Sukoo said:
I’ve did some research previously. Honestly I did not come across any data or studies that support the claim. .
There you go, no data. On such a important subject in which millions may be affected. You want to know why? Before you shout conspiracy, in my experience, when one does a literature review and finds little data in support or against a scientific point, particularly one that seems ripe for and easily studied, chances are its been done and the data does not support the hypothesis substantially.
Sukoo said:
But I have come across tons of information on the internet on subjects like the relationship between chlorine and cancer and the water quality.
Sorry, doesn't cut it. Data, data, data please. There are tonnes of mechanistic hypotheses out there, many of which seem so convincing and logical, and eventually found to be wanting. For a long time, people thought that hormone replacement therapy would be beneficial to post-menopausal women in terms of reducing cardiovascular risks. This was the conventional medical opinion and there was a wealth of supporting mechanistic and biological explanations why it should be so, almost totally unquestioned. Ultimately, it was all proven to be wrong, by DATA, in a huge multi-thousand patient study.
The only way to fully evaluate if a mechanistic claim is true or not is to look at the DATA!
Sukoo said:
This is the link
Well people can say that its a commercial website and how true is their claim?
How about a report from the Water Quality Association from US?
Click here
Its a two pages article please have some patient and finish it..
I've read the newapaper article as well the the abstract of the paper on which it was based, reproduced below for your reference;
OBJECTIVES. Individual epidemiological investigations into the association between chlorination by-products in drinking water and cancer have been suggestive but inconclusive. Enough studies exist to provide the basis for a meaningful meta-analysis. METHODS. An extensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent case-control studies and cohort studies. Consumption of chlorinated water, surface water, or water with high levels of chloroform was used as a surrogate for exposure to chlorination by-products. Relative risk estimates were abstracted from the individual studies and pooled. RESULTS. A simple meta-analysis of all cancer sites yielded a relative risk estimate for exposure to chlorination by-products of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.20). Pooled relative risk estimates for organ-specific neoplasms were 1.21 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.34) for bladder cancer and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.87) for rectal cancer. When studies that adjusted for potential confounders were pooled separately, estimates of relative risks did not change substantially. CONCLUSIONS. The results of this meta-analysis suggest a positive association between consumption of chlorination by-products in drinking water and bladder and rectal cancer in humans..
They quite boldly draw the conculsion of a risk. Unfortunately, it is a meta-analysis, a retrospective look as it were. Whilst I do not question their methodology, it is not always easy to control for biases in these types of studies particularly "publication bias". And I put it to you that the increase in risk, though statistically significant, does not amount to a major public health issue. For instance, if in fact what they are saying is true, just for perspective, say the incidence bladder cancer were 1 in 100 in the general popualtion. Then a 15% increase would increase it to 1.15/100. That is, increase from approx 6/600 to 7/600.
Here is a link to another article you may find useful -->
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/57/3/166
Sukoo said:
So with so much information, why do people still need data to show that drinking clean non-chlorinated water is beneticial to health?.
I remain unconvinced.
Sukoo said:
There are fathers who rather spend money on big cars, sons who willing to pay thousand of dollars for expensive cameras, husbands who buy big plasma TV but they question the purpose of paying even just a 100 buck or even less for a simple carbon water filter.
IMO the health of the family is just not their priority.
Its simple economics. If I had $100 to spend on a pair of running shoes or a water filter, which do I spend on to get the most health benefit? The running shoes, always! You spend the money where you think you will get the most utility. How much utility is there in buying a water filter? I think the majority think it isn't very much, and I must say I agree.