{OT} Sueing Starbucks..

Some of them do, no doubt. Maybe most of them. Maybe damn near all of them.

Idiot.

Idiot.

Yes.

Wrong again.

In fact, I make my living in product test. We do not test our product by what the government tells us. We test our product based on satisfying our customer expectations for quality.

Idiot.

By the way, idiot., the "amount of testing" performed is not the measure of quality. There's a lot of pristine water in the world that would require no "testing" at all be of very high quality.

Indeed, if the production process is perfect (a generally unobtainable goal, of course), no "testing" would be required at all!

Just another example of you idiot's inability to think logically.

Don't you know you're stupid?

You forget, diz is... an engineer. Ask him what choo-choo he runs on.

He really is fun.

Not too bright, but fun.

You can tell when he has reached his 'limit' when he starts spewing 'idiot'.

Dizzy lost another one.

He made a statement that simply is NOT TRUE and calls people idiots when they point it out to him.

Nice world these libs live in...

What statement would that be, exactly? What are the facts, here? Or are you just lying again?

That's pretty funny, considering that I just kicked your ass (for the umpteenth time) with a logical argument that you are unable to refute. So, you avoid the entire thing and go on a fact-free personal attack.

Typical, for a right-winger.

You mean the world of logic and truth? Better than the world of lies, ignorance, and stupidity that you live in, I guess...

You naive LIEbrawl dimmies are the ones who need to know HOW to think. I'll put MY IQ up against yours any day of the week. Typical DEMONrat arrogance--thinking that they are more intelligent that everyone else. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are naive and have your heads in the sand when it comes to politics and international affairs.

These days whippersnappers think hash marks are a side effect of a concoction of drugs.

Nah...a large amount of BULLETS does that!

LOL That's a good one, Sharx. 8)

Here is the article to refresh the Dizzy...

Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype? While bottled water marketing conveys images of purity, inadequate regulations offer no assurance. [En Español]

Sales of bottled water in this country have exploded in recent years, largely as a result of a public perception of purity driven by advertisements and packaging labels featuring pristine glaciers and crystal-clear mountain springs. But bottled water sold in the United States is not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water, according to a four-year scientific study recently made public by NRDC.

NRDC's study included testing of more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water. While most of the tested waters were found to be of high quality, some brands were contaminated: about one-third of the waters tested contained levels of contamination -- including synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic -- in at least one sample that exceeded allowable limits under either state or bottled water industry standards or guidelines.

A key NRDC finding is that bottled water regulations are inadequate to assure consumers of either purity or safety, although both the federal government and the states have bottled water safety programs. At the national level, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for bottled water safety, but the FDA's rules completely exempt waters that are packaged and sold within the same state, which account for between 60 and 70 percent of all bottled water sold in the United States (roughly one out of five states don't regulate these waters either). The FDA also exempts carbonated water and seltzer, and fewer than half of the states require carbonated waters to meet their own bottled water standards.

Even when bottled waters are covered by the FDA's rules, they are subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which apply to city tap water (see chart below). For example, bottled water is required to be tested less frequently than city tap water for bacteria and chemical contaminants. In addition, bottled water rules allow for some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform (which indicate possible contamination with fecal matter), contrary to tap water rules, which prohibit any confirmed contamination with these bacteria. Similarly, there are no requirements for bottled water to be disinfected or tested for parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia, unlike the rules for big city tap water systems that use surface water sources. This leaves open the possibility that some bottled water may present a health threat to people with weakened immune systems, such as the frail elderly, some infants, transplant or cancer patients, or people with HIV/AIDS.

Some Key Differences Between EPA Tap Water and FDA Bottled Water Rules Water Type Disinfection Required? Confirmed E. Coli & Fecal Coliform Banned? Testing Frequency for Bacteria Must Filter to Remove Pathogens, or Have Strictly Protected Source? Must Test for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses? Testing Frequency for Most Synthetic Organic Chemicals Bottled Water No No 1/week No No 1/year Carbonated or Seltzer Water No No None No No None Big City Tap Water (using surface water) Yes Yes Hundreds/ month Yes Yes 1/quarter (limited waivers available if clean source) See Table 1 of NRDC's bottled water report for further comparisons and explanations.

Ironically, public concern about tap water quality is at least partly responsible for the growth in bottled water sales, which have tripled in the past 10 years. This bonanza is also fueled by marketing designed to convince the public of bottled water's purity and safety, marketing so successful that people spend from 240 to over 10,000 times more per gallon for bottled water than they typically do for tap water.

