RSS

Tag Archives: safety

Report: Baby Magic (and others) Contain Formaldehyde and 1,4-Dioxane

Is formaldehyde the "magic" in Baby Magic?

Is formaldehyde the "magic" in Baby Magic?

.

A new report released regarding a study of 48 different baby bath products revealed that 28 of them contained the contaminants formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, both of which are known carcinogens.   The report stresses that these substances are not intentionally added and so do not show up on an ingredient list.  They are contaminants in the true sense of the word, a byproduct of the manufacturing and production of certain ingredients, but certainly avoidable.

Among the worst was Baby Magic, which contained the highest levels of formaldehyde, and American Girl products, which were found to contain the highest levels of dioxane.  Consumers beware!  For more information about harmful products may be in your personal hygiene products, visit the Cosmetics Database at EWG.org.

.

**********************

.

U.S. News: Children’s Bath Products Contain Contaminants

U.S. News and World Report, By Amanda Gardner
Published March 12, 2009

THURSDAY, March 12 (HealthDay News) — Many baby and child-care products contain the chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, both of which have been linked to cancer and various skin conditions, a new report contends.

But the chemicals aren’t listed on the labels of bubble bath, shampoo and other common products, according to the report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetic Use.

“Companies can obviously do better, and we need to demand that they do better,” said Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetic Use and co-author of the report, released Thursday. “Many companies are already making great products that don’t have any of these chemicals [and] many companies in the natural products industry have reformulated to get rid of that problem. We also know many companies are using preservatives that don’t use formaldehyde.”

According to the authors, the report, called No More Toxic Tub, is the first to document contamination of children’s products with these chemicals. The Environmental Working Group was involved in the analyses.

Both formaldehyde and dioxane are considered “contaminants,” Malkan said.

A contaminant “is a chemical that is not intentionally added to the product but is a byproduct,” she said. “Those are all exempt from labeling laws … Companies don’t even have to know themselves.”

Dioxane is a byproduct of chemical processing and formaldehyde is released from some of the chemicals that are used as preservatives, Malkan said.

John Bailey is chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association for the cosmetic and personal care products industry. Responding to the report, he said, “These are issues that have been around for many, many years, so it’s not new news. The thing that impressed me was the low levels of dioxane that were found in these products, which indicates to me that the industry is doing its job in keeping this potential contaminant down to a low level.”

Bailey also said there were wasn’t enough information in the report to gauge how accurate the determinations of formaldehyde levels were.

Malkan and her co-authors tested 48 bubble baths, shampoos and other baby and children’s products for dioxane and 28 of those products for formaldehyde.

Among their findings:

* Almost two-thirds of the 28 products contained both chemicals, including Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Huggies Naturally Refreshing Cucumber & Green Tea Baby Wash.
* Eighty-two percent of products tested contained formaldehyde; the highest levels were found in Baby Magic Baby Lotion.
* American Girl shower products had the highest levels of dioxane among products tested.

“The good news is that there are great products without any of these chemicals,” Malkan said. “The challenge is you have to do some research to find them. It’s not a simple matter of looking at the label.”

According to Malkan, the U.S. Department of Agriculture “organic seal” indicates that none of these chemicals are present.

“The best advice for consumers is that simple is better, products with fewer ingredients overall,” she said. “There are things consumers can do to make better choices at the store but we also need to change regulations and require companies to list all ingredients in the products and to make the safest products they can, especially products for babies.”

Harmful chemicals and contaminants in children’s products is a subject of continuing controversy. Earlier this week, it was announced that baby bottles made with the controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) will no longer be sold in the United States by the six largest manufacturers of the products.

BPA, which is found in a wide range of products, mimics the hormone estrogen and may disrupt the body’s endocrine system. The chemical poses a particular threat to fetuses, infants and children because it can interfere with cell function when their bodies are still developing, public health experts say. The chemical has been linked with diabetes, heart disease, cancer and developmental delays in children.

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Produce Consumer’s Best Friend

When shopping for organic produce, what items are 'ok' to buy conventional?

When shopping for organic produce, what items are 'ok' to buy conventional?

.

