Pablo Calculates the True Cost of Bottled Water

Staggering IS an understatement!

I agree with the above comment! This is absolutely terrifying.

What I posted there...

Interesting, but it seems like comparing the water used ratio is skewed. How much of the water used is recycled and used again? Cooling water, ideally, for power plants is near the same temperature it was taken and otherwise unchanged. How can you count that?

Now for a real comparison, how much water and energy is used when getting water from the tap? Everything from drilling the wells, treating the water and delivering it. There will be a large difference I'd assume between city water and personal wells. Maybe include a RO unit so the end result is almost pure water.

Never mind that drinking bottled water is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
We have some of THE finest tap water in the world. If you don't like the taste, it's your pipes. Get an osmosis filter or upgrade from what you have if you can't afford osmosis. And our tap water is more highly regulated and safer than any bottled water you buy. Some of which have traces of arsenic and mineral content that isn't necessarily good for you. These brands include mineral and spring waters that are open to the environment.

The comparison isn't skewed. In fact, it leaves out some truths that show just how damaging bottled water is.

First off, every bottle takes 1,000 years to biodegrade. So we'll hope it gets recycled, adding toxic carcinogens from the plastic, into our environment.

But what makes buying bottled water worse than cigarettes, is that every bottle you buy is essentially not just at the expense of the environment, but also at the expense of another. You see, more than 50% of the bottled water brands out there simply purchase U.S. municipal reserve water (your tap water) and filter it before bottling it. Then they resell it to you for an average of $5/gallon. (Compare this to gas prices, and go buy that filter). But companies like Coke (Dasani), and Pepsi (Aquafina) have discovered that buying up the drinkable water from some third-world country, bottling their water source and shipping it to you to sell to the U.S., is less expensive than paying for water from the municipal reserve. And they're buying up the ONLY drinkable water sources in some countries.

So every bottle you drink is not just at the expense of the environment, but also at the expense of another somewhere else, who doesn't have any other water. And you do.

HOW do I know this? I worked for several bottled water companies. I also know their exact environmental footprint.

Staggering! Has anyone run any figures on how much water has been used and the amount of green house gasses have been emitted in order to sustain Pablo Päster?

I will continue to drink bottled water while the Powers That Be insist that our regular drinking water be fluoridated.

Wasteful? Certainly. But I refuse to be subjected to emotional blackmail about greenhouse gases etc by authorities who insist that I ingest a poison. If they are as worried about greenhouse gases as they claim, then why not stop fluoridating tap water, one of the various reasons people avoid drinking it? Those who want the stuff can go buy little packets of poison and stir it in - then everyone has freedom of choice.

Fluoride is a bactericide that kills on contact, which is why it works so well in toothpaste (which we spit out). How is it going to help your teeth by being ingested? What is more important to governments.. keeping their population docile with flouride (as was done in Nazi concentration camps in WWII), or global warming?

Don't tell us we have to poison ourselves to save the planet. That is unacceptable. Stop the fluoridation and then I will gladly stop buying the bottled water. Buying water when you have it on tap is as stupid as contaminating it with poison. Let's stop doing BOTH.

glugglug, wouldn't a good compromise for you be to find a filter that removes fluoride from tap water? I'm pretty sure they exist.

Fiji is the best bottled water ever. I don't mind paying more for a bottle than the Tap Water that is being sold as spring water nowadays.

And that is why Fiji is damn good water!

@glugglug

Filter or a rainwater tank.

@article

Agreed that this is not a "true cost" until we know whether the production water is recycled and until we know what the cost of tap water is. Rain water FTW.

Your calculations were very sloppy and omit some important factors. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to measure the water in liters instead of kilograms, just to stick with conventional units.
However, it is inaccurate to say that over 26 kilograms of water are "used" to produce the 1kilo of bottled water. The water was not "used" in the conventional sense of the word, that water was not destroyed or broken down to atomic hydrogen and oxygen. Perhaps it was used in industrial processes, in which case it was eventually returned to the ecosystem. Perhaps you might have an argument if that water was returned to the streams and oceans carrying heavy pollution. But if that water is merely used to rinse bottles, and is returned to its source free of pollutants, I don't care if you rinse each bottle with a THOUSAND liters of water, it would cause no environmental damage.
Water is a renewable resource, as long as you return it to the ecosystem as clean as you took it. But to merely claim that it takes lots of water to produce bottled water, that may seem inefficient to an MBA, but it could still be good environmental policy.

