How to drink safely?
-
I just read up something about the harmful effects in long term drinking of distilled water. I am wondering what other types of water can one drink instead? What do you call those water that we get from our tap and boiled to boiling point? Is this safe for drinking? My office here has distilled water(those blue drum-like thingy) and filtered water but the latter has a poor filtering system(I can see residues in it) X| . Thus, I am considering bringing in a boiler to the office to boil my own water straight from the tap. Any advice?:cool: Weiye Chen Life is hard, yet we are made of flesh...
Out here water quality (atleast in taste) differs by zipcodes :) I drink out of the water fountain and the blue drum at the office. At home I use Ozarka's spring water bottles. Tap water at home taste's like ;P ... ofcourse the locals don't agree :rolleyes: ... http://www.boreddude.com
-
Charlie Williams wrote: Yeah, I can see how civilians being blown up is more humorous than driving all swervy-like. I suppose it depends on your sense of humour and whether you have suffered personally from either kind of crime. The jokes I've laughed at haven't been about the death but jokes aimed at the bombers. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: >The jokes I've laughed at haven't been about the death but jokes aimed at the bombers. And the jokes we've laughed at havn't been about the death, but jokes aimed at the booze and vehicle... Kevin Shaffer kshaff03@msn.com
-
Charlie Williams wrote: Yeah, I can see how civilians being blown up is more humorous than driving all swervy-like. It's a matter of sheer numbers.... Annually DWI (driving while intoxicated) related deaths exceed 300% the number of those who passed on 9/11. It just isn't "news worthy" to report on another DWI death because we have them about once every 30 minutes or so. But because it is so common, it is almost taboo to speak of it. Ironically, if you google on DWI issues, about 1/5 of the pages will be from a single state. New Mexico. In the early 1990's we lead the entire USA as the number 1 state in alcohol related deaths per population. I think we just dropped out of the top 10 states after 15 years. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's a matter of sheer numbers.... Annually DWI (driving while intoxicated) related deaths exceed 300% the number of those who passed on 9/11. It just isn't "news worthy" to report on another DWI death because we have them about once every 30 minutes or so. But because it is so common, it is almost taboo to speak of it. There is one difference... the person who kills themselves while driving drunk isn't a victim, he is a fool, along with anyone who decided to ride with him. You are right though that the person he hit and kills is a much a victim as anyone who was in the towers. :rose: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's a matter of sheer numbers.... Annually DWI (driving while intoxicated) related deaths exceed 300% the number of those who passed on 9/11. It just isn't "news worthy" to report on another DWI death because we have them about once every 30 minutes or so. But because it is so common, it is almost taboo to speak of it. There is one difference... the person who kills themselves while driving drunk isn't a victim, he is a fool, along with anyone who decided to ride with him. You are right though that the person he hit and kills is a much a victim as anyone who was in the towers. :rose: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: There is one difference... the person who kills themselves while driving drunk isn't a victim, he is a fool, along with anyone who decided to ride with him. You are right though that the person he hit and kills is a much a victim as anyone who was in the towers. I have no idea on the statistics of killing self vs. killing others, I know the perception (whether myth or not, I don't know), is that the drunk driver rarely kills himself, more often than not takes someone else's life or takes someone with him. Too many people have lost loved ones to drunk drivers. Just don't get me started on the girl who took herself and her friends and several other drivers with her (celebrating high school graduation in Mexico by drinking and then drinking all the way back).... and then her parents sued the driver of one of the other vehicles because when her trans-am slammed into his truck, although it pushed the engine block into him, it folded the trans-am into an accordian.... The parents claimed that if he had been driving a newer truck rather than "old steel" his vehicle would have absorbed a more even amount of the head-on collision; and their daughter would have lived, therefore he killed their daughter. The suit was tied up in court for over a year. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Doug Goulden wrote: There is one difference... the person who kills themselves while driving drunk isn't a victim, he is a fool, along with anyone who decided to ride with him. You are right though that the person he hit and kills is a much a victim as anyone who was in the towers. I have no idea on the statistics of killing self vs. killing others, I know the perception (whether myth or not, I don't know), is that the drunk driver rarely kills himself, more often than not takes someone else's life or takes someone with him. Too many people have lost loved ones to drunk drivers. Just don't get me started on the girl who took herself and her friends and several other drivers with her (celebrating high school graduation in Mexico by drinking and then drinking all the way back).... and then her parents sued the driver of one of the other vehicles because when her trans-am slammed into his truck, although it pushed the engine block into him, it folded the trans-am into an accordian.... The parents claimed that if he had been driving a newer truck rather than "old steel" his vehicle would have absorbed a more even amount of the head-on collision; and their daughter would have lived, therefore he killed their daughter. The suit was tied up in court for over a year. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: The parents claimed that if he had been driving a newer truck rather than "old steel" his vehicle would have absorbed a more even amount of the head-on collision; and their daughter would have lived, Really?? that's ridiculous!! lawsuits are becoming more incredible every day :omg: How did it all end up? -- LuisR
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix - Chihuahua, Mexico Not much here: My CP Blog!
