Does anyone know if you can use more than one at a time, ex....use 3 on 3 liters at once?
I'm using the MP1
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (59% of Full)
Home
>
General Discussion
>
Topic
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs
All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner
of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion
and not fact until verified independently.
July 18, 2009 04:26PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 16 |
July 18, 2009 04:39PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
July 18, 2009 08:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
I did. Actually, I had a 1 gallon bottle and just used three of them overnight. At standard strength they're actually supposed to disinfect bacteria/viruses/giardia in 30 minutes. Cryptosporidia takes 4 hours. Their instructions used to say that, but now it's just lowest common denominator with the max time listed.
They have a strange sort of chlorine taste to them. They leave the water a pale yellow. When I left the water behind in the sunlight (after overnight disinfection) both the color faded and the taste got better.
They have a strange sort of chlorine taste to them. They leave the water a pale yellow. When I left the water behind in the sunlight (after overnight disinfection) both the color faded and the taste got better.
July 18, 2009 08:52PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
July 19, 2009 06:24AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
Quote
mrcondron
Get a filter. Life's too short to drink that kind of water. Look into the PUR Hiker. It'll filter a liter in about one minute and a drink of filtered water still cold from a stream on a hot day is priceless.
I second that; the first thing that goes into my daypack OR backpack is my filter. I find it interesting that the first thing that a lot of people want to leave behind is their filter when trying lighten the load, but yet they will carry whiskey....go figure!
July 19, 2009 08:31AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
Bee
Quote
mrcondron
Get a filter. Life's too short to drink that kind of water. Look into the PUR Hiker. It'll filter a liter in about one minute and a drink of filtered water still cold from a stream on a hot day is priceless.
I second that; the first thing that goes into my daypack OR backpack is my filter. I find it interesting that the first thing that a lot of people want to leave behind is their filter when trying lighten the load, but yet they will carry whiskey....go figure!
As long as you practice a modicum of discrimination of where you draw water, I really wouldn't worry about treating the water where you will be up in the high country.
I carry a MSR MIOX (3.5 oz. with batteries) with me just as a precaution; I've felt pseudo-compelled to use it once in the approx. 5 years that I have had it. (It also produces ClO2 but by an electrochemical process; no discoloration, almost undiscernible chlorination taste.) Also have a MSR filter that I bought about 10 years ago and only bothered carrying on a few trips before I got the MIOX; never felt the need to ever use it in the backcountry.
I have the feeling that the standard concentration Micropur tabs are massive overkill for backcountry water. Looking at the advertising hype on them, 1 tablet per liter may be about right for Louisiana swamp water. What is the second active ingredient listed on the package? From website pictures, I can read that the first is sodium chloride, but can't make out the second. The discoloration and taste that you are experiencing is probably a byproduct of the chemical reaction that is being used to produce the ClO2 and/or an excessive concentration of the ClO2 or another product of the chemical reaction (reiterate swamp water comment here).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 08:40AM by szalkowski.
July 19, 2009 09:23AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
szalkowski
I have the feeling that the standard concentration Micropur tabs are massive overkill for backcountry water. Looking at the advertising hype on them, 1 tablet per liter may be about right for Louisiana swamp water. What is the second active ingredient listed on the package? From website pictures, I can read that the first is sodium chloride, but can't make out the second. The discoloration and taste that you are experiencing is probably a byproduct of the chemical reaction that is being used to produce the ClO2 and/or an excessive concentration of the ClO2 or another product of the chemical reaction (reiterate swamp water comment here).
Chlorine dioxide isn't stable. I'm not sure how effective it would be with cryptosporidium since that takes a while to kill unless you've got UV.
The ingredient is sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydryte. It generates free chlorine dixoide, but as you suggest the process does end up creating an off taste.
July 19, 2009 09:53AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
y_p_w
Chlorine dioxide isn't stable. I'm not sure how effective it would be with cryptosporidium since that takes a while to kill unless you've got UV.
The ingredient is sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydryte. It generates free chlorine dixoide, but as you suggest the process does end up creating an off taste.
Thanks for the second ingredient information. (Need it to figure out what the other reaction products are.)
This site provides some good technical information on the properties of ClO2:
http://www.lenntech.com/water-disinfection/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm
Their claim is that it remains effective for 48 hours; if true, then the decomposition half-life is probably at least 8-12 hours.
FYI, here is also the link to the MIOX website:
http://www.miox.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 09:53AM by szalkowski.
July 19, 2009 10:59AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
szalkowski
Quote
y_p_w
Chlorine dioxide isn't stable. I'm not sure how effective it would be with cryptosporidium since that takes a while to kill unless you've got UV.
The ingredient is sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydryte. It generates free chlorine dixoide, but as you suggest the process does end up creating an off taste.
Thanks for the second ingredient information. (Need it to figure out what the other reaction products are.)
This site provides some good technical information on the properties of ClO2:
http://www.lenntech.com/water-disinfection/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm
Their claim is that it remains effective for 48 hours; if true, then the decomposition half-life is probably at least 8-12 hours.
