Toxic tap water in Australia

[Corey Batt]

Building on what Meconium has said, the only reason we have a water filter is because Adelaide water is undrinkable.

When we moved into our house we had to wait two weeks to get the filter on, thought nothing of it till we tried it, then ended up getting some goons of water.

 

[weg]

She asked how often it was cleaned, "weekly", she was stunned at how much gunk accumulated on the filter in so short a time.

As another friend has said, if people who drink tap water ever see the amount of cr*p a filter removes, they would never drink tap water again.

I think I'd rather drink the impurities than have the water filter through 'gunk', that's been sitting in a dark, moist environment.

At a guess I'd say some of that gunk wasn't gunk to start with.

We have one of those filters at work and I've never seen anyone clean it .

 

[Invest]

OK, I'll come clean.

I'm a member of the Illiterati.

Judging by your nickname you're a member of a Dunnydoore club

 

[Sunfish]

I think I'd rather drink the impurities than have the water filter through 'gunk', that's been sitting in a dark, moist environment.

At a guess I'd say some of that gunk wasn't gunk to start with.

We have one of those filters at work and I've never seen anyone clean it .

Provided there is a steady flow of oxygenated water through it, that "gunk" works as a biological filter. When cleaning the canisters scrub in water that has been allowed to stand for ten minutes so the chlorine can evaporate off. This way the aerobic bacteria will still be alive and able to do more than simple mechanical filtration.

If I thought there was a possibility of bacteria in my supply I would ALWAYS drink filtered water.

BTW After months there is no sediment in the bottom of our filter and not a lot on the candle. Not sure why the family bothers.

 

[jaycee]

I think I'd rather drink the impurities than have the water filter through 'gunk', that's been sitting in a dark, moist environment.

At a guess I'd say some of that gunk wasn't gunk to start with.

We have one of those filters at work and I've never seen anyone clean it .

Well, your guesses are basically


guesses


There are answers to your questions, but you posed them as if they were statements.

 

[Doncossack]

I don't see endemic illness across our society as a result (other than in the obese perhaps but I'm not sure that's about the water)...

Have you seen the latest cancer statistics?? Any connection?? I still can't believe parents let their children eat fruit loops and coco pops with a couple spoons of sugar for breakfast...

 

[Corey Batt]

Cancer rates have increased in perception only, this is due to better screening methods, discoveries of new forms of cancer etc. If you look at deaths per capita, the rate is falling.

In the 1700's the cancer rate would have been about zilch, would have been blamed on some obscure ailment such as too much masturbation etc.

 

[Perp]

To apply your theory consistently, do we then have to "shutup" and not complain about pretty much anything here when thereare so many worse examples in the world

No, I'm not suggesting that, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

What I am suggesting is that we keep some perspective, and not use overly emotive language for what are really pretty minor issues. If people made statements like "I'm concerned that fluoride may cause long-term effects that we don't know about", or "I really don't think that fluoridation is necessary", I'd listen with respect to that view, even if I didn't agree. But unfortunately such moderate language is unlikely to prevail in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, so if you're going to "get your way", you have to ramp it up.

So instead of gracefully accepting that you were unable to convince the majority, you invent a big nasty conspiracy to try and impose your will by painting the majority as having an abhorrent position. You get emotive and hysterical and say things like "the government is engaging in a conspiracy to poison the population to keep them dumb and docile", and then the majority have to either say that they want the population poisoned, or if they say that they don't advocate poisoning but believe that fluoride does more good than harm based on scientific evidence, then you can say that it's because they're dumb and docile from the poisoning by the government. It's a classic bullying tactic.

In a democracy, you can't please everybody, and sometimes the minority have to "suck it up", in the absence of compelling evidence of the rightness of their opposing position. Write a letter or organise a petition if you really feel the need, but don't invent conspiracies to try and convince your fellow citizens that this is a really important, life-or-death issue, and suggest that people who won't give you your way are just trying to kill you, or are stupid.

Some of the main effects of fluoride is making people dumb and docile. The Nazis used in it concentration camps to keep the public dopey and slow.

I love the ignorance in this thread.

it's your life... next time you are in a hospital or a on a death bed, I wish you luck... pump up the morphine dosage, if that fails, there is a large number of synthetic opiods available for the terminally ill.

Bullies get very nasty when they don't get their way.

