You might say that it's a bit of a toss-up; natural, raw water may contain bacteria – but is that really worse than what you find in tap water?
Back in 2016, Mike Adams reported on the startling discovery that 75 percent of U.S. drinking water was contaminated with cancer-causing hexavalent chromium. Out of 35 tap water samples from U.S. cities, 25 contained amounts of hexavalent chromium that exceeded safety standards. Is it any surprise then, that a growing number of Americans do not trust the government to supply them with non-toxic water?
And of course, tap water contamination doesn't end there. Recall the massive tap water scandal in Flint, Michigan – when a careless government basically poisoned an entire city.
Indeed, incidents like this are a driving force behind the raw water movement. Whether its fluoride, heavy metals or other toxins – there's no shortage of stuff to worry about when it comes to tap water. The Environmental Working Group conducted a water quality study featuring samples from more than 48,000 U.S. utility companies from all 50 states – and found that on average, tap water contains about 267 different contaminants. Some of these contaminants, they say, are linked to fertility issues, damage to the brain and nervous system, and may cause cancer.
The propagandist mainstream media has been quick to damn raw water enthusiasts over the potential risk of being exposed to harmful bacteria or parasites. Unsurprisingly, no mention of the hazardous compounds found in everyday tap water is made.
Ironically enough, California's Silicon Valley has garnered national attention (and criticism) for their growing raw water movement. California has come under fire multiple times for toxic water. In 2017, reports showed that the water supply for one million central Californians was contaminated with a carcinogenic substance known as 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or TCP.
While it is true that unfiltered water may contain some unsightly things -- like animal feces or parasites like giardia -- this is ultimately a moot point. Whether or not raw water is safe (or safer than tap water) is not what this debate should be centered on. Ultimately, the real question here is whether or not people should have a choice in where the water they drink comes from. Should governments be able to tell their citizens they can't drink rain water? Should bureaucrats be able to demand you drink tap water?
Food freedom (and now water freedom) has been consistently under attack – whether it's home gardens being destroyed and outlawed by over-zealous municipalities or pro-tap water lunatics decrying your right to decide what you put in your body. As Waking Times writer Phillip Schneider contended in a recent article:
When did we become so afraid of the natural world that we are willing to subject ourselves to this much toxicity to avoid it? Who gets to judge the level of harm that there needs to be for something to be considered unsafe? If you own your body, don’t you have the right to ingest what you want, even if it is dangerous?
Food freedom is (or at least should be) a tenant of personal liberty. Many people feel the government's role in food safety should not expand so far as to give officials the right to tell private citizens what they can eat or drink.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
