Talk:Bottled water

Food and drink: Beverages Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Beverages Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabine.carolissen. Peer reviewers: Atapaudel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ETAPx, VUcnic.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JesseScruggs, CJTheReader.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waicheng. Peer reviewers: Waicheng.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Main issues: Worldwide perspective, references in terms of citation needed tags and inconsistent use of inline and external links

History of bottled water?

Yes, I agree -- it would definitely be useful to include such a section and am surprised there is not one already. Mrzubrow (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

= Some points are somewhat valid but the article lacks citations and more statistical references

It seems that the writer sells home water purification systems. The article seems quite biased ==== Sdfer (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seawater into drinking water

During the end of second world war there is no drinking water as all the water are get polluted so indian initiative ideas to convert seawater into drinking water. thus drinking water in packet has been evolved. so be kind to INDIANS

Health aspects of drinking purified water

There is a common understanding that drinking a lot of purified water can be bad for you (ostensibly because it will absorb minerals that would otherwise be consumed by your body). However, I could only find one clear article describing this and it is widely disseminated, by Zoltan P. Rona MD, MSc. Unfortunately the vast majority of the web sites that contain this article are trying to sell water purifiers or water itself and therefore are suspect sources of material. Can anyone provide information about whether drinking purified water is good or bad for you in the short or long-term and add to this article? -- S. Gartner ^talk 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pure" Water is Undefined

I've read the article titled There's No Such Thing as Pure Water, and I realize it's written by a biased ecologist working for a water purification company; however, he makes a very good point that there is a misconception about the word "pure" applied to water. Water is an acid and naturally bonds with other chemicals to reach a level of neutrality that is safe for consumption. The Wikipedia article makes multiple mentions of pure water with no apparent understanding that you can't just have a bottle with only H2O in it. For example, the line "Even if the water itself is pure, a plastic container may leak chemicals into the bottled water," gives the impression that such a pure water exists. Is there an expert that can clarify this in the article? Lackthereof 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water is not an acid unless you're referring to acid rain. Water has a pH of 7, which is neutral. Steelseal 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In chemistry, water is actually an acid and a base, albeit weak ones. Water is both a weak acid and base because its ionization constant is 10^-7. This is how water can create something like the Grand canyon via erosion? We usually consider water to be neutral, however, in terms of classifying water from a chemical analysis standpoint, water has the properties of an acid and a base. The following are various definitions of the acid/base dichotomy:

Arrhenius:

acid: generates [H+] in solution

base: generates [OH-] in solution

Brønsted-Lowery:

acid: anything that donates a [H+] (proton donor)

base: anything that accepts a [H+] (proton acceptor)

Lewis:

acid: accepts an electron pair

base: donates an electron pair

THC Loadee --Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with the abpve statement. Water is not acidic. Water has a PH of 7.0 which is considered to be neutral. Any solutyion wityh a PH lower than 7.0 is considered to be acidic (proportionally) and iof a solution has a pH higher than 7.0 then it is considered basic Sdfer (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Against Bottled Water

Great to see such an informative, objective and un-biased article *rolleyes*

What are your objections? Rick K 22:44, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this article conforms to a high standard, it seems very biased against bottled water. The whole tone of the article is anti-bottled water. As well as that, it needs some tidying. - Joolz

Statements such as I don't think and it seems are personal views. Unless you can be more specific and back up your feelings I suggest we drop the NPOV tag. The points made on the unhealthy aspects of bottled water and the controls of it is backed up by links and much published articles in the past (such as the uranium and benzene contaminated bottled water).

I posted that months ago (before I learnt how to tag my name on the end ;) The NPOV tag was added today, and not by me. Also, you may note that I talked about the tone of the article. You may also notice I've outlined some of the problems I've had with this article below, which have been resolved now. -- Joolz 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second this. This article has a very strong bias against bottled water.

It opens with an extensive section about the negative environmental effects of bottled water. This is followed by a "Marketing" section that has nothing to do with marketing. Penn & Teller's test is another of their many attempts to make the general public look stupid, and has no place in an encyclopedia.

The article mentions the potential health benefits of bottled water, but quickly clarifies that this is pseudoscience. It proceeds to mention that bottled water costs 10,000 times the price of tap water. This is a misperspective. People who buy bottled water aren't paying for the water, they're paying for the service of having it purified (in some cases) and put in a bottle.

The "Regulations" section is a blatant attack on the FDA's regulation of bottled water, and then mentions that, "ironically", tap water is more strictly regulated than bottled water.

