Ro Water - Safe From Human Consumption?

[OohFeeshy]

The body doesn't particularly care how the water is delivered as long as it has enough. Food, beer, orange juice, tap water, RO water... It all goes the same way and all gets mixed up in the stomach. Why would it take minerals out? Osmosis is the predominant force in which water moves from an area with high water potential to an area with low water potential. I.e, the water will move into areas with higher solute concentrations than itself and not the other way around. You eat food, thus you've got plenty of solutes to spare. If you don't, then the form of your water isn't going to be too high on your list of worries.

You don't *need* to drink it, but you *need* to do very little that we do anyway.

 

[steelhealr]

FYI....I just sat down with a colleague of mine....a gastroenterologist who happened to walk in as I was passing some time...and we discussed drinking RO water. No issues unless imbibed in huge volumes. SH

 

[plantbrain]

I think Bignose works for the water corp
As for scientific proof of my statements. They are all over the world. I don't have any on hand at the moment but I don't need them.

Humm.......ain't that conveinent?
They are everywhere yet you cannot find them ?
Regarding different readings from different labs:

They are different labs, so they might have somewhat different readings and depending on when and where the sample was taken, they should be different, at least some.
Merely because there is a differences, does not mean nor imply either lab was incorrect.

If the no match results are say 0.06 Chlorine vs 0.08 Chlorine, I can live with small errors.
You make no mention of any of these issues, and they do matter if you want to bemoan this issue.

The private lab which I paid to have the water tested, gave me a list of over 20 chemicals/ ingredients in the water. The water corp gave me a list with only chlorine and fluoride & salt in it. I didn't have to pay the water corp for the test but I figure even if I did the results would have been the same.

If you ask for the other ingredients, it might help. Otherwise they will give those that are monitored.
A simple carbon filter will remove most any issues folks have with their tap water.

RO is fine though.
Folks do eat and drink other things(that are loaded with salts) other than pure water
Come on, RO is bad for us ........??That's a joke for an argument I hope?

Actually, at least here in the USA, it is a mandated by law that they do produce a report for what is in the water and they have guidelines to abide by.
I cannot speak for other locations.

In summer they don't tell us they are increasing the chlorine levels but you can smell the stuff in summer and not in winter. You can also test the water for yourself with various test kits. The water does have all sorts of stuff in and no-one is told about it.

Carbon filter will take out the stuff most folks seem to freak out over.
I use one, but we get pure snow melt from Granitic water shed in the Sierras.
It's already pure.

As for the water corp cleaning our water before sending it to us, get real. They aren't going to filter it with micron screens or carbon. It would cost millions to do that. They have a few mesh screens to filter out the bigger particulate matter but everything else goes in. The more organic matter in the water the more chlorine they put in to compensate.

Which is why they switched to Chloramine and they avoid the THM's produced, they also do not have to use micron screening to clarify and remove particulates.
Most of that comes from the water lines, not the water treatment plants.

Here is a test you can do. Fill up a large white bucket with tap water and have an air stone vigorously bubbling away in it. After a week take the airstone out and look at the brown film on the inside of the bucket. It's not very well filtered.

Yea, that's called dust that settled from the air into the bucket, as well as spores that can land and grow in standing water.
Repeat with a sealed lid and with a cleaner and a 0.4 micron air filter on the air pump.

Kidney patients in hospital are only allowed to drink R/O water, why? Because the damaged kidneys are unable to remove the stuff in tap water.

No, the salts play a huge role. You can filter the other stuff out EASILY with carbon.
Why use all that if carbon does it fine?
The salts.

Who drinks bottled water? Why if chlorinated tap water is just as good for you?

Err taste?
Most bottle water is carbon filtered.
Many companies sell carbon filtered water, most of it tap water, eg Aqua Fina is tap.

Does anyone drink rainwater? Rainwater and R/O are virtually the same. I know people that have drunk rainwater all their lives and the only problems they have are from cavities in their teeth due to lack of fluoride when they were growing up. As far as their general health goes tho, they are a lot healthier than anyone I know that drinks tap water.

So that is the only reason for their good health?
I drink tap and ran marathons, ridden a number of 100mile races on road bikes etc, I feel pretty good

Why does tap water smell when pure water, distilled, rain or R/O not smell?

