Home > environment > Tap into your tap

Tap into your tap

HSU students promote tap water over bottled water.

The argument would be 100% sound if it wasn’t for the addition of fluoride.

But don’t let that be an excuse to go ignorantly about your water bottle habit.  Those plastics leach cancer-causing chemicals into your thirsty bod in addition to polluting the planet with a material that will virtually never break down.

  1. Anon
    February 27, 2011 at 12:39 am

    The radio ads designed to scare people into buying bottled water are misleading, since there is actually less testing done on bottled water than on tap water.

  2. February 27, 2011 at 1:28 am

    I don’t remember hearing a radio ad to scare people into buying bottled water. At least not for the past few years.

    The tap is great but we should also have some stored water on hand in case of earthquake.
    You can have bottled water in the trunk of your car that you replace twice a year or a rain barrel or pond and a filter that works without electricity.

  3. Mitch
    February 27, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Since there are already a lot of bottles, I hope architects learn about Miniwiz and their Ecoark. Here’s a good summary.


  4. Decline to State
    February 27, 2011 at 7:22 am

    It seems like a no-brainer to drink tap water (especially our wonderful Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation & Conservation District water)over bottled water and yet I found myself buying case after case during over the past few years.

    It’s a nasty/foolish habit that I am proud to say I’ve now weaned myself from. I was paying more per gallon of water than I do for gasoline. A couple of stainless bottles kept in the fridge (I like my water cold) now suffice without much inconvenience to me at all.

    Like I said, a no-brainer.

  5. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 7:48 am

    There is no chemical leaching unless you reuse the bottles again and again, or the bottles are very old. To claim there is leaching for everyday people is what’s known as an environmentalist’s lie. A big, fat, juicy debunked lie.

  6. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Problems like this aren’t the fault of consumers, problems like this start and stop at the manufacturers. I get the message, but I can’t blame my fellow everyday shmoe. Billions of tons of electronic gizmos end up in the dump every year…not necessary for survival at all, but like clean water is a necessary way to survive better. Right now the dumps aren’t full of tracheon overdrive ventriculators, because not only haven’t people been made to “need” them, they haven’t been invented yet. But when they do, and when every government agency and corporate giant makes their employees utilize tracheon overdrive ventriculators to complete their assignments…that could be the end of us all.

  7. Pete Nichols
    February 27, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Humboldt Baykeeper randomly sampled and analyzed taps from Garberville to Orick for major chemicals of concern in municipal drinking water and found all were very good. Oftentimes “bad taste” can be cured with a cheap on the tap filtering system and any ‘chlorine’ odors can be taken care of by letting the water sit in an open container for a short period of time. The Crystal Springs, scare tactic ads are very misleading and a disservice to the community.

    More info on Baykeeper’s Take Back the Tap campaign here: http://www.humboldtbaykeeper.org/tap-water-campaign.html

  8. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Sunlight Springs and Oregon Rain are brands available in glass bottles that will ship by UPS. I’m not worried about plastic bottles though, unless they are stored in direct sunlight or stored for a very long time.

    If you’re happy with your tap water, I suggest you have it tested. Test your bottled water at the same time. I did. It’ll make you a bottled water convert.

    February 27, 2011 at 8:43 am


    some common sense in a good thread thus far. Bottled water is good for emergencies and where no water taps or fountains exist.

    Other than that, support cleaner tap water by drinking tap water. Ya all know the service to provide tap water costs more when less people drink it; so, if we as members of society want a no frill, operational system of water delivery that is dependable, then support lowering the costs of that public infrastructure water delivery by drinking tap water.

    As far as cavities – children don’t hardly drink tap water. So, the argument to put flouride into tap water FAILS but not for the politically puppeted who still can’t put 2 and 2 together coming up with 4. Instead, we get political minionization sucking-up to the HealthCare Sector. Lower the costs of tap water by forgoing the flouride scam. As Americans are beginning to feel the economic pinch, how much of the cost over the years for flouride COULD HAVE been appropriated to more worthy causes that can be championed based upon reality and facts? Jusrt a thought about wasting public tax monies.

    Besides, drinking bottled water after that water has been in the bottle for a long period of time is, well, stale. Not to mention, plastic toxins are known to leach into the water in the bottle – same thing as Pex(? spelling) which is a plastic water supply line for new home construction that reports say leqaches toxins into a homes tap water. So, when we discuss tap water, we need to discuss the non-copper materials used more today in the “in-house” plumbing systems.

    Yet, the college students don’t know THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  10. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 8:45 am

    Pete, what you say isn’t very comforting. Yes you’re absolutely right, in Humboldt the tap water often smells like chlorine…sometimes strong too. I haven’t noticed it to such a degree elsewhere. Can’t be healthy. And fluoride is highly toxic. Can’t say I have an instant sollution to the clean water problem other than revamping all of industry.

  11. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Every major health org recommends fluoridating public water. Can’t deny that.

    February 27, 2011 at 8:48 am

    My tap water HAS NEVER SMELLED LIKE CHLORINE; then again, I don’t live in Eureka!


    February 27, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Every major Health Organization surely has its own secret agendas also, aside form promoting “eye-candied” health scams.

    Creates false jobs too which can’t be denied. Just look at the local atmosphere politically with land uses and the General Plan Update to understand the HEALTHCARE SCAMS!


  14. Owltotem
    February 27, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Strong chlorine content is directly proportional to how close your tap is to where it is injected into the distribution system. I has to make it in the right concentration all the way to the end of the line.

    Single use plastics are a bad idea in general, all of them.

  15. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 8:59 am

    Henchman, I wouldn’t BS about it…I’ve never smelled the chlorine-ish odor out the faucet, but in hot volumes out the shower. At least a few times a year it’s unquestionably noticeable. I’ve lived here long enough and am not the only one who notices it. Now that I think about it though, I’ve never spent any time around volumes of hot tap water in eureka…only Arcata and north.