(1) even if we humans should die, we should at least save the earth instead of destroying it for all species, in the hope of another form of future intelligent life that will build upon our ruins, thus global warming is a very important issue. (2) fluoride is not in harmful quantitites everywhere and much water is safe after a simple filtering and boiling, (3) there is no need for overpurification of water for a species [humans] that have lived for at least a millions years without bottled water and successfully reproduced, and with a history that shows that mere boiling and simpler, efficient purification processes are sufficient to prevent illness and disease. (4) being oversanitary has proven time and time again to be a mistake, since it decreases the body's resistance to toxins and bacteria, and a little exposure without sickness is a good thing.

Very true, Anon, certain types of filtering will remove fluoride (e.g. Reverse Osmosis gets rid of about 90%), and I just found out there is something called an "activated alumina" filter as well.

However you can't really take these things with you - you fit them to your plumbing at home. So it's back to bottled water at work and when you are out and about.

Some one needs to learn a little bit of chemistry

Fluorine is a poison

Fluoride is an Ion of Florine, having an extra electron which alters its chemical properties. (unlike isotopes, which chemically react the same as the base atom. the number of electrons in the outer valence shell effects an atom's chemical properties)

Fluoride is not a poison, nor is it in toothpaste as an anti-bacterial. fluoride is there because our body naturally uses it to help build our teeth with. Which actually makes the fluoride in water pretty much useless for adults, as we have already built our teeth, but it's useful for kids. You can get to much fluoride ingested when growing your teeth, which leads to slightly strange grayish strips in your teeth, but it does no harm.

These statements are totally false. He is making this up. WHERE DID THESE STATISTICS COME FROM??? Site your source you F#%*ing treehugger!

The real problem with US tap water is the chlorine treatment.

Most of the hydrocarbons prescent in trace amounts are trivial until they are chlorinated. Then their toxicity and persistence skyrocket by orders of magnitude.

Which is why any responsible government uses ozone treatment which not only kills organics but also breaks down many toxic chemicals.

@Alan Trulock:

Maybe you should go and see a psychiatrist about your paranoia? You seriously got a couple of things wrong...

Fluoride helps to strengthen the teeth. It makes teeth more resistant to the acid, that bacteria produce. Only at very high concentrations, it will impair bacterial growth. That effect does not make it a bactericide. Also, at concentrations found in fluoridated water, this will not happen. In toothpaste and fluoridated water, the effects are different. Dose and effect have a strong relationship. You can NOT conclude from high concentrations effects (as possibly applied by Nazis) that this is harmful in low doses applied in drinking water.

One example: If you manage to drink 20L water, you will die from it. Do you conclude that water is toxic?

I will not recommend anything to read to you. You would counter that with web pages from disturbed people, such as that guy:
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm

As a non-scientist, you will not understand the scientific literature. You should be smart enough, however, not to pick rare side effects of a chemical and believe this is relevant at lower doses.

Cheers,
Michael

how exactly do you use 26 time more water making a water bottle than the water it contains ?

are chinese so incomptent they can't fill a bottle without spilling 26 time as much in a pool of mercury powder that is there just to make sure the spilled water can't be reused ?

or are you using "used" water as some kind of retarded comparison for a vague and subjective "damage done to the environement" like driving a truck = "using" 2 liters of water per mile

Twenty six times more?
Wow. XD

my understanding is that the amount of dental carries is increasing a lot as kids switch to bottled water, so that even drinking fluorinated water seems to protect your teeth!

How did you calculate this? Am I missing a link to more specific information? Anyone could say they did research and this is what you found. I would actually enjoy reading about the research that was done.

LA: click on the Triple Pundit link at the bottom of the post.

You guys really believe that they transport the water from Fiji to the US?
It´s bottled in the USA or where ever it is sold.
You notice their website never shows the bottling plant in Fiji...no photos at all..just lots of cartoon graphics.

that is to transport that bottle but it doent say that there are a whole truckload of waters on the truck, misleading and slanted report.

One might wonder why we call it "bottled water," instead of "plastic container water." For those worried about the minute effects of some small amount of chemicals in municipal water, why aren't they worried about small amounts of chemicals leeching out of plastic into their "plastic container water?"

First you create the stupid consumers for your water, then the water, and last but not the least, you create the need for the stupid consumer to drink your brand.
Stupidity has no limit!