The writers of this article are clearly people who pride themselves on drinking tap water, since about 75% of this article is anti-bottled water propaganda. This article needs a large overhaul.

--LocrialTheSequel 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create an article called Anti-Bottled-water-ism? Then you can create the Bottled-Water-Driking-Wikipedians' Notice Board, and go through Wikipedia with a fine-toothed comb subtly changing the wording of various articles to paint Bottled Water in a more positive light. Colonel Mustard 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source about Evian

Is there any source to the "fact" that Evian water sold in the US is actually made from US springs? How about Perrier? David.Monniaux 09:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the UK Evian bottles are labelled as from "Cachat Spring - S.A.E.M.E - 74500 Evian - FRANCE". It seems unlikely that they would source their supplies for the US market at a different spring for a whole range of reasons. Namely, the taste of the water simply wouldn't be the same, people would be able to tell the difference. It wouldn't seem to be in Evian's interests to use a different source for the US market. This claim seems to be completely unsubstantiated. - Joolz

Having done some research I can't find anything to substantiate the claim as of yet. I'm also wary of the claim that because it's a French company any product it produces, regardless of where it is produced, can be labelled as a 'product of France'. For instance, Nokia phones are often produced in Hungary, and as such are labelled 'Made in Hungary', even though it is a Finnish company. I'm not sure about the regulations in the US though. Also, the statement "a lot of the bottled water is actually very close to tap water." needs explanation. Close in what way exactly? In seems to stand to reason that there will be a number of similarities, considering the fact that they're both essentially water products. - Joolz Even being presented at the top of the article with a picture of a discarded water bottle indicates a clear bias. I can see devoting a section of the article to a criticism of them being wasteful, but this viewpoint seems to permeate the whole thing. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.63.45 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? http://www.bottledwaterweb.com/bottlersdetail.do?k=41

Different Tastes

You say that Evian would not produce differently tasting water marketed for different countries.

You may want to note that Cadbury produces different tasting chocolate worldwide based on the taste pallete of the respective consumer country.

From the web site www.mineralwaters.org you can choose a list of bottled water by country, where you will also find Evian mineralization table, there are two with different structures and total dissolved solids, this is a clear indication that two different springs are used in bottling Evian.

That is simply not enough evidence to back up such claims, according to Evian all their water comes from France. That isn't to say that they don't have two sources very nearby, and there can be a variety of reasons why there are two different types listed on that site. The site does not explain why, and you've simply leapt to a conclusion.

I'm going to remove the claim because it is unsubstantiated, and quite possibly libelous.

-- Joolz 23:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's kill this fad shall we? :) SD6-Agent 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

umm...I don't really know if you guys agree, but this doesn;t sound very neutral. From the dawn of humanity? exgeratted

for thousands of years, people have been making deliberate use of the fact that water flows downhill all by itself. [1] [2] For some hundreds of years, technology has existed to pump water under pressure on a wide scale, enabling it to be stored at altitude, and self-feed under gravity on-demand [3]. This practice has become so wide-spread in the English-speaking world, that the phrase 'on-tap' has become synonymous with'on-demand'.

Putting it into little containers and lugging it around is comparitively inefficient, both in terms of energy and time. This has been known since the dawn of humanity, when we drank from natural pipes and reservoirs known as rivers, lakes, and wells. It is these same natural pipes, which have supported earth's life since the very dawn of time, that are becoming poisoned and polluted by the plastics we discard, and the chemicals and residue from production and shipping of the plastic bottles which contain the bottled water which now enamours so many.

The pointer outer 02:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, that section has no place in an encyclopaedia --Sophistifunk 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I added the NPOV check template to this page, it seems to my eyes to be very biased against the bottled water industry, and sometimes industry as a whole. If someone with more experience could edit this to make it NPOV, that would be great.--24.123.252.46 22:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to clean out all the, uh, "irrelevant" bits of the article that may have caused it to be tagged NPOV. I would like to see the original tagger have a look at the modified article.

) --68.51.221.64 22: 20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Large relevent sections have been removed by someone under the guise of "NPOV". This happens so frequently on so many wikimedia pages that I don't have the heart to restore the article. Simply be warned that the page does not contain all that is true, and possibly even some of what it contains is untrue. Use the history feature yourself to uncover what has been written on the subject of bottled water, and decide for yourself. This should be boiler plate material in big letters superimposed over every wikimedia page, but until then, good bye and good luck. -- Joojabber 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, first world centric

perhaps this is a 'no duh' comment, but everything on this page appears to be written from the prospective of someone with computer access; that is, someone who has access, at all times, to potable water, just a few steps away at thier sink. just some food for thoght. Pellaken 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person who performed wholesale slaughter of several sections (March 7-ish revisions), Joojabber, was me.

