Thread: Bottled water, a product we should generally ban Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029239
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The bottles are a big problem. Most western countries have decent municipal water supplies which are safe to drink. The companies which bottle water are exploitative.
This one particularly makes no sense: Nestle Water Use In B.C. Under Fire Again Amid Drought, Wildfires
I understand California has similar troubles.
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it? I'm not even very sensitive in situations where there's a "boil water advisory", because that's what you do when there's one of those, boil it. Or filter it, or use refillable containers, which you take to a filling station which I do. We have 23 L (5 imp gallon) reusable bottles which we refill for drinking, 7 of them. Refilling costs between $1 and 2 for 5 gals.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it?
We drink hundreds of them each month.
I justify it on the basis of cost, convenience, health, and taste.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Generally I agree with no prophet. Bottled water is rather pointless and the bottles are an ecological disaster.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I admit it! I drink bottled water, despite the condemnations of my greener leaning contemporaries. I spend about 15p per 2 litre bottle, for the fizzy stuff. I find it far more economic to buy sugar-free squash and cordials, and make fizzy squash, than buy carbonated, pre-flavoured multi-national mega-brand-name sugar-intense drinks. So that is my justification. I hope you like it.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
We drink water out of a filter jug that comes from the hot tap. We have to draw a lot of water through before it comes hot which would otherwise go to waste.
So it's copper rich, and hopefully not laced with a dead something from the header tank. No ill effects so far......
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
In Brazil we have 20l bottles and they refill them. It's brilliant!
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Forgot to mention. I put the bottles out for recycling. Whether the council actually does recycle them, I couldn't say. But I think I'd know about it by now if they aren't keeping up to their side of the bargain.
More cheers, PV.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I drink tap water. I have a couple refillable jug sort of things in the house that I refill. When that is not available, I get a damn glass and fill it from the damn tap, or drink it from a damn public fountain.. Our water is from the Hetch-Hetchy dam and was tested as one of the best quality water sources in the nation--I have no excuse to buy anybody's bottled water, in my mind.
I got a drink from a cooler in an antique store yesterday and was pissed off to see it was being filled by Nestle water. I felt like I had just drank a big cup of bad karma.
That said, in this north bay town I was visiting, all of the public drinking fountains had been turned off due to the drought. I won't buy bottled myself, but it is hard to judge a very thirsty person who ducks into a 7-11 to buy a bottle of whatever because nothing else is on hand. I just won't do it myself.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it?
We drink hundreds of them each month.
I justify it on the basis of cost, convenience, health, and taste.
When I moved to Korea, my doctor advised me not to drink water from the tap, because it might wreak havoc on my stomach. So I switched exclusively to bottled water, and purified water when drikning in a restaurant.
I suppose I COULD just boil the water, but I don't, because I hate the taste, and anyway I'm too lazy. Just like zillions of people drive cars to work because it's more comfortable and convenient, even though a bike would get them there just as easily and emit zero pollution.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Damn...now I have to start drinking bottled water.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I only use bottled water if our mains supply fails and the water company delivers bottles to tide us over. This happens once a year or so.
If you want your water fizzy I suggest you invest in a soda stream. Shifting water around by lorry in plastic bottles is incredibly wasteful. Recycling the bottles is all fine and well but it should be a last resort after reducing the amount you use and reusing them for other things.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I only use bottled water if our mains supply fails and the water company delivers bottles to tide us over. This happens once a year or so.
If you want your water fizzy I suggest you invest in a soda stream. Shifting water around by lorry in plastic bottles is incredibly wasteful. Recycling the bottles is all fine and well but it should be a last resort after reducing the amount you use and reusing them for other things.
Yeah, I have a similar issue. I live in a large block of council flats. Maybe once every so often the water gets cut off. I've never been offered bottled water to tide me over, and have tended to supply my own, buying a couple of extra bottles with each monthly shop.
That's an ordinary sort of 'emergency' discipline. For serious prepping purposes, I have 25 litre jerry cans, which I intend to fill with tap water should there ever be a zombie-attack warning.
Best, PV.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
When I was in Canada, some of the supermarkets had osmosis filtered water that came out of a tap - it was regular water passed through a filter - and you could fill a container with it and buy it, and reuse your container. It was cheaper to reuse your container than get a new one each time. I bought that water because the water from the taps tasted horrible. I've not come across that in the UK.
Here in the UK, I used to live in an area where the tap water also tasted horrible, even with a Brita filter, so I did buy bottled mineral water, and drank a 30p 2-litre bottle every day. Now I live in an area where the tap water tastes nice (well, it doesn't have a taste as such, but it tastes clear - not like chlorine), so I don't buy bottled water. I have a bottle that I refill from the tap, and I take it with me to work, and to the gym, and when I go for a walk, so I always have water to drink. Clear-tasting water is important to me, because water is the main thing I drink.
I personally wouldn't advocate banning bottled water - for some people, it does serve a purpose, and if you are going to ban it, by the same logic you'd have to ban an awful lot of other things. What about soft drinks like lemonade and Coke, for instance, which are worse than bottled water because they contain sugar/sweeteners and additives, as well as being totally unnecessary and in plastic bottles. And junk food in general. Seems a bit daft to target bottled water - when drinking water is good for you, and plenty of people live in areas where tap water doesn't taste good, and different people have different taste sensitivities, and bottled water may be the only water some people drink.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I grew up drinking boiled or bottled water and still don't feel happy with what comes out of the tap. These days I filter it before I drink it - it does make a difference but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it, sometimes it tastes brackish and there are traces of god-knows-what in it.
I do notice the difference when making tea: using ordinary tap water there's usually some kind of thin muck clinging to the insides of the cup, but if you filter the water, you don't get that - or the chalk sediment. Filtering then boiling is the best option but mostly I'm too lazy to do more than one at a time.
I buy bottles of fizzy water from time to time so I can mix them with fruit juice. The bottles are plastic and easily recycled, or can be used for other purposes. Also the small ones are quite useful for taking on journeys when you don't want to take a flask along.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Yeah, I agree with that, Fineline. I'm not generally in favour of banning things unless a significant harm can be demonstrated, and before my beloved, affordable, fizzy water went, I'd much rather see colas go, in an attempt to tackle obesity. But hey, then we'd be tackling corporates, and they might not like that, and fund the people who make the banning laws, anymore.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
I drink bottled water when I am out and in cafe's because of health issues:
fizzy drinks irritate my condition
most fruit juices are acidic and don't help either
I don't drink tea and coffee has to be restricted.
That only leaves bottled water.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've always drunk tap-water. I resent two things.
1. Being charged for something that comes out of the tap for nothing; and
2. Any suggestion that water companies should be let off maintaining the standards of tap-water they've had to meet hitherto because people can always buy expensive water from bottles.
Fortunately, hitherto, the standard of tap-water in this country has been such that no one has needed to buy bottled water. It's a con.
When I was growing up bottled water was unknown here. It was something one only found in those foreign countries that didn't have proper standards for the public supply.
I've not though thought of it as the sort of issue that could involve the unco guid campaigning to ban bottled water. I'm definitely not proposing to join them in this.
If meetings etc provide bottled water, I'll cheerfully drink it provided nobody expects me to pay for it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET plastic, generally containing antimony and various endocrine hormone disrupters which leach into the water if stored a long time, or into the environment.
How on earth did we all survive before they bottled water? I do not recall bottles of water for sale before the 1980s. We have successfully banned them in schools, along with bottled sugar drinks.
Here's a nice picture of some bottles in the Great Pacific trash vortex, which is where a lot of the bottles end up.
I'm reflecting on the rich Christian thread when I consider some of the responses. I think the ethics and morality of this are more important than some of you.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Obviously you do.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
No prophet wrote:
quote:
How on earth did we all survive before they bottled water?
I dunno. How did we survive before cars? And long-distance air travel? If we all agreed to take our holidays within biking distance of our houses, just think of how much better that would be for the ecosystem.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obviously you do.
Yes, I know. People want to do whatever they feel like they want to, effects on anything or anyone else be damned. Humanity sucks.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
How did we survive before cars? And long-distance air travel? If we all agreed to take our holidays within biking distance of our houses, just think of how much better that would be for the ecosystem.
These are good questions. I have essentially stopped driving for within city trips. Not trivial in the winter to bicycle 12 km to work when you're 60ish, but I am unwilling to complain about things if I'm not willing to do something about it. Air travel is a problem, I don't believe that carbon offsets are an answer. We don't have a passenger rail system, and alternative power sources for transportation is a joke.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
For me, tap water is just as different compared to spring water as spring water is to seltzer water. I'm fine with tap water for everything other than drinking straight, but I'm trying to move away from sweetened drinks and I'm using both spring water and flavored seltzer water to help make it easier. Almost all urban/suburban tap water I've tried just doesn't taste good enough compared to spring water to be something I'd actually drink. (I think it's probably because of the very low levels of chlorine in tap water because it tastes much better to me if it sits in an open container for long enough.)
Given that I want to drink spring and seltzer water, I purchase them using the best options I have available: larger plastic jugs for spring water (and some bottles for when I need a smaller size) and recyclable aluminum cans for seltzer water. Per LeRoc's post, I will use better alternatives when they become available to me.
Personally, I think the long-term solution should be to tax all goods and packaging to account for all environmental costs, i.e. to pay for all costs of sustainable waste management associated with the purchased product.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
So, are we to ban all soft bottled drinks then?
Leaving only alcoholic drinks, since these clearly have a point and purpose that justifies the expense of bottling and transporting?
I can just hear the health fascists gnashing their chops over that, and getting ready to ban any drink at all, other than tap water, for our own benefit.
And then the deep green fanatics would get to have their say, and we would be reduced to drinking our own recycled urine, so we wouldn't need pipes, or sewerage plants, or pumping stations, anymore.
I think even cavemen drank better than that.
I'm generally in favour of environmental causes, and public health initiatives, but I can see this getting a little out of hand.
Cheers (hic), and down the hatch, and bottoms up, PV.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
No prophet wrote:
quote:
How on earth did we all survive before they bottled water?
I dunno. How did we survive before cars? And long-distance air travel? If we all agreed to take our holidays within biking distance of our houses, just think of how much better that would be for the ecosystem.
The Amish don't even use electricity.
Well...officially...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't think (Kingshley) Amish used bottled water- or anything else that might have diluted his whisky...
Taxi for Albertus
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I use bottled water only when I'm on a trip and want to have some water available if I get thirsty. I have never had a problem with bottled water leaking, and I have had trouble with water I brought from home in my own container.
Moo
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I drank bottled water when the infrastructure was damaged after the quakes and it was disgusting. So was the chlorine laced stuff that came through the taps after that.
Now untreated tap water here is fine.
Before the quakes Christchurch had a lot of public drinking fountains, so there was no need for me to carry a water bottle, now I use a stainless steel one refilled from the tap.
Huia
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I can understand the concerns about bottled water, both for the bottles and the personal and environmental damage they do, and the cost of transporting a bunch of water when tap water is already right there.
I also can understand how useful it can be -- if I'm off somewhere and need something to drink, and it's either bottled water or some sugary shit that will poke holes in my liver and pile fat on my middle, I'm grateful that there is water.
What I don't understand are buffoons who say, "Oooh, this is bad for the environment? Sign me up!" I just can't see how that's a Christian attitude.
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
I have from time to time bought a bottle of water at some event when it is hot and they have cold water. I also have used it when we had no water for several days because of a water delivery system failure. Otherwise, no.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Tap water. Historically the big beer companies made darn sure our city had a great water supply.
My mother drinks bottled water, but that is by doctor's orders, I believe. She has kidney failure and lives in another state.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
London Underground has notices everywhere telling passengers to carry a bottle of water in the hot weather, to try and prevent overheating and dehydration on the Tube. Most commuters do carry plastic bottles, but I suspect, like mine, many of them contain tap water because I refill and reuse those bottles until they fall to pieces or start leaking and then I recycle them. Permanent drinking bottles aren't such a great deal as they get musty and contaminated.
Before plastic water bottles drinks came in glass bottles which often cost a few pence which could be reclaimed when the glass bottles were returned for recycling. That had pretty much died out by my childhood, but you can read about children earning money by recycling bottles in the Just William books, for example. Or there were drinking fountains, or you begged a glass of water from a neighbour.
Then there were pouches and cartons of drinks on the move, which really were single use.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I drink tap water. It's far cheaper than bottled water, it meets much higher safety standards, and it doesn't have as bad an impact on the environment. The people running companies bottling California water to ship all over the country when we are in the fourth year of drought should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But hey, then we'd be tackling corporates, and they might not like that, and fund the people who make the banning laws, anymore.
Er... aren't Coca-Cola and Nestle et al behind many brands of bottled water? Bottled water aiui is just as corporate as any other form of beverage in plastic bottles.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Sounds like a Tory plot to further enrich the evil water bottling corporations while destroying the environment.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it?
We drink hundreds of them each month.
I justify it on the basis of cost, convenience, health, and taste.
How much do hundreds of bottles of water per month cost?
(I'm fortunate to have excellent tap water which is convenient, safe and delicious, so I only buy bottled water when I can't take my own metal bottle or hydration pack.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
No, it's not a Tory plot. And it is not neutral as you seem to think. It's merely a way to market something useless and create a cachet to it, such that people think it is better that the same substance coming from a tap.
The plot was to lie to people. The adverts I recall at the start of bottled water showed a person drinking a glass of tap water, then a toilet flushing, and then a fade to someone drinking water from a bottle, with the voice over discussing how it was disgusting to drink from where you flush, or how dare we poo in the same water we'd drink, coming from the same supply. The implication being about health and safety. Absolute balderdash.
A parallel to tobacco doesn't hold because bottles of water don't cause personal health problems, but there is an environmental clean-up cost that I suspect one day will have to be paid.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it?
We drink hundreds of them each month.
I justify it on the basis of cost, convenience, health, and taste.
How much do hundreds of bottles of water per month cost?
(I'm fortunate to have excellent tap water which is convenient, safe and delicious, so I only buy bottled water when I can't take my own metal bottle or hydration pack.)
We get cases of 35 or 40 bottles for $3.50 or so. 20 ounce, purified drinking water. Two a week is probably average. During the school year more than that.
"We" are three adults and five chaps, ages 6 to 14.
We don't refrigerate it though cause no one likes it cold, so we aren't complete a**holes.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
What is "purified" water? I should hope that tap water is "purified".
Since I have only one kidney, I followed my urologist's ultra cautious suggestion and installed a top grade water filtration system in my kitchen. For necessary outside use, I carry a refillable bottle. Filter replacement costs about $150 a year.
I think that's considerably cheaper than piles of plastic "purified" water.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There are an awful lot of assumptions in the original post, and opinions expressed as facts. OK, where there is advice to boil water before drinking, often you can do that - but not always. If the choice then is a soft drink (which I don't like, too much sugar for my taste), a fruit juice or bottled water, I'd take the water.
Then there are places where the water is safe to drink, but none too pleasant. Not always small and remote country towns, but sometimes large cities. Adelaide is one such place, where you simply can't get a decent cup of tea because the basic taste of the water is so unpleasant, safe though the water may be.
OK, be careful if you like about the amount of bottled water you buy, but like so many things, to express opinions in such absolutes basically puts a bar on any half-sensible discussion.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... Before plastic water bottles drinks came in glass bottles which often cost a few pence which could be reclaimed when the glass bottles were returned for recycling. That had pretty much died out by my childhood, but you can read about children earning money by recycling bottles in the Just William books, for example. Or there were drinking fountains, or you begged a glass of water from a neighbour. ...
In that era, there was no bottled water industry. The bottles that there was money back on were bottles of pop (1950s word for fizzy drinks). Corona came in bottles with rather superior stoppers like this.
Gee D I agree with what you say about expressing opinions as absolutes.
[ 20. July 2015, 08:43: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
This still happens with beer bottles in Germany - we buy Weißbier in Heidelberg one trip, bring it back to the UK for consumption then return the bottles next trip!
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
What is "purified" water? I should hope that tap water is "purified".
Of course it is! A sand filter and chlorine do the trick for our city water.
The water we buy is carbon filtered, ozonated, and UV disinfected.
You could taste test any of my kids with water from the tap and the water that they regularly drink and I would bet that they could tell you which was which without even putting it to their lips.
I know I could.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
You could taste test any of my kids with water from the tap and the water that they regularly drink and I would bet that they could tell you which was which without even putting it to their lips.
I know I could.
Yes, so can I. But we have a built in filter in the fridge and that completely removes the tap water taste ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
All water has a 'flavour' which differs according to its source, however 'pure' it is. Even distilled water (which is not particularly nice to drink) has a flavour.
The advice I have seen to remove the chlorine taste is simply to put tap water into a jug with a lid into the fridge for a short period to cool it.
Our local water provider has quite a useful guide.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
romanlion: We get cases of 35 or 40 bottles for $3.50 or so. 20 ounce, purified drinking water. Two a week is probably average. During the school year more than that.
If you're consuming so much of it, isn't there a more efficient way they can get it to you? Brazil can refill 20l bottles ...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I only ever buy bottled water if I'm away from home and need a drink.
I bring the bottles home to be re-filled and used as/when needed.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
romanlion: We get cases of 35 or 40 bottles for $3.50 or so. 20 ounce, purified drinking water. Two a week is probably average. During the school year more than that.
If you're consuming so much of it, isn't there a more efficient way they can get it to you? Brazil can refill 20l bottles ...
There are different scaling models in countries where bottled water is essential, as opposed to ones where it is largely optional (and where bottled water suppliers play up the 'natural' or 'pure' aspects).
I imagine if you are having to pack meals then smaller quantities are more convenient also.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
You could taste test any of my kids with water from the tap and the water that they regularly drink and I would bet that they could tell you which was which without even putting it to their lips.
I know I could.
Which is as mostly to do with the relative impurities in each sample and which ones you can taste - and is not necessarily indicative of safety (though I can understand why you may choose not to drink water tasting of chlorine - however safe).
I'm sure I could tell the differences between some types of water also - though am lucky that the local water company is one of the best in the country when it comes to water purification. Because of local geography it contains large amounts of limestone - but I've never even got faint tastes of anything else.
Absent bad tap water I suspect a lot of issues are caused by people who lived in a hard-water area moving to a soft-water area and vice versa.
I even read some research a while back that suggested that hard-water was probably better for making tea with - which might explain some of the complaints Brits moving to Europe often make.
[ 20. July 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
To what extent is a lot of this "kidology"? How many of you, for instance, remember the Coca-Cola Dasani scandal?
There is no good reason (apart, perhaps, from taste) why the vast majority of us living in developed countries can't drink tap water. (And we can filter it to change the taste or protect our kettles). But - quite apart from the environmental issues caused by the transporting and bottling process - isn't it a scandal that the many people in the world who really could do with pure bottled water (because their other sources are polluted and contaminated) are unable to get it because it's expensive and they are poor?
[ 20. July 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The adverts I recall at the start of bottled water showed a person drinking a glass of tap water, then a toilet flushing, and then a fade to someone drinking water from a bottle, with the voice over discussing how it was disgusting to drink from where you flush, or how dare we poo in the same water we'd drink, coming from the same supply.
