Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Water filters are capable of removing these chemicals.
1 posted on 04/24/2023 7:15:11 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ConservativeMind
Water filters are capable of removing these chemicals.

Bill Gates' contrails are capable of adding these chemicals to the drinking water.

2 posted on 04/24/2023 7:18:59 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is ████ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Yes, your tap water needs to be filtered.


3 posted on 04/24/2023 7:27:41 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Welcome to the Matrix . Orwell's "1984" was a warning, not an instruction manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Great. Something else in the kitchen to be worried about.
Next time I get water to swallow my med pills,
I’ll think about actor Dustin Hoffman, as he sat in the dentist’s chair, with the Dentist (Lawence Olivier) repeatedly asking him (the patient) “Is It Safe?”


4 posted on 04/24/2023 7:33:41 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

We don’t drink any water that has not passed through our Berkey water filter.


5 posted on 04/24/2023 7:57:58 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

My household drinks water exclusively from our well. When we travel, we take our own water. I weighed 98 pounds when we married 45+ years ago. I weight 115 now and that’s after gaining up to 130 with my second child (40 years ago).

Don’t drink the city water and vet your bottled water carefully.


6 posted on 04/24/2023 8:05:34 PM PDT by CFW (old and retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Ok, what are PFAS? I didn’t see the definition of the acronym.


7 posted on 04/24/2023 8:07:27 PM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

I’m a bit torn, but this is a strictly correlative study.

The reason that I’m torn is because I’ve used Philippe Grandjean as a reference in one of my books. He’s done some very good research exposing the toxicity of fluoride.

I’m not impressed with this study. It’s a shame it didn’t include any insight into the mechanism to adverse health effect (thought to be an endocrine disruptor).

I don’t dispute a negative health impact from exposure to PFAS (in fact, I agree wholeheartedly) but this study might as well have concluded that lack of sunlight correlates to obesity.

“The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that perfluorinated alkylate substance (PFAS) exposures are associated with body weight increases in a dietary intervention study.”

It establishes nothing of the sort. The time to establish the mechanism was during the study via testing; it’s shameful, as are the conditions for the study,

“The adults first underwent a diet of 800 kcal per day for 8 weeks”

Read that again. Yeah.

Additionally, search the paper for the term “PFAS mixture”; it appears that the study participants ingested PFAS.

Again, yeah. /s “Human guinea pigs.”

The effects of this ‘study’ may well be quite interesting...


9 posted on 04/24/2023 8:14:10 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Forgot this

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.23755


10 posted on 04/24/2023 8:27:40 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

bkmk


11 posted on 04/24/2023 8:50:42 PM PDT by sauropod (“If they don’t believe our lies, well, that’s just conspiracy theorist stuff, there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

“Water filters are capable of removing these chemicals.”


Water molecule size: 2.75 angstroms.

Covalently bonded fluorine - e.g., PFAS - molecule size: 0.72 angstroms.

I don’t think so, at least certainly not in the consumer sense. Some claim high filtration rates, but it’s physically impossible to reach some of the advertised rates of reduction (e.g., ‘93%’). Fluoride easily passes the blood-brain barrier; so do most of the >4000 other chemicals of similar structure.

Anyone interested in the latest research should note this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520144703.htm

One point: If we’re to eradicate a future threat - banning PFAS etc. - then it must include fluoride in water.

By the way, the feds regulate the amount of fluoride added to bottled water. Yeah, you read that correctly, and the bottlers are not required to list it on the label.

The results demonstrate that ‘purified’ bottled waters can’t eliminate the fluoride...or that it’s added post-filtration.

https://fluoridealert.org/content/bottled-water/

(let the games begin)


12 posted on 04/24/2023 8:54:18 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson