Arsenic in Some Bottled Water Brands at Unsafe Levels, Consumer Reports Says
consumerreports.org
consumerreports.org
The EPA sets the ideal level at zero (no safe level) with a max of 10ppb but it is also an essential micronutrient in mammalian biology. It is similar in profile to selenium -- highly toxic in all but microscopic doses but necessary to live. For arsenic, much of this comes naturally in water or via eating animals that drink water. Current mammalian models suggest that humans require something like 20-50ug of arsenic, equivalent to drinking a few liters of water at the current max allowed level. Nothing too controversial here, but it should cause one to raise an eyebrow when a government agency asserts that an essential micronutrient is toxic at doses low enough to cause deficiency.
Current reductions in allowed levels are part of a proxy war on mining. Geology that naturally has background arsenic levels far above this limit is also correlated with minerals worth mining. Even if the mining is done cleanly and releases no additional arsenic into the environment, you are still responsible for remediating the area to the safety standard and not the natural background level. It ends up being a de facto ban on new mining in some regions, which is the intent. Decades ago this strategy was applied to natural contaminants that are unconditionally bad for human biology, which made it easy to set extremely low safety limits. In recent years, it has been expanded to natural contaminants where the mandated levels have a sketchier basis in science.
Which isn't to say that bottled water contamination is not a problem, just that I am skeptical that the arsenic levels being discussed here are anywhere close to harmful. They are collateral damage in an unrelated political battle.
3M Aqua-Pure Under Sink Water Filtration System - Model 3MFF100 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00M216HFW/
I’ve mostly given up on bottled water as a result. It’s a bit odd to run all your water through the filter but once you resign yourself to replacing it once a year, the anxiety of washing dishes with filtered water goes away. Installation was a snap and the water tastes fantastic. Still haven’t order a pair of water quality tests (before/after) but I’m looking forward to doing so.
During my search it appeared there are WQA and NSF certifications on a few of them. I know nothing about those certifications, but someone purchasing a water filter might wish to look into them.
it's replaced all of my bottled water and brita use, not only for drinking water, but also to make flavored drinks like gatorade (much cheaper and friendlier environmentally that way).
In the mean time the only way I've been able to think of to reduce potential contaminated water is to vary my sources.
The wording makes it sound like you only tested your filtered water. Seems like you'd want to test both the pre-filtered and post-filtered water to really know if your filters are "very effective."
$400 seems quite high. There are much cheaper tests available, such as the National Testing Labs City Check test ($126 + return shipping) at https://www.purewaterproducts.com/watercheck/
Essentially, Berkey was created to resell British Berkenfeld / Doulton filters in the US. They simply tweaked the brand name Berkenfeld into Berkey and began US distribution. Doulton has a rich history, and is a very legitimate brand. They invented ceramic filters in Victorian times. Berkenfeld was a German competitor that was transferred to British hands after WWI.
Once Berkey started selling well, they began sourcing some filter candles in China. These are no longer Berkenfeld / Doulton. They don't look similar.
We used to live somewhere (in the US, to be clear) that, if you made iced tea with tap water, you could smell it as you brought it to your mouth. The water, I mean, not the tea. Smelled kinda sulfurous, and otherwise just off-putting. You could tell if a restaurant didn't filter their water because you could smell it in the cup, from a good foot away (luckily, most filtered it). This despite bathing and washing clothes in it and therefore probably being less sensitive to the odor than someone from out of town would be.
Needless to say it tasted terrible. We didn't even cook with that stuff. Cheap gallon jugs of filtered water for cooking.
Well water I assume?
[1] https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/05/03/oakland-unified-lead...
I used to RO my water with a 5 stage filter. Lately I bypass the last two stages and just do one stage of 5micron sediment and 2 stages of charcoal block.
Chlorine smell is gone, taste is great, and the filters in bulk cost $1.50 each for the sediment and $3.00 each for the charcoal. I change the sediment monthly (it gets quite discolored) and the charcoal every quarter. So $42/year in filters.
My wife had a pretty bad bottled water habit before I filtered, so it’s a huge cost saver. We fill water bottles several times a day for us and the kids, so probably ~1,000 gallons a year? Plus it also goes in the coffee machine, and for cooking.
https://www.waterwise.com/product-category/waterwise-water-d...
How do you know if you're in need of a good source of electrolytes?
If you are about to do the same workout that causes the above, its a good idea to imbide them beforehand instead.
You pretty much need to go out of your way to not consume any of those essential electrolytes. SI can't really imagine that strenuous exercise shouldn't deplete electrolytes unless it's for a really long period in hot conditions.
> Flow has more healthy minerals than most bottled waters, and it's NATURALLY alkaline (pH of +/- 8.1). That means our minerals come from the earth, not an artificial process. That also means Flow's naturally occurring magnesium, calcium, bicarbonate, and potassium are amazing for your health. It's like the difference between organic and conventional—Flow is the organic avocado of hydration.
There's no such thing as "minerals coming from the earth": magnesium is magnesium, no matter how you're creating it.
Wow. Just Wow.
This ties in so well with the other news article about how the US is turning into a developing country for some segment of the population.
At the time of, and in the location of, the testing, the legal limit was higher. As such the water with legal and within limits.
Since that time the legal limit has been lowered and consumer reports thinks they should go even lower, which makes the retrospective information look very bad.
But your comments about developing country are quite misplaced because you left out all the relevant details.
>Since that time the legal limit has been lowered and consumer reports thinks they should go even lower, which makes the retrospective information look very bad.
It does not matter what CR thinks. What matters is that at this moment in time, the amount of arsenic in the bottled water exceeds the present (lowered) legal limit.
Following your argument will be similar to telling the police officer that you should be allowed to speed because the legal speed limit on the road used to be higher.
For those that haven't read the article: Federal limits are 10ppb (parts per billion), CR says they should be 3ppb because of medical research that shows drinking water at that level for extended periods is unhealthy. Levels detected were 17ppb.
From TFA:
>Beverage giant Keurig Dr Pepper provided CR in March with Peñafiel's bottled water quality report for 2018, which stated that the water had nondetectable amounts of arsenic. But the company said this week that it had conducted new testing, because of CR’s questions, and confirmed levels above the federal limit, at an average of 17 ppb.
You understand we are talking about a bottle of water in 2013?
The OP was acting like the FDA is some 3rd world regulatory agency because they didn't have a time machine.