Unusual problem - Simple solution

LenTesta · Post by **LenTesta** » Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:18 pm

Bill:

Yes I have heard of Poland's Springs. As far as I have heard it is good tasting water.

The main reason that I filter my tap water is also the taste. But the added benefit of removing all the other "stuff" can't hurt too much. I take minerals in liquid form, so I am not worried by the lack of them in my water. I used to enjoy the Cranberry Breeze(TM) brand of drink from Crystal Light which comes in powdered form and is mixed with water. Before filtering the water from my tap, the mixture had a bitter taste due to the chlorine. After using filtered water the same mixture now had no bitter taste. We use filtered water in our coffemaker, and all of our recipes. All our food and drinks taste much better now for only pennies a gallon.

If I had to use Poland Springs water to boil maccaroni, I would have to charge my students $200 a month for lessons.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:44 pm

Lenny

I'd be interested in Ian's response. Ian, by the way, is a 4th year med student and an extremely bright guy. He's also very lifestyle conscious.

From the standpoint of physiology, there is no reverse pathway to the bloodstream for solvents via the pores. Perhaps the expression "absorbing it through the pores" is a bit of vernacular language. But technically speaking, that doesn't happen.

It IS possible to absorb some things through your skin. The whole science of skin lotions is all about getting the right solvent to carry the desired chemical past the outer layer of skin and down a few millimeters. There are a few medicines (and even one vaccine I believe) that are given on the skin with the idea that the solvent carries it all the way to the blood stream. An extreme example of this is the "super solvent" DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide). That solvent is so powerful, that it is banned for use on humans because basically any contaminant that is in it will be carried into your bloodstream when it contacts your skin. So if you ever are asked if you want to use some DMSO for an athletic injury...don't!

Chlorine is like CO2 in that it is a dissolved gas in water. Just as leaving a soda can open long enough will make it go "flat", so leaving tap water out (or heating it) will make it lose its chlorine. Can it be absorbed by the skin? I don't know, but I'm doubtful that any appreciable amount can make it.

Having large amounts (how much) of organic solvents in your water can be a bad thing in that it could possibly carry bad things in with it. But I'm doubtful that large enough amounts would be present to create a significant bathing hazard. You would need orders of magnitude more than what would be considered unsafe for drinking to make such a thing dangerous for bathing. The skin generally isn't a very efficient device for carrying anything into your bloodstream. Only the supersolvents make this even worth talking about.

- Bill

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Tue Jul 11, 2000 11:13 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LenTesta:
water absorbed through the pores while showering went to the bloodstream with the contaminants (chlorine), unlike water that was consumed which had contaminants filtered out by the kidneys and liver before hydrating the body (calling this “pure water”). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Water molecules are all the same; nothing in the universe can tell one from another (not counting isotopes--not relevant here). Once an H2O is inside you it behaves like every other one regardless of source; water has no memory, and it all goes directly into hydrating you. The molecules also freely mingle across cell membranes and your body cannot keep two populations separate.

The contaminants contained in shower water are much less important than those you drink or eat because of the vastly larger quantities in consumed items than absorbed ones. I don't how much water we absorb in our skin, but the net transfer of water through the skin is OUT--of ways we lose water, evaporation through the skin is second only to urine.

Other important thing: what kidneys and livers cleanse: a fraction of the plasma that enters the kidney is sieved into the urinary tract; the kidney retrieves all the good stuff and leaves the waste, which is urine. To be filtered by the kidney, a substance has to be in the plasma; if it's stuck to proteins (don't get filtered) it stays; if it's fat soluble and preferentially hangs out in your rear and not your blood, it stays. What matters is not where a substance came from, (skin or gut) but whether or not it ends up in the plasma.

Your liver also filters the blood in a sense, but also acts on many protein bound items and fattier compounds. All the blood carrying absorbed substances from the gut passes through the liver first, so in a sense things you drink do get cleansed first by the liver--but the liver can't destroy elements like Cl and metals, and a big part of the toxicity of other compounds is what they do to the liver *itself* in the process of being metabolized, so this doesn't help. Tylenol, for example, if taken in large doses kills the liver off and would be rendered harmless if we could slow the rate at which the liver metabolized it. Passing through the liver first doesn't help in this case; if anything it hurts. Do not make a suicide gesture with tylenol.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
When considering what path water takes before entering your body, it makes sense to have point of use filtration systems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. But having one of these and doing 1% of the dumb things an average American does would be like driving a motorcycle drunk without a helmet but refusing to travel in planes (safest way to travel) because they sometimes crash. I'm not against filters, I just think we're often scared by the wrong things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

When you get out of a pond or lake with fresh water how does your skin feel? It feels fresh and rejuvenated.