 

[Dazz]

Nice post Perp.

In a democracy, you can't please everybody, and sometimes the minority have to "suck it up"...

...tell me about it....


72 seats each and still we need to "suck it up". Get over 50% in a two-party preferred and also get the majority primary vote....and still....we need to suck it up.


Not happy Jan. Where's my mate Gordo, I feel like a political chat again.

 

[Invest]

Cancer rates have increased in perception only, this is due to better screening methods, discoveries of new forms of cancer etc. If you look at deaths per capita, the rate is falling.

In the 1700's the cancer rate would have been about zilch, would have been blamed on some obscure ailment such as too much masturbation etc.

Screening methods? Every time women go to get a mammogram they are in fact increasing not only their risk of breast cancer but other cancers in the body due to the radiation during screening.
And what's laughable is by the time the doctors do find a lump in a woman's breast, pretty much by then it's too late to "treat" it with conventional medicine anyway.
You are right about there virtually be no cancer in the 17000s. Cancer is a new age disease that has taken off at the start of the 19th century.

Wonna know something? The "treatment" of cancer by the conventional methods (chemo, radiation, drugs, surgery) has been EXACTLY the same since the 1960s... big money in the cancer business I hear too.

 

[tom32]

Screening methods? Every time women go to get a mammogram they are in fact increasing not only their risk of breast cancer but other cancers in the body due to the radiation during screening.
And what's laughable is by the time the doctors do find a lump in a woman's breast, pretty much by then it's too late to "treat" it with conventional medicine anyway.
You are right about there virtually be no cancer in the 17000s. Cancer is a new age disease that has taken off at the start of the 19th century.

Wonna know something? The "treatment" of cancer by the conventional methods (chemo, radiation, drugs, surgery) has been EXACTLY the same since the 1960s... big money in the cancer business I hear too.

There is another simple explanation.

People live a lot longer now. Yes there is luekemia and a few other forms of cancer you can get young but overwhelmingly at about age 50 your risk of cancer increases parabolically.

Clearly any society at any time with an average life expectancy under 50 (most of the world in the 18th century) would not have high rates of cancer because you died of an arrow in the eye, the plague, leprocy or from some other diabolical means before cancer even had a chance.

Now after all that I am quite certian in my own mind (indeed the science is settled!) that the likes of diesel engines and other modern contraptions put many carcinogenic things into the air which would not have been there in the 19th C (Coal sure and its likely no good either!). So industrialisation and many of the things that brings would almost certainly also increase the incidence but predominantly the larger rates are as is explained above, knowledge and the age profile of the community.

 

[Invest]

There is another simple explanation.

People live a lot longer now. Yes there is luekemia and a few other forms of cancer you can get young but overwhelmingly at about age 50 your risk of cancer increases parabolically.

Clearly any society at any time with an average life expectancy under 50 (most of the world in the 18th century) would not have high rates of cancer because you died of an arrow in the eye, the plague, leprocy or from some other diabolical means before cancer even had a chance.

Now after all that I am quite certian in my own mind (indeed the science is settled!) that the likes of diesel engines and other modern contraptions put many carcinogenic things into the air which would not have been there in the 19th C (Coal sure and its likely no good either!). So industrialisation and many of the things that brings would almost certainly also increase the incidence but predominantly the larger rates are as is explained above, knowledge and the age profile of the community.

People live just as long as they have lived 100 years ago, except one hundred years ago they included infant deaths as part of the over all statistics. So for instance, in the 1910 if one person lived until 80 yo and a second person was a child who died at 2 years of age then the median number for the longevity was 40 years old for that study.

While I agree that many people in the past centuries died from mere accidents and bacterial infections, but when it comes to everyday carcinogens, it really doesn't play that much of a role. Look at people in Okinawa Japan, they live the longest in the entire world, yet the area where they live is HEAVILY industrialized and therefore polluted... so that diesel and petrol fumes aren't making a big difference at all, in fact I cant quote exactly, but from my memory, carcinogens such as pollution attribute to about 5% of all cancers in humans. Not much really.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Clearly any society at any time with an average life expectancy under 50 (most of the world in the 18th century) would not have high rates of cancer because you died of an arrow in the eye,

Dying from an arrow in the eye would be a pretty sweet way to go.

