope that you follow what I had thought were a collection of relatively simple points.

I had also hoped that having finally observed and acknowledged your error, mixing up something that I had said with a different point made by a different poster, that you might re-read our exchange on this thread and might have actually pieced together what I was actually saying on your own. But, alas, it appears not.

You seem to be so firmly perched upon your own personal hobbyhorse of the innate harmfulness of using Chlorine (and other potential pollutants) in drinking water at any level that you seem to be unwilling to accept any other point of view on the matter. And your ability to follow a line of argument appears to leave a lot to be desired.

My argument is essentially that any foodstuff/chemical compound consumed in excess can be harmful. Now this excess might take the form of a diet consisting exclusively of one particular foodstuff - you mentioned the example of Mung Beans. But it would not necessarily require a diet consisting exclusively of one particular foodstuff to get to situation similar to the one I described where an excess of one foodstuff (mung beans) has lead to a body facing a toxic excess of some vitamins and minerals and/or a dangerous deficiency of others.

Do you see? In the circumstances outlined above, mung beans, traditionally ascribed, as having health benefits and being 'good for you' would, in fact, be harmful. That is just one example of how something, a foodstuff, mung beans, might not be naturally (i.e. inherently), good for you.

Hopefully you followed all that. The only reason I attempted to reiterate this point so many times was in the hope that you would eventually recognise and follow the simple logic of what I was saying, rather than side-tracking what had once been a discussion on Chlorine (and other potential pollutants) in drinking water.

What does this have to do with Chlorine in drinking water?

Risk management. If, as we have discussed, nothing is naturally (or inherently, if you prefer) good for you, then it follows that you, or some governmental or non-governmental body, should attempt to ascertain what are the benchmarks for what is harmful and what benchmarks might reasonably be referred to as low enough a risk as to be either acceptable or even considered 'safe'.

This may well be where you have a problem, since you appear to be of the opinion that there is no such thing as an acceptable risk when it comes to Chlorine. Or not, I must confess that your position appears to become less and less clear and/or coherent over the course of this thread.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
09:03 / 02.02.06
Nina, sleaze - I give up. It appears this thread is exasperating us both (all three, even) in equal measure, and is certainly way off topic. If that ismy fault, and I accept it may well be, then please forgive me. You feel I'm not hearing you, and I feel exactly the same.

I'm sure we've all got better things to be getting on with. Anon.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:37 / 02.02.06
Look this is Laboratory, you can't expect people not to question your assertions and your basic assertion is that these things are harmful toward people even in the small amounts that are put into the water system. If you want people to take this seriously then you need to suggest an alternative to chlorine that will also kill water based disease because frankly that is worse for you. Then you need to back it up and justify the move financially. That means conclusive evidence that chlorine is harmful in small quantities. Perhaps you've already given us some scientific evidence- sorry I don't have time to reread the thread now as I'm at work and I can't quite remember but it's not out of disinterest.

You are using the same logical argument as the Leah Betts anti-ecstasy campaign, which I've always had a problem with.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:07 / 02.02.06
It appears this thread is exasperating us both (all three, even) in equal measure, and is certainly way off topic.

Well, our digression into the world of salt might have been a little off tangent (sorry folks!) but I'm finding this stuff about water treatment rather interesting. It's relevant to the thread as well.

Having read the links you provided Money I do feel that we could benefit from a new study into the effectiveness of fluoridation as a way of protecting against tooth decay, as well as one looking at possible deleterious effects of fluoride consumption. But if a new independant study came out saying that fluoridation was effective and safe I question whether it's critics would accept the results as genuine.

It's always an issue with subjects like this. A similar butting of heads occurs with global warming.

So, let's go back to an interesting point you raised. If people do not want to drink water that has been fluoridated (for whatever reason), does the government have a duty to ensure an alternative water supply for them? If not then how can someone ensure they have a constant supply of potable water without spending a fortune on bottled water?