I read somewhere (might have been on these boards) that the definition of extravagance is to take a bowl of fresh, treated drinking water - and shit in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Being charged for something that comes out of the tap for nothing;
I pay about 2.5p per litre for my tap water. That includes disposing of it once I've finished with it. doesn't sound much, but it adds up to £600 per year for the whole family.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I would be against banning bottled water. At the most I'd tax the bejezus out of it. That way if people really think it's worth it to buy tons of the stuff, well we can use the taxes to fix the environmental problems being caused. Also I think that taxes would help a lot of people "figure out" how a filter/reusing bottles system would work for them.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I've got several cases of bottled water stored against earthquakes. If they were banned disaster prep would be a problem.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I would be against banning bottled water. At the most I'd tax the bejezus out of it. That way if people really think it's worth it to buy tons of the stuff, well we can use the taxes to fix the environmental problems being caused. Also I think that taxes would help a lot of people "figure out" how a filter/reusing bottles system would work for them.
Slight tangent alert
Since the purpose of taxes is to raise money to fund the cost of government, unless and until I'm persuaded otherwise, I'm seriously hostile to introducing a tax primarily to achieve some other objective, however desirable some people may consider that objective to be.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
No prophet wrote:
quote:
How on earth did we all survive before they bottled water?
I dunno. How did we survive before cars? And long-distance air travel? If we all agreed to take our holidays within biking distance of our houses, just think of how much better that would be for the ecosystem.
The Amish don't even use electricity.
Well...officially...
[tangent]
Actually the Amish DO officially use electricity.
[/tangent]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
On topic - are public water fountains common outside the UK? I've never seen them over here. I think they'd be a huge help in helping people to drink tap water rather than bottled water.
I do drink bottled water, but try to plan ahead and take a bottle of tap water. Public water fountains would definitely help out there.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd like to know: do you drink bottles of water? How can you justify it?
At home, I drink water from the tap. I'm not American enough to like ice-cold water, so straight from the tap is usually fine.
I buy bottled water occasionally: for parties, it is convenient to have a cooler full of water bottles for people to drink, and I don't have to worry about the containers (they'll end up in the recycling, and it doesn't matter whose recycling bin it is).
If we're going out for the day and taking a picnic, we'll take refillable water bottles (filled from the tap). Sometimes I'll throw a "disposable" water bottle in the freezer (don't want to freeze my good bottles) but more often than not it'll be a used one that's been refilled from the tap.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since the purpose of taxes is to raise money to fund the cost of government, unless and until I'm persuaded otherwise, I'm seriously hostile to introducing a tax primarily to achieve some other objective,
You beg the question. The work of Arthur Pigou on externalities and their correction with taxation has wide acceptance. There are significant practical difficulties associated with determining the appropriate level for a Pigouvian tax, and such discussions are often clouded by people with a political axe to grind.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Public water fountains seem to be prevalent all over the U.S., but they're often smelly and unsanitary-looking -- and unless they're also water coolers (which require electricity) the water is yucky warm.
One thing I've recently noticed are water coolers with a special tap near the back at the top to fill water bottles. These are especially handy at airports, where you can take an empty bottle through security and fill it from a fountain on the other side to take on the plane. (I tried doing this once with a traditional water fountain, but it was almost impossible to get any water into the bottle.)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
No prophet wrote:
quote:
How on earth did we all survive before they bottled water?
I dunno. How did we survive before cars? And long-distance air travel? If we all agreed to take our holidays within biking distance of our houses, just think of how much better that would be for the ecosystem.
The Amish don't even use electricity.
Well...officially...
[tangent]
Actually the Amish DO officially use electricity.
[/tangent]
OK...so it is connection to the grid that is forbidden. That makes sense. I knew the Amish used diesel generators.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
On topic - are public water fountains common outside the UK? I've never seen them over here. I think they'd be a huge help in helping people to drink tap water rather than bottled water.
We tend to call them drinking fountains. They are still present in many places, but harder to find. Newer ones tend to have a water bottle filling apparatus integrated within.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My wife and I came across an amazing public water fountain in a park in Limone Sul Garda (Italy) a few years ago.
It dispensed water, chilled water, and chilled sparkling water - for free. We filled our water bottles from it frequently.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I know of people who go out of their way to fill bottles from "springs". The quotes because they aren't quite what you might expect them to be.
One is a pipe which sticks out of a wall near where my sister lives in Gloucestershire. Since the road is called Wells Road, and there are a number of house names referring to springs and wells along it, it is clearly related to geology - the landslips reinforce this. It tastes pleasant.
The other looks more like a hydrant gushing water out near the Thames on a bird sanctuary on the Kent Marshes - not sure if I could find it again. There was a someone who had brought bottles along in their car to fill. Not trusting the geology so much - I couldn't work out why someone would have drilled deep enough under the London Clay to get artesian pressure out of the Chalk aquifer there, I asked if it was drinking water. "Oh yes," she said. "It comes from Essex."
Happening to have a spare bottle*, I filled it. It tasted pleasant, and probably from the Chalk. But Essex? A pipeline under the Thames? More ridiculous than an artesian borehole.
*Yes, I had, previously, bought a bottle.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Someone phoned while I was editing to expand on part if that post, and I ran out of time.
"It comes from Essex."
I have not been able to find a way to convey the peculiar nature of this statement to non-UK residents. It is not only the geographical oddness which you can see if you use Google to look at the Thames Estuary.
There is an unfortunate and largely inaccurate connection between Essex and being common and perhaps not very bright, and the estuary itself is known for oil terminals and refineries; a seaside resort where Eastenders went for Bank Holidays; a holiday island of chalets and caravans which was flooded in 1953; mudflats, gunnery ranges; top secret test sites; a place where wartime unexploded ordnance is taken to be exploded: in short, not somewhere one would instantly think of as a source of pure water.
[ 20. July 2015, 20:46: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
romanlion: We get cases of 35 or 40 bottles for $3.50 or so. 20 ounce, purified drinking water. Two a week is probably average. During the school year more than that.
If you're consuming so much of it, isn't there a more efficient way they can get it to you? Brazil can refill 20l bottles ...
Not likely. What we buy is ready to serve in it's own container. A 20 liter jug of water would be useless to us. 40 half liter (+/-) bottles for less than 4 bucks is brilliant.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There is an unfortunate and largely inaccurate connection between Essex and being common and perhaps not very bright
This is funny because it is just as true in the Baltimore area as it seems to be across the pond, assuming of course that you weren't referring to Essex, Maryland.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What I don't understand are buffoons who say, "Oooh, this is bad for the environment? Sign me up!" I just can't see how that's a Christian attitude.
Quite common, unfortunately. It is very difficult to live completely* ethically in large populations, but this doesn't not excuse making no effort.
But justifying is easier than doing. Not being holier than thou, I do try but I need to do better. First step is not making rubbish excuses.
* But you can get really close.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Of course it is! A sand filter and chlorine do the trick for our city water.
Yeah, not exactly.
For most of the people using this website, tap water is safe. Safer than bottled in many cases.
UK water
US water
Canadian water
Australian water.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I'm surprised that nobody has referred to the numerous situations where water bottlers such as Nestlé are accessing vast supplies of water which they are then entitled to even when the local people are suffering extreme drought. Haven't time to search for more than one example– there are others in Canada, and I have read of situations in India and Africa where drought areas have lost their minimal water supplies to multinationals. Such a deal has recently surfaced in a drought-prone farming district in New Zealand.
We are fortunate in that while our city supply is not bad, artesian water from an aquifer not far from here is available free for all to help themselves. We take a dozen 3-litre milk bottles every so often for our drinking water, and there are always queues with various containers filling up; a sculptured water feature enhances the site.
As for the Essex story – there is also artesian drinking water tap in a city car park for which one is asked to take only one container and leave a coin for charity, but this comes from an aquifer which slopes up from a deep site way beyond the harbour.
Tangent (or perhaps not) I recall a Mythbusters programme in which patrons at a restaurant were invited to compare different brands of bottled water – all of which had been filled from the tap in the back yard.
GG
[ 21. July 2015, 00:27: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Of course it is! A sand filter and chlorine do the trick for our city water.
Yeah, not exactly.
Penn's woods?
I don't think so.
Here you go.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I wonder if some of the appeal of bottled water for some comes from mistrust of the public "gummint" water supply allied with a naïve trust in corporate self-regulation. After all, Nestle or Coca-Cola can claim whatever they want ("Pure spring water! Ozonated! Filtered!") on the bottle but they don't have to disclose what they actually do. If the consumer tries to find out e.g. what type of filters or what concentration of ozone they use, they will claim it's "proprietary information" which must be kept secret.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Here you go.
That link wasn't helpful as to determining methods.
But it does highlight an advantage of tap water to bottled water. Testing. Municipal water agencies have stricter testing guidelines than bottled water companies. Remember, if you will, that you live in the United States which has among the worst practice in food labeling and inspection in a first world country.
The FDA's* own site admits that bottled water plants have a low inspection priority.
The industry often uses misleading terms to make the consumers think their water is better than tap.
For instance, this:
quote:
The water we buy is carbon filtered, ozonated, and UV disinfected.
All on the EPA list as not effective against Cryptosporidium. or other nasties like Giardia.
Full guideline here.
Chlorine is better, but reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are best. If you purchase a post tap filter, it should be < 1 micron.
From the EPA's* site.
quote:
EPA encourages all Americans to learn more about
the quality of their drinking water, both tap water
and bottled water, before deciding whether to
drink tap water, bottled water, or both. If your
water comes from a public water system, the best
way to learn more about tap water is to read your
water supplier’s annual water quality report. If
your water comes from a household well, EPA recommends testing the water regularly for bacteria,
nitrates, and other contaminants.The best way to
learn more about bottled water is to read its label, or contact the producer directly.
Neither EPA nor FDA certify bottled water.
Bold mine. Because an annual inspection isn't required for bottled water companies.
There are a lot of factors,of course. The water source, the initial method of treatment of the water, the frequency of QC checks, The age and type of piping from the source to your drinking location.
*FDA - Food and Drug Administration
*EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
[ 21. July 2015, 02:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I'm surprised that nobody has referred to the numerous situations where water bottlers such as Nestlé are accessing vast supplies of water which they are then entitled to even when the local people are suffering extreme drought. Haven't time to search for more than one example– there are others in Canada, and I have read of situations in India and Africa where drought areas have lost their minimal water supplies to multinationals. Such a deal has recently surfaced in a drought-prone farming district in New Zealand.
We are fortunate in that while our city supply is not bad, artesian water from an aquifer not far from here is available free for all to help themselves. We take a dozen 3-litre milk bottles every so often for our drinking water, and there are always queues with various containers filling up; a sculptured water feature enhances the site.
As for the Essex story – there is also artesian drinking water tap in a city car park for which one is asked to take only one container and leave a coin for charity, but this comes from an aquifer which slopes up from a deep site way beyond the harbour.
Tangent (or perhaps not) I recall a Mythbusters programme in which patrons at a restaurant were invited to compare different brands of bottled water – all of which had been filled from the tap in the back yard.
GG
That was Penn and Teller's Bullshit!, a fine, fine show.
They filled the bottles from a backyard garden hose (Penn: "I fuckin' LOVE this show!") and invited guests at their psuedo restaurant to sample different brands with different backstories-- one was sourced at a volcanic spring, one from a 2000 year old pristine glacial well, etc.) the patrons swooned as if they were drinking champagne, expressed strong brand preferences, etc.
As to Nestle-- man, how can we discuss Nestle and keep it out of Hell? Their level of no-fucks-to-give is staggering.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm fortunate to live somewhere where the tap water is very nice, although the local municipal pipes sometimes get messy with construction.
Nevertheless I still do drink bottled water. I'm in enough situations where all of the liquid choices come in bottles. If there's a clean water cooler I'll use it, but if the choice is coffee, tea, soda or bottled water, I'll often pick the water. Being diabetic, I drink a fair amount.
I also use gallons of distilled water for my cpap equipment. I've thought about putting in a still, but it didn't seem worth the effort. I do use a sodastream since I lack the old fashioned pleasure of Seltzer delivered in reusable bottles.
I understand that bottled water is often less good than good municipal water, and that there are places with limited water being captured (Fiji?) but I find it amusing that those who want to prevent others from drinking bottled water are usually fine with people drinking soda, wine or beer, all of which have much higher environmental impacts.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Here you go.
That link wasn't helpful as to determining methods.
But it does highlight an advantage of tap water to bottled water. Testing.
700,000 tests annually!
That works out to 1.3 tests per minute, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for a utility providing water to 90,000 people.
Incredible!
And I believe them, I really do, after all if I found out they were full of shit I could just take my business elsewhere...
Oh wait...
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Several years ago, I visited a bottling plant for a soda vendor. I won't disclose the name, but what's the first brand that comes to your mind?
There was a glassed off area where the public was able to watch the process. I was shocked!
Filled plastic bottles frequently fell off the converor belt and splashed onto the floor. There was one machine attendant, who spent nearly all his time picking up bottles, mopping the floor, and pushing falling bottles back onto the belt.
It didn't strike me as a very sanitary situation, and I wonder if the same is true of bottling water.
Also, how many hands have touched the mouth area of those plastic bottles? Does removing the cap give your lips enough distance from parts of the bottle that have come in contact with who knows what?
I recall that tests have been done on the tops of unopened aluminum soda and beer cans. They are very often filthy!
[ 21. July 2015, 04:05: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sometimes the water inside the bottle is also filthy.
[ 21. July 2015, 04:19: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Looking at the plastic bottles in the news story above, I think shows that indeed the cap covers a very small area. I would guess that most people's lips would touch the unprotected area below the cap.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Here you go.
That link wasn't helpful as to determining methods.
But it does highlight an advantage of tap water to bottled water. Testing.
700,000 tests annually!
That works out to 1.3 tests per minute, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for a utility providing water to 90,000 people.
Incredible!
And I believe them, I really do, after all if I found out they were full of shit I could just take my business elsewhere...
Oh wait...
Why bother to understand a process when you can simply mock in ignorance? I would hazard a guess that many of these checks are part of the control systems for the various processes. Many industrial process controllers have self-monitoring as part of their routine. It can, and likely will, be done continuously. With routine double checks by employees. But since your city uses briquettes and a sandbox,* that might be overkill.
As far as trust, you would trust an industry that is not required to tell its users what it does, knows that it will be unlikely to be caught out and whose primary concern is profit? Truthfully, all they need is a charcoal filter and marketing.
*Hope they keep the cats out, at least.
[ 21. July 2015, 05:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
romanlion: What we buy is ready to serve in it's own container. A 20 liter jug of water would be useless to us. 40 half liter (+/-) bottles for less than 4 bucks is brilliant.
I'm sorry, but the problem seems to be your lifestyle here. A 20l jug can easily be used to fill smaller containers, which you then reuse.
quote:
ldjjd: I recall that tests have been done on the tops of unopened aluminum soda and beer cans. They are very often filthy!
In Brazil, it is rather normal to wipe the top of a beer can with the edge of your t-shirt before opening it. The problem is that the cans are usually stored in ice before selling, and this ice is made of unclean water.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Also, how many hands have touched the mouth area of those plastic bottles? Does removing the cap give your lips enough distance from parts of the bottle that have come in contact with who knows what?
Why do we assume bacteria are a bad thing?
Too sterile an environment is bad for us, we need to build up immunity and have a healthy relationship with bacteria.
Here is a good article.
"They discovered more strains than they had ever imagined — as many as a thousand bacterial strains on each person. And each person’s collection of microbes, the microbiome, was different from the next person’s. To the scientists’ surprise, they also found genetic signatures of disease-causing bacteria lurking in everyone’s microbiome. But instead of making people ill, or even infectious, these disease-causing microbes simply live peacefully among their neighbors."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quite common, unfortunately. It is very difficult to live completely* ethically in large populations, but this doesn't not excuse making no effort.
But justifying is easier than doing. Not being holier than thou, I do try but I need to do better. First step is not making rubbish excuses.
Yebbut, one of the things a lot of us object to - entirely validly IMHO - is being told by the unco guid which ethical decisions we should make. It seems that every time, their ethical opinions are somehow or other more ethical than ours.
If it's any interest to shipmates, I've just filled three water bottles and thermos of tea, all using water that came from the local reservoir in a pipe.Two of the bottles have previous uses, one for fruit juice and the other for milk. Is that sufficiently virtuous to satisfy then unco guid?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, caring about other people and not wishing to live in a polluted world is self-righteous?
Then fine; Call me self-righteous.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
That's funny.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut, one of the things a lot of us object to - entirely validly IMHO - is being told by the unco guid which ethical decisions we should make. It seems that every time, their ethical opinions are somehow or other more ethical than ours.
How exactly are people, unco guid or otherwise, supposed to conduct debates about what is and is not ethical without ever saying that some choices are more ethical than others?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's funny.
Well, it is like RuthW said, there is pretty much no way to satisfy an accuser without capitulating.
So might as well go for a laugh.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I was hoping to flush out someone who knew about the Essex water, but have found that it is now possible to find out about it on line.
Oare village web site
quote:
From high explosives factory to nature reserve: Oare Marshes
Gushing with pure, fresh water, you may notice an artesian well. This is a survivor of a fuse factory which once stood here. A factory in this remote spot? Yes, not just this one, but three. On the other side of the road was the Cotton Powder Company, producing every kind of high explosive, and in vast quantities, and, beyond it, the Explosives Loading Company, filling bombs and shells with its product. Between them these two factories occupied an area larger than the City of London, with their own offices, power station and railway network. Imagine something like a huge modern chemical factory.
They all went at the end of the First World War and now ... most of the site is the Oare Marshes Nature Reserve, famous for its birdlife, a wetland site of international importance, carefully conserved for us all by the Kent Wildlife Trust. There’s an informative Visitor Centre, usually open at week-ends. Just don’t forget to bring your binoculars!
And here, I hope, is a picture. Artesian well
A variation on ploughshares and pruning hooks.
[ 21. July 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sorry, but the problem seems to be your lifestyle here.
No, there is no problem with my lifestyle. Your perception of a problem with my lifestyle is more a problem with your lifestyle than mine.
5 gallon jugs of water are of no use in our home as I am the only one that could manage them and I spend a good deal of time travelling.
The bottles are ideal.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why bother to understand a process when you can simply mock in ignorance?
I wasn't mocking in ignorance, I was mocking in cognizance of the fact that the process doesn't matter to me, the product does. And the product provided by our city fails the test against bottled water for drinking for the reasons I already described.
The claim on the report about 700,000 tests annually was just absurd on it's face, so I made light of it. It doesn't say anything about the "system" doing tests and checks and double checks by staff, it plainly says "Sta ff also performs over 700,000 tests per year to validate the treatment processes and to assure the quality of the drinking water in the distribution system."
I trust Nestle or Coca-Cola just as much as I do that assertion, and their product works better for us. Also, if I decide for any reason that I don't trust them or like them for any reason, I have options.
Not so much with our city water.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
romanlion,
You state that you use bottled water "on the basis of cost, convenience, health, and taste".
It seems to me, though, that the first three criteria would be amply satisfied (if not exceeded) by a kitchen water filter and refillable bottles.
As for taste, I think you can obtain samples of filtered water from various vendors of home filters. I find the taste of my home-filtered water to be perfect. None of my guests has ever shown any dislike for the water in my home.
[ 21. July 2015, 22:35: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Arrrgh, foiled by a much better cross-post.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why bother to understand a process when you can simply mock in ignorance?