For those of you who may not already know, one of my areas of interest include the problem of human body pollution, also called the human body burden (* see also the Human Toxome Project).  One of the ways that consumers can help minimize the number of harmful chemicals our bodies are exposed to is by choosing organic products.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG)  has done outstanding work over the past few years raising the awareness of this problem, which I believe is even more pressing than Global Warming.  For example, they have developed a database of consumer hygiene products, which consumers can use free of charge to discover just how toxic or Earth-friendly the product it.

They also have a Produce Shopper’s Guide, listing the dirty dozen of produce – that is, those types of produce that were tested and found to contain high levels of synthetic pesticides and other chemicals.  The list also provides a list of 15 of the “cleanest” produce varieties, in a downloadable and printable business card format for ease in shopping.   I call this the produce shopper’s best friend.   If you can’t afford to buy all organic, or not all varieties are available at your local store, use this guide to help shop for the varieties that are “cleaner” for you and your family.

Stop by and download the newest version, updated this week at EWG.org.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

EPA to Eliminate Regulation of Neurotoxin in Drinking Water

Nothing is more plentiful in the world, nor more vital for our existence than water. Water is essential for all functions within the body, but especially for transferring nutrients and eliminating wastes. When drinking water is contaminated, the body is especially vulnerable to accumulated toxins, so it makes sense to have the cleanest drinking water obtainable for optimum health. In my opinion, the decision by the EPA and the Bush Administration to exempt the ubiquitous neurotoxin, perchlorate, from federal regulation and oversight is a step in the wrong direction. Just like earlier decisions to fluoridate public drinking water, putting a known toxin IN the water, this decision just stinks. For those of you who are not familiar with perchlorate or its associated health effects, it is worth your time to check out the information at ewg.org.

Perchlorate is a common additive in rocket fuel, which has known neurotoxic effects on humans.

Perchlorate is a common additive in rocket fuel, which has known neurotoxic effects on humans.

Feds Set to Eliminate Water Regulations for Neurotoxin

Wired, Brandon Keim
Published December 3, 2008

Among the Bush administration’s final environmental legacies will be a decision to exempt perchlorate, a known neurotoxin found at unsafe levels in the drinking water of millions of Americans, from federal regulation.

The ruling, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in October, was supposed to be formalized on Monday. That deadline passed, but the agency expects to announce its decision by the year’s end, before president-elect Barack Obama takes office. It could take years to reverse.

Critics accuse the EPA of ignoring expert advice and basing their decision on an abstract model of perchlorate exposure, rather than existing human data.

“We know that breast milk is widely contaminated with perchlorate, and we know that young children are especially vulnerable. We have really good human data. So why are they putting a model front-and-center?” said Anila Jacobs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. “And they used a model that hasn’t yet gone through the peer-review process.”

The ruling is one of dozens planned for the final days of the Bush administration. Others include a relaxing of air pollution standards for aging power plants, and a reduction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s traditional role in evaluating the impact of federal projects on endangered species.

These have received more attention than the status of perchlorate, a chemical found mostly in jet rocket fuel and detected in 35 states and 153 water public water systems. It is known to lower thyroid hormone levels in women; it poses a particular threat to pregnant women and breast-feeding children, whose long-term neurological development can be stunted by youthful hormone imbalances.

As many as 40 million Americans may now be exposed to unsafe levels of perchlorate, and the EPA’s own analysis puts the number at 16 million. The most comprehensive human exposure study, which measured unexpectedly high perchlorate levels and correlated them with thyroid hormone drops, was concluded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007.

Environmental health advocates saw the study as supporting tightened restrictions on perchlorate levels in drinking water — something the EPA had been loathe to do under the Bush administration. The study was not considered in the anticipated ruling, which could effectively end federal monitoring of perchlorate in drinking water.

“If you used the human studies from the CDC, then you would be forced to regulate it, because we know there are health effects at current levels of exposure,” said Jacobs.

Benjamin Blount, co-author of the CDC’s study, would not comment on the EPA’s decision, but said that infants — who consume, proportional to their body weight, about six times more water than adults — “are thought to have a higher dose than at any other life stage.”

The EPA declined to comment on why they used a model rather than the CDC’s data in deciding that regulating perchlorate would not provide “a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.”

In a November letter to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board questioned the model. “Its soundness will not be publicly vetted,” they wrote. Only one of two peer reviews invited by the agency has been received, and that was announced only today on the EPA’s website.