Why do people sometimes get stomach pains when drinking tap water but not rainwater? The chemicals in it react with the stomach acids and cause discomfort.

Finally back to what I said a while ago. People and animals have been drinking rain water, which is pure water similar to R/O, for millions of years and the species is still alive. Watch reptiles out in the rain, or birds in trees, they drink rainwater.

Fish live in rainwater for years and usually die because we do something silly like poison their water with chlorine and other chemicals. Need I say more?

Actually humans have been drinking dirty water for a long long time.
It's killed many millions over the years and likely kills this many today do to poor conditions of the water supplies.
That's why we have water treatment plants, protection of water supplies etc.

Fish can die for many reasons, relating it to us needs evidence, I agree with your cause to some degree, however, not the logic.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Musho3210]

its the only water i drink at home, now i hate tap water which i drink at my friends houses and school .

as for mineral depletion, bull crap, take half a chip and disolve it in water and im sure it will raise the tds well above average levels, my point? Water already has such low mineral content that a eating a chip makes up for all of it lol.

i didnt really read this thread that well, but there are many of these arguments all over the place, and they all bring up the topic of mineral depletion, what they say is that it is so pure that it becomes corosive and absorbs minerals out of your body... Well, if it absorbs it out of the body into the water, and your body absorbs the now mineral full water, then what do you lose?

through the naked eye, i cant really see whats so bad about it.

Anyway, since when was the last time something didnt cause cancer or some other rare disease later on in life. Everythings bad for you some how according to science lol

 

[Bignose]

as for mineral depletion, bull crap, take half a chip and disolve it in water and im sure it will raise the tds well above average levels, my point? Water already has such low mineral content that a eating a chip makes up for all of it lol.

i didnt really read this thread that well, but there are many of these arguments all over the place, and they all bring up the topic of mineral depletion, what they say is that it is so pure that it becomes corosive and absorbs minerals out of your body... Well, if it absorbs it out of the body into the water, and your body absorbs the now mineral full water, then what do you lose?

Maybe you should have read the thread a little more carefully, specifically the WHO document I cite. Firstly the mechanism doesn't work like that. You don't dissolve the minerals then reabsorb them.

Once again, I'm going to quote from the WHO document (from page 7) (did anyone else even read it?)

"Human volunteers who drank low mineral water experienced the following changes 1) increased diuresis (urine production) almost by 20% on average, greater body water volume 2) changes to the concentration of the sodium and potassium levels in their serum levels 3) increased elimination of sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, and magnesium ions from the body. "

That point number 3... shows conclusively that the body loses minerals when you drink RO water. Again, I'm going to agree that it is a matter of magnitude and depends on how much you drink. A glass or 2 or 3 isn't going to kill anyone. But, there are consequences -- as the WHO document reports.

Unless someone is going to bring some evidence to the table that refutes the evidence I've brought to the table, can we please all finally acknowledge that the scientific evidence shows that there is mineral loss, that there is some consequences of drinking RO water? I'm willing to read and acknowledge the opposing point of view -- just someone cite some scientific evidence that supports that point of view. Here in the Scientific Section, that isn't too much to ask.

 

[Musho3210]

as for mineral depletion, bull crap, take half a chip and disolve it in water and im sure it will raise the tds well above average levels, my point? Water already has such low mineral content that a eating a chip makes up for all of it lol.

i didnt really read this thread that well, but there are many of these arguments all over the place, and they all bring up the topic of mineral depletion, what they say is that it is so pure that it becomes corosive and absorbs minerals out of your body... Well, if it absorbs it out of the body into the water, and your body absorbs the now mineral full water, then what do you lose?

Maybe you should have read the thread a little more carefully, specifically the WHO document I cite. Firstly the mechanism doesn't work like that. You don't dissolve the minerals then reabsorb them.

Once again, I'm going to quote from the WHO document (from page 7) (did anyone else even read it?)

"Human volunteers who drank low mineral water experienced the following changes 1) increased diuresis (urine production) almost by 20% on average, greater body water volume 2) changes to the concentration of the sodium and potassium levels in their serum levels 3) increased elimination of sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, and magnesium ions from the body. "

That point number 3... shows conclusively that the body loses minerals when you drink RO water. Again, I'm going to agree that it is a matter of magnitude and depends on how much you drink. A glass or 2 or 3 isn't going to kill anyone. But, there are consequences -- as the WHO document reports.

