Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password:
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.
Comments page 1 of 1
Neutral
Nancy said 7-29-2009 @7:45PM
The Eco-Friendly Stainless Steel liquid bottle/canteen has a cap made of: polypropylene #5 sport cap - nice, eh? Wouldn't it be better if the cap was made of recycled, eco-friendly GLASS, or STAINLESS STEEL?? Yes, it would "bump" up the cost of this product, BUT it would be SO much safer for ALL of us!!
replyNeutral
Nancy said 7-29-2009 @7:59PM
polypropylene #5 sport cap - this is what the cap of the Eco-Friendly water/liquid carrier is made. The rest of the liquid carrier is (supposedly) made of stainless steel.
replyJust pondering......how can this liquid carrier call itself "eco-friendly, when the cap of this carrier is made of a dangerous plastic? This item is listed with the rest of the items on this page. Makes me angry, as I use a PUR water filter for the entire family's water - including our companion animals - and was searching for a stainless steel water carrier for myself. As I have major medical problems with my kidneys, I drink a lot of water each day. What a disappointment......??!!
Neutral
Tom Day said 8-07-2009 @7:46AM
Just curious why this report was filed in California 8-6-09 on water purifier companies. This report was found at
replywatertechonline.com
OAKLAND, CA — An environmental advocacy group, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), has filed a complaint in California Superior Court against manufacturers, distributors and sellers of activated carbon (AC) filters in the state, claiming the AC filters release arsenic into water, that the defendants knew or should have known that, and that companies were not warning consumers about it, an August 6 Courthouse News Service report said.
Named defendants in the suit, filed in Marin County, were Multipure International; Omnipure Filter Co., Inc.; PUR Water Purification Products, Inc.; and The Proctor & Gamble Co.
Also shown as defendants were unnamed other individuals or companies who manufacture, distribute and/or sell activated carbon water filtration systems in California, identified in court papers only as “DOES 1-500” (multiple “John Doe’s”). The plaintiff’s lawyers stated they haven’t determined the identities of the “Doe” defendants yet, but they intend to determine those identities and add those defendants’ names to an amended complaint.
Among other things, the complaint states: “Arsenic is present in the activated carbon used in the filters and replacement filters of defendants’ drinking water filtration systems. … People who use the products, including children, consume water from the products after arsenic has leached from the products into the water.”
The CEH alleges that the companies violate California’s Proposition 65 by failing to warn consumers about the risks of cancer and birth defects from the arsenic.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for every Proposition 65 violation. The CEH is represented by Eric Somers with the Lexington Law Group of San Francisco.
In a section of the complaint providing background to its case, the CEH notes that California listed arsenic as a carcinogen in 1987 and that in the intervening years, according to the complaint, “there has been extensive discussion within the water filtration system industry about the discharge of arsenic from drinking water filtration systems using activated carbon filters.”
Representatives of the water treatment industry could not be immediately reached for comment.
Can anyone give me a response to this report. I'm very concerned.
Tom Day
email hotjenday@aol.com