Slashdot Mirror


Drugs In Our Drinking Water

MikeURL alerts to a AP story just published after a months-long investigation on the vast array of pharmaceuticals present in US drinking water. These include antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones, as well as over-the-counter drugs. Quoting: "To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe. But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health."

53 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Mood stabilizers? by Genocaust · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really? Shit sure doesn't seem to be working on my wife.

    --
    It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
    1. Re:Mood stabilizers? by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      She's dehydrated.

    2. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not suggest that she tries mood stabilisers instead, then?
      Perhaps he enjoys having a penis, and doesn't wish to do anything to jeopardise that.
    3. Re:Mood stabilizers? by edittard · · Score: 5, Funny

      She's dehydrated.
      I hate being a spelling nazi, but it's "deflated".
      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    4. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard the distinctive "whoosh" of a joke sailing far above someone's head and came as fast as I could.

    5. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Stripe7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are these concentrations higher than those used in Homeopathy?

    6. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


      I heard the distinctive "whoosh" of a joke sailing far above someone's head and came as fast as I could.


      That's gotta be the weirdest fetish I've ever heard of.

    7. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard the distinctive "whoosh" of a joke sailing far above someone's head and came as fast as I could.

      That's gotta be the weirdest fetish I've ever heard of.

      You must be new here.
    8. Re:Mood stabilizers? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, its not your wife. What happens if she stabilizes on the wrong mood?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    9. Re:Mood stabilizers? by john83 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ben Goldacre once gave a nice example of what such concentrations actually mean: in a sphere of water with the same radius as the distance from the Earth to the Sun, there's a molecule.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  2. Perspective by gnick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see the levels present in the average American's blood-stream.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:Perspective by psychodelicacy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me too. I'd also be interested to know whether these quantities, even if they're far below therapeutic doses, could make drugs less effective when people take them. For example, are antibiotics getting into the water and, if so, might we start to develop immunity even if we've never taken them directly?

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    2. Re:Perspective by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      For example, are antibiotics getting into the water and, if so, might we start to develop immunity even if we've never taken them directly?

      You do not develop an immunity to antibiotics. Bacteria do. Whether or not you personally get a mini-dose of antibiotics has not bearing on that.

      On the other hand, if we are all getting a mini-dose, then those bacteria that are antibiotic resistant will proser all the more. Also consider that it isn't only humans that would be getting these mini-doses.

      Yet another example of the "no man is an island" truism.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Perspective by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try again. Avogadro's number is 6.022 E 23. A drug like penicillin has a molecular weight of 334. Other drugs will be heavier or lighter, but generally within a factor of 10. 8oz of water is 236g. That combines to give about 400 billion (4 E 11) molecules of penicillin at 1 part per trillion (1 E -12).

      Molecules are small. Even mildly complex organic ones like drugs. Check your intro chem text before spouting off about such things.

    4. Re:Perspective by socz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I spent about a year in Mexico, I was surprised (for some reason) that every house had a filter on any tap that would draw drinking water. After months of wondering what type of miracle filter that apparently didn't have to be cleaned often was in the tall 750ml filter container of stainless steel, I opened that bad boy up with permission and found a rock.

      It was a little slimy and probably ready for its cleaning, which I performed. But it still amazes me that they can have this in place, where those of us in the US have to use these disposable filters that are expensive.

      Now I really don't know how effective those rock filters are, but one thing is for sure: people don't get sick when they drink water that's been through that filter.

      I have yet to see a filter like that here in Los Angeles and will gladly buy several when I do. I haven't been back to Mexico for a while but when I go back to visit, if I haven't gotten a filter here i'll definitely buy on there. The only draw back is that water comes out a little too slow for me. But that's why you let it go for a while and fill up extra water jugs and what not.

      One last thing probably worth mentioning is that there was always this "crazy talk" about amoebas in the water," and that is why you couldn't drink water straight from a tap without a filter. For the entire time in Mexico and all the places I visited, I never got sick from drinking the tap water. I even got to see the source of the water from the river that flowed from mountains!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    5. Re:Perspective by turtledawn · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why so many are allergic to milk products. They cannot digest them without the normally included enzymes.

      Cats fed only store bought, processed milk do not thrive and have reproductive difficulties within two or fewer generations. You can read about a summary of this here.