Unless someone is going to bring some evidence to the table that refutes the evidence I've brought to the table, can we please all finally acknowledge that the scientific evidence shows that there is mineral loss, that there is some consequences of drinking RO water? I'm willing to read and acknowledge the opposing point of view -- just someone cite some scientific evidence that supports that point of view. Here in the Scientific Section, that isn't too much to ask.

i dont really see why not, unless you are losing the minerals in your kidneys (kidneys are releasing more minerals from the bloodstrem into the urine), but i dont see how RO water that has gone through parts of your digestive system still be pure enough to alter kidneys "productions", and if it does do that, then wouldnt they cause kidney problems? If you want to get technical, the moment it touches your tounge it loses its "pureness".

Im not really trying to prove anything, i just dont see how... you know?

I mean, most of the tds comes from the pipe lines and stuff, and millions years ago humans didnt really use wide spread plumbing, unless since the start of widespread plumbing in the last few centuries in conjunction with a rapid evolution (which is a touchy subject to bring up) caused our bodys to require the tds stuff, i dont see how water with a low tds can harm your body against water with hight tds.

If you want my full opinion on this matter, i think its a good thing we are damaging are bodies a little, humans have been getting weaker and weaker with all these medicines working as our immune system, what we need are some good ol' self curable diseases/problems within our bodies, otherwise i wouldnt be surprised if we all die from a disease outbreak sometime in the next few centuries (depending if evolution is true or not)

A further opinion/belief is that i am a firm believer (bad sentence structure, but since when have mine been good) in placebo/physcological effect or whatever you call it, if somehow, you dont believe it will harm you (like 100% believe it wont, not have slight second thoughts) then it wont harm you. But this is pure belief/philosophic or again whatever you call it and these beliefs surely wont help me win an argument with someone else. Luckily i am very stubborn, and i dont believe any of this crap, so hopefully, if the whole placebo/phsycological stuff work, i shouldnt get effected i dont think? Hey, ignorance is bliss.

As a final note (hopefully since i cant stop editing) unless i get some groudbreaking studies without holes in them or questionable answers, i will probably stick to what i believe since i just dont get the picture, how does this whole thing work....

 

[Colin_T]

For CFC

The Australian gov does indeed need to invest in better water treatment plants and ideas on how to get more water. But Australia is also a heck of a lot bigger than the UK and doesn't get nearly as much rain. We also get much higher temperatures and the warmer conditions encourage bacterial blooms. Our water may have to travel hundreds of kilometres before it gets to a town or building. The long distance travelled, combined with the high temp, (it gets to 45+ degrees C in the shade during summer) is the main reason they increase the dose of chlorine.
They have thought of using chloramine but then you have to separate the ammonia and chlorine at the end of the process, where it comes out of the tap. Chloramine is just as nasty to people as chlorine and it is worse for fish.

The last time I saw a fish living in a puddle was 2 years ago when I was down south and it had rained. There were big puddles everywhere and they were full of fishes, primarily salamanderfish, pygmy perch, nightfish and galaxiellas. Some of these fishes aestivate during the dry months and emerge when it rains. The soil has very little mineral content and as such the PH of the water is low, usually around 5.

Fishes living in the upper Amazon live in meltwater coming off the Andes. It is pretty pure and they seem to do fine in it. Even further downstream there is very little mineral content in the Amazon River, hence the reason tetras, discus, etc are considered softwater fish.


For Bignose
Anyone can write an article and stick it on the web. And anyone can grab that article and say it is factual because someone wrote it. If it wasn't published in a book and given credence by medical authorities or scientific bodies then it is no better as evidence than me not providing any data to back up my statements.
Regarding the volunteers in the study that showed molecular changes when drinking low mineral water, were those people working outdoors in a hot arid third world country?

As for your statement about me having blue skin and eating worms. Have a look at my picture. I am a blue fish that loves worms. Ummm they are so yummy.
And it's Colin_T to you sir.
Sir, Sir, I challenge ye to a duel Sir.
Slap slap with the tail.

Fins raised, gills flared, lets rock little fishy.


