On 13/06/13 12:38, Martin wrote:

A comparison between drinking water in Reading which is taken from the
River Kennet and drinking water sampled in London after it has passed
through most of the population of the Thames Valley would be
interesting.

If the filters are OK and not working at a greater rate than their
capacity, I'd bet that their only difference would be in the proportions
of minerals.

There's not a lot that properly 'ripe' sand filter beds won't remove
from the water which passes through them.

I'd guess that you'd have to remove borax in some way.

--
Rusty Hinge

On 13/06/13 16:13, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:46:23 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

On 13/06/2013 10:44, mogga wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

Where does the water on Malta come from?
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/ground...ity/Malta.html

This may help you
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...c9 157e85.jpg
And the survey says that the glyposate is ingested from food.

How can they know that?

It's still got the brand label on.

--
Rusty Hinge

On 13/06/13 11:18, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

Do you really believe that 10 volunteers is a valid sample size?

Depends how much they've been drinking

All volunteers who gave samples live in urban areas, and none had
handled or used glyphosate products in the run up to the tests. This is
the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the
presence of the weed killer in humans.

Because of the small sample, lifestyle conditions will not form any type
of conclusion.

Blindingly obvious. The study is ********.

I would have said 'suspect'. What are your data to refute it?

Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used weed killers in the world,
used by farmers, local government and gardeners, as well as being
sprayed extensively on some genetically modified crops imported into
Europe for use as animal feed.

The biggest producer is Monsanto which sells it under the brand name
“Roundup”. Despite its widespread use, its presence in food or water is
rarely monitored by governments.

/snip/

I think I detect a bit of Monsanto-bashing going on here, and it's a
thoroughly enjoyable sport.

--
Rusty Hinge

On 13/06/13 18:26, David Hill wrote:

But it's makes you look much better to rubbish things without reading
properly.
If Glyphosate is so safe why do they say NOT to spray seed crops
intended for human consumption?
Just remember they said that Thalidomide was safe and they said the same
about agent orange which when instructing American forces about it they
actually drank the stuff.

I presume they employed John Gummer to do that?

--
Rusty Hinge

On 15/06/13 22:55, Martin wrote:

It's still got the brand label on.
You mean that they didn't pay a German lab to analyse the food? :-)

They never do until someone suspects them of horsing around.


--
Rusty Hinge