“The Science Advisory Board believes that more time is needed for the decision process and for scientific input,” said Joan Rose, a Michigan State University water researcher and chair of the Board’s Drinking Water Committee.

Even Michael Dourson, a researcher at the nonprofit Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment project who accepts the EPA’s model, doesn’t understand why the EPA favored it over human studies.

“The data is on pregnant women and babies, and these studies are quite powerful,” he said. “If they could spend more time to make their decision, I’d recommend looking at it.”

According to EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones, the agency expects to announce a decision “by the end of the year.” There is little reason to think the ruling will change from its current form.

“This administration has been adamant about not regulating perchlorate,” said Mae Wu, an attorney at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.

If the rulings go through, Congress may still take action. California congresswomen Barbara Boxer and Hilda Solis, both Democrats, have each drafted legislation that would force the EPA to regulate perchlorate, though it could take years to go into effect.

States still have the option of regulating perchlorate on their own — but this is not easy, said Charles DeSaillan, New Mexico’s assistant attorney general for natural resources.

“We have fairly limited resources. Historically we’ve relied on the federal drinking water standards, and adopted those,” he said. “In order for us to adopt our own, we’d have to do all the science, all of the research, hire the experts, and go through a regulatory process which would be opposed by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy.”

New Mexico is home to several prominent military testing facilities, and has the highest average perchlorate exposures in the country.

“It’d be long and difficult. Eventually we may do it. But it’s easier for us to rely on the EPA. This is their job. And in the case of perchlorate, they don’t seem to be doing it,” said DeSaillan.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Response to WSJ Article on Water Fluoridation

The Wall Street Journal carried an article today in its Health Journal by Melinda Beck, “And You Thought the Debate Over Fluoridation Was Settled”. Having just finished a blog on fluoride and related background reading, the article caught my eye, then quickly turned my stomach. I will break down her article in a minute, but I have to point out that the Wall Street Journal is owned by the 109th richest person in the world, Rupert Murdoch, who also owns one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, reaching hundreds of millions of people each and every day. For the Wall Street Journal to carry an article like this shows me that people are starting to wake up to the dangers associated with not only water fluoridation, but the use of fluoride in general. In my opinion, this is a typical “hit piece” designed to re-convince those that are on the fence or beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of fluoridation that those who question this practice are a dying – and/or irrational – breed. Ms. Beck makes several logical and factual errors in writing her article. In fact, I found myself scratching my head and wondering if she is really this poorly researched, or if she is being paid off by chemical companies to reassert the need and safety of water fluoridation.

I will work through this short article line by line. For more ease of reading, I have typed my comments in brackets and with dark blue font.

The fluoride fight is alive and growing, despite the title of this WSJ article.

The fluoride fight is alive and growing, despite the title of this WSJ article.

And You Thought the Debate Over Fluoridation Was Settled

By Melinda Beck

HEALTH JOURNAL – NOVEMBER 4, 2008

[First of all, the debate over fluoridation is far from settled, and this title is very misleading. In fact, the debate over water fluoridation has been heating up over the past thirty years, especially in the last decade when more international studies have been performed regarding its safety and positive and negative health effects.]

As a baby boomer growing up without fluoridation, I had 14 cavities before my 18th birthday, including seven at one particularly mortifying dental visit.

A generation later, my teenage daughters, who’ve grown up in a fluoridated city, have a combined total of none.

[These two statements taken by themselves reveal what this author wants her reader to believe: that fluoridating water resulted in her kids having no cavities, while she suffered from fourteen because her water was not fluoridated. In the 1940’s when water fluoridating began, dentists most assuredly believed that the ingestion of fluoride had preventative effects on tooth caries. While this was a dominant belief for a few decades, that belief has been greatly challenged over the past thirty years. Many recent studies have now shown that the effectiveness of fluoride for cavity prevention does not come from the systemic application of fluoride, as in water fluoridation where the fluoride travels through the entire system, but from the topical application of fluoride on the teeth itself.]

I assumed that the debate over fluoridation was long settled — after all, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls adding minute quantities of fluoride to municipal water supplies one of the 10 most significant public-health advances of the 20th century. But opposition remains fervent in some communities. More than 180 million Americans have access to fluoridated water, which leaves over 100 million who do not.