Well that of course depends. If you've got algae or dirt on you, got Giardia and chronic diarrhea from the animal waste contaminants, or little schistosomes burrowed into your skin, or you got fatal amoebic meningitis, you might be nostalgic for Cl2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Answer this please Ian:
Will the contaminates of this water (steaming water which opens the pores) that we shower in, which contains Lead and Mercury or PCB’s or VOC’s (volatile organic compounds, I.E. Toluene, Benzene etc.) and chlorine, be directly inserted to the blood stream through the pores? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't worry about it at all. We don't absorb through the pores. And remember that residue on the handle of the gas dispenser the last time you filled up? You absorbed more there than you could find in your water for a year. Or think of this: every minute you shower, you're avoiding UV light that will cause cancer. Or think of all the chemical soaps you smear on yourself before and after your shower. The toxin risk from showering is negligible; I'd worry more about falling, hitting my head and drowning, if I worried about showers at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And how much of these contaminates will be filtered out by the kidneys or liver before the liver and kidneys start retaining the contaminates in water we consume?

When in doubt…err on the side of safety…No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mechanics of excretion are extremely complicated and vary by the substance. Suffice to say that for most things we excrete, the rate of excretion doubles as the rate of intake doubles. Think of the kidney--if the plasma concentration doubles the filtered amount doubles too. There are some exceptions, like toxins that just acumulate, or ones we degrade a constant amount of per unit time regardless of the amount in the system (think: one drink per hour).

In any case we can't utilize every possible safety measure. Otherwise we'd sleep at work because it eliminates the very real risk of car crash inherent in two trips per day. Water filters, to my knowledge, pose no risks, but in my mind the benefits (except maybe taste) are small enough that all the similarly worthwhile adjustments, if made, would make our lives unlivable.

LenTesta · Post by **LenTesta** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 2:46 pm

IAN:
After reading your responses, I now understand that H20 consumed by the body will hydrate no matter what it contains. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.

Where do you think the chlorine and other contaminates in the water will go once they are in the body? Is it possible that the body will retain some chemicals? If it were, why would anybody in their right mind want to consume mass quantities of possibly contaminated water every day for their entire life?

You state,
In any case, we cannot utilize every possible safety measure. Otherwise, we would sleep at work because it eliminates the very real risk of car crash inherent in two trips per day. Water filters, to my knowledge, pose no risks, but in my mind the benefits (except maybe taste) are small enough that all the similarly worthwhile adjustments, if made, would make our lives unlivable.

If we chose to stay at work because we want to cut down on the chances of being killed while driving to work…that is a choice we can make. When we drink water that is deemed by the government to be OK to consume because it contains some carcinogens that are measured in the PPM (parts per million), we have also have a choice…filter out the contaminates, or buy bottled water. Do you really believe that MILLIONS of people who purchase bottled water, do so just for the taste?

I work as a Senior Chemical Technician in the Environmental Department of a Chemical Manufacturing plant. We wear rubber gloves while touching anything in the plant to keep the skin from being desensitized to these chemicals, which may linger on the equipment. I chose to wear the equipment because I know if I am wearing it there will be no damage done to my skin. I can just as easily ignore the safety rules and use my bare hands. Why would I want top risk chemical exposure if I do not have to? I have been in the industry since 1976 and have no ill effects from the chemicals because of the protective equipment. Some other workers whom have been in the industry only 5 years have contracted eczema when working with the same chemicals and the same protective equipment because they have skin that is more sensitive.

My wife has very sensitive skin. Showering with municipally treated water made her skin very dry. This is manly due to the high chlorine content of the water. After installing a two-stage shower filter, she does not have a problem anymore. She also cannot use some types of soap or laundry detergent because she breaks out with a rash when she uses them. I agree with you 100% when you state that the soap you use can be more detrimental to your health than the water you drink. Most soaps are caustic and do more damage to these sensitive skin individuals than the water does. However, why compound the problem with highly chlorinated water. But chlorine is not the only problem.