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: The parents claimed that if he had been driving a newer truck rather than "old steel" his vehicle would have absorbed a more even amount of the head-on collision; and their daughter would have lived, Really?? that's ridiculous!! lawsuits are becoming more incredible every day :omg: How did it all end up? -- LuisR
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix - Chihuahua, Mexico Not much here: My CP Blog!
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote: Really?? that's ridiculous!! lawsuits are becoming more incredible every day How did it all end up? They really did. They served him notice while he was in the hospital from having his engine block removed from his LAP. That was how fast the girl was driving... She was drunk, speeding, tried to pass on the right shoulder of the road (because both lanes had vehicles, and she didn't want to slow down), she lost control, swerved in front of the two vehicles in proper lanes, causing them to collide in attempting to avoid hitting her, crossed the median to the other direction of traffic striking the truck head-on and causing I think the largest pileup that city had seen. The town was in an uproar, even to the point the cross her family put up at the scene of the accident was stolen or vandalized many times. I can't imagine a judge ever accepting the logic presented, but the truck driver was just your average working joe, the family of the girl hired the best lawyers they could. Still I hope they didn't win. Unfortunately, the trial was set between 9/11 and when I was hospitalized that November, so I kind of lost track of things for hte next year plus in relocating 75 miles away. Still I can't imagine even the best lawyers in the world could have succeeded in that suit, at least I hope that they didn't because it would make me even more pessimistic. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote: Really?? that's ridiculous!! lawsuits are becoming more incredible every day How did it all end up? They really did. They served him notice while he was in the hospital from having his engine block removed from his LAP. That was how fast the girl was driving... She was drunk, speeding, tried to pass on the right shoulder of the road (because both lanes had vehicles, and she didn't want to slow down), she lost control, swerved in front of the two vehicles in proper lanes, causing them to collide in attempting to avoid hitting her, crossed the median to the other direction of traffic striking the truck head-on and causing I think the largest pileup that city had seen. The town was in an uproar, even to the point the cross her family put up at the scene of the accident was stolen or vandalized many times. I can't imagine a judge ever accepting the logic presented, but the truck driver was just your average working joe, the family of the girl hired the best lawyers they could. Still I hope they didn't win. Unfortunately, the trial was set between 9/11 and when I was hospitalized that November, so I kind of lost track of things for hte next year plus in relocating 75 miles away. Still I can't imagine even the best lawyers in the world could have succeeded in that suit, at least I hope that they didn't because it would make me even more pessimistic. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Still I can't imagine even the best lawyers in the world could have succeeded in that suit, at least I hope that they didn't because it would make me even more pessimistic. :omg: The fact that a Judge even heard such a lawsuit is ridicules. I say its about time we here in the US donate some of our extraneous services like lawyers to other countries. :mad: -------------------------------
-
Champion what's?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Still I can't imagine even the best lawyers in the world could have succeeded in that suit, at least I hope that they didn't because it would make me even more pessimistic. :omg: The fact that a Judge even heard such a lawsuit is ridicules. I say its about time we here in the US donate some of our extraneous services like lawyers to other countries. :mad: -------------------------------
sfdougl wrote: The fact that a Judge even heard such a lawsuit is ridicules. I say its about time we here in the US donate some of our extraneous services like lawyers to other countries. Since a civil suit does not have the same requirements of a criminal, I don't believe judges have a choice we don't have any filter to protect against civil cases. Their court dates are determined by filing, not by content. I know when I took my ex-wife to court to force her to pay her bills allocated in the divorce, I had a court date without review. The problem is, I think, in civil matters is that merit of the case is determined inside of the district courts in respect to civil suits. Even if the system had a filter, I suspect that the suit itself (on paper) made no mention of who was the cause of the accident. Just as my ex-wife never even told her lawyer that my step-children were not my real children when she sued for child-support. It's so easy to have these "surprises" come up in court. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
sfdougl wrote: The fact that a Judge even heard such a lawsuit is ridicules. I say its about time we here in the US donate some of our extraneous services like lawyers to other countries. Since a civil suit does not have the same requirements of a criminal, I don't believe judges have a choice we don't have any filter to protect against civil cases. Their court dates are determined by filing, not by content. I know when I took my ex-wife to court to force her to pay her bills allocated in the divorce, I had a court date without review. The problem is, I think, in civil matters is that merit of the case is determined inside of the district courts in respect to civil suits. Even if the system had a filter, I suspect that the suit itself (on paper) made no mention of who was the cause of the accident. Just as my ex-wife never even told her lawyer that my step-children were not my real children when she sued for child-support. It's so easy to have these "surprises" come up in court. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Since a civil suit does not have the same requirements of a criminal, Fair enough, its still insane. Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Just as my ex-wife never even told her lawyer that my step-children were not my real children when she sued for child-support. It's so easy to have these "surprises" come up in court. Some how this one doesn't surprise me. I trust the Judge chucked at her request for child support and denied the request? ------------------------------- DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Since a civil suit does not have the same requirements of a criminal, Fair enough, its still insane. Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Just as my ex-wife never even told her lawyer that my step-children were not my real children when she sued for child-support. It's so easy to have these "surprises" come up in court. Some how this one doesn't surprise me. I trust the Judge chucked at her request for child support and denied the request? ------------------------------- DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