The sections in question were removed because some sections were irrelevant, but in most cases, simply not NPOV. You're free to add them back in a form that is not with bias slant, or peppered with the opinions of the editor--this is one of the powerful benefits of a user-editable encylopedia like Wikipedia. However, we as a community -- people using this resource, and people contributing to it -- should put forth our best effort to ensure that articles are of the best quality possible. This means that we have to be able to put on the NPOV hat when we're writing an article, even if it's about something we hate or loathe.

If that's not possible, it is for the best interests of everyone involved that anyone unable to perform NPOV edits simply step aside for someone else to do the grunt work, while mentioning that there are sections in particular that are wrong, but that you are unable to make modifications to these sections yourself for fear of conveying a biased point of view.

So, what I'm trying to say is, please don't use Wikipedia as a political tool. I understand that it could be considered a mouth-watering target, as it could be hours or days before someone modifies the article again (with who knows how many hits between article modifications), but such actions have the potential to devalue the great, exciting service Wikipedia offers.

Please put your best foot forward, everyone! ;) --68.51.221.64 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, good idea/still needs help

Bottled water is a very contentious topic, and there are many both good and bad aspects to it. A "neutral" article can be both negative and positive, so long as it is honest.

I will try to redo parts of this over time -- I direct an independent research institute working on water (wiki Pacific Institute). I've taken a crack at the first sections, which now should be far more "NPOV." Comments welcome. PGleick 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it Be or Even it Out

Don't cut out facts because they tip the scale. I read the article & nothing jumped out as anti-bottle watter; it merely points out disbenefits. Instead of whining, why don't you add an equal amount of benefits.

Taste

What about adding some information on taste tests, which have often shown that tap water is preferred. CoolGuy 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not all water taste the same. KyraWilliams (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

This article has many citations and that's good, but the citations ought to use the Wikipedia footnotes. I've taken the few with descriptions and thrown them in <ref> ... </ref>'s. This needs to happen with the rest. -- Mobius 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of Wikipedia page

I have removed the following from the article, as it is clear in an edit at the Village Pump that the user who added it is attempting to use the article as a web server to store his data: Corvus cornix 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottled Water Investigation

Environmental Working Group [http://www.ewg.org] is launching a new investigation into bottled water--where it comes from, what's done to "purify" it, and if it's even worth the expense. We need help building our label database, so if you've got any water bottles handy we'd appreciate it if you took a few minutes to add your information to the list below.

Please note: Since we'll be dumping the contents of the list into a database at some point, we need the fields to be consistent and as typo-free as possible. We're open to comments and suggestions on improving our methods.

List removed. Since it is inappropriate to add original research to Wikipedia, I can't how conducting original research on Wikipedia is any better. Set up a wiki on your own site. - Banyan Tree 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't set up your own wiki! We have a wiki for original research, Wikiversity. It is looking for potential research ideas. --Rayc 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stored Water (non natural way) & Global Warming

Hi, I was just reading the Water entry and saw the quantity of water available on earth (1.4 billion cubic kilometers), and just was wondering if some of you have the number of liters of stored water in those companies which sell water or drinks?

Could this be also a factor to the global warming?, who knows... just wondering.

regards, Ramon Mata

Please tell me this person is kidding.

Broken Link in References

The 3rd link under references is broken.155.247.166.28 08:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed the link with a new link. Erm, I don't think I'm making much sense. It's a new link that redirects you the article itself. Check it out if interested :)GabrielPere 05:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FDA names of Different types of water

The FDA website mentions 8 different type of waters, while Wiiki has 9. The extra one is the Fluoridated water. Here is the link to the FDA website: 21 CFR Part 165.110 - Bottled Water

Distilled Water Inaccuracy & Suggested Addition

I suggest this section be reworded to be more applicable to the article:

"Bottled water processed with distillation or reverse osmosis lacks fluoride ions which are sometimes naturally present in groundwater, or added at a water treatment plant and which has an effect on the inhibition of cavity formation; the drinking of distilled water may conceivably increase the risk of tooth decay due to a lack of this element."