[The CDC does indeed call adding water fluoridation one of the most significant health advances in the 20th century, but that is a contention that many dentists, pharmacologists and researchers are questioning, backed up by international studies and research. I would argue that overall better oral hygiene, including topically applied fluoride toothpastes, regular checkups, better toothbrush designs, antiseptic mouthwashes and dental floss are the contributing factors to better oral health, not water fluoridation.]

Fluoridation is on the ballot today in 41 such communities in Nebraska, as well as one in New York state, one in Maine and two in Wisconsin — and the battles echo 60 years of controversy.

“Fluoride is a poison. You can’t dump it in the ocean or a landfill, and they want to put it in our water. It’s insane,” says Marvin “Butch” Hughes of Hastings, Neb. (population 25,000), who heads the local chapter of Nebraskans for Safe Water.

[These statements are factual. Sodium fluoride is a poison. It is widely used in pesticides. It cannot be dumped into an ocean or landfill and requires personal protective equipment to handle it. See the MSDS (material safety data sheets) report here. In addition to this statement, the author failed to mention that only a couple handfuls of countries worldwide practice water fluoridation. Most of western Europe has banned water fluoridation. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the Soviet Union, Finland and Japan all once practiced water fluoridation but have ceased. Because fluoridating water is seen as “compulsory mass-medication” many argue that it violates the Nuremburg code. (source)]

“I’ve had reporters ask me if fluoride can be used to make weapons of mass destruction,” sighs Jessica Meeske, a pediatric dentist in Hastings and board member of the Nebraska Dental Association, which supports fluoridation. She treats patients from communities that have fluoride and those that don’t: “The kids who don’t have more cavities, and the cavities are much deeper. They’re in a lot of pain. They aren’t able to eat. They don’t do well in school. And the decay just escalates. It spreads from tooth to tooth.”

[While Ms. Meeske’s first statement above appears ridiculous, as I am sure it was intended to reduce the argument to absurdity, it is not as ridiculous as it sounds. A form of fluoride, methylphosphonyl difluoride, is indeed used in sarin gas, which has been classified by the United Nations as a weapon of mass destruction. I wonder if this dentist above is considering other factors such as diet and overall oral hygiene and the correlation with better dental health. The above quote makes it seem like cavities are an epidemic that must be treated with water fluoridation. There are better ways. ]

Controversy has dogged fluoridation ever since scientists determined in the 1930s that tiny amounts of the naturally occurring mineral added to water can guard against tooth decay. Opponents dubbed it a Communist plot and have claimed over the years that it raises the risk for cancer, Down’s syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, lower IQ, thyroid problems and other diseases.

[There is some substantiation for some of these claims, but it is deceptive to list some suspected health conditions after such claims that fluoridation was a “communist plot”. In my previous post on fluoride, I included a quote from a man who said that the Nazis and communists talked about a plan of using fluoride in the gulags and concentration camps to make the prisoners more docile and complacent. There is little more I can find on this, and no doubt has fueled a lot of the “communist plot” speculations. At the same time, the health effects are not matters of mere speculation. For more on health effects, click here. A recent study performed by Harvard found that children are more likely to develop bone cancer at a young age when exposed to a moderate amount of fluoridated water. I found it particularly interesting that the article on this Harvard study stated that fluoride accumulates in the bones, which gives weight to the argument that fluoride is a bioaccumulative toxin.]

In 2006, the National Research Council warned that high levels of fluoride — roughly four times the amount typically used in water systems — are associated with severe dental fluorosis, in which teeth become mottled and pitted, and could cause bone fractures. A separate study linked fluoride with a very rare bone cancer in boys.

[The author also fails to mention that dental fluorosis has increased by 9% over the last twenty years and the cause (not a mere association with, as the article suggests) is fluoride overdose, either by environmental exposure or water fluoridation.]

Bill Bailey, a dental health officer at the CDC, says while a few isolated studies have raised such questions, “there’s never been any compelling evidence that fluoridation has any harmful health effects” in over 60 years of research. A long list of medical associations have also endorsed fluoridation, including the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and the past five surgeons general.

