Toxins found in bottled water

I've been pretty outspoken about the nation's water obsession. This strange and incredibly enduring fad is one of the true triumphs of marketing - after all, the bottled water biz is a multimillion-dollar operation. And all because there's this perception (actually, it's a misperception) that drinking lots of water is really good for you.

I wonder how those marketing geniuses will spin this next bit of information. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) just found that the contents of bottled water brands were "no different than that of tap water." In fact, the same sorts of nastiness that seep into the public water supply - namely trace elements of fertilizer, prescription medication, and a bevy of chemicals - can end up in your bottled water as well.

So much for the images of fresh, clean mountain streams the bottled water industry loves to promote. While these are not outright claims of purity, they do imply that the product is drawn from or, at the very least, filtered to a purity standard that exceeds tap water. This is hardly the case.

The actual purity of bottled water is one of the industry's more closely guarded secrets. In fact, the EWG's report points out that the bottled water industry refused to release any of their internal data that would support the claims (or implied claims) that their product is superior. Sounds fishy to me.

The EWG's study found as many as 38 pollutants in 10 of the most popular brands of bottled water. In all, the EWG discovered carcinogens in bottled water from five states (California, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia) and Washington, D.C. The worst offenders were the waters put out by big chain retailers Walmart and Giant. The carcinogens discovered were at levels that significantly exceeded the bottled water industry's own self-imposed standards. I'm sure you can imagine that regulating bottled water isn't exactly high on that government agency's list of things to do. And let's be honest - even if it were, I doubt it would make a lick of difference.

There's two things at work against bottled water. First of all, many bottled waters aren't drawn from "artesian wells," a fancy term for "from the ground." In fact, the source of many bottled waters is the public water supply. But here's where it gets dicey: bottled water isn't subject to federal regulations the way the public water supply is. (Not that the regulations on the public water supply should make you feel any better, given the toxins that are put there on purpose.) The best way to guarantee you're getting safe, toxin-free water is to purchase a reverse osmosis filter and install it at your house.

43 percent of women suffer from sexual dysfunction

These days, you can hardly walk by a television without seeing an ad for Viagra, Cialis, or any of the other "ED" drugs. ("ED" is the politically correct way of saying "erectile dysfunction.) And because there is a long and now widely known laundry list of sexual woes for men, many assume that only men suffer from sexual dysfunction (SD).

However, nothing could be further from the truth.

According to a new study conducted by Massachusetts General Hospital, women not only suffer from SD, but there is a far higher percentage of women who suffer from sexual dysfunction as there are men. Shocked? Well, don't be.

While 31 percent of the men in this survey admitted to dealing with at least one kind of sexual dysfunction, a staggering 43 percent of the women surveyed reported that they also wrestled with their own sexual issues. These problems included painful intercourse, a decline of sexual desire, and an inability to achieve orgasms.

Ready for a bigger shock: just 12 percent of the women who admitted that they suffered from these problems said that the issues caused them any distress.

According to the leader of the study, Dr. Jan Shifren, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General, "Sexual problems are common in women, but problems associated with personal distress, those which are truly bothersome and affect a woman's quality of life, are much less frequent."

The survey polled 32,000 women from across America, aged between 18 to over 100. And, if you ask me, the massive age difference in the sample group takes a bit of the shock out of the idea that 43 percent of women are suffering from sexual dysfunction.

Indeed, the breakdown of the statistics bear my theory out: of those surveyed, it was women over the age of 65 who had the highest incidence of SD, but this same group also reported having the lowest level of distress as a result of their SD. Should we be shocked that women between the age of 65 and 100 - who, let's face it, probably aren't having too much sex to begin with - aren't too worried that they've got some degree of sexual dysfunction?

And, as if to underscore what I'm sure would be another widely held assumption, it was the women in the youngest age group (from 18 to 44) who reported the lowest levels of both SD and distress from SD. Again … I'm just not shocked by this.

If the goal of the research was to reinforce many of the preconceptions about women's sexuality, then I believe the study succeeded. They determined 1) younger women are less likely to have SD. 2) Women in middle age (from 45 to 64), the time when the body begins to change, had the highest degree of stress resulting from SD. 3) Older women have more SD, but it doesn't really bother them.

I think I could've told you that without compiling a survey from 32,000 women.