FYI, here is also the link to the MIOX website:
http://www.miox.com
I probably got it wrong about how stable chlorine dioxide is. In fact, chlorine dioxide is a gas at any reasonable temperature. What I remember is that it certainly couldn't be produced in a tablet form. It has to be some sort of powder that generates chlorine dioxide on exposure to water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_dichloroisocyanurate
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 25, 2009 10:19PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 22 |
I third that. One can talk about drinking smart all they want, but even if I'm drinking the "smartest" water on the planet from a smart stream or a smart lake, I still want to filter the big chunks out.
I have seen pics of people showing how they stick their heads into "smart" water sources, brag about how they never carry a filter especially because of its extra weight, but also brag about how they always carry high quality Scotch on their trips which weighs about as much as 2 of my filters do.
I have nothing against the Scotch carrying or drinking part, it just makes me laugh about how they follow each other like lemmings off a cliff when it comes to bragging about how they never take a filter with them, and many of them say it's unnecessary extra weight.
And some of them are actually relatively new lemmings blindly following.
Bring up filter use, and the lemmings jump onto the bandwagon bragging about how they never use a filter, because they "drink smart".
Number one reason for getting sick from drinking non filtered water. which couldn't possibly be the fault of the non filtered water you were drinking, by the lemmings: Poor personal hygiene. You didn't wash your hands well enough after you pooped.
Each and every time someone says they got sick from drinking non filtered water, the lemmings will throw that out as the more likely cause. Most of us never get sick from ourselves from not cleaning our hands properly after pooping at home, but it appears to be an epidemic cause of illness in the backcountry. Yes I know it is more work to keep oneself clean in the backcountry, but I bet most of us keep ourselves just as clean in the backcountry as we do at home. Handiwipes, Sani-Wipes, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe it's the water that isn't as pristine as it was 50 years ago, because there weren't as many people pooping and peeing near water sources 50 years ago. Maybe that's why the Goverment agencies recommend you filter your water because of the HUGE human pollution problem.
But the lemmings will still laugh at you silly people with your filters. And show pictures of themselves sticking their heads under streams and drinking the water, and swallowing the big chunks, and telling you if they get sick it is because they didn't exercise good hygiene practices after pooping.
I have seen pics of people showing how they stick their heads into "smart" water sources, brag about how they never carry a filter especially because of its extra weight, but also brag about how they always carry high quality Scotch on their trips which weighs about as much as 2 of my filters do.
I have nothing against the Scotch carrying or drinking part, it just makes me laugh about how they follow each other like lemmings off a cliff when it comes to bragging about how they never take a filter with them, and many of them say it's unnecessary extra weight.
And some of them are actually relatively new lemmings blindly following.
Bring up filter use, and the lemmings jump onto the bandwagon bragging about how they never use a filter, because they "drink smart".
Number one reason for getting sick from drinking non filtered water. which couldn't possibly be the fault of the non filtered water you were drinking, by the lemmings: Poor personal hygiene. You didn't wash your hands well enough after you pooped.
Each and every time someone says they got sick from drinking non filtered water, the lemmings will throw that out as the more likely cause. Most of us never get sick from ourselves from not cleaning our hands properly after pooping at home, but it appears to be an epidemic cause of illness in the backcountry. Yes I know it is more work to keep oneself clean in the backcountry, but I bet most of us keep ourselves just as clean in the backcountry as we do at home. Handiwipes, Sani-Wipes, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe it's the water that isn't as pristine as it was 50 years ago, because there weren't as many people pooping and peeing near water sources 50 years ago. Maybe that's why the Goverment agencies recommend you filter your water because of the HUGE human pollution problem.
But the lemmings will still laugh at you silly people with your filters. And show pictures of themselves sticking their heads under streams and drinking the water, and swallowing the big chunks, and telling you if they get sick it is because they didn't exercise good hygiene practices after pooping.
July 19, 2009 10:42AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 16 |
I really do hate consuming all the chemicals especially since I live on an organic vegetarian diet but I was led to believe the tabs were no worse for you chemical wise then tap water. I want to pickup a filter but I am super broke at the moment and the tabs were simply a cheap alternative/emergency backup. One thing with the filters is that most seem to have a super expensive cartridge replacement...whats your all's opinions on the cost of the filters and the life span of each cartridge?
July 19, 2009 12:10PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
If you are going to use chlorine to disinfect water, why not just use bleach?
http://www.vdh.state.va.us/drinkingwater/documents/BoilWaterFAQs.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hypochlorite
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 12:13PM by Frank Furter.
http://www.vdh.state.va.us/drinkingwater/documents/BoilWaterFAQs.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hypochlorite
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 12:13PM by Frank Furter.
July 19, 2009 12:16PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
Frank Furter
If you are going to use chlorine to disinfect water, why not just use bleach?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hypochlorite
Not as effective as chlorine dioxide.
July 19, 2009 01:31PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
It is not reliable against cryptosporium oocysts according to one reference.
I just don't see much difference when used for clear water decontamination between bleach and chlorine dioxide:
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA453968&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
But, I am willing to be corrected. Any references support a significant difference of chlorine dioxide over household bleach for backcountry use, besides the inconvenience of carrying bleach?
