The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
you can look here and see that the fiji water is quite high 148.8 and in fact i know there are a lot of people who are drinking fiji water as a source of these silicates the issue that i have with fiji water is it's only in polyethylene so it's only in plastic it's not ideal
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
maybe fiji water the risk versus benefit is better because you're going to get some silica and you'll just accept some of the harm from the plastic it's a balance
Now Fiji water meets that bill, but they only sell it in plastic, which just pisses me off to no end because Fiji water is quite high in silica. Obviously, I have no affiliation with them and it's very clean when you look at their uranium and other contaminants.
if we believe silica is beneficial for removing aluminum from the human body you would want a very clean water that is very high in silica perhaps fiji water is like that but then fiji water has a bunch of plastic contaminants in it