Jump to content

Bottled water is unnecessary, expensive and damaging to the environment - Discuss


Recommended Posts

Well that just show's you lack of imagination. When I'm parched on the hop I'll usually hook up can of compressed oxygen to a small jet engine and fire her up.

The speed with which the liquid oxygen is turned into a gas causes the can to get incredibly cold, condensing the moisture in the air around it to pure water, which I collect in a discarded plastic bottle (I try to shake it free of tramps piss if I can).

Usually does the trick.



Judging by the "behaviour" of the little un's running rampant in pubs when I go back I would suggest it's not just the colour's appearance which is a problem. But even tho' you are correct, Irish Fanta is still nothing to that powdered stuff


(did we put the recommended levels of water in to drink it? hell no - JUST enough to make it gloopy and drinkable - God, I'm getting palpatations thinking about it!)

Over the years I have seen quite a number of documentaries and read quite a bit of info about this bottled water debate. EVERY one without exception has shown that blind taste testing brings tap-water out on top. Also, a number of the top brand mineral waters were shown to have mineral and toxin concentrations well above recommended levels. I remember seeing the scientific adviser for one of the major mineral water companies utterly squirming in his seat when the facts were fairly and simply put to him - he didn't have a leg to stand on and ended up saying nothing!


Marvellous piece of product placement by some advertising company. On the commercial breaks for that documentary which had utterly decimated the entire bottled water industry, some muppet in some advertising agency had arranged for the broadcaster to run adverts for Volvic!!!! I am sure someone's head rolled!


My personal view is that anyone who buys bottled water thinking it is better than tap water (rather than out of necessity) is being taken for a ride.

BJL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I buy bottled water because I like the taste.

> It's my personal choice and I drink it in

> preference to any other drink.

>

> Why is it worse than buying cola or other soft

> drinks, wine or beer?


You can't get cola, wine, soft drinks or beer out of the tap in your kitchen for next to nothing! Water doesn't get you pissed!

Mockney, I find setting up a plastic sheet and waiting for the condesation far more rewarding.


I actually had my drinking water randomly tested by Thames Water a few months ago and asked the chap if he buys bottled water - he was completely scathing about it and resoundingly came down for tap water.

>

> Domitianus Wrote:

> If bottled water does not contain chemicals to

> destroy infestation then how come it is safe to

> drink?



Its filtered through the rocks over thousands of years just like a water filter jug filters *TAP* water Domi plus it doesnt get the privilege to go through your toilet matey.B)

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BJL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I buy bottled water because I like the taste.

> > It's my personal choice and I drink it in

> > preference to any other drink.

> >

> > Why is it worse than buying cola or other soft

> > drinks, wine or beer?

>

> You can't get cola, wine, soft drinks or beer out

> of the tap in your kitchen for next to nothing!


And you can't get a water like Badoit out of the tap.


Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Water doesn't get you pissed!


So for those of us who don't really enjoy alcohol - or find it expensive - it's perfect!

I certainly don't profess to be an expert in this particular field, but the argument put forward by those against bottled water, is the carbon footprint made on the planet in transporting, bottling, and distributing the stuff, which sounds very credible to me anyway. Of course others may produce evidence to the contrary which is equally compelling but I've yet to hear it.

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BJL - do you dispose of your plastic bottles in an

> environmentally friendly manner?


I try and buy water in glass bottles. If the bottles are plastic then I do what most other people probably do with their unwanted plastic containers - I try to re-use them and the others are collected for recycling by Southwark Council.


> On another tangent - if you asked for tap water in

> a restaurant and they refused - how would you

> react?


I'd be annoyed. (I usually don't bother asking for bottled mineral water in restaurants.)

karter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> which turkish deli are you talking about *bob*?


The one you mentioned that sells bottled water at 49p for one and a half litres. You're right - it does sound a lot better value than the water they sell at the Carling Academy. But I just wondered if the acts they have there are just as good?

atila the gooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I certainly don't profess to be an expert in this

> particular field, but the argument put forward by

> those against bottled water, is the carbon

> footprint made on the planet in transporting,

> bottling, and distributing the stuff, which sounds

> very credible to me anyway. Of course others may

> produce evidence to the contrary which is equally

> compelling but I've yet to hear it.


Perhaps someone could explain why transporting natural spring water from France is somehow worse than transporting wine from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile or the USA?

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If there's one product which certainly is named

> beyond lampooning (to coin Sean's phrase), it's

> got to be Um Bongo, which I'm fairly certain they

> don't drink 'in the Congo'.



i,ll have you know they do drink it in the congo, if you listen to the advertising jingle, it says so.

BJL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps someone could explain why transporting

> natural spring water from France is somehow worse

> than transporting wine from Australia, New

> Zealand, South Africa, Chile or the USA?


Have you tasted English wine?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...