Nestlé Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays Nearly Nothing For(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Nestlé Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays Nearly Nothing For
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for%20%20https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for
260 comments
Your analogy is misguided. Fresh water is indeed a limited resource. Just because you have it in plenty, it doesn't mean that commercial entity is incapable of drying it out thin. And once it's gone, it might not be back for few hundreds or even thousands years. Look up on internet about upcoming crisis for drinkable water. Any natural resource extraction should be regulated properly. For bottled water companies should pay the cost of plastic pollution as well.
Nestle is incapable of drying out the Mecosta County aquifer, which is part of a groundwater source that is apparently enormous on a scale that dwarfs human commercial enterprise.
That's not to say that Nestle's operations don't have local impact; apparently, large-scale pumping can disrupt nearby residential-scale wells, which is something Nestle got sued over. But Nestle isn't jeopardizing the actual aquifer or drying the area out.
That's not to say that Nestle's operations don't have local impact; apparently, large-scale pumping can disrupt nearby residential-scale wells, which is something Nestle got sued over. But Nestle isn't jeopardizing the actual aquifer or drying the area out.
>Fresh water is indeed a limited resource. Just because you have it in plenty, it doesn't mean that commercial entity is incapable of drying it out thin.
I'm not sure you've been to Michigan. They aren't pumping this out of an aquifer.
I'm not sure you've been to Michigan. They aren't pumping this out of an aquifer.
Fifth sentence of the article:
> About 60 percent of the supply comes from Mecosta’s springs
First google result for "Mecosta springs"
> The Nestle/Perrier/Great Spring Waters of America/Ice Mountain bottling plant in Stanwood, Mecosta County, began production on May 23, 2002, extracting groundwater from the Muskegon aquifer that qualifies as a source of “spring water” under federal law.
> About 60 percent of the supply comes from Mecosta’s springs
First google result for "Mecosta springs"
> The Nestle/Perrier/Great Spring Waters of America/Ice Mountain bottling plant in Stanwood, Mecosta County, began production on May 23, 2002, extracting groundwater from the Muskegon aquifer that qualifies as a source of “spring water” under federal law.
I have. Lived exactly there as a kid. Swam, fished, drank it. Had a fort with running water from an artesian well. This water everyone thinks should just be pumped supports vast areas of flora and fauna and wetlands, feeds the great rivers that clean michigan. And removing a small amount can surely dry out vast areas of the thin surface layer of water of that marshy environment. Sure, some can be used, but it is not infinite.
They absolutely are pumping it out of an aquifer. So are many Michiganders, like myself. Both for private homes and many, many cities, the normal water source is a well.
Fresh water is abundant on the surface, yes, but it's much cheaper (and tastier) to pump water that's been purified by long filtration through the ground than to pull it from a lake or river and process it.
This process is sustainable within the state. But even if you include all the vast reserves of surface water into consideration, the ecosystem can't sustain irrigating the southwest. We have plenty of lovely farms up here; stop trying to grow crops where they don't belong!
Fresh water is abundant on the surface, yes, but it's much cheaper (and tastier) to pump water that's been purified by long filtration through the ground than to pull it from a lake or river and process it.
This process is sustainable within the state. But even if you include all the vast reserves of surface water into consideration, the ecosystem can't sustain irrigating the southwest. We have plenty of lovely farms up here; stop trying to grow crops where they don't belong!
They are pumping it out of an aquifer, but that aquifer is huge --- about the size of Lake Michigan itself. The first source I found on Google, an MSU presentation, says that the St. Clair River drains 80x the entire groundwater withdrawal of the entire Great Lakes region, and of that withdrawal only 5% is consumed rather than returned to the ground.
5% of 1/80th of a single river's discharge, for the entire region. I think the parent commenter has the better argument.
From what I can tell, the plastic is a bigger concern here than the water.
5% of 1/80th of a single river's discharge, for the entire region. I think the parent commenter has the better argument.
From what I can tell, the plastic is a bigger concern here than the water.
But the Great Lakes aren't exactly pristine. Pure(ish) water isn't really that abundant there.
Many of the big bottled water brands are reverse osmosis filtered and UV sterilised - Aquafina and Dasani definitely are, as is Nestle Pure Life IIRC. Water sources with low total dissolved solids are preferable for cost reasons, but it isn't much of a problem if the water source is dirty or brackish.
No.
That is a completely backwards way to see things. Consider this: Flint, MI had a widely publicized water crisis due to cost cutting in water treatment and supply. Due to these cost saving measures, over 10,000 children got exposed to high levels of lead. Again, I repeat: this was due to cost saving measures from a financially bankrupt city/state. At the same time this happens, companies are allowed to generate millions in profits from these very same resources?
You say Nestlé selling you bottled water doesn't impact "an African kid getting water", well excuse me but it very well does. If the state charged a fair price for the water, fair in light of the obscene profit they are set to make from processing that water, then those millions in revenue could be used, oh I don't know, to properly treat water so tens of thousands of children don't get poisoned, maybe.
That is a completely backwards way to see things. Consider this: Flint, MI had a widely publicized water crisis due to cost cutting in water treatment and supply. Due to these cost saving measures, over 10,000 children got exposed to high levels of lead. Again, I repeat: this was due to cost saving measures from a financially bankrupt city/state. At the same time this happens, companies are allowed to generate millions in profits from these very same resources?
You say Nestlé selling you bottled water doesn't impact "an African kid getting water", well excuse me but it very well does. If the state charged a fair price for the water, fair in light of the obscene profit they are set to make from processing that water, then those millions in revenue could be used, oh I don't know, to properly treat water so tens of thousands of children don't get poisoned, maybe.
I don't see how the Flint Water Crisis is connected to Nestle. That was a political decision from the government reeling from the fallout of the loss of US car manufacturing in the area. The company wasn't stealing the town's water as far as I know.
Nestle undoubtedly sold more bottled water during the fallout.
I recently moved to rural midwest from the pacific northwest and have insisted on tap water my whole life, but I am now drinking bottled water in fear of what happened in Flint.
I recently moved to rural midwest from the pacific northwest and have insisted on tap water my whole life, but I am now drinking bottled water in fear of what happened in Flint.
Poisoning a town's water supply to sell more bottled water is a rather cartoonish scheme. The risk/reward ratio is way off, since it would be curtains for the company if this scheme were ever uncovered and the added sales would be very modest on a global scale. It's too tinfoil hat for me to believe without evidence.
The suggestion above is of correlation, not causation.
[deleted]
But then you are hating on a corporation from benefiting from a crisis it had nothing to do with.
There are plenty of reasons to hate corporations, there is no need to invent crazy new ones.
There are plenty of reasons to hate corporations, there is no need to invent crazy new ones.
How am I "hating" if I didn't blame them for anything, or say anything hateful? Or, what did I say that is hateful? I will apologize to Nestle for it. Is that what you want?
> I don't see how the Flint Water Crisis is connected to Nestle.
Part of the reason municipalities are short on money for their water systems, is that companies get the same water (or at least, from the same watershed) for free.
Is it so wrong to ask Nestle to at least pay the same rate you and I and every other citizen pays for water? Why can't they pay municipal rates for municipal water, like Coca-Cola and all the beer breweries do.
Part of the reason municipalities are short on money for their water systems, is that companies get the same water (or at least, from the same watershed) for free.
Is it so wrong to ask Nestle to at least pay the same rate you and I and every other citizen pays for water? Why can't they pay municipal rates for municipal water, like Coca-Cola and all the beer breweries do.
>Part of the reason municipalities are short on money for their water systems, is that companies get the same water (or at least, from the same watershed) for free.
>Is it so wrong to ask Nestle to at least pay the same rate you and I and every other citizen pays for water?
This is a misconception, in Michigan at least. Flint is not short on water. They are short on functioning pipes for moving the water. Getting access to the Great Lakes' unlimited supply of water was never a barrier. That water is effectively as non-scarce as air.
If you want to go to the GL, and "BYO filtration" and suck the water out to drink, that is free for you too, just as much as Nestle.
Michigan municipalities charge for water because of the cost of filtering and distributing it, not because it's so scarce it has to throttle demand.
Nestle is profiting from the service of putting it in a bottle that you get to keep after purchasing, not from getting underpriced water in Michigan.
(California is a different story, where water is scarce, and Nestle is making that problem a little bit worse, but CA has a more general problem with sane incentives for water usage -- e.g. use-it-or-lose-it policies for farms -- that are mostly unrelated to the Nestle deal.)
>Is it so wrong to ask Nestle to at least pay the same rate you and I and every other citizen pays for water?
This is a misconception, in Michigan at least. Flint is not short on water. They are short on functioning pipes for moving the water. Getting access to the Great Lakes' unlimited supply of water was never a barrier. That water is effectively as non-scarce as air.
If you want to go to the GL, and "BYO filtration" and suck the water out to drink, that is free for you too, just as much as Nestle.
Michigan municipalities charge for water because of the cost of filtering and distributing it, not because it's so scarce it has to throttle demand.
Nestle is profiting from the service of putting it in a bottle that you get to keep after purchasing, not from getting underpriced water in Michigan.
(California is a different story, where water is scarce, and Nestle is making that problem a little bit worse, but CA has a more general problem with sane incentives for water usage -- e.g. use-it-or-lose-it policies for farms -- that are mostly unrelated to the Nestle deal.)
> Is it so wrong to ask Nestle to at least pay the same rate you and I and every other citizen pays for water? Why can't they pay municipal rates for municipal water, like Coca-Cola and all the beer breweries do.
Yes, it is unreasonable, unless Nestle taps into municipal supply like all other municipal customers.
Yes, it is unreasonable, unless Nestle taps into municipal supply like all other municipal customers.
It's absolutely fascinating to me how corporations can have so many tireless defenders of their rights.
I wonder if you would feel as strongly about citizens being poisoned as you do about corporations being made to reasonably compensate the state for the natural resources they use to line their pockets.
I wonder if you would feel as strongly about citizens being poisoned as you do about corporations being made to reasonably compensate the state for the natural resources they use to line their pockets.
> It's absolutely fascinating to me how corporations can have so many tireless defenders of their rights.
This specific corporation happen not to be a customer of a municipal water system, which means that that this specific municipal water system does not get to charge it.
Let me convert it into a non-abstract thing - I'm going to make an educated guess that you drink either coffee or tea. Why are you not paying for coffee or tea that you got from a place A to a municipal cafeteria that exists in the place A municipality even though you are not getting your coffee or tea there?
> I wonder if you would feel as strongly about citizens being poisoned as you do about corporations being made to reasonably compensate the state for the natural resources they use to line their pockets.
The citizens were being poisoned because the democratically elected, pro people, anti-corporation government decided that people of Flint, MI, did not need super clean water that much.
This specific corporation happen not to be a customer of a municipal water system, which means that that this specific municipal water system does not get to charge it.
Let me convert it into a non-abstract thing - I'm going to make an educated guess that you drink either coffee or tea. Why are you not paying for coffee or tea that you got from a place A to a municipal cafeteria that exists in the place A municipality even though you are not getting your coffee or tea there?
> I wonder if you would feel as strongly about citizens being poisoned as you do about corporations being made to reasonably compensate the state for the natural resources they use to line their pockets.
The citizens were being poisoned because the democratically elected, pro people, anti-corporation government decided that people of Flint, MI, did not need super clean water that much.
I'm no corporate apologist, but I have trouble seeing how Nestle should pay the people who aren't supplying their water for the water they use.
On the other hand, if Nestle did bottle Flint tap water in their product you can be the crisis would have never happened. They would own that municipal water department in all but name.
On the other hand, if Nestle did bottle Flint tap water in their product you can be the crisis would have never happened. They would own that municipal water department in all but name.
Because the cost of municipal water is driven by pipes and treatment equipment, not the water itself.
Screw same rate, even. They are making more than enough money to be made to pay a fair amount, in relation to the profit they're earning.
[deleted]
I'm missing the connection between water infrastructure in Michigan and the wellbeing of children in Africa.
Basically they are saying tax water nestle uses and use the money to improve water access elsewhere.
That's the gist of it, yes.
So if Michigan were collecting more tax revenues, you think it's likely they'd spend it on improving water access for people on other continents? They don't even take care of locals yet.
That's not what I'm saying, of course. I specifically gave the example of Flint MI.
It very much seems to be what you're saying:
> You say Nestlé selling you bottled water doesn't impact "an African kid getting water", well excuse me but it very well does.