  16. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 9:01 am

    What are people’s opinions of water dispensers at grocery stores? 25-40 cents a gallon, use your own jug…

  17. Scott W. Binder
    February 27, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Naw, McKinleyville water smells fine. My issue was with the glue/PVC water pipes that JLF (or their contractor) used during the construction of my home.

    …but with the installation of a double-barrel Culligan unit under my kitchen sink, all is well :)

  18. Pete Nichols
    February 27, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Fluoridation is a scam and has been for decades. The ONLY way for fluoride to be of any benefit is topical application. Adding fluoride to water has been a scam put upon the public since WWII. Basically, it’s toxic sludge that corporations found a way to make a buck.


    February 27, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Random Guy,

    Hey, I never said you B-S. I just stated this, “My tap water HAS NEVER SMELLED LIKE CHLORINE; then again, I don’t live in Eureka!”


  20. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Plus, there’s that toxic pollution source upriver of the water intake in the Mad River. Oh, it’s not in the water supply yet, we’re told. Yeah, umm, have your water tested if you live in McKinleyville.

    And I love how, when the tap water turns gray, we’re told, oh, it’s just turbidity. It’s safe. What do you mean turbidity? Oh, you mean like foreign particles in such a high concentration that it changes your water from clear to gray… is healthy? Umm, yeah, have your water tested.

    Me? I’ll stick with clear bottled water for drinking. And during the turbid times, use cologne/perfume to mask the rich Mad River musk.

  21. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 9:17 am

    I’ze only stating my own fact, henchman, I believe yuo. Scott Binder, Mck’ville’s water smells the most! You kidding?

  22. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 9:18 am

    (That’s perfume for wearing, not ingesting, when showering with water from the Mad River.)

    February 27, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Owltotem makes a really good point too about fluid dynamics and it’s mixtures of outside agents: Those who live down supply probably do get more of it than those who live up-supply. Everytime flow of water slows or stops, agents within the water “settle” or become unmixed. Question is, does flow slow or stop enough to allow noticeable and affective up supply dillutions? Generally, if the mixture is consistent, everyone would get the same ppm of flouride; but, settling occurs within the supply/distribution system – probably moreso at night. Good points though. Maybe dillution is why shaking that energy drink is in the instructions?

    Regardless though, flouride is “old school logic”.


    February 27, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Random Guy,

    Facts – we shall not have it any other way. Thanks for your posts :-)!!!


  25. Aquaman
    February 27, 2011 at 9:29 am

    DTS – “It seems like a no-brainer to drink tap water (especially our wonderful Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation & Conservation District water)over bottled water”

    The agency you meant is the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. Not the Harbor District.

    And to chlorine and turbidity, install particulate and carbon filters if its an issue. The government can’t (and shouldn’t) do everything for you.

  26. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 9:32 am

    The government is supposed to provide me clean drinking water. That’s what I’m paying it to do. Check your facts, bucko.

    Why should I need to install home filters at my own expense to do the government’s job?

    February 27, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Random Guy – the solution to clean water is “forcing” those who pollute to profit” to STOP! Ya see, as just one small example, there is no need for the amounts of perfumes, shampoos, soaps, etc…. with all those darned chemicals. In fact, since speaking with enough people about shampoos and soaps, I have learned that “real-life experiences” PROVES that limiting soaps and shampoos and conditioners and, and, and (all the other girly girl look and smell good consumer perfumated stuff) provides for healthier skin AND possibly less hair loss. Plus, tap water costs go down because the community services district WON’T HAVE TOO SPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS PURIFYING CHEMICALS that would end-up in our local waterways in much higher concentrations. Then, the state water quality control board can fine or penalize taxpayers even more. The clean water war for which America WILL WIN!

    How many of you realise that the rest of the world is looking at the U.S. for clean water deliveries and subsidies?

    Pure water cleans anything natural. Obviously, the chemical industry creates problems by trying to solve problems that it has created – yes, consumers are not created until the product comes to the market.


    February 27, 2011 at 9:38 am

    that was supposed to be,

    “…… purifying water of the chemicals…….” in CAPS.


  29. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 9:49 am

    I’m going where the water tastes like wine,
    I’m going where the water tastes like wine,
    This bottled water tastes like turpentine.

  30. High Finance
    February 27, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Just another attempt to suck any fun out of life.

    Sure, using bottled water when at home makes no sense & costs you a bundle over a year. But when on the road, at the offce or working out, bottled water is far better than even diet sodas. Plus many of the bottled waters are flavored & taste far better than tap water.

    So relax & live a little. Life is too short to be a worry wart all the time. I for one, refuse to give up my bottled water, drive an itty bitty plastic car, live in a 800 sq ft house or turn the thermostat down to 64% during the day.

  31. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 9:54 am

    I’m with you, Henchman. If you poured all the chemicals and froo froo body chemicals in an average household into the bathtub…and think about how often that much poison goes into drains on a regular basis, scary. Just like the plastic water bottles…totally unecessary, and not the people’s fault. And considering how carnivorous our society is, think about how many millions of gallons of blood are being washed into drains everywhere raw meat is handled. Mmm-mmm…raw animal blood, straight from sunny bakersfield into your tap water.

  32. Larry Glass
    February 27, 2011 at 9:58 am

    WTF Pete?
    What about Green Diamond & SPI’s relentless use of herbicides in the Mad River watershed? What about all the fertilizer and insecticide residue coming from the growers in the watershed? What about Arkley senior’s toxic plume from the old Blue Lake forest product site?
    BTW, airing the water out just let’s the chlorine out gas, but most of it’s still in the water.

    February 27, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Aquaman says:
    February 27, 2011 at 9:29 am
    DTS – “It seems like a no-brainer to drink tap water (especially our wonderful Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation & Conservation District water)over bottled water”

    The agency you meant is the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. Not the Harbor District.