      These two items are related, but not in the way you're implying; humans that have lactose intolerance, along with all cats, simply lack the mutation that allows them to produce lactase beyond the period of normal weaning. That is to say, milk-drinking humans are mutants who have managed to adapt to nursing from some other animal's teat for their entire lives. The presence or absence of milk enzymes is not going to be enough to compensate for a complete lack of an enzyme in a person's gut. It might make a small difference in marginal cases, such as biracial black/white children.

      Your link to the cat study is also useless in supporting your point, because the doctor was already feeding the cats raw milk. The difference was between the cooked and uncooked meat scraps, as far as I can tell. Possibly a taurine deficiency. It also fails to mention whether the cats in the experimental groups were fed raw or cooked meat scraps, which would be important in determining the root cause.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  3. LSD by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Funny

    What! no LSD yet? When will these lazy hippies finally get to it?

    1. Re:LSD by asuffield · · Score: 4, Informative

      What! no LSD yet? When will these lazy hippies finally get to it?


      The mildly amusing flaw in that old tale is that LSD is actually quite unstable, and if you put it in the drinking water it would break down long before it got anywhere near anybody's houses. It has to be carefully stored if you want to keep it for more than an hour or so.

      Also, the dose required for LSD to function is so minute compared to most drugs that it would be quite obvious if it was there. Even in small numbers of parts per million, you'd likely be tripping.

      It's really quite a strange chemical.
  4. RE: Drugs in Our Drinking Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I fail to see the problem. However, what I do see is a pink elephant running across my living room carpet as I write this. The good news is that I am very calm as I know the purple dolphins in my kitchen will protect me.

  5. It's the commies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're corrupting our precious bodily fluids!

  6. Apply directly to the drinking water by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?

    1. Re:Apply directly to the drinking water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?

      Just think of the consequences if homeopathy actually worked.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  7. Tap Water vs Bottled Water by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever I hear folks talking on the subject of bottled water vs. tap water, or water quality in general, I'm reminded of a study (which I'm too lazy to look up) conducted by a network news show a few years back. Turned out that bottled water was much less sanitary and clean than tap water.

    Why? Because tap water has teams of people objectively surveying its quality, unmotivated by profit. And bottled water has very little regulation, at least when measured against the regulation required around tap water.

    I, for one, drink either tap water or filtered tap water. These bottled water companies can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Tap Water vs Bottled Water by Xelios · · Score: 4, Informative

      When I hear folks talking on the subject of bottled water vs. tap water I mention Calgary, Alberta. Calgary has very good tap water taken from two rivers that run through it, and Coca-Cola has a large bottling plant there. Anyone want to guess where Dasani bottled water comes from? That's right, out of the taps in Calgary and Brampton, ON.

      I'm sure it doesn't supply all of the water Coca-Cola uses for Dasani, but it goes to show what a ripoff bottled water can be, and usually is.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    2. Re:Tap Water vs Bottled Water by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of bottled water starts with muni tap water somewhere. That doesn't mean that it's the same thing as the tap water. There was a show once that showed where a certain companies bottled water came from. They started with muni tap, then it was filtered a ton of different ways to the most pure water you could get. At this point they actually had to add 'stuff' back because pure water actually has a bad taste.

      As far as Dasani goes they actually add sodium to the water, I'm guessing for taste.

    3. Re:Tap Water vs Bottled Water by rasherbuyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check out what happened to Desani here in the UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/mar/20/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

      Needless to say it's not available here any more.

      If you can't be arsed to read the article it's basically:

      1. buy clean, uncontaminated tap water @0.06p litre
      2. add carcinogen
      3. sell for £1.80 litre
      4. profit!!!!
      5. get found out, "voluntarily" withdraw product

    4. Re:Tap Water vs Bottled Water by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it is probably more like people have an unrational trust that when they pay for something it is worth the price.

      People get very suspicious when something is free. And often for good reason. The problem is that when something isn't free, they suddenly lose all that cynicism and become trusting little lambs.

      As tap water is very cheap, there is very little unrational trust involved and therefore people check it out. However, when it comes to bottled water that people pay a lot of money for, they trust that it better (without any reason what so ever).

    5. Re:Tap Water vs Bottled Water by dbIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      If bottled water really was a scam it would be labelled "naive" backwards or something.

  8. Hooray! by EggyToast · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to supporters of Homeopathy, we'll all become incredibly healthy thanks to this!

  9. Re:Strange... by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lol, think a bit.

    Hints:
    1- It not put directly into the drinking water
    2- It involves toilets

  10. Answer by zymano · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_filtering

    Also informing people that what goes down the toilet goes in your drinking water.