[Let it be known that the ADA, AMA and WHO also supported the use of mercury-fillings, which have been shown to be toxic to the body. In recent years, the use of mercury-fillings has ceased. These three organizations also tout vaccinations as another great medical advancement of the 20th century and there are many serious health risks regarding this practice as well. An appeal to authority here does not make the author’s case. This reminds me of the classic mother question, “If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?”]

Overall, drinking fluoridated water cuts the rate of tooth decay 18% to 40%, according to the CDC. Studies have shown that it can help “remineralize” weakened areas in children’s and adults’ teeth, allowing many more elderly Americans to keep their teeth all their lives. The ADA estimates that every $1 spent on community fluoridation saves $38 in dental bills.

[I could not locate the studies or even excerpts of the studies on the CDC’s website, but I did find the source of the above information in a release from the Office of the Surgeon General in May of 2000 regarding the benefits of fluoride: “Communities with fluoridated drinking water in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand show striking reductions in tooth decay—those with fluoridated drinking systems have 15–40 percent less tooth decay.” There are no references, footnotes or endnotes directing anyone to any studies. Again, there is no clarification as to the assessed overall oral health of those in fluoridated communities and those in non-fluoridated communities. Furthermore, It is a moot point to say that $1 spent on water fluoridation saves $38 in dental bills, especially when studies suggest many negative health implications arising from fluoridation. If one saves $38 on dental bills and spends $50 on other health problems related to fluoride toxicity, is it really a savings?]

Fluoride is now widely added to toothpaste and mouthwash — even many varieties of bottled water — and dentists in unfluoridated areas often urge patients to use supplements. So some critics wonder whether adding it the water supply is necessary. Dr. Meeske says many poor families that she treats can’t afford the supplements, and that fluoride is more effective at protecting teeth when it’s ingested, so that teeth are continually bathed with a low dose. “It’s much cheaper and simpler to prevent decay through water fluoridation than to drill it and fill it out of teeth,” she says.

If you’re concerned or just curious about the level of fluoride in your water, ask your local water utility. Home water filters that use reverse-osmosis (not the activated carbon filters that sit on a tap) can reduce fluoride as much as 99%. But think really hard before you do that: Take it from me, it’s no fun getting your teeth filled.

[This is an appeal to pity, a logical fallacy that does not present any factual information, but tries to sway the reader’s opinion based upon feeling. “YOU wouldn’t want to suffer, too, would you? I didn’t think so. Therefore, you shouldn’t stop water fluoridation.” This is just plain nonsense. It is true that reverse-osmosis and even some gravity filters can remove most fluoride from the water. The position of those calling for an end to water fluoridation is simply this: there are a lot of questions and studies suggesting that fluoride is harmful when ingested and it is prudent of citizens to call for a moratorium on the practice of water fluoridation until more conclusive studies can demonstrate its safety. I mean, what happened for thousands of years when people were not consuming fluoride and brushing their teeth with it? Were all of our ancestors toothless?]

Which state has the highest rate of fluoridation? Kentucky, where 99.8% of residents received fluoridated water, as of 2006. Hawaii had the lowest percentage, at just 8.4%. Next lowest was New Jersey, with only 22.4% of residents receiving fluoridated supplies. To see where your state ranks, see this CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2006stats.htm

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 4, 2008 in Current Health News, Health & Wellness, Informational

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Chemical Contaminants: Bottled Water vs. Tap Water

Do you like to drink bottled water? Do you perceive bottled water to be cleaner or safer than ordinary tap water?

Marketing like this gives the consumer the perception of freshness and purity.

Marketing like this gives the consumer the perception of freshness and purity.

The bottled water industry has exploded in recent years, becoming the second largest beverage commodity behind soft drinks. The industry’s boom to a $12 billion/year business has been fueled by the fancy advertisements and marketing gimmicks of some of the largest (and richest!) food and beverage corporations in the world, like Pepsi and Coca-Cola. For example, marketers have learned that packaging water in a clear container gives the water a fresher, cleaner appearance, while deceptive logos like Aquafina’s white mountains give the added perception of purity. But is bottled water really fresher and cleaner than tap water? Is the exorbitant price tag of bottled water vs. tap water really worth it? To the millions of Americans who drink bottled water, whether in large, gallon jugs or smaller, individual sport bottles, bottle water is certainly believed to be better. But how much of this is hype and clever marketing, and how much of it is based upon fact? And what happens to all of the millions of plastic containers that go directly into the trash when emptied?