For plantbrain
Convenient that I don't have any evidence on hand to show the web.
Perhaps, but I am using my memory from past information I have gathered. Just like steelhealr does when he rambles off medical terms. He isn't going to provide a leaflet every time he states something. He has the knowledge in his noggin and he recalls the information when required. I gather he is also a doctor or something along those lines and as such people take his word for what he says.
Well my information has come from years of reading and listening to researches from around the world and it is in my head. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I don't have a paper copy of everything I have ever heard, but even if I did, it would take years to go through it all to find the pieces that apply to this discussion.

re the different labs.
They both received the same water sample. I ran the tap for a minute and then collected a couple of litres of water. I put 1 litre into two clean containers that had been rinsed out with the same tap water. One sample was given to each lab. When delivered to the labs I asked for the samples to be tested for anything that may have been in them. I did not mention where the samples had come from or what the results were for. I simply asked the samples be tested and a list of what was in them be produced for my perusal.

re the brown sediment in the buckets of water.
I have done the tests with lids on the buckets and the amount of dust coming from the pump is going to be negligible. The amount of dirt we have in the water is quite substantial. Even the water filters show it when they are disassembled to be cleaned or repaired. They are sealed units that have no exposure to the air and only have mains water pass through them. They end up brown and disgusting.

re: people drinking dirty water kills millions.
I agree that dirty contaminated water does kill millions of people but clean rain water that used to flow down our waterways before industrialisation and urbanisation was fine and safe for our ancestors. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be here now. The rainwater would have killed them all off and there wouldn't be any humans or other mammals on the planet. This discussion was about R/O water being bad for people if they drink it, not drinking water polluted by effluent.

re: fish die for many reasons, relating it to us needs evidence.
People kill them a number of ways including: overfeeding, inadequate filtration, chemical exposure (hair spray, perfume, cigarette smoke, etc), overdosing with aquarium pharmaceuticals, incompatible tank mates, and water changes with chlorinated tap water. The evidence is on this website under many of the forum topics. People asking for help because their fish are dieing.
Even if you ignore all but the latter, the evidence should speak for itself in this issue. Why does every aquarium book, fish keeper and shop owner recommend using dechlorinated water for our fish? Why use R/O water for marine tanks?
Chlorine kills. Pure and simple. It kills living things and breaks down organic matter. That is why they put it in the water. To kill stuff so the water is pathogen free and looks clean for human consumption.
Rainwater and R/O water doesn't have the chlorine or other ingredients that tap water has, and as far as I am concerned is a safer option for long term health when compared to chlorinated tapwater.

 

[Musho3210]

wait, now i am just more confused than before.... Since fish are fully aquatic, their h2o needs are different than humans (i cant see how they can be compared foolproofly....), now isnt this thread of human consumption? Or is it both?

 

[Bignose]

i dont really see why not, unless you are losing the minerals in your kidneys (kidneys are releasing more minerals from the bloodstrem into the urine), but i dont see how RO water that has gone through parts of your digestive system still be pure enough to alter kidneys "productions", and if it does do that, then wouldnt they cause kidney problems? If you want to get technical, the moment it touches your tounge it loses its "pureness".

Well, Musho, you don't have to understand why to understand that it does happen, as shown by the research I cited above. The problem is that demineralized water's concentration of minerals is so low, that nature tends to remineralize that water. Normally, in nature, this comes form the minerals in the ground, but if the demineralized water is in your body then it will remineralize from the sources in your body. The concentration of all your bodily fluids goes down by adding this demineralized water, so to bring the concentration back up, the body gives up minerals to do so. But, again, you don't have to understand it to know that it is happening. Case in point, we know what gravity does, incredibly accurately, but we don't know how gravity does what it does.

I mean, most of the tds comes from the pipe lines and stuff, and millions years ago humans didnt really use wide spread plumbing, unless since the start of widespread plumbing in the last few centuries in conjunction with a rapid evolution (which is a touchy subject to bring up) caused our bodys to require the tds stuff, i dont see how water with a low tds can harm your body against water with hight tds.

Here in the scientific section, you're really going to have to provide proof of these statements. I don't understand how our bodies could only recently need dissolved solids in our water. I mean, the water that has been on the ground takes in these minerals whenever it is exposed to it. Also, what was the primary source of calcium for us? It is only exceptionally recently that we've milked cows, a large source of calcium comes from the dissolved calcium in the water. Please cite some proof of your statements here.

