He urged the Governor to "recognize that our citizens’ quality of life must be considered in the context of its long-term environmental consequences" and that the bill invites "unintended consequences, which are, ironically, environmental in their impact." A veto, he argued, would represent "an affirmation that the carefully-drawn process in current law will prevent any rush to judgment that could actually have a net-negative environmental impact."

The bill is expected to clear the Legislature in July or August.

The Soft Water Eczema Trial (SWET) is based on positive findings of a 7,000-child epidemiologic study reported a year ago. The earlier study confirmed the contention of families of eczema sufferers and some doctors that living in a hard water area may make eczema worse. The theory is that hard water contains high levels of calcium and magnesium, leading to increased use of soaps which can act as skin irritants.

The new trial will soften all household water except that for drinking. Principal investigator, professor Hywel Williams explained in the University's news release:

“I have wanted to do this study for many years as patients keep telling me that water softeners help their skin, but other people aren't so sure. Carrying out a proper randomised controlled trial will help us find the answer. If ion-exchange water softeners are found to improve the symptoms of eczema, this will be an extremely important finding for both patients and doctors. Many patients worry about the possible side effects of the usual treatments for eczema, so this would be a welcome addition to their treatment options.”

The news release underscored the importance of the research:

Up to one fifth of all children of school age have eczema, along with about one in twelve of the adult population. The severity of the disease can vary. In mild forms the skin is dry, red and itchy, whist in more severe forms the skin can become broken, raw and bleeding. Eczema is not contagious and with treatment the inflammation of eczema can be reduced, though the skin will always be sensitive to flare-ups and need extra care and protection against dryness.

In the Sept 23 Tribune story, Julie Deardorff equates drinking increasingly-popular "nutritionally enhanced" waters which promise to deliver not only hydration but other health benefits to taking extra vitamins that "doesn't necessarily make you healthier." In fact, she says the only proven health benefit is to the profits of the beverage industry.

Whether fortified water can deliver on all those promises is still up for debate. Critics say there's no science to show enhanced water has more health benefits than less expensive tap water, while environmental organizations, religious groups and even restaurateurs argue that all bottled water -- enhanced or not -- is a wasteful and insupportable use of fossil fuels because of the costs associated with its manufacture and transportation. From a nutritional standpoint, experts maintain that it's better to get nutrients through whole foods.

She notes that

The premise behind functional water is that the public is chronically dehydrated and short on nutrients. And because it's often hard to change a person's behavior, food companies are changing the food they're eating or drinking.

And she includes fascinating quotes:

"As a nutritionist, I may not support [functional water], but as a public-health servant, I do," said Roger Clemens, the public-health specialist for the Institute of Food Technologists. "Our goal is to provide the best possible nutrition for 300 million people in the country. In this case, it may be it takes us looking at fortified water to do that."

and

"There's not a single drink out there -- from Enviga to SmartWater -- that has any proof of impact," said nutrition professor Barry Popkin, who directs the Interdisciplinary Center for Obesity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Just because [a nutrient] is in the product doesn't necessarily mean it will impact you or get in your body. There are all sorts of false labels promising health benefits.

The Post story, predictably, casts the issue in Inside-the-Beltway effects. Says Jane Black:

A billion-dollar battle over selling sports drinks and "enhanced" water in public schools has spilled into Congress and threatens to derail a major attempt to cut back the sale of junk food from school vending machines and snack bars.

In an attempt to limit the sale of high-calorie sodas, candy bars and other snacks in schools, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has introduced a bill that would have the government set new nutritional standards for the foods and drinks that schools sell to students outside cafeterias. But just what those standards should be is the issue.

Public health advocates want the standards to ban the sale of Gatorade and Powerade, which typically contain as much as two-thirds the sugar of sodas and more sodium, as well as sweetened waters such as VitaminWater and SoBe Life Water.

Sen. Harkin hopes to add his concerns into this year's Farm Bill in the form of federal standards and claims the Grocery Manufacturers (which has "historically resisted any regulation" is open to the idea. We suspect that GMA would insist on federal pre-emption; a likely deal-breaker for Harkin.

Back in Geneva, WHO may be scratching their collective heads wondering how they ever got crosswise to their normal bedfellows who are taking stronger and stronger exception to the notion that beverages be considered a significant nutrient source. So, whether the drinking water is "artesian water," "mineral water," " purified water," "sparkling bottled water," "spring water," or just plain tapwater, the view seems to be: use it for hydration, not nutrient fortification.

Which, of course, raises a whole new set of questions never addressed by the journalists: what about fluorodated water or iodized water? Both have been used instead of using salt as the carrier.

The Minneapolis, MN StarTribune reported earlier this week:

When Twin Cities businessman Irwin Jacobs bought Indiana-based Cole Water Co. last fall, he became convinced he could make a big splash in the lucrative yet increasingly embattled market for bottled water. That's because Cole spring water is naturally loaded with calcium, more so than any other spring water on the market.