  11. Are you fucking kidding me?! by n+dot+l · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFA:

    How do the drugs get into the water?

    People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue. That's just ridiculous, when you think about the number of "X milligram of ingredient Y" pills people must be taking for detectable amounts to be showing up in drinking water after being diluted and filtered that many times. Is the average American really on that many drugs? Or are these water companies just really bad at keeping sewage out of people's taps?

    Hrm. I wonder how this compares to other developed nations...
  12. three questions by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Funny

    What drugs?

    What water supplies?

    And how can I buy some of the water?

  13. A non-issue! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even cyanide will not significantly affect you in proportions of a few parts per billion. You get a lot more than that from a handful of almonds. As for parts per trillion... just forget it. It isn't worth bothering about.

    If you want something to worry about, then start worrying about the antibiotics and growth hormones used in cattle and chickens. That is something real, with documented effects.

  14. Contraceptives in the rain. by infonography · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "There you go. I can taste it. Estrogen. Definitely estrogen. You take the Pill, flush it away, it enters the water cycle, feminizes the fish it goes all the way up into the sky, and then falls all the way back down on to me. Contraceptives in the rain. Love this planet. Still, at least I won't get pregnant. Never doing that again." ---Captain Jack Harkness.
                      TORCHWOOD 1X01: EVERYTHING CHANGES
    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  15. Re:False positives? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. This story has been around for awhile and it drives me crazy. We're talking about quantities like 3 parts per trillion on most drugs. It is far far below (many orders of magnitude!) the point at which it would do anything to you, yet so many people seem to nearly panic at the idea of drugs in the water.

    I'm just waiting for the study on air to come out.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  16. More misleading 'news' about 'drugs' by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is another perfect example about how new media can't understand technology.

        In this case, the technology is advanced chemical analysis machines that can detect trace amounts of drugs.
    In fact, it can detect trace amounts of whatever chemical it happens to be programmed to find if the trace amounts are present.
    The key word here is trace, as in a few hundred thousand or less Molecules.

        But give these jokers the opportunity to combine the words 'detect' and 'drugs', and they turn into self-righteous raving lunatics predicting the end of civilization and, by implication of the word 'drugs', millions of crazed niggers and hippies running amok, which is what the word 'drugs' means to the media fear mongers.

        Since the level of the trace amounts detected is so far below the effective medical dose to have any effect on human behavior or physiology, then why are they reporting it as if it were some kind of imminent problem?

        And, what, pray tell, is exactly so new about this situation? These trace amounts of (oh, horrors!) 'drugs' seem to have always been in the environment. What's new is not their presence, it's the ability to detect molecular levels of them.

        But the news media is presenting this as a warning that some terrible thing is about to happen. But it's not. This is a non-story being 'fear amplified' by the news media who are extremely limited in the real stories that they are allowed to cover by their corporate owners. So they just pander to vague fears.

        To hell with them. They are not professionals anymore, nor do they have anything resembling credibility left.

        And I am all so sick and tired of normal healthy productive people being fired from their jobs just because molecular trace amounts of 'drugs' turn up in the body fluids that they have been forced to surrender against the 4th and 5th ammendment of the US constitution that we are suspossed to live under in the USA.

        So you invented a machine that can 'prove' that someone smoked weed a month ago and therefore you can legally use this 'evidence' as an excuse to destroy their life? Well, fuck you and your machine. You are an asshole and a fascist and you are not doing your company, your people, or your country any favors by pretending otherwise.

        Have a nice day!

  17. Re:But then.... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why I prefer beer - though I heard a rumour it contains female hormones: after you've drunk ten or so, you can't drive and you start talking crap.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  18. Don't drink the water by Slackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Years ago most drinking water in towns was too bad to drink unless you lived in the country near to a good spring. Hence the invention of beer. My advice is stop drinking water and just go for beer, wine and spirits instead.

  19. Fear mongering at its finest.... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Informative
    To put 1 part per trillion into perspective...

    Imagine hiking up into the woods, and coming across a pristine lake. The lake is 6 meters deep, and 170 meters in diameter. Into this lake you toss a single, 100 milligram aspirin tablet.

    You have now polluted the lake with aspirin at 1 part per trillion.

    This is fear-mongering at its finest. Why, we have DRUGS and COMPOUNDS and CHEMICALS in our water! We simply MUST pass MORE LAWS and INCREASE TAXES to purify your drinking water! You could be getting LETHAL DOSES of DRUGS if we don't do SOMETHING! And for those of you living on private property, well we HAVE TO CONTROL what you can do on your property EVEN BEYOND what's done now, because you could be polluting the aquifer by simply dropping a single aspirin tablet on to your lawn!