Sure many bottled waters are distilled to remove impurities, but I don't know of any company that sells distilled water for use as consumption (minerals are added). For anyone who has tried, distilled water tastes horrible and I'm pretty sure it's not safe for consumption in large quantities. If no one drinks distilled bottled water, than who cares if it increases tooth decay? Distilled water ≠ bottled water.

I think it would be interesting if a section would be posted that listed how the water of major brands is manufactured. Many brands are distilled (aka deionized), undergo reverse osmosis, or are simply pumped from the ground, but I'm assuming they all aren't the same. It might be noted that all water that is distilled or RO'd is essentially 99.999% the same, whether it came from the well of the gods or a sewage plant. The list might also show which methods resulted in water not achieving government quality tests. Did straight well water (artesian springs, etc) cause the contamination or was it the manufacturers' fault. I personally think these are important things to know. Maybe unadulterated Fiji water, that was transported halfway around the world, didn't pass the inspection because it wasn't purified?

People think water from different locations on the earth is special. This article should reinforce that all water is the same. H20 is H20, the only difference is the additives...which any factory can supply or remove. Hopefully we can save people money and a bit of the earth by letting people know specialty water in a neat little square bottle has no real value over water distilled from urine. LostCause 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

"Many believe that bottled water is no better than tap water and that home water filtration may also be a viable option." Does this statement refer to the microbial and/or chemical quality of the water? Or to its aesthetic qualities? And who are the "many"!? Research done in the UK and Finland has confirmed that microbial and chemical quality of bottled water may be worse than tap water from public supplies in both of those countries - this is based on the standards and the frequency of checks, although I am keen to see reports on this that actually quantify the difference. Parametric chemical and microbiological standards in Europe for bottled water are generally lower than those for tap water. As for aesthetics (taste, colour, odour etc.), blind tastings of chilled bottled and tap water frequently indicate that consumers cannot consistently tell the difference between the two, particularly if the tap water has been left to stand for a few minutes to allow for the evaporation of any residual chlorine. Jimjamjak (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filters in plumbing system...

"Many countries such as the United Kingdom, have water that is adequate for drinking on tap, due to filters in the plumbing infrastructure."

I am considering deleting this sentence. I don't understand what this claim is referring to. Water that emerges from a water supplier's treatment plant is entirely fit for drinking. Nothing in the distribution system increases the quality of this water. Residual chlorine is likely to decrease with time (and therefore distance) in the distribution system, disinfection by-products may increase or decrease in concentration as they move through the system (the same for microbes, metals and other pollutants), but this has nothing to do with "filters in the plumbing infrastructure". Jimjamjak (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I at least deleted the United Kingdom example, which was clearly absurd. I'm a frequent visitor to the UK and regularly drink tap water, as do many, many people. I find far less bottled water in use their then in the US. Jpgs (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I misread the original sentence and thought it said "inadequate" for drinking. But Jimjamjak is right, it is water purification infrastructure that generally indicates water quality, and in the UK and US water is generally fine for drinking without additional processing. Some individuals do add additional (e.g. carbon) filtration in their home, but this is to further purify or improve the taste of water that is already drinkable. The entire sentence should probably go. Jpgs (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias FOR Bottled Water

Maybe I'm the only one, but just the first section of this article seems very biased/POV with sentences like "Anti-bottled water campaigns may overstate so-called "corporate control" of water sources" and "While bottled water companies are facing criticism from activists... organizations such as Corporate Accountability International say that "millions" plastic bottles end up in landfulls, [landfulls?] the industry points out that PET bottles make up only one-third of 1 percent of the waste stream in the United States."

I think this article needs A LOT of work. Every sentence reads like a PR campaign by the bottled water industry.-Laikalynx (talk)

More backlash against bottled water

Windsor is looking to join other Canadian cities in banning bottled water in municipal facilities: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=2d782126-9b6b-41d6-9d02-bb399a262f00

An interesting number for this page might be the New York EPA's figure: if you buy two 1-liter bottles of water a day it will cost you $1200 a year; the same amount from the tap would cost 50 cents a year. (They issue a magazine-like report every year that's mailed to NY residents). swain (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selling something that is free!