Someone ought to try googling 'fluoride'. Click the first result and do a bit of reading (hint, it's the link below):
http://www.fluoridealert.org
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoridation.htm

"Considering fluoride's insidious effects on biological systems, this is not surprising. Fluoride has long been known as a "general protoplasmic poison" due to its potent ability to inhibit enzymes. Damage to enzymes can present a wide range of systemic dysfunctions in the body. More recently, fluoride has been found to activate and interfere with "G-proteins" - which could present multiple complex problems to human health, since G-proteins play a vital role in the functioning of hormones and neurotransmitters.

It is worth noting that one of the ways fluoride is believed to reduce tooth decay is by poisoning the enzymes of bacteria within the mouth. As noted by UNICEF:

"Fluoride inhibits enzymes that breed acid-producing oral bacteria whose acid eats away tooth enamel. This observation is valid, but some scientists now believe that the harmful impact of fluoride on other useful enzymes far outweighs the beneficial effect on caries prevention" (UNICEF, December 1999)."

Before you start the banging of the war drums against all bottled water, consider the brand used for this article. I purchase water that is taken and bottled here in Michigan. The bottles are very thin and use, at least what seems to me, the best use of plastic.

Want all the chems out of your tap water, buy a Brita pitcher.

The fact of the matter is that unless you change the molecule H2O, or permanently store it, the water is only 'borrowed'.

The author obviously didn't do enough research nor came at this from an objective point of view. The only way to have solid ground for the argument is to come to an objective conclusion that is not only supported by research, but also by reference. I think we all got shortchanged on this one.

but it tastes so good!

Well the figures are pretty horrifying provided they are actually true or accurate. What does not make sense to me is how Mr. Pablo concluded that it takes 26.88 kilograms of water to make 1 Liter of water? First of all the units dont make a whole lot of sense (kg to liters???? Mass to Volume???) . Weight of the liquid relative to volume depends on the liquid's density and unless other variables such as liquid temperature, atmospheric pressure are known, there is no good way to make the comparison. And exactly what does this "26.88 KG of water" refers to? There are lot of other things I see wrong with this research and definitely does not see it as a credible worthy research. Its a good research to get A+ on your graduate thesis though but not for use in the real world.

LA: I made the conversion of 26.88 kilos of water to litres, they are, I thought, by definition identical. It the deatil below he adds them all up.

I'm sorry, besides tourism, what other industry does the island if Fiji have that they export? There not really famous for their electronics or crafts exports.

For those having trouble with the metric system, 1000 cubic centimetres H2O = 1 litre H2O = 1 kilogram H2O. (There is no SI base unit for volume, litres are just a convenience instead of using ccs.)

For those looking for source material, etc, this is clearly labeled as an extract from a larger article. If the larger article doesn't cite its sources, complain there.

Pure water is 1.000kg per litre at 4C. The density decreases at higher temperatures; at 30C it's about 0.995kg per litre. It's not the standard for the SI system, though, that is a metal alloy cylinder known as "the kilogram" that is used as the kilogram reference.

But seriously, there is a difference between water chemically altered and water simply used for cooling or transiently in the manufacturing process. It's dishonest to not be forthright from the beginning in this post.

this includes powerplant cooling water.

that is catchy, that alone shows your article is bloated. water used for cooling the powerplant is absolutely reusable.

Can you just make something up and call it science these days? How’s this: Take a unit of product, times it by a magic number, add a global issue, and hit the equals button = a whole load of rubbish

Can you just make something up and call it science these days? How’s this:
Take a unit of product 1, times x it by a magic number, add + a global issue, and hit the equals button = one (1.27838) tonne of Hot Air to blame for global warming.

Aleki calls into question the numbers used in the study:

There are so many things wrong with the calculations on this. First of all he said the bottles were made in China and shipped to Fiji. The bottles are actually made there in Fiji and are made of PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) which is recyclable. The amount of water that goes into making a PET type bottle according to this is 26 liters for a single liter this is also incorrect. Water used in PET manufacturing process is recycled in a closed system and only loses a small amount to evaporation. The assumption about how much water is used to produce electricity is also incorrect. According to the Fiji Electricity Authority the majority of electricity generated in Fiji is created at the Nadarivatu hydro electric plants as well as at the Butoni wind farms. Neither of these have more than a nominal usage of “wasted water” as inferred by the article. Also the carbon emissions are off because they too assumed the wrong type of electricity production.