    Never mind you'd have to drink a few million liters of water to even get 1 milligram of the drug...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  20. Re:Strange... by iknownuttin · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Russians are contaminating our water through their toilets?!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  21. Shit in, shit out by jadedoto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As was stated, it's not because the water companies are paid to drug us, just so many people are taking these drugs that when people defecate and urinate, guess what enters the main water supplies? Most current filtering systems weren't designed with drugs in such a concentration in mind. I remember reading an article a few months back about estrogen being so small a particle it is virtually impossible to trap, eventually to cause problems because not only do people take estrogen supplements (albeit to a lesser extent than testosterone), but women keep passing it through natural methods. Personally, I think 90% of these drugs people take are excessive. I'm perfectly healthy and don't take any drugs, except an occasional ibuprofen, whereas a friend of mine is perfectly healthy and is on constant drugs. People need to learn the concept of placebo again (counterintuitive, maybe), they need to change the way they think about medications and their lifestyles. All this medication is ridiculous and unnecessary in most cases. The same principal applies- put shit in, get shit out.

  22. the only way to solve this problem by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is to equip every home's septic system with an incinerator

    that's not happening

    luckily, this whole issue isn't really a problem. we all have radon in our homes too. that competes with any of these substances on a scale of worry. however, if the concentrations are low enough, the concentrations shouldn't worry you. this whole issue is nothing but sensationalism

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  23. Well, I wouldn't worry yet by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I wouldn't worry yet:

    1. Let's start with the easy stuff first, with the ibuprofen and opiates and whatnot.

    For a starter, your organism is already good at dealing with stuff that doesn't belong there. The liver alone gets rid of maybe three quarters of the medicines ever invented. Infinitesimal doses of even some pretty toxic stuff don't really get to do much damage or addiction or whatever, before they're neutralized or filtered out.

    But for what you ask, pretty much you just have to make the following distinction:

    A) Those who don't cause addiction, i.e., the over-the-counter stuff, well, those don't matter. The organism doesn't compensate in the other direction for those, or not for long. But if you're worried anyway, read on, the reason to not worry is:

    B) Those which do cause addiction... well, those don't matter either when measured in parts per trillion.

    Physiological addiction is when the body adjusts in the other direction. E.g., a cigarette makes you feel good, among other things, because it inhibits MAO-B, which is to say: works much the same as antidepressant medication. But your body gradually adjusts by producing _more_ MAO-B to get back to the normal baseline. Due to this adjustment, now you feel shitty without them, and eventually you need your smoke even just to get where a non-smoker is without them. That's addiction.

    Well, the reason you don't need to worry about those is that your body adjust gradually towards a point that's proportional to the perturbation. If you perturb the system by 0.00000001% in one direction, the "correction" will be at most 0.00000001% in the other direction. If at all.

    2. Antibiotics have been around long before humans knew about them. In fact, long before humans even existed. Penicillin, the first discovered antibiotic, is produced naturally by a fungus. (And conversely a bunch of bacteria kill fungi.)

    Traces of penicillin were present almost everywhere, if nothing else, because rain got it everywhere. And yet superbugs didn't happen before humans got into antibiotics. Probably evolving the relevant mutations was more of a disadvantage when you _weren't_ on top of a penicillinum patch.

    At any rate, to get back to something a bit more certain, infinitesimal traces of antibiotics in the water or in your body, don't create much of an evolutionary pressure. Bacteria _can_ survive one or two broken penicillin-binding proteins, for example because a freak accident made them meet a penicillin-type mollecule in the water. Heck, they lose some now and then even just to C14 decay, plus other natural causes. They'll just produce more of those proteins. That's what they have ribosomes for.

    The moment when evolution happens is when there's a clear advantage in having a particular mutation. This typically means having a high chance of ending up dead without it. E.g., when you take antibiotics for a pneumonia, the concentrations there are high enough that a heck of a lot of "unprotected" bacteria just die. That's one heck of a natural selection of those who do have defenses. By contrast, being slightly inconvenienced, and only rarely, by traces of antibiotics in water, doesn't quite count as an evolutionary pressure.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Well, I wouldn't worry yet by jbengt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're probably correct about the miniscule antibiotic resistance building trends of miniscule amounts of antibiotics in the water and definitely correct not to worry about addictions to pain killers.