Bottled water is a good example of how capitalism can brainwash you in order to sell you something that is free(and of good quality). Compagnies are really good, because they've created a need to buy something that is free. They created a myth that tap water is not good! Maybey in the third world tap water is not good, but in North America it is! I laughed when I saw air can in Spaceball, but if we follow that logic, It'll be the next step!!! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Acce (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cincinnati "Tap Water Quality Analysis"

The main article contains this sentence 'The University of Cincinnati recently completed a "Tap Water Quality Analysis" for major US cities.' with a link to to the study and a suggestion that most municipal water is 'safe' rather than safe (no scare-quotes). This study was funded by Pur filter company, and there is little data about the way the study was conducted. Lead may be introduced through building pipes rather than the municipal source, and it is not clear which was the source in each city. Either this section should be shortened, or a more detailed discussion of safe levels should be linked.

Dialectric (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical contaminants in bottled water

Here's another study, it states [http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater Bottled water contains disinfection byproducts, fertilizer residue, and pain medication]. Hope it helps in improving this article. Best wishes. Universalsuffrage (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the reports of plastic bottles leaching dioxin in sunlight?195.38.17.129 (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency response?

Am I the only one who finds the example of donating 648 liters of water kind of silly? It's all fine of course, but that's just over half a cubic meter! We're talking bathtub scale here, people. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.131.177 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I removed the whole section, it really wasn't pertinent to the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SF Chronicle vs. NRDC report and Penn & Teller

For Grundle2600: Here are the problems I see with your additions: the claims belong to the authors of the op-ed, not to the SF Chronicle. Opinion pieces are not enough for establishing broad truth claims, so another source is needed. And there are two distinct claims here, one about the cost of water and the other about federal standards.

I decided to I look these up myself. The first originates from the NRDC,[1] and I'll get to that in a moment. The second one I can't find at all, but as I said before, it is contradicted by SEC. 410. [21 USC 349] Bottled drinking water standards.[2]. If there is a better source with specific information, that could be a different story.

So the NRDC material also fits better under the Tap water vs. bottled water section, and I've added the claim there using more specific language. I have not made up my mind entirely about the placement of the Penn & Teller sketch, but the extensive quoting from John Stossel (another opinion columnist) is also undesirable. I've rewritten this again in a more encylopedic style, and left it in the same section for now. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Your changes are fine with me. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure travel?

Why is this template at the bottom of the page? swain (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

International Bottled Water Association
British Bottled Water Producers

Is this link spam? --Stone (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7763038/Bottled-water-contains-more-bacteria-than-tap-water.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.9.211.6 (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottled water from a tap

Removed the opening line that says you can get it free from a tap, in not so many words. First, you can't get bottled water from a tap - you get it from the store or from one of the water delivery guys. If you get it from a tap, it's tap water. Second, the article is about bottled water, not how you can get water from a tap in lieu of bottled water - and aside from that, this aspect is covered in the cost aspect section. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per [http://www.ewg.org/health/report/bottledwater--scorecard], [3], [4], [5], [6] a sizable amount of bottled water is in reality tap water so the statement was factually accurate while also misleading.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article merged into this one

I have merged the article Bottled water phenomenon into this article and redirected. The 'bottled water phenomenon' article was largely redundant, as all of its major verifiable content is already covered here. Aspirex (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggested addition

How about a list of companies selling bottled water and a bit about each one's products? For instance, in Europe, the specific mineral content of certain sources is considered important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 9 disputed

I have to raise doubt about reference 9 used in this article that drinking bottled water may put you at cavity risk. While opening reference 9 it shows no actual study data. It is merely an opinion of some people working in dental field. And it sounds word of mouth. If an actual scientific study can be linked, that bottled water would result in cavity, then the argument is valid. But reference 9 is purely "he said, she said" type of article. That is not really a fact backed by scientific research. There are lots of studies shown on internet. I would request to either show such study link, or remove reference 9 from being used. Furthermore reference 9 emphasizes on one 3 year old kid who had cavity and the dentist suspects it was maybe due to lack of fluoridated water. That is hardly a groundbreaking finding. One 3 year old's cavity example should not be used as a claim. Please find better source or remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.164.126 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

Reference #13 is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedic entry, rather it is an agenda driven piece

I came here to find a simple fact--when did bottled water become popular in the US. I couldn't find that, which one would think would be one of the first pieces of information given. Instead, I found nearly the entire page devoted to why bottled water is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.0.29 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

This article seems to have a lot of coverage of the controversies associated with bottled water, and subsequently ends up not sounding very neutral. I have added an 'undue weight' template message for the time being. Hope a few editors would be willing to help balance it out. Knyzna1 (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article will always sound a bit "against bottled water" simply because, scientifically, bottled water has more cons than pros.. But maybe we could add that :

- bottled water can be a convenient way to bring water around (even if sturdier plastic bottles meant to be refilled thousand times should be recommended for that use).