Link:
http://www.neatorama.com/#comment-75058

@ Michael

Thank you for your remarks.

Not only do you tell me I'm wrong (which I'll get to in a sec), but you proceed to bolster your viewpoint and sense of self-worth with a modicum of good old ad hominem argument. Standing on somebody else is certainly a cheap way to feel taller, isn't it?

You confidently asserted that I am a non-scientist, and condescendingly posted a URL which has some sort of overtly religious flavour, as if to insinuate that it's the only sort of thing I will be capable of comprehending. A scientifically minded person would not have made assertions as confident as yours without investigation. I happen to have a postgraduate degree and while I did browse the article you nominated, I actually prefer ones written by people with academic qualifications, and which contain copious references to scientific literature and as well as official information.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that you apparently have not perceived the "speech bubble" design used in this forum places a poster's name at the bottom of each post, and so you patronised poor Alan Trulock by mistake.

Now for some articles about fluoride which are more sober than the one with unscientific connotations which you offered.

A nice starting point is always good old Wikipedia. Yes I know some people criticise the accuracy of articles there, but it can be a useful springboard for further ideas and references.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy)

Wikipedia also had an informative public domain image of dental fluorosis, taken from the U.S. National Library of Medicine's National Institutes of Health website. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FluorosisFromNIH.jpg). Dose and effect do indeed have a strong relationship, I agree. This person obviously received a bit too much. So did the unfortunate people in Hooper Bay, Alaska, in 1992. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Malfunctions_in_water_fluoridation_equipment)

But is a lesser dose any better for teeth? Various studies have found there is no statistical significance to support the case for fluoridation of water supplies. The following URL gives references to the scientific journal articles and extracts from them: (www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/nobenefit.html)

Here is a website which has catalogued the comments & reports of doctors, scientists, medical researchers: (www.nofluoride.com). It would seem that not everyone holding relevant qualifications is thoroughly convinced that fluoride is a dental panacea. For example, here is a letter from a doctor who has been researching the neurotoxicity of fluoride since the late 1980s: (www.nofluoride.com/mullenix_bsa.htm)
Also, a list of interesting anti-fluoride documents from various authorities is available here (www.nofluoride.com/presentations/presentation.htm)

An interesting, though lightly referenced article relating to fluoride's influence on brain function is available here (whale.to/b/stephen.html).

The website of the Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (www.idof.net) states "we now believe that the proposed benefits of fluoride in reducing tooth decay are topical (i.e. fluoride in contact with the tooth e.g. via toothpaste or through professional use of materials). Therefore, it would seem logical that if the benefits are topical and the risks are systemic, then why continue water fluoridation, which produces the least benefit with the greatest risk of damage."

I will concede, Michael, that my area of postgraduate specialisation is neither dentistry nor medicine, however given the amount of concerned commentary from people who *are* specialists in those disciplines, I feel that any reasonably intelligent, open-minded person could be perfectly justified in suspecting that fluoride is not as benign as you and those from the realms of Orthodoxy and Officialdom purport. One of your points is that I cannot conclude from alleged Nazi practices in WII that low doses of fluoride in drinking water is harmful. Fair enough- lowering the dose in drinking water stopped people from getting fluorosis. But what if fluoride is a cumulative poison? A lifetime of low doses could add up to a lot. "Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks", US Public Health Service, 1991stated that the kidneys only eliminate about 50% of ingested fluoride from the body. Here is a link to an article on human skeletal fluorosis, for your consideration: (www.fluoridation.com/skeletal.htm#Human).

Everyone will, of course, believe what they want to believe. However when some people's beliefs or even economic motivations influence scientific investigations, resulting in harmful effects to others, such beliefs must be challenged. A challenge should be met with an open-minded and scientific response; those who realise their position is scientifically weak, and/or threatens their prestige, power, or income will sometimes resort to denigration of their opponent to score points and draw attention away from propositions which they may not be able to refute.

Which leaves me to wonder, Michael: are you a proponent of pro-fluoride propaganda, or a victim of it? In any case, I hope you find the above links to be helpful and informative, and of course you are free to believe in them or not, as you choose.