I have worked with DMSO and I agree with Bill when he states that it is extremely dangerous because it carries anything that may be on your skin (I.E. ink from a pen) directly into the body. Methanol also is a carrier. Sometimes these chemicals do get into our water. DMSO is very miscible (which makes it hard to separate) in water. The chemical industry has improved their waste disposal 1000% over the last 10 years. Fines of many thousands of dollars have been levied for excursions (spills). Dichloromethane, and Acetone which is a solvent used in paint remover, cannot be dumped into the drains. A quantity of 5 oz of Dichloromethane into a process drain will be enough to cause a report to the DEP. Does this mean that this chemical will NEVER reach our water supply. It is not these chemical companies that I am concerned with anymore. It is the MILLIONS of households that use the products from these chemical companies that are the main reason that the water supply is treated before it is sent to public. These harmful chemicals, dumped down the drains by uncaring and unknowledgeable homeowners. In some areas it is also known that some people have been dumping used motor oil into the storm drains. In addition, pesticide and lawn care chemicals are used in abundance more now than ever before. Do you think that these chemicals do not readily mix with the water that is upstream from our reservoirs?

Water treatment facilities do a good job of removing MOST of these chemicals, but some will be allowed to reach the consumer, as outlined by the low level contaminate guidelines set forth by the US government.
Now this treated and tested water has to travel through some outdated and sometimes broken piping to reach your home. Who knows what is in these old pipes that water can pick up? Also as I have explained in previous posts, the pipes in the older homes cause drinking water problems.
Treatment facilities add chlorine to kill bacteria, which is the most harmful contaminate in water. On a similar note, where does the water from cooling towers and air conditioning units end up eventually? We all know that bacteria in the water will kill us (remember Legionnaires Disease, which was airborne bacteria from cooling tower water). Why would you want to risk inserting other contaminates into the body (assuming that the body can dispose of these) day after day, for the rest of your life. Yes it is true that tap water will hydrate you. Yes again it is true that drinking tap water wont kill you. It is also true that the tap water in some areas do contain microorganisms that will cause diarrhea or mild stomach disorders. The first time I drank the tap water in Phoenix Arizona, I spent the entire week with diarrhea. Maybe the locals are immune to the particular type of microorganism that they have been consuming for their entire lives and my body was not. Does this mean that they shouldn’t filter their water? I brought along a water filter with me the next time I visited Arizona, and I had no ill effects from drinking the water thereafter.

I will now sum up this long post.

Ian states…Water filters, to my knowledge; pose no risks associated with drinking filtered municipally treated water.

Then I state…If there is POSSIBLE BENEFITS gained by filtering this water, we should conclude that we should be filtering our water for consumption. Also if you are one of those sensitive skin types, you should also consider filtering your shower water as well.

In conclusion, to get back to the original message Bill was trying to convey as the subject of this thread, we must drink plenty of water while exercising and/or working in extreme heat to replace the water that our body excretes. If this water is pure, the benefits will be greater. Why risk the possibilities of having anything foreign enter your body. It is only common sense.

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 2:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LenTesta:
IAN: Where do you think the chlorine and other contaminates in the water will go once they are in the body? Is it possible that the body will retain some chemicals? If it were, why would anybody in their right mind want to consume mass quantities of possibly contaminated water every day for their entire life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where they go depends on the specific contaminant. It is certain that we retain some chemicals (among them water and minerals). It is also certain that all water is contaminated. It's a question of how much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Do you really believe that MILLIONS of people who purchase bottled water, do so just for the taste?

I'll never go by what millions of people do. Millions of people who smoke dumped their apple juice down the drain because it had Alar in it. This country obliterated the manufacturer of breast implants never shown to cause any health problems. Millions of people refuse to wear their seatbelts because they fear getting trapped in the vehicle. I've also heard a lot of bottled water is bottled tap water anyway (60 minutes?)--and it all has to go in containers made with plastics and solvents and so on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I can just as easily ignore the safety rules and use my bare hands. Why would I want top risk chemical exposure if I do not have to?

Tap water and industrial chemicals are quite different animals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ian states…Water filters, to my knowledge; pose no risks associated with drinking filtered municipally treated water.
Then I state…If there is POSSIBLE BENEFITS gained by filtering this water, we should conclude that we should be filtering our water for consumption. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is all well and good. This will affect you only through the price of the water filter. But if you undertook every precaution of similar worth, you'd be bankrupt for sure, and quite inconvenienced. More importantly, I just think there are some more valuable interventions you could be making instead, or in addition, and recommend you concentrate on those. But we all know the filter is more likely to help than hurt.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 2:58 pm

Like a lot of things, I believe they are worth doing, but not necessarily for all the reasons that marketers would have us believe. A classic example in my business is "disease management." There are all kinds of vendors out there telling large employer groups that they can save them money if only they'd let them manage their diabetics or people with asthma or people with hypertension, etc, etc. They give all kinds of phony statistics and studies. When you look at the details....there it is really a net POSITIVE cost. But should we intensively manage people with significant chronic disease? Absolutely - because it is the right (quality) thing to do. Just send all the marketers over to Electrolux and have them sell vacuum cleaners - please!