I wasn't mocking in ignorance, I was mocking in cognizance of the fact that the process doesn't matter to me, the product does. And the product provided by our city fails the test against bottled water for drinking for the reasons I already described.
quote:
I justify it on the basis of cost,
Can't see how bottled water could possibly be more cost effective.
quote:
convenience,
Not crazy inconvenient to refill a water bottle. You do have to remember to bring it with you.
quote:
health,
On this I call bullshit. Seriously doubt you actually call bottled water companies and ask to see there methods and copies of their testing. It more appears, from what you have posted already, you trust semi-blindly.
quote:
taste
Most bottled water tastes pleasant, some tap water takes getting used to. But buying a secondary charcoal treatment, such as a Brita, fixes that.
quote:
The claim on the report about 700,000 tests annually was just absurd on it's face, so I made light of it.
Poorly written, yes. Doesn't mean it is wrong.
quote:
I trust Nestle or Coca-Cola just as much as I do that assertion, and their product works better for us. Also, if I decide for any reason that I don't trust them or like them for any reason, I have options.
You are saying if you do not like the taste of one you go to another, no?
quote:
Not so much with our city water.
So, you don't trust the government. But who is it that regulates the industry you do trust?
[ 21. July 2015, 22:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
romanlion, I don't see any problems with that water report, except one thing - someone put "chlorite" when they meant "vanadium".
As for the number of tests, it appears that there is testing during the processing of the water, which would probably be automatic and checked by staff, as well as occasional testing such as that which showed up the high levels of a volatile in a school during the summer vacation.
Ironic aside. While visiting a rural part of England, I drank some water where it issued forth in quantity from the foot of a limestone cliff, assuring myself that it would not be contaminated by the traditional and ubiquitous dead sheep upstream. I noticed the metallic taste, where I had expected the usual limestone hard water flavour, but did not put two and two together. Not until I had climbed round the cliff and started up the valley beyond to look for a specific wild flower which could survive on lead mine spoil heaps.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Well, I guess I should clarify those points...
COST Not that bottled water is cheaper than tap water, it isn't. However the cost of bottled water is reasonable enough for me to justify buying it for the other advantages it provides.
CONVENIENCE As I said, we are 3 adults and 5 kids ages 6, 11, 13, 14, and 14. Many of you can understand what that is like, even on a slow day, some of you may not. The idea of lugging 50 pound jugs of water several times a week into the house, then having 20 or so re-usable bottles that need to be filled each time someone wants water is just not workable without the element of necessity.
HEALTH Not a concern regarding the safety of our tap water, but a desire to have the kids drink water almost exclusively. If tap water was the only available option they would not get the amount of water that they need. We do use the tap water to make sweet iced tea from time to time. They'll drink that but only sweetened, otherwise it will just sour in the fridge.
TASTE Water should be wet and tasteless. Our tap water is only wet. Not only does it have a taste, it has a chlorine smell, which is why I am sure the kids could identify it without a taste.
Additionally, a few times a year it will go muddy yellow. Often enough that we learned quickly that there is some issue/problem between the reservoir and the house causing the problem. The city will adjust our bill and tell us to run the taps for a while to clear the lines, but it can stay discolored for days. Perfectly safe to drink they say, but tell that to a 6 year old. Not to mention that the toilet looks peed in and you can't wash whites until it clears.
I am just happy to live in a time and place where folks are so comfortable that they can suggest we ban by law many of the modern conveniences that truly poor people in the world would kill your entire family to be able to enjoy.
I may carry a bottle with me next time I make a deposit into our sparkling white vessel of purified drinking water.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Serious question: why don't you get a filter, either for your faucet, or in the form of a filter pitcher you can keep in the fridge? We did this for a good many years when we lived in places where the tap water was more ... interesting.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
That has been my question along, and I still don't think romanlion has answered it.
Cost? Have you checked into the price of filters? I'm sure you can be money ahead.
Convenience? With a filter, you won't have to lug any bottles.
Your kids? At home they can use a glass. Outside? I don't think it's any burden to fill and use refillable bottles.
Taste? Again, if you check into filters, you can often find that they provide small samples.
Why throw away money? I would keep my home filter regardless of any of its other positives, including ecological.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Also, I think that truly poor people would find it shocking that others can afford to gulp some kind of water supposedly treated to be better and more convenient than tap water or home filtered water and that huge numbers of these people (and I trust that you are not among them) blithly toss the bottle out (wherever they choose) after one use.
[ 22. July 2015, 01:44: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
What's the problem with plastic bottles?
Feed your kids endocrine disrupting chemicals. Nice.
It takes 1/4 of the amount of oil to make the bottle as the bottle is filled with water. Plus additional amounts to transport them. Nice.
Most bottles are not recycled. Nice.
They make bottlers lots of money. This is key.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well, I guess I should clarify those points...
COST Not that bottled water is cheaper than tap water, it isn't. However the cost of bottled water is reasonable enough for me to justify buying it for the other advantages it provides.
It is all about justifying, which is kinda my point.
quote:
CONVENIENCE As I said, we are 3 adults and 5 kids ages 6, 11, 13, 14, and 14.
Friend of mine has 6 kids, 8-18. They manage with a secondary treatment for taste and refilling bottles. Camelback sells bottles with a charcoal filter built in. You could even use one of these.
quote:
TASTE Water should be wet and tasteless. Our tap water is only wet. Not only does it have a taste, it has a chlorine smell, which is why I am sure the kids could identify it without a taste.
Again, cheap carbon filtration systems are readily available. The money you save over bottled water will easily pay for one.
quote:
I am just happy to live in a time and place where folks are so comfortable that they can suggest we ban by law many of the modern conveniences that truly poor people in the world would kill your entire family to be able to enjoy.
I may carry a bottle with me next time I make a deposit into our sparkling white vessel of purified drinking water.
What you are saying is that because poor people somewhere else have no access to cheap, purified water, you can waste and pollute? How does this make sense?
The best solution for them would be that tap water you show such disdain for.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I really don't see how the cost of bottled water can be justified. When I was discussing this thread with someone offline, he pointed out that in the US bottled water is more expensive than gasoline.
[ 22. July 2015, 04:31: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Cost
I pay less than € 2 for a 20l jug of water. This is because I happen to like the taste of a particular brand that is more expensive. If I wanted to, I could pay less than € 1.20 for another brand.
Convenience
I don't have to handle anything at all. I have one of these water dispensers in my kitchen (don't know how you call them in English). I call a number, someone comes within 10 minutes, takes my empty jug away and puts a full jug on the dispenser.
Literally, all I need to do if I want to drink water inside the house, is to put a glass under the dispenser, open the tap and fill it. I'll bet it takes me much less effort than you with your bottles. For a couple of bucks you can buy a dispenser that will refrigerate the water for you.
Health
Brazilian health standards are very rigid. Part of my work involves producing food, and it is a pain to deal with them. I'd put them against those of your country any day.
Taste
It's delicious!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut, one of the things a lot of us object to - entirely validly IMHO - is being told by the unco guid which ethical decisions we should make. It seems that every time, their ethical opinions are somehow or other more ethical than ours.
How exactly are people, unco guid or otherwise, supposed to conduct debates about what is and is not ethical without ever saying that some choices are more ethical than others?
This. Exactly this. Can I also point out that "self righteous" tends to parse as "cares about something whilst I don't give a shit."
We all think our ethical choices are the right ones, or we wouldn't make them. That's what "ethical choice" means. I choose not to make inflated insurance claims because I think that's the right choice, as opposed to the "ethical choice" of stiffing the insurance company. Does it make me self righteous as well that I think people who make fake claims are acting unethically and shouldn't do it?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Several of us have submitted strong non-ethical reasons for avoiding bottled water. I think that these practical reasons are sufficient although I agree with the ethical case as well.
I'm not sure that I have seen any wholly ethical reasons justifying the bottles, except perhaps a vague hint or two of personal freedom/anti-PC/Anti-Nanny State sentiments (assuming that these are ethical considerations at all).
The vast bulk of bottled water justifications on this thread have been based upon non-ethical reasons, which seem to either avoid the ethical questions or (tacitly?) assume that they are overridden by non-ethical justifications such as convenience, taste, and purity.
So, I haven't observed people here saying, "My ethical choice is superior to yours", but that's just the way I've followed this thread.
[ 22. July 2015, 07:33: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This. Exactly this. Can I also point out that "self righteous" tends to parse as "cares about something whilst I don't give a shit."
We all think our ethical choices are the right ones, or we wouldn't make them. That's what "ethical choice" means. I choose not to make inflated insurance claims because I think that's the right choice, as opposed to the "ethical choice" of stiffing the insurance company. Does it make me self righteous as well that I think people who make fake claims are acting unethically and shouldn't do it?
Not quite. There's a big difference. Making an inflated insurance claim is dishonest. It is obtaining money one isn't entitled to, from somebody else to whom it belongs, by dishonest means. It is of a different order from whether one does or does not drink bottled water.
Abstaining from drinking bottled water is something that some people regard as really important, some people regard as probably a bit more virtuous than not doing but well down the pecking order of moral importances, and some regard as completely irrelevant, either an illusory principle or one of which they are not yet persuaded.
This, incidentally, is the point where the unco guid make a huge mistake. If a person believes that their moral standpoint is one that other people should take on and agree with, every time, the unco guid go about it the wrong way. Their standard approach is 'I am righteous; the rest of you are less righteous than I am; you should all do as I think; therefore I will tell you all what you ought to do and if possible change the law to make it compulsory'.
'Ought' is the wrong approach to this. Why can't they ever go about this by trying to persuade us. Wouldn't it be better if we eventually felt we wanted to agree with them? In stead, every time the way they go about it is to bludgeon our consciences into conformity, trying to make us feel guilty about not thinking as they do?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by idjjd:
I'm not sure that I have seen any wholly ethical reasons justifying the bottles, except perhaps a vague hint or two of personal freedom/anti-PC/Anti-Nanny State sentiments (assuming that these are ethical considerations at all).
Of course, those are ethical considerations. Opposing such petty tyranny and bullying is meet right and our bounden duty as Americans and Christians. The only way to stand up against such tactics is to see that they never ever work. I could care less about bottled water. However, the right to drink bottled water is sacred to romanlion and PilgrimVagrant.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Enoch,
Self-righteous* can be a bit difficult to discern in the form which we are using. It can also be seen as a way to dismiss the validity of a point because one doesn't care for the presentation.
But ethics are the point of this thread and it is very difficult not to say 'your point is unethical".
I'll admit to a bit of, erm, attitude in one exchange. And perhaps that isn't the best technique to win converts, no.
Fur is Murder. That is OTT, and perhaps self-righteous, because it requires buy in at several different levels. There are multiple arguments which must be accepted before that statement can properly be discussed.
Bottled water is an environmental disaster. That is a fact. So the discussion of whether it is ethical in the developed world is going to immediately, and directly, attack the justifications used to continue doing so.
There is a cartoon I like which has a pig (called Pig) who eats bacon. His justification is "BLTs taste so darn good"
I've met pig, and he is us.
We destroying ourselves in doing what feels good, what is convenient and what is easy. How do you say that without making people feel bad?
*Unco guid is a bit twee, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Making an inflated insurance claim is dishonest. It is obtaining money one isn't entitled to, from somebody else to whom it belongs, by dishonest means. It is of a different order from whether one does or does not drink bottled water.
Drinking bottled water that comes from drought-stricken areas is arguably worse. California is the source of a the vast majority of the bottled water in the US.
quote:
[B]
'Ought' is the wrong approach to this. Why can't they ever go about this by trying to persuade us. Wouldn't it be better if we eventually felt we wanted to agree with them? In stead, every time the way they go about it is to bludgeon our consciences into conformity, trying to make us feel guilty about not thinking as they do? [/QB]
Reason after reason for choosing tap water over bottled has been given on this thread. What more do you want?
Furthermore, calling people making moral arguments "the unco guid" isn't likely to convince us to take your position any seriously than you're taking ours.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
Since the purpose of taxes is to raise money to fund the cost of government, ...
Well, that is one of the purposes. There are actually many more - to drive people away from undesirable behaviours (e.g. our "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco), to redistribute wealth to the less fortunate, etc.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Outside? I don't think it's any burden to fill and use refillable bottles.
I use refillable bottles (but no filter - our tap water is just fine). The kids are forever leaving their bottles in the car (not too bad, because they can go and get them, but it adds time to the high-pressure "getting ready to leave the house" activities), or losing them completely (at the playground / on the bus / at the museum / etc.)
With disposable bottles, you don't have to worry about that (so when they're going somewhere where I think they're likely to lose a bottle, they get send with a refilled disposable one, and I don't care if it doesn't come back.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm not sure that I have seen any wholly ethical reasons justifying the bottles, except perhaps a vague hint or two of personal freedom/anti-PC/Anti-Nanny State sentiments (assuming that these are ethical considerations at all).
The freedom consideration is an ethical reason to not ban bottled water. It is not an ethical reason to consume bottled water.
The question "should I regularly buy and drink bottled water" is different from the question "should I be permitted to buy and drink bottled water".
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Excellent point. I would add the truism that freedom
does not mean that one can always do whatever one pleases regardless of consquences.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And, within living memory, we were urged to stockpile bottled water. The Y2K disaster was supposedly going to affect utilities. I know of people who switched their houses entirely from electric to propane. I just bought a couple cases of bottled water. They are still in the basement, and occasionally we take a few in the car.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
It has been suggested that bottled water be highly taxed, so as to discourage use and to compensate for environmental damage.
The only ethical problem I see there is that it would be a regressive tax, and I don't see a way around that, although I doubt that the very poor are able to afford the luxury of bottled water. There are far nastier regressive taxes that don't seem be an ethical bother.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Here, use of tobacco is banned in all workplaces including work vehicles, in all publicly accessible buildings, in all public parks, on the grounds of all public institutions, and in private vehicles if anyone under the age of 18 is present.
The tobacco law here is that it must be asked for, it must not be viewable from public areas, i.e., behind doors or curtains, and under 25 years must show identification. There's a move to control products like Redbull similarly.
Maybe bottled water should be subject to similar restrictions? Why not? It is a public good.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I confess to having a case of emergency bottled water in my garage.
Now that I think of it, I'd probably be better off storing juice or Ensure, since in a major disaster, I might need some quick calories as well.
[ 23. July 2015, 01:16: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I confess to having a case of emergency bottled water in my garage.
Now that I think of it, I'd probably be better off storing juice or Ensure, since in a major disaster, I might need some quick calories as well.
Water, peanut butter and crackers, if you want to minimise. 4 litres/1 gallon per person per day.
Purchasing a water storage drum and purifying tablets or a filtering device is not outrageous in cost.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Outside? I don't think it's any burden to fill and use refillable bottles.
I use refillable bottles (but no filter - our tap water is just fine). The kids are forever leaving their bottles in the car (not too bad, because they can go and get them, but it adds time to the high-pressure "getting ready to leave the house" activities), or losing them completely (at the playground / on the bus / at the museum / etc.)
With disposable bottles, you don't have to worry about that (so when they're going somewhere where I think they're likely to lose a bottle, they get send with a refilled disposable one, and I don't care if it doesn't come back.)
Rewind for me a bit and explain why your children need to have a bottle available in all these places.
Also, are they not losing other things? How many things are they carrying? Do you have disposable versions of everything else?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Does everyone feel the same way about meat? Should it be banned as well?
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rewind for me a bit and explain why your children need to have a bottle available in all these places.
I'm gonna venture a guess here and say because thirst is not limited by location, and is one of the easiest demands of children to satisfy.
But hey, I'm no expert.
How many children are you raising?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
If bottled water is banned, one can still get water, albeit from other sources.
If meat is banned, one is forced to be a vegetarian.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rewind for me a bit and explain why your children need to have a bottle available in all these places.
I'm gonna venture a guess here and say because thirst is not limited by location, and is one of the easiest demands of children to satisfy.
But hey, I'm no expert.
How many children are you raising?
None, but I missed the part where adults suddenly lost their need for liquid.
What I had more in mind, though, was puzzlement that they needed water in such a way that they had a separate bottle and could thereby lose a bottle. I'm fairly sure I've carried a bottle on a city bus at some point in my life, but it would have been in my backpack or something.
Something I wouldn't be likely to lose and wouldn't want to lose.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sometimes I think that for significant numbers of people, chugging on the water bottle is often just a nervous habit, an adult pacifier, akin to chewing on a pencil, rolling worry beads, or even smoking a cigatette.
I regularly see people reaching for their bottle in situations where I have absolutely no thirst and cannot imagine why they so urgently and repeatedly need hydration.
My image of the modern acute stress victim has one hand on the water bottle and the other hand on the cell phone.
[ 23. July 2015, 04:34: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
My parents raised three children without bottled water.
People didn't decide they needed to be able to tote water everywhere they go until companies started marketing bottled water. When I was a kid we had water canteens filled from the tap for hiking, and that was the only time we carried water around.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
If bottled water is banned, one can still get water, albeit from other sources.
If meat is banned, one is forced to be a vegetarian.
But think of the impact on the land you're mitigating. quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
If bottled water is banned, one can still get water, albeit from other sources.
If meat is banned, one is forced to be a vegetarian.
And of course those other sources don't have much of an environmental impact.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I see a great difference between the two.
1. Although imho, the ethical argument for vegetarianism is strong, banning meat would be, economically alone, an enormously disruptive, potentially catastrophic move justified only to definitely avoid some kind of greater disruption or catastrophe.
2. The environmental impact of obtaining water in the first place, whether for the tap or for the bottle, is not the issue here as I understand it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And of course those other sources don't have much of an environmental impact.
(quietly ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
)
To repeat what Ruth said, water from this and other California water sources is getting shipped outside of California in the middle of what may be the worst drought in a couple millenia.
It's unconscionable.
Dropping bottled water sales would divert that water right back to where it was supposed to be going in the first place-- the municipal water system..
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
If meat is banned, one is forced to be a vegetarian.
But think of the impact on the land you're mitigating.
If you are going to compare eating meat to using plastic bottles, the comparison would be in the quantities we eat and how we get that meat to our tables, not going vegetarian.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And of course those other sources don't have much of an environmental impact.
Not sure how this changes if plastic bottles are eliminated.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I spend a good deal of time travelling.
But with a TARDIS you could find fresh water easily, even on alien planets.
I'll get me coat.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To repeat what Ruth said, water from this and other California water sources is getting shipped outside of California in the middle of what may be the worst drought in a couple millenia.
It's unconscionable.
Dropping bottled water sales would divert that water right back to where it was supposed to be going in the first place-- the municipal water system..
ISTM the solution is a California law prohibiting sending bottled water out of the state. Other states can act as they see fit.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
What the fuck is "unco guid" when it's at home? Never heard of it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This. Exactly this. Can I also point out that "self righteous" tends to parse as "cares about something whilst I don't give a shit."
We all think our ethical choices are the right ones, or we wouldn't make them. That's what "ethical choice" means. I choose not to make inflated insurance claims because I think that's the right choice, as opposed to the "ethical choice" of stiffing the insurance company. Does it make me self righteous as well that I think people who make fake claims are acting unethically and shouldn't do it?
Not quite. There's a big difference. Making an inflated insurance claim is dishonest. It is obtaining money one isn't entitled to, from somebody else to whom it belongs, by dishonest means. It is of a different order from whether one does or does not drink bottled water.