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
I just don't see much difference when used for clear water decontamination between bleach and chlorine dioxide:
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA453968&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
But, I am willing to be corrected. Any references support a significant difference of chlorine dioxide over household bleach for backcountry use, besides the inconvenience of carrying bleach?
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
July 19, 2009 01:40PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
July 19, 2009 01:50PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
I would have to look it up, but I believe iodine is generally better against a broader spectrum of infectious agents (some chemicals do better against the organism vs a spore form or cyst, for example). My position was that if you are going to use a chlorine based treatment, bleach for all practical purpose seems adequate. Everything has a downside. Even boiling has limitations.Quote
eeek
Ok, what about iodine?
I suppose the best formulation is dehydrated water (just add pure water, and drink).
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
July 19, 2009 01:59PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
Frank Furter
I suppose the best formulation is dehydrated water (just add pure water, and drink).
This brings us back to my original comment above about backcountry H2O treatment:
<http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,15547,15562#msg-15562>;
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 02:00PM by szalkowski.
July 19, 2009 02:56PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
As I recall, iodine has worked better against giardia. However, I find conflicting statements on the issue during a recent internet search. CDC seems to favor iodine over chlorine against giardia.
An important option with chemical treatment is to be sure the agent has enough time to work and the water temp is favorable. If you have enough fuel, warming the water when adding any chemical will greatly improve the effectiveness of that treatment. Alternatively, adding additional treatments like filtration and UV can produce almost synergistic benefits.
Additional info: Travel medicine for health professionals By Larry I. Goodyer ,2004, page 53+has a pretty convincing discussion of chlorine vs iodine
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 03:04PM by Frank Furter.
An important option with chemical treatment is to be sure the agent has enough time to work and the water temp is favorable. If you have enough fuel, warming the water when adding any chemical will greatly improve the effectiveness of that treatment. Alternatively, adding additional treatments like filtration and UV can produce almost synergistic benefits.
Additional info: Travel medicine for health professionals By Larry I. Goodyer ,2004, page 53+has a pretty convincing discussion of chlorine vs iodine
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 03:04PM by Frank Furter.
July 19, 2009 04:06PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
In deference to Y_P_W and in the interest of intellectual honesty, CDC has the following recommendation in chart form, suggesting that chlorine and iodine are equivalent and that chlorine dioxide is more effective than those against giardia:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/drinking/Backcountry_Water_Treatment.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/backcountry_water_treatment.html
Although this is not well referenced, I would have to bow to this advice.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2009 12:00PM by Frank Furter.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/drinking/Backcountry_Water_Treatment.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/backcountry_water_treatment.html
Although this is not well referenced, I would have to bow to this advice.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2009 12:00PM by Frank Furter.
July 19, 2009 05:09PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
July 19, 2009 05:23PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
Thanks for all of the links and info! This topic has been making the rounds with both of my hiking goups, and I have not really had the time to research the stats. I use a filter, but in the past, I always carried the iodine tabs for an emergency (on kayak trips). It's a really good topic when there are so many alternatives out there. Someone recently mentioned a "steri-pen" which is based on UV properties -- any comments or experience?
July 19, 2009 06:03PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
Bee
Thanks for all of the links and info! This topic has been making the rounds with both of my hiking goups, and I have not really had the time to research the stats. I use a filter, but in the past, I always carried the iodine tabs for an emergency (on kayak trips). It's a really good topic when there are so many alternatives out there. Someone recently mentioned a "steri-pen" which is based on UV properties -- any comments or experience?
They don't seem to have worked all the bugs (couldn't resist) out of it as far as reliability/robustness is concerned. I've seen several complaints of people where these things just stop working... even when they are not out in the backcountry but just testing out on the kitchen table so to speak. Turbidity in the water also decreases its effectiveness significantly, the batteries don't last for that many purification cycles, and you have to be REAL careful not to break the quartz (glass) envelope also.
Good idea in principle, not so good in practice. Now you know why I went with the MSR MIOX.
July 19, 2009 06:23PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
July 19, 2009 06:59PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
eeek
Quote
szalkowski
They don't seem to have worked all the bugsQuote
you have to be REAL careful not to break the quartz (glass) envelope also.
Mercury?
The Steripen website says that most of the radiation is in the 254 nm line, so yes:
http://www.steripen.com/faq.html
Hg is not really the problem though. The quartz envelope must be relatively thin in order to maximize the transmission of the radiation and this necessarily makes the unit non-robust. Someone can make a fortune by developing a material that has near-unity transmission in the wavelength regime <400 nm and is 'unbreakable.' [That is a problem that has eluded solution for many decades, if not >century.]
July 19, 2009 06:01PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,918 |
There are loads of people that don't carry a filter.
Too many times I've had to take water out of the littlest of trickles or ponds
late in the year that could be suspect.
Plus my filter has a gizmo that directly connects to my bladda in my pack.
So... even though I've thought many times to not carry a filter I still do.
Not way in heck I'm putting iodine or some other poo in the water.
The pen is interesting but 99% of the time I garry on 1 litre of water
knowing that there will be more to filta when I run out.
I've seen people dip and drink and then I go and take water and there's
floaters in there. Yummy.
Too many times I've had to take water out of the littlest of trickles or ponds
late in the year that could be suspect.
Plus my filter has a gizmo that directly connects to my bladda in my pack.
So... even though I've thought many times to not carry a filter I still do.
Not way in heck I'm putting iodine or some other poo in the water.
The pen is interesting but 99% of the time I garry on 1 litre of water
knowing that there will be more to filta when I run out.
I've seen people dip and drink and then I go and take water and there's
floaters in there. Yummy.
July 19, 2009 06:11PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
I went on an 8 mile hike today, and garry'd 1 litre AND my filter. I was calculating that there was about 1 stream per 2 miles, but they are shrinking fast and flowing slower (better environment for the little guys with iddy-biddy flaps and flippers). There was still some snow at 9,000, so yes, I admit that I dug down about a foot, and just loaded up my bottle without filtering it
July 19, 2009 06:47PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Regarding the Steripen, additional things to consider:
1. 99.99% effective sounds good (see REI ad) but if there are high concentrations of pathogens and >1/1,000,000 per ml are not uncommon, 1/10,000 would mean that are still 100 bugs/ml (I think that math is correct)
2. when you turn off the UV, the killing stops (with a chemical treatment, your water purification continues)
3. the UV acts to break and disrupt DNA and RNA (creating "mutants" so to speak). It gives one pause.
4. there are some reports about problems with very pure ( from ice melt, for example) water and proper function of the pen
5. I could not find any pubmed or CDC report on this device.
6. Requires batteries
7. Distance from the source (size of the container) has got to be an issue to consider.
I would think it a useful addition to another method, like chlorine products or iodine or a filtration system if the water is very contaminated.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
1. 99.99% effective sounds good (see REI ad) but if there are high concentrations of pathogens and >1/1,000,000 per ml are not uncommon, 1/10,000 would mean that are still 100 bugs/ml (I think that math is correct)
2. when you turn off the UV, the killing stops (with a chemical treatment, your water purification continues)
3. the UV acts to break and disrupt DNA and RNA (creating "mutants" so to speak). It gives one pause.
4. there are some reports about problems with very pure ( from ice melt, for example) water and proper function of the pen
5. I could not find any pubmed or CDC report on this device.
6. Requires batteries
7. Distance from the source (size of the container) has got to be an issue to consider.
I would think it a useful addition to another method, like chlorine products or iodine or a filtration system if the water is very contaminated.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
July 19, 2009 09:34PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Get a filter and eliminate all the crap questions about how to treat your water. A single element in the PUR Hiker will last for 20-30 trips or more if it is allowed to dry out between trips. I've used the MSR filters and the First need filter. Settled on the PUR about what seems like ten years ago.
Old Dude
Old Dude
July 28, 2009 08:51AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 16 |
So when it came down to it I could not use the Tabs and feel good about the water I was drinking. I've decided I will be buying a water filter and I think it is the only way to go except in an emergency situation. The thing with the Tabs were that even after sitting for the 4 hours (and more), the water had a yellow tint to it and whenever I opened the cap to my bottle you could see what seemed to be gas vapors escaping...scary!!!
July 28, 2009 09:08AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
July 28, 2009 10:53AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
girdog
So when it came down to it I could not use the Tabs and feel good about the water I was drinking. I've decided I will be buying a water filter and I think it is the only way to go except in an emergency situation. The thing with the Tabs were that even after sitting for the 4 hours (and more), the water had a yellow tint to it and whenever I opened the cap to my bottle you could see what seemed to be gas vapors escaping...scary!!!
It's not that bad. It has an off taste to it, but it's rather safe in the recommended dosage. In the concentrated tablet form it's corrosive. It tends to break down in sunlight though. I think I mentioned that I had a gallon sitting overnight, then left out the rest of the day. By the time I got back to it the color had pretty much faded and the taste was pretty much like tap water.
Katadyn doesn't actually make the tablets. I think there are several sources, including some in Spain and the US. I've seen the same thing sold by Potable Aqua as "Potable Aqua Chlorine Dioxide". I looked in the box, and the only difference is the brand name on the packet label. It's the same tablets with the same ingredients.
July 28, 2009 01:33PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
July 28, 2009 03:12PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Let's see, you've just slogged up the switchbacks out of Hetch Hetchy in late July with the temp at about 95-100 degrees, you've consumed the three liters of liquid you've hauled along and are now parched, hot, and ready to kill for a drink of water so you:
A: Stop at the never dry little stream about 5 minutes up the trail toward Bee Hive past the Eleanor Road junction where you fill your three empty bottles and drop the appropriate little pills into each of them and then settle down for the 30-60 minute wait needed for them to kill everything in the water before you settle down to a long drink of tepid swimming pool water that's full of dead bugs.
OR
B: Break out the PUR Hiker and inside of one minute quaff down, with water spilling out the side of your mouth and drenching your shirt, your fill of 56 degree clear mighty fine H2O devoid of all particulate matter and all things that can self-propel through water.