    And to chlorine and turbidity, install particulate and carbon filters if its an issue. The government can’t (and shouldn’t) do everything for you.

    Response: Hmmm, then why is the government over-reaching its authority at all levels to force people to live life a certain way….. like infilling where no water supply is natural, but delivered; where as, with rural land you own spring water…oh, that is right….state water rights for society and the states wantingnesses to take over every natural source of water for regulatory purposes.

    It is true though, government at all levels WANTS TO RUN THE SHOW! They (the falsely entrusted ones) want to do everything to justify big bad gubbamint’s existence at all levels. In fact, big and bad gubbamint won’t allow a person to claim residence on their land without a gubbamint approved water supply system.

    Ya right, government can’t do everything, but they sure like to try!


  34. taxed
    February 27, 2011 at 10:06 am

    I live in Eureka and my tap water smells like chlorine.

  35. Aquaman
    February 27, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Bucko. Cute. But ,by my estimation, since I’m free I’m in control of my life not the government. If I need to improve my water, then I will.

    “Why should I need to install home filters at my own expense to do the government’s job?”

    Act like a slave, be treated like a slave.

    February 27, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Random Guy,

    Good points, Again. Darned facts!

    I saw a movie with Brad Pitt in it (it was Fight Club). The reason I mention it is because there is a scene where Pitt and the other guy go to a medical facility to steal the disgarded “BODY FAT” from the “HIGH CLASS” elitists who get fat removed from their body. I wondered, where does all of that fat go? Then, I thought, how many people pour their “cooked FAT” down the drain instead of disposing it properly. Me, I thinks that “cooked fat” is a good fire starter; but not very good to pour down the drain.

    Consumer Life has become too easy in many a way. Too much outta sight, outta mind.


  37. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 10:18 am

    RTFO! Glass RTFO!

  38. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Act like a slave, be treated like a slave.

    The funny thing is, you don’t understand that comment applies to you, not me. The act of buying a water filter to address an issue you’ve already paid for makes you more of a slave than me. Worse, after you’ve gone through the extra expense, you’re still paying the government to give you dirty water. You’re in chains, pal.

  39. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Think of it this way, bucko. The government is tasked with delivering clean water to your door. But you’re a slave, so it delivers dirty water to your door. You think like a slave, so you pay extra money to filter your water yourself. Your slavemaster is still happy because his dumb slave is still paying to receive dirty water.

    Freedom is sought by reducing your dependency on the slavemaster as much as possible.

  40. Aquaman
    February 27, 2011 at 10:31 am

    “Freedom is sought by reducing your dependency on the slavemaster as much as possible.”

    True. So if I spend a few bucks to cut the chains, so be it. Duh.

  41. 69er
    February 27, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Decline to State should decline to state until he gets his or her facts straight. Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation & Conservation District has nothing to do with our drinking water. I think the agency he is referrung to is Humboldt Bay Municiple Water District which furnishes water to other entities around the Humboldt Bay area.

  42. skippy
    February 27, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Fortunately our tap water is good. Ever try tasting the faucet water in Las Vegas or Alameda? Hearty initial body of salts followed by some varietal metallic undertones finishing off with gamey earthiness and the slightly lingering aftertaste of warm pee. It never fully satisfies; the more you drink, the thirstier your kidneys get. But bottled water as expensive as gas? I never would’ve thought anyone would be selling simple water for simply outrageous prices.

    “Of course, they would,” the wife said, barely looking up from her crossword.

    “After all, what are you drinking? Evian. Go figure. What does that spell backwards? You dummy,” she said, returning back to her Sunday paper.

  43. Mitch
    February 27, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Dear skippy’s wife,

    I love you.

  44. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 11:23 am

    “Humboldt Baykeeper randomly sampled and analyzed taps from Garberville to Orick…”

    Looking for a new target to sue no doubt.

  45. 69er
    February 27, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Suburban Eureka water does have a chlorine odor, stronger at times than others, it is used for your safety as well as mine. I only consume it by using it to make coffee and ice cubes. Don’t taste or smell it in the coffee or the Scotch whiskey!!!

  46. Plain Jane
    February 27, 2011 at 11:29 am

    I’ve noticed more chlorine taste after storms. Water filters are cheap and really improve the taste.

  47. longwind
    February 27, 2011 at 11:35 am

    skippy, you sit on the shoulders of a giant. Why isn’t she blogging?

  48. Andrew Bird
    February 27, 2011 at 11:41 am

    I didn’t like Eureka tap water when I lived there. I kept 5 1-gallon containers in the kitchen and refilled them about once a month from the Coop’s filtered water machine and used it for drinking, coffee & tea and cooking. I could definitely taste a difference.

    I filled my bottles once at Winco’s water machines but it tasted worse than Eureka tap water.

  49. Filibuster
    February 27, 2011 at 11:43 am

    A hydrologist’s (me) comments:

    1) The comments that “the government is supposed to provide me clean drinking water. That’s what I’m paying it to do.” (with the implication that it doesn’t) are off base. You HAVE paid enough to have your water meet the standards for public health and safety, and it DOES. See for example


    You have NOT paid enough for it to necessarily satisfy all your aesthetic/cosmetic concerns. Municipal agencies try to treat water in the most cost-effective ways. More extensive cosmetic treatment of water is expensive — such facilities can cost tens of millions of dollars, which you would pay for in increased water rates and/or taxes (bond issue.)

    Also, water is not always municipally supplied. Some towns get their water from private companies. Complaints about the water quality supplied by these companies are common, but the user typically has little recourse since they are the only supplier.

    2) Turbidity: the water supplied by the HBMWD (Eureka, McKinleyville, Arcata) is sucked out of the gravels in the bed of the Mad River. The perforated collector pipes are between 60 and 90 feet below the bed of the river, so they are technically pumping groundwater. During pumping surface water from the river moves down through the gravels, being filtered as it goes, to resupply the groundwater. Thus in winter, when the river water becomes turbid, so does the groundwater being pumped. We are talking about VERY fine colloidal (sub-micron size) particles which are costly to filter out. At some point the state may require this; the water agencies have opposed this because it will significantly increase your cost of water for minimal health benefit.