If you want my full opinion on this matter, i think its a good thing we are damaging are bodies a little, humans have been getting weaker and weaker with all these medicines working as our immune system, what we need are some good ol' self curable diseases/problems within our bodies, otherwise i wouldnt be surprised if we all die from a disease outbreak sometime in the next few centuries (depending if evolution is true or not)

A further opinion/belief is that i am a firm believer (bad sentence structure, but since when have mine been good) in placebo/physcological effect or whatever you call it, if somehow, you dont believe it will harm you (like 100% believe it wont, not have slight second thoughts) then it wont harm you. But this is pure belief/philosophic or again whatever you call it and these beliefs surely wont help me win an argument with someone else. Luckily i am very stubborn, and i dont believe any of this crap, so hopefully, if the whole placebo/phsycological stuff work, i shouldnt get effected i dont think? Hey, ignorance is bliss.

As a final note (hopefully since i cant stop editing) unless i get some groudbreaking studies without holes in them or questionable answers, i will probably stick to what i believe since i just dont get the picture, how does this whole thing work....

Well, at least these are acknowledged opinions. Opinions not grounded in much science (unless you want to cite some?), but you can hold whatever opinions you choose to. What exactly are you referring to in that last sentence? Studies about RO water or studied to confirm/deny the opinions of the last 3 paragraphs?

 

[Bignose]

For Bignose
Anyone can write an article and stick it on the web. And anyone can grab that article and say it is factual because someone wrote it. If it wasn't published in a book and given credence by medical authorities or scientific bodies then it is no better as evidence than me not providing any data to back up my statements.
Regarding the volunteers in the study that showed molecular changes when drinking low mineral water, were those people working outdoors in a hot arid third world country?

The article I cite is not just from some schmuck. It is from the World Health Organization. It is a multinational group (part of the UN) of respected scientists and experts in the field who try to raise the health level of everyone in the world.

And, if you had read the article, (!!!) you would see that they cited many articles from peer-reviewed medical journals. This is the credence given, the fact that the article appears in a medical journals says that a panel of referees have reviewed the work and decided that the work is good. There is no better system we have today to validate the research that is out there. I don't know about the volunteers in the study, because I didn't look up the original citation in the WHO document. But, I could if I wanted to because it is cited properly. All the research I have cited has been given the "

I notice that you haven't cited any of your statements yet. How long would it take until you could do so? I eagerly await seeing some evidence to back up your statements. All the research I have cited has been given the "credence by medical authorities or scientific bodies", can you do the same? Please?

The problem with your citing your memory or things you have read in the past is two-fold. One, memory are fallible. No one's memory is perfect. And secondly, no one else has a chance to look at your source and judge it's validity for themselves. You can judge the WHO document for yourself (if you took the time to read it), and then you can look up all sources the WHO document's author(s) use to make their opinions because they are all properly cited, too. I would love to look at your literature and judge it for myself, but I can't because you haven't provided anything. This isn't personal in anyway, but saying you remember reading something some time ago isn't any better than if you had made it up yourself. That's why proper citations are key, especially here in the Scientific Section.

Finally, again, not to be personal here, but reputations matter. I didn't ask SH to document his talk with his buddy because I trust SH and I know that he knows how this section of the forum works. He wouldn't say something unless there would be good scientifically valid reasons to say something, in this case the expertise of his friend. You, Colin_T, are a newcomer, and don't have much reputation. So, you are going to be asked to back up your statements you consider facts. Whenever I make a statement, I try to back it up with documented evidence as much as I can when I can. I'd like to think I have something of a reputation, too. But, I have no problem providing evidence when I can. It is nothing personal, it is part of debating an issue. No one's statements should be taken as face value, they should cite evidence to back their points of view up. Failure to provide evidence just makes the non-backed-up position very weak, especially compared to the one with evidence.

Sometimes both sides can cite evidence, because a lot of issues aren't completely straightforward or clear. But, at this time, all the evidence I have seen points to RO water being very non-healthful to drink. Again, I'd love to read something on the pro side, if you can find some good objective peer-reviewed evidence. But, again, there hasn't been any provided at all. Please support your claims, or drop the claims. Again, not to sound like a broken mp3 player, but in this section, you have to provide evidence when it is asked of you. I'll give you time to get them together, but you need to cite something.

