KNOW THE ENEMY
The water wars are starting. Hear the CEO of Nestle, the 27th largest corporation on the planet, speak about water as the most important raw material today that should be managed by business people.
KNOW THE ENEMY
The water wars are starting. Hear the CEO of Nestle, the 27th largest corporation on the planet, speak about water as the most important raw material today that should be managed by business people.
This war against nature should be seen as the third world war.
The world right now is very frightening.
Civilization is savage.
Ecological apocalypse: More species have disappeared within the last 100 years than in 65 million years.
Researchers analysed 47 widely available brands, and discovered 10 were contaminated with minuscule amounts
They are sold as being cleaner, healthier and purer than the water that spouts from the average French tap.
Now, however, an investigation has discovered traces of pesticides and prescription drugs – including a medicine used to treat breast cancer – in almost one in five brands of bottled water on the shelves of France’s supermarkets.
While scientists say the contamination is minuscule and the water remains safe, consumer groups are warning of a “potential cocktail effect” for drinkers, and say the findings raise serious environmental concerns.
The study was carried out by the consumer magazine 60 Millions de Consommateurs and the non-governmental organisation specialising in global water issues, Fondation France Libertés.
Researchers analysed 47 brands of bottled water widely available in France, and discovered that 10 contained “residues from drugs or pesticides”.
“The biggest surprise was the presence of tamoxifen, a synthetic hormone used in the treatment of breast cancer,” the magazine said. It reported finding traces of the powerful prescription drug in the popular brands Mont Roucous, St-Yorre, Salvetat, Saint Amand and the Carrefour discount label Céline Cristaline.
It added the quantity was minute but “enough for us to question the purity of the original produce imposed by regulations covering mineral water”.
Traces of the prescription drugs buflomedil and naftidrofuryl, known as vasodilators and used to dilate arteries in those with high blood pressure, were found in Hepar and Saint Amand mineral waters.
Molecules from pesticides banned in 2001 were found in bottles of Vittel, Volvic, Cora and Cristaline.
After the mineral water companies contested the results, the magazine commissioned a second round of tests, which confirmed the first results.
“It’s true the micropollutants found were present in very small quantities, but the range of them raises concerns about a potential cocktail effect,” 60 Millions de Consommateurs reported.
“This is serious enough to call for a much bigger study,” it added, calling for tighter controls on bottled waters to identify “new pollutants”.
Thomas Laurenceau, the magazine’s editor, said: “What we found is not that one brand is more risky than another; there are no good and bad. The problem is across the whole range.
“The bottlers are extremely careful but it is worrying to see things there that shouldn’t be there, even if they are in minuscule quantities.”
He added: “In the short term, there is absolutely no problem of quality and these waters are perfectly drinkable. We are talking about tiny traces, millionths of a micron, it’s really minuscule”.
He said the inquiry did not question the honesty of those bottling the water but said there was “concern about the overall resource” in the light of environmental contamination by humans.
In 2011, the magazine and France Libertés launched Opération Transparence, calling for greater testing of water supplies and in January published a map of tap water quality in France showing pollution limits were passed in 420 areas.
In the latest report, Perrier water and Quézac were declared “clean” by the magazine.
The best invention of 2005 !
“Forbes magazine actually dubbed it “one of the 10 things that will change the way we live.”
The LifeStraw removes at least of 99.99999% of waterborne bacteria and can filter up to 1000L of water.
Throughout the world, an estimated 884 million people still do not have access to clean sources of water. According to the LifeStraw manufacturers, the device contains no chemicals or batteries and makes it possible to drink safely from any river, lake or puddle. — with Hiro Zukei Jore and Patrick Ugwueze.
LifeStraw is a water filter designed to be used by one person to filter water so that they may safely drink it. It filters a maximum of 1000 litres of water, enough for one person for one year. It removes 99.9999% of waterborne bacteria and 99.9% of parasites. The LifeStraw Family, a larger unit designed for family use, also filters out 99.99% of viruses.
LifeStraw includes LifeStraw and LifeStraw Family, which are complementary point-of-use water filters designed by the Swiss-based Vestergaard Frandsen for people living in developing nations and for distribution in humanitarian crisis. LifeStraw Family filters a maximum of 18,000 liters of water, providing safe drinking water for a family of five for up to three years. LifeStraw and LifeStraw Family were distributed in the 2010 Haiti earthquake, 2010 Pakistan floods, and 2011 Thailand floods.