"It was almost like finding oil, except that it was water," Jacobs said. "And not just any water, the healthiest water anywhere. It's something magical. It's almost like you hit the lottery with it."

Named for the family that started the company in Peru, Ind., in 1859, Cole spring water contains about 65 milligrams of calcium per half-liter.

That's a far cry from the 1,000 to 1,300 milligrams of calcium adults need each day to maintain healthy teeth and bones or even the 300 milligrams found in a glass of milk. But the spring water contains roughly the equivalent of 4 ounces of cottage cheese or a half cup of rhubarb -- enough to earn a seal of approval from the National Osteoporosis Foundation.

No competitor comes even close. Evian comes in second, with 39 milligrams per half liter. The nation's top two bottled-water sellers, Aquafina and Dasani, contain just a trace.

Drinking water isn't a major source of nutrients; foods are. But let the consumer choose. If the taste and health profile of a food or beverage meets a consumer's perceived need, let's satisfy "demand" that way rather than force public drinking water systems to remineralize their product for reasons of public health.

The Salt Institute and Water Quality Association have led critics of the proposal who are apparently just being ignored by WHO staff in Geneva.

What people tend to forget is that once salt is separated from water, whether it's fresh or wastewater effluent, it has to be disposed somewhere. However, once it's a separate stream by itself, everyone treats it like they treat sludge (not in my backyard). So what's an easy answer to reducing salt. There is none!

Gotcha!

The consensus: For the near future — say, the next five or 10 years — the gradual improvements in ion exchange technology that have marked the last several decades will continue to be the norm. However, the industry will be working harder than ever to minimize salt consumption in its systems, and no one can rule out the possibility of a scientific or conceptual “leap” outside the realm of ion exchange.

Culligan's Frank Brigano makes a strong case for salt-regenerated softeners:

Advances in softening technology have been evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, and are likely to continue that way, according to Dr. Frank A. Brigano, vice president of research and development at Culligan International Co., the Northbrook, IL-based water treatment manufacturer.

“What’s brilliant about [ion exchange] water softening is that it’s so efficient at what it does,” Brigano says. “It targets only the hardness ions.”

He adds, “Most water softeners are about 95 percent efficient” in terms of their performance and water usage. “Now it’s a matter of getting those efficiencies even higher.”

Brigano believes, as do others, that the basic chemistry of water softening is still a “given” that the industry must work with.

“No matter what technology you use in exchanging ions in the water, you’re always going to have a discharge of solids. Those solids have to go somewhere, so it’s a matter of improving the efficiency” of the process that produces those solids, he says.

The most intriguing "alternative" technology seems to be a micro-crystal-forming system by Next Filtration Technologies which does not remove the calcium and magnesium, but encapsulates the hardness ions so they don't create scaling. The article doesn't explain how they affect consumer uses of the treated water such as shampooing, detergent use, etc.

In its story on the British development, WaterTechOnline reminded readers of its 1998 story about research published in The Lancet where 17.5% of children in hard water areas had had eczema in the past year and 25.4% are estimated to have lifetime ecema, compared to soft-water areas with 12% in a yar and 21.2% lifetime.

Jerry goes on to provide advice on cleaning up iron-fouled resin beads through the use of reducing and chelating agents followed by salt regeneration. This article is just the sort of practical, down to earth information that water conditioner users need in order to keep their equipment in top operation condition.

Congratulations, Jerry. Well done!!

Coming in the wake of WHO’s infamous expert Report 916 on diet, nutrition and health and on the heels of WHO-Europe’s anti-obesity campaign that sweeps salt into a package of dietary improvements, this expert report is commendably restrained.

Of particular note is the review of scientific evidence of an earlier-asserted claim that hard water reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. The report notes a “large number” of studies of water hardness, but explains that these are “ecologic” and that the “inherent weaknesses in the ecologic study design limit the conclusions that can be drawn.” Exactly right. Continuing to discuss case-control and cohort studies, the experts agreed that “there is no evidence of an association between water hardness or calcium and acute myocardial infarction or deaths from cardiovascular disease” although drinking water magnesium is seen as conferring benefits.

The lack of transparency in announcing the results of the expert consultation is disappointing – and totally unjustified. True, further research is required before any confident conclusions – or public health policy – should be based on the evidence these experts were able to discover. That conclusion should not be kept a secret. It should inform, and discourage, those who would suggest that the effect of ion-exchange water softeners to remove “healthy” calcium and magnesium from drinking water is, in some way, impairing the healthfulness of that drinking water.

First off, the "low-mineral water" had 450 ppm Total Dissolved Solids. The U.S. EPA secondary drinking water standard is 500 ppm, so the water was barely below the maximum threshold for taste. And second, 51% of the nearly 2,000 people taking the test preferred the "low-mineral water" while 49% could taste no difference (18%) or actually preferred the 650 ppm "high-mineral" alternative. Testing will continue until January; 10,000 are expected to register their opinions.

Perhaps a better headline would be: "Consumer testing confirms U.S. drinking water standard."