Abstaining from drinking bottled water is something that some people regard as really important, some people regard as probably a bit more virtuous than not doing but well down the pecking order of moral importances, and some regard as completely irrelevant, either an illusory principle or one of which they are not yet persuaded.
This, incidentally, is the point where the unco guid make a huge mistake. If a person believes that their moral standpoint is one that other people should take on and agree with, every time, the unco guid go about it the wrong way. Their standard approach is 'I am righteous; the rest of you are less righteous than I am; you should all do as I think; therefore I will tell you all what you ought to do and if possible change the law to make it compulsory'.
'Ought' is the wrong approach to this. Why can't they ever go about this by trying to persuade us. Wouldn't it be better if we eventually felt we wanted to agree with them? In stead, every time the way they go about it is to bludgeon our consciences into conformity, trying to make us feel guilty about not thinking as they do?
Well, speak for yourself, but personally I find ethical reasons for doing/not doing something perfectly valid, so I'm not entirely sure why you think giving ethical reasons isn't "trying to persuade" you? What sort of persuasion would you like?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
ISTM the solution is a California law prohibiting sending bottled water out of the state.
Between the water rights laws and the fact that California is not a sovereign nation, this is problematic. Better if Americans just stopped drinking bottled water.
The environmental damage done because we eat too much meat is a whole other thread, but raising cattle takes an extraordinary amount of water. And then there are the vineyards outside of Paso Robles which have sucked so much water out if the ground that local wells have run dry.
But if we're just talking about bottled water, the plastic is the main reason to give it up.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the fuck is "unco guid" when it's at home? Never heard of it.
Robert Burns
Address to the Unco Guid or the Rigidly Righteous
O ye wha are sae guid yoursel,
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your Neebour's fauts and folly!
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I would be against banning bottled water. At the most I'd tax the bejezus out of it. That way if people really think it's worth it to buy tons of the stuff, well we can use the taxes to fix the environmental problems being caused. Also I think that taxes would help a lot of people "figure out" how a filter/reusing bottles system would work for them.
Slight tangent alert
Since the purpose of taxes is to raise money to fund the cost of government, unless and until I'm persuaded otherwise, I'm seriously hostile to introducing a tax primarily to achieve some other objective, however desirable some people may consider that objective to be.
Some of us would say that protecting our environment IS part of what government should do. We even have government bodies that theoretically (EPA) do that.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... People didn't decide they needed to be able to tote water everywhere they go until companies started marketing bottled water. When I was a kid we had water canteens filled from the tap for hiking, and that was the only time we carried water around.
Both my mother and my aunt carried small collapsible plastic cups in their purses, decades before the pacifier/water bottle became popular. The phrase 'during the school year' came up in an earlier post - do these schools have no bathrooms or drinking fountains? I'm starting to think that another reason some prefer bottled water is that their precious snowflakes couldn't possibly drink tap water from a public bathroom. That's where the "unco guid" kids get their water.
And yet, every year, our students in the Science One program test various surfaces in the building for bacteria. Invariably they find that the cleanest surface is a toilet seat and the dirtiest are keyboards, mice and telephones. The bottled water craze may also be another example of the human propensity to misjudge risks.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ldjjd: I regularly see people reaching for their bottle in situations where I have absolutely no thirst and cannot imagine why they so urgently and repeatedly need hydration.
There have been situations in my life where I've felt an urge to reach for a bottle. That imaginary bottle didn't contain water though
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... People didn't decide they needed to be able to tote water everywhere they go until companies started marketing bottled water. When I was a kid we had water canteens filled from the tap for hiking, and that was the only time we carried water around.
Both my mother and my aunt carried small collapsible plastic cups in their purses, decades before the pacifier/water bottle became popular. The phrase 'during the school year' came up in an earlier post - do these schools have no bathrooms or drinking fountains? I'm starting to think that another reason some prefer bottled water is that their precious snowflakes couldn't possibly drink tap water from a public bathroom. That's where the "unco guid" kids get their water.
And yet, every year, our students in the Science One program test various surfaces in the building for bacteria. Invariably they find that the cleanest surface is a toilet seat and the dirtiest are keyboards, mice and telephones. The bottled water craze may also be another example of the human propensity to misjudge risks.
[tangent] - yeah, but the bacteria on keyboards, mice and telephones don't come from up people's arses.[/tangent]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the fuck is "unco guid" when it's at home? Never heard of it.
Robert Burns
Address to the Unco Guid or the Rigidly Righteous
O ye wha are sae guid yoursel,
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your Neebour's fauts and folly!
Ah. Insult by proxy. Nice to know where people are coming from.
And where they can go to.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I'm one of those people who uses the bottles, purchasing a flat of 24 bottles every week or so to keep in the trunk of my car.
I've tried having the refillable "bottles" but the problem is they get grungy pretty quickly, and then I have to remember to take them inside the house, wash them, refill them & take them back out to the car, and I always seem to miss one or more steps in that sequence and wind up not having a bottle of water handy when I need it.
I do refill the empty plastic bottles at least twice before discarding them - I'm not a *complete* Philistine! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Also, I drive through a lot of the "high desert" areas of southern California & western Arizona fairly frequently, and from personal experience, the bottled waters are far less likely to pop open and spill out all over the trunk than the "refillable" bottles, which makes them much better as an emergency water source.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I spend a good deal of time travelling.
But with a TARDIS you could find fresh water easily, even on alien planets.
I'll get me coat.
Hooray - *finally* what I came back to SOF for: the casual off-the-cuff "Doctor Who" references! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... People didn't decide they needed to be able to tote water everywhere they go until companies started marketing bottled water. When I was a kid we had water canteens filled from the tap for hiking, and that was the only time we carried water around.
Both my mother and my aunt carried small collapsible plastic cups in their purses, decades before the pacifier/water bottle became popular. The phrase 'during the school year' came up in an earlier post - do these schools have no bathrooms or drinking fountains? I'm starting to think that another reason some prefer bottled water is that their precious snowflakes couldn't possibly drink tap water from a public bathroom. That's where the "unco guid" kids get their water.
And yet, every year, our students in the Science One program test various surfaces in the building for bacteria. Invariably they find that the cleanest surface is a toilet seat and the dirtiest are keyboards, mice and telephones. The bottled water craze may also be another example of the human propensity to misjudge risks.
You got it.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The phrase 'during the school year' came up in an earlier post - do these schools have no bathrooms or drinking fountains? I'm starting to think that another reason some prefer bottled water is that their precious snowflakes couldn't possibly drink tap water from a public bathroom. That's where the "unco guid" kids get their water.
You got it.
Not necessarily. I work in schools, and I carry a water bottle (filled with tap water from home, thankyouverymuch - same municipal water system as the schools). Why? Two reasons:
1) Pipes in older buildings in our district have been known to have issues - there are placards in some buildings to the effect that the taps are to be run until cool before using, and for 10 minutes at the beginning of each day, to clear bacteria, etc. I've been around long enough to know this is almost never actually done. In newer buildings, it's less of a concern, but I don't always know where I'll be in a given day.
2) Possibly related to #1 - the water in many of our buildings tastes horrible. Considering my water from home comes from the same reservoir, I have to think the issue is in the building.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
jbohn, do plumbing systems in the US ever have header tanks in the roof, or does all cold water come straight off a rising main?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
In most places where there are real winters, water mains are buried and pressure to the system is maintained by pump systems. Where I like, water is buried somewhere between 8 or 10 feet, to be below the frost line. We get 6 to 8 months of winter depending on the year.
There standards for water, and what level impurities may be in it. I get that in some places standards are lax or not enforced. That the infrastructure is shoddy is an issue with infrastructure.
When, rarely, the system goes out here, they provide a time frame for repair, and will put breaks into the water mains so they can pressurize locally some affected areas. If it is really bad, such as it is some winters when the cold is so intense for so long that multiple mains freeze, they bring emergency water supplies and park them in the street. It means you have to go out and get the water from a tank - this is exceedingly rare and not fun when it's really cold, which is why they pressurize local areas ASAP.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
Enoch, I don't see them around here, but I think they do exist in other parts of the US. no prophet... makes a good point about winters - while he's somewhat to the north of me, winters here tend to be cold as well, and water mains buried.
[ 23. July 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: jbohn ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
- yeah, but the bacteria on keyboards, mice and telephones don't come from up people's arses.[/tangent]
They come from people's hands. And you do know what else people do with their hands, right? And what they often don't do after they've done it?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
We have municipal water towers around here, but i can't think of many rooftop water tanks, except maybe very old buildings in the city.
Here's the thing, though- in that same Penn and Tellar program referenced above, the research crew went to various popular bottled water companies and tracked down their bottling facilitie. They found the bottled water to b supplied by... Standing water towers. Wherever it came from, just before it was bottled, the bottled water spent a significant amount of time sitting around in a metal tank somewhere in the Central Valley.
It's a scam.
[ 23. July 2015, 20:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rewind for me a bit and explain why your children need to have a bottle available in all these places.
If they are going somewhere for the day, and taking a picnic lunch, they'll take water to drink. If they are going somewhere outdoors for more than an hour or two on a hot day, they'll take water.
The playground has no source of water. The car or bus has no source of water. Most of the museums do have drinking fountains, but they don't drink enough bent over a drinking fountain. They often refill water bottles there, though.
How are they not losing other things? The use is different. When they're thirsty, they take a swig of water, then put the bottle somewhere and run off to swing. Or they get their bottle out in the car/bus, have a drink, set it on the seat in case they want another one and then forget about it. About the only other thing that comes on and off anything like as much is sunglasses, and they lose those too.
Do they need continuous access to water? No, of course not, but the nature of water bottles (whether disposable or permanent) is that they can be re-closed, which means that if they have water at all, then they have continuous access to it, so they are going to use it.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Our school had in, one INSET day, some people peddling a scheme called Brain Gym. One of its maxims was the amount of water needed to operate the little grey cells, both on the right and the left. (They were very keen on that, too.)
As a result, our head got very keen on water being available in the classroom, in bottles. (After a while, personal bottles were provided to each child, but initially they were bringing bottles in, which they could refill, in the classroom, from the tap which had mains drinking water.) This extended a provision which had been made one very hot year when thirst was a real problem. For some reason, she was not happy about my providing small disposable plastic cups for children who had not brought bottles, possibly because they needed to leave their desks to use them, but they were banned with no explanation.
So what happened with these dear little eight year olds? During the teaching part of the lesson, when I was putting on my best performance, I would be faced with a sea of bottle bottoms, as the bottles stayed in their mouths, while they sucked on them. I went into minor rant mode, claiming they were not drinking, but sucking like babies, it was like being in a nursery class. I said they could only drink when I did, and demonstrated, from a mug, that a drink was a time limited action. Then I carefully fitted breaks into the teaching with mouthfuls of water, like Dave Allen and his glass.
Did it work? Guess. And combined with the removal of afternoon playtime, it wasn't the most sensible move. We had a five minute toilet break, with six classes in the building.
Before BG, children who needed drinks had them from the plethora of fountains in the playground, and no-one ever complained about thirst, except in exceptionally hot weather. There has been too much teaching people to hydrate unnecessarily to my mind. Hence the bottles.
[ 23. July 2015, 21:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I've tried having the refillable "bottles" but the problem is they get grungy pretty quickly, and then I have to remember to take them inside the house, wash them, refill them & take them back out to the car, and I always seem to miss one or more steps in that sequence and wind up not having a bottle of water handy when I need it.
How the hell do your water bottles get grungy?
As for the rest... sorry, but I'm seeing a pattern here from a couple of posters which is basically communicating that having disposable bottles is absolving people of the need to plan. I'm having the same reaction I had yesterday, which is to ask: do you do this with anything else? What else do you have that's disposable?
If you can plan to have various other things you need, you can plan to have water if you need it. I don't have disposable glasses, disposable running shoes, a disposable phone, or a disposable umbrella.
And if you think "well, the difference is that those things cost more", that's the trick you've been lured into. You are paying an enormous premium for you disposable bottles. Both of the bottles I have were picked up at running events as part of the entry cost, and they've lasted me 7 or 8 years so far. How much have you spent on disposable bottles in that time?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
How are they not losing other things? The use is different. When they're thirsty, they take a swig of water, then put the bottle somewhere and run off to swing. Or they get their bottle out in the car/bus, have a drink, set it on the seat in case they want another one and then forget about it. About the only other thing that comes on and off anything like as much is sunglasses, and they lose those too.
Then teach them that they have to put it back.
Okay, so I'm not raising kids, but to me the way that kids learn not to lose things is by suffering at least SOME kind of adverse consequence from losing things. Even if that consequence is a period of angst before being rescued by a parent. It feels like your kids are actually learning that bottles are of no consequence and can be lost without consequence. That's setting them up for a permanent mindset.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here's an example of the kind of refillable bottle kids are unlikely to misplace. Buy a couple and they can be rotated through the dishwasher on a daily basis. You would make up the cost in a flash.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
In fact, I'd order a third bottle since a kid is likely to be heartbroken if a bottle is lost.
Of course, they will become obsolete as a kid ages. New designs will be needed from time to time. Do they make Justin Beiber bottles?
[ 24. July 2015, 00:10: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
To answer my question, I did a search, which I now regret.
I came up with
this.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
To answer my question, I did a search, which I now regret.
I came up with
this.
Ohhhh. I can take Justin to bed. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How the hell do your water bottles get grungy?
I have *incredibly* bad breath. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:
As for the rest... sorry, but I'm seeing a pattern here from a couple of posters which is basically communicating that having disposable bottles is absolving people of the need to plan. I'm having the same reaction I had yesterday, which is to ask: do you do this with anything else? What else do you have that's disposable?
An amazing batch of things. I choose not to spend a ton of money on clothes, for example. Most of my everyday attire comes from thrift shops or friends' castoffs. And I consider all of them "disposable" in the sense that I know I can replace them if I have to.
quote:
If you can plan to have various other things you need, you can plan to have water if you need it. I don't have disposable glasses, disposable running shoes, a disposable phone, or a disposable umbrella.
Good for you. I don't have disposable glasses, but I disposed of my running shoes last year when I injured my knee. Phones are definitely disposable - our old ones wind up in the local ewaste collection box when we replace them every couple of years.
And I've NEVER had an umbrella that lasted through more than one rainstorm, no matter how much or how little I paid for it. So definitely, disposable umbrellas.
quote:
And if you think "well, the difference is that those things cost more", that's the trick you've been lured into. You are paying an enormous premium for you disposable bottles. Both of the bottles I have were picked up at running events as part of the entry cost, and they've lasted me 7 or 8 years so far. How much have you spent on disposable bottles in that time?
Isn't that nice? I'm no longer able to go to running events, so I can't get them for free. I do pay for them - and I'm willing to do do so.
Like you, I suspect, I pick my battles. I economize, cut corners and recycle in vast swaths of my life. This isn't one of them. Yes, I do choose to pay that "enormous premium" because it makes my weary life a bit less weary. If it does become illegal, I will, of course, comply. But since it's not, I don't think I need to apologize to anyone. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 24. July 2015, 00:59: Message edited by: windsofchange ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, so I'm not raising kids, but...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You are full of suggestions for those who are...
We will buy bottled water until it is banned. Not only that, but we won't rinse and reuse a single bottle. I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
If you don't like it, work to ban it. And good luck with that!
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
As someone who is raising kids, I go in between with the water bottles. We never buy water bottles, but when my daughter comes to Tae Kwon Do with me I always have my water bottle. I encourage her to bring hers, but I don't pack it for her. If she doesn't have hers with her, then she has the inconvenience of having to share mine, but she doesn't go thirsty. Works for us. There was one day when we were elsewhere when she "forgot" to drink anything with breakfast and asked me to buy her a bottle of water/juice. I said haha, no, and she hasn't forgotten since.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, so I'm not raising kids, but...
You are full of suggestions for those who are...
We will buy bottled water until it is banned. Not only that, but we won't rinse and reuse a single bottle. I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
If you don't like it, work to ban it. And good luck with that!
It's possible, I think, that such an attitude may actually encourage a ban.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I understand about the grungy water bottle thing, because we live in an area with hard hard HARD water, and yes, the bottles get grungy. So do the cups, the pots, the ... So all of them need regular washing, and occasional de-scaling. Bleah.
The thing that bugs me most about the permanent bottles is--wait, make that two things--the fact that the bloody tops are forever getting separated from the bottles/lost/broken, and that any designs are very difficult to clean properly. Straws permanently inset to the top--whose good idea was THAT?
But we still avoid the bottled water mainly for ecological reasons, and because it's a bitch to carry that much weight up the steps every week. Plus you just know those damn little bottles are leaking some endocrine disrupter or another into the water, or getting colonized by bacteria (that's why they tell you NOT to re-use them, the things have some kind of micro-porous surface from what I understand, and once is as much as they're willing to be liable for).
When I can, I carry metal. I'd use glass or ceramic, but I'm a klutz.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
If you're prepared to pay at least 30,000 per cent mark up for a product, then I guess you can.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
If you're prepared to pay at least 30,000 per cent mark up for a product, then I guess you can.
Thank you for the permission.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, so I'm not raising kids, but...
You are full of suggestions for those who are...
We will buy bottled water until it is banned. Not only that, but we won't rinse and reuse a single bottle. I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
If you don't like it, work to ban it. And good luck with that!
AAAAAAAaaaaand this is why the human race is destroying its planet.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, so I'm not raising kids, but to me the way that kids learn not to lose things is by suffering at least SOME kind of adverse consequence from losing things.
If they lose a sweater or whatever, they lose it. (They don't lose sweaters much. When they were smaller, they seemed to quite often lose socks in friends' basements.) If they lose their water, obviously they can't drink it on that occasion, but I'm not going to send them out and say "well, last time, you lost your cup, so this time you don't get to drink."
We have refillable water cups (not Disney ones, but...) When Mrs C or I are with the kids, that's what we use (because then we have a reasonable chance of being able to keep track of them). One child has lost one, nevertheless, and was very upset about it. I'm still not driving an hour away to where she thinks she last had it to look for it, though.
When they stop losing the disposable ones when they're on their own, they can take their real ones.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
If you're prepared to pay at least 30,000 per cent mark up for a product, then I guess you can.
Thank you for the permission.
You're welcome.
Can I offer you a coffee for $1,200?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
Only because the utilities companies make obscene profits from it.
All water treatment should be done not-for-profit imo. To make money out of a resource which falls from the sky is plain wrong.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My ex-brother-in-law had to pay the water company for the rain which fell on his company roof for its removal - it ran away to the neighbouring small river. In this company*, they own the lot. In the air, in lakes and streams, under the ground, the lot.
*I was thinking country when I wrote that, but on second thoughts, it's probably truth, anyway.
[ 24. July 2015, 07:24: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
Only because the utilities companies make obscene profits from it.
All water treatment should be done not-for-profit imo. To make money out of a resource which falls from the sky is plain wrong.
You kkow what to do with this resourse that falls from the sky then, don't you.
Collect the water that falls on your roof.
Store it.
Filter it
Purify it for drinking.
If you can do that for free I'd agree with you. Otherwise you are wanting something for nothing which would otherwise cost you. Tap water does not come free.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
balaam, you forgot piping the water to the taps, with all the maintenance of said pipes.
For me, on metered water, the biggest proportion of my water rates is the sewage component.