Old Dude
A: Stop at the never dry little stream about 5 minutes up the trail toward Bee Hive past the Eleanor Road junction where you fill your three empty bottles and drop the appropriate little pills into each of them and then settle down for the 30-60 minute wait needed for them to kill everything in the water before you settle down to a long drink of tepid swimming pool water that's full of dead bugs.
OR
B: Break out the PUR Hiker and inside of one minute quaff down, with water spilling out the side of your mouth and drenching your shirt, your fill of 56 degree clear mighty fine H2O devoid of all particulate matter and all things that can self-propel through water.
Old Dude
July 28, 2009 11:05PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
Quote
mrcondron
OR
B: Break out the PUR Hiker and inside of one minute quaff down, with water spilling out the side of your mouth and drenching your shirt, your fill of 56 degree clear mighty fine H2O devoid of all particulate matter and all things that can self-propel through water.
I have done this exact scenario; I could not imagine having to wait to gulp that first "cheater litre" (the one that was supposed to be for the road)
I think that the "particulate matter" (read: buggers) gets lost in all of this techno speak about purifying water. I just plain don't want to look at/drink thingys hanging in the water !
July 29, 2009 04:47AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Has anyone had problems with fractures in the filters from either freezing or just use related trauma like dropping the units? If these develop, do you know that the filter is not working correctly (like water coming out around seals were it is not supposed to appear, for instance)?
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs July 29, 2009 04:59AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 923 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Has anyone had problems with fractures in the filters from either freezing or just use related trauma like dropping the units? If these develop, do you know that the filter is not working correctly (like water coming out around seals were it is not supposed to appear, for instance)?
I don't think dropping a Hiker Pro will crack the filter, but freezing isn't going to help. When temps are dropping into the low 40s as dusk wanders into night, I throw my filter bag into the foot box of my quilt. Then I don't have to wonder.
July 29, 2009 07:09AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
I've been using the PUR Hiker for at least ten years and I've never had a mechanical problem with it. In October of 2001, I believe, at Lasen NP I did leave it out overnight with the hoses full of water and the water in the hoses was frozen in the morning. It took about ten minutes or so to get the ice out of them.. The filter itself was not frozen.
I think the pills have gone the way of the buggy whip.
Old Dude
I think the pills have gone the way of the buggy whip.
Old Dude
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 23, 2009 06:47PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
I am hiking from Tuolumne Meadows to Glen Aulin. I want to buy some sort of water filter for the trip. I see that Katadyn now owns the PUR Hiker. I was looking at the Katadyn filter bottles and am wondering what level of filtration is needed. The high end Katadyn claims to protect against viruses as well as the rest. Do I really need that level of protection? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the PUR Hiker and a bottle filter system? Thanks
August 23, 2009 09:03PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
traildad
I am hiking from Tuolumne Meadows to Glen Aulin. I want to buy some sort of water filter for the trip. I see that Katadyn now owns the PUR Hiker. I was looking at the Katadyn filter bottles and am wondering what level of filtration is needed. The high end Katadyn claims to protect against viruses as well as the rest. Do I really need that level of protection? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the PUR Hiker and a bottle filter system? Thanks
Now? Proctor & Gamble bought out Pur over 10 years ago and sold of the outdoor products division to Katadyn 5 years ago.
However - P&G did develop a water purification system for developing countries. It's supposed to be really cheap when donated to poor countries, but I've seen some kits sold for the US market and they're very expensive.
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 23, 2009 10:05PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
I don't know now from 5 years ago. I saw it referred to as a PUR but when I went to look it up I only found Katadyn. I guess I assumed it was recent since people were still calling them PUR. However I really only mentioned it in passing, I am more interested in finding the best solution for my needs. Any ideas?
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
traildad
I am hiking from Tuolumne Meadows to Glen Aulin. I want to buy some sort of water filter for the trip. I see that Katadyn now owns the PUR Hiker. I was looking at the Katadyn filter bottles and am wondering what level of filtration is needed. The high end Katadyn claims to protect against viruses as well as the rest. Do I really need that level of protection? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the PUR Hiker and a bottle filter system? Thanks
Now? Proctor & Gamble bought out Pur over 10 years ago and sold of the outdoor products division to Katadyn 5 years ago.
However - P&G did develop a water purification system for developing countries. It's supposed to be really cheap when donated to poor countries, but I've seen some kits sold for the US market and they're very expensive.
August 24, 2009 08:46AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
This was the system I was referring to. It's supposed to be sold at cost.Quote
traildad
I don't know now from 5 years ago. I saw it referred to as a PUR but when I went to look it up I only found Katadyn. I guess I assumed it was recent since people were still calling them PUR. However I really only mentioned it in passing, I am more interested in finding the best solution for my needs. Any ideas?Quote
y_p_w
Quote
traildad
I am hiking from Tuolumne Meadows to Glen Aulin. I want to buy some sort of water filter for the trip. I see that Katadyn now owns the PUR Hiker. I was looking at the Katadyn filter bottles and am wondering what level of filtration is needed. The high end Katadyn claims to protect against viruses as well as the rest. Do I really need that level of protection? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the PUR Hiker and a bottle filter system? Thanks
Now? Proctor & Gamble bought out Pur over 10 years ago and sold of the outdoor products division to Katadyn 5 years ago.