> You say Nestlé selling you bottled water doesn't impact "an African kid getting water", well excuse me but it very well does.
First, cost-cutting may be a but-for cause of the Flint Crisis, but it's not a proximate cause. Any non-negligent engineers could have easily done the cost-cutting safely. If I get hit by drunk driver going to church, going to church didn't REALLY kill me.
Second, Nestle has nothing to do with Flint. Nestle didn't outbid Flint for safe water.
Third, Michigan is charging a fair price for water since it has such a surplus.
Fourth, there is no nexus between michigan tax revenue and african drinking water. You could use that logic on anything.
Second, Nestle has nothing to do with Flint. Nestle didn't outbid Flint for safe water.
Third, Michigan is charging a fair price for water since it has such a surplus.
Fourth, there is no nexus between michigan tax revenue and african drinking water. You could use that logic on anything.
So, we charge Nestle for water. Good. Now Nestle executive decides to move to another State and what you get is just a bunch of unemployed folks as well as several businesses losing the contracts they used to have with Nestle.
The question, in this global world, is wether Nestle is paying the fair "International price" given that the transaction is net beneficial.
Yeah, the state might be getting less comparing to yesterday. But remember this is the 21st century and things have changed. Many businesses will just move instead of dealing with your issues adapting to the new order.
The question, in this global world, is wether Nestle is paying the fair "International price" given that the transaction is net beneficial.
Yeah, the state might be getting less comparing to yesterday. But remember this is the 21st century and things have changed. Many businesses will just move instead of dealing with your issues adapting to the new order.
well ideally the new state would charge Nestle and if Nestle kept moving the federal government could pass legislation or even import tariffs if Nestle decided to move overseas.
It is a hostile approach instead of trying to understand how globalization is shifting the grounds. As Nestle gets more global and expand sales abroad, the % of its sales in the US gets smaller. By pushing its' operations outside the US, you are giving it more reason to fight.
Think about it. Corps have paid taxes to government because it mainly provided infrastructure to operations and protection. If you are building your product aboard, selling it abroad, keeping the profit aboard, trading the stocks abroad (if you push WallStreet out too), etc... Why would these mega-corps still wants to pay taxes to the US gov?
Think about it. Corps have paid taxes to government because it mainly provided infrastructure to operations and protection. If you are building your product aboard, selling it abroad, keeping the profit aboard, trading the stocks abroad (if you push WallStreet out too), etc... Why would these mega-corps still wants to pay taxes to the US gov?
I never understood why a market scheme for water, pursuant to which every household gets the first N gallons every month free, where N is more than what most families consume, and where everything past N is set at auction (or some other market mechanism), is not feasible. It literally only requires large water consumers (and businesses) pay a bit more and throws a bone to most voters. It also, finally, stops treating water as an infinite good.
That's because you don't understand that 'large water consumers' are generally known as farms. Try f'ing with the farm lobby.
Not the answer to your question, but this scheme still wouldn't really be ideal since it wouldn't encourage "normal" users to conserve water.
“Universal basic water”, so that would lead to similar discussion (on a smaller scale) as “universal basic income”.
For example, if I have twice the land area as my neighbor, and hence get twice the rain, and the neighborhood’s well is on my land, why would they get the same amount of water for free as I do?
For example, if I have twice the land area as my neighbor, and hence get twice the rain, and the neighborhood’s well is on my land, why would they get the same amount of water for free as I do?
Same reason they get the same amount of police and firefighters for free as you do I would think. The shifting from one norm to the other is the entire point of the argument.
"Same reason they get the same amount of police and firefighters for free as you do I would think."
Not a good argument, neither of those things are "free" because they are paid for by property taxes, which scale to many things, among them, the amount of land you possess.
(There is no such thing as "free" anyhow.)
Not a good argument, neither of those things are "free" because they are paid for by property taxes, which scale to many things, among them, the amount of land you possess.
(There is no such thing as "free" anyhow.)
Huge differences in tap water quality in Bay Area. Contrast pure SF city water sourced from run-off from Sierra granite to salt-laden water pulled from the Sacramento River delta in Contra Costa County.
Even within Alameda county I've noticed huge differences. Oakland's tap water is great -- similar to SF's, yet Fremont has to deal with weird mineral-laden tap water.
The issue is not that water is bottled somewhere where there's plenty of it and then shipped somewhere else but that water companies, especially Nestlé, are buying local sources in regions poor on drinking water only to save on transportation/logistic costs, conclusively taking away a previously free water source from local people and putting a price tag to a product that was previosly free - without having any benefit as it is still the same water as before.
> Water should have a cost when it is scarce
Practically it has a cost anyway - somebody has to pay for taking it from somewhere, storing it, cleaning it, making it available. But this cost and especially the cost of the final consumer cannot be dictated by a free market - never. This would effectively mean that some people might be unable to access clean water at some point b/c they don't have enough money or no money at all.
> Pelagrino bottle doesn't impact an African kid getting water even a little bit
Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence.
Practically it has a cost anyway - somebody has to pay for taking it from somewhere, storing it, cleaning it, making it available. But this cost and especially the cost of the final consumer cannot be dictated by a free market - never. This would effectively mean that some people might be unable to access clean water at some point b/c they don't have enough money or no money at all.
> Pelagrino bottle doesn't impact an African kid getting water even a little bit
Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence.
> Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence.
Michigan is not in Africa.
Michigan is not in Africa.
Nestlé is a global corporation. So you have to look at it from a global perspective instead of narrowing down your focus on some random city in the US. It's an attack at humanity not just on Michigans.
But Nestlé extracting fresh water in Michigan is not depleting the fresh water supply of any place in Africa, right? Water scarcity in another region of the world is not a reason to reduce or stop extraction in Michigan.
How many ways should I put this?
How many ways should I put this?
There is a direct connection from Michigan to Africa - its name is Nestlé.
>>Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence.
If the water was bottled somewhere close to Africa, you might be right, I guess.
If the water was bottled somewhere close to Africa, you might be right, I guess.
Water is bottled in Africa! But before it is bottled it is turned into Coca Cola.
In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact.
Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact.
Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
> In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact.
If it really is cheaper than potable water (enough to be considered an alternative!), then I'm sure that hydration concerns come well before dietary planning concerns.
What on earth is wrong with Coca Cola producing a finished soda product at a lower cost than competing water products?
> Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
Why should it be stopped? People buy the water, people who want the water buy it. People will buy water whether it's Nestlé's product or Coca-Cola's. If they want to buy it from Nestlé, what is your problem with that?
Food is a commodity, food is not a right; but food is a necessity. Ideally people are fed, people make a serious effort to make this happen. Water is a commodity, not a right; whether or not it is a necessity has no bearing.
When you see farmers selling agricultural products in a marketplace it must make your blood boil. To think that they would make an effort to transform the natural resources of the land into a branded product and sell it; the nerve!
If it really is cheaper than potable water (enough to be considered an alternative!), then I'm sure that hydration concerns come well before dietary planning concerns.
What on earth is wrong with Coca Cola producing a finished soda product at a lower cost than competing water products?
> Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
Why should it be stopped? People buy the water, people who want the water buy it. People will buy water whether it's Nestlé's product or Coca-Cola's. If they want to buy it from Nestlé, what is your problem with that?
Food is a commodity, food is not a right; but food is a necessity. Ideally people are fed, people make a serious effort to make this happen. Water is a commodity, not a right; whether or not it is a necessity has no bearing.
When you see farmers selling agricultural products in a marketplace it must make your blood boil. To think that they would make an effort to transform the natural resources of the land into a branded product and sell it; the nerve!
if you buy water and turn it into coca cola then you have to put a margin on the price for the energy and resources needed to produce cola! isn't that obvious?
what you don't get is that you have to distinguish between two prices:
- price for buying water from a source
- price for buying water in a shop
Nestlé will buy cheap water from a source - and not just part of it but pretty much all of it. then sells it overpriced as cola.
obviously if Nestlé would sell water immediately after buying from a source and just bottling it - then it would have to be cheaper than Cola (b/c of less processing).
but if Nestlé would buy all the water and just resell it - then this would be obviously crooked - the people's water source should not depend on a corporation who is bribing the elite and politicians for an exclusive access to that resource.
got it?
and to state that it doesn't matter if the primary fluid source of a human being is Cola or water and to deny health affects or downplay them - that's ridiculous.
what you don't get is that you have to distinguish between two prices:
- price for buying water from a source
- price for buying water in a shop
Nestlé will buy cheap water from a source - and not just part of it but pretty much all of it. then sells it overpriced as cola.
obviously if Nestlé would sell water immediately after buying from a source and just bottling it - then it would have to be cheaper than Cola (b/c of less processing).
but if Nestlé would buy all the water and just resell it - then this would be obviously crooked - the people's water source should not depend on a corporation who is bribing the elite and politicians for an exclusive access to that resource.
got it?
and to state that it doesn't matter if the primary fluid source of a human being is Cola or water and to deny health affects or downplay them - that's ridiculous.
> Nestlé will buy cheap water from a source - and not just part of it but pretty much all of it. then sells it overpriced as cola.
You could also look at the situation and conclude that the most expensive parts of bottling and selling either coca-cola or water are the bottles, the water purification, the transport, and the retail labour. There is nothing suspicious about Coca-Cola and similarly-packaged water being roughly the same price.
It is not obvious that the difference between the cost of producing Coca-Cola and the price of producing bottled water is so different that they should always be sold for different prices.
You could also look at the situation and conclude that the most expensive parts of bottling and selling either coca-cola or water are the bottles, the water purification, the transport, and the retail labour. There is nothing suspicious about Coca-Cola and similarly-packaged water being roughly the same price.
It is not obvious that the difference between the cost of producing Coca-Cola and the price of producing bottled water is so different that they should always be sold for different prices.
The flaw in your reasoning is that corporations don't control access to water. In some states they can take whatever they want, but so can anyone else.
In fact water may become scarce there, by relative vs absolute measures. The area depends on water to supply the massive natural streams and rivers and lakes and marshlands. These waters flow all the way to the Great Lakes and help keep those waterways and everything downstream refreshed. Water reduction could dry out huge swaths of wetlands ecosystem and affect water life. This is exactly why they are studying the river water levels to make sure it doesn't. That's like saying because you live near an ocean, there is plenty of water around. Not hardly.
Can you find a source backing up this argument? The sources I've found suggest that this is very unlikely given the amount of groundwater available in Michigan.
A lot of groundwater in Michigan, but in that very place the groundwater meets surface, everywhere. It supplies vast areas of marshland and swamp and huge ecosystem that surrounds it. If you reduce the pressure by pumping aquifer and groundwater (a lot of sand there), will it divert the groundwater from replenishing the surface, that is the wetlands, the rivers, and the lakes that all this wildlife depends? Measurement is needed, and undergoing as I understand. BTW, Mich is so varied because of its unique geological history; across the state underneath it is like very different places 10s to 1000s of feet below, from sand to granite to salt domes, many different types of technical soils(?) IIRC. PS No, there may be, but if there were reliable studies it would not be so controversial.
I understand the logic. I'm asking if you know of a source documenting that actually happening in Michigan. I know that high-volume pumping apparently disrupts the neighbors wells, but the same source I read that in said that it wasn't disrupting the ecosystem.
Since none of us have done any actual work here, and all of us are capable of telling a good story, I'm really specifically interested in sources.
Since none of us have done any actual work here, and all of us are capable of telling a good story, I'm really specifically interested in sources.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/nestle_evart_wet...
This is exactly the point I was making. What are the odds.
This is exactly the point I was making. What are the odds.
Not rebutting but just breaking the claims in this story down:
* The Osceola pump is supposedly hydrologically isolated from the surrounding wetlands.
* Geologically, it may be possible that the site they selected might not be isolated, and so high-intensity pumping could have a material impact on those wetlands.
* Nestle is loathe to acknowledge that geological claim and further, stipulating it, says that any impact it would actually have on those wetlands would be marginal.
* Residents claim significant impact to marshlands near their homes.
I concede based on this source that the specific siting of Nestle water pumps can have environmental impact (as I conceded up front that it can have an immediate impact on the residential water supply for well-fed houses).
I restate though my original claim, which is that Nestle stands no chance of draining the underlying aquifer from which it is pumping. It might just as plausibly set out to drain Lake Michigan. It's possible that Nestle will have to move its pumps at perhaps significant expense, to some other place in the same watershed.
* The Osceola pump is supposedly hydrologically isolated from the surrounding wetlands.