Apparently if you reuse water bottles the bacterial growth is more dangerous than the chemical leaching into the water: Huffington Post article. I do hand wash plastic bottles in warm soapy water after a day's use. I have had permanent water bottles, still have one somewhere, but the backpack I use for work doesn't hold water bottles securely in the external pockets and that bottle leaks, which means it isn't safe to put inside, so I tend to use the disposable bottles and break or lose one a week on average. And the permanent water bottle tastes mustier than reused disposable bottles.
We so rarely have water fountains to drink from in the UK, now. We did have them in the past. There's a Victorian decorative fountain in the High Street here, beautifully preserved, but the taps are disconnected. It has a dried out trough for horses on the other side to the human drinking taps. In that era there were pumps in the street as water wasn't piped to all houses. Drinking water wasn't so great for much of UK history and people drank small ales, so there were many, many pubs, most of which are now closed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have had permanent water bottles, still have one somewhere, but the backpack I use for work doesn't hold water bottles securely in the external pockets and that bottle leaks, which means it isn't safe to put inside
Sigh. What do you normally do with old things that are no longer working properly?
Buy a new one, that's what.
What you're doing reads like the equivalent of "I did have pants once, but they got a hole in them so now I just walk around in my underwear".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Useful tip if you live in the UK. This may not work elsewhere.
If you have occasion to buy milk in a square plastic bottle, designed to go in the shelf inside the refrigerator door, in stead of throwing the bottle away, wash it out, fill it with water and put it in the same shelf. It's designed to fit there. In summer, you then have an ever-ready supply of cold drinking water.
Curiosity killed, I'm puzzled by your statement about metered water and sewage. I know of no place where the volume of sewage is separately metered. A common practice is to calculate you sewage charges on 95% of the metered water you use. So they will always be in a fixed relationship.
Of course that's mathematically unnecessary. One would get the same charge by applying a slightly lower poundage to the 100%. But even experts can be stupid.
Processing sewage may though be more expensive than supplying water. So the cost may legitimately be higher.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Useful tip if you live in the UK. This may not work elsewhere.
If you have occasion to buy milk in a square plastic bottle, designed to go in the shelf inside the refrigerator door, in stead of throwing the bottle away, wash it out, fill it with water and put it in the same shelf. It's designed to fit there. In summer, you then have an ever-ready supply of cold drinking water.
Here's (allegedly) why that may be a bad idea.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
AAAAAAAaaaaand this is why the human race is destroying its planet.
Yes. Fat, lazy westerners drinking bottled water.
The environmental issue of our time.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
This thread has been enlightening. It proves that there is a case to be made for the disposable bottle as well as for the refillable bottle. Maybe there is a negotiable solution.
The mantra of ecology is: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Quite obviously the quantity of disposable polystyrene bottles in the ocean and in landfills is something that can be (first step) reduced. How can that be accomplished without giving up what seems to be many justified examples of the use of disposable bottles?
Examples of (second step) Reuse abound in this thread. Maybe it could be encouraged.
The (third step) Recyle is open to better technology. Can industry step up the ability to properly dispose of polystyrene?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sigh. What do you normally do with old things that are no longer working properly?
Buy a new one, that's what.
OK, convinced. Even bothered to look at alternatives and am boggled. Apparently you can buy drinks bottles with built in filters of all kinds, bottles that infuse your drink with fruit or hold an ice stick or collapsible bottles.
Apparently metal or glass are best, which rather limits me to metal because I doubt anything glass will last long the way I maltreat them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Quite obviously the quantity of disposable polystyrene bottles in the ocean and in landfills is something that can be (first step) reduced. How can that be accomplished without giving up what seems to be many justified examples of the use of disposable bottles?
We're not talking about polystyrene as far as I can think of, but of polyethylene. We're talking about plastics that are readily recyclable.
Even if people can justify at least some use of disposable types, the fact that they end up in landfill is an indictment of local governments that don't have recycling programs to the extent that that's the cause, and an indictment of individuals who can't be arsed to use recycling to the extent that that's the cause.
As far as bottles ending up in the ocean is concerned, that's completely an indictment of the people who can't be arsed to find a rubbish bin or take their trash home with them.
We've been mostly focused on the fact that bottling water is a pointless and expensive exercise, but there's no way in hell there's a justification for not disposing of your disposable bottle properly.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
Well, eventually it will be. The cost of water is going up. And that of course includes the cost of tap water as well.
If you're prepared to pay at least 30,000 per cent mark up for a product, then I guess you can.
Thank you for the permission.
You're welcome.
Can I offer you a coffee for $1,200?
Going to Starbucks, are we?
And FWIW, since I buy the bottles in bulk - at least 24 or more likely 36 - and use and reuse them over at least a 3-week period, after which I put them in a bag and hand them to the sweet little old lady who rides through our neighborhood on her bike picking up bottles and cans, which she takes to the recycling center to trade in for grocery money - I feel it's money well spent.
Also, if you don't cook you won't know this, but a disposable water bottle is very useful for separating eggs when I'm baking a Key Lime Pie. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 24. July 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: windsofchange ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Tap water does not come free.
I didn't say free, I said not-for-profit.
Why don't we have rainwater harvesting for loo flushing like so many other countries do? New homes could have them built in.
I think there is little political will to do it - as with proper recycling.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why don't we have rainwater harvesting for loo flushing like so many other countries do? New homes could have them built in.
Because it's expensive (you need two water systems running round your house, a big rainwater catch tank etc.) and in the UK, water shortages are rare. (No, a hosepipe ban really doesn't qualify as a significant shortage.)
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
At the risk of beating a dead horse (where I suspect this thread will eventually wind up ), may I also point out that here in California, where we regularly have earthquakes, our government (specifically the CA Water Service - California Water Service ) actually *encourages* us to keep bottled water in our emergency provisions:
Purchase commercially bottled water, keep it sealed, and replace it after its “use by” date.
There are a LOT of reasons why disposable bottled water makes a great deal of sense in those situations: it's portable, it's easily accessible, it's FAR less likely to sustain damage in a quake, and it's far easier to store for long periods of time.
But it did occur to me, while writing this and other posts in this thread: is there anything I can say that would actually cause any of you to change your minds on this topic? Because I can't help thinking this is one of the many issues that seems to polarize people into heavily armed camps, from which they're unlikely to emerge. In which case I may just give up and go make breakfast.
[ 24. July 2015, 14:01: Message edited by: windsofchange ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Our school had in, one INSET day, some people peddling a scheme called Brain Gym. One of its maxims was the amount of water needed to operate the little grey cells, both on the right and the left. (They were very keen on that, too.)
As a result, our head got very keen on water being available in the classroom, in bottles.
We had that too - it became almost an inalienable right for the pupils to be allowed to drink at any time.
Luckily, enough staff complained and it was stopped - eventually.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
But it did occur to me, while writing this and other posts in this thread: is there anything I can say that would actually cause any of you to change your minds on this topic?
Well, I do have more sympathy for the kids-losing-things aspect of the argument than I did before.
I'm not actually totally against the use of bottled water. I can well understand that there might be times when it gets used. It's not as if I've never, ever bought any myself. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I've bought some while travelling.
But no, I cannot fathom why an adult with a reliable tap water supply would rely on bottled water on a daily basis in their everyday lives.
We've talked about having water in the car... first of all I'm a bit sceptical about the whole idea that anyone's going to have thirst problems during their usual commute (one of the things the bottled water industry has done is sold people on an idea that they need a whole lot of water every day, more than is actually necessary), but my friends in California have water in the car on most trips. They don't seem to have the slightest trouble in having a routine where you fill the water bottle up in the morning, and rinse it out at night when you're done.
The idea that leaving the bottle in the car is somehow a problem is just mindboggling. I wear contact lenses and glasses. When the glasses have been the back-up, it's not uncommon for me to discover at night that I've left them in the car... so I walk out to the car and get them. Surely, if someone thinks "oh, I haven't rinsed out the water bottle for a few days" (I usually leave mine for a week, but whatever) it's as simple as walking out to the car to go get it. That's certainly what my friends in California do: if they realise they've left the bottle in the car, they walk to the garage and retrieve it. Not suggest that the peril of leaving a bottle in the car necessitates the use of disposable bottles.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We've talked about having water in the car... first of all I'm a bit sceptical about the whole idea that anyone's going to have thirst problems during their usual commute (one of the things the bottled water industry has done is sold people on an idea that they need a whole lot of water every day, more than is actually necessary).
I was travelling from my house to Leeds last month (a 25 minute journey) I was stuck in traffic from 2:30pm to 11pm. I was very, very glad of my bottle of water in the car.
But, I agree, re-filling is the way to go. Mine is a metal one as I am not sure plastic is good in hot cars - or is that an urban myth?
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Mine is a metal one as I am not sure plastic is good in hot cars - or is that an urban myth?
The FDA says to avoid recycle codes 3 and 7 and you should be okay.
Link.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
What Orfeo said-- it's not that any bottled water use at all is evil, it's the way it is being promoted as a necessity, the myth that it is more pristine than tap water, and the volume that is leaving drought stricken areas. If for some reason Nestle decided to reserve its sales to California-- qnd could pull it off- we could all chug our little bottles guilt free. I'm sure Poland Springs would be happy to pick up the slack.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Also, California is one of the few states with an effective plastic bottle recycling program. The bottling companies, of course, are rabid opponents of such programs, and it was a bitter fight to institute them here.
Lots of California cities provide separate bins for recyclables, and private trash companies routinely sort their pickups.
Nevertheless, ideally, the plastic would not be used in the first place if there are reasonable alternatives.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
At the risk of beating a dead horse (where I suspect this thread will eventually wind up ), may I also point out that here in California, where we regularly have earthquakes, our government (specifically the CA Water Service - California Water Service ) actually *encourages* us to keep bottled water in our emergency provisions:
Purchase commercially bottled water, keep it sealed, and replace it after its “use by” date.
There are a LOT of reasons why disposable bottled water makes a great deal of sense in those situations: it's portable, it's easily accessible, it's FAR less likely to sustain damage in a quake, and it's far easier to store for long periods of time.
But it did occur to me, while writing this and other posts in this thread: is there anything I can say that would actually cause any of you to change your minds on this topic? Because I can't help thinking this is one of the many issues that seems to polarize people into heavily armed camps, from which they're unlikely to emerge. In which case I may just give up and go make breakfast.
The emergency thing is an obvious case where you'd buy bottled water--I'm not storing water long-term in something I myself was responsible for, er, not-quite-sterilizing!
It's the daily, week-in and week-out use of bottled water in ordinary circumstances which concerns me. (so that lets out kidney patients, people on the road for a week, and so forth).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
AAAAAAAaaaaand this is why the human race is destroying its planet.
Yes. Fat, lazy westerners drinking bottled water.
The environmental issue of our time.
You do realise that those are both part of the same problem.
And that, even if they were not, that is not a justification?
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
California Water Service actually *encourages* us to keep bottled water in our emergency provisions:
This is because they do not trust you* to be responsible enough to store water properly or that, if they gave you the instructions, you would go to the effort of actually doing so.
*You = citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Also, if you don't cook you won't know this, but a disposable water bottle is very useful for separating eggs when I'm baking a Key Lime Pie.
There, sorted. And for less than a fiver.
[code]
[ 24. July 2015, 17:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The emergency thing is an obvious case where you'd buy bottled water--I'm not storing water long-term in something I myself was responsible for, er, not-quite-sterilizing!
It's the daily, week-in and week-out use of bottled water in ordinary circumstances which concerns me. (so that lets out kidney patients, people on the road for a week, and so forth).
Exactly.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
AAAAAAAaaaaand this is why the human race is destroying its planet.
Yes. Fat, lazy westerners drinking bottled water.
The environmental issue of our time.
You do realise that those are both part of the same problem.
And that, even if they were not, that is not a justification?
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
California Water Service actually *encourages* us to keep bottled water in our emergency provisions:
This is because they do not trust you* to be responsible enough to store water properly or that, if they gave you the instructions, you would go to the effort of actually doing so.
*You = citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Also, if you don't cook you won't know this, but a disposable water bottle is very useful for separating eggs when I'm baking a Key Lime Pie.
There, sorted. And for less than a fiver.
[code]
Er yeah, except I've already got a whole bunch of bottles, all of which I'll drink from multiple times, then set aside to use before recycling. So why should I pay for yet another kitchen gadget that will just get lost amongst all the others?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
...We will buy bottled water until it is banned. Not only that, but we won't rinse and reuse a single bottle. I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
If you don't like it, work to ban it. And good luck with that!
Why does this quote remind me of Charlton Heston?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
For real.
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Er yeah, except I've already got a whole bunch of bottles, all of which I'll drink from multiple times, then set aside to use before recycling. So why should I pay for yet another kitchen gadget that will just get lost amongst all the others?
That is actually a reasonable argument/ compromise, whatever you want to call it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
...We will buy bottled water until it is banned. Not only that, but we won't rinse and reuse a single bottle. I won't buy one jug, tablet, filter, canteen, or carafe until the cases of bottled water that I now buy for $3.50 are about 10 or 12 bucks.
If you don't like it, work to ban it. And good luck with that!
Why does this quote remind me of Charlton Heston?
Sure does. And why not? The NRA knows how to fight this kind of pc/nanny state tyranny better than anybody.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
AAAAAAAaaaaand this is why the human race is destroying its planet.
Yes. Fat, lazy westerners drinking bottled water.
The environmental issue of our time.
Yes, I wasn't thinking at all of this as an example of an attitude that applies to other things besides drinking water.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For real.
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Er yeah, except I've already got a whole bunch of bottles, all of which I'll drink from multiple times, then set aside to use before recycling. So why should I pay for yet another kitchen gadget that will just get lost amongst all the others?
That is actually a reasonable argument/ compromise, whatever you want to call it.
Whew - thank you - I'll take that!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure does. And why not? The NRA knows how to fight this kind of pc/nanny state tyranny better than anybody.
Having your lips permanently attached to gun makers arses is fighting the nanny state?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Gunmakers and the NRA are working together to fight pc/nanny state tyranny, yes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
So why should I pay for yet another kitchen gadget that will just get lost amongst all the others?
Because it will be way cheaper in the longer term (it'll have paid for itself very quickly indeed), and if you're actually using it every day it's not going to get lost amongst all the others.
[ 25. July 2015, 12:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gunmakers and the NRA are working together to fight pc/nanny state tyranny, yes.
I always find the idea of the nanny state rather amusing.
Amongst the things the "nanny state" does to protect you from yourself is install traffic lights and decide which side of the road you should drive on. Do you want to fight that particular brand of tyranny?
How about all those nasty laws requiring people to have a certain level of competence before advertising their services and charging you lots of money? It's called licensing. It's basically designed to save you from throwing your money on services that are either useless or actively harmful. That damn nanny state again.
The thing I usually find is that people who complain about the nanny state also want the government to pick them up, dust them off and cuddle them when things go wrong.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gunmakers and the NRA are working together to fight pc/nanny state tyranny, yes.
I had no idea that the NRA had a position on bottles of water. I thought their position was that everyone should pack a pistol not a water bottle.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Amongst the things the "nanny state" does to protect you from yourself is install traffic lights and decide which side of the road you should drive on. Do you want to fight that particular brand of tyranny?
I would guess more the brand that says little kids can't run a lemonade stand without a permit, or sell girl scout cookies in their own front yard.
Or, apropos to the topic, that your dishwasher must only use 3.1 gallons of water per cycle. Inevitably leading to double runs, using 6.2 gallons per load plus the additional electricity. Or worse yet, hand washing! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Or that you can't feed a homeless person.
Or hold a bible study in your home without a permit.
Or pack your child a lunch for school that isn't inspected for compliance.
That kind of stuff...
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Or this kind of thing. (language)
Of course it had to be a white guy...
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gunmakers and the NRA are working together to fight pc/nanny state tyranny, yes.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Gunmakers and their lobby, the NRA, are working to make money. Period.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Amongst the things the "nanny state" does to protect you from yourself is install traffic lights and decide which side of the road you should drive on. Do you want to fight that particular brand of tyranny?
I would guess more the brand that says little kids can't run a lemonade stand without a permit, or sell girl scout cookies in their own front yard.
Or, apropos to the topic, that your dishwasher must only use 3.1 gallons of water per cycle. Inevitably leading to double runs, using 6.2 gallons per load plus the additional electricity. Or worse yet, hand washing!
Or that you can't feed a homeless person.
Or hold a bible study in your home without a permit.
Or pack your child a lunch for school that isn't inspected for compliance.
That kind of stuff...
Allow me to be sceptical about all these references, because I've seen enough cases of such claims ending up in places like QI or snopes showing that it isn't true at all.
This isn't to say that it's impossible for government to over-regulate things. Of course it's possible. I just don't think that it's nearly as over-regulated as people on the right wing of American politics in particular tend to suggest. Some of the claims that get made in American politics about how the rest of the world operates are ludicrous (I'm thinking in particular about the lead-up to Obamacare).
And the faith in the free market is equally ludicrous, because it deliberately ignores all of the ways the "free" market doesn't work remotely in practice the way it's supposed to work as an ideal. Much of the regulation of business is basically there to stop unscrupulous people from acting like arseholes and distorting the market in their favour by hiding information.
Do you know why things get overregulated? It's because people demand overregulation. When something bad happens, people Want Something Done. That's what I was referring to earlier, about wanting the nanny state's help. When there's some kind of newsworthy bad event, the cry goes up to government - why did you let this happen? And so the politicians promise to make sure it won't happen again by legislating.
I've shared this on the Ship numerous times before, but there is still no better insight into this problem than the Onion's parody:
why did no-one prevent a truck falling onto rafters in the Grand Canyon.
But the people who tell the government to stop interfering in their own lives are quite frequently the same people who insist the government has a duty to stop bad things happening to them.
Large parts of my professional life are spent steering between the Scylla of "you've left things too open and uncertain" and the Charybdis of "you're stifling us with detailed regulation". The law in any given area slowly swings in one direction and then back again, depending on whatever problems were caused by the last version. People simultaneously want the freedom to do whatever they want and a nice clear set of firm rules to call in aid when things go wrong.
[ 25. July 2015, 16:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
For an example of my scepticism, which Bible study needing a permit are you talking about? The one in San Diego where the government rapidly admitted it had made a mistake in the application of the law and that the study group was perfectly fine, or the "Bible study" in San Juan Capistrano which had 50 people in the house every week and was a substitute for their church while it was being renovated?
[ 25. July 2015, 16:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
So true! Why is the legal system a hotch-potch? Because each and every law was generated under stress, when some idiot did something and the cry went up for a law against it. Somebody (died eating contaminated sausage) (drove a badly-manufactured car which exploded) (signed a deal with a cremation firm that is imaginary) (married a guy who turns out to have 2 other wives) and so on. Laws do not just spontaneously generate. They are called into existence by some catastrophe.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'd say that California bottle deposit laws do a pretty good job of keeping our beaches, parks, sidewalks, streets, and lawns (brown though they may be) clear of cans and bottles tossed aside by people who don't give a damn.
This is just icing on the cake when the ecological benefits, which accrue to all of us, are taken into account.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'd say that California bottle deposit laws do a pretty good job of keeping our beaches, parks, sidewalks, streets, and lawns (brown though they may be) clear of cans and bottles tossed aside by people who don't give a damn.
This is just icing on the cake when the ecological benefits, which accrue to all of us, are taken into account.
