Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.
Tags :

Comments (4) -

  • Anne

    11/16/2008 4:19:00 PM |

    I have used bottle water at work for years because what comes out of the tap is often a strange brown color. I do have a filter at home. Recently I have been taking my home filtered water to work. Not as convenient as bottled, but this study gives me good reason to continue doing this.

    Do the home faucet filters take out or reduce the medications that are now in our water?
    Anne

  • Zbigniew

    11/16/2008 9:44:00 PM |

    > as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

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

    well it depends what kind of water you have in your taps. I am used to thinking that - at least in my country - tap water in bigger cities is not very healthy (it is drawn from inferior sources and cleared somehow) and it can contain bacteria.
    Some people use osmotic filters but then the water lacks minerals - so what should they drink?
    Hmm, the subject of water is pretty *deep* once I've started to think of it. Next concern - minerals - is it OK if it has plenty of everything or there are some ideal compositions to aim for? Judging by commercials the ones that are low in sodium are best (but how credible is that advertisement if I watch it between a low-fat full-grain yogurt and "healthy" cholesterol-lowering margarine mix?). Should the same water be given to the middle-aged and to babies?

    At last, about environmental concerns: recently I read an article saying that in order to produce one bottle of water, they use up two or three times more water!

    best regards,

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2008 10:19:00 PM |

    There are two problems with tap water:
    1) It contains fluoride
    2) It contains chlorine
    And I don't want to overdose myself with either of those elements.

    The fluoride can only be removed by distillation or reverse osmosis.

    The chlorine can be removed by a charcoal filter, except that my water department has now switched to chloramine (ammonia + chorine), which CANNOT be removed easily by a charcoal filter.

    The chlorine at least serves an important public health function (although ozonation can be used as a more environment-friendly alternative). The fluoride is forced medication. I believe that one day we will realize our folly in dumping tons of this garbage into our streams, lakes, oceans and bodies, when alternative are available.

    So for me it's bottle water, until the water company cleans up its act.

  • Anonymous

    11/30/2008 3:47:00 AM |

    A percentage of the bottles end up in the pacific ocean to float forever in the great Pacific Landfill, now the size of Texas

Add comment

Loading
A Tale of Two LDL's

A Tale of Two LDL's

15. January 2009 William Davis (10)
Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.


Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.


(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.
Tags :

Comments (10) -

  • renegadediabetic

    1/15/2009 3:22:00 PM |

    It's just part of big pharma's racket.  The public has been propgandized to fear cholesterol, statin prescriptions are based on an antiquated calculation, and the people who set cholesterol targets have financial ties to the drug companies.  This has created a big cash cow for big pharma.

    The only people to benefit from statins are middle aged men who have had a heart attack and even then, the benefit is small.  If statins were restricted to those who would truely benefit, it would mean a lot less $$$$ for big pharma.

  • Alan S David

    1/15/2009 3:31:00 PM |

    Today's news said millions more Americans over 60 could benefit from statins to combat the c-reative protein problem. How many more so called great things will statins do for us? Is this another terrific marketing ploy?

  • Zbig

    1/15/2009 8:52:00 PM |

    Dear Doc,
    all this NMR is black magic to me so far, besides I will wait for some advanced lipid measurements until I am at least 40.
    But I suspect that the LDL size can be guesstimated from e.g. triglicerides / HDL ratio - could you please supplement your post with the figures for both persons. I suspect there will be a difference there. TIA

  • Steve L.

    1/16/2009 3:36:00 AM |

    And if a million or so "Lauries" are given Lipitor for their 85 mg/dl  real LDL, I don't expect their all-cause mortality will IMPROVE .

  • Richard Nikoley

    1/17/2009 5:43:00 AM |

    Doc:

    My speculation is that this is merely an effect of the huge to-market costs pharmaceutical companies must endure, owing to FDA regulations.

    If people didn't have false-security -- as you have shown -- of FDA hurdles and implicit [expensively purchased] assurances, they might just take a bit more proactive, intelligent and informed approach to their own health, and maybe drug companies might go back to serving an informed consumer who no longer simply bows to an authority (the FDA) because they have the power to be who they are.

  • jean

    1/17/2009 5:57:00 AM |

    My neighbor is being lipitor by his internist because both his parents have alzheimers. At least that is what my neighbor told me.  I told him I'd never heard of that and he said he'd trust the doctor to know.

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 4:58:02 AM |

    Statins don't lessen the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. They work by lowering inflammation which is not what  they were designed to do and was not expected. Happens a lot - drugs being created for one thing and being found to work for something else so are then subscribed for other conditions.

    Statins are powerful and dangerous drugs that block the production of cholesterol. Our bodies NEED cholesterol. By blocking its production, it also blocks Co Q10 and dolichols, and more. Side effects range from minor muscle pains to the complete destruction of muscles, kidney failure then death. Also transient global amnesia (TGA) which doesn't show up immediately and is dismissed when it does. They cause depression and violent behaviour. That's why people on statins have a higher morbidity from all other causes and not heart attacks.

    As renegadediabetic  above says, they show slight benefit for middle-aged men who have already had a heart attack. Oh yeah, tell us again why we need them?

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 5:00:24 AM |

    "morbidity"? Um, mortality.

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 5:01:59 AM |

    Darn. Message went to wrong place. Mortality is what I meant.

Add comment

Loading