However - P&G did develop a water purification system for developing countries. It's supposed to be really cheap when donated to poor countries, but I've seen some kits sold for the US market and they're very expensive.
http://www.pghsi.com/pghsi/safewater/
The MSR Sweetwater system supposedly can include a kit that also handles viruses. If you read the label, they just use ordinary chlorine bleach at a certain concentration. However - I'm not too keen on having any bleach in my pack. I've seen what happens if bleach leaks. Also - they're charging $10 for a 2 oz bottle.
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 23, 2009 09:43PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 923 |
Quote
traildad
I am hiking from Tuolumne Meadows to Glen Aulin. I want to buy some sort of water filter for the trip. I see that Katadyn now owns the PUR Hiker. I was looking at the Katadyn filter bottles and am wondering what level of filtration is needed. The high end Katadyn claims to protect against viruses as well as the rest. Do I really need that level of protection? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the PUR Hiker and a bottle filter system? Thanks
What "high end Katadyn" are you talking about? None of the Katadyn backpacking filters will filter viruses. If you mean the MyBottle, that doesn't sound very high end to me - 122 uses is a short life span to me, when I go out every weekend dayhiking and frequently backpacking. I also don't like bottle filters, they tend to be slow and don't lend themselves to filtering water for uses other than sipping.
If you are in North America the general consensus is that viruses are not a problem in backcountry water sources. You could buy a Hiker Pro and it would be adequate for your purposes.
There are First Need and Sawyer products that will remove viruses, btw. Many people swear by First Need and are willing to carry the extra weight to have it along.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2009 09:44PM by AlmostThere.
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 23, 2009 10:10PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
This is a link to the "high end" bottle.
http://www.katadyn.com/usen/katadyn-products/products/katadynshopconnect/katadyn-water-filters-ultralight-series-products/katadyn-exstream-xr-purifier-bottle-blue/
Here is the "other" bottle.
http://www.katadyn.com/usen/katadyn-products/products/katadynshopconnect/katadyn-water-filters-ultralight-series-products/katadyn-microbottle-blue/
I don't mean to claim it to be high end in the market, just compared to the other Katadyn bottle.
I am trying to decide between one of these bottles and a pump type filter. If viruses are not a real threat in the Sierras then I guess the regular bottle or a pump filter would both be fine. Thanks
http://www.katadyn.com/usen/katadyn-products/products/katadynshopconnect/katadyn-water-filters-ultralight-series-products/katadyn-exstream-xr-purifier-bottle-blue/
Here is the "other" bottle.
http://www.katadyn.com/usen/katadyn-products/products/katadynshopconnect/katadyn-water-filters-ultralight-series-products/katadyn-microbottle-blue/
I don't mean to claim it to be high end in the market, just compared to the other Katadyn bottle.
I am trying to decide between one of these bottles and a pump type filter. If viruses are not a real threat in the Sierras then I guess the regular bottle or a pump filter would both be fine. Thanks
August 24, 2009 12:43AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
I use a Sweetwater pump type. I don't spend too much time hiking anymore due to recurring foot injuries so I don't mind the extra weight when I do hike, since I won't be out there long. I'll always filter downstream from anyplace that might have pack animals or humans camping out up above. If you get 10,000 plus up (except for the Trail Camp swamp on the Whitney trail) you're probably OK not filtering or poisoning the H20.
August 24, 2009 07:34AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,918 |
Listen to Mike. Just get the Katadyn Hiker. Done.
When you get home let the filter dry out.
Mine is 13.25 oz.
http://www.rei.com/product/695233
Throw out the two plastic ends. Dead weight.
Put a coffee filter over the mesh input end.
When you get home let the filter dry out.
Mine is 13.25 oz.
http://www.rei.com/product/695233
Throw out the two plastic ends. Dead weight.
Put a coffee filter over the mesh input end.
August 24, 2009 04:35PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 5 |
We were issued the old MSR for years then for my last time in the sandbox we switched to the Katadyn Hiker Water Filter. I liked the old MSR but the Katadyn Hiker Water Filter is less fussy and (though I didn't have to pay) the element is easier to deal with. We were issued Iodine tabs for emergencies but in over forty years I've only used them when I was a kid and remember I didn't enjoy the experience. I don't worry about the water anywhere in the world I am so long as I have my filter. I've filtered from stuff that might have come out of an oil well and have never gotten sick. I hear a lot of people talk of not filtering water and not having had any problems; but do you want to take that kind of chance. I've seen the results of guys taking the chance and ending up REALLY REALLY sick for a VERY long time. We tested (for about a minute) the water bottle filters. I don't know about you but I don't have the time or patience to try to get a big gulp out of a pinhole when I need it.
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 24, 2009 05:11PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 923 |
Iodine isn't effective against crypto, isn't as effective against giardia... same with chlorine bleach, by the time you add enough to kill crypto you are drinking straight bleach.
Steripens require batteries. I sleep with all battery driven objects to prevent dead batteries, and I'm reading more and more reports that not all batteries work well in the 'pen, plus, the thought that all it does is scramble DNA and I'm actually drinking live germs - not reassuring.