Indeed. And in fact, when I was downsized* in 2009, I spent my free time walking around the streets & byways with large plastic bags, picking up bottles & cans to recycle and get a little extra cash. Now that I'm doing a little better financially, I give whatever bottles & cans I use to someone else who's doing the same thing. It's all good.
(*lost my job, did not lose weight )
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'd suggest raising the deposit from a nickel to at least 25 cents.
The people who collect those discarded bottles and cans need that money quite badly in most cases. I think they deserve more for their efforts, and the people who turn their bottles and cans into litter should be well able to afford such a modest additional increase.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All water treatment should be done not-for-profit imo. To make money out of a resource which falls from the sky is plain wrong.
Don't see the logic here. Might as well say no-one should profit from apples because they grow on trees...
Here in Ireland there's an ongoing protest about the introduction of water charges (meters plus default charges for those households that don't yet have meters), so we hear a lot of unconvincing arguments of this type.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All water treatment should be done not-for-profit imo. To make money out of a resource which falls from the sky is plain wrong.
Don't see the logic here. Might as well say no-one should profit from apples because they grow on trees...
Here in Ireland there's an ongoing protest about the introduction of water charges (meters plus default charges for those households that don't yet have meters), so we hear a lot of unconvincing arguments of this type.
Why is it unconvincing?
Huge profits are a poor thing in any industry imo. We should have excellent wages, then all surplus should be ploughed back into the community - whether it is water/apples/cars/whatever. Why should a few become super rich on the backs of everyone else's hard labour?
Natural resources should not be there to make huge profits for a few shareholders imo.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All water treatment should be done not-for-profit imo. To make money out of a resource which falls from the sky is plain wrong.
Don't see the logic here. Might as well say no-one should profit from apples because they grow on trees.. ....
Who cares about logic. Nobody ever died of cholera from an apple deficiency. Conversely, nobody ever died of polio because apples were underpriced. The logic is that a clean water supply is essential to sanitation and public health. Without clean water, people cannot bathe, prepare food, clean their homes, wash their clothing, or indulge in the unfashionable pastime of drinking tap water. The "profit" from public water and sanitation systems is a healthy population, regardless of income. There may well be a "logical" reason why someone would want poor people to die of water-borne diseases, but I don't see it.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The trees grow in the ground, one someone's property, and are pruned and cared for before the harvest.
The water falls out of the sky.
If it is then collected and processed and piped, all well and good, the labourers are worthy of their hire, and the owner of of the catchment for the use of the land.
If it runs into a stream, and this runs through my garden, and I extract some to water the garden, I am stealing from them.
If it descends into the aquifer, and I extract it via a borehole, I have to pay to do so. It is their resource.
If it falls on my house and I collect it for my garden, why should I pay the water company for it? (Not that I do, or that there is a mechanism for it, but notionally, it belongs to them.) Why should this be so? They have done nothing to it, and it is not depriving them of the resource.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
We drink the tap water out of a glass, standing at the sink, but I will admit, that when my brother's dog comes for a visit from West Virginia he has to bring his own jug, because he won't touch Ohio water.
I think this younger generation has been raised to believe two rather silly things; they must stay hydrated and they must stay connected. We never gave a single thought to either one.
My friends and I went off to tennis lessons in August with nothing in our hands but our rackets. We never carried anything to drink, anywhere we went, and we spent entire days without talking to our mothers on the phone. I actually went off to college in early September and didn't speak to my parents until the Thanksgiving break, almost three months later. Our parents blithely assumed that if we became ill the school nurse or secretary would give them a call.
It just seems so curious to me to see young adults, sitting in church or standing on the street, drinking out of baby bottles, and everyone in Walmart, hand to ear, talking to someone not there as though shopping for milk was a frightening experience for which they needed constant moral support from their friends.
They are not staying connected, they are disconnected from the present all the time.
quote:
fizzy squash
Even after three years in England this will never quit being funny to me.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
fizzy squash
Even after three years in England this will never quit being funny to me.
Why?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
'Round here, a squash is a vegetable. I am guessing it makes for an entertaining mental image.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If it runs into a stream, and this runs through my garden, and I extract some to water the garden, I am stealing from them.
In this case, "them" is us. We treat water in rivers, lakes and aquifers as a common resource, because the alternative is that we all come and kill you and take your water.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Frantically sucking on a baby bottle while addressing the general public is definitely not the thing to do for someone who has Presidential aspirations.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Potzer.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Rubio's Botttled Watergate.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If it runs into a stream, and this runs through my garden, and I extract some to water the garden, I am stealing from them.
In this case, "them" is us. We treat water in rivers, lakes and aquifers as a common resource, because the alternative is that we all come and kill you and take your water.
Or die trying.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
'Round here, a squash is a vegetable. I am guessing it makes for an entertaining mental image.
Yep, it's like hearing someone say they brought along a bottle of carbonated asparagus.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Tap water doesn’t always taste amazing. I believe this is called a First World Problem.
A while back, the water fountain broke down in our office. Cue much consternation. Oh noes! We are going to have to drink water from the kitchen tap! How will we survive?
The fact is that millions of people around the world are fetching their water from rivers and the like. They would do anything to have access to the clean, safe water that comes out of our kitchen tap and doesn’t make your children die of cholera. True, tap water doesn’t taste quite as nice (Paris water is highly chlorinated, but go figure that’s why it doesn’t give you cholera) and given the choice, I prefer it filtered. But ISTM that the real scandal is how many people in the world have no access to safe water supplies at all. We shall be deeply grateful for the water that comes out of our taps.
A while ago I heard someone on the BBC arguing that the sale for profit of bottled water is wrong because access to safe drinking water is a basic human right. This is why water fountains should be installed everywhere in public places. I quite liked the argument.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
But ISTM that the real scandal is how many people in the world have no access to safe water supplies at all. We shall be deeply grateful for the water that comes out of our taps.
Amen to that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
When we lived in West Africa, our house had a well which was shared with three others. We employed a lady to haul water for us and pour it into a large tank (old oil drum). The water was fairly clean as we had sandy soil and a decent well, but we filtered all our drinking water and never had a problem.
Towards the end of the dry season the level of water in the well got lower, buckets got harder to fill and the well took longer to replenish. Water had to be hauled earlier and earlier to be sure of getting some, and then left to settle as it was so sandy.
When the rains came, I used to collect water from the roof (not during the first rainstorm, as the roof would be dirty). I'd stand rows of buckets on the verandah and let them fill from water coming down the corrugations in the metal roof-covering. This was a quick and easy way of getting water, but I always got soaked in the process. So I used to change into swimming trunks.
At first our neighbours laughed - but they soon copied us! I've always valued water since those days.
P.S. Our toddler-aged son, being looked after by a neighbour's son, wandered off one day and very nearly fell into the well, which had been left uncovered. I shudder at the memory, even today ...
[ 28. July 2015, 06:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I had no idea that the NRA had a position on bottles of water. I thought their position was that everyone should pack a pistol not a water bottle.
Maybe everyone should just pack water pistols.
The death too would be lower.
Huia
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
But ISTM that the real scandal is how many people in the world have no access to safe water supplies at all. We shall be deeply grateful for the water that comes out of our taps.
Amen to that.
And another amen.
Some years ago I was involved in a charity drive to raise money for clean water. In some ways it's the best thing I've ever done in my life, and I'm still torn up about the fact that we weren't able to keep up the momentum in following years.
The basis of it was that the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of people without access to clean water and basic sanitation by 2015 could be achieved by each person that had those things donating $2 per year.
Per year.
And the thing is, having access to clean water and basic sanitation has an astonishing effect on things like child health, child mortality rates, and education outcomes. I can't remember for certain, but I think there was research from one country that said something extraordinary like having a flushing toilet improved a child's chances of finishing their primary education by 70% - because they were far less likely to fall seriously ill.
Having a proper water supply and sewage system is one of the most fantastic things that we take for granted. It's revolutionised our lives.
And the bottled water industry is largely driven by suggesting that somehow this isn't good enough.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Preach it Orfeo. I might feel differently if I had to experience these things, but I actually feel more heartfelt sympathy for people who don't have enough water to keep clean, than I do for people who are starving, and as you've shown it's all connected and very basic to having a life worth living.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the bottled water industry is largely driven by suggesting that somehow this isn't good enough.
One could argue the entire US economy is built on convincing people that things other countries would percieve as wild luxuries aren't good enough.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We drink the tap water out of a glass, standing at the sink, but I will admit, that when my brother's dog comes for a visit from West Virginia he has to bring his own jug, because he won't touch Ohio water.
I think this younger generation has been raised to believe two rather silly things; they must stay hydrated and they must stay connected. We never gave a single thought to either one.
My friends and I went off to tennis lessons in August with nothing in our hands but our rackets. We never carried anything to drink, anywhere we went, and we spent entire days without talking to our mothers on the phone. I actually went off to college in early September and didn't speak to my parents until the Thanksgiving break, almost three months later. Our parents blithely assumed that if we became ill the school nurse or secretary would give them a call.
It just seems so curious to me to see young adults, sitting in church or standing on the street, drinking out of baby bottles, and everyone in Walmart, hand to ear, talking to someone not there as though shopping for milk was a frightening experience for which they needed constant moral support from their friends.
They are not staying connected, they are disconnected from the present all the time.
quote:
fizzy squash
Even after three years in England this will never quit being funny to me.
I fail to see how hydration is silly. Playing tennis in August with no water? I'd get a thumping headache at the very least, sunstroke at worst. Strangely enough, I do think that drinking water is rather nicer than getting sunstroke. Also not sure what you mean by baby bottles? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I bought a bottle of water today (it was the cheapest drink in the shop at 35p) and I've never seen a baby bottle that looks like this.
Young people (and middle-aged people, since everyone has smartphones now) are probably not talking to their mothers on the phone, but probably checking emails from their zero hour contract employers, looking for somewhere to live that's not 2k a month for a shoebox, or you know - talking to friends. I can be on my phone and be present and doing what I'm doing on my phone, I am not disconnected. My phone enables me to say the Daily Office wherever I am, I don't think there's anything more connected to what's real than that. More real and connected than middle-aged women sharing Minion memes and jokes about a balanced diet being a glass of wine in each hand on Facebook.
It might be worth remembering that one of those young people you despise will be choosing your nursing home.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having a proper water supply and sewage system is one of the most fantastic things that we take for granted. It's revolutionised our lives.
And it's pretty recent, too. Central London didn't get decent water and sewage until the Great Stink of 1858 stung Government into action. Joseph Bazagette should be one of our great heroes - but he's almost unknown.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Pomona,
Fizzy squash
American squash
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the bottled water industry is largely driven by suggesting that somehow this isn't good enough.
One could argue the entire US economy is built on convincing people that things other countries would percieve as wild luxuries aren't good enough.
Well, developed economies generally. It's one of the basic strategies of advertising to create a problem for you right before offering to solve it.
(The one that bemuses me the most right now is how music streaming services excitedly tell me that if I subscribe, I'll be able to listen to my music offline. Which is of course what I've been doing for 20 years via a portable CD player, an mp3 player and an iPhone.)
(PS My television is still square. Can you believe it? Square! People are occasionally puzzled at how I can manage to watch things with a black bar at the top and bottom of the screen.)
[ 28. July 2015, 22:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
It might be worth remembering that one of those young people you despise will be choosing your nursing home.
Well not really in my case, but I didn't say I despised anyone.
I just don't think the ever present water bottle and mobile phone is as vitally important as some other people do. Surely it's possible to think one or two of someone's daily habits are silly without despising them. I'm sure people think the way I dress in the summer time is silly.
We already have a fine, built in water bottle called a stomach. Fill it up before you go and it will seep into your system as needed, keeping your hands free for chatting to your friends on Facebook while the person standing beside you is ignored.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Surely it's possible to think one or two of someone's daily habits are silly without despising them.
Surely it's possible to think a habit is silly without stereotypically assigning it to an age group. My mother owns an iPad. I don't.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Pomona,
I played tennis for about 20 years, and there was always a drinking fountain close at hand.
The photo you posted looks fairly close to a baby bottle without a nipple. As I suggested above, for some people, bottled water seems to me to function as a pacifier/baby bottle - a stress/boredom reliever. Perhaps, because of this function, it should be called an adult baby bottle.
I, too, don't despise young people. I see plenty of bottled water and cell phone addiction among ages from five to seventy-five.
[ 28. July 2015, 23:48: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Surely it's possible to think one or two of someone's daily habits are silly without despising them.
Surely it's possible to think a habit is silly without stereotypically assigning it to an age group. My mother owns an iPad. I don't.
Was your mother, as I said in the original post, raised to think she had to have a water bottle and a cell phone? I don't care how many 90 year-old people have those things they weren't told that they had to have them from the time they were small. I'm not complaining about young people I'm complaining that they have been told, by advertisers, that they can't have happy lives without these things. It's not the use of those things that bothers me it's the insistence that they must. Like my college professor friend being told that he must allow the students in his class to use their phones during his lectures because it would be cruel not to let them, "stay connected."
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
From the helpful companies that sold us on the absolute necessity of bottled water, we have, so to speak, bottled water on steroids.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
From the helpful companies that sold us on the absolute necessity of bottled water, we have, so to speak, bottled water on steroids.
Oh that is old hat. I thought your article would be on the ionisation and alkalisation nonsense.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having a proper water supply and sewage system is one of the most fantastic things that we take for granted. It's revolutionised our lives.
After the earthquakes we lost both water and sewerage. We relied on deliveries and holes dug in the garden, (and later portaloos). When the water was reconnected I donated money to a project supplying clean water in Africa.
I will never take either sewerage or clean tap water for granted again. The workers who worked so hard to repair the infrastructure were local heroes.
Huia
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The photo you posted looks fairly close to a baby bottle without a nipple.
Oh, don't be absurd. The bottle is a functional way of carrying water around without spilling it. People have been carrying water (and wine...) around in very similar-shaped containers for millennia.
Funnily enough, a baby bottle without the nipple is also bottle-shaped. There aren't many different rational shapes for a device to carry a pint or few of liquid.
I'm happy that you seem able to avoid having to carry water by being able to go to places with a nearby water fountain. It's quite difficult for me to carry a water fountain around to places that don't have one - I think I'll stick with a bottle.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But there are lots of versions of water (and "sports" drinks) on sale which do have "nipples" on top and look rather like baby bottles ...
[ 29. July 2015, 15:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Non-bottled water buyer here, and I don't carry around a reusable bottle either except to the gym, but:
I don't see anything particularly infantile about hydrating regularly. I have some doubts that so many people are using it to self-comfort, but if they were, well let me tell you as a parent that knowing how to self-comfort is anything but a standard infant trait. It is most definitely learned and sometimes all too slowly!
Besides according to this, drinking water lowers odds of getting a UTI. Heck as a nursing mother, I know I have trouble drinking enough water in the heat of summer, so really if I could be bothered to carry a bottle around, I probably should start!
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
From the helpful companies that sold us on the absolute necessity of bottled water, we have, so to speak, bottled water on steroids.
Oh that is old hat. I thought your article would be on the ionisation and alkalisation nonsense.
At least the ionization and alkalisation scams don't produce billions upon billions of throw away adult baby bottles with or without nipples.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The photo you posted looks fairly close to a baby bottle without a nipple.
Oh, don't be absurd. The bottle is a functional way of carrying water around without spilling it. People have been carrying water (and wine...) around in very similar-shaped containers for millennia.
Funnily enough, a baby bottle without the nipple is also bottle-shaped. There aren't many different rational shapes for a device to carry a pint or few of liquid.
I'm happy that you seem able to avoid having to carry water by being able to go to places with a nearby water fountain. It's quite difficult for me to carry a water fountain around to places that don't have one - I think I'll stick with a bottle.
I think that I've led quite an active, out and about, life, and I don't recall a single instance when I was vitally thirsty and couldn't find a single source of water reasonably nearby.
In a developed country, wherever there are people, there are sources of water. In urban areas, water is available in virtually every building open to the public.
Some examples:
Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, government buildings, department stores, hotels, fast food outlets, ice cream and yogurt parlors, coffee shops, gas stations, churches, hospitals, banks....
Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In a developed country, wherever there are people, there are sources of water. In urban areas, water is available in virtually every building open to the public.
Some examples:
Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, government buildings, department stores, hotels, fast food outlets, ice cream and yogurt parlors, coffee shops, gas stations, churches, hospitals, banks....
Well, round here the pub should give you water for free (if open), but might well charge for the glass if it's a disposable one. Restaurants and fast food places, you'll probably have to buy a meal. Department stores in the UK might have a food/drink section, but not always. The food shops, coffee places, and petrol stations will sell you a drink, possibly even a bottle of water. I've never seen a bank or government building in the UK that would hand out water to people. I'll grant you churches that are open may have someone in there who can tell you where to find the tap and cups, and the hospitals I've been in recently have shops or a cafe down front to buy drinks from.
So that's 2 free sources of water, assuming that you are going to be near a pub or a church at the right times of day. This is why if I go out for a walk on a hot day I fill up an empty bottle and take it with me. If I'm venturing into town on a hot day I'll buy a drink there if I have enough money, otherwise it's a choice of fill the bottle from the tap before I leave, or have a splitting headache after 2-3 hours.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink. ( pro-tip-- a public library is a great place to have a drink/ pee stop. So, theoretically that makes it three.)
One relative of mine worked at a gas station in which the owner shut off the drinking fountain, to bump up bottled water sales. Like I said, due to the drought a lot of places are shutting off public fountains. It's better to decrease bottle use, but it's also better not to judge the morals of anyone you see hitting the bottle.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I don't think libraries normally regard it as their function to dole out drinking water.
Bearing in mind the history of these things in Britain, I suspect those who provided the older public drinking water taps 100+ years ago were motivated either to provide water for horses, or so those that drove them would not be tempted by the demon drink.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I didn't say you would be handed a glass of water in those places, but I have regularly seen drinking fountains in all of them other than bars, restaurants, and many fast food places. Drinking fountains are abundant in the U.S. Could there be a pond difference?
As for the exceptions, I think most bartenders will give a person a glass of water. Ditto the serving people in a restaurant and fast food joints. I've often seen it done with no questions asked.
I've tried to avoid ethical judgment of people who consume bottled water. Some of them may not see ethical considerations in this issue. Others may have what they feel are compelling reasons for their use of bottled water.
The water companies, however, are a different matter.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
]At least the ionization and alkalisation scams don't produce billions upon billions of throw away adult baby bottles with or without nipples.
Not sure how big the market is at the moment, but there is a market.
Ionization and alkalisation scams are a problem, just a different one.
BTW, I don't think baby bottles is an appropriate comparison. It is more, IMO, a "nervous" habit. When I wore a watch, I found myself constantly looking a it. Not out of concern for the time or for reassurance, but because it was there.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think libraries normally regard it as their function to dole out drinking water.
Bearing in mind the history of these things in Britain, I suspect those who provided the older public drinking water taps 100+ years ago were motivated either to provide water for horses, or so those that drove them would not be tempted by the demon drink.
Not quite they were provided because that was the access people had to clean water. The temperance movement helped out for their own reasons.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Not-so-fun facts:
In the U.S., 50 billion plastic water bottles were produced last year, and there is an annual growth rate of about 10%.
Approximately 80% of those bottles end up in landfills.
Americans consume more bottled water than milk.
Huge amounts of petroleum are utilized in the production of bottled water.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink.