How it works. From:
Here’s what happens when you take a drink using LifeStraw:
LifeStraw Family is a larger unit that can clean enough water for several people at once. LifeStraw Family consists of a blue bucket with a pre-filter insert, a long plastic tube and a filter cartridge with a tap attached to draw out the water. No electricity or battery power is required. Gravity guides water through a series of filters. The user pours water into the pre-filter and bucket at the top of the unit. The water then moves down the tube to run through a chlorine-saturated purification filter riddled with tiny pores that acts as a sieve for bacteria. The user can then pour the newly purified water from the tap. The user can clean the filter by closing the tap and pressing a squeeze bulb to release the collected residue and can use a rag to wipe the pre-filter bucket. LifeStraw Family can filter about 10 quarts (9.5 liters) of water per hour.
Who’s responsible for this invention, anyway?
Vestergaard Frandsen manufactures LifeStraw. The Lausanne-based company originally produced material for work clothes, but in 1992, the company started a line of relief products like blankets and tents. By 1997, the company had phased out its line of conventional textiles to concentrate on relief aid products.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC)…” says there has been an 18 percent overall increase in food allergies between 1997 and 2007.”
January 21, 2013
by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Thousands of communities across the country and around the world add it to their water supplies to ensure that their water is safe for human exposure and consumption. But the common practice of adding chlorine chemicals to water for public safety purposes may not be as safe as we have all been told, as a recent study out of New York has linked chlorine exposure to both food and environmental allergies.
Researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx made this discovery after observing a corresponding rise in both chlorine use and food allergies among varying sample populations. Based on extrapolated data compiled from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2005-2006, the team found that existing food allergies and the rising rate of new allergies were both associated with chlorine exposures from various sources.
As it turns out, adults with high levels of dichlorophenol, a chemical by-product of chlorine, in their urine were found to be 80 percent more likely to also have a food allergy compared to adults with lower or minimal exposure levels. On the same token, those with the highest levels of dichlorophenol had a combined elevated risk rate for both food and environmental allergies of 61 percent compared to others, illustrating what appears to be a causative effect between the chlorine exposure and allergies.
Though water is a primary source of chlorine exposure, and the one most people probably think of when they think of chlorine, many of the pesticides and herbicides applied to conventional produce are also laced with chlorine and chlorine byproducts. According to the researchers who compiled the study, food-based chlorine exposure may, in fact, play a greater role in causing food allergies than exposure through tap water.
“(This research) shows that high levels of dichlorophenol-containing pesticides can possibly weaken food tolerance in some people, causing food allergy,” explained study author Elina Jerschow about the findings. “(Past studies) have shown that both food allergies and environmental pollution are increasing in the United States, (and the) results of our study suggest these two trends might be linked, and that increased use of pesticides and other chemicals is associated with a higher prevalence of food allergies.”
These conclusions seem to align with data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC), which says there has been an 18 percent overall increase in food allergies between 1997 and 2007. One in four children now has a food allergy, in fact, and that percentage appears to be on the rise, particularly as there are no established safety guidelines for dichlorophenol exposure.
This means it is up to parents to limit their children’s exposure to chlorine by purchasing only organic, pesticide-free produce, for instance, and choosing swimming pools that are treated with natural salt rather than chlorine. Many home water filters are also duly equipped to remove chlorine from drinking water, so be sure to use them if you and your family drink water from the tap.
Sources for this article include:
Dr. Sircus, Guest Writer
Sodium fluoride is commonly used as a rat poison. Globalists and eugenicists have decided to add it to water supplies with the message to the public that it is good for teeth, despite warnings from the ADA stating that young children risk a disease called dental fluorosis.
Water actually is a battleground between good and evil and we see this in the fluoridation issue. One cannot understand the universe of water without grappling with poisonous fluoride and its government-mandated entry into public water supplies in the United States, Brazil, and several other countries that have stupidly followed America’s lead in water fluoridation. Just because it’s invisible does not make it any less deadly in the long haul in terms of public health. I had to say that because most people in fluoridated countries just don’t mind that it is there; it’s simply off their radar screens. And in fact, when you go back to the history and beginning of water fluoridation, we find out that it was the Nazis who used it first to turn their prisoners of war into passive sheep.