* Geologically, it may be possible that the site they selected might not be isolated, and so high-intensity pumping could have a material impact on those wetlands.
* Nestle is loathe to acknowledge that geological claim and further, stipulating it, says that any impact it would actually have on those wetlands would be marginal.
* Residents claim significant impact to marshlands near their homes.
I concede based on this source that the specific siting of Nestle water pumps can have environmental impact (as I conceded up front that it can have an immediate impact on the residential water supply for well-fed houses).
I restate though my original claim, which is that Nestle stands no chance of draining the underlying aquifer from which it is pumping. It might just as plausibly set out to drain Lake Michigan. It's possible that Nestle will have to move its pumps at perhaps significant expense, to some other place in the same watershed.
Oh, I never saw your original claim. The only thing I saw was your challenge to me about sources to my assertions. I don't keep sources handy, but have a historical interest in the area and retain what I read.
The idea that public rights shouldn't be sold on the private market
That's not what the article is saying. And you know that's not what the article is saying.
Right?
That's not what the article is saying. And you know that's not what the article is saying.
Right?
What if we throw out the whole political angle? Where's the outrage--from an engineering perspective--of this just being a f___ing stupid wasteful example of America's decline?
More often than not, people buying that Nestle water live in places where the tap has better scores than where the water was bottled in the first place. But for some insane reason they still choose pay a crazy markup on the bottled stuff.
If they put the collective gobs of money they are wasting on fuel, packaging, and Nestle's profits into their own water systems, they could have some kind of %99.999999 pure space water delivered straight to their taps by now.
More often than not, people buying that Nestle water live in places where the tap has better scores than where the water was bottled in the first place. But for some insane reason they still choose pay a crazy markup on the bottled stuff.
If they put the collective gobs of money they are wasting on fuel, packaging, and Nestle's profits into their own water systems, they could have some kind of %99.999999 pure space water delivered straight to their taps by now.
There is another reason for buying bottled water, and that's because tap water in a convenient container is not available...
I have no data on the reasons people purchase bottled water. But every time I've purchased bottled water it's because I was traveling and wanted to drink straight water while traveling.
I'm sure some part of the market buy spring water because it's "healthy". However, without further data I don't think it's possible to support the argument that it's a sign of "America's decline".
In fact, I've also seen bottled water sold in every location around the world I've traveled to, including areas with good tap water, and both urban and rural locations.
I have no data on the reasons people purchase bottled water. But every time I've purchased bottled water it's because I was traveling and wanted to drink straight water while traveling.
I'm sure some part of the market buy spring water because it's "healthy". However, without further data I don't think it's possible to support the argument that it's a sign of "America's decline".
In fact, I've also seen bottled water sold in every location around the world I've traveled to, including areas with good tap water, and both urban and rural locations.
In my country (Iceland) everyone uses their own containers and nobody drinks bottled water but tourists. In fact you never even saw still bottled water in stores up until just a few years ago. The water that comes out of the tap is some of the most pristine stuff in the world, but you still see tourists loading several 2 liter bottles of the stuff into their shopping carts because they don't know any better..
It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment. Now we just need to get people to realize that it's perfectly fine to re-use the same drinking container.
It's not a hard concept, it's just laziness and apathy that drive these profits.
It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment. Now we just need to get people to realize that it's perfectly fine to re-use the same drinking container.
It's not a hard concept, it's just laziness and apathy that drive these profits.
> It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment.
I feel like many environmental actions that governments support are taken because they are easy, not because they have the highest impact. In your example of re-usable shopping bags, most items use more packaging that the bag itself. The environmental impact of mandating bag re-use seems minimal, compared to the packaging used for fruit, meat, vegetables, and all other common commodities.
In the case of re-usable water bottles. Yes, they can be useful no doubt. There are situations and people for whom this doesn't work well. For example, a re-usable bottle should be washed with soap once a day [1] and that might not always be possible. So suggesting that all or most users of bottled water are "lazy of apathetic" does not seem justified.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-w...
I feel like many environmental actions that governments support are taken because they are easy, not because they have the highest impact. In your example of re-usable shopping bags, most items use more packaging that the bag itself. The environmental impact of mandating bag re-use seems minimal, compared to the packaging used for fruit, meat, vegetables, and all other common commodities.
In the case of re-usable water bottles. Yes, they can be useful no doubt. There are situations and people for whom this doesn't work well. For example, a re-usable bottle should be washed with soap once a day [1] and that might not always be possible. So suggesting that all or most users of bottled water are "lazy of apathetic" does not seem justified.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-w...
Anecdotally I know zero people who wash their water bottles once a day, and have known nobody that has ever attributed sickness to this.
And yet, decades later everyone seems to be doing just fine.
If you're going to suggest such extreme measures are the only way to drink out of a reusable bottle, you should cite a better source than "the good housekeeping institute's youtube channel"
And yet, decades later everyone seems to be doing just fine.
If you're going to suggest such extreme measures are the only way to drink out of a reusable bottle, you should cite a better source than "the good housekeeping institute's youtube channel"
Hmmm, well there's this small study:
http://www.treadmillreviews.net/water-bottle-germs-revealed/
So it seems likely that there's bacterial buildup. But I'd be interested in further reviews, more data.
> If you're going to suggest such extreme measures
I'm not suggesting any measures (and is using soap an extreme measure?).
But it doesn't seem completely wasteful and a "sign of mental decline" to want to buy bottled water in certain situations, as another poster was suggesting. People are different, and have different requirements are priorities.
It's absolutely possible of course that we might determine that the environmental costs associated with bottled water production are too high a burden on society. And that they should be outlawed. But that's a different discussion (and obviously if this is required there are many other items that would likely also be outlawed).
http://www.treadmillreviews.net/water-bottle-germs-revealed/
So it seems likely that there's bacterial buildup. But I'd be interested in further reviews, more data.
> If you're going to suggest such extreme measures
I'm not suggesting any measures (and is using soap an extreme measure?).
But it doesn't seem completely wasteful and a "sign of mental decline" to want to buy bottled water in certain situations, as another poster was suggesting. People are different, and have different requirements are priorities.
It's absolutely possible of course that we might determine that the environmental costs associated with bottled water production are too high a burden on society. And that they should be outlawed. But that's a different discussion (and obviously if this is required there are many other items that would likely also be outlawed).
I don't think the "treadmill experts" at treadmillreviews.net are any more reputable than Good Housekeeping's youtube channel.
In response to your platitude on the environmental impact, I assume you don't mean 'literal species extinction' because of your optimism that it will be repaired once found. So, you need to define what you mean by "too high a burden." Your opposition's argument is that it's "unnecessary" which is measurable and, in my view, not disproven in the research from the treadmill experts.
"People are different, and have different requirements and priorities" is an intellectual dead end.
In response to your platitude on the environmental impact, I assume you don't mean 'literal species extinction' because of your optimism that it will be repaired once found. So, you need to define what you mean by "too high a burden." Your opposition's argument is that it's "unnecessary" which is measurable and, in my view, not disproven in the research from the treadmill experts.
"People are different, and have different requirements and priorities" is an intellectual dead end.
> I don't think the "treadmill experts" at treadmillreviews.net are any more reputable than Good Housekeeping's youtube channel.
Can you find a better reference? Or one suggesting that cups/bottles do not require cleaning after being used to contain only water? That seems like a testable hypothesis.
Is the burden of proof on me? I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. I'm just suggesting that it is not unreasonable to buy a bottle of water, in certain situations.
> Your opposition's argument is that it's "unnecessary" which is measurable and, in my view, not disproven in the research from the treadmill experts.
No, the treadmill tests are not hugely informative. It provides some indication that there is in some cases bacterial buildup on reused water bottles (that are not washed).
So, if you want to make an informed decision, it would be useful to have more data. It's does not currently seem reasonable to call people "lazy" or "apathetic" for occasionally consuming bottled water.
To be clear, that's the main issue. An arbitrary judgment against other people is being made without good supporting evidence.
> "People are different, and have different requirements and priorities" is an intellectual dead end.
Is it not obvious that people have different requirements? Is it hard to imagine a variety of situations where you might not easily be able to bring your own empty water bottle? Or situations in which it might be convenient to purchase water, and a container for water?
Using the logic presented here, I could easily also say that a reusable water bottle is lazy and apathetic. Because most people are near enough to a source of water that they could just wait to have a drink. They don't need to waste resources by creating yet another water container... but I understand that it might be convenient for them, and they've decided to make that tradeoff.
Can you find a better reference? Or one suggesting that cups/bottles do not require cleaning after being used to contain only water? That seems like a testable hypothesis.
Is the burden of proof on me? I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. I'm just suggesting that it is not unreasonable to buy a bottle of water, in certain situations.
> Your opposition's argument is that it's "unnecessary" which is measurable and, in my view, not disproven in the research from the treadmill experts.
No, the treadmill tests are not hugely informative. It provides some indication that there is in some cases bacterial buildup on reused water bottles (that are not washed).
So, if you want to make an informed decision, it would be useful to have more data. It's does not currently seem reasonable to call people "lazy" or "apathetic" for occasionally consuming bottled water.
To be clear, that's the main issue. An arbitrary judgment against other people is being made without good supporting evidence.
> "People are different, and have different requirements and priorities" is an intellectual dead end.
Is it not obvious that people have different requirements? Is it hard to imagine a variety of situations where you might not easily be able to bring your own empty water bottle? Or situations in which it might be convenient to purchase water, and a container for water?
Using the logic presented here, I could easily also say that a reusable water bottle is lazy and apathetic. Because most people are near enough to a source of water that they could just wait to have a drink. They don't need to waste resources by creating yet another water container... but I understand that it might be convenient for them, and they've decided to make that tradeoff.
You're suggesting it's not unreasonable, but your evidence of a reason is poor.
I did not accuse anyone of being apathetic or lazy (nether word is in my comment) but I do question the behavior because it is drastically less efficient than tap water.
My mother is anything but apathetic and lazy but has always insisted on bottled water only. I have quesioned it and my impression is that she is marketed to. It seems like a comfort food of sorts.
Of course people are different. This point brought nothing but noise to the conversation. Face palm.
I did not accuse anyone of being apathetic or lazy (nether word is in my comment) but I do question the behavior because it is drastically less efficient than tap water.
My mother is anything but apathetic and lazy but has always insisted on bottled water only. I have quesioned it and my impression is that she is marketed to. It seems like a comfort food of sorts.
Of course people are different. This point brought nothing but noise to the conversation. Face palm.
> I did not accuse anyone of being apathetic or lazy (nether word is in my comment) but I do question the behavior because it is drastically less efficient than tap water.
This thread, and my comments, are directed toward a commenter who called people who buy bottled water lazy and apathetic (see parent comments).
> My mother is anything but apathetic and lazy but has always insisted on bottled water only. I have quesioned it and my impression is that she is marketed to. It seems like a comfort food of sorts.
That's a very different situation than purchasing bottled water occasionally while traveling. Elsewhere (see other comments) I noted that the references I've found show about 13% of people (in the US) purchase bottled water as their primary source of drinking water.
At the beginning of the thread, a poster suggested that purchasing bottled water is a sign of the mental decline of American society.
However, most bottled water is not purchased as the users primary source of drinking water. And it does not seem justifiable to call people who occasionally purchase bottled water, while traveling for example, lazy, apathetic, and in mental decline...
That's it really. Can you find a way to justify calling people who purchase bottled water lazy, apathetic and in mental decline?
Or are there other, not totally unreasonable reasons for occasionally purchasing bottled water? Or at least ones that are as justifiable as things that almost all members of society do on a daily basis (like buying other packaged goods).
> Of course people are different. This point brought nothing but noise to the conversation. Face palm.
I don't think you've read the posts I'm responding too. They argue that all people who purchase bottled water are lazy, apathetic, and a sign of "mental decline".
They don't leave any room for people being different and potentially having different requirements. They suggest that all people are capable and should be willing to carry around their own re-usable water bottle in all scenarios otherwise they are lazy and apathetic.
Yes, it's an obvious point. But... seemingly not one that is acceptable to everybody.
This thread, and my comments, are directed toward a commenter who called people who buy bottled water lazy and apathetic (see parent comments).
> My mother is anything but apathetic and lazy but has always insisted on bottled water only. I have quesioned it and my impression is that she is marketed to. It seems like a comfort food of sorts.