      But that logic doesn't hold for the hormones or hormone-mimicking properties of substances found in the water. Some hormones routinely affect biological processes at concentrations measured in parts per billion. This is especially true in developing organisms, where, e.g., gradients of such miniscule concentrations can determine which end of an embryo is the head and which is the tail.

      The truth is we don't know the effect that these artificial chemicals will have on us or on the environment.

  24. Please read Silent Spring. by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's just ridiculous, when you think about the number of "X milligram of ingredient Y" pills people must be taking for detectable amounts to be showing up in drinking water after being diluted and filtered that many times.

    Women on birth control. Men on aspirin regimens. Antidepressants. Allergy medications. Over the counter painkillers like tylenol and ibuprofin.

    A huge amount of this stuff passes right through our bodies and into the septic system. What about all those bottles of medication that don't get used fully, or sit in your cabinet for those just-in-cases, and then expire? Most people flush the stuff or chuck it in the wastebasket.

    If you don't see the problem there, please go read Silent Spring, right now. Or go read about how PCBs made their way from Springfield, MA to the other side of the planet. Now think about how we tell pregnant women not to eat too much tuna, lest they get a dangerous dosage of mercury that could harm their child. Wake up, man.

  25. My homeopathic message (+5 insightful) by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    a.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  26. Truth by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I used to work for an engineering company that did a lot of work with "hazardous waste remediation". I was the computer guy, but the lab manager was a long-time friend of mine. He had a couple of interesting things to say about the business:

    (1) Now that we are reliably detecting much lower amounts of contaminants, people are demanding that we get rid of them even though they are insignificant. It's an emotional rather than a rational thing.

    Institutions that make their livelihood in this area -- particularly government bureaucracies like the EPA -- are very, very highly motivated to make these small things seem like real problems, because that is how they increase their power and budget.

  27. Re:But then.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ripper: Mandrake?
    Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
    Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
    Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
    Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
    Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
    Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
    Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
    Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
    Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
    Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
    Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
    Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
    Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
    Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
    Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
    Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
    Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
    Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
    Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
    Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  28. It's all local by daemonenwind · · Score: 4, Informative

    Coca-cola is bottled locally pretty much everywhere it's consumed.

    It is, after all, much easier to ship syrup than finished soda.

    All Coca-cola and Dasani is just local water, filtered and with additives (there's a mineral packet for making Dasani). The other major soft drink brands work the same way.

  29. FUD - all tech is about tradeoffs, this is another by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I call FUD.

    Let's remember that our ancestors for millions of years have been drinking water with all sorts of NATURAL pollutants, of varying lethality: mud, feces, ungodly numbers of organisms, any soluble mineral that stream or pond happened to contact, etc, etc, etc.

    Umpteen thousands of generations later, while not perfect, I daresay that the resulting human (or any animal in 2008) digestive tract and immune system is pretty freaking robust and capable of isolating/filtering/rejecting pollutants and contaminants. Despite these pollutants being in our water systems for probably the last 50 years, people are living longer than ever. QED?

    Evolution for the win.

    Granted, of COURSE there are pollutants now (such as microtraces of drugs, etc) that we've never encountered before. But I'm pretty confident that my system will handle it.

    Either that, or kill me. If I handle it and pass those genes onto offspring, it's a win for the species.

    From the moment we stumbled upon the idea of fire, humans have accepted the tradeoffs of technology. We began to cook our food - with a resulting increase of some sort of carcinogen, if my weird vegan hippie friends are right - but what we got was a massive reduction in food poisoning, bacteriological issues, and parasites with eating uncooked meat. The tradeoff was worth it, IMO. We now have electricity, but there are countless effects on the environment and us due to the generation of same....aside from my hippie friends, nobody's advocating banning electricity.

    Considering the general life-improvements most of those drugs have given the human species overall, I think the tradeoff has been worth it.

    --
    -Styopa
  30. Re:But then.... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the dumbass should have brushed his teeth and not ate sweet crap before bed time. Fluoride strengthens teeth when used in a topical application.

  31. Re:But then.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fluoride strengthens teeth when used in a topical application. 'course, that's the whole crux of the matter with fluoridating the water. How much time does your drinking water spend "topically applying" its contents on your teeth? Really fluoride in the water is asinine. Like you say, brush your damn teeth if you want to keep your teeth, and do it with fluoridated dentifrice. As much as I think the fluoride=commie plot people are nuts, I can easily see it as a case of "industry, left with tons of toxic fluorine and no way to dispose of it, comes up with a brilliant idea".
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.