Exactly how can these people not know that this will make them laughingstocks? If water cannot prevent dehydration (excessive loss of body fluid), well what can? What I find amazing is that large numbers of people continue to think that government - populated with as large a number of ninnies as anything on Earth - is what we should look to for solutions to the many problems we now face, most of which have been created by ... government. This is the grand stupidity of our age. And amazingly, it is the highly schooled who primarily subscribe to it.
Of course Frank. The highly schooled are products of the system -- and so they must believe in the system -- otherwise they could be *gasp* frauds...there are new and ancient works on self justification
ReplyDelete(and I have four degrees from insitutions of higher learning...)
It's because the highly-schooled are used to working within and with a bureaucratic institution, namely the schools and universities. They're used to it.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a fish who doesn't realize it's breathing water until it's pointed out to them.
On the flip side, the problems with bureaucracy and its silly excesses don't therefore mean that all government functions are equally stupid and unnecessary. Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good, if you want to get anything done.
Well, there certainly are functions it is proper for government to undertake - national defense, law enforcement, etc. But beyond such things, it's usually pretty incompetent. And legislators tend to get it involved in all sorts of things - marriage, for instance - that ought to be none of its business.
ReplyDeleteFrank, though I agree that it's rather funny, I think you're missing the point. The aim is to prevent misleading labels on products. There is nothing special about bottled water which prevents dehydration, which even if not directly stated, is certainly implied by certain labels. Any water will do, assuming it's clean. And unless we're talking about the aged - or severe drought conditions - the scientists are right: dehydration is generally the result of an illness.
ReplyDeleteWell, Lee, no.They are unclear and insofar as they are unclear are absurd. Water counters dehydration. Period. No matter what the dehydration is caused by. That is because dehydration is a shortage of... water. It id a perfect example of hy bureaucrats should be regularly held up to ridicule. They are the perfect Pharisees, for whom man was made for the law, not the other way around. These people are the perennial candidates for the Monthy Python foot.
ReplyDeleteFrank, I think we're going to have to leave this as matter of cordial disagreement. To my mind, this is not much different from putting a label on a packet of sweets which states that sugar gives you energy - while true in a limited sense, is only a small part of the picture.
ReplyDeleteAnd as anyone who has lived in Africa and dealt with dehydration from severe vomiting and diarrhea knows, water alone does not counter dehydration. Oral rehydration therapy requires salts and sugars - and has saved millions of children's lives worldwide. Hyponatraemia is life-threatening.
I don't we actually disagree. I would never suggest that water alone in all case will rehydrate. There is that business of electrolytes, etc. But the statement that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” is hardly outrageous, and that's what the bureaucrats would not allow.
ReplyDeleteNo, they would not allow the applicant
ReplyDeleteto propose 'water loss in tissue' or 'reduced water content in tissues' as risk factors, when dehydration is the disease. 'The Panel notes that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease (dehydration).' Measures of the disease, not risk factors.
Scientists are expected to be exact in their claims, no?
Anyone who is interested can read the entire opinion here, rather than a media take on it:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CFQQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.efsa.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fefsajournal%2Fdoc%2F1982.pdf&ei=IdfLTp23OqHl4QSpzuUk&usg=AFQjCNFRWJ5rWDPyVVgY8l0eSk-962FCbg