Filters may be heavy, but they work - even my Amigo Pro gravity filter, essentially a HIker Pro cartridge in a bag, works faster than chemicals, and with the optional shower head I might get to wash my hair once in a while.
Steripens require batteries. I sleep with all battery driven objects to prevent dead batteries, and I'm reading more and more reports that not all batteries work well in the 'pen, plus, the thought that all it does is scramble DNA and I'm actually drinking live germs - not reassuring.
Filters may be heavy, but they work - even my Amigo Pro gravity filter, essentially a HIker Pro cartridge in a bag, works faster than chemicals, and with the optional shower head I might get to wash my hair once in a while.
August 24, 2009 05:52PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
August 24, 2009 05:57PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
AlmostThere
Iodine isn't effective against crypto, isn't as effective against giardia... same with chlorine bleach, by the time you add enough to kill crypto you are drinking straight bleach.
Steripens require batteries. I sleep with all battery driven objects to prevent dead batteries, and I'm reading more and more reports that not all batteries work well in the 'pen, plus, the thought that all it does is scramble DNA and I'm actually drinking live germs - not reassuring.
UV works. Basically once the DNA is scrambled, the microorganisms die rapidly because they can't reproduce. Bacteria either have to reproduce or they die off. That's basically what stuff like antibacterial soaps (triclosan or triclocarban) do. Viruses are essentially just DNA with a protein coat, and once their DNA is well scrambled they cease to be viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_water_disinfection
I've heard of some UV purification devices for use in developing countries. Those usually work with really long dwell times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_disinfection
August 24, 2009 05:59PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 24, 2009 06:17PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
Thanks for all the input. I have ordered the Katadyn Hiker PRO Water Microfilter. I like the idea of being able to fill up more than one bottle in case water is scarce, This will be my first overnight hike and my first hike in Yosemite. I hope to try again when things are thawing out next spring. Ken
August 24, 2009 07:13PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
You will not be disappointed. Be sure though to take the filter element out when you get home after using it and let it dry throughly. I usually leave the filter disassembled until I'm ready to use it again. I used to pump a weak bleach solution through it after use but I've found that drying works just as well. Keep the little tube of silicon grease with you. It really helps when and if the pump gets a little stiff.
Old Dude
Old Dude
August 24, 2009 08:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
August 24, 2009 09:29PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
Vince
Interesting you brought up UV...it is useful to find fluorescent rocks and scorpions much less kill germs. But does it kill parasites?
Here's a list:
http://www.ultraviolet.com/microorgan.htm
The list includes bacteria, molds, protozoa, viruses, yeasts, algae, and nematodes.
I've seen suggestions that UV also kills bug eggs.
http://www.2shopper.com/Zadro_Nano_UV_Light_Disinfection_Scanner_Wand_p/zdonan10.htm
August 24, 2009 10:07PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
Quote
Vince
Interesting you brought up UV...it is useful to find fluorescent rocks and scorpions much less kill germs. But does it kill parasites?
UV is unproven:
Ultraviolet Light (UV Light) can be used as a pathogen reduction method against some microorganisms. The technology requires effective prefiltering due to its dependence on low water turbidity (cloudiness), the correct power delivery, and correct contact times to achieve maximum pathogen reduction. UV might be an effective method in pathogen reduction in backcountry water; there is a lack of independent testing data available on specific systems. Manufacturer’s instructions must be followed.
August 25, 2009 08:22AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Ultraviolet Light (UV Light) can be used as a pathogen reduction method against some microorganisms. The technology requires effective prefiltering due to its dependence on low water turbidity (cloudiness), the correct power delivery, and correct contact times to achieve maximum pathogen reduction. UV might be an effective method in pathogen reduction in backcountry water; there is a lack of independent testing data available on specific systems. Manufacturer’s instructions must be followed.[/quote]
As I have mentioned before, you need to be careful of claims about effectiveness. If a product claims "kills 99.9%" of infectious organisms but there are 1,000,000 organisms in the sample, you still have 1000 organisms left.
Although appealing due to apparent simplicyt, UV light effectiveness depends, at least, on the intensity of the light, volume to be sterilized, solution turbidity, time of exposure, and proper function of a unit that emits an invisible light. Seems like a lot can go wrong.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
As I have mentioned before, you need to be careful of claims about effectiveness. If a product claims "kills 99.9%" of infectious organisms but there are 1,000,000 organisms in the sample, you still have 1000 organisms left.
Although appealing due to apparent simplicyt, UV light effectiveness depends, at least, on the intensity of the light, volume to be sterilized, solution turbidity, time of exposure, and proper function of a unit that emits an invisible light. Seems like a lot can go wrong.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
August 25, 2009 09:47AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
Ultraviolet Light (UV Light) can be used as a pathogen reduction method against some microorganisms. The technology requires effective prefiltering due to its dependence on low water turbidity (cloudiness), the correct power delivery, and correct contact times to achieve maximum pathogen reduction. UV might be an effective method in pathogen reduction in backcountry water; there is a lack of independent testing data available on specific systems. Manufacturer’s instructions must be followed.