That's a very different situation than purchasing bottled water occasionally while traveling. Elsewhere (see other comments) I noted that the references I've found show about 13% of people (in the US) purchase bottled water as their primary source of drinking water.
At the beginning of the thread, a poster suggested that purchasing bottled water is a sign of the mental decline of American society.
However, most bottled water is not purchased as the users primary source of drinking water. And it does not seem justifiable to call people who occasionally purchase bottled water, while traveling for example, lazy, apathetic, and in mental decline...
That's it really. Can you find a way to justify calling people who purchase bottled water lazy, apathetic and in mental decline?
Or are there other, not totally unreasonable reasons for occasionally purchasing bottled water? Or at least ones that are as justifiable as things that almost all members of society do on a daily basis (like buying other packaged goods).
> Of course people are different. This point brought nothing but noise to the conversation. Face palm.
I don't think you've read the posts I'm responding too. They argue that all people who purchase bottled water are lazy, apathetic, and a sign of "mental decline".
They don't leave any room for people being different and potentially having different requirements. They suggest that all people are capable and should be willing to carry around their own re-usable water bottle in all scenarios otherwise they are lazy and apathetic.
Yes, it's an obvious point. But... seemingly not one that is acceptable to everybody.
[deleted]
I visually inspect and smell it first. If it passes those then it might get reused up to a week before washing especially if it only held water.
I am also starting to see a lot more people with the Stainless Steel insulated cups (i.e. Yeti Tumblers) than water bottles.
I am also starting to see a lot more people with the Stainless Steel insulated cups (i.e. Yeti Tumblers) than water bottles.
I always saw plastic bag bans as more of a “civic aesthetics” thing than strictly an environmental one (though there is that too.) Disposable plastic bags are an eyesore and a blight on the landscape.
If I'm going to be downvoted... some kind of counterpoint or explanation would help progress the discussion, and avoid my making similar errors in the future.
I didn't downvote you. I just thought you were being pedantic. It's not like you need a peer-reviewed study to establish that we're wasting gas and plastic on something people did just fine without a couple generations ago.
I'd need a peer reviewed study yes.
To understand it in the context of all the other things we waste gas and plastic on.
A single plane flight uses more energy than all the bottles of water I'm likely to consume in a lifetime (many times more).
So.. it seems odd to me to single out bottled water and say those people are the sign of "mental decline" and "lazy and apathetic" (as other commenters have suggested).
And what's surprising is that it feels like people are saying:
"those are they bad guys... the guys buying bottled water... buying multiple other items with equal or more packaging on a daily basis and buying smartphones, and PCs, and taking international flights, that's fine that's "justifiable"".
In my mind, if bottled water is "lazy and apathetic" and a sign of "mental decline". It's not clear that all those other things aren't too.
To understand it in the context of all the other things we waste gas and plastic on.
A single plane flight uses more energy than all the bottles of water I'm likely to consume in a lifetime (many times more).
So.. it seems odd to me to single out bottled water and say those people are the sign of "mental decline" and "lazy and apathetic" (as other commenters have suggested).
And what's surprising is that it feels like people are saying:
"those are they bad guys... the guys buying bottled water... buying multiple other items with equal or more packaging on a daily basis and buying smartphones, and PCs, and taking international flights, that's fine that's "justifiable"".
In my mind, if bottled water is "lazy and apathetic" and a sign of "mental decline". It's not clear that all those other things aren't too.
We're really arguing value systems here, so I don't see what a study is going to bring to the table.
That, and it's not just a matter of energy. What about the litter? What about BPS/BPA leaching? What about the neglect of public systems because everyone with a little extra cash just says "not my problem" and buys a case of Nestle every week?
That, and it's not just a matter of energy. What about the litter? What about BPS/BPA leaching? What about the neglect of public systems because everyone with a little extra cash just says "not my problem" and buys a case of Nestle every week?
> We're really arguing value systems here, so I don't see what a study is going to bring to the table.
As far as I can tell, mostly we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm arguing that saying people who buy a single bottle of water maybe 5 times a year are "lazy and apathetic" and a "sign of mental decline" is an unreasonable and inconsistent view. This is given the other choices that most people make on a daily basis (including say, buying a phone, using electricity etc. etc.).
You're arguing... something to do with people who buy large quantities of bottled water? This is a point I'm not even disputing...
> That, and it's not just a matter of energy. What about the litter? What about BPS/BPA leaching? What about the neglect of public systems because everyone with a little extra cash just says "not my problem" and buys a case of Nestle every week?
People who buy a case of Nestle every week are a separate issue, and not what I was discussing at all (please see the thread I'm responding to). It may be possible to make a reasonable case for dissuading people from purchasing bottled water in large quantities (you might try and do that through social pressure/marketing, or taxation or some other method).
As far as I can tell, mostly we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm arguing that saying people who buy a single bottle of water maybe 5 times a year are "lazy and apathetic" and a "sign of mental decline" is an unreasonable and inconsistent view. This is given the other choices that most people make on a daily basis (including say, buying a phone, using electricity etc. etc.).
You're arguing... something to do with people who buy large quantities of bottled water? This is a point I'm not even disputing...
> That, and it's not just a matter of energy. What about the litter? What about BPS/BPA leaching? What about the neglect of public systems because everyone with a little extra cash just says "not my problem" and buys a case of Nestle every week?
People who buy a case of Nestle every week are a separate issue, and not what I was discussing at all (please see the thread I'm responding to). It may be possible to make a reasonable case for dissuading people from purchasing bottled water in large quantities (you might try and do that through social pressure/marketing, or taxation or some other method).
I wasn't one who downvoted you but it might be because it sounds as if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with taking an easy and less impactful action when there are more impactful, but much harder actions. One does not preclude the other.
Yes, targeting plastic shopping bags is easy, and yes the packaging the items come in is probably worse, but why not take the easy action anyway? What's your point?
Yes, targeting plastic shopping bags is easy, and yes the packaging the items come in is probably worse, but why not take the easy action anyway? What's your point?
Ah, if that's the case I guess I didn't make my point clearly.
Absolutely, it's fine and I personally feel, a great idea to use reusable bags (and water bottles).
The difficulty comes if people apply social pressure and say "why are you still using non-reusable bags that you are lazy and apathetic, and it's a sign of societies mental decline" (those are rephrased statements used elsewhere in this discussion).
Because there can be good reasons for using a non-reusable bags (or water bottles) in certain situations, and there are likely value judgments you make that have equal (or greater) environmental impact which have similar utility.
Absolutely, it's fine and I personally feel, a great idea to use reusable bags (and water bottles).
The difficulty comes if people apply social pressure and say "why are you still using non-reusable bags that you are lazy and apathetic, and it's a sign of societies mental decline" (those are rephrased statements used elsewhere in this discussion).
Because there can be good reasons for using a non-reusable bags (or water bottles) in certain situations, and there are likely value judgments you make that have equal (or greater) environmental impact which have similar utility.
Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration.
One big thing is that we use the clean drinking water for showering and flushing our toilet also, this could be a great water saver for the future if we could have a substream of lesser quality water to use for these purposes.
I see that as a way to clean up rivers. If you’re environmentally conscious, let your tap run 24 hours a day :-)
Seriously: I don’t think separate quality sources makes much sense. Firstly, citizens would have to be aware that there is tap water they cannot drink (where can you safely use it, and be sure kids wouldn’t drink it? Showers and garden hoses definitely are out. Farming and industry probably are the only use cases that make sense, and those already can have separate lower quality feeds, if they want it), and secondly, the effort needed to keep the streams separate and the impact of that going awry would make it difficult.
On the exit side, there is discussion about keeping runoff water separate from more contaminated water (greywater vs blackwater. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)). That already is done a bit in new neighborhoods by having separate pipes for rainwater runoff and sewage. Possible problem there is that adding rainwater to sewage helps it flow through the system. Also, again, constructors would have to conscious about never feeding blackwater into a greywater pipe.
Seriously: I don’t think separate quality sources makes much sense. Firstly, citizens would have to be aware that there is tap water they cannot drink (where can you safely use it, and be sure kids wouldn’t drink it? Showers and garden hoses definitely are out. Farming and industry probably are the only use cases that make sense, and those already can have separate lower quality feeds, if they want it), and secondly, the effort needed to keep the streams separate and the impact of that going awry would make it difficult.
On the exit side, there is discussion about keeping runoff water separate from more contaminated water (greywater vs blackwater. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)). That already is done a bit in new neighborhoods by having separate pipes for rainwater runoff and sewage. Possible problem there is that adding rainwater to sewage helps it flow through the system. Also, again, constructors would have to conscious about never feeding blackwater into a greywater pipe.
My old school used grey water for sprinkler systemss It was like 99% clean but not “drinkable”. Big red signs everywhere, seems fine. I would think golf courses must do something similar but don’t know
The practical problem with having two qualities of water in a home is that the contractors who are working on water installations are not careful enough. Obviously you want to have zero risk that drinking water gets contaminated with less clean water.
So in some projects where they started out with such a dual water quality setup, they have revered to only drinking water.
So in some projects where they started out with such a dual water quality setup, they have revered to only drinking water.
Not everywhere in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam there are even a couple of specialized Water Shops. Which is really a lot like selling air if you think about it, considering that tap water is almost free and has often a better quality than what is sold in those bottles.
> Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration.
I doubt that water filtration is particularly expensive compared to stuff like defense expenses or buying out banks.
It's more about whether a government cares about providing an egalitarian long term solution for clean water.
The US government doesn't care about black people being unjustly shot dead by police or for providing health care. Of course they don't care about something as abstract as clean water.
I doubt that water filtration is particularly expensive compared to stuff like defense expenses or buying out banks.
It's more about whether a government cares about providing an egalitarian long term solution for clean water.
The US government doesn't care about black people being unjustly shot dead by police or for providing health care. Of course they don't care about something as abstract as clean water.
I think it is also about the insanely large network in the US compared to tiny Netherlands (Netherlands is about 300 km by 150 km). Water has more time to go bad in those long pipes. to see how small the Netherlands is: https://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs-nl/texas-netherlands-s...
Usually, even small towns have their own water extraction and purification facilities, so the size of a country doesn't have any influence (at least directly). Bar rare occasions with extreme climates, where no local water source is available.
If I'm driving around your beautiful country, I didn't bring my own containers and I can't bring them back on the plane. Your own containers are much more expensive than the bottled water is. So no wonder tourists buy bottled water.
Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane, you just can't take them with liquid in them. Just empty them and refill them.
When traveling there are faucets at every restaurant, gas station, campsite, or pretty much any place you can think of. It's even safe to drink from the streams out in the nature.
In speaking with tourists it's clear that the main reason they buy water (and in the quantities they do) is that they just don't know any better.
When traveling there are faucets at every restaurant, gas station, campsite, or pretty much any place you can think of. It's even safe to drink from the streams out in the nature.
In speaking with tourists it's clear that the main reason they buy water (and in the quantities they do) is that they just don't know any better.
> Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane
In terms of energy, that plane flight likely used 1000s to millions of times more energy than that used to create a bottle of water. Running the numbers from [1] and [2], I came up with about 200 bottles of water per mile of air travel.
Was that trip necessary? What do we think of people who take an "unnecessary" flight (or perhaps a cheaper one because it takes a longer, less desirable route)? Do we consider them to be in "mental decline" or "apathetic" as other commenter have suggested.
In comparison to the flight, the bottle of water seems quite insubstantial. So if they found the water bottle more convenient in this scenario, I can't see a major objection.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
In terms of energy, that plane flight likely used 1000s to millions of times more energy than that used to create a bottle of water. Running the numbers from [1] and [2], I came up with about 200 bottles of water per mile of air travel.
Was that trip necessary? What do we think of people who take an "unnecessary" flight (or perhaps a cheaper one because it takes a longer, less desirable route)? Do we consider them to be in "mental decline" or "apathetic" as other commenter have suggested.
In comparison to the flight, the bottle of water seems quite insubstantial. So if they found the water bottle more convenient in this scenario, I can't see a major objection.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
Last time I travelled from the UK I was allowed to take empty bottles with me, but there's no "of course" about it. For example you can take a full 50ml bottle, but not a 500ml bottle with 50ml of water in it.
It's best just to check in advance.
It's best just to check in advance.
I know Icelanders are proud of their drinking water but most people's definition of "pristine" doesn't include "caked with minerals and stinking of sulphur". Is it silly and wasteful to avoid drinking it? Absolutely. But don't assume it's based on ignorance - plenty of people have tried it and found the strong taste off-putting.
