Water & Air – Filter Systems News

I just wanted to highlight my recent confusion over Coca-Cola’s sustainability efforts. Namely:

• The World Wildlife Fund – Coca-Cola Partnership: “an effort to measurably conserve seven of the worlds most critical freshwater river basins.”

• The Replenish Africa Initiative (RAIN): Coca-Cola’s $30-million dollar commitment to providing communities throughout Africa with safe drinking water and sanitation.

• The Global Water Challenge (GWC): founded with support from Coca-Cola, a global movement toward safe water and sanitation.

• Coca-Cola’s Commitment to the CEO Water Mandate: a program designed to help companies better manage their water use.

Though I applaud Coca-Cola’s apparent concern over the world’s water supply, I can’t help but contemplate the irony of their efforts. Surely Coke must be aware that it takes nearly two gallons of water to manufacture just one of their many plastic beverage bottles. Conservation? Good water management? Nice try, guys, but I can’t help but wonder if this is “greenwashing” at it’s best…

Readers, what do you think?

As we know from previous posts, the International Bottled Water Association has made multiple efforts to save face in the wake of environmentalist criticism. Two recent lawsuits, one against Eco Canteen, and one against ZeroWater, may be the organization’s most desperate attempts yet. In fact, these might even deserve a spot next to Nestle Waters as some of the most ridiculous lawsuits of all time.

IBWA has accused both companies of making “false and misleading claims” in their advertisements. These include the claim that plastic bottles contain harmful chemicals like BPA that leech into water, or that bottled water is unsafe and the act of recycling single-use bottles releases toxic substances into the environment. IBWA was victorious in its lawsuit against Eco Canteen, a distributor of reusable, stainless-steel water bottles. ZeroWater, maker of a 5-stage ion exchange water filter, has agreed to settle peacefully by retracting any and all false claims.

Perhaps the IBWA simply can’t handle all of the bad press it has received from bottled water critics – which could explain their recent back-to-back release of several online videos that advocate bottled water as a “safe and healthy alternative.” While it is certainly an alternative to less healthy sugary beverages, some might argue that the presentation of bottled water as “safe and healthy” in and of itself is just as “false and misleading” as some of the advertising claims made by the defendants in both lawsuits. A quick glance at our list of the “Top 10 Most Disturbing Things in Our Water” reveals that not all bottled water is as “safe and healthy” as  companies claim. (Pay special attention to #5 and #1 on this list, and you’ll see what we mean.)

In defense of the IBWA, it is true that the claims made by ZeroWater and Eco Canteen were indeed misleading. Though BPA and phthalates are used in the manufacture of many reusable plastic bottles, they are not contained in the single-use varieties.  Moreover, not all bottled water is unsafe or unhealthy, and it is certainly healthier than soda. Still, we can’t discount the negative environmental effects of the tons of plastic waste that go unrecycled each year – of which, single-use plastic water bottles are a part (albeit small). Nor can we ignore the ridiculous costs associated with this supposedly more convenient product. Bottled water is expensive, and in many cases is nothing more than purified tap water – a natural commodity that can easily be obtained from the kitchen sink with the use of a faucet water filter, or a reverse osmosis filter, if you’re looking for more advanced filtration. It’s not rocket science; mere common sense will persuade the average consumer that filtered tap water is a safe alternative that is both tasty and eco-friendly.

Frankly, such desperation on the part of the IBWA just makes me sad. Who’s next? Annie Leonard?

Vapur recently partnered with jovoto, Dwell Magazine and Opportunity Green to launch the “Thirst For Design” competition, a graphic design contest allowing artists to contribute creative ideas for a new “Artist Series” of anti-bottles. These bag-like bottles will make carrying tap water more fashionable among a wide variety of age groups. Vapur anti-bottles are foldable and reusable, making them easy to carry anywhere you go. They are also BPA free, dishwasher safe and freezable. The company believes in putting an end to the harmful plastic waste that is bottled water, and the winning designs embody this belief. They were so impressive that we decided to feature them on our blog. Visit jovoto’s “Thirst for Design” website for more information.

Design Contest Winners

First place: “Water is Fun”

The designer’s overall goal was to create something sexy and fun that would target all age groups. This anti-bottle features a series of cartoon characters (including a monkey that resembles Paul Frank) involved in a variety of activities that will make you sweat. After running, dancing, lifting weights, or doing anything “fun,” you’ll need some water, and what better source is there than a Vapur anti-bottle depicting the reason behind your thirst in a fresh, unique way. Perhaps the most impressive thing about this submission is the design’s easy adaptability to other media such as t-shirts, posters and stickers.

Second Place: “Bottle Inhabitants”

This design is simple, unique and humorous. The egg-shaped “bottle inhabitants” are annoyed by the filling of the anti-bottle, but who can resist these cute characters?

Third Place: “Fantastic Tap Water”

Implied by its title, this design promotes “fantastic tap water” through a series of depictions, including: “the sea snake and Robinson Crusoe”; “the dangerous deep sea fish”; “the octopus and the stranded pirate”; “the little mermaid”; “the crab and the walker”; and “the black shark in the pouring rain.” The artist calls them “freaks of the Caribbean.” And if you’re ever stranded on an island surrounded by salt water like the creatures in these depictions, you’ll need a taste of refreshing, healthy tap water from your Vapur anti-bottle.