There've been studies on food deserts. Maybe we need a study on water deserts.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think libraries normally regard it as their function to dole out drinking water.
.
I am lucky enough to live in a metropolitan area where it has been decided that a library functions just as much as a community hub as a reading room. Drastic cuts in library funding forced this change in attitude.This has pluses and minuses-- it's pretty hard to find a quiet place to study, for one. But it also means that nobody is going to be chased away or given the stink eye for stepping out of the heat to get a drink, as long as nobody is disturbed. And heck, many times a quick visit will make the visitor feel obligated to stick around and read a magazine or two.
I can't imagine any of the fine librarians I know even raising an eyebrow at someone nipping in to use a public fountain in a public library. That image is impossible for me to conjure.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink.
There've been studies on food deserts. Maybe we need a study on water deserts.
True!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink.
There've been studies on food deserts. Maybe we need a study on water deserts.
water desert erm, hmmm
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink.
There've been studies on food deserts. Maybe we need a study on water deserts.
water desert erm, hmmm
The phrasing was deliberate/the implications were not lost on me.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is exactly why I added that qualifier in my very first post-- sometimes the world is just not making it easy for you to get a non- bottled drink.
There've been studies on food deserts. Maybe we need a study on water deserts.
True!
You see, this is why I quite liked the argument that we should all stop paying through the nose for bottled water and lobby for water fountains to be installed as standard in all public places. Because access to potable water is, or should be, a human right. We shouldn’t have to pay for it beyond the cost of the infrastructure.
FWIW, I only ever carry water around in very hot weather when I am genuinely concerned about keeling over on the public transport. The park where I usually go running has fountains, and since I find this more convenient than carrying a bottle, I use them. I just don’t think too hard about the people who let their dog drink from the fountains and it’s never done me any harm. Like I said, it’s water that’s millions of people in developing countries would give their right arm for access to. And actually it’s amazing how good that water tastes when you’ve run 10km and truly need the hydration.
Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I didn't say you would be handed a glass of water in those places, but I have regularly seen drinking fountains in all of them other than bars, restaurants, and many fast food places. Drinking fountains are abundant in the U.S. Could there be a pond difference?
Huge pond difference. I don't think I've ever seen a working public drinking fountain in the UK, in my 40ish years of life. Seen several nice Georgian/Victorian ones on street corners, but no water supply thereof. Actually, the last time I saw a working drinking fountain in the UK was inside a school, so not a publicly-accessible area.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Celtic Knotweed:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I didn't say you would be handed a glass of water in those places, but I have regularly seen drinking fountains in all of them other than bars, restaurants, and many fast food places. Drinking fountains are abundant in the U.S. Could there be a pond difference?
Huge pond difference. I don't think I've ever seen a working public drinking fountain in the UK, in my 40ish years of life. Seen several nice Georgian/Victorian ones on street corners, but no water supply thereof. Actually, the last time I saw a working drinking fountain in the UK was inside a school, so not a publicly-accessible area.
Not just a pond difference. The only place I have ever seen water fountains in Canada is at schools, university campuses, and sometimes at the gym. I know of one hospital that has one. Most of these have a water bottle filling station as part of the set up. Gas stations where coffee is available will sometimes let you fill up a water bottle at their sink. I've travelled in the USA but never to a place that has water fountains available as you describe them.
I carry a water bottle or a travel mug all the time. It's great!
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Off the top of my head, here in Pasadena, CA, there is a drinking fountain in all the department stores, all the super markets, the hospitals, the libraries, the parks, ice cream and yogurt parlors, Cal Tech, PCC, city buildings, generally open portions of the Episcopal, Methodst, and Presbyterian churches.
Nearly every fast food restaurant has a drink refill station where water is avaiable. One may have to ask for a water cup, which is given with no questions asked.
In a pinch, one could use a bathroom sink in the ubiquitous places that have a public restroom, where they allow access to someone from the general public (alhough some restaurants display signs saying "No public restrooms" and other many other places require asking for a key).
How do you think our homeless people avoid dehydration?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
For that matter, how do the homeless hydrate in the UK and Canada? How did they hydrate before the glories of expensive bottled water?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
For that matter, how do the homeless hydrate in the UK and Canada? How did they hydrate before the glories of expensive bottled water?
You get muchof the water you need at meals. Some of that is in the food.
Like nutrition, I suspect that proper hydration is a goal not easily available to the homeless either.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I suspect that there may be some confusion when I mention drinking fountains.
This is a typical indoor model. They're very common here.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here is the type of self-serve beverage machine found in nearly every fast food place and many of the casual restaurants I've seen. Ice and water are almost always an available selection.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I suspect that there may be some confusion when I mention drinking fountains.
This is a typical indoor model. They're very common here.
We have them in schools here in the UK. I haven't seen them anywhere else ldjjd.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
The gym is the only other place I can think of.
M.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I suspect that there may be some confusion when I mention drinking fountains.
This is a typical indoor model. They're very common here.
We have them in schools here in the UK. I haven't seen them anywhere else ldjjd.
I've never seen one like that, but I left school 50 years ago. Nor have I ever seen a machine that dispensed free soft drinks. I have, though seen machines in canteens like the one in the picture that dispense a choice of room-temperature or chilled tap water.
A place I worked once had to have drinking water brought in from elsewhere in large plastic containers, and dispensed chilled from stands. The background to this, though, was unease about whether the employer could still guarantee the tap water was safe to drink. Apparently, they no longer knew by what route it came from the meter to each individual tap. It was OK for tea or coffee.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I suspect some cities have way more access to things like water fountains than others even in the same country. Here we have water fountains in most children's parks, but people over the age of 12 are only allowed in with children. Mind, one could drink and leave before stopped generally, but being unwelcome would make some people uncomfortable with that solution. Churches that are open would generally have a way to give water, but that does require asking often. (Our UMC location has a fountain in the lobby, but I don't know others that do.) Gyms have fountains but are members-only. I know I walked with my daughter all morning one day while she was thirsty and she never got a drink. Admittedly we stopped by the library and she forgot to get a drink there because she was excited by the books. But otherwise we stopped at stores that didn't offer free water or walked down residential streets with no water etc. So I am with the others that don't think this should be dismissed as always easily solvable.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Drinking fountains like the one pictured are ubiquitous in North America. I have spent considerable time in Europe and don't recall seeing one, but I don't find the need to drink water every waking moment, as the hydration industry has succeeded in wrongly convincing people they need water or sport drinks.
Once you convince people that thirst is not a sufficient indicator of need to drink, you have won.
The controversial 'science' of sport drinks
quote:
Undermining the body's signals: Cohen claims that one of the greatest accomplishments of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute, established in 1985, was to convince the public that thirst is an unreliable indicator of dehydration.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I suspect some cities have way more access to things like water fountains than others even in the same country. Here we have water fountains in most children's parks, but people over the age of 12 are only allowed in with children. Mind, one could drink and leave before stopped generally, but being unwelcome would make some people uncomfortable with that solution. Churches that are open would generally have a way to give water, but that does require asking often. (Our UMC location has a fountain in the lobby, but I don't know others that do.) Gyms have fountains but are members-only. I know I walked with my daughter all morning one day while she was thirsty and she never got a drink. Admittedly we stopped by the library and she forgot to get a drink there because she was excited by the books. But otherwise we stopped at stores that didn't offer free water or walked down residential streets with no water etc. So I am with the others that don't think this should be dismissed as always easily solvable.
Suburban areas are also " water deserts", at least around here-- you have block after block of residences with maybe a convenience store ( no public facilities)or a gas station here and there( public facilities at owner's discretion.) You luck out if there is a library or a mall nearby, but otherwise if you are struck thirsty during a neighborhood stroll, you have to wait till you run across something. I would opt for the bottle of Evian if I had to.
Rural areas, too, I'm sure it goes without saying. And deep urban areas, where shop owners are much less likely to have public facilites.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
The sodas are not free. When placing an order, you pay for a soda, and you are given a large paper cup.
You fill and refill it yourself from the machine pictured
If you only want water, it's free, and you are given a smaller clear plastic cup.
This system frees employeed from the time consuming task of pouring drinks, and thus reduces the number of employees needed.
This arrangement is widespread here in fast food outlets, casual restaurants, and buffets.
[ 30. July 2015, 22:54: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
Not here - we just don't have access to public drinking fountains the way you do. And homeless needing water? We don't have people living on the streets either. There are some in neighbouring provinces though but no more access to drinking fountains there either. Most seem to have water bottles of some kind in a pack.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Very interesting. Geography does seem to be a big factor in the availability of water inn public areas.
If I were in the middle of most US cities, I think I could find water within five or ten minutes. Besides the places listed above, I'd check out lobbies of offices buildings or hotels.
The suburbs would be a chalenge, but who walks about in the suburbs anyway? They are not only water deserts, they are pedestrian deserts.
In any case, there are ways one can have portable water without resort to those damn plastic adult pacifiers/baby bottles with or without nipples and with or without added calories and salt for wannabe jocks.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Heading for the bus after work today on a very hot day, I realized my water bottle was empty. I went into *$s and the barista filled it for me, no questions asked, no purchase required, just please and thank you. He didn't even try to sell me their bottled water.
Last Saturday night I wore my hydration pack to the baseball game. I refilled it from the bathroom sink partway through the game. Easy peasy. Losing both games of a double header is a whole 'nuther story. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
It must make a differece where you are in the world. Living in the home counties and working in London, there is just no need to, and it wouldn't cross my mind to, carry a drink with me. Just unnecessary.
M.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is climate part of this? It just isn't usually hot enough here to need water all the time. Most of the year, you're more likely to want to have a thermos with a hot drink in it.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I live in the home counties and I have a bottle of water (most of the time filled from the tap at home, mind) with me most of the time I leave the house. I do need to take medication throughout the day, but also I just get thirsty. I'm not diabetic either, just a thirsty person, and drinking lots of water helps prevent migraines.
I have seen water coolers in doctors' surgery waiting rooms, A&E, and sometimes coffee shops have jugs of water and paper cups - but water fountains are rare otherwise.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is climate part of this? It just isn't usually hot enough here to need water all the time. Most of the year, you're more likely to want to have a thermos with a hot drink in it.
That could well be the case. In most of the U.S., temps tend to be considerably hotter than in Canada or the U.K.
We even have brutal desert areas which we have nevertheless managed to populate.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It could easily be. I see far fewer people carrying water etc. during the winter months--it's mainly a Thing during the late spring to early fall, when temps in mid-continent can reach 110 F with 100 % humidity if you're unlucky.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It does depend. This week's commute has been a glorious two hours each way in the rush hour on the joys of the Northern and Central Lines, plus 15 minute walks at either end. I was glad I was carrying a water bottle, particularly today. But I don't carry water commuting all year round, just in the summer.
Failing to drink enough can cause real problems. I have had cystitis and kidney infections several times in the past - school jobs often mean getting caught up dealing with problems over all the breaks, leaving no time to drink or go to the toilet for six or seven hours.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Preach.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It does depend. This week's commute has been a glorious two hours each way in the rush hour on the joys of the Northern and Central Lines, plus 15 minute walks at either end. I was glad I was carrying a water bottle, particularly today. But I don't carry water commuting all year round, just in the summer.
Failing to drink enough can cause real problems. I have had cystitis and kidney infections several times in the past - school jobs often mean getting caught up dealing with problems over all the breaks, leaving no time to drink or go to the toilet for six or seven hours.
You might try to drink at least one glass of cranberry juice a day. It is widely felt that this will guard against urinary tract infections. Research, however, is inconclusive, but that glass or two certainly won't harm you.
If you find it too tart, try adding some water or mixing it with apple juice. In the US, you can buy
cranberry juice already blended with a variety of other juices. My favorite is cranberry-grape.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Just a gentle reminder that the Ship is not the place to dispense (or seek) medical advice regarding specific conditions.
Thank you.
/hosting
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The whole point of my post was to counter the comments made by a number of posters who are informing us that it is totally unnecessary carrying water, because this attitude is really unhelpful for a number of people. We have a Guide with kidney problems who is supposed to drink a pint of water in the 90 minutes of the Guides meeting to ensure her one remaining kidney continues functioning properly.
To illustrate this I was recounting my experience of what happens when I don't drink enough liquid and explaining why I carry a water bottle in summer. Tap water is all I need, but I do need to make sure I remember to drink regularly.
Why should I drink cranberry juice, which I loathe and detest, to deal with a problem I could have avoided if I'd made sure I carried water?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
To clarify:
Discussion of the general health implications of drinking tap water, bottled water, cranberry juice, urine, potassium cyanide, etc. is fine here.
Focusing on individual health complaints, especially to suggest remedies to them, is not.
Any more questions about this belong around the water cooler in the Styx (which itself is not recommended for drinking).
/hosting
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'm sorry for posting my suggestion. I didn't mean it to be medical advice. As someone with one kidney, my zeal overcame my judgment. It won't happen again.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I recognize the need that some people, in some situations, have to carry fluids and that they may prefer that to be water. I don't argue against those matters.
I recognize, too, that cranberry juice, regardless of the presence or absence of health benefits, can be an acquired taste.
Sorry, also, for the tangent.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
People who engage in violent exercise in very hot weather can become dehydrated. Some of them end up in the ER.
Moo
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
That's why every tennis court, baseball/softball diamond, running track, football field, golf course,
playground, etc. should have drinking fountains.
I recognize that such a provision would be a luxury, or considered to be such, in some areas, and that is truly a dangerous situation.
[ 01. August 2015, 22:21: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
We're not going to have the slightest trouble coming up with 'situations where I/people need water'.
That isn't the issue and it never was. I can quite happily provide you with a list of circumstances where I need liquid.
The issue is the cost of that liquid and whether the container it's in is used once and then thrown away. And how often we're going for the different possible answers to that question.
[ 02. August 2015, 00:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Does anyone deny that bottled water is a rip-off?
Does anyone deny that it is environmentally damaging?
It seems to me that alternatives to bottled water are abundantly available other than in some few situations.
Further, the widespread use tells me that vast numbers of people are willing to pay a huge premium for the sake, inter allia, of possible convenience, supposed better taste, unfounded purity concerns, blind trendiness, and perhaps even a need to suckle for stress relief (sorry, it's my pet theory, and I couldn't resist).
For tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people, these factors apparently override their concern for the environmental negatives, assuming that they even consider such negatives.
Bottled water is not a life-or-death problem, but it is not a trivial matter either imho.
The big issue is whether anything can and/or should be done about it.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does anyone deny that bottled water is a rip-off?
Does anyone deny that it is environmentally damaging?
It seems to me that alternatives to bottled water are abundantly available other than in some few situations.
Further, the widespread use tells me that vast numbers of people are willing to pay a huge premium for the sake, inter allia, of possible convenience, supposed better taste, unfounded purity/health concerns, brainwashed trendiness, and perhaps even a need to suckle for stress relief (sorry, it's my pet theory, and I couldn't resist).
For tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people, these factors apparently override their concern for the environmental negatives, assuming that they even consider such negatives.
Bottled water is not a life-or-death problem, but it is not a trivial matter either imho.
The big issue is whether anything can and/or should be done about it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
even a need to suckle for stress relief (sorry, it's my pet theory, and I couldn't resist).
It is not accurate or in anyway helpful. It is actually the opposite of helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The big issue is whether anything can and/or should be done about it.
Of course something can be done. Things are being done. The question is what would be effective.
Should? Well, if you are an old, childless, soon to die person, then maybe you do not care if anything is done. Everyone else should.
The question here is what should be done and what, if any, balance should be struck between environmental concerns and personal freedom.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I did say "perhaps", but I can't prove my (probably derogatory) theory, so I'll concede the question of its accuracy, and you're right: it is not helpful. I'll drop the pacifier/baby bottle thing.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
What is the nature of the "personal freedom", if any, in the case of using plastic bottled water?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
For tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people, these factors apparently override their concern for the environmental negatives, assuming that they even consider such negatives.
Slap an enormous tax on bottled water, then ring fence the tax to be used to clear up the problems they cause.
People would soon begin to refill and find other ways to have water when they want/need it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does anyone deny that bottled water is a rip-off?
Apparently, the large number of people that keep on buying it when they don't need to. Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
For tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people, these factors apparently override their concern for the environmental negatives, assuming that they even consider such negatives.
Slap an enormous tax on bottled water, then ring fence the tax to be used to clear up the problems they cause.
People would soon begin to refill and find other ways to have water when they want/need it.
I'd favor that approach rather than an ouright ban.
Unfortunately, Republicans, who control Congress and the majority of state legislatures, would almost certainly bitterly oppose a new tax regardless of its merits.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
In the United States, after careful consideration of the expense and damages caused by selling bottled beer, wine and liquors, laws were passed banning them.
The laws didn't work, they built a contempt for the law and allowed a lot of criminals to establish themselves in society. There are even worse consequences of the "war" on drugs.
You might want to carefully consider whether everyone wants this law you're so keen on.
There are laws about bottle deposits that worked better.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Slap an enormous tax on bottled water, then ring fence the tax to be used to clear up the problems they cause.
The problem is, doing precisely this is preachy nonsense. There are two problems with bottled water. The problem about extracting water from a drought area is rather minor and local. The major issue is the disposable plastic bottle itself, and that issue is precisely the same whether the thing in the bottle is water, a fizzy drink, or whatever else. In fact, fizzy drink bottles are probably worse because there's a lot more plastic in them.
"Bottled Water" is the wrong thing to tax. The right thing to tax is plastic.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Maybe we should tax the "unco guid".
Endless revenue there....
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Chint,
I trust you don't mean that we should tax EVERYTHING plastic.
The somewhat particular problem (one of several other problems) with plastic bottles is that they are designed for one use and then a toss away. That's why 80% end up in landfills.
I would tax the fizzy drinks as well.
I admit that milk cartons, juice bottles, and many other containers also get pitched after one use. However, most of these products have at least some nutritional value, making me reluctant to impose a tax on them.
Also, I don't think it's fair, on any number of grounds, to compare the prohibition of alcohol to the prohibition of plastic water bottles. Would there be bootleg bottled water?
Nervetheless, as I stated above, I don't think a blanket ban is necessary, and it would doubtless be even less likely than a tax to be enacted.
[ 03. August 2015, 01:25: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sorry. That should be Chint.
[ 03. August 2015, 01:27: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The problem about extracting water from a drought area is rather minor and local.
The effects have the potential to be major and national. Groundwater in California is being depleted at an unprecedented rate, which matters to the whole country, considering how much of the food in the US is grown here.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
And in California it long precedes bottled water. Look at the Documentary series "Cadillac Desert" to see what the L.A municipal water supply did to the places they grabbed the water from.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The problem about extracting water from a drought area is rather minor and local.
20 Percent of the US is experiencing moderate to severe drought conditions and that is "minor and local"?
The whole reason people are nervous about this particular drought is that it is becoming "major and widespread."
[ 03. August 2015, 02:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And in California it long precedes bottled water. Look at the Documentary series "Cadillac Desert" to see what the L.A municipal water supply did to the places they grabbed the water from.
No Offense, SoCal, but yeah.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I admit that milk cartons, juice bottles, and many other containers also get pitched after one use. However, most of these products have at least some nutritional value, making me reluctant to impose a tax on them.
Doesn't matter. Plastic bottles are plastic bottles. If plastic bottles of water are bad for the environment, so are plastic bottles of milk.
