badgolferman wrote:

I nailed him because it's that kind of sloppy thinking that gets us
into messes like Iraq "because we were attacked". I'd like to see
some of you idiots learn how to think.

If he made a claim that was not supported by the facts, why did he not
admit it? He could have easily said "okay, I exaggerated, but the
point is that tap water is often as good, or even better, than bottled
water". I would then have respect for him. I would even have
accepted a jab at me for being too precise, as you gave me.

Instead, as is so typical with the egotistical idiots so common today,
he sticks to his guns and claimes that I'm as "dumb as a box of
rocks", even though I'm clearly correct - his anecdote about his
sister's required extensive testing is not evidence of the resulting
tap-water being vastly superior-to (water-to-mud, in his words)
bottled water. I therefore have no respect for him, and treat him
like the stupid twit that he is.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:09:39 GMT, dizzy <dizzy (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote:

So you think the bottled water companies test more than they are
required to?

I have a bridge I will sell ya....LOL

You are just too easy, Dizzy.

Have you EVER been in industry?

Apparently not...

Oh well...

Have fun in your own little world...


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:

Some of them do, no doubt. Maybe most of them. Maybe damn near all
of them.

Idiot.

Idiot.

Yes.

Wrong again.

In fact, I make my living in product test. We do not test our product
by what the government tells us. We test our product based on
satisfying our customer expectations for quality.

Idiot.

Scott in Florida wrote:

By the way, idiot., the "amount of testing" performed is not the
measure of quality. There's a lot of pristine water in the world that
would require no "testing" at all be of very high quality.

Indeed, if the production process is perfect (a generally unobtainable
goal, of course), no "testing" would be required at all!

Just another example of you idiot's inability to think logically.

Don't you know you're stupid?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:16:16 GMT, " \".,dbu'," <howard (AT) dynosadrok (DOT) com>
wrote:

He really is fun.

Not too bright, but fun.

You can tell when he has reached his 'limit' when he starts spewing
'idiot'.

Dizzy lost another one.

He made a statement that simply is NOT TRUE and calls people idiots
when they point it out to him.

Nice world these libs live in...


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:

What statement would that be, exactly? What are the facts, here? Or
are you just lying again?

That's pretty funny, considering that I just kicked your ass (for the
umpteenth time) with a logical argument that you are unable to refute.
So, you avoid the entire thing and go on a fact-free personal attack.

Typical, for a right-winger.

You mean the world of logic and truth? Better than the world of lies,
ignorance, and stupidity that you live in, I guess...

"dizzy" <dizzy (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote

You naive LIEbrawl dimmies are the ones who need to know HOW to think. I'll
put MY IQ up against yours any day of the week. Typical DEMONrat
arrogance--thinking that they are more intelligent that everyone else.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are naive and have your heads in the sand when it
comes to politics and international affairs.

n5hsr wrote:
These days whippersnappers think hash marks are a side effect of a
concoction of drugs.

sharx35 wrote:

LOL That's a good one, Sharx. 8)

Here is the article to refresh the Dizzy...



Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?
While bottled water marketing conveys images of purity, inadequate
regulations offer no assurance.
[En Español]

Sales of bottled water in this country have exploded in recent years,
largely as a result of a public perception of purity driven by
advertisements and packaging labels featuring pristine glaciers and
crystal-clear mountain springs. But bottled water sold in the United
States is not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water,
according to a four-year scientific study recently made public by
NRDC.

NRDC's study included testing of more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands
of bottled water. While most of the tested waters were found to be of
high quality, some brands were contaminated: about one-third of the
waters tested contained levels of contamination -- including synthetic
organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic -- in at least one sample
that exceeded allowable limits under either state or bottled water
industry standards or guidelines.

A key NRDC finding is that bottled water regulations are inadequate to
assure consumers of either purity or safety, although both the federal
government and the states have bottled water safety programs. At the
national level, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for
bottled water safety, but the FDA's rules completely exempt waters
that are packaged and sold within the same state, which account for
between 60 and 70 percent of all bottled water sold in the United
States (roughly one out of five states don't regulate these waters
either). The FDA also exempts carbonated water and seltzer, and fewer
than half of the states require carbonated waters to meet their own
bottled water standards.