Fourth Place: “World Changers Collection”

This design features a series of halftone portraits of people who have changed the way the world thinks, including: Mahatma Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Charlie Chaplin, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa. The back of each bottle features a typed quote by the person depicted on the front. The idea is simple, yet revolutionary, as the quotes are relevant to positive future change, which is the whole reason behind the Vapur anti-bottle as a product.

Fifth Place: “Relation Between Plants and Water”

This double-faced design features two main types of plants – a cactus and a leaf. The cactus bottle design represents a source of water, while the leaf bottle design represents a need for water. The water level in the bottle can be seen through the leaf’s transparent veins or through the cactus’s prickly spines.

Sixth Place: “Small World”

The artist has included three different, yet related designs in which the front of the bottle features a creature (either a fish, a deer or a plant) surrounded by a globe-shaped cloud of plastic waste, underneath the text: “My World is Getting Smaller Every Day.” On the back of the bottle, the creature has been freed from this cloud, and sits underneath the text “If Your YOU Changes, its World Changes.” Once again, the world-changing impact of the Vapur anti-bottle in general is a part of the bottle design itself. Nice work.

The “Artist Series” bottles will be available in 2011. In the meantime, purchase the Vapur anti-bottle in one of five different colors from Filters Fast for a discounted price.

The family of a woman in Central Indiana who died when a 4,100 pound pallet of bottled water fell on her at a Kroger store is suing Nestle Waters, arguing that the reason for the accident lies in the water bottles’ “eco-shape” design.  According to the family, these bottles use less plastic, and therefore, can’t support as much weight as previous bottles.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of bottled water, and Nestle’s motives behind this supposed “eco-friendly” water bottle design are questionable (is this simply more green washing to boost profit?) But this might just be good enough to make it onto the list of the “10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time.” Right up there with the one that started it all… (how dare McDonald’s serve hot coffee without a warning label?!? And how dare Nestle serve water in a bottle that might be better for the environment!) Apparently, “Nestle Waters didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.” Honestly, though Nestle might be among the worst corporations of 2010, and although they might fully deserve to be sued, I can’t say I blame them.

Bottled water is clearly dangerous, on multiple levels. But manufacturing bottles with more plastic is not the solution, as it only leads to a worse fate for our planet – and the billions of people living on it. This incident is just one of several recent incidents which underscore the dangers of bottled water -  providing even more incentive to drop the bottled water habit, altogether.

Akinori Itu, CEO of the Japanese company Blest, has created a machine that converts plastic back into oil. Akinori admits that when he was a child, he didn’t care about the environment. Since then, the places where he used to play as a child have disappeared, due in part to plastic pollution. In Japan and elsewhere, there is very little space for trash disposal, and Itu hopes that his machine can help solve the problems that arise as a result. Since plastic is made from oil, Itu concluded that it must not be very difficult to convert it back. It was this conclusion that birthed his machine.

So how does it work? You simply fill the compartment with plastic trash, cover with the lid, and tighten. When the machine is turned on, the temperature rises enough to melt the plastic which produces a gas. This gas travels upward through a thin tube into a container filled with tap water which cools the gas, turning it into oil. One kilogram of plastic makes one liter of oil, which can then be processed further to create gasoline, diesel and kerosene.

Burning plastic results in harmful CO2 emissions, but converting it into oil has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 percent, lessening our environmental impact. Itu takes the machine into developing countries, where the dangers of plastic are less known, and uses it to raise awareness about the value of plastic. With this machine, according to Itu, plastic is no longer trash or waste, but “an oil field,” and a “treasure.”

Could this be the solution to our bottled water problem? Large amounts of oil and water resources are depleted in the production and transport of plastic water bottles and other plastic products; however, if the plastic can later be converted back into the liquid that was used to make it, our carbon footprint may be significantly reduced. But does this machine serve to enable and to justify our wasteful habits?

I’m still convinced that the best cure for any disease is prevention. While this machine could serve to recycle the plastic that is currently stored in our landfills, the only way to eradicate the future threat of plastic to the environment is to stop producing it in the first place. What do you think?

When we last saw DePauw University (in early May), the Student Government had voted to ban the sale of bottled water on campus. But that wasn’t quite the end of the story. As of May 24, the sale of bottled water is officially banned, and filling stations have been installed with the start of this school year.

According to an article in The DePauw, there have been mixed reactions to the ban. The General Manager of Dining Services has said that the ban will be the “end of a money-maker” as students will no longer be able to purchase bottles of water. Tyler Hess, the leader of the movement, however, is elated. Tyler worked very hard to solve the problem of plastic bottle waste on campus, and has strongly believed since day one that an all-out ban was the only true solution. DePauw promotes the use of the new filling stations by providing all incoming freshmen with a reusable water bottle.

We at Filters Fast would like to congratulate DePauw University for their success so far. If you haven’t already, please check out our article, “Should Universities Ban Bottled Water,” and let us know what you think of a campus bottled water ban.