(Kelly: the solution to a local (and half the continental US is still local) problem with water extraction is to charge (more) for the water.) You don't care whether the water is being bottled or being poured in swimming pools (unless CA is much better at re-extracting drinking water from the sewers than I think it is).
[ 03. August 2015, 02:59: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
And there's always glass bottles. A bit more energy to ship, but they tend to sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I admit that milk cartons, juice bottles, and many other containers also get pitched after one use. However, most of these products have at least some nutritional value, making me reluctant to impose a tax on them.
Doesn't matter. Plastic bottles are plastic bottles. If plastic bottles of water are bad for the environment, so are plastic bottles of milk.
(Kelly: the solution to a local (and half the continental US is still local) problem with water extraction is to charge (more) for the water.) You don't care whether the water is being bottled or being poured in swimming pools (unless CA is much better at re-extracting drinking water from the sewers than I think it is).
I tried to make it clear that plastic milk cartons, etc., like plastic water bottles are bad for the environment.
Of course, plastic is plastic, but the uses vary greatly. As things stand, there are many things made of plastic that are absolutely, even vitally, necessary. We can live without plastic water bottles, but things like pacemakers, not so much.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Also: Nobody can argue that pools are not a luxury. Nobody can argue that soda is necessary. in my neighborhood everyone's lawn looks like a brown bath mat because we understand that green lawns are not a luxury. People who market bottled water sell it as a health necessity. Hence this thread.
We've agreed that bottled water is useful for some situations-- when you can't get any other kind, for emergency kits, etc. It just is not as necessary as we are being told it is-- again, hence thread.
And while I understand the complications of how Northern California water supplies wind up in Southern California, I for one can't stomach the idea of up-charging to spite water companies in Southern California-- or anywhere else-- during a major eco crisis. Now is not the time for NIMBY. It is the time for triage, though.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Chint,
Under your proposed solution, wouldn't water become availabe based upon ability to pay? In the mother of all droughts, wouldn't we see people splashing in their pools in Beverly Hills while people in Watts die of thirst?
An unsavory history aside, I'm rather proud of the way most people here in Los Angeles are responding to the need to save water. My home town, Pasadena, has reduced consumption 29% relative to last year.
One SoCal city has started a desalinization plant.
Gray water use is on the way to being more widespread here.
In my neighborhood, water-wise landscaping is popping up everywhere. A brown lawn is now widely regarded as a good thing.
It is illegal to use a hose for sweeping. Cars are washed only in car wash establishments that use recycled water. Restaurants give glasses of water only to those who request them. Fountains cannot be refilled. The list goes o
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You don't care whether the water is being bottled or being poured in swimming pools (unless CA is much better at re-extracting drinking water from the sewers than I think it is).
Not as simple as you might think.
1st, recycled water should be used to fill toilet reservoirs. However, first cities need to construct treatment plants, install the infrastructure throughout the city and convince residence to pay to re-pipe their houses with two water systems.
Reclaimed water schemes are being used and considered in many places. Getting citizens to accept this is difficult.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I found the discussion on public drinking fountains interesting. Before the quakes damaged the infrastructure Christchurch had quite a few, unlike other NZ cities (I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't know of any).
Every time we have a public discussion on what should be part of the rebuilt city I suggest them, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Chint,
Under your proposed solution, wouldn't water become availabe based upon ability to pay? In the mother of all droughts, wouldn't we see people splashing in their pools in Beverly Hills while people in Watts die of thirst?
It's kind of happening already. One of my friends who lives in a low-rent area got thank you note from the water company for being in a district that had the least water use on the Peninsula. The cities that scored the highest? You guessed it, the areas that had swimming pools and large golf courses. They can afford the penalty hikes that the water company charges over certain amounts of use.
And I am all for reclaimed water use-- they are starting to do it in the central valley, I have read.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Doesn't matter. Plastic bottles are plastic bottles. If plastic bottles of water are bad for the environment, so are plastic bottles of milk.
The difference is that delivering milk requires some kind of container. Water comes out of the tap.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
mouththief, my friend,
That is not my assertion. I argued against it.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I am not the author of that post. I argued against it.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
California water hogs.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Doesn't matter. Plastic bottles are plastic bottles. If plastic bottles of water are bad for the environment, so are plastic bottles of milk.
The difference is that delivering milk requires some kind of container. Water comes out of the tap.
We still have milk delivered to the doorstep in glass bottles, which are taken back to the dairy and re-filled.
[ 03. August 2015, 09:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference is that delivering milk requires some kind of container. Water comes out of the tap.
And it still doesn't matter. If plastic bottles are bad for the environment (which they are) and if we should tax them in order to fund clean-up operations (which we can argue about) then we should tax them all.
Whether we should tax per bottle or per kilo of plastic depends on whether the primary environmental damage is per individual bottle, or total mass of plastic (ie. are thick bottles worse than thin ones or are they the same.)
You argue that milk bottles are more valuable than water bottles. Fine. You won't mind paying the true cost for your milk bottle, then, will you.
(Milk always used to be available in waxed paper cartons. Are those better or worse for the environment than plastic? They're a bit less convenient, but maybe if we allocate the environmental costs correctly they might prove desirable.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
California water hogs.
This is why all of Northern California was cursing Shwartzenegger's name in the last drought. He pretty much emptied our resevoirs to supply these areas. Or, see that's where it gets fuzzy. It suppied these areas, but it also supplied places like the San Joaquin valley and the Carmel valley, those big agricultural " farmer's market to the Nation" areas Ruth was talking about. Decency dictates you help the one, but you can't very well exclude the other in the process. The only thing that you can do is upcharge people for excessive use, or fine them for evidence of excessive use. Those who can afford it won't give a shit. Same old story.
The best you can hope for is grass roots awareness raising-- like this thread, here. One of the reason we in the Bay Area are so good at water conservation ( at least some of us-- looking at you, Hillsborough) is that the peer pressure is nearly draconian. Our lawns are brown because people definitely will shit talk you, to your face and behind your back, if you have the nerve to have a green lawn in this day and age. The water bill incentives help, but the peer pressure is better-- and the problem with Hillsborough, a very affluent " old money" area, is that the peer pressure is still inclining the other direction-- God help you if you have a brown lawn, ir if your pool is less than sparkling.
Human nature is like a a Rubic's cube made of chewing gum-- it is very hard to work with.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
1st, recycled water should be used to fill toilet reservoirs. However, first cities need to construct treatment plants, install the infrastructure throughout the city and convince residence to pay to re-pipe their houses with two water systems.
Retrofitting grey water systems in existing buildings is very expensive indeed. Installing grey water systems in new construction is still somewhat expensive (but very much cheaper, of course). For a new build, a grey water system almost doubles your plumbing cost. That's probably an extra $5,000 to $10,000 on the construction price of a modest family home. (These figures came from a quick google. I don't know how reliable they are.)
Here's an article about water use in California homes. From that article, the average CA come uses 190 gallons per day outside (that's gardens and pools), and 171 gallons per day inside.
Breaking that 171 gallons down, 37.3 gallons go down the toilet, 30.6 for clothes washing, 34.3 for the shower, 32.6 from the taps, 30.7 are described as "leaks" which must mean untraced water, rather than actual puddles, and other uses are small.
So you're installing a new grey water system for less than 40 gallons per day, and it's going to cost $10,000 to install. Amortized over 20 years, that's an additional 3.5 cents per gallon of water, if I make no allowance for the time value of your $10,000. A gallon of water in California right now costs less than half a cent.
It's not surprising that people aren't very keen.
Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Doesn't matter. Plastic bottles are plastic bottles. If plastic bottles of water are bad for the environment, so are plastic bottles of milk.
The difference is that delivering milk requires some kind of container. Water comes out of the tap.
Just for the record, that comment was made by "Leorning Cniht" not "ldjjd", who was simply responding to it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And it still doesn't matter. If plastic bottles are bad for the environment (which they are) and if we should tax them in order to fund clean-up operations (which we can argue about) then we should tax them all.
As someone mentioned earlier, this becomes a burden to the poor and (see Kelly's post re Hiilsborough) ignored by the more affluent.
As you can see from this article Paper v. Plastic. it is not a simple switch. Glass is not the simple answer. It is heavier, resulting in more emissions in transportation. It is less efficient to recycle than plastic, 30% reduction over new v. plastics' 75%.
The solution is reduction in consumption first. Reuse where possible next and recycle everything else. Product design and packaging should reflect those to aid in this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
LC,
Retrofitting would indeed be a tough sell. But a new home? Most areas of California would not notice the small percentage increase in their loan.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Wouldn't there be serious health risks in filling swimming pools with dirty water?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't there be serious health risks in filling swimming pools with dirty water?
Why would it be dirty? After treatment, the worst contaminant left behind is between one's ears.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
ldjjd, I apologize for messing up the code and making it look like you said something you did not.
Leorning Cniht, it DOES matter. The world is not so black and white as you fallaciously make it out to be. Every decision about matters of policy, or indeed about taking any action, is a matter of weighing benefits against costs.
Although the cost to the environment of a plastic bottle containing water is not different from the cost to the environment of the same size and type of plastic bottle containing orange juice, the benefit picture is quite different, just because water comes from the tap and orange juice does not.
The need to bottle water is nearly nil. On the other hand we must package milk or orange juice in some kind of container if we are going to deliver it to customers. It doesn't flow from the tap, and indeed cannot due to a plethora of factors. In any rational system of determining policy, this must be taken into account.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't there be serious health risks in filling swimming pools with dirty water?
Salt water. Treated salt water. A lot of people do it anyway for the glam appeal; we are just long over due in making that process easier. Supposed to be better for your skin, too.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Learning Cniht -- based on anecdotal data ( read, Facebook bitch sessions), I am guessing one of the reasons South San Francisco water use levels are lower than Hillsborough's -- despite its far denser pipulation-- is that people have already started reserving showers for every other day and flushes for, uh, solids. Again, that is a luxury some feel too guilty to afford and others feel they cannot live without.
[ 03. August 2015, 19:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Indeed.
The yuck factor, something that is emotional rather than factual, is a powerful block for many people.
Yuck - somebody doesn't flush after they pee! There is no reason to flush after urination only.Yellow is mellow.
Yuck - people who don't shower every day stink! Only rarely is a daily shower needed by the average person, who seldom experiences heavy sweat-inducing situations. Most people can probably get by with anything from alternate day or even weekly showers, and there's even the "w*ores' bath" for a quick fix.
Yuck - recycled water is fithy!
As stated above, there's absolutely nothing wrong with properly recycled water. You can even drink it. I would. Ultimately all water is recycled.
The yuck factor, being emotional rather than rational, is inconsistently triggered. Often, we don't give a single thought to some things that are arguably much more disgusting than the three things mentioned above.
[ 04. August 2015, 01:26: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am guessing one of the reasons South San Francisco water use levels are lower than Hillsborough's -- despite its far denser pipulation-- is that people have already started reserving showers for every other day and flushes for, uh, solids.
The usual in septic systems (such as is the case at cabins at lakes in Canada) is to make sure that everyone understands: "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down". There's a hefty fee for pumping and treatment of the effluent, so minimizing water wastage is encouraged by cost. It is also good to use the "grey water" which is that from showers, washing machines, and dishes in the potty, which is recycled from "grey" to "black".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference is that delivering milk requires some kind of container. Water comes out of the tap.
And it still doesn't matter. If plastic bottles are bad for the environment (which they are) and if we should tax them in order to fund clean-up operations (which we can argue about) then we should tax them all.
Whether we should tax per bottle or per kilo of plastic depends on whether the primary environmental damage is per individual bottle, or total mass of plastic (ie. are thick bottles worse than thin ones or are they the same.)
You argue that milk bottles are more valuable than water bottles. Fine. You won't mind paying the true cost for your milk bottle, then, will you.
You're mixing together cost and value and desirability, and quite badly.
All plastic bottles might arguably cost the same, in terms of capacity to cause environmental damage (though frankly the worst costs aren't caused by the bottle but by the sheer thoughtlessness of bottle users).
But the value of the bottle depends on other factors such as whether there are alternatives. I'll agree with you that a water bottle is functionally equivalent to a milk bottle when my house has a milk tap.
What you're trying to avoid is an actual cost/benefit analysis. You know, the part where we point out that you are paying thousands and thousands of percent more than you need to for your water. The fact is your water bill shouldn't be anywhere near your milk bill for the same quantity, but in your case it is. The water you're being sold isn't, in financial terms, anywhere near as valuable as the price you're paying for it.
[ 04. August 2015, 13:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
ADDENDUM: If you had any sense, you'd do the following.
1. Work out the cost per bottle of your current system.
2. Find out the cost of a reusable water bottle.
3. Work out how many uses of the reusable water bottle would be necessary before it had paid for itself through savings on the water cost (noting that the cost of a single bottle of tap water is tiny).
4. Ask yourself just how frequently you believe your children can lose a water bottle, taking into account their capacity to learn over time.
5. Work out whether the number calculated in 3 is higher or lower than the number worked out in 4.
[ 04. August 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And another random thought: the probability of a water bottle being thrown away in the environment is, I would wager, far higher than the probability of a milk bottle being thrown away. Water bottles are taken out and about. Milk bottles stay in the fridge at home.
So I reject the attempt at making them equivalent.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I am pleased to report that in rebuilding a deck, that we were able to get the boards for the decking are HDPE from recycled plastic drink bottles with some sawdust thrown in. 22 footers. One long run accross the deck. Glad to have the possibility of a recycled product.
I am also led to understand that fleeces can be made of recycled bottle plastic. ( Fleece means a sport- outdoor sweater or jumper with a zipper here, is that common terminology? They are ubiquitous in Canada given the climate. +28°C yesterday. +10 today. )
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Glances out window at incoming fog) Yeah, we got fleeces here.
Just to add to the Glass Half Full aspect of bottle recycling, I can verify that many playgrounds I encounter have fixtures made of that weird plastic plywood stuff, and it seems to be pretty sturdy.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, it depends. We have a deck made of the stuff, and it's really bendy unless you support the hell out of it. But that's okay, it's worth it.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We have a surprising amount of signage made of recycled plastic. I've seen the triangular black posts used for some low street signs at a stall encouraging recycling at a street fair, then noticed them on my travels. Trying to find a link there's so much more out there, including decking and wood effect signs for country parks.
Yes, those are fleeces here in the UK too.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I've used the plastic sawdust lumber for edging garden beds. Not very stiff, but it keeps the soil in place, weathers nicely and doesn't have the nasty poisons of treated wood. Until I can afford black walnut, it's my landscape timber of choice.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's a great idea. If and when we get around to putting in raised beds, I know what to use!
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The provincial recycling program says ours go to Atlanta in USA to be ground up and put into road paint under the current contract. So the stripes on the roads reflect at night. Bottle recycling is encouraged by deposit which means there is a refundable 10 cents on returning the bottles less than 1 litre and a nonrefundable enviro charge. There's still a lot of energy involved. And apparently smuggling of bottles from out of province.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I've used the plastic sawdust lumber for edging garden beds. Not very stiff, but it keeps the soil in place, weathers nicely and doesn't have the nasty poisons of treated wood. Until I can afford black walnut, it's my landscape timber of choice.
You would waste black walnut on garden edging? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Edwina Moon (# 18454) on
:
Plastics, as items intended for short term use and then disposal, are an ecological (objective) and aesthetic (subjective) disaster. Plastic recycling, although a "feel good" solution, is a sham. If I am wrong, please correct me, but I believe all recyclable plastics constitute an open loop system - virgin resin must be added to the recycled plastic to manufacture the new product. Also, those of you extolling the ecological and health benefits of recycled plastic lumber should consider the possible environmental effects of these items weathering and entering the soil and water. And the final fate of plastic lumber will be the landfill because recycled plastic is not recyclable. I've come to believe the wisest course is to reduce plastic consumption whenever possible and then safely landfill the rest.
Posted by Edwina Moon (# 18454) on
:
For example, this last January in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/09/us/ap-us-great-lakes-plastic-pollution.html
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edwina Moon:
Plastic recycling, although a "feel good" solution, is a sham.
Well, no. Plastics are not evil, they are just overused. Plastic recycling is 75% efficient. Not sure how much of that is new material and how much is energy used compared to making new.
quote:
Originally posted by Edwina Moon:
And the final fate of plastic lumber will be the landfill because recycled plastic is not recyclable.
Not sure if this is still true. There has been research into different catalysts that would change this.
quote:
Originally posted by Edwina Moon:
I've come to believe the wisest course is to reduce plastic consumption whenever possible and then safely landfill the rest.
That is the wisest choice for all consumables.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... and there is, of course, a cost also to recycling alternatives to plastic--for instance, glass. Whether you wash it (sterilize it) or melt it down, there's going to be an energy cost and probably a water cost. And then there's the transportation cost of lugging heavy glass back and forth from factory to shop to home and back to recycling.
Nothing is going to be a free lunch. We need to look at all the hidden costs and choose the one least likely to do harm.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Reducing consumption is the least harm in the greater scheme. Choosing what you consume is next. Reuse then considerate disposal. Not rocket surgery.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... and there is, of course, a cost also to recycling alternatives to plastic--for instance, glass. Whether you wash it (sterilize it) or melt it down, there's going to be an energy cost and probably a water cost. And then there's the transportation cost of lugging heavy glass back and forth from factory to shop to home and back to recycling.
Nothing is going to be a free lunch. We need to look at all the hidden costs and choose the one least likely to do harm.
Not to worry, the talented recycling police in Seattle have solved that one. They want you to wash your plastic recyclables before putting them in the recycle bin. That always bothers me and I wonder if that will survive the droughts.
What I really want is what my brother gets in New York City; nice blue bottles of seltzer that get delivered and picked up when empty. The carbon footprint is now low since they stopped making the bottles about 40 years ago, it's all recycled and it's more efficient to have one truck delivering rather than everyone making an individual trip to the store.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Edwina Moon quote:
I've come to believe the wisest course is to reduce plastic consumption whenever possible and then safely landfill the rest.
The problem with "safely landfill" is that you have to keep digging stuff out near enough to conurbations to have holes to fill. That stuff has to be impermeable to liquids and gases (nothing to make the cement company say "we didn't know there were fissures in the chalk" when a house blows up from methane), and unlikely to suffer from earth movements: the transport method needs not to inconvenience the locals use of the roads or their amenity generally.
Furthermore, the method of burial should be such that seagulls, rats and other gourmets of human waste are not attracted, no smells are produced, and old plastic bags do not fly off and decorate any nearby trees or barbed wire.
The record of extractive industries is not great. We should be reducing the holes we dig if at all possible.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Once when I was out on a bird walk, I spotted a huge pile of coyote scat with a half dozen slugs feasting on it. Nature doesn't landfill anything. Nature finds a use for everything. There is no garbage in Nature. If there isn't yet a use for something, life will find a way to exploit it eventually.
If I were king of the world, there would be no discharge of pollution. You produce it, you own it, you find a way to reuse it -- all of it, including unintended byproducts or wastes. All packaging would be returned to manufacturers to deal with, as well as the obsolete and broken items that came in it. It shouldn't just be "polluter pays", it should be "profiteer pays" for the cleanup. That way, ALL the real costs of production get built into the cost of the item up front. Things that pollute less will cost less, creating an incentive for manufacturers to optimize every aspect of their operations, as opposed to now, where they are incentivized to dump as much crap into our environment as possible.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Sounds like paradise...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0