Bottled Water vs. Tap Water

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of websites out there regarding the purity of bottled water vs. tap water. The overwhelming results from various studies are astonishing. Scientists and researchers at the Environmental Working Group have released their findings of samplings and testings performed on ten major bottled water brands. They found that every one of them tested positive for chemical contaminants – 38 total chemicals from the lot, for an average of 8 chemicals per sample. Water samples from Sam’s Choice and Acadia brands actually had chemical contaminants higher than the legal thresholds permissible in public drinking (tap) water. In addition, Sam’s Choice and Giant’s store brands both “bore the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment — a cocktail of chlorine disinfection byproducts, and for Giant water, even fluoride.” These disinfection products, known as trihalomethanes, have been linked to cancer and reproductive disorders, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The samples revealed other common tap water contaminants, including “caffeine and pharmaceuticals ([such as] Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants”. Many of these chemicals are known to cause a variety of health problems in humans and pose a greater risk to the environment.

So what does this all mean?

Unlike local municipal water supplies that are regulated under federal and state laws, companies that produce bottled water do not have to disclose the results of contaminant testings on their water. The bottled water industry is largely unregulated, so consumer confidence in the product rests almost solely upon perception generated from marketing and brand name recognition. In short, if you drink bottled water, you do not know what you are getting.

Environmental Impact

Plastic floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Plastic floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a growing, floating body of trash (80% of which is plastic) that has accumulated off the coast of the United States.

The trash accumulates in the North Pacific Gyre an area about ten million square miles in size. There are actually two “garbage patches”: one off the coast of Japan, and another between the West Coast and Hawaii. The patch near Hawaii is roughly the size of Texas.

Click above picture for animation.

Click above picture for animation.

This swirling, churning vortex of vinyl and plastic is growing every day and has detrimental effects on sea wildlife, coastlines and much more. Need I mention that plastics are made from largely non-biodegradable chemicals that leech harmful toxins into the environment?!

Do yourself a favor. Do the environment a favor. Screw the water companies that charge an arm and a leg for bottled water that is just processed tap water at a premium. Invest in a water filtration unit like the Berkey Water filter today.

Do I sound like a commercial? Good! We use a Berkey and I have to tell you: it works, and it is easy, fast and far less expensive than buying bottled water! This way we don’t have to drink nasty tap water, either, and we can remove the fluoride that many municipal water companies add to their water even though that practice has been banned in other areas of the world.

The Berkey Light (C) filtration unit

The Berkey Light © filtration unit

Do you buy bottled water in large gallon jugs? The Berkey Light, at $209, will pay for itself in less than a year! It filters up to 4 gallons per hour and the filters last for 4,000 gallons or one year, whichever comes first – and only cost $99 per pair. If you don’t like plastic, they have a stainless unit available for not much more. (For added fluoride and arsenic removal, you can get the $49 add on filters, which slows the filtration by about 15%; these filters last 6 months).

That means that you can enjoy 11 gallons of purified water per day for an entire year, for less than $100 (cost of filters alone)!! At supermarket rates of $.89 per gallon for water, using only two gallons a day, the cost is $650!! That’s a savings of over $500 per year, for nearly 3 times the amount of purified water!

The Berkey Water filter systems filter out: chlorine (taste & odor), color impurities, pathenogenic bacteria, cysts and parasites, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (benzene, MTBE, xylene, etc.), nitrates & nitrites, foul tastes & odors (rust & sulfur), trihalomethanes and MUCH more. The filters are so powerful that you can actually take untreated water from lakes and streams and pour it directly into the system! In fact, during our vacation to the Colorado wilderness this summer, we took our Berkey and filtered whatever water we could procure – and it was delicious. Moreover, we didn’t have to worry about bacteria or parasites like Giardia.

We use filtered water for everything now – the animals, the plants, for cooking, for ironing … When you consider that tap water today has added fluoride, excessive chlorine, prescription drugs and much more, this is the healthiest choice!

For those interested in learning more about the advantages of owning a Berkey filtration unit, here’s the informational brochure for the Berkey Light (*.PDF format).

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2008 in Food, Health & Wellness, Informational

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,