The Natural Resources Council never actually sponsored a contest called "bottled water vs tap water." That Council did not study the best means for broadcasting a decision in the "battle" of "tap versus bottled water." Yet that Council did put out a report, a report in which the Council compared bottled water to tap.
What was in that report? What facts about bottled water and tap water were unearthed by the researchers who compiled that report? Did that report point to a clear winner in the contest of "bottled water vs tap water?" Did that report award any sort of trophy to the opinionated advocates who had dared to speak out on the issue of tap versus bottled water?
No the Natural Resources Council did not take any one "side" in the ongoing controversy surrounding water from a tap and from a bottle. The Council did not dispute the fact that consumption of tap water constitutes a willingness to take added risks. By the same token, the Council asked the public to bear in mind the following facts:
- Bottled water that is sold in the same state where it has been bottled does not need to meet FDA regulations.
- FDA regulations stipulate that tap water from a city faucet can have no confirmed E.coli or fecal coliform bacteria. A certain amount of coliform bacteria is allowed in bottled water.
- Water that comes from a city tap has been filtered and disinfected, according to federal regulations. No federal regulations insist upon the filtering and disinfection of bottled water.
- Tap water that comes from a city must be free of cancer causing chemicals, such as phthalate. Yet the FDA exempts bottled water from that requirement, even though bottled water comes in plastic containers (containers that contain phthalate)
While the Natural Resources Council has chosen not to take a "side" in the contest of "bottled water vs tap water," it has certainly produced arguments that could be used to support either group of "contestants." The Council has not declared any one "side" as the winner in the battle of "tap versus bottled water." Yet the public has won access to important information, due to that same on-going "battle."
The public has heard again about the toxic chemicals that can show up in tap water. By the same token, the public has discovered that bottled water is not much safer than tap water. At the same time, the public has been reminded that there is an alternative to both tap and bottled water.
Homeowners and business owners who want to provide employees, family members or guests with pure and good-tasting water should heed the mention of that alternative. What is that alternative? How can a homeowner implement use of that alternative?
That alternative involves installation in a home or business of a water purification device. An ever-widening circle of homeowners and business owners have chosen to use an activated carbon filter. When combined with ion exchange and micron filtration, those filters can bring the level of contaminants in any water system down, down to an acceptable level.
A business owner can sleep better, after he or she has invested in an activated carbon filter. A homeowner can rest easy, once he or she knows that a particular water purification device provides guests and residents in a given home with readily available, clean and safe drinking water.
Laurel Tevolitz is a dedicated researcher of critical issues that affect health and well-being. Visit her water purification blog now at
http://www.safewaterpurifier.com to discover which water purification system she recommends after extensive research.