One major reason to buy commercially bottled water is that it tends to store safely at room temperature more/less indefinitely. Tap water in many places is not sufficiently chlorinated to safely store long-term.
For what it's worth, I think the standards for basically all drinking water, including municipal supplies, are pretty low. Accepted levels of arsenic in ground and tap water (and probably some bottled water) are calibrated to a shockingly high tolerance for causing cancer, well above the typical target risk of one in a million.
For what it's worth, I think the standards for basically all drinking water, including municipal supplies, are pretty low. Accepted levels of arsenic in ground and tap water (and probably some bottled water) are calibrated to a shockingly high tolerance for causing cancer, well above the typical target risk of one in a million.
Here in the Netherlands bottles like these are widely popular: https://dopper.com/ and http://join-the-pipe.org/ (there always a project for water in the third world attached) to be honest, the places I have been in the US the tap water tasted like over-chlorinated pool water and I would drink it either. Tap water in the Netherlands is very nice though.
If people were only buying it as a convenience, it would be a non-issue. But it is an issue.
They draw incredible amounts of water from several systems throughout the country because people with perfectly good tap water buy cases of the stuff every week as their sole source of drinking water.
They draw incredible amounts of water from several systems throughout the country because people with perfectly good tap water buy cases of the stuff every week as their sole source of drinking water.
> If people were only buying it as a convenience, it would be a non-issue. But it is an issue.
You say this as if it were a fact, but no evidence has been provided to support this. This is a general issue with online communities, lowers the quality of discourse, and makes it hard to come to a consensus.
So... here's one reference I found [1]. The paper tries to correlate perceived quality of local water supply and consumption of bottled water. They found that 13.4% of users used bottled water as their primary source of water. The paper contains many other interesting data points for example:
"When all other conditions were exactly equal, a respondent who was one year older in age was about 2% less likely to use bottled water as the primary source of drinking water. From a gender standpoint, the odds that a female uses bottled water for primary drinking source are 1.32 times as much as the odds for a male, with all other conditions being equal. Education level was not a significant predictor for bottled water use."
Either bottle water use decreases with age, or bottle water use is more popular among the new generations, and can be expected to increase with time. It would be useful to have data about this.
However, using bottled water as your primary source of water is still somewhat niche. I'm not sure it's a good indicator of the decline of American society, as was suggested.
Also:
> More often than not, people buying that Nestle water live in places where the tap has better scores than where the water was bottled in the first place.
The data appears to show that the majority of people buying bottled water, do not do so as their primary source of water. And are perhaps more likely just engaged in casual consumption (or while traveling etc as suggested).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084479/
You say this as if it were a fact, but no evidence has been provided to support this. This is a general issue with online communities, lowers the quality of discourse, and makes it hard to come to a consensus.
So... here's one reference I found [1]. The paper tries to correlate perceived quality of local water supply and consumption of bottled water. They found that 13.4% of users used bottled water as their primary source of water. The paper contains many other interesting data points for example:
"When all other conditions were exactly equal, a respondent who was one year older in age was about 2% less likely to use bottled water as the primary source of drinking water. From a gender standpoint, the odds that a female uses bottled water for primary drinking source are 1.32 times as much as the odds for a male, with all other conditions being equal. Education level was not a significant predictor for bottled water use."
Either bottle water use decreases with age, or bottle water use is more popular among the new generations, and can be expected to increase with time. It would be useful to have data about this.
However, using bottled water as your primary source of water is still somewhat niche. I'm not sure it's a good indicator of the decline of American society, as was suggested.
Also:
> More often than not, people buying that Nestle water live in places where the tap has better scores than where the water was bottled in the first place.
The data appears to show that the majority of people buying bottled water, do not do so as their primary source of water. And are perhaps more likely just engaged in casual consumption (or while traveling etc as suggested).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084479/
a) Anyone who keeps tabs on the news doesn't need a peer-reviewed article to understand that bottling-companies-gone-wild is indeed an issue. These stories are fairly common.
b) Wrote "sole source of drinking water", not "primary source of water". They're not bathing in Nestle... yet.
c) Literally everyone I know goes through a case of the stuff every week. Anecdotal, I know. Sue me.
b) Wrote "sole source of drinking water", not "primary source of water". They're not bathing in Nestle... yet.
c) Literally everyone I know goes through a case of the stuff every week. Anecdotal, I know. Sue me.
> a) Anyone who keeps tabs on the news doesn't need a peer-reviewed article to understand that bottling-companies-gone-wild is indeed an issue. These stories are fairly common.
I'm pretty sure not everyone reads the same news sites... in any case, most new reporting is pretty poor. But referencing it, would at least provide a starting point for discussion.
> b) Wrote "sole source of drinking water", not "primary source of water". They're not bathing in Nestle... yet.
If you read the article I referenced the question as asked is "Do you primarily purchase bottled water for your drinking water?". So yes, this is about drinking water. I mistakenly assumed that was clear from the context.
> c) Literally everyone I know goes through a case of the stuff every week. Anecdotal, I know. Sue me.
Yes, this is not useful as a discussion point. If you have a link to a survey or other reference that's useful. It's possible that things have changed since the 2011 article I posted.
I'm pretty sure not everyone reads the same news sites... in any case, most new reporting is pretty poor. But referencing it, would at least provide a starting point for discussion.
> b) Wrote "sole source of drinking water", not "primary source of water". They're not bathing in Nestle... yet.
If you read the article I referenced the question as asked is "Do you primarily purchase bottled water for your drinking water?". So yes, this is about drinking water. I mistakenly assumed that was clear from the context.
> c) Literally everyone I know goes through a case of the stuff every week. Anecdotal, I know. Sue me.
Yes, this is not useful as a discussion point. If you have a link to a survey or other reference that's useful. It's possible that things have changed since the 2011 article I posted.
How do I know if I have good tap water?
You can likely find info online. In San Francisco we get information in the mail once a year. Probably because they want to brag about how good it is :)
I'm not sure why the smiley face, I have received the same "bragging" letter in a midwest state and a state north of San Francisco. Lots of places in US have good (or should I say standard) water.
And that’s great! I never implied San Francisco is the only place with high water quality.
I’m not talking about “standard” water though. San Francisco gets water from snowmelt so it has noticeably less contaminants than most water supplies. It routinely ranks among the top few water sources in the United States
"You guys have the best water that we tested. Period," Snyder said of San Francisco's drinking water. "I don't think we've ever tested drinking water that didn't have any of our target compounds in it."
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfgate.com/green/amp/S-F-s-ta...
I’m not talking about “standard” water though. San Francisco gets water from snowmelt so it has noticeably less contaminants than most water supplies. It routinely ranks among the top few water sources in the United States
"You guys have the best water that we tested. Period," Snyder said of San Francisco's drinking water. "I don't think we've ever tested drinking water that didn't have any of our target compounds in it."
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfgate.com/green/amp/S-F-s-ta...
I don't know about "good," but it's always money well spent to get a test kit from the home store (Home Depot and Lowes both sell them for $20-$30). Sometimes you can have an issue caused by your home that has nothing to do with the public supply.
Knew one person who found out his sewage pipes were somehow mingling with his fresh water ones this way. How that even happens, I do not know...
Knew one person who found out his sewage pipes were somehow mingling with his fresh water ones this way. How that even happens, I do not know...
There should be a website that tells you for your current GPS location the quality of the tap water.
I buy bottled water because my home and office tap water tastes disgusting (I've tried various water filters and they didn't help. I'll probably try a reverse-osmosis filter soon). I also buy bottled water when I'm travelling, like you.
If every check out counter had a tap for dispensing water, you could fill up your container while paying the bill. Reduces so much of the friction you speak about.
blubb-fish(3)
what about if they prefer the taste of the bottled water? San Pellegrino, since you mentioned it, certainly has a very distinctive taste profile, but even for other brands there will be a taste (which of course partially is affected by the branding).
Nestle and Coca-Cola have many sub-companies that bottle water from wells and ship them around the world with a big (2000+% mark up).
There is the saying the next wars will not be about oil but about drink water.
Just 3 days ago on HN front page:
A Coca-Cola plant in Mexico uses 1.08M liters of water per day as wells dry up
339 points by colinprince 2 days ago | 157 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15283928
There is the saying the next wars will not be about oil but about drink water.
Just 3 days ago on HN front page:
A Coca-Cola plant in Mexico uses 1.08M liters of water per day as wells dry up
339 points by colinprince 2 days ago | 157 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15283928
[deleted]
agreed. In fact we should be celebrating water bottlers for providing utility for humans by transferring water from where it is plentiful to where it is actually scare, in an easily consumable container.
> in an easily consumable container
That's the thing though: people wouldn't have so much issue with bottled water if the container actually was "easily consumable". As it is, bottled water is simply crime against the planet.
That's the thing though: people wouldn't have so much issue with bottled water if the container actually was "easily consumable". As it is, bottled water is simply crime against the planet.
If you never wanted to do something that was a "crime against the planet", we'd all be living in caves. You can't avoid it in a modern society.
There's a difference between what's necessary, and what's just profiteering off damaging the environment. In a world where civilized countries can ensure quality drinking water in their taps, bottled water should be relegated to disaster relief and "transferring water from where it is plentiful to where it is actually scare".
I almost always drink tap water but I would say it is better for people to drink bottled water than bottled sugar water. Should we ban sodas? Beer?
It is, but the health issues are a completely separate discussion.
As for distribution of sodas, beers and other beverages - given the pattern of their consumption, it makes more sense to have them in containers than to try and make everyone's home connected to "tap beer".
Now, we can continue this topic into realms of packaging of foods and other items, and I'm going to say it up-front: I consider the modern amount of packaging on things to be a crime as well. E.g. pre-packaged meat in plastic containers vs. getting it wrapped in paper by a clerk at the meat stand.
I understand that convenience has value, and I wouldn't personally even care about this if we had a working, efficient recycling infrastructure. As we don't, I do care.
As for distribution of sodas, beers and other beverages - given the pattern of their consumption, it makes more sense to have them in containers than to try and make everyone's home connected to "tap beer".
Now, we can continue this topic into realms of packaging of foods and other items, and I'm going to say it up-front: I consider the modern amount of packaging on things to be a crime as well. E.g. pre-packaged meat in plastic containers vs. getting it wrapped in paper by a clerk at the meat stand.
I understand that convenience has value, and I wouldn't personally even care about this if we had a working, efficient recycling infrastructure. As we don't, I do care.
>I understand that convenience has value, and I wouldn't personally even care about this if we had a working, efficient recycling infrastructure. As we don't, I do care.
It's practically impossible to recycle plastics economically. The best we can manage at the moment is down-cycling them into low-grade, low-value plastic products. There's an argument to be made for standardised and washable glass bottles with a deposit scheme, although that's unlikely to be popular. If we're stuck with disposable containers, Tetra-pak cartons are probably better over the whole lifecycle, although the calculations are extremely complex and we don't fully understand the environmental cost of a plastic bottle.
It's practically impossible to recycle plastics economically. The best we can manage at the moment is down-cycling them into low-grade, low-value plastic products. There's an argument to be made for standardised and washable glass bottles with a deposit scheme, although that's unlikely to be popular. If we're stuck with disposable containers, Tetra-pak cartons are probably better over the whole lifecycle, although the calculations are extremely complex and we don't fully understand the environmental cost of a plastic bottle.
A $2 HDPE bottle will last for years; A $10 metal bottle is practically an heirloom piece. The "single-use" bottles that water is sold in can be re-used numerous times.
There's an economic problem with the supply of water in public places. On a societal level, it would be vastly cheaper for local municipalities to provide faucets and drinking fountains. There'd be negligible economic cost to legislation requiring cafes and restaurants to refill water bottles free of charge or for a nominal fee.
A series of misaligned incentives has created a multi-billion dollar industry out of an extremely inefficient way of distributing water. Foremost among them is the unpriced externalities of the resources used to produce, transport and dispose of water bottles.
It's not a major issue in the broader scheme of things, but it's emblematic of a more fundamental failure in how we respond to environmental challenges.
There's an economic problem with the supply of water in public places. On a societal level, it would be vastly cheaper for local municipalities to provide faucets and drinking fountains. There'd be negligible economic cost to legislation requiring cafes and restaurants to refill water bottles free of charge or for a nominal fee.
A series of misaligned incentives has created a multi-billion dollar industry out of an extremely inefficient way of distributing water. Foremost among them is the unpriced externalities of the resources used to produce, transport and dispose of water bottles.