sfdougl wrote: Fair enough, its still insane. Fair enough, I agree. sfdougl wrote: Some how this one doesn't surprise me. I trust the Judge chucked at her request for child support and denied the request? Actually her lawyer found out while taking the official statements for divorce case. He was furious, plus the fact that she was already receiving child-support (though too little) from the father, my lawyer asked her why (why is a risky question, but my lawyer was getting to know my wife well enough to know she would fry herself), why she was asking for 10 times the amount of money for child-support from me than what she was already receiving from the father of the children. She said she didn't want to damage her relationship with the father. Her lawyer almost collapsed in his seat, stood up and started pacing for all other statemetents. When he got to ask questions of me, he asked my name and address, time of marriage, income and then stopped asking questions. He had my wife sign my offer several weeks later (I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that conversation). My offer, although my lawyer argued with me over, had always been 50/50. My lawyer wanted to make an equally outrageous offer in my favor in hopes of meeting in the middle. I told her that my wife would never negotiate, in the end it would be either her winning or her loosing, she would never reduce her demands once made -- therefore I had to go with my conscience which would never allow me to make an unfair offer. however the same judge was assigned the case when it returned in 6 months from her not paying her half of the bills (I kind-of sued her -- order to show cause, demand she explain her actions in court). The judge was NOT pleased. Since extenuating circumstances would also place my job at risk when all co-owned debts prior to divorce (and assigned to her to repay) went into default, the judge forced her to refinance into her name only so she could shoot herself in the foot as often as she wanted. So you could say the judge was unhappy over the whole scenerio. I did notice that my ex represented herself in that case. :laugh: _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
sfdougl wrote: Fair enough, its still insane. Fair enough, I agree. sfdougl wrote: Some how this one doesn't surprise me. I trust the Judge chucked at her request for child support and denied the request? Actually her lawyer found out while taking the official statements for divorce case. He was furious, plus the fact that she was already receiving child-support (though too little) from the father, my lawyer asked her why (why is a risky question, but my lawyer was getting to know my wife well enough to know she would fry herself), why she was asking for 10 times the amount of money for child-support from me than what she was already receiving from the father of the children. She said she didn't want to damage her relationship with the father. Her lawyer almost collapsed in his seat, stood up and started pacing for all other statemetents. When he got to ask questions of me, he asked my name and address, time of marriage, income and then stopped asking questions. He had my wife sign my offer several weeks later (I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that conversation). My offer, although my lawyer argued with me over, had always been 50/50. My lawyer wanted to make an equally outrageous offer in my favor in hopes of meeting in the middle. I told her that my wife would never negotiate, in the end it would be either her winning or her loosing, she would never reduce her demands once made -- therefore I had to go with my conscience which would never allow me to make an unfair offer. however the same judge was assigned the case when it returned in 6 months from her not paying her half of the bills (I kind-of sued her -- order to show cause, demand she explain her actions in court). The judge was NOT pleased. Since extenuating circumstances would also place my job at risk when all co-owned debts prior to divorce (and assigned to her to repay) went into default, the judge forced her to refinance into her name only so she could shoot herself in the foot as often as she wanted. So you could say the judge was unhappy over the whole scenerio. I did notice that my ex represented herself in that case. :laugh: _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: she would never reduce her demands once made Women cant live with them can’t live without em. :sigh: One of the fellow CP members has a signature to the effect of “I just want the source to the universe.” Personally I would settle for a meager understanding of the thought patterns of women in general. :confused: ------------------------------- DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: she would never reduce her demands once made Women cant live with them can’t live without em. :sigh: One of the fellow CP members has a signature to the effect of “I just want the source to the universe.” Personally I would settle for a meager understanding of the thought patterns of women in general. :confused: ------------------------------- DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
sfdougl wrote: Women cant live with them can’t live without em. I sincerely doubt most women are anywhere near as bad as my ex, maybe that is my hidden optimist. She was ... unique. But I would never claim that all women are like her. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
sfdougl wrote: Women cant live with them can’t live without em. I sincerely doubt most women are anywhere near as bad as my ex, maybe that is my hidden optimist. She was ... unique. But I would never claim that all women are like her. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: I sincerely doubt most women are anywhere near as bad as my ex, Given the public nature of the board, all I will say is all women provide a unique challenge. At least that’s been my experience thus far in life. :) Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: maybe that is my hidden optimist. If I weren’t an optimist and trust everything will work out in the wash I would have gone nuts a few years ago (I’m not claiming, full sanity here just partial). :-D ------------------------------- DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.