    3) Chlorine: Owltotem is right on. In order to insure the safety of the water (and the pipes that carry it — bacteria can build up in them), a certain minimum “chlorine residual” is required THROUGHOUT the distribution run. Since the chlorine gets used up as the water flows through the pipes, the residual is higher near the source.

    You will notice that the water is more heavily chlorinated when the water is more turbid, i.e. during winter storms, in order to maintain the necessary residual.

  50. Plain Jane
    February 27, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Ferndale has the best tapwater, IMO.

    February 27, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Anonymous says:
    February 27, 2011 at 10:22 am
    Act like a slave, be treated like a slave.

    The funny thing is, you don’t understand that comment applies to you, not me. The act of buying a water filter to address an issue you’ve already paid for makes you more of a slave than me. Worse, after you’ve gone through the extra expense, you’re still paying the government to give you dirty water. You’re in chains, pal.

    Response: Too funny. Anyhow, when water quality is less able to be purified, will public water rates go down to off-set the cost of “in-house” filtration systems? Or, do we, as an ECONOMIC society, have a justifiable class action lawsuit against those entities that make it so water is less purifiable?

    So, Big Pharma, Big Oil all the way down to backyard oil pits and car lots and out-of-home private businesses that pollute like pottery and other crafts that use certain chemicals, fireworks even, hmmm, household cleaners, oops, home do-it-yourself projects where terpentines and rags, thinners and sealers, rat poison bait, diesel operated equipments, etc… to infinity. Yep, no real difference but for quanities and types of toxins and pollutants. Toxins and chemicals are ubiquitous(spell check).

    Is there going to be a planet of no pollution – absolutely not.

    Can there be a planet where pollution is limited as much as humanly possible – Absolutely yes, but it aint never been attempted in the industrial age, yet.

    Too much profit involved on people’s ideas, even scams, for which the need for those ideas to fruition into jobs or careers is HUGE because who else is gonna create a job for sooooooooooooooooo many people?

    I say over-population and greed (the two are tied, obviously), again, is the single root cause of mankinds problems. When mankind can figure out “beneficial economics” as it applies to consumer products that are geared toward the betterment and advancement of society as it relates to BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, then some headway can begin. Until then, nada.


    February 27, 2011 at 11:59 am


    standards change to meet politics; politicians meet to change or invent standards to fit a political agenda. Hearing any municipal or community servicse’ district manager discuss ever-changing criteria and standards just means that water is gonna be less pure. Too bad for standards, huh. The thought of standards is a “band-aid” thought when standards CAN’T BE MET OR ADHERED TO.



  53. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    We are talking about VERY fine colloidal (sub-micron size) particles which are costly to filter out.

    If the particles are too small for the government to bother filtering, Jesus H. Christ there must be a lot of this **** in my water for it to turn solid gray. Explaining that the grayness is river mud doesn’t make it any more appealing.

  54. Filibuster
    February 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Public health water quality standards have increased over the years as 1) our technical ability to assess water quality constituents has improved, 2) our knowledge of the effects of the constituents has increased, and 3) public (i.e. political) pressure has demanded it.

  55. Pete Nichols
    February 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    I should’ve known better than comment. HBMWD, and all municipalities, test their water supply more times in a day than bottled water companies have to. Bottled water is regulated by the FDA (less strict or no standards) and municipalities are regulated by the EPA. Much more rigorous testing and the data is there to back it up. As far as pesticides, that requires action to be taken against the polluter and the State to enforce.

    I suggest folks do a little research and you’ll find what you need.

  56. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    So if I spend a few bucks to cut the chains, so be it. Duh.

    As long as you continue to pay your slave master for dirty water to be piped to your home, you are enslaved. Duh.

  57. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I suggest folks do a little research and you’ll find what you need.

    I found my bottled water to be better than my tap water. I had both tested.

  58. Filibuster
    February 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    I’m afraid I’m becoming the hydro-nerd here.

    The turbidity you see in your water comes largely from two sources: very fine clay particles, and very fine organic particles (derived from eroded soil, decayed leaf litter, branches, logs, algae etc). Because the particles are so very fine, they are very effective at dispersing and reflecting light, so it doesn’t require a lot of them to noticeably affect the color and transparency of the water.

    For example, if you’re down on Jacoby Cr during a storm, the water near Brookwood Bridge may be running a little over a foot deep, and it’s so turbid you can’t see the bed. But stick a mason jar into the water and pull up a sample — it’ll be only mildly hazy-tan and you can easily see through it from one side to the other. Total suspended solids concentration might be 20-40 parts per million; very tiny: 20 – 40 milligrams in a liter of water!

    Anonymous 1203, I’m interested in what you say. If you’re interested, try this experiment. Fill a quart glass jar with your “solid gray” water. Put a lid on it. Let it sit quietly in a cool dark place (so there will be no possible growth of organic constituents)for several days. Then, without disturbing it, see if anything has settled out on the bottom. Anything that’s settled out will be the coarser “mud-size” particles.

    Also, what city do you get your water from? What agency is your water supplier? Sometimes users can get excessive turbidity because of faulty old water mains that let local groundwater seep into distribution pipes. This not common but is very bad when it occurs.

  59. Mitch
    February 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    I’m old enough to remember when absolutely no one used bottled water. People sometimes bought distilled water for chemistry experiments.

    Now, much of the world still has high infant death rates due to lack of clean water, and Americans insist that their water come in PET bottles (even when the label clearly says it comes from the tap).

    Somebody figured out you can sell snow to the Eskimos, once they’ve got everything else. You’ve got to admit, this capitalism, it’s an amazing economic system.