It's not a major issue in the broader scheme of things, but it's emblematic of a more fundamental failure in how we respond to environmental challenges.
High quality drinking fountains in public places used to be the norm, at least in the US. Out side almost every shared bathrooms (like at a school, park, large office, government building, grocery store, etc.) there was a drinking fountain. They always worked and would spout out a nice 4-6 inch high stream of water at high volume. The technology was well developed and the fountains would last forever. One simple valve is the only moving part. One could get a pleasurable, gulping drink when desired.
When these fountains were removed and sometimes replaced as required by the ADA, the new fountains did not work as well. One needed two of them to have them at a low height and a high height. They seem to break often, so one could not count on getting water when one is thirsty. They usually have low water pressure or broken valves so the water comes out at a trickle. You cannot get the water your body wants without bending over awkwardly, your lips hitting the spout, and sucking on a pitiful trickle of water for minutes at a time. It is not the pleasurable experience that drinking water can be. No wonder people started looking for a bottle of water to buy when they were thirsty. I usually carry a bottle of tap water when I carry a pack, but it is more enjoyable to walk around without carrying one. When I do that and get thirsty, most of the time I buy some water, as the there are no working drinking fountains to be found.
When these fountains were removed and sometimes replaced as required by the ADA, the new fountains did not work as well. One needed two of them to have them at a low height and a high height. They seem to break often, so one could not count on getting water when one is thirsty. They usually have low water pressure or broken valves so the water comes out at a trickle. You cannot get the water your body wants without bending over awkwardly, your lips hitting the spout, and sucking on a pitiful trickle of water for minutes at a time. It is not the pleasurable experience that drinking water can be. No wonder people started looking for a bottle of water to buy when they were thirsty. I usually carry a bottle of tap water when I carry a pack, but it is more enjoyable to walk around without carrying one. When I do that and get thirsty, most of the time I buy some water, as the there are no working drinking fountains to be found.
[deleted]
That's moving the goal posts.
> If you never wanted to do something that was a "crime against the planet", we'd all be living in caves.
> You can't avoid it in a modern society
Now, if it was in an easily consumable container, that would be something to celebrate.
Probably not possible, chemically. But imagine if you could package water and some food calories together and ship it.
Probably not possible, chemically. But imagine if you could package water and some food calories together and ship it.
If the bottle was edible, other organisms than us would eat it before we got to it.
So then you'd have to package the edible bottle in a protective layer.
It seems easier to just sell water and food separately.
So then you'd have to package the edible bottle in a protective layer.
It seems easier to just sell water and food separately.
Maybe not edible then, but biodegradable - that should do. There's a company in the UK called VegWare[0] no affiliation ) which produces biodegradable food packaging. - most of the "artisan" food stores in my city now package their products in it.
0- https://www.vegware.com
0- https://www.vegware.com
this has been done/ tried. someone's already made an edible water bottle http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/04/12/edible-wate... - the issue is scale. No new startup can hope to match the scale and distribution the larger companies have. I think the best case scenario is for the likes of Nestle to see these new packaging types as a good investment to boost sales and start adopting them too. Hopefully the more eco friendly options could also be produced in 25 seconds!
> Probably not possible, chemically
https://www.fastcompany.com/40403025/this-edible-water-bottl...
https://www.fastcompany.com/40403025/this-edible-water-bottl...
You mean like a melon but one that holds large quantities of water?
Coconut.
In places like Brazil, street vendors sell coconuts for drinking. They cut a small hole in the top and put a straw in when you buy it. Safe to drink and delicious. The container may not be edible, but it's easily biodegradable.
In places like Brazil, street vendors sell coconuts for drinking. They cut a small hole in the top and put a straw in when you buy it. Safe to drink and delicious. The container may not be edible, but it's easily biodegradable.
Delicious if you like sickly-sweet, salty water.
Seriously, it's an acquired taste. But, what's funny is that they've been doing that forever in places like Brazil and the Caribbean. Then, several years ago, they put it in a box and imported to the U.S. etc., and it was like some brand new invention.
But, of course, for each of those bio-degradable coconut husks, we now have a handful of tiny, plastic-lined boxes.
Seriously, it's an acquired taste. But, what's funny is that they've been doing that forever in places like Brazil and the Caribbean. Then, several years ago, they put it in a box and imported to the U.S. etc., and it was like some brand new invention.
But, of course, for each of those bio-degradable coconut husks, we now have a handful of tiny, plastic-lined boxes.
> Delicious if you like sickly-sweet, salty water.
That's entirely dependent on the type (and ripeness) of coconut, or more likely the can you're cracking. Hardly any coconut water tastes 'sickly sweet' from the fresh fruit.
That's entirely dependent on the type (and ripeness) of coconut, or more likely the can you're cracking. Hardly any coconut water tastes 'sickly sweet' from the fresh fruit.
Jamaica. Straight from the fruit.
Just a matter of taste.
Just a matter of taste.
Every human knows water is usually a scarce and valuable resource and needs to be taken care of.
It's not a tenable position to wait for it to become scarce before taking steps. Water is a common resource and allowing indiscriminate abuse by private interests with lobbying power cannot be justified and inevitably leads to problems in future.
It's not a tenable position to wait for it to become scarce before taking steps. Water is a common resource and allowing indiscriminate abuse by private interests with lobbying power cannot be justified and inevitably leads to problems in future.
San Francisco Bay Area tap water is safe to drink and is held to a lot higher safety standard than bottled water. Also the source of most bottled-water is no different than the source for tap. Bottled-water is often priced at a 2000%+ markup.
http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=447
https://www.quora.com/Is-San-Francisco-city-tap-water-safe-t...
http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=447
https://www.quora.com/Is-San-Francisco-city-tap-water-safe-t...
Sure. Safe to drink but most Bay Area water tastes damn awful.
I can’t stand drinking tap water in the Bay unless it is ice cold.
Some bottled water tastes bad too. Getting the stuff that isn’t bottled anywhere near california always seems to taste better.
I use a 6 stage water filtration system and it is a life saver. I didn’t drink water regularly at all in the Bay until I had that. Still don’t drink much water at most restaurants here...
I’m not a defender of bottled water but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that all bottled water is equal to tap water. Especially SF tap water. It definitely isn’t. Some actually tastes decent.
I can’t stand drinking tap water in the Bay unless it is ice cold.
Some bottled water tastes bad too. Getting the stuff that isn’t bottled anywhere near california always seems to taste better.
I use a 6 stage water filtration system and it is a life saver. I didn’t drink water regularly at all in the Bay until I had that. Still don’t drink much water at most restaurants here...
I’m not a defender of bottled water but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that all bottled water is equal to tap water. Especially SF tap water. It definitely isn’t. Some actually tastes decent.
This. I lived around Bay Area a long time and I couldn't drink the water without running it through a filtration system first. It doesn't have the worst tasting water of the many places I've lived (parts of southern California win that award) but it is objectively pretty poor which is why so many people there drink filtered/bottled water. Parts of California have real problems with minerality that adversely affect flavor even in the bottled versions.
By contrast, the tap water in Seattle and many parts of the Pacific Northwest tastes excellent, about the same as drinking it directly from the springs up in the mountains whence it came. Consequently, people rarely drink bottled water in that region; you can't materially improve the flavor of what comes out of the tap.
While some of the difference is in the local mineral balance, which can be quite unpleasant in some locales (e.g. in close proximity to active volcanic areas in the mountain West), in most regions the unpleasantness comes down to the chemical treatment required to make the water safe based on the default quality of the watershed.
By contrast, the tap water in Seattle and many parts of the Pacific Northwest tastes excellent, about the same as drinking it directly from the springs up in the mountains whence it came. Consequently, people rarely drink bottled water in that region; you can't materially improve the flavor of what comes out of the tap.
While some of the difference is in the local mineral balance, which can be quite unpleasant in some locales (e.g. in close proximity to active volcanic areas in the mountain West), in most regions the unpleasantness comes down to the chemical treatment required to make the water safe based on the default quality of the watershed.
I drink several cups of water per day straight out of the tap in San Francisco, and have done so for about 6 years. It tastes fine to me, which is to say it doesn’t taste like anything. I also have a water filter and pitcher that I keep in my fridge, and while ice cold water is certainly nicer, it’s rarely worth the trouble for me to refill it. I’m curious why you think the water tastes bad straight from the tap, and even more curious if you would be able the distinguish it from your preferred water source in a blind taste test.
Have you ever had water from anywhere else? The minerals in the bay area water or whatever the chemical difference is makes it awful compared to tap water elsewhere.
>even more curious if you would be able the distinguish it from your preferred water source in a blind taste test.
Of course you would. Tap water isn't purified in any regard to only contain hydrogen and oxygen. It's filled with all kinds of other crap with just certain crap removed.
>even more curious if you would be able the distinguish it from your preferred water source in a blind taste test.
Of course you would. Tap water isn't purified in any regard to only contain hydrogen and oxygen. It's filled with all kinds of other crap with just certain crap removed.
It doesn't seem completly rational to say "all kinds of other crap", but maybe I'm wrong and you have examples of which kind of craps. Tap water is usually enough regulated for it to be safe to drink.
There is a huge variety of minerals that are perfectly fine to leave in drinking water.
You're right that it's regulated to be safe to drink, but safety has nothing to do with taste.
You're right that it's regulated to be safe to drink, but safety has nothing to do with taste.
I grew up with well water from the Midwest, which oddly enough is claimed by many to be very tasty because of its mineral content (but bad for pipes and appliances). I’ve also heard people say that distilled water actually tastes bad or uncomfortable precisely because it is very nearly just hydrogen and oxygen. I’m still skeptical that there’s any difference that could be discerned in a blind test.
"Minerals" is a blanket category. That's like saying that you'll like flour water because you like sugar water because they're both fall into the category of carbs.
To people who regularly drink very mineralized spring water, there's a huge difference. Spring water tastes almost like milk.
The difference is significant. I lived in Cleveland, OH for awhile, and their city has some of the best tap water in the nation. Did a stint in the Bay Area and the difference is immediately noticeable, and this was before anyone brought it up to me or I had read about it, so there was no chance of being influenced by prior opinion.
What filtration system do you use? I've got the same problem in the L.A. area and wouldn't mind checking something out (a simple brita filter doesn't do much for it).
Why don't Japanese style water tap filter systems [1] get popular in the west? These things are incredibly convenient and cheap - your tap water now tastes good, the upfront cost is ~35 USD and the running cost is at most around 3 USD per month. Hell of a lot cheaper and easier than buying water bottles and transporting them around.
[1] http://gd.image-gmkt.com/li/089/310/525310089.g_0-w_g.jpg
[1] http://gd.image-gmkt.com/li/089/310/525310089.g_0-w_g.jpg
I've seen these around Europe. Also, a larger version where the filter is under the counter.
America != The west.
America != The west.
Well I'm from Europe and I haven't. Where have you seen them more specifically? In Switzerland they don't make a lot of sense (good tasting water, but very calcium-heavy which these AFAIK don't help against). But e.g. in France and Italy I think it would make a lot of sense, the water there is AFAIK safe but tastes awful to me.
Scandinavia and Britain.
It's not something I'd buy -- the water here has an extremely high mineral content, but isn't that what people pay extra for when it's put in a glass bottle? -- but there are some available on Amazon.co.uk if you search "filter tap".
It's not something I'd buy -- the water here has an extremely high mineral content, but isn't that what people pay extra for when it's put in a glass bottle? -- but there are some available on Amazon.co.uk if you search "filter tap".
I have seen these things occasionally in Europe. It's not a strictly Japanese thing.
I got this on sale for about $160. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LJ8EXU/ref=oh_aui_sear...
Water at my current home in Oakland has excellent tap water. I think the difference is that some water in the Bay Area comes from close to pristine surface sources, and is very good, while others come from ground water. The quality of groundwater will vary a lot; from great to very bad (or event toxic if you have your own well and an underground plume of waste dumped by an old chip factory comes your way).
It's been a few years since I lived there, but San Mateo had pretty tasty water.
I think Bay Area's tap water tastes fine. To each his own.
Just a couple of weeks ago people in Alameda couldn't even bathe in the tap water. That's not a great testament to the quality of bay area water.
https://alamedaca.gov/wateralert
https://alamedaca.gov/wateralert
That affected about 230 homes who were not EBMUD customers. It's fixed now. Somebody connected an irrigation well to the potable water system.
(Agricultural areas often have both non-potable and potable water systems. Stanford does, incidentally. Stanford has a private water system, with Felt Lake as a reservoir. It's mostly used to irrigate the golf course and lawns.)
[1] https://alamedaca.gov/waterfaq
(Agricultural areas often have both non-potable and potable water systems. Stanford does, incidentally. Stanford has a private water system, with Felt Lake as a reservoir. It's mostly used to irrigate the golf course and lawns.)
[1] https://alamedaca.gov/waterfaq
I wouldn't be so sure, within the last year it's now "Hechy Hech mixed with groundwater", you may have seen the pre-emptive advertising on buses when they rolled it out. My feeling is that it is probably worse than it used to be.
It also tastes like crap. In Vancouver the tap water tastes as good as bottled. The only thing better is fresh from a mountain creek.
Most bottled "spring water" is tap water that is pumped in a few yards away from the "spring" and then bubbles up, legally now "spring water."
I don't believe there's any legal requirement for that. I know there is no legally required notification of the water's source, as that was a bit of a debate topic locally and just a few years ago.
San Francisco's tap water is pumped from Yosemite. It tastes great to me. There now enough water there for all of the Bay area, so in many municipalities (e.g. Sunnyvale, I think) water tastes terrible.
In case you haven't seen this before, worth a look: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy#Hetch_Hetchy_Pr...
"Water from Hetch Hetchy is some of the cleanest municipal water in the United States; San Francisco is one of six U.S. cities not required by law to filter its tap water, although the water is disinfected by ozonation and, since 2011, exposure to UV.[58] The water quality is high because of the unique geology of the upper Tuolumne River drainage basin, which consists mostly of bare granite; as a result, the rivers feeding Hetch Hetchy Reservoir have extremely low loads of sediments and nutrients."
The plant locations should probably tighten up their water laws so that they're getting at least something back from Nestle, but the real wrongdoers in this scheme might be the consumers ...
There's a worrying number of people in the world living in places with perfectly potable water, but who insist on drinking only environmentally-damaging bottled water through some superstitious belief that it's better for them.
If Nestle didn't have such a lucrative market to fleece, Nestle's profits would be far less impressive.
There's a worrying number of people in the world living in places with perfectly potable water, but who insist on drinking only environmentally-damaging bottled water through some superstitious belief that it's better for them.
If Nestle didn't have such a lucrative market to fleece, Nestle's profits would be far less impressive.
> There's a worrying number of people in the world living in places with perfectly potable water, but who insist on drinking only environmentally-damaging bottled water through some superstitious belief that it's better for them.
It always seems odd that bottled water gets trashed a lot more than bottled soda, when soda is both worse for the consumer's health, and probably has a higher environmental footprint (since it's not just the water, but the water plus whatever sweeteners and chemicals get added).
True, soda doesn't taste the same as tap water, but bottled water doesn't taste the same as tap water a lot of the time, either. Some people also prefer the convenience of buying a bottle of water, and it would seem strange to say: "Hey, it's fine to buy something in the bottle if you're doing so for the flavor, but if you're doing so for the sake of convenience, that's terrible."
It always seems odd that bottled water gets trashed a lot more than bottled soda, when soda is both worse for the consumer's health, and probably has a higher environmental footprint (since it's not just the water, but the water plus whatever sweeteners and chemicals get added).
True, soda doesn't taste the same as tap water, but bottled water doesn't taste the same as tap water a lot of the time, either. Some people also prefer the convenience of buying a bottle of water, and it would seem strange to say: "Hey, it's fine to buy something in the bottle if you're doing so for the flavor, but if you're doing so for the sake of convenience, that's terrible."
If every house had a Coke faucet that could supply limitless supplies of soda nearly free, your argument might be more appropriate.
You'll find plenty of people arguing against sodas in threads that talk about soda, this one, however is about the water, no one is suggesting that soda is a better alternative.
You'll find plenty of people arguing against sodas in threads that talk about soda, this one, however is about the water, no one is suggesting that soda is a better alternative.
You seem to have missed the two reasons I gave for why people may want to buy bottled water. Yes, people have faucets, but the water coming out of your tap often tastes different from the water you buy (yes, it might also be coming out of a tap, but there are many taps across the U.S. with varying taste). And there are various levels of purification - if people really believe that tap water is exactly the same as purified water, then home water filters are an enormous scam. But I've never heard anyone argue that.
Another reason people might buy a bottle of water is because of convenience - if someone's taking a long drive, for example, it's easier to buy a bottle of water at a gas station and drink it periodically than pull over every time they want to drink.
The reason I bring up soda is because there's sometimes less animosity towards soda than bottled water. Some schools will even ban bottled water, but allow bottled soda[1] - naturally leading to an increase in the less healthy option.
[1] http://grist.org/article/plastic-water-bottle-ban-leads-to-u...
Another reason people might buy a bottle of water is because of convenience - if someone's taking a long drive, for example, it's easier to buy a bottle of water at a gas station and drink it periodically than pull over every time they want to drink.
The reason I bring up soda is because there's sometimes less animosity towards soda than bottled water. Some schools will even ban bottled water, but allow bottled soda[1] - naturally leading to an increase in the less healthy option.
[1] http://grist.org/article/plastic-water-bottle-ban-leads-to-u...
When I lived in a house with water that had a weird chlorinated taste, I bought an under-sink filter that rendered the water tasteless. 3000 gallons per filter, or around 24,000 bottles worth. Or around a penny per gallon (including the faucet dispenser.... about a third of that for the filter only)
When I go for a drive, I take a refillable bottle with me, and generally fill it up at the hotel in the morning. Though I will admit to buying a bottled water from time to time.
But I don't think that a significant percentage of the 50 billion water bottles sold every year are going to people that don't have convenient access to tap water.
When I go for a drive, I take a refillable bottle with me, and generally fill it up at the hotel in the morning. Though I will admit to buying a bottled water from time to time.
But I don't think that a significant percentage of the 50 billion water bottles sold every year are going to people that don't have convenient access to tap water.
I guess this is what I don't understand. Whenever this comes up, people usually act as if bottled water is no different than what comes out of people's taps. As the conversation goes on, though, people start talking about the filtration systems they've bought, or about having the water tested.
If we all know that tap water in many cases isn't the equivalent of filtered water, or that tap water can vary from location to location, why do these conversation invariably always start by pretending that there's no difference between bottled water and water straight from someone's tap?
If we all know that tap water in many cases isn't the equivalent of filtered water, or that tap water can vary from location to location, why do these conversation invariably always start by pretending that there's no difference between bottled water and water straight from someone's tap?
Because they live in a society with unreliable tap water, but would like to pretend they don’t, since they realize that tap water could be made dependable (as it is in many places), and by pushing for tap water to be seen as normally dependable, they can generate more complaints from people where it isn’t dependable, which, finally, should make tap water more dependable in the long run.
I live in the SF Bay area now and use no filter and the water is fine.
My parents have a well and when they were concerned with their water they subscribed to a water delivery service that dropped off reusable 5 gallon bottles every couple weeks that is still orders of magnitude better than individual bottles. (Each 5 gallon bottle replaces 40 16 oz bottles and is refilled)
One of their neighbors installed a big (200 gallon?) water tank and hired a service to refill it. My parents ultimately ended up installing a filtering system when it became clear that the well wasn't going to get better. Which would have been cheaper that the water deliveries long term, but less than 2 years later the city ended up bringing municipal water to their neighborhood.
There are lots of more environmentally friendly alternatives to single serve bottles.
My parents have a well and when they were concerned with their water they subscribed to a water delivery service that dropped off reusable 5 gallon bottles every couple weeks that is still orders of magnitude better than individual bottles. (Each 5 gallon bottle replaces 40 16 oz bottles and is refilled)
One of their neighbors installed a big (200 gallon?) water tank and hired a service to refill it. My parents ultimately ended up installing a filtering system when it became clear that the well wasn't going to get better. Which would have been cheaper that the water deliveries long term, but less than 2 years later the city ended up bringing municipal water to their neighborhood.
There are lots of more environmentally friendly alternatives to single serve bottles.
They do mention consumers "worry about the safety of tap water after the high-profile contamination in Flint", so I am guessing people are a bit unwilling to take someone's word on "perfectly potable water" without seeing the proof. Or rather, it's "perfectly potable" until oops, the past few years.
When I was in Stockholm I remember seeing some sort of artsy indicator of water/air quality that runs 24/7 right on the public boardwalk. We need something similar in every town - a constant feed of water quality and ppm measurements, perhaps with a bit of crowdsourcing thrown in, similar to what Wunderground does with weather.
When I was in Stockholm I remember seeing some sort of artsy indicator of water/air quality that runs 24/7 right on the public boardwalk. We need something similar in every town - a constant feed of water quality and ppm measurements, perhaps with a bit of crowdsourcing thrown in, similar to what Wunderground does with weather.
> They do mention consumers "worry about the safety of tap water after the high-profile contamination in Flint", so I am guessing people are a bit unwilling to take someone's word on "perfectly potable water" without seeing the proof.
This. I only drink bottled water. I just have very hard times trusting water which has been flowing in pipes. It may be irrational, but we're talking about a substance we drink every day. It's tough to overcome irrational fears about it.
This. I only drink bottled water. I just have very hard times trusting water which has been flowing in pipes. It may be irrational, but we're talking about a substance we drink every day. It's tough to overcome irrational fears about it.
The water in your bottles comes from somewhere, and it's almost never the mountain springs that bottlers want you to believe. In many cases, it is from municipal water supplies (i.e. it flows through pipes).
Is there not also a health risk from consuming water that's been bottled in plastic?
No.
The bottled water is just somewhere else's tap water.
Poland Spring, owned by Nestlé now, may actually come from a spring and may actually not be municipal tap water. It depends on which plant it came from.
There is a plant not too far from here. It's too long to get into tonight, but quite a few people are unhappy with the deal that was made with Nestlé. Rumors abound about corruption, bribery, and dishonesty.
It's a small town so I'm not sure what will have made it into the newspapers, but the town is Kingfield, Maine. Some of the people are pretty unhappy.
There is a plant not too far from here. It's too long to get into tonight, but quite a few people are unhappy with the deal that was made with Nestlé. Rumors abound about corruption, bribery, and dishonesty.
It's a small town so I'm not sure what will have made it into the newspapers, but the town is Kingfield, Maine. Some of the people are pretty unhappy.
You can get your water tested
> we're talking about a substance we drink every day
Water? I cook with it, but what I drink is generally milk.
Water? I cook with it, but what I drink is generally milk.
[deleted]
As with many things it comes down to educating people, sadly this turns out to be quite challenging.
But the reason people believe bottled water is better for them is because of companies like Nestle which created and marketed that idea to consumers.
A lot of tap water is simply terrible. I've lived in a few places now in Chicago and the water hasn't been drinkable without running it through a Brita filter. First place I was in the water was white.
I find the chloride taste of tap water disgusting, that's why when in the US I drink bottled water. Same holds for soda drinks in restaurants etc. Always ask for bottles.
I don't think blaming the uninformed public for the actions of multi-billion dollar conglomerates with politicians in their pockets and multiple avenues of propaganda at their exposure is ever the correct answer.
You can blame someone for being stupid, but you can't blame them for being ignorant after soaking in loads of bullshit throughout their lives. Blame the ones spewing the bullshit.
You can blame someone for being stupid, but you can't blame them for being ignorant after soaking in loads of bullshit throughout their lives. Blame the ones spewing the bullshit.
Long, long long article, and then:
> Compared with the water needs of agriculture and energy production, the bottled water business is barely responsible for a trickle; in Michigan, it accounts for less than 1 percent of total water usage
Right. So all this stuff about water shortages, the amount of water being used, the amount being charged for the water is meaningless. The entire article is pointless.
(I also loved the way they tried to blame Pakistan's poor infrastructure on Nestlé.)
> Compared with the water needs of agriculture and energy production, the bottled water business is barely responsible for a trickle; in Michigan, it accounts for less than 1 percent of total water usage
Right. So all this stuff about water shortages, the amount of water being used, the amount being charged for the water is meaningless. The entire article is pointless.
(I also loved the way they tried to blame Pakistan's poor infrastructure on Nestlé.)
The facts are scattered throughout the article but here's one of the more shocking:
"In San Bernardino, Calif., Nestlé has long paid the U.S. Forest Service an annual rate of $524 to extract about 30 million gallons, even during droughts".