Would it be possible to construct a cheap, yet effective water filter for use with river water etc?
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:49 / 02.02.06
If you have access to a supply of relatively unpolluted running water you could always buy something similar to this!

It won't necessarily protect you from heavy pollutants, and definitely won't help against viruses (unless, as it suggests, you use a disinfectant such a chlorine or iodine) but it's an alternative.

Although, check what's along the path of your running water supply. You may find that fluoridated water runs into it at some point along the way.
 
 
nameinuse
11:27 / 02.02.06
I'm a bit confused by all this stuff about chelates of sodium, and it's certainly OT, but I'd be interested in more discussion in another thread. My normal experience of chelates is to remove heavy metals from the body or to make a metallic element safe to consume for some medical purpose.

On the subject of water - Chlorine's a cheap and reasonably low toxicity way to keep drinking water clean. Our bodies are incredible at coping with toxicity in pretty much everything we eat (Oxalic acid in spinach and rhubarb, solanine in green potatoes, cyanide compounds in almonds and apple pips, all potentially lethal in quite small doses) and doesn't need to be defended from every possible harm if there's a good purpose to it. That said, there's no point in exposing us to things that are harmful if there's a better alternative.

I don't think it's reasonable to not treat water at all - going back to cholera, typhoid, and dysentry is not an appealling route at all, I'd rather have the mild chlorine poisoning, frankly.

Ozone has the potential to replace Chlorine to some extent, I think, but is strong oxidising agent and a dangerous compound in itself. It's an unstable collection of three oxygen atoms, one of which is very keen to react with pretty much anything that goes, so the other two can return to a stable oxygen-2 molecule. It's the oxidising properties that make it effective (like bleach, which uses Sodium Hypochlorite, also a strong oxidiser) at killing pathogens. I'd like to be sure that all of the free oxgygen radicals (that is, the single unnattached oxygen atom from the original three) were reacted away before I drank the water, and that they weren't making unpleasent compounds that were left in the water when they did react.

The question is really, will the public at large bear the extra cost of improved water purification for something as under-considered as water quality? It's likely to get more expensive anyway, as resources (certainly in England) of clean drinking water dwindle.

As for fluoridation, I think medicating people "for their own good" is always a weak aurgument, and I don't feel that some of the population's dental health is sufficient cause. Having said that, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people are keen on doing it because they're trying to dispose of industrial waste, I think they believe they're acting in the best interests of the public (and possibly saving public money on dental health, too).
 
 
eye landed
02:26 / 05.02.06
i happen to be studying this very topic in chemistry class right now. i will ask my prof about home water filtering methods. he seems to be into the environmental chemistry thing.

besides ozone, another alternative treatment is ultraviolet radiation (did someone mention this already?), which kills microorganisms but leaves no chemical trace. although new age water theory could maybe argue that the water remembers the trauma or something.

the problem with ozone and u.v. is that it doesnt provide lasting protection. it basically kills everything and leaves the water primed for contamination by whatever else comes along. chlorine is added anyway to stop contamination during piping and storage.

chlorine poisoning may not be fatal but, like radiation, constant exposure is as dangerous as a single large dose. its not that chlorine is really poisonous (its actually a useful ion in the nervous system, for example). but constant contamination of a substance thats supposed to flush out toxins will upset the ionic balance of body fluids, or at least tax the kidneys.

flouridation sounds sinister, but unless there is a massive coverup going on, its probably not dangerous. flouride is usually added to water sources that are naturally deficient in flouride. i have a vague recollection that water flouridation started after somebody made the connection between some community (in india maybe) with great teeth and the high flouride content of their drinking water.

but all that aside, im opposed to altering the natural world any more than necessary. we should accept shorter lifespans in exchange for social welfare. not like logans run, just less interference with nature. our current system exalts the few (us) at the expense of those in poverty. i will stop now, since this rant is getting far off topic. i just wanted to tie the water issue into the whole global revolution issue.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply