Apr 30, 2008
With summer thirst just around the corner – stay active and stay healthy all season long with filtered water and reusable water bottles for hydration on-the-go. Spring and summer activities require water and lots of it – but that doesn’t mean stocking up on bottled water. Visit our Conscious Consumer Marketplace to find bottled water alternatives and start reducing your carbon footprint.
Bottled water is a huge habit we need to break. Nearly 8.3 million gallons of water went into plastic containers in 2006. That’s not the only drain on resources, though. The energy used to make those bottles and transport that water also takes a heavy toll. Keep carbon out of the air and chemicals out of your water – by filtering your own water right at the tap and using non-plastic reusable water bottles for the whole family.
There are many water filters that can work for your lifestyle. Pur, for one, makes a number of water filtration systems that fit directly on your tap or for storage in your fridge. Also think about getting a durable stainless steel or lined aluminum bottle. Klean Kanteen makes stainless steel bottles—with cool colors for kids to start them on healthy, conscious, smarter habits now. And they’ll save you money too! Drinking bottled water can cost up to $1,400.00 per year; drinking the same amount from the tap costs around $0.59 for the year, according to an article in the New York Times.
Visit our Conscious Consumer Marketplace at www.consciousconsumer.org and get connected with healthier choices for you and the planet – today.
Mar 12, 2008
This quick Fluoride Action Network video shows us some of the major concerns of fluoride in drinking water. Check out the warning label on your toothpaste tube. It notes that the amount of fluoride in a single brushing (.25 mg) should not be swallowed, and if so, the label says you should contact a Poison Control Center. Interestingly, that's the same amount that's in an average glass of tap water. Learn more and watch: http://www.fluoridealert.org/
Sep 21, 2007
The Protect Our Water Alliance (POWA) petition, "Re-Examining
Fluoridation", in its present form, is about 2 years old. It now has over
11,000 signatures and many enthusiastic comments. We want to thank you
again for your valuable signatures!
Many of you may have signed this petition assuming that, like most other
online petitions, it would be delivered to its destination in a very short
time. POWA updates that have gone out to signatories asking for their
further help in gathering signatures have stated that, when we have
sufficient signatures, and "when the time is right", we will submit them.
We feel that because so much time has lapsed since we first started
gathering signatures, we owe you a clear explanation of what our
intentions have been and are now.
POWA's purpose has always been to bring people together in a loose
alliance on issues pertaining to the protection of drinking water,
including, but not necessarily only, water fluoridation.
The small group of us activists who created our "Re-Examining
Fluoridation" petition always imagined that it would be a part of a much
larger national movement, one that would have caught the attention of the
general public, health and scientific personnel, and government officials.
We anticipated that several big events were imminent, and we were trying
to get poised to ride the wave with all the other efforts nationwide that
we assumed would occur as a result of these events.
We could not read the future, so we had no way of knowing: a) that some
very big events would, indeed, occur**; b) that these events would go
largely unnoticed by the media and public; c) that other activist efforts
would also be stymied by a disinterested media. Further, as stated on our
website, POWA is very small group of activist volunteers with other
commitments and never intended to mobilize and organize a huge national
outcry on our own, just be a part of it. After immediate success with the
petition, with the aid of Fluoride Action Network and other organizations
that helped the numbers grow quickly, the numbers have been increasing
steadily, but much more slowly than at first. We are thrilled that we
have reached over 11,000 signatures, but many more would be needed to have
a meaningful, stand-alone petition.
Meanwhile, Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently decided to do a petition
drive of their own, with their petition reflecting the latest events, and
calling for an end to fluoridation as well as for a Congressional
investigation. In contrast, POWA's petition was designed to ask Congress
to "re-examine fluoridation", and to support the EPA Union's repeated call
for a Congressional investigation into the public policy of fluoridation
and a moratorium nationwide on fluoridation programs.
In view of the fact that recent significant events** have changed the
landscape and should be addressed, and in view of FAN's imminent petition
drive, WE HAVE DECIDED TO RETIRE THE "RE-EXAMINING FLUORIDATION" PETITION
AND TO FORWARD THE SIGNATURES TO THE EPA UNION, for them to use to support
their own efforts, possibly in a coordinated way with FAN's petition, if
this is what they choose to do.
Although we are retiring this petition, POWA will remain poised to contact
those on our mailing list about any significant changes regarding
fluoridation policy, or any action alerts we might suggest you follow on
this issue or any other drinking water-related issue. While we will
shortly be changing our website to reflect these developments, POWA itself
will not be fully retired. Meanwhile, you may be interested in signing
FAN's new online petition at www.fluoridealert.org .
We thank you again for your valuable signatures, for your comments on the
petition, and for your help toward bringing on what we hope will be a
major Congressional investigation into the public policy of water
fluoridation, ultimately leading to the demise of this outdated practice.
The POWA Team
** The important events that have occurred since our petition was
launched are: a) in March, 2006, the National Research Council of the
National Academies of Science released a report of their 3-year research
project concerning the toxicity of fluoride in drinking water. This
report was very damning of fluoride and recommended that the EPA lower
their safety level of fluoride in the water. This has not yet been done.
b) In April, 2006, the publication of Dr. Elise Bassin's research showing
a 5-7-fold rise in cases of osteosarcoma (a deadly bone cancer) in young
boys in fluoridated areas. c) As a result of these 2 important events, a
third event arose. In November, 2006, the ADA quietly issued an e-Gram
with a warning about mixing baby formula with fluoridated water and
recommended that unfluoridated bottled water be used. In spite of this
warning, they are still claiming that fluoride is safe and recommending it
Aug 10, 2007
Pepsi Forced to Admit It's Bottling Tap Water
>> By Amy Goodman
>> AMY GOODMAN: The soft drink giant Pepsi has been forced to make an
>> embarrassing admission: Its bestselling Aquafina bottled water is
>> nothing more than tap water. Last week, Pepsi agreed to change the
>> labels of Aquafina to indicate the water comes from a public water
>> source. Pepsi agreed to change its label under pressure from the
>> advocacy group Corporate Accountability International, which has been
>> leading an increasingly successful campaign against bottled water.
>> In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom recently banned city departments
>> from using city money to buy any kind of bottled water. In New York,
>> local residents are being urged to drink tap water. The U.S.
>> Conference of Mayors has passed a resolution that highlighted the
>> importance of municipal water and called for more scrutiny of the
>> impact of bottled water on city waste.
>> The environmental impact of the country's obsession with bottled water
>> has been staggering. Each day an estimated 60 million plastic water
>> bottles are thrown away. Most are not recycled. The Pacific Institute
>> has estimated 20 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the
>> plastic for water bottles.
>> Economically, it makes sense to stop buying bottled water as well. The
>> Arizona Daily Star recently examined the cost difference between
>> bottled water and water from the city's municipal supply. A half-liter
>> of Pepsi's Aquafina at a Tucson convenience store costs $1.39. The
>> bottle contains purified water from the Tucson water supply. >From the
>> tap, you can pour over 6.4 gallons for a penny. That makes the bottled
>> stuff about 7,000 times more expensive, even though Aquafina is using
>> the same water source.
>> Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International joins us in
>> Boston, the group spearheading the Think Outside the Bottle campaign.
>> We're also joined by freelance writer Michael Blanding. Last year he
>> wrote an article for Alternet.org called "The Bottled Water Lie." We
>> welcome you both to Democracy Now!
>> I want to begin with Gigi Kellett. Talk about Pepsi's admission.
>> GIGI KELLETT: Well, after a couple of years of our Think Outside the
>> Bottle campaign, we have been asking of the bottled water corporations
>> to come clean about where they get their water, what is the source of
>> the water that they're bottling, because most people don't know that
>> Pepsi's Aquafina, Coke's Dasani, come from our public water systems.
>> And so, after thousands of phone calls, thousands of public comments
>> submitted to the corporation, and us taking these demands directly to
>> the corporation'
s annual shareholder meeting this year, Pepsi last
>> week made the announcement that it would reveal that it gets its water
>> from our public water systems.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Now, where exactly does Pepsi get it? Which public water
>> GIGI KELLETT: Well, that is the issue that we're really looking at
>> next, is what cities are they bottling the water in. You know, here in
>> Massachusetts, it's coming from Ayre, Mass. So we want to make sure
>> that on those bottles it says: "Public water source: Ayre,
>> Massachusetts." That way, people know exactly what they're getting
>> when they're buying that Aquafina bottled water.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Ayre being the name of a town in Massachusetts.
>> GIGI KELLETT: Ayre is the name of a town, right. Exactly.
>> AMY GOODMAN: And what happens to the town? They have their public
>> water supply, and they have the plant for Pepsi?
>> GIGI KELLETT: That's right. We want to make sure that -- you know,
>> Pepsi has certainly taken a lead on this for the bottled water
>> industry, and we want to make sure that Coke and Nestle also follow
>> suit. One of the things that we're finding as we're talking to people
>> about this issue on the street is that they don't know where the water
>> is coming from. And the bottled water corporations have spent tens of
>> millions of dollars on ads that make people think that bottled water
>> is somehow better, cleaner, safer than our public water systems. And
>> in reality, we know that that's not true. And so, we want to make sure
>> that we're increasing our people's confidence in their public water
>> systems once again and knowing that we need to be investing in our
>> public systems.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Gigi, can you go further on who owns what? You mention
>> Nestle. What does Nestle own?
>> GIGI KELLETT: Nestle owns several dozen brands of bottled water. The
>> bottled water brand they source from our public water systems is
>> called Nestle Pure Life. They also own Poland Spring, Ozarka,
>> Arrowhead. The list goes on. And regionally, it's distributed across
>> the country. And then we also have Coca-Cola, which bottles Dasani
>> water, and, of course, Pepsi with Aquafina.
>> AMY GOODMAN: And when it comes to being tap water, what is the
>> difference between plain tap water and distilled water from these
>> public sources.
>> GIGI KELLETT: Well, there's very little difference. You know, our
>> public water systems go through a very rigorous testing and monitoring
>> system and is tested by the Environmental Protection Agency. So we
>> want to make sure that people know that our public water systems are
>> much better regulated than these bottled water brands, which don't
>> have to go through the same rigorous type of process.
>> AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Gigi Kellett, associate campaigns
>> director of Corporate Accountability International. Michael Blanding,
>> a freelance writer, has written the piece "The Bottled Water Lie."
>> Michael, what is the lie?
>> MICHAEL BLANDING: Well, there are actually several lies, I think, that
>> the bottled water companies perpetrate, but I think the main one is
>> exactly what Gigi said, that this image bolstered by, you know,
>> millions and millions of dollars of advertising that bottled water is
>> somehow better for you, it tastes better, it's more pure. And in many
>> cases, that's simply not true. People are paying enormous premiums for
>> bottled water and don't even realize the fact that in many cases not
>> only does tap water taste the same, but that it's actually more
>> tightly regulated and actually healthier for you. There have been, you
>> know, several cases of bottled water that's actually been contaminated
>> and found to contain hazardous chemicals. And tap water, there's
>> actually a rigorous testing and monitoring of the water supply that
>> actually in many cases makes it healthier.
>> AMY GOODMAN: When we come back from break, I want to talk about some
>> of those cases of contamination, but also talk about the community
>> struggles that are working to take back their water supply. Our guests
>> are Michael Blanding, who wrote "The Bottled Water Lie," and Gigi
>> Kellett of Corporate Accountability International. Stay with us.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Now, Michael, you begin your piece by talking about
>> Antonia Mahoney. Talk about who she is.
>> MICHAEL BLANDING: She was someone who was just walking down the street
>> in downtown Boston when the folks at Corporate Accountability -- Gigi
>> and the folks in her group -- were holding something called the Tap
>> Water Challenge, which was a taste test between tap water and various
>> bottled water brands, Aquafina and Dasani. And I stood there during
>> the afternoon and watched many people come up who were bottled water
>> drinkers and could swear that they could tell the difference and that
>> they could recognize their brand.
>> And Antonia Mahoney was one of those who -- she actually had given off
>> drinking tap water a few years ago and was drinking only Poland Spring
>> and knew that she would be able to tell Poland Spring from all the
>> other types of water that she was drinking there. And it turned out
>> that what she thought was Poland Spring was actually the tap water
>> from Boston, the good old tap water, which -- we actually have very
>> good tap water that comes from western Mass here. So she was very
>> surprised and shocked, and decided right there that she was going to
>> leave off her contract of paying $30 a month for Poland Spring water,
>> which she got delivered to her house. So it was very -- and there were
>> other experiences like that during the day that I witnessed.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Michael, you write about the problems of a suspected
>> carcinogen chemical, bromate. You talk about the contamination of
>> Dasani water, owned by Coca-Cola, in 2004. Explain what the problems
>> are, the contamination issues.
>> MICHAEL BLANDING: So, ironically, one of the processes that actually
>> takes the tap water and purifies it -- it's called ozonation -- can
>> actually in some cases have a byproduct, which is bromate, which is,
>> as you say, a suspected carcinogen. And the largest case of
>> contamination was in the U.K. in 2004, right when Dasani launched in
>> the United Kingdom. They had something like a half-million bottles of
>> Dasani water actually found to be contaminated, and people were
>> getting sick. And it's just indicative of the lack of controls and the
>> lack of monitoring that you find with bottled water.
>> And it's not an isolated case. There have been many others that have
>> occurred. Most recently up in Upstate New York, with an independent
>> bottled water company, there were multiple cases of bromate
>> contamination, as well.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the issue of filtering? First of all,
>> I don't know if people realize when something says "public water
>> source" that it means tap water. But then, what it means for that tap
>> water to be filtered -- you talk about additional techniques like
>> MICHAEL BLANDING: Right, yeah. So there are various techniques that
>> the companies use, and they tout them as these proprietary techniques
>> that they go through seven different phases of filtering, and all the
>> rest of it. And when you look at it, though -- reverse osmosis is the
>> main one, which is basically just pushing water through a membrane to
>> remove contaminants, and it's actually very similar to the type of
>> process that can be found in home water filters, just the kind that
>> you attach to your tap for a couple of hundred bucks. So -- it's not
>> as sophisticated as they might pretend that it is.
>> AMY GOODMAN: And internationally, the movements, from Bolivia to Peru,
>> La Paz, all over.
>> MICHAEL BLANDING: Yeah. What's interesting is that, here in the United
>> States, there are several communities that have actually had plants
>> take a lot of water from their groundwater up in Michigan where they
>> can actually see the water level of one of their streams declining
>> because of the massive amount that Nestle was taking from their water.
>> And it's even a more critical issue in other countries where water
>> scarcity is a real problem, so places like India, where Coca-Cola and
>> Pepsi have actually really depleted communities, and farmers have been
>> unable to grow their crops, it's kind of been a double whammy. They've
>> taken the water, and then the water that they -- the waste water
>> they've dumped back has been polluted, in many cases. And so, that's
>> one issue, is just the depletion of water from the plants themselves.
>> And then the other issue, which I know Gigi could talk about, is just
>> the perception that comes across that somehow tap water is --
>> municipal water is somehow not as good as water that's been
>> privatized. And so, you have -- it sort of starts this steady creep of
>> where privatization of water sources becomes OK. And there have been
>> many communities, like in Bolivia, where water supplies have been
>> privatized and have been sold back to -- water that was previously
>> free has, you know, skyrocketed in price. And people have taken to the
>> streets and protested and actually got the private companies to leave.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Gigi Kellett, let's talk about the tainting of the image
>> of the municipal water supply in this country, the effect of the
>> bottled water advertising industry campaigns.
>> GIGI KELLETT: Well, this is something that's of real concern to our
>> organization and our members and activists across the country, because
>> we are seeing this -- who are we turning to to provide our drinking
>> water? And there are -- these bottled water corporations are spending
>> tens of millions of dollars every year on ads that effectively
>> undermine people's confidence in their water.
>> There was actually a poll done by the University of Arkansas earlier
>> this year that found young people tend to choose bottled water over
>> tap water, because they feel it's somehow cleaner or better than their
>> public water systems. And as we've already mentioned here, we know
>> that in reality that's not true. So there is a real concern about the
>> impact that these bottled water corporations are having on the way we
>> think about water.
>> And our Think Outside the Bottle campaign is aiming to change that,
>> and we're having real success with cities like San Francisco and Ann
>> Arbor, Mich., and New York City, taking a lead on putting their public
>> water systems back in the forefront and not contracting with bottled
>> water corporations, for example, like in Salt Lake City and in San
>> Francisco. And we're seeing restaurants turn to the tap in lieu of
>> bottled water. So there's a lot that people are starting to look at in
>> terms of this industry and what changes we can make to promote our own
>> public water systems here in this country and make sure that they have
>> the funding they need to thrive, and that also we're looking
>> internationally to make sure that countries that may be cash-strapped
>> also have the resources they need to have good, strong public water
>> systems and not turn to privatization.
>> AMY GOODMAN: Gigi, tell us about what happened in Salt Lake City and
>> in San Francisco, with the mayor announcing that city money cannot be
>> used to buy bottled water.
>> GIGI KELLETT: That's right. You know, the mayor of San Francisco,
>> Gavin Newsom, after we had been working with his staff there, working
>> with the San Francisco Department of the Environment and the San
>> Francisco Public Utilities Commission, they looked at how much money
>> they were spending on bottled water every year. It was close to a
>> half-million dollars. And they said, "We're the forefront. We're
>> cities. We're the forefront of ensuring that people have access to
>> good, safe, clean water. And we're also now at the forefront of
>> dealing with the waste that results from the bottled water industry.
>> So we need to take a stand as a city." And in June, Mayor Newsom
>> issued an executive order saying that the city would no longer be
>> buying bottled water. And he joined with the mayor of Salt Lake City,
>> Rocky Anderson, and also the mayor of Minneapolis, R.T. Rybak, to put
>> forward a resolution at the U.S. Conference of Mayors calling on a
>> study to really look at what are the impacts of bottled water on our
>> municipal waste. So it's a real great leadership that we're seeing of
>> these cities.
>> AMY GOODMAN: And, Gigi, what about the effect that the water in the
>> plastic bottle has? Is there any kind of leeching out? People think
>> that they're getting healthier water in all sorts of ways, but what
>> about the impact of that plastic?
>> GIGI KELLETT: Well, there are a number of concerns about the impact of
>> the plastic, yes, of course, in the leeching. These bottles that are
>> made are single-serve bottles, so they're not intended to be reused,
>> because of the potential for leeching of the plastic into -- when
>> you're drinking the water. And then, of course, there are the
>> environmental impacts of the bottles that are ending up in our
>> landfills and on the side of the road as litter. They're not being
>> recycled. Only about 23 percent of these plastic bottles are being
>> recycled. So it's a huge impact for our environment and, of course,
>> for people's health. So we want people to be looking at turning back
>> to the tap and thinking outside the bottle.
>> Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news
>> program, Democracy Now!
>> © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
Dec 8, 2006
Infants Should Not Have Flouridated Tap Water Warns American Dental Association
<br /> <br /> By <br /> , 11/13/2006 <br /> <a href=""> Straight to the Source </a>
New York – November 13, 2006 – To prevent tooth damage, the American Dental Association (ADA) warned its members that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies one year and younger, in a November 9th ADA e-mail alert.(1)
“But who will alert parents,” asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
Two-thirds of U.S. public water suppliers add fluoride chemicals, based on a disproved theory that fluoride ingestion prevents cavities. Bottled water with added fluoride is now sold with specific instructions to mix into infant formula.(2)
The ADA reports, “…infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with water containing fluoride during a time that their developing teeth may be susceptible to enamel fluorosis.”(3) The ADA recommends using fluoride-free water.
Enamel or dental fluorosis is white spotting, yellow, brown and/or pitted permanent teeth. Pictures: http://www.fluoridation.com/teeth.htm
NYSCOF news releases in 2000 and 2004 (4,5) cited studies linking fluorosis to infant foods mixed with fluoridated water. Scientific evidence here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/
Some scientists also tried in vain to get the word out sooner as described in “Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants with Fluoride,” published in 1997 in the Journal Accountability in Research.(10)
It took until 2006 for the ADA’s alert, following the Food and Drug Administration’s October disapproval of fluoridated bottled water marketed to babies,(6) and after the recent National Research Council’s (NRC) fluoride report indicating babies are fluoride overdosed from “optimally” fluoridated water supplies.(7)
“The ADA claims the NRC report didn’t question the safety of fluoridation(8) but it did, as the ADA now admits,” says Beeber.
“The NRC also revealed fluoridation’s adverse effects to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others,” says Beeber.
Now, the Centers for Disease Control reports that modern science shows that fluoride absorbs into enamel topically.(9) However, adverse effects occur upon ingestion. Further, the CDC admits enamel fluoride concentration is not inversely related to cavities.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required to consider the most vulnerable populations when setting allowable water fluoride levels. To protect babies, allowable water fluoride levels must be near zero.
The Environmental Working Group analyzed government data in March 2006 and found that babies are over-exposed to fluoride in most major U.S. cities.(11)
“This should end water fluoridation,” says Beeber. “Fluoridation is a failed concept that must be abandoned before more Americans are harmed,” says Beeber.
Contact: Lawyer Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network www.FluorideAction.Net email@example.com
SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas from Lack of Dental Care
Dec 8, 2006 12:10pm
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
, whats more
|SHARES FROM PELAGUS'S NETWORK
New Petition! Speak out
Merger with Comcast! Let
your opinion be know
before your bill goes up
and your programming
DOJ and FCC to Not Allow
Merger of Time-Warner and
\\nI have recently posted
some BlogSpot radio
interviews and YouTube
videos, publicizing my
two new books,\\r\\n1)
Deepening Your Personal
Emotional Intimacy and
Through Creative S...
\\nCoretta Scott King:
“We have done what
we can to reveal the
truth, and we now urge
you as members of the
media, and we call upon
elected officials, and
other persons of
influence to do what they
can to share the
revelation of this case
to the ...
\\nWe declare that no
man nor nation nor race
have a greater right than
others to enjoy the
fruits of their work, as
the ecological sphere is
our common condition of
epidemic of sky-rocketing
medical costs has
afflicted our country and
grown to obscene
bills are bloated with
profiteering, fraud and
Much is wrong with t...
n\\r\\nMy two current
books have been published
and are available for
sale through Amazon,
Barnes and Noble, and the
Hammer. Reading these
books can be very helpful
\\nA stainless steel tank
the size of a basketball
court lies buried in the
sandy soil of
state, an aging remnant
of U.S. efforts to win
World War II. The tank
holds enough radioactive
waste to fill an
Peninsula is home to
d forests and many of our
iconic creatures. To keep
healthy, WEC and our
st and Olympic Forest