 

[Colin_T]

I think the last paragraph was more to stir the pot than anything else

Aboriginals have been living in Australia for the last 100,000 years and they have been drinking rainwater and low mineral water for that time. Proof is from Australia being one of the oldest continents in the world with an extremely low mineral content in the soil. Any water that lands on this country stays free of minerals because there are none in the soil and we don't have a lot of calcium based mountain ranges. The calcium based rocks dissolved away millions of years ago.
National Geographic among other organisations, has done reports on the low mineral sands of Australia. Most gardening books about Australian native plants also have a section about the poor sandy soils. Banksia sp. have evolved in such poor soil that if they are given too much fertiliser, particularly in the form of phosphorus, they die.
Australia is practically a sandy desert and has very little to offer any rainfall that does touch the earth.

 

[Bignose]

OK, Colin, that's a start, but I wouldn't consider that sufficient. Can you cite some research that looked into the aboriginal's diet? Where did they get the calcium to form bones? If it wasn't from the water, was it from the diet? But, even then, the vegetables get their minerals from the soil, so if the soil was so mineral poor that the water didn't adsorb anything, how did the vegetables take up anything? Can you cite some sources that show just how mineral-poor the waters of Australia are? What issue of National Geographic? What was the title of the article? The name(s) of the author(s)?

Again, I am sorry, but just saying you read something one time doesn't mean much. Look it up for the forum, post the citation and then we can all look at it. Just using your memory is NOT sufficient.

Also, you still haven't even tried to source some of you other claims, like how the chlorine in water causes cancer. When can we expect some evidence to back that statement up?

 

[raptorrex]

OMG, i am up to my neck in research documents lol

for now i offer, comments on, an extract form the US surgeon Generals office report on Bone health and osteoporosis from 2004:
http/www.calciuminfo.com/pdf/SG_Report_3pg_Summary.pdf
taken from [URL="http/www.calciuminfo.com/"]http/www.calciuminfo.com/[/URL]

The United States faces a serious, yet largely unknown, public health threat: More than one in 10 Americans either has, or is at risk of developing, osteoporosis or other bone diseases. Concerns about the large toll that osteoporosis is inflicting on the nation has lead the Surgeon General to launch a major campaign aimed at improving bone health, a core component of which is Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General.

The good news, according to the Surgeon General's office, is that by getting enough calcium, vitamin D (vitamin D promotes absorption of the calcium) and other nutrients, including phosphates and magnesium, individuals are more likely to build strong bones. The bad news, however, is that more than 75% of Americans are calcium deficient. And while you may think you're getting enough, consider this: the majority of women in a recent study underestimated their daily calcium needs by at least half.

 

[Colin_T]

I know all about osteoporosis as I have it. I was diagnosed with it when I was 36. I currently drink and have always had over a litre of milk each day and do regular exercise and the docs have no idea why I developed it.
Prior to my diagnosis I used to drink straight tap water but have since changed to filtered. I am on calcium tablets and have bone density x-rays once every couple of years. The docs want me to have them every 6 months but I don't like the idea of being x-rayed that often.
A resent british study revealed that the calcium supplements used to fight osteoporosis actually encourages the risk of heart attacks in women over 40. That was on the news a couple of weeks ago.

 

[raptorrex]

I know all about osteoporosis as I have it. I was diagnosed with it when I was 36. I currently drink and have always had over a litre of milk each day and do regular exercise and the docs have no idea why I developed it.
Prior to my diagnosis I used to drink straight tap water but have since changed to filtered. I am on calcium tablets and have bone density x-rays once every couple of years. The docs want me to have them every 6 months but I don't like the idea of being x-rayed that often.
A resent british study revealed that the calcium supplements used to fight osteoporosis actually encourages the risk of heart attacks in women over 40. That was on the news a couple of weeks ago.

you have my respect of living and dealing with this, potentially, debilitating disorder. but as i am sure you are aware, the comment was not that 75% of Americans had osteoporosis because of low calcium intake, but that they were simply calcium deficient. sadly not everyone who develops osteoporosis, was suffering from low calcium intake. as with you, it can seem to "just" develop. though logic would dictate that the two may well, in certain circumstances, be connected. if you take the Surgeon Generals comments, it would seem that the last thing citizens of the USA should be doing is reducing their calcium intake, by pulling it out of the water they drink!