 

[weg]

Wonna know something? The "treatment" of cancer by the conventional methods (chemo, radiation, drugs, surgery) has been EXACTLY the same since the 1960s... big money in the cancer business I hear too.

Dentistry is the same - they just want you to take fluoride so they keep fixing your teeth. Both benefit except the poor sod that's still getting ripped off, often well past their 80's .

Yes there is big money involved and it is big business, but if it wasn't the case there wouldn't be much of an incentive to find treatments/cures.

People live just as long as they have lived 100 years ago, except one hundred years ago they included infant deaths as part of the over all statistics. So for instance, in the 1910 if one person lived until 80 yo and a second person was a child who died at 2 years of age then the median number for the longevity was 40 years old for that study..

How about all those in between 2 and 80 that died of tooth abcesses, cancer, cholera, smallpox, typhoid fever, typhus, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, pneumonia, meningitis, dysentery, diptheria, and rheumatic fever, to name a few. The median is just that.

My mother had TB wipe out many in her home town 70 years ago - 4 out of 5 family members of the one family died at a neighbouring home. She lost two immediate family members from what appeared to be meningitis and cancer.

 

[tom32]

Dying from an arrow in the eye would be a pretty sweet way to go.

Yes it's the choisest death for Saxon kings.

 

[tom32]

In fairness it is not impossible we would poison ourselves with our own drinking water. Up untill the not to distant past we used lead pipes.

Some claim it was lead pipes that led the Romans to go madand yet we went on using them for water supply till the 20th century.

So I guess I am not losing sleep over it as I am sure I do more harm to myself smoking than drinking water but it is possible in 2000 years the people of the time will say those stupid 20th / 21st century nutters actually used flouride to clean their teeth and worse put it in the drinking water supplies. It i possible is all I am saying...

Hey another one from a book I am reading at the moment 100 mistakes that changed history (no flouride is not in there) but what is was during the plague in Europe cats were killed by the thousands because they thought they carried the plague. The irony was, the rats were carrying fleas that carried the plague and it is liklely teh killing of the cities cat populations led to a worse outcome than otherwise.

 

[Invest]

Dentistry is the same - they just want you to take fluoride so they keep fixing your teeth. Both benefit except the poor sod that's still getting ripped off, often well past their 80's .

Yes there is big money involved and it is big business, but if it wasn't the case there wouldn't be much of an incentive to find treatments/cures.





How about all those in between 2 and 80 that died of tooth abcesses, cancer, cholera, smallpox, typhoid fever, typhus, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, pneumonia, meningitis, dysentery, diptheria, and rheumatic fever, to name a few. The median is just that.

My mother had TB wipe out many in her home town 70 years ago - 4 out of 5 family members of the one family died at a neighbouring home. She lost two immediate family members from what appeared to be meningitis and cancer.

No the dentists used mercury amalgams... so people can enjoy the sweet, slow poisoning

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Yes it's the choisest death for Saxon kings.

Hey Tom, I thought of another way - Night Rider ala Mad Max. Go out in a blaze of glory, having lived the outlaw life.

 

[rugrat]

Invest - you are just full of conspiracies! Oh, well. at least you have something to occupy your time. Personally I'll take my chances with the dentists, the doctors, the cancer dianosis/treatments, and flouride in the water. Because in my own limited personal experience, all of these things have only ever HELPED myself or those I love. Without these things the life expectancy amongst my family and friends would have already have been significantly reduced. For now i am just greatful we have these things as they have helped many I know personally live through some horrible experiences that would have been a death sentence otherwise.

 

[pennyk]

. Look at people in Okinawa Japan, they live the longest in the entire world, yet the area where they live is HEAVILY industrialized and therefore polluted... so that diesel and petrol fumes aren't making a big difference at all, in fact I cant quote exactly, but from my memory, carcinogens such as pollution attribute to about 5% of all cancers in humans. Not much really.

Have you been to Okinawa? I have, several times, and I wouldnt call it heavily industrialised.
two thirds of the island are taken up by US military golf courses. The average Japanese home there is probably 2x as big as on the Japanese mainland.
The main industries are fishing and growing fruit, and taking care of the US military bases.
I've been there several times and I've never seen any heavy industry on the island. Its essentially a tropical paradise, Japanese style.
I think you might need to relook at your sources of information. Most of them, on cancer at least, seem to be somewhat inaccurate, based on your comments on the Smoking thread as well.