A lot of things in life are lifestyle choices. I was cleaning up at a neighborhood party recently, and was talking to a neighbor who was a stock broker. I was asking him about making a Christmas gift of some Disney stock. One thing led to another, and he commented that it was impossible for HIM to invest in the stock market because he had two kids. He also commented that he couldn't believe I sent my kid to private school. He subsequently left in his Porche for his $450,000 home.

He was happy with his lifestyle choices, and I was happy about my own.

- Bill

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 6:48 pm

HEY!

It is a known fact (read, "there ain't no way in hell to back up the next statement), that dirt be good fer ya!

When I was young'un we et plenty ov it! 'course, it was Nawth Carolina red clay filtered into a mud-pie first!

Tim Ahearn · Post by **Tim Ahearn** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 7:05 pm

Ian wrote: "Doubt any research that comes from someone whose car payment depends on a sale of the product the research discusses."

Doubt a lot of current scientific and medical research, then. Working for a scientific publisher, I am confronted every day with the degree to which industry, pharmaceutical companies, etc. have their hands in bringing articles to publication. Industry's "car payment" depends on what the research says and so much of research is driven by profit motive. This simple fact doesn't invalidate anything, but should at least make us wary of what we read.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 7:55 pm

I think the point still holds that one needs to consider the source.

I agree, Tim. I recently came across an article in Journal of Endocrinology that - upon closer examination and discussion with the author - was found to be seriously flawed. A vendor paid a researcher to do the research. We asked for some simple statistics that would have cleared up some uncertainties, and the author 'fessed up that he did the publication for pay and couldn't release the information we wanted (because it would have been too damning). The Journal published the article because it proposed something that gave Endrocrinologists more money. Yes, the profit motive is everywhere.

But getting something from a peer-reviewed source is at least a good first step.

- Bill

LenTesta · Post by **LenTesta** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 5:43 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I've also heard a lot of bottled water is bottled tap water anyway (60 minutes?)--and it all has to go in containers made with plastics and solvents and so on.

Actually what was discovered with some brands of bottled water (such as Aquafina brand) is that it IS tap water which WAS filtered through these same filters that I have described. Why pay $.75-$1.00 for 16 ounces of filtered water?

Some "spring water" coin operated vending booths where you bring your own containers, was also found to contain munincipaly treated filtered water. I feel sorry for those people who take time away from their busy lives to lug 5 gallon containers to these booths and fill them up for $1.00 each. Sometimes the containers they use are not properly washed and therefore may contain bacteria and who knows what else.

Purchasing a decent water filter that will last for a long time, will give you the same quality water for just about $.02 a gallon. This price is determined by taking the cost of the filter (which is about $200) and dividing the amount it filters in gallons for the life of the filter. The water is readily available, and you do not have to drive to these booths to replace the empties.

It is a good idea to purchase a pre-filter kit,(removes sediment) to extend the life of the filter. These pre-filter kits are between $5-10 for over or undercounter models. The see through cover allows you to monitor the sediment that is in your system.

I change my sediment filter once a month.
It is very comforting to see the dirt on the cartridge and to know that it is not getting into my body.

Len

gdonahue · Post by **gdonahue** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 9:26 pm

There is an interesting article by Jane Brody in today’s (July 18, 2000) New York Times - Science Times section on water, called “On Tap or Bottled, Pursuing Purer Water.”

To test the water in your home, she recommends:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

To find a certified lab that can test your water for lead, turbidity, arsenic, parasites and trihalomethanes (the most common DBP's), call the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791.

For a rating of all legitimate home water purification systems, from table-top carafes to immense basement osmosis units she states:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For $5 you can buy an NSF book, "Water Wise -- The Consumer's Guide to Safe Drinking Water," which lists all the units tested by NSF and what they remove. Write to NSF International, 789 N. Dixboro Road, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48113-0140, or call toll free (877) 867-3435. The Web site is <A HREF="http://www.NSF.org.[/QUOTE" TARGET=_blank>]www.NSF.org.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/b]</A>

The article cautions that water that is free of minerals is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. And the last line of the article is pretty interesting, too:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

…while most bottled water contained lower levels of bacteria than tap water, about 20 percent of the bottles tested had far higher bacterial counts.

I don’t know if this data could be broken out by brands of bottled water or not, or even whether the figure holds true for bottles of the same brand.

I’m on my way down to the news stand around the corner for my afternoon bottled water break. I hope I don’t get that fifth bottle. Maybe I should just buy a fifth at the liquor store. ;-)

------------------
George Donahue
Nana korobi, ya oki.

[This message has been edited by gdonahue (edited July 18, 2000).]