And I'm sure the Coca-Cola plant down the road pays $524 as well, but for some reason plain water (which is basically the same product minus carbonation and sugar syrup) is somehow a unique moral catastrophe.
30 million gallons is about 92 acre ft of water. California uses 70 million acre ft of water per year. Alfalfa in California uses 5.3 million acre ft/year. So this plant uses 1/10 the amount of water a very small farm would use. It is hard to imagine it but 30 million gallons is a very small amount of water. If the article said "In San Bernardino, Calif., Nestlé has long paid the U.S. Forest Service an annual rate of $524 to extract about 92 acre ft of water, even during droughts" people would think "That's not much".
For those like me for whom "acre ft" means absolutely nothing, it's about 5,172Hhds[1]. Just kidding, it's 1,233 cubic metres, so 92 acre feet =~ 113,500m³.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogshead
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogshead
It sounds a bit weird but the first large irrigation projects were used for farming. When you irrigate your fields (measured in acres) to a depth of about a foot each time, it is the natural unit for large water use. Why switch?
Who the hell would "irrigate" their fields to a depth of 1 foot? That's not irrigation, it's a literal flood!
Unless you're growing rice in a paddy I guess?
Unless you're growing rice in a paddy I guess?
The CEO claims that water should be treated more like a commodity yet they are happy to exploit this. Perhaps it is because if this kind of exploit that he feels so strongly about water as a commodity.
Where is the exploitation? A permit costs $524, so they pay $524.
Do you think 30 million gallons is truly worth $524?
I really have no idea how much untreated water is worth at the source. I now how much it costs me when it's treated and pumped to my house, but I don't know how much the raw water is worth.
If it's worth more than that, maybe the agency selling permits should charge more. It's hardly Nestle's fault if they paid the required fee for their use.
If it's worth more than that, maybe the agency selling permits should charge more. It's hardly Nestle's fault if they paid the required fee for their use.
30m gallons of water is truly worth nothing to people who have plenty of water, and truly worth billions of dollars to people who are dehydrated. In other words “true worth” makes no sense; it depends on context.
One day I'll try learning about California water rights... or perhaps ignorance is bliss for this one.
What's the problem?
I buy bottled water as a drink on the go. I'm perfectly happy drinking tap water that's been bottled. If I've got the choice between a fizzy drink or water, I usually prefer water, thanks.
When I was a kid in the 80s there used to be public water fountains, now there aren't. I think we're all a little more germ paranoid these days too, so i doubt people would even use them if given a choice to buy a bottle of water for a £1 or use a fountain for free.
I mean the guy argues against himself:
Compared with the water needs of agriculture and energy production, the bottled water business is barely responsible for a trickle; in Michigan, it accounts for less than 1 percent of total water usage
The only thing I wish was better was that it wasn't plastic bottles, but I always recycle them if I can.
I buy bottled water as a drink on the go. I'm perfectly happy drinking tap water that's been bottled. If I've got the choice between a fizzy drink or water, I usually prefer water, thanks.
When I was a kid in the 80s there used to be public water fountains, now there aren't. I think we're all a little more germ paranoid these days too, so i doubt people would even use them if given a choice to buy a bottle of water for a £1 or use a fountain for free.
I mean the guy argues against himself:
Compared with the water needs of agriculture and energy production, the bottled water business is barely responsible for a trickle; in Michigan, it accounts for less than 1 percent of total water usage
The only thing I wish was better was that it wasn't plastic bottles, but I always recycle them if I can.
I take a jam jar containing tap water when out and about ('preserving jar' in US I think). Being made of glass it doesn't leach chemicals plus it cleans conveniently in the dishwasher. It fits fine in a backpack and you can protect it in a sock if there's a danger of it rolling around, say in the boot of a car.
Surely they pay some amount for marketing, distribution, inventory, production, capital equipment investment, etc.
And when we buy bottled water, we aren't really buying water. We're buying some combination of marketing and convenience.
And when we buy bottled water, we aren't really buying water. We're buying some combination of marketing and convenience.
In Germany I usually drink water from the tap, whenever in the US[1] tap water is so full of Chlorine I can't get near it. Even more repulsive when Coke smells heavily of Chlorine.
[1] I only have east and west coast experience
[1] I only have east and west coast experience
I grew up drinking the chlorinated tap water of New Jersey. It never tasted good. Water filtration systems, such as under-sink systems, solve that problem.
"with a footprint about the size of Buckingham Palace"
Not an authorised unit. See: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-conv...
1 Buck Pal area is roughly equal to 3.706 MicroWales, 77,000 sq m, 19 acres or 19 football (soccer) pitches.
Not an authorised unit. See: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-conv...
1 Buck Pal area is roughly equal to 3.706 MicroWales, 77,000 sq m, 19 acres or 19 football (soccer) pitches.
Or phrased another way: Consumers are willing to pay billions for nearly free tap water in bottle form. Why? Beats me.
You're buying convenience in a relatively sterile container, with refrigerated contents. Physically, that bottle of water is 99% identical to the bottle of Diet Coke sitting next to it, but the logic of that product is never questioned.
That's hardly true. People criticise soft drinks all the time.
In any case, the difference between a cake with arsenic and a cake without arsenic is going to be significantly less than 1%, but I'm going to make my decision based on that less-than-one-percent.
In any case, the difference between a cake with arsenic and a cake without arsenic is going to be significantly less than 1%, but I'm going to make my decision based on that less-than-one-percent.
> People criticise soft drinks all the time.
For health reasons. They're very rarely criticized for their environmental impact, when they're impact is almost certainly greater than bottled water (since they're not just water and a plastic bottle, but water, a plastic bottle, plus sweeteners and additives).
Some schools have banned bottled waters but allowed bottled soft drinks.
For health reasons. They're very rarely criticized for their environmental impact, when they're impact is almost certainly greater than bottled water (since they're not just water and a plastic bottle, but water, a plastic bottle, plus sweeteners and additives).
Some schools have banned bottled waters but allowed bottled soft drinks.
I would question it if most people had a tap dispensing cheap Diet Coke at home. That's a strange comparison to make.
I think it's strange to not make that comparison. We accept the utility of bottled soda but not bottled water? What kind of fucked up consumerist world do you live in?
It's sweet and it has a taste that many find pleasing and it's hard to copy exactly at home, that's the added value. You might as well compare steak with tofu, cinema with sitting in a park, playing videogames with playing chess. These things don't cost the same thing even though they arguably serve the same purpose. Some people might prefer one over the other. Saying that soda is basically water is like saying that going to the movies is basically like sitting in a park for two hours.
Tap vs. bottled water is more perplexing because it's basically the same thing in both cases. It's more like going out of your way to go to a paying park instead of going to the one next door even though they're basically the same.
I hardly drink any soda by the way, so it's not like I'm arguing that they have great value.
Tap vs. bottled water is more perplexing because it's basically the same thing in both cases. It's more like going out of your way to go to a paying park instead of going to the one next door even though they're basically the same.
I hardly drink any soda by the way, so it's not like I'm arguing that they have great value.
I buy water bottles to have in my car and my gym bag.
I don't have a water tap in either place, so it's not an alternative.
I don't have a water tap in either place, so it's not an alternative.
There are other industries that are billion dollar plus globally that rip off consumers. Natural remedies and diet trends for one. Not saying it's good, but it happens.
Because Consumers are not rational and lazy.
Interesting to see this brought up again by Businessweek but this is far from news – Nestlé and PepsiCo were featured in the 2009 documentary Tapped, which came to many of the same conclusions, and brought up other potential health issues with bottled water, such as the use Bisphenol-A (BPA) in bottle plastics.
Facebook/Goggle makes billions bottling information it pays nearly nothing for.
How many people here installed and use an under-sink water filtration system or full-home system? I've been using them for about 12 years, re-filling liter-sized nalgene bottles as needed.
For a long time, I've wondered whether a filtration system in every home would change people's water consumption habits: would people still buy bottled water despite having superior-quality water available from a tap? As the expression goes-- You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach it to drink.
For a long time, I've wondered whether a filtration system in every home would change people's water consumption habits: would people still buy bottled water despite having superior-quality water available from a tap? As the expression goes-- You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach it to drink.
Municipalities would do well to remove sodium fluoride & other industrial by-products...I mean "health additives"
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/health/fluoride-iq-neurotoxin-...
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/health/fluoride-iq-neurotoxin-...
You wouldn't believe how controversial that is in the U.S. self styled rationalists will call you a quack for even mentioning fluoride.
Meanwhile, our internal organs are getting nicely calcified like a bright, shiny american dental association smile.
Meanwhile, our internal organs are getting nicely calcified like a bright, shiny american dental association smile.
Arterial calcification is largely reversible with healthy lifestyle, adequate vitamin K etc.
Unless you are talking about pineal calcification, of which there doesn't seem to be much in the way of provable negative consequences within normal ranges and is indeed mostly mentioned by new age psychedelic gurus.
And I'm not sure why we should assume fluoride is the main culprit for any of this. But sure, there's a dose-response curve for just about everything.
Unless you are talking about pineal calcification, of which there doesn't seem to be much in the way of provable negative consequences within normal ranges and is indeed mostly mentioned by new age psychedelic gurus.
And I'm not sure why we should assume fluoride is the main culprit for any of this. But sure, there's a dose-response curve for just about everything.
Have you read the Jennifer Luke study? The pineal gland is the only organ in the brain that is not behind the blood brain barrier. It is responsible for regulating our circadian rhythm. Melatonin synthesis is a core aspect of our health.
Jennifer Luke found that in gerbils, high fluoride hastened female sexual development and was associated with a diminished circadian rhythm.
Even if fluoride levels in water are "fine" (as in "deal with it.") for most people, its mass medication and there are likely people who are adversely affected by it. It's absolutely unnecessary.
http://www.slweb.org/luke-1997.html
Jennifer Luke found that in gerbils, high fluoride hastened female sexual development and was associated with a diminished circadian rhythm.
Even if fluoride levels in water are "fine" (as in "deal with it.") for most people, its mass medication and there are likely people who are adversely affected by it. It's absolutely unnecessary.
http://www.slweb.org/luke-1997.html
People aren't paying for the water. They are paying for packaging and distribution and its worth it. You literally can't refute this.
New Zealand has some of the same issues when it comes to access. There's recently been a massive influx of foreign companies who've been granted consent to extract near limitless quantities of water from aquifers, giving back very little to the communities they operate in. Sadly there seems to be very little political will to change this.
I saw the same at my hometown (São Lourenço-MG, Brazil).
It's not fresh news Nestlé doing this.
https://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/em-guerra-contra-a... (pt-BR)
https://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/em-guerra-contra-a... (pt-BR)
I still don't understand why cities are giving out their water for free to multi-billion dollar companies.
We have the same problem here in Brazil in São Lourenço city, near to São Paulo. Nestlé has acquired a large aquatic park and now sale the water and accelerate the process to extract water and with this eliminate the natural minerals proprieties on the water killing all the ecosystem.
This is because governing bodies don't want to put a price on water. Yes, there needs to be another way to ensure Nestle is not taking advantage of natural resources, but setting a precedent for charging for water isn't a great option either.
There's a BBC series of documentaries called "The Foods that make billions" that covers this topic.
Episode one is about liquid gold: bottled water.
Nestlé is just one of them, Coca Cola is another one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w8cll
Episode one is about liquid gold: bottled water.
Nestlé is just one of them, Coca Cola is another one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w8cll
I have a bridge to sell you.
That root of that phrase was predicated on people trying to get rich like bridge owners did in times past, although obviously was used by con artists to trick people much like email scams now.
But it is very relevant.
Privatization of public access routes is logically equivalent to privatization of natural resources, and there's no fair way to justify either, there's just the historical application of violence and subsequent commodification.
But commodification of the commons is approximately as relevant to the concept of a free market as markets for slaves... which is to say not at all, and actually contradicts it.
But it is very relevant.
Privatization of public access routes is logically equivalent to privatization of natural resources, and there's no fair way to justify either, there's just the historical application of violence and subsequent commodification.
But commodification of the commons is approximately as relevant to the concept of a free market as markets for slaves... which is to say not at all, and actually contradicts it.
How horrible for a company to make a good profit!
The idea that public rights shouldn't be sold on the private market is lunacy. Nestle selling me a S. Pelagrino bottle doesn't impact an African kid getting water even a little bit. It's like arguing we should ban farming because nobody should starve.
edit:should be nearly free