The Facebook giveaways are drawing to a close, but before they end, we want to hear from all of our Facebook fans:

What will you do with the $250 Visa gift card grand prize? (That is, if you win…)

We have launched a new poll (to the right) where you may cast your vote. The options are:

1. Pay your water bill.

2. Buy a new water filter system (from Filters Fast, of course!)

3. Buy an air purifier

4. Give it away to a water charity

5. Other

Of course you don’t have to do any of these things. These are just our suggestions. We have included “other” as an option, in case you have a better idea. All we ask is that if you choose “other”, please specify what you will do in a comment on our Facebook page. We have also given you the option to choose more than one answer – in hopes that your water bill is significantly less than $250 (as it should be, if you’re doing your part to conserve and take care of our planet!)

If you have read this far and have no idea what we’re talking about, click here to see how you can enter to win $250 and more with Filters Fast!

Happy polling!

Last month, we wrote about the International Bottled Water Association‘s video, “The Real Story of Bottled Water,” a quirky rebuttal to Annie Leonard’s film – “The Story of Bottled Water” – on the bottled water industry’s dishonest marketing tactics. In their latest film, “The Inner Workings of a Bottled Water Plant,” the IBWA resorts to such tactics again:

While the intentions of the video are clearly to make the process of bottling water seem  both interesting and necessary, the tactics used just aren’t that convincing. From the beginning, it becomes obvious to viewers just how wasteful the bottled water industry really is.

The tour guide in the film emphasizes the fact that the source of the water bottled in his plant is a “natural spring,” which “flows year round.” He says, “If we were not in the bottled water business, it wouldn’t make any difference. It would still be flowing. It’s a natural spring.” This statement – likely unintentionally – makes the activity of buying bottled water seem ridiculous.  Since it flows naturally and freely from the ground all year long – why pay for it?

The plant admits to producing 150,000 gallons of water and up to 30,000 bottles of water a day. Filtered water and plastic, moreover, are not the only materials used in production – the plant houses thousands of product labels, which are placed on the bottles once they are filled and capped. The girl featured in the film compares the myriad of labels to the layout of a fabric store – and this is hardly an exaggeration. The tour guide mentions that labels establish the “brand identity” of each bottle, but fails to point out that the same water goes into every bottle, no matter which label is placed on it.

It seems that the only real selling point for bottled water is the fact that it  eliminates unwanted chemicals, like chlorine. But even that could be achieved with an in-home water filtration system, which is better for the environment and saves money.

Near the end of the film, the girl states: “I know I’m always gonna drink bottled water for the rest of my life.” After seeing all of the plastic and energy wasted in the production of bottled water – will you? Just like IBWA’s previous film, once again, I think this one’s a no-brainer.

iPhone users no longer have an excuse to buy bottled water. A new iPhone application called “Oasis Places,” created by Thermos, allows users to track locations, ratings, and photos of water fountains across the U.S. The best part? It’s FREE  (unlike expensive plastic bottled water.)

Proponents of plastic bottled water argue that it is the most convenient source of water while on the go; however, this application makes it easy for travelers to do away with plastic bottles, in favor of reusable stainless bottles that can be refilled at any of these various fountains. What’s more, registered users of the iPhone app can add new fountains, comments and pictures, and can rate the water on several criteria, including coldness, location, cleanliness and flavor.

Thermos is sponsoring random giveaways of hydration bottles to registered users in the months of August and September to celebrate the launch of “Oasis Places.” Using these bottles in lieu of plastic disposables will cut down on bottled water waste significantly. The app is now available for free download on iTunes.

Studies claim that adding drugs to drinking water could result in cognitive enhancement for the long-term betterment of society. This hypothesis has its roots in the successful fluoridation of water now hailed by some as a “tremendous human advancement.”

More recently, studies are showing that adding trace amounts of lithium to the public drinking water supply could limit suicides. This drug, which is normally used to combat bipolar disorder, some say could do for suicide what fluoride did for cavities.  According to the studies, communities with naturally lower levels of lithium in their drinking water have higher suicide rates than those with higher lithium levels. Scientists claim that the levels in fortified water are too low to be of any harm to humans. However, this claim has also been made about water fluoridation, in spite of the evidence that links fluoride to neurological defects, blindness, bone cancer and thyroid problems.

Opponents of water enhancement argue that lithium is far more dangerous than fluoride. Conspiracy theorists also claim that adding drugs to drinking water could result in a population much like that envisioned in Aldous Huxley’s famous novel Brave New World. Huxley predicts a future dictatorship in which the mass medication of society renders people complacent with slavery and less likely to revolt against the political regime. Whether or not this is likely to occur, we must consider that the automatic fortification of drinking water – with fluoride, lithium, or any other chemicals – is an infringement on the right of humans to give informed consent to medical intervention. Proponents of mass medication say the opposite – suggesting that our right to lithium-free water is no greater than our right to lithium-enhanced water, and that those opposed to it can simply drink bottled water (which opens up an entirely different can of worms…).  What do you think? Should the government add fluoride, lithium, or any other drugs to our drinking water? Vote on this issue in our latest poll!