  60. Mitch
    February 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Oh, and filibuster? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

  61. Xandra Manns
    February 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Co-op and ENF both have fill-your-own spigots with reverse osmosis filters that even remove the fluoride. Take your own glass gallon bottles and I think that is about as safe as you can get. All for 40 cents a gallon.

  62. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    very fine clay particles, and very fine organic particles (derived from eroded soil, decayed leaf litter, branches, logs, algae etc)

    Mmmmm, I like drinking liquid clay and decaying plant life. Yum! If only we could convince companies to add clay and ground up plant waste to their bottled water we could begin convincing people that tap is best, or at least on par with bottled water.

  63. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    I’ve been to more than one meeting comprised of county employees and NGO environmental activists/advocates and I’m pretty sure I’m the only Republican in the room, and yet I’m the only one drinking from a reusable container. Everyone else who brings water brings bottled water. And I’m only doing it to keep up appearances. Why do I bother? People don’t practice what they preach.

  64. Filibuster
    February 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    You’d be surprised at the amount of “liquid clay and decaying plant life” (oh — don’t forget decaying insects!!!) you ingest just by eating fruits and vegetables, especially if they are processed (canned, frozen) or if haven’t washed them. Even washed they have some.

    About 30 years ago a public health study was done of Sherpas in Nepal who drank water filled with finely ground up rock (glacial flour). They had no choice: all the rivers and steams drained glaciers. Their health was notably better than those who drank “ordinary” water. The investigators hypothesized that the ground-up rock provided minerals (calcium, potassium, magnesium etc) that was missing in the diets of those drinking “ordinary” water.

  65. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Mitch, I don’t consider myself old, but I also remember when it was unheard of. The running joke was snobs pay money to drink perrier. More people subscribed to home delivery of 5 gallon bottles from company trucks too. It was cheaper, and so was gas back then. Selling snow to eskimos, I agree.

  66. SNaFU
    February 27, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Purify the water supply with cheap bourbon!

  67. hydrophile
    February 27, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Decline to State, you stand corrected on two points, the source of our water is the Mad River, not Humboldt Bay (good thing, too) and the agency in charge is not the Humboldt Bay Harbor and Recreation Dist. (again, good thing)

    Filibuster 12:50, the sediment source in Nepal is clean. What contaminants do you suppose are in the sediments derived from the Mad River watershed?

  68. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Before I’m out of here — spent too much time here already, but them I’m a compulsive sharer-of-technical-information — here’s a quote from

    “Drinking Water — A Geochemical Factor in Human Health” by W.D. Keller, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1978

    “The use of glacial milk, essentially an aqueous extract (solution and suspension) of rocks, by the natives of Hunza, West Pakistan, has been cited as a major factor contributing to purported excellent health and unusual longevity of those peoples. A suspension of rock flour can supply not only immediately assimilable substances in solution, but also continuous, delayed-action, mineral-nutrient reserves after ingestion.”

  69. Tap the Mad
    February 27, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    “Sometimes users can get excessive turbidity because of faulty old water mains that let local groundwater seep into distribution pipes. This not common but is very bad when it occurs.”

    Water distribution pipes are always under pressure, so old pipes may burst but groundwater can not seep into them. Wastewater collection pipes can have groundwater infiltration which leads to high flows to wastewater treatment plants.

    The name I used was stolen from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District’s campaign to drink local water. Get a stainless water bottle,slap on a “tap the mad” sticker and be more local!!

  70. Duffy D
    February 27, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @ 8:46am – Health organizations are in business to make money. To do that, they need customers. They don’t make money if you don’t get sick.

    If you think I’m being jaded, I suggest you goggle -fluoride drinking water- or better yet -toxic waste fertilizer-.

    When you read the facts of what’s being done to us, our farmlands, our rivers, our drinking water, our foods, it is obvious that money overrides their bullshit compassion. Their bottom line is based on treatment not prevention.

    If they were the compassionate caring organizations, they pretend to be, they would be leading the fight against the poisoning of our life giving environment.

    There are some very pricey filters that claim to remove fluorides,(I have my doubts.) but there is no way to get the toxic waste out of the land, rivers, or your mashed potatoes.

    So, you say your water stinks, that, my fellow slaves, is the smell of big bucks. Suck it up. Your masters know what’s best for you.

  71. Plain Jane
    February 27, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Brita pitcher filters remove most of the taste of chlorine (as well as cloudiness of water) as do those which attach to your faucet. I personally can’t taste the chlorine after the water has gone through either one and they are cheap.

  72. Toohey
    February 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I really can’t get worked up over our tap water. If your that concerned about your health drink a glass of organic red wine and chill. Oh and knock off with the smoking (everything) and driving over the speed limit.

  73. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Tap the mad 134 but backflow from wells (or any connection to a non municipal source ie a hose in a hot tub) still being attached to residential systems with a municipal water supply can occur. Especially when excessive pumping, exercising hydrants, or exercising other large valves occurs.

    It is simple, water is all supposed to flow one way through the distribution system, but when you open a spot on the system (imagine piercing the line, sticking a straw in it and sucking) and draw a large amount, you can create reverse pressure and water can flow the other way (from the house into the line).

    Before HBMWD and CSD’s if people had water at their homes it came from a well. If there is any connection to that well that is also connected to the residential system you risk backflow from that source. If you are filling your hot tub, pond or peed in kiddee pool with a submerged hose you can create backflow contamination from that source.

    There is a requirement for backflow prevention devices but only where there is evidence that there may be a hazard. So if you have an old well and you are considering dropping a pump in to water your garden then tying it to the spigot in the yard with connection to the rest of the system, DONT.

  74. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Well, this backfired. Set out to promote tap water only to learn that most people don’t like their tap, and those who do like it are using an array of various filters to fix their water. Then we can’t decide who is more enslaved, the person drinking bottled to escape their tap or the person paying to fix their tap.