In fact, about one-fourth of bottled water is actually bottled tap water, according to government and industry estimates (some estimates go as high as 40 percent). And FDA rules allow bottlers to call their product "spring water" even though it may be brought to the surface using a pumped well, and it may be treated with chemicals. But the actual source of water is not always made clear -- some bottled water marketing is misleading, implying the water comes from pristine sources when it does not. In 1995, the FDA issued labeling rules to prevent misleading claims, but while the rules do prohibit some of the most deceptive labeling practices, they have not eliminated the problem.

Some examples of interesting labels NRDC observed include:

"Spring Water" (with a picture of a lake surrounded by mountains on the label) -- Was actually from an industrial parking lot next to a hazardous waste site.

Alasika? -- "Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water From the Last Unpolluted Frontier, Bacteria Free" -- Apparently came from a public water supply. This label has since been changed after FDA intervention.

Vals Water -- "Known to Generations in France for its Purity and Agreeable Contribution to Health . . . Reputed to Help Restore Energy, Vitality, and Combat Fatigue" -- The International Bottled Water Association voluntary code prohibits health claims, but some bottlers still make such claims.

NRDC makes the following recommendations for improving bottled water safety precautions:

• The FDA should set strict limits for contaminants of concern in bottled water. * The FDA's rules should apply to all bottled water distributed nationally or within a state, carbonated or not, and bottled water standards must be made at least as strict as those applicable to city tap water supplies. * Water bottlers should be required to disclose water source, treatments and other key information as is now required of tap water systems. * A penny-per-bottle fee should be initiated on bottled water to fund testing, regulatory programs, and enforcement at both state and national levels. * State bottled water programs should be subject to federal review.

Ultimately, however, while Americans who choose to buy bottled water deserve the assurance that it is safe, the long-term solution to our drinking water problems is to ensure that safe, clean, good-tasting drinking water comes from our taps. Those who are particularly concerned about the quality of their tap water can take action by 1) calling their state drinking water program or the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800 426-4791) for a list of state certified labs; and

These are the key parts of the article IMO. Assuming the article is accurate, one would then question whether you really want to drink bottled water. :-)

They could be just wonderful, but we can assume that, since the standards are lower for bottled water, and since water treatment costs money, water bottlers will not perform any treatment beyond the bare minimum to meet the standards, thus bottled water will generally be of lower quality than tap water. (And it appears that bottled water sold intrastate has no required quality level at all.)

The article is NOT saying that bottled water is in general inferior to tap water - only that it is "not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water".

Less government-required testing does not mean that testing is not done. Logically-handicapped idiot.

You are showing your education and mental ability again.

You know when a leftie has lost an argument....they start making personal attacks...

You lost Dizzy...again...

LOL. Unable to logically rebute my argement, you go on a fact-free personal attack.

Wow, I never would have guessed that you'd do that!

How ironic, from the guy making personal attacks.

I lost Dizzy? Where did I lose him?

It looked to me like the standards for bottled water are lower than for tap water, and non-existent in the case of bottled water sold intrastate.

So the tests may be done, but not protect us very well. (Or not done at all for intrastate water.)

who cares, starbucks coffee is swill that has a big price tag and a cup cozey to tell you that the person is all about wasting cash on garbage.

f*ck starbucks

Starbucks just announced they are raising their prices by five cents a cup. These are the same people that buy bottled water then complain about the price of gasoline. What was it P T Barnum said? LOL

mike hunt

"MartinGouda" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...

Perhaps they are using bottled water to make their coffee!

They roast their coffees much darker than they should be, so perhaps their fuel costs for the roasters (the big ones are usually natural gas-fired) has gone way up. :-)

I complained a couple of times at $tarbucks about how their coffee was roasted too dark and they always said, "Oh, it's too strong for you?" Unfortunately, I bet most of their customers confuse these two things too. (This was when they first appeared in the area. I pretty quickly quit going there because I didn't like their coffee.)

Then a Starsucks opened in my town and they sent their employees with tanks strapped to their backs to walk up and down on the sidewalk in front of the locally-owned coffee shop and give away free coffee and discount coupons. That went on for a couple of weeks. We were mailed all kinds of coupons too.

Our local shop lasted for several months and then the owner decided it wasn't worth trying to compete and she retired and moved to Florida. :-( In talking with her, I got the impression there were even more dirty tricks that had been played on her by $tarbucks.

I suspect much the same happened when I worked in downtown Cleveland. A Starsucks opened 2 doors down from a locally-owned coffee shop. Within 6 months there was only Starsucks left.

"Starbucks - destroying local businesses across the country." This could be the motto for Walmart or Walgreens too.

So, now I roast my own coffee at home, got a Nissan thermos, and I'm probably better off. :-)