Wishing you the best of health
(whichever water you decide to drink),
GlugGlug

I'm merely a student of "How to Mow the Lawn Straight", a common school of common sense. I like the environment and I wish for my grandkid's grandkids to use and enjoy it as well. That doesn't mean I'm going into the wall with every person voicing an opinion. Skewed research like that used in Pablo's Pravda-esque excerpt is what has led the U.S. to ban "water wasting" toilets which "use" over 1.6 Gallons of water. (Sidebar: Yes, the research IS skewed; objection overuled, let us proceed), Complaints about having to flush 1.6 toilets TWICE, are common. Unless you can afford a properly designed/glazed 1.6 toilet you'll be plunging-der-kommode ad-infinitum ala Al Bundy! With a $1k+ retail price, my coveted "Toto Lloyd" (also a 1.6) will likely never be installed in my home. Frustrations with lesser 1.6 toilets have led people to scour salvage yards for the old 3.5 toilets. The considerable number of people crossing into Canada to buy 3.5 Gal toilets easily qualifies as a phenomenon. Where does "wasted" water go? Down a wormhole; into space, never again to be seen on planet Earth?

Hypothetical: A small herd of straggling Springboks all succumb after drinking brackish water from a receding waterhole. Other than a few foolish Springboks, this was nobody's fault; this transient water situation existed before humans arrived. The already poisoned water becomes further infused with decomposing Springbok carrion and all pursuant growth of cootie organisms (science lingo!). Toxic Waste Water to say the least ! The stagnant water evaporates - where did it go? Was it "wasted"? No; after an unknown number of rain/evaporation cycles, clouds appear over "Anytown" U.S.A. and we gulp down what was once "Springbok decomp water". According to le' moonies, we just drank "wasted water". So do we die? Well, it's surely happened and we're still here talking... but I leave it to you to decide whether or not you are dead. Given the choice between "Springbok water" and water used to wash and process Fiji water bottles, I'm not about to choose the former just to be inline with popular culture. (Ohh! But Nature made Springbok water ! Therefore it is better!) Good luck with that !

This is a stigma thrust upon us by hemp-wearing wannabes who never stop to consider there is near zero hemp production in the USA. The overwhelming majority of hemp grown here is grown for the U.S. government (Hmmm...). The majority of worldwide hemp is grown in former Soviet block countries; countries where the world's very worst environmental situations exist, and nothing is being done to change that. How does hemp come to our shores? Perhaps on a magic-carpet wafting along on a cloud of THC? How about by the same type of ships that transport Fiji water. Kathy-Lee's kids in 3rd-world countries are weaving hemp into "hip-wear" so a contingent of environmentally self-righteous Americans can fool themselves into believing they're making a difference. How does hemp, which is green, turn white? Super-natural-GAIA sunbleaching? That'd be too slow, and the hemp-pimps would lose more than 60% of the yield which = lost profits. Hemp is bleached en mass with common industrial methods like every other textile. So everytime you purchase hemp-apparel you contribute to the very worst eco-ignoramuses worldwide, kiddie-labor, fossil-fuel burning ships and most likely some terrorism. Oh! I nearly forgot water usage: Maybe Pablo can figure out how much water is wasted during the processing needed to produce a single hemp shirt? Gimme cotton, preferably grown in the ConUS, and gimme' my Fiji ! It is the BEST tasting bottled water I've tried. Until 'de Guv'mint stops adding weird stuff to our water, I will at the very least use R/O processed water to cook, and I will drink the best water I can afford within reason. (GulpGlugAhhh)

Jedi Clampett may be my new hero. I'm not sure that anyone could more succinctly and correctly identifiy the exact problem with the whole "treehugger" community. The Green movement means well, no doubt...but it's just as deluded and scientifically flawed as the side it so vehemently opposes.

Which brings me to another new hero...GlugGlug. Until reading his posts I was unaware of the preponderance of andi-floride sentiment within the "mainstream" medical and scientific communities. Gives me pause, and reason to investigate. Thank God (if you have one--I haven't yet decided if I do) I have a brain and I'm not afraid to use it, even when whatever powers I allow to be would prefer that I didn't!

And GlugGlug correctly identifies, too, the whole problem with the Treehugger movement (and it's corporate/government antithesis), though I'm not sure he intended to:

"Everyone will, of course, believe what they want to believe. However when some people's beliefs or even economic motivations influence scientific investigations, resulting in harmful effects to others, such beliefs must be challenged. A challenge should be met with an open-minded and scientific response; those who realise their position is scientifically weak, and/or threatens their prestige, power, or income will sometimes resort to denigration of their opponent to score points and draw