  75. MetaMuseAl
    February 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Brita doesn’t take the fluoride out.

    Now about those chemicals. The California Code of Regulations, title 22 lists 791 chemicals as “Hazardous Waste,” 39 of these are fluoride compounds. The memo lists two of these chemicals that are used for drinking water fluoridation in Sacramento; Hydrofluosilicic Acid and Sodium Fluoride. These are also not to be confused with the pharmaceutical quality fluoride in products, such as toothpaste, and mouthwash. Fluorosilicic Acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It contains levels of lead, arsenic and other heavy metals. This is very toxic stuff by any standard. Recent studies of fluoride use indicate a link to bone cancer, bone fractures, thyroid disorder, lowered IQ and more.

    With regards to the waste factors involved, consider where the drug ends up. The sole intended target group is defined as children under five years of age. Parents please see note below. According to city calculations, less than 0.009% of fluoridated water produced is potentially consumed by this target group. In other words, over 99.99% of the fluoride is not even used by those that are supposed to need it, but is wasted by watering the lawn, dish washing, flushed down the drain, etc. In the memo, the Mr. Hanneman makes the analogy of taking one gallon of milk, using six drops of it and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink. This waste process has also been shown to negatively effect life downstream.

    The sourcing of the chemicals is also not green at all, as in they are routinely shipped in from China and Japan.

    Yum, make mine Chinese.

  76. Walt
    February 27, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Ever wonder if all this nonsense about flouride and immunizations being lethal isn’t just a campaign sponsored by the Koch Bros to get the left to destroy itself?

  77. Random Guy
    February 27, 2011 at 4:51 pm


  78. February 27, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    So, are you setting up for another set of deep pockets here? What’s the point? Going after municipalities, maybe?

  79. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Who are you talking to, Rose?

  80. Bolithio
    February 27, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Where does the plastic go? Into the environment. Ever heard of the Pacific Gyre?


  81. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Walt, the NIH now recognizes the risk that fluoride poses to infants. Bad for infants, but good for us? Fluoride is in many, many more things we ingest than just water.

  82. tra
    February 27, 2011 at 6:35 pm


    That’s the first thing that I thought of when I saw this post, too.

  83. tra
    February 27, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Hi Fi said (9:52 am)

    relax & live a little…I for one, refuse to give up my bottled water…or turn the thermostat down to 64 during the day.

    Turning the thermostat down to 64 prevents you from relaxing or living? Really?

  84. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Fluoride occurs naturally in most spring water sources and is added to most municiple sources that do not contain it. Some natural sources actually have too much, some too little. Some systems contain too much fluoride for the youngest but is the right level for older kids. Our system has to have fluoride added to bring it to the optimum levels.

  85. funnygirl
    February 27, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Bottled water is tested a couple of times a year. Tap water is tested a couple of times a day.

    February 27, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Filibuster says:
    February 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm
    Public health water quality standards have increased over the years as 1) our technical ability to assess water quality constituents has improved, 2) our knowledge of the effects of the constituents has increased, and 3) public (i.e. political) pressure has demanded it.

    Response: SO true, but remember knowing this, we both know that assessments will become more refined, better, faster, stronger….like the bionic man in a way. This is known based upon agendas, protocols for public health and many other factors. Knowing all of this and knowing why dirty water exists leads to the notion that our water is still not as pure as it could be, thus our water is LESS PURE, especially when penalising a services district that can’t meet some higher benchmark level of compliance, and thus BOTH water quality will fail to meet the advanced (assessed) regulations meaning less pure AND that any money being used to pay a fine or penalty SHOULD be used in bettering the infrastructure to meet the new and higher standards, not pay the gubbamint wages of non-local agency jackarses.


  87. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    I take offense at the claim that my tap water is tested twice a day. It would mean public officials simply don’t care that they’re providing me dirty water. Not for a minute do I believe they’re testing twice a day.

  88. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    i believe that Humboldt bay tests residual chlorine continuously (every second or two), it goes down the pipe to your house in the same day. municipalities routinely check locations known to be at the end of the pipeline for microorganisms. This where water can stagnate and loose the important chlorine residual.

    here is a fun week-long project you can do if you’re tired of the system. Go to a river and get a five gallon bucket, boil it for 15 minutes, use it for your daily needs, repeat as needed, no cheating. For extra credit poop in a different bucket that you have to carry with you at all times and see how much it costs to dispose of at the county dump at the end of the week. There you have freed yourself of the system and protected the environment from your waste products, get a gold star and come back here for mucho kudos.

  89. Anonymous
    February 27, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    10:02, juvenile, snide remarks does not absolve government of its responsibility to provide us the cleanest water possible. It clearly is failing in that role.

  90. owltotem
    February 27, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Owl drinks tap (HBMWD tap). When I buy a bottle it is glass. Always be careful of highway hotels in the middle of nowhere, often they pump and treat their own and have their own distribution licenses (great place to get pesticides and other contaminants not tested for). Owls faithful canine companion will only drink HBMWD tap or bottled. (we bring it when we travel). Lesson learned, if the dog wont drink it, neither should Owl.

  91. Professor
    February 28, 2011 at 12:06 am

    Not long ago I called Eureka’s water department and asked how much fluoride they were adding to the water.

    The person I spoke with was amazingly candid and told me that the machine used to dispense the fluoride often fails and a costly replacement has been delayed for years.

    He claimed that it can dump 10 times the proper amount every day, but there was no way to be sure.

    He’s not a pharmacist, after all.

    Were people really that unhappy before they came out with plastic water bottles?

    Just don’t leave them in the sun too long or the pthalates can leach into the water. The hormone-mimicking compounds are suspected in the sex-change epidemics in some fish and many amphibian populations. Another possible explanation for the increasingly early onset of puberty and other sex-related abnormalities in humans.

    A European study on Alzheimer’s disease found large amounts of fluoride accumulated in one specific area of the human brain…sorry I don’t recall which one!