- sealed bottled water from known brands can be a way to drink clean water in countries where the quality of tap water is questionable.

Also the paragraph titled "Environmental Injustice Aspects of Bottled Water" is too long and should be break down or trimmed. 82.233.152.227 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA bias

This article reads in part as if it is only in the USA that concerns over bottled water exists. A little more balance is urgently needed. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bottled water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bottled water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120126054606/http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries/lebanon/index.stm to http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries/lebanon/index.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Bottled water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Bottled water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydration

Drink More Water, hydrating your body is important no matter what type it is. (Don Bev (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Bottled water storage in freezing temperatures

I am unable to determine whether any commercial bottled water bottles survive freezing temperatures. Partially filled bottles can survive water's expansion as it freezes, at least in some shapes.

Emergency preparedness in freezing climates requires knowing this answer. Can someone contribute this knowledge? It's surprising that Ready.gov and bottled water manufacturers do not discuss it.

(Issues of high Storage temperatures for plastic bottles are separate and seem fraught) Wth727 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Bottled water for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Bottled water is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bottled water until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Suggestion that some text in the Concerns section be looked at again, specifically: "In some cases it can be shown that bottled water is actually tap water.[76] However, it is also argued that the quality specifications for some bottled waters in some jurisdictions are more stringent than the standards for tap-water. In the US, bottled water that comes from municipal suppliers must be clearly labeled as such unless it has been sufficiently processed to be labeled as "distilled" or "purified".[77]"

The articles provided give no evidence for "quality specifications for some bottled waters in some jurisdictions are more stringent than the standards for tap-water." Perhaps list some areas in which this is true, with actual sources. ETAPx (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Health Concerns section has very limited talking points about potential leaching of chemicals in plastic water bottles. May relate back to inadequate info about the safety and leaching of city/home/municipal filtration systems (all pipes leach). For a more neutral POV, including info about chemical leaching in both aspects will allow readers to form their own opinions. ETAPx (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new type of bottled water is entering the market

I don't know if it is proper to have such an entry here on Wikipedia. I am simply providing this information for your consideration.

Biophoton-energized water - a type of water with molecules that are infused with a high concentration of biophotons from biophoton generators.

The entry, of course, would require a brief article explaining it more.

I'd appreciate your feedback.

MediStreet (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't list pseudo-scientific bunk, not without WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask your opinion. Of course, compliant sourcing certainly makes sense. Thank you for your most "professional" reply. MediStreet (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your feedback. Sure. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dietycrest (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikiallshi, Frediyang (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wikiallshi (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: 20 years later and deep problems exist in this article

Look, I appreciate the fact that some regions absolutely need bottled water, due to a lack of locally sourced processable water. That said, it is generally unnecessary in most cities in the developed world, and lack of attention to truly circular recycling options has created a pollution disaster in the past 10 years. The 2004-2006 flurry of edits re NPOV (see above talk starting here in 2004), and likely later edits by the bottled water industry (see Bottled water#PET recycling and Bottled water#Water and energy usage sections in particular, and their lead-in at how history ends (though last paragraph added by me). It looks as if this article's pendulum has swing precipitously to the right and in favor of industry these past 20 years.

I added the following "stub" to the end of Bottled water#PET plastic bottles and I hope someone has some time to attend to bringing this article back to NPOV: "The mere fact of lightweight single-use packaging and one-way shipping caused the revolution in water marketing that by the late 1990's had spread from the U.S. and Europe to around the world." I haven't touched the Bottled water#PET recycling and Bottled water#Water and energy usage sections, but they desperately need attention, because I think they've been polluted by some BWIA hacks.

I should emphasize that NPOV should hardly be distorted to mean full 50% equity to the bottled-water industry (e.g., BWIA's hired writers). Their own "neutrality" is questionable, their opportunitistic approach to research twists the facts, and they speak for a very tiny minority, namely themselves and their retirement accounts. They should hardly be trusted as the spokespeople in favor of bottled water, since what they're selling is petroleum, and at a great profit, and they have absolutely edited out from all of their promotional material the deleterious tail end crisis in the LCA. I'd like to hear from NGOs that argue the need for bottled water in specific cases in their communities, and whether there are any circularity efforts there. Zelchenko (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]