Even when bottled waters are covered by the FDA's rules, they are
subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which
apply to city tap water (see chart below). For example, bottled water
is required to be tested less frequently than city tap water for
bacteria and chemical contaminants. In addition, bottled water rules
allow for some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform (which
indicate possible contamination with fecal matter), contrary to tap
water rules, which prohibit any confirmed contamination with these
bacteria. Similarly, there are no requirements for bottled water to be
disinfected or tested for parasites such as cryptosporidium or
giardia, unlike the rules for big city tap water systems that use
surface water sources. This leaves open the possibility that some
bottled water may present a health threat to people with weakened
immune systems, such as the frail elderly, some infants, transplant or
cancer patients, or people with HIV/AIDS.


Some Key Differences Between EPA Tap Water and FDA Bottled Water Rules
Water Type Disinfection Required? Confirmed E. Coli & Fecal
Coliform Banned? Testing Frequency for Bacteria Must Filter to
Remove Pathogens, or Have Strictly Protected Source? Must Test for
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses? Testing Frequency for Most
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Bottled Water No No 1/week No No 1/year
Carbonated or Seltzer Water No No None No No
None
Big City Tap Water (using surface water) Yes Yes Hundreds/
month Yes Yes 1/quarter
(limited waivers available if clean source)
See Table 1 of NRDC's bottled water report for further comparisons and
explanations.


Ironically, public concern about tap water quality is at least partly
responsible for the growth in bottled water sales, which have tripled
in the past 10 years. This bonanza is also fueled by marketing
designed to convince the public of bottled water's purity and safety,
marketing so successful that people spend from 240 to over 10,000
times more per gallon for bottled water than they typically do for tap
water.

In fact, about one-fourth of bottled water is actually bottled tap
water, according to government and industry estimates (some estimates
go as high as 40 percent). And FDA rules allow bottlers to call their
product "spring water" even though it may be brought to the surface
using a pumped well, and it may be treated with chemicals. But the
actual source of water is not always made clear -- some bottled water
marketing is misleading, implying the water comes from pristine
sources when it does not. In 1995, the FDA issued labeling rules to
prevent misleading claims, but while the rules do prohibit some of the
most deceptive labeling practices, they have not eliminated the
problem.

Some examples of interesting labels NRDC observed include:

"Spring Water" (with a picture of a lake surrounded by mountains on
the label) -- Was actually from an industrial parking lot next to a
hazardous waste site.

Alasika™ -- "Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water
From the Last Unpolluted Frontier, Bacteria Free" -- Apparently came
from a public water supply. This label has since been changed after
FDA intervention.

Vals Water -- "Known to Generations in France for its Purity and
Agreeable Contribution to Health . . . Reputed to Help Restore Energy,
Vitality, and Combat Fatigue" -- The International Bottled Water
Association voluntary code prohibits health claims, but some bottlers
still make such claims.

NRDC makes the following recommendations for improving bottled water
safety precautions:

* The FDA should set strict limits for contaminants of concern in
bottled water.
* The FDA's rules should apply to all bottled water distributed
nationally or within a state, carbonated or not, and bottled water
standards must be made at least as strict as those applicable to city
tap water supplies.
* Water bottlers should be required to disclose water source,
treatments and other key information as is now required of tap water
systems.
* A penny-per-bottle fee should be initiated on bottled water to
fund testing, regulatory programs, and enforcement at both state and
national levels.
* State bottled water programs should be subject to federal
review.

Ultimately, however, while Americans who choose to buy bottled water
deserve the assurance that it is safe, the long-term solution to our
drinking water problems is to ensure that safe, clean, good-tasting
drinking water comes from our taps. Those who are particularly
concerned about the quality of their tap water can take action by 1)
calling their state drinking water program or the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline (800 426-4791) for a list of state certified labs; and
2) purchasing filters certified by NSF International (800 NSF-MARK) to
remove the contaminants of special concern to the consumer (NSF
certification is not, however, a complete guarantee of safety).

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:19:15 GMT, dizzy <dizzy (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote:

--

Scott in Florida