  92. February 28, 2011 at 2:23 am

    What about water coolers?

    Everyone is becoming more conscious of the way they use resources and their impact on the environment, both at a personal and corporate level, and is being increasingly held to account for this too.

    Given the high quality and regulation of US tap water, together with the efficacy of sophisticated filter systems within mains water coolers to remove any impurities and chlorine, there is clearly only one water cooler choice for the 2010s.


  93. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 7:48 am

    “To claim there is leaching for everyday people is what’s known as an environmentalist’s lie. A big, fat, juicy debunked lie.”

    It’s not a lie, it’s the truth. Plastic breaks down. Period. More than 120 bottled water bottles were tested a few years ago in the U.S. and all were found to have higher elements of toxins overall than tap water, but the one thing they didn’t have in the water were toxins from plastic.

    It’s just tap water, put in plastic bottles, the ultimate rip-off.

    A joke I referenced in a column written on bottled water for the T-S went like this: The French were trying to find another way to make money off Americans, and someone said, “Hey, let’s put water in bottles, because they will buy anything.”

    And then someone said, Evian backwards is naive.

  94. Bolithio
    February 28, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Plastic = Bad. If you don’t want to believe it, or don’t care – don’t worry because its too late! Its completely permeated every corner of the planet, and is already destined to be a major driving force in biological evolution of most organisms – especially in the ocean.


    Plastic bags, bottle tops and polystyrene foam coffee cups are often found in the stomachs of dead sea lions, dolphins, sea turtles and others. The implications have many at the conference concerned. Last April, Dutch scientists released a report on litter in the North Sea and found that fulmars, a type of seagull, had an average of 30 pieces of plastic in their stomachs.

    In the sea, big pieces of plastic look like jellyfish or squid, while small pieces look like fish eggs, says Bill Macdonald, vice president of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, a Long Beach, California-based nonprofit environmental organization.

  95. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 8:09 am

    It’s not a lie, it’s the truth. Plastic breaks down.

    Oh, look, the liar lies again. Plastic water bottles do not leach while consumers use them unless they are kept too long (2+ years) or are stored in direct sunlight.

  96. Mitch
    February 28, 2011 at 8:14 am


    The free market has spoken. People love putting tap water in plastic bottles and buying it at grocery stores, and who are these elitists to propose that’s bad. It’s not bad, it’s profitable!

    Who cares about hormonal disruption, anyway — just stupid liberals who want to protect frogs. Who cares if frogs get early puberty? Hormonal disruption sounds a lot like climate change to me, and Glenn says it’s a plot by Frances Fox Pivens.

  97. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 8:44 am

    40% of US teens aged 12-15 have fluorosis of the teeth. When the low-quality science upon which this US dogma came out in the forties, it was understood that there would be 10% of the population affected with mild fluorosis. This was considered a tolerable side-effect. Five decades later, four time that many young ones are overdosed with fluoride.

    (It only counts as fluorosis if two teeth are showing it… if the measure is fluorosis on one tooth, over 2/3 thirds of children are showing an excess of fluoride from this unregulated intake public policy.)

    1962 was the last time the national guideline for the 1 part per million concentration was reviewed. This year the DHHS and EPA have moved the advised concentration back to .7ppm because of the dental fluorosis. Further restrictive EPA regulations may be forthcoming, at the state and federal level.

    The CDC Dept of Water consists of maybe 25 Masters of Public Health and a handful of PHD’s. The EPA, which regulates fluoride as a contaminant, called for a moratorium on water fluoridation five or so years ago, with the vast majority of their unions signing on. We are talking maybe 7,000 scientists and lawyers, and many many more Phd’s than the CDC.

    Which side of the debate do you side with? The endorsing promoters of adding hazardous waste byproducts to your water, or the environmental regulators?

    The save the children argument isn’t very good.
    If one looks at the largest NIDR study from the mid-eighties, the difference between cavities in communities with fluoridated water vs. non fluoridated water… the difference is only .6 of a tooth surface… about 2.6(Fl)vs 3.2(un-Fl) cavities. By expressing this difference as a percentage of difference… dental authorities can make the claim that water fluoridation reduces caries (the disease) by 18-25%. Sure sounds better that way, doesn’t it?
    Statistically speaking, .6 tooth surfaces out of over 100 some surfaces, is negligible. (This is from congressional testimony where it was also shown that no long term health studies exist for the silicofluorides that most communities use to fluoridate)

    That same Congressional committee asked the CDC why they were using DMFSurfaces as a measurement instead of the usual DMFTeeth index— and they were told this is a more precise measurement that shows where the cavities are occuring. The CDC stated that fluoride has little effect on the teeth where we know that 85-90% of cavities occur. Let that sink in. This is why dentistry went to sealants for those back teeth.

    Which is more important, taking the time to say the pledge of allegiance, or taking the time for brushing teeth?

    Putting Chinese fluoride in community water has been described as a Homeland Security issue. One cannot get access to the industry testing reports on these products. Industry foxes regulating industry safety. Right.

    Calgary and Yellow Springs are two notable towns that have recently voted out water fluoridation, and with budget cuts looming, city councils across the nation are looking at cutting costs… as the information from the dental community that it is a topical application that is primarily or predominantly how fluoride is effective is becoming more widespread.

    It takes decades to lay a dead dogma to rest, but the dogma is dead. Good peer-reviewed science can be laid upon the grave.

  98. Mitch
    February 28, 2011 at 8:51 am


    What are the hazards (if any) of fluorosis?

  99. Naturally occuring Logic
    February 28, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Reading these posts…. municipalities buy the toxic waster byproducts of an industry and .009% of that product is consumed by the target population to have less than 1% of an effect on actual cavities?

    Who has emotion on their side and who has logic?