Fluoride is a poison, but that is nothing to worry about since, according to allopathic medicine, everything is poisonous and it is the dose that makes the poison. At the heart of medical science is a cankerous black hole of ugliness that leads right to the door of the American, German, and English governments (just to name the principles), along with the elite families and corporations that have come to control these governments in the last century. These controlling self-interested parties can barely be called human; they have been correctly labeled by all kinds of horrid names and have forever been a part of and hidden by secret societies. And they have all kinds of people who have sold their souls to those who do their bidding and call it science.
Fluoride was used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing-down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas and many other medications.
When it comes to water fluoridation we have to take off our gloves, but that is hard for most of us because we have been heavily fluoridated. And we have been exposed to, in hundreds of millions of cases, overwhelming amounts of another neurological depressant and an even more dangerous neurological poison, and that is mercury in the form of dental amalgam, vaccines containing thimerosal, as well increasing levels of environmental mercury pollution from the burning of coal and cremation of humans with mercury dental fillings still in their mouths. But of course no one has done any studies of the neurological effects of fluoride when combined with mercury exposure, which varies widely from one person to another depending on where they live and their vaccine and dental history.
“One aspect of the issue of Man’s alleged evil nature is rarely, if ever, addressed. This is the wholesale poisoning of Mankind and its affect on the brain and behavior of Mankind. Man’s food, water, and air (smog, chemtrails) are ever more poisoned. Our medicines are toxic and may be causing more harm than good, our dental fillings are called ‘silver’ yet are over half mercury; likewise our infants are forced to have vaccinations also with mercury and other toxins. The proven carcinogen fluoride is added to water and is in many medicines and toothpastes. The German Nazi regime is said to have fluoridated water because it made people docile. Is the same rationale ongoing in the USA? In a ludicrous ‘environmental’ change, incandescent bulbs are soon to be phased out and replaced with more efficient fluorescent bulbs that all have mercury within them?! All the toxins in the food, water, air, medicines, fillings, and vaccines have a terrible effect on people’s brains. Few people can truly think and change, or have the courage to act. These toxins also cause much chronic, degenerative illness, cancer, etc. The mercury in vaccines does cause autism,” writes the anonymous physicist.
I have always liked all my dentists, trusting their competence more than doctors, but when I began to understand the twin dangers of fluoride and dental mercury amalgam I began to see that the entire profession has been duped, and that goes for most graduates of medical school. We first-world people like to think that our universities and medical schools are centers of higher learning and intelligence, but the fact is that they are intense conditioning machines that forcefully mind shape the brains of their vulnerable students who start out with good intentions.
Fluoride is a toxic poison that has known serious side effects.
In my book The Terror of Pediatric Medicine I write about the terror of mercury in vaccines and the incredible fact that our beloved pediatricians in white coats are actually the worst kind of terrorists because they concentrate their dark intentions on newborns and little children. I mention this because here in this chapter, before we really get into any serious science about fluoride, we also have to mention the abomination of adding fluoride to toothpaste and again exposing children to its toxic profile.
Scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package.
In 1993 I helped start the Medical Veritas medical journal and in one of its first issues was Dr. Paul Connett’s essay, Fifty Reasons To Be Against Fluoridation. Unfortunately, and in part due to fluoridation and our increasing mercury exposure it, is hard for us humans to be effectively against anything so the horror goes on, yet people like Dr. Connett fight on. He has now published:
The Case Against Fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there, by Connett P, Beck J, and Micklem HS, summarizes thehistorical, political, ethical, toxicological, andepidemiological scientific data behind drinking-waterfluoridation. The book concludes that, if proposedtoday, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent toothdecay would stand virtually no chance of beingadopted, given the current status of scientificknowledge.
In the case of water fluoridation, according to the above authors, the chemicals that go into the drinking water that more than 180 million people drink each day in the United States are not even pharmaceutical grade, but rather a hazardous waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is illegal to dump this waste into the sea or local surface water, and yet it is allowed in our drinking water. To make matters worse, this program receives no oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency takes no responsibility for the practice. And from an ethical standpoint, say the authors, water fluoridation is a bad medical practice; individuals are being forced to take medication without their informed consent; there is no control over the dose and no monitoring of possible side effects.
Acute high oral exposure to fluoride may lead to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, drowsiness, headaches, polyuria and polydipsia, coma, convulsions, cardiac arrest, and death.
Historically, fluoride was quite expensive for the world’s premier chemical companies to dispose of, but in the 50s and 60s, Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry—with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste—somehow sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation’s toothpastes and dental rinses. Consider also that when sodium fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately one part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink one-half of one percent of the total water supply, the hazardous chemical literally “goes down the drain” and voila—the chemical industry not only has a free hazardous waste disposal system, but we have also paid them with our health and our pocketbooks for the process.
The aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries were not alone. The American government’s atomic weapons program was also producing huge amounts of fluoride and was getting sued by famers for the damage done to their cattle.
In part one of The Case Against Fluoride, “The Ethical and General Arguments Against Fluoridation”:The requirement for the informedconsent of the patient before administration of amedication is a basic human right. Yet with fluoride, which is added to drinkingwater as a therapeutic intervention, no such permission is sought or given. The process is enforced on every member of the population. The authors explore thisfact in the context of medical ethics. Another aspect is the efficacy of fluoridationas a therapy, which, the authors argue, is marginal at best and deleterious at worst.The fluoride used for water fluoridation is not of pharmaceutical grade, but is in fact a chemical waste byproduct. The lack of any rigorous studies as to the efficacy of fluoridation programs, the authors contend, means that the wholeprocess is experimental. There is no control of “dose”—how much fluorideanyone receives from the water.
Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.
Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who, in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute study, found that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.
A 2008 Scientific American reportconcluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerges of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain, and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ. “Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program.
The Scientific American study “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid.” “In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone” reports the National Research Council of the National Academies in a 2006report on page 266.
Fluoride is a thyroid poison and because so many are so heavily exposed, the need for iodine supplementation is vastly increased. There are actually four halogens: iodine, bromine, fluorine, and chlorine. All these halogens use the same receptors in the body. Therefore if a person’s diet is deficient in iodine the iodine receptors in the thyroid and stomach, for example, may fill up with bromine, which is common in grains, bleached flour, sodas, nuts, and oils as well as several plant foods. Iodine is depleted by bromine, which is used as a spray on fruits and vegetables, in baked goods, as a fumigant, and in Prozac, Paxil, and many other pharmaceutical drugs. Chlorine, fluorine, and fluoride are chemically related to iodine, and compete with it, blocking iodine receptors in the thyroid gland.
Dr. David Brownstein says that fluoride inhibits the ability of the thyroid gland to concentrate iodine, and research has shown that fluoride is much more toxic to the body when there is iodine deficiency present. When iodine is supplemented, the excretion rate of the toxic halides bromide, fluoride, and perchlorate is greatly enhanced. Brownstein says that after only one dose of iodine, the excretion of fluoride increased by 78% and this is very important for those who are drinking fluoridatedwater or taking medicines with fluoride in them; bromide excretion rates increased by 50%.
Iodine forms compounds with many elements but is less reactive than the other members of the halogens group and has some metallic light reflectance. There is a well-known law of halogen displacement: the critical activity of any one of these four halogens is in inverse proportion to its atomic weight.
The mechanism behind “halogen displacement” was probably best described by J.C. Jarvis, M.D. (Folk Medicine, Henry Holt & Co., 1958, HB, p. 136), who wrote: “The clinical activity of any one of these four halogens is in inverse proportion to its atomic weight. This means that any one of the four can displace the element with a higher atomic weight, but cannot displace an element with a lower atomic weight. For example, flourine can displace chlorine, bromine, and iodine because flourine has a lower atomic weight than the other three. Similarly, chlorine can displace bromine and iodine because they both have a higher atomic weight.” Likewise, bromine can displace iodine from the body because iodine has a higher atomic weight. A reverse order is not possible.
In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma—bone cancer—between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.
Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the U.S. government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.
The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.
An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.
Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P). Director International Medical Veritas Association. Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine. This article was originally published at DrSicus.com.
~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…
Andrew Puhanic, Guest Writer
Around the world, it is estimated that tens of millions of people are affected by both dental and skeletal fluorosis. In many cases, it is the addition of fluoride into drinking water supplies by governments that is the primary cause of both dental and skeletal fluorosis.
Common techniques used for defluoridation are coagulation-precipitation, membrane process and ion exchange.
The problem with these three techniques is that they are either too expensive or they further pollute the water.
Researchers from the National University of Sciences and Technology in Pakistan have discovered an effective method to remove fluoride from drinking water that is less expensive than conventional filtration processes and is safe to use.
The study, published in the Journal of Chemistry, concluded that the removal of fluoride from drinking water using modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) resulted in a removal efficiency that was 1.35 times higher than normal immobilized activated alumina.
Modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) was added to water that was tainted with fluoride and then analysis was conducted to evaluate the quantity of fluoride that was removed from the water.
|Effect of an adsorbent dose on the removal of fluoride at 20 ± 1°C.|
It was discovered that MIAA, at 20 +/- degrees Celsius has the capacity to remove more than 95% of fluoride from water. In fact, the adsorption capacity of MIAA was much higher (0.76 mg/g) when compared to the adsorption capacity of activated charcoal (0.47 mg/g) for the same concentration fluoride samples.
The adsorption method that is used by modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) is much more cost-effective (Ali, I., & Gupta, V. K.  Advances in water treatment by adsorption technology. Nature Protocols) than the popular Reverse Osmosis Filtration method.
Considering that both MIAA and Reverse Osmosis Filtration remove more than 90% of fluoride, MIAA could be a viable alternative to removing fluoride from drinking water supplies in developing countries.
Unfortunately, there are some limitations to the use of MIAA in removing fluoride from drinking water. The greatest challenge in the use of MIAA for removing fluoride from drinking water is filtering MIAA once all fluoride has been absorbed.
|Real water samples with initial fluoride concentration and final concentration|
However, considering that the granules produced by MIAA varied from 3 to 6 mm, all that was required during the study to remove the MIAA granules from the water was basic water filtration.Ultimately, the primary challenge faced when trying to removing fluoride from drinking water is cost.
The use of modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) to remove fluoride from drinking water could become a viable option that would enable communities in both developed and developing nations to remove fluoride from drinking water.
To download a copy of this publication, click here.
Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report
This article was featured at ActivistPost.com, the source for alternative news and information.
Stuff They Don’t Want You to Know -
Nov 9, 2012
Privatization advocates claim private-public partnerships are the most cost-efficient, reliable way to get water to the world’s poor — but critics tell a very different story. Tune into this episode of Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know and learn more.
Nov 9, 2012
Billions of people around the world have little or no access to clean water — and experts believe this situation will only worsen. In fact, some analysts believe the next world war won’t be over nukes or ideology — but, instead, a war over water. Tune in and learn more in this installment of Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know.
New episodes every Wednesday and Friday.
The common advice to drink eight glasses of water a day doesn’t hold water, say nutrition and kidney specialists who want to dispel the myth.
“What drove us to drink two litres of water a day?” asks an editorial in this week’s issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.
The recommendation was driven by vested interests rather than health, suggests author Speros Tsindos of the department of dietetics and human nutrition at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia.
Chef Rodney Bowers, left, pours a glass of water as Russell Smith, organizer of a campaign to encourage the drinking of tap water instead of bottled water at restaurants, looks on. Other beverages also help us meet the body’s fluid needs, say nutrition specialists. (Aaron Harris/Canadian Press)
“Humans need to maintain fluid balance and need to drink water when required, but should also consider fluid in unprocessed fruits and vegetables and juices. There is further evidence that water and a well-balanced diet does far more than water alone,” Tsindos wrote.
“Water is important for health; however, the recommendation of eight glasses of pure water per day appears an overestimation of requirements.”
Even a baked potato is 75 per cent water, said nutrition Prof. Susan Barr of the University of British Columbia, who sat on a Canadian-U.S. committee that looked at fluid intake.
“There’s nothing magical about water from a glass of water as opposed to water from a food or any other beverage,” Barr said.
Drinking caffeinated beverages such as tea and coffee do not lead to dehydration, said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania who reviewed research claims on drinking eight glasses of water and studied how the kidneys handle it.
“Drinking the coffee will count towards your total water intake for the day,” Goldfarb said.
Goldfarb said despite the common idea that it’s important to “drink eight glasses of eight ounces of water” a day, “There’s no evidence that benefits health in any real way and it really represents an urban myth.”
There’s no evidence you need to drink more water than what thirst dictates, Goldfarb added.
Studies on desert nomads showed people can consume minimal amounts of water in harsh environments. The military has also looked at how much water soldiers need to take with them when patrolling in hot climates without harming their performance.
“If one is just playing a game of tennis in an indoor facility, for example, or having a short run on a treadmill in an air-conditioned gym, the need to maintain hydration during that is just non-existent,” Goldfarb advised.
People have died of dehydration and from drinking too much water too quickly.
A good guide to tell if the body’s finely tuned fluid balance is to check the colour of your urine. If it’s very dark, you’re on the dry side; if it’s very light or translucent, then you need to drink a bit less water, said Dr. David Price, head of family medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.