If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    Holy smokes...The whole time I was reading that article..I was laughing..and expecting to see at the end that it was from The Onion.
    Wow...the world really is a crazy place. I have a feeling that once this goes viral..it will be yet another embarrasment to the EU.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    >>>EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.<<< That's the kind of absurd humor that you could only find in a massively stupid bureaucracy. You know that there's some nitwit in the EPA right now thinking "why didn't I think of that?" Of course they did come up with that "CO2 is poison" BS so they're not too far off.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    WTH??? How idiotic can they be.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    devil's advocate here...

    I agree, on first glance, that this is absurd.  HOWEVER, what the 'makers' of a product can and can't say about its health benefits are entirely subjective and should be based on established medicine.  This one didn't pass the test.  Key wording:

    He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.


    “This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

    These last two statements are exactly right, albeit way at the bottom and beyond the purview of unobservant readers.

    As anyone knows who's done a lot of physical activity in a very hot place, water alone will not rehydrate you.  Water with electrolytes (i.e. gatorade) will; often, a gentler form (pedialyte) is required.

    Fact: drinking too much water can kill you.

    Furthermore, why has nobody here in the states done the same on their bottles??  For us, a marketing-rich culture, it should be a no-brainer.  Or should it...??

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    In Response to Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...:
    To reject the devil's advocate position.... The claim was not that water prevents dehydration. That would be false because it is an absolute statement, and there are ways to get dehydrated even if you drink water. The specific statement was merely an expression of probability: “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” If you regularly drink significant amounts of water, there is a lower probability that you will become dehydrated than if you only drank small amounts of water or none. How can that be argued with? Obviously, regular consumption of significant amounts of tonic water or orange juice can reduce the risk of development of dehydration. So too would biting a lot of cacti, or avoiding 130 degree temperatures and marathons. It's also true that even if you do all those things, you might develop horrible cholera and die of dehydration anyway. Hence, the claim is expressed as a statement that drinking a bunch of water can reduce the probability of dehydration. Not even that it necessarily reduces it. As for electrolytes, that may be true. There are other places to get electrolytes. Like food. And at any event, the fact that one needs some level of electrolytes does not mean that water without them cannot lower the risk of dehydration - that would only be true if we assumed for the argument that a person has no other sources of electrolytes. That's really the key here: The statment was "can" lower a probability. Rejecting that is the equivalent of saying "water cannot lower the probability of dehydration." That's why this is so absurd. I also disagree that the statement says anything specifically about bottled water. That it would appear on bottles of water does not communicate that bottled water is more likely to reduce the probability of dehydration.  I don't think it comes remotely close to implying it. It refers simply to "water", not bottled water. Yes, it would appear on bottled water. Because that's the product being sold. If there's any danger here, it's that customers aren't careful.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    But again, I think it's the wording that's the problem.

    What is "regular" consumption?  How much is "significant amounts"?

    For instance, we now know that the whole "8 glasses of water per day" recommendation was a myth...that many other things we eat and drink have water in them...usually enough for the average person.

    By the logic in the statement above, one could drink beer, coffee or tea to prevent dehydration just as well as one could with water.

    Again, I do think it's a little silly, but then so is advertising any health benefit whatsoever on a bottle of water.  I realize in some places it's the only potable water there is, but given the environmental catastrophe of plastic bottles themselves, this is the best they could do.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    In Response to Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...:
    Next up...there is no evidence that breathing air prevents suffocation...
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

    Just wait...when someone devises a scheme to sell the air that we breathe..the regulations and "definitions" will not be far behind...lol
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from s0ftsquash. Show s0ftsquash's posts

    Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...

    In Response to Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...:
    In Response to Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day... : Just wait...when someone devises a scheme to sell the air that we breathe..the regulations and "definitions" will not be far behind...lol
    Posted by miscricket


    It's already been done. Government...taxation without representation...new taxes and creative ways to make them appear out of thin air.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share