  100. anon
    February 28, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Mitch, most dentists will say that it is merely a cosmetic effect. Ask a teenager with white spots. There is more concern over moderate fluorosis on the teeth. Some brave medical authorities call dental fluorosis a window on the bones, and a marker of fluoride toxicity similar to the blue line on gums that lead produces.

    Researchers in countries where naturally occuring calcium flouride is causing crippling skeletal fluorosis have found the association between dental fluorosis and bone problems.

    Someone above has done their research.
    There is an awful epidemic of childhood caries amongst the poor in all the fluoridated communities, no amount of fluoride ingestion is going to overcome the junky diet that does not provide adequate nutrition for tooth building.

  101. Cristina Bauss
    February 28, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Thank you, Bolithio. I was wondering why NO ONE had mentioned the Pacific Gyre. And thank you, Xandra, for the simple and sane suggestion.

  102. Anon
    February 28, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Good reads. The same as above, and Professor and Mitch and Anonymous. Thanks Skippy for the laugh.

  103. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    10:42 Anon
    Uninformed, Snarky, Scare tactics don’t prove that we need to waste precious funds to clean our water to unreasonable and unattainable perfection. Where are the cholera epidemics or even single cases? Who has won a suit over fluoride damages? should be easy to prove if it’s as bad as put forth by some terrified individuals here.

    As a society we provide for individuals in the best ways FEASIBLE. There are cracks in this world view, YES. Maybe if the world human population was reduced to 10%-20% of what is currently is we could provide better and make everyone (left) happy, but as it stands society does the best it can. You are welcome join the process and make any changes you are able to.

  104. Eric Kirk
    February 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Bottled water is regulated by the weak FDA. Tap water is regulated much more tightly by the EPA. And as someone who believes that fluoridation is a good thing, I should point out that many bottled waters also contain it. In fact, many bottled waters are simply tap water sent through a filter.

  105. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Nice thread with so many good comments…
    Filibuster was very informative.
    I have a question for him… can you describe the nature and use of the clumping agent added to the Mad River water to reduce the turbidity of the water during the winter flows?

  106. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    8:45, ask the surgeon general, our local public health officials, the American Cancer Society, The American Medical Association, the National Institute of Health, the American Dental Association, on and on. They will dispute what you wrote. Why do all (I don’t know what that isn’t) local dentists and dental specialists believe in adding fluoride? It is a health concern to NOT add fluoride. Ask your doctor and your dentist, or you could listen to those who just don’t like it for their own reasons, but reasons not based in science.

    February 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Personal responsibility = Brush your darned teeth or suffer. Gubbamint don’t need to worry about an individuals poor health habits regarding good looks and a bright smile. If people are too dumb, lazy, stupid, eneducated, etc…oh well! I mean really, how hard is it to get a tube of flouridated paste?

    Let us add LAZY to reality. Really too, must say it is about gubbamint power and control – P & C justifies expansionisms in the minds of societies most frugal, sociopathic “publicly employed” abusers who think bigger is better.


  108. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Clumping agent, i believe Humboldt Bays uses is Aluminum Sulfate during the winter months when the Turbidity Reducion Facility is in operation. It has a negative charge and attracts the positively charged particulates (except maybe I have the charges flipped). This forms larger clumps (floc) that are easier to filter out. Wikipedia probably has a more in depth explanation if you want to search flocculation.

  109. Anonymous
    February 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Anonymous, Anonymous thanks you.

  110. Filibuster
    February 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Colloidal particles (like clays) are typically negatively charged. Other than that, Anonymous 7:18 has exactly the right explanation about flocculation. I don’t know what the specific agent HBMWD uses is; if not aluminum sulfate it may be a calcium compound. Calcium ions will cause flocculation of clays.

  111. Eric Kirk
    February 28, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Let’s not forget the sage words of General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove!

    General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.

    General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I… no, no. I don’t, Jack.

    General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.

  112. NY Water Commissioner in 1956
    March 1, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Each to their own expert witness.

    There was a huge scientific debate in the ’40 and ’50’s over water fluoridation. The public had to accept the leap of using boxes of rat poison advertising sodium fluoride to being told it was good for their teeth diluted down and added to their water. The ADA and AMA Journals both had editorials in the forties opining that this wasn’t a good idea.

    This rarely accessed 1956 New York Water Commissioner’s response to city council and their fluoridation scheme shows how back then fluoride was viewed through the frame of it being toxic. Today the frame is “naturally occurring”.
    Here is an excerpt from the oldest and most informed articulate anti-water fluoridation voice I have found
    The department has extensive laboratories staffed by reputable scientists and competent sanitary engineers, with a massive library in which is contained over five thousand references on the subject of the fluorides alone. We have continued to study and evaluate the effect of toxic substances as related to water supply. The matter of fluorides has been under our scrutiny for over 20 years.
    ……..We are aware that the fluorides are extremely toxic substances, and evidence exists to show that even at the recommended level of one part per million of fluoride in drinking water, people in fluoridated communities have been harmed. A very small percentage among a population of eight million, sensitive to the chemical and adversely affected, would constitute a serous significant number of persons harmed.

    We know of reputable, independent medical authorities throughout the United States and in the local area who have found evidence of fluoride damage to persons living in fluoridated communities. These medical authorities disagree with the fluoride hypothesis, and they have raised grave questions with respect to the safety of the procedure for an entire population which includes the young, the old, the susceptible and the infirm as well as the healthy.

    Arguments from dissenting scientists haven’t changed much.

  113. olmanriver
    March 2, 2011 at 9:26 am

    The .7 ppm new guideline for water fluoridation is under proposal,and not a done deal–they are still taking public comments.
    Not having a local press that can report things like this in any manner deeper than a press release, here is one scientists comment to the DHHS.
    This is for those who can read science.
    And for lawyers who understand findings of fact: “Three U.S. courts have found water fluoridation to be injurious to human health, specifically that
    it may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer and genetic damage (described in detail by
    Graham and Morin 1999).”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s