As I have mentioned before, you need to be careful of claims about effectiveness. If a product claims "kills 99.9%" of infectious organisms but there are 1,000,000 organisms in the sample, you still have 1000 organisms left.
Although appealing due to apparent simplicyt, UV light effectiveness depends, at least, on the intensity of the light, volume to be sterilized, solution turbidity, time of exposure, and proper function of a unit that emits an invisible light. Seems like a lot can go wrong.
I thought about the same goes for filters - claiming to remove 99.99% of giardia or cryptosporidia cysts. I guess it's probably better than an oil filter that supposedly is about 95-98% effective since they simply can't stay oil starved too long.
I also thought that for the most part the human immune system can tolerate the stray bit of bacteria, giardia, or cryptosporium by wiping it out. Isn't there some sort of "critical mass" required where the pathogen can take hold rather than get purged by the immune system.
As for the proper function, I believe they typically wire a light (or have some other type of sensor) with the UV in series. If the UV emitter isn't functioning, that's effectively "cutting the wire".
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 25, 2009 10:00AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 923 |
I'm not opposed to using UV gadgets if that's what you want to do. On a completely personal note, I am opposed to my having a gadget in my pack that is intended to fill a vital role with direct impact on my well being that is not completely klutz (ie, ME) proof. I could drop my Hiker Pro on granite and have a chance of slapping duct tape on a crack and still be able to filter water - I could not reasonably expect the same of a Steripen. Not to mention my history of malfunction of anything mechanical.
August 25, 2009 12:10PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
y_p_w
As for the proper function, I believe they typically wire a light (or have some other type of sensor) with the UV in series. If the UV emitter isn't functioning, that's effectively "cutting the wire".
The Hg vapor lamp ( <http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,15547,15596#msg-15596>; ) has emission lines in the visible part of the spectrum also.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2009 12:10PM by szalkowski.
August 25, 2009 01:17PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
Ultraviolet Light (UV Light) can be used as a pathogen reduction method against some microorganisms. The technology requires effective prefiltering due to its dependence on low water turbidity (cloudiness), the correct power delivery, and correct contact times to achieve maximum pathogen reduction. UV might be an effective method in pathogen reduction in backcountry water; there is a lack of independent testing data available on specific systems. Manufacturer’s instructions must be followed.
As I have mentioned before, you need to be careful of claims about effectiveness. If a product claims "kills 99.9%" of infectious organisms but there are 1,000,000 organisms in the sample, you still have 1000 organisms left.
Although appealing due to apparent simplicyt, UV light effectiveness depends, at least, on the intensity of the light, volume to be sterilized, solution turbidity, time of exposure, and proper function of a unit that emits an invisible light. Seems like a lot can go wrong.
I thought about the same goes for filters - claiming to remove 99.99% of giardia or cryptosporidia cysts. I guess it's probably better than an oil filter that supposedly is about 95-98% effective since they simply can't stay oil starved too long.
I also thought that for the most part the human immune system can tolerate the stray bit of bacteria, giardia, or cryptosporium by wiping it out. Isn't there some sort of "critical mass" required where the pathogen can take hold rather than get purged by the immune system.
As for the proper function, I believe they typically wire a light (or have some other type of sensor) with the UV in series. If the UV emitter isn't functioning, that's effectively "cutting the wire".
Regarding infection, yes there is human variability and there are differences in the infectivity of various bugs. Usually infectivity is described as ID50, meaning that the infective dose to cause disease in 50% of the uniformly exposed population. It is a
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2009 06:06AM by Frank Furter.
August 25, 2009 06:03PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
I think it takes about ten giardia cyst to do the number on a person. I also believe that usually when exposed to giardia it's in the thousands like drinking water just down stream from a horse doogie or deer poop. Of course there is very little horse doogie on the popular trails in the park. NOT!!!
Old Dude
Old Dude
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 30, 2009 02:14PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 141 |
Wow, a lot of hostility toward anyone who doesn't think that filtering is as necessary as the 'experts' tell us it is. One could just as easily use 'lemmings' to describe anyone who follows so-called "expert" advice from government, doctors, scientists, and all the others who are always right. Aren't they...? (Need I go down the list of drugs/pesticides/foods/chemicals that were deemed safe, only to discover later they have killed/disfigured/destroyed lives, or the quality thereof?)
I drink out of the Merced fairly often, but then I don't usually go to Yosemite in summer. I probably wouldn't be as inclined to do so when people are swimming above Vernal, or rafting from Curry, if I was below those places. But given a choice of putting chlorine or iodine in, I think I'd probably take my chances, find a spot that looks like it's free-flowing, and get a drink from there, sans chemicals. UV pens don't impress me...I suppose they work but there are enough tech gadgets that are more useful, and I don't like taking a pen's word for it that the water's OK.
We never called it "drinking smart" or anything else when I learned to drink from rivers in Colorado as a boy, but I suppose you'd call it 'comon sense'. I think 'drinking smart' is Bob Rockwell's term for it, and Bob's a heckuva guy, but like anything else, a fan club forms and the 'fans' get overzealous about it (fan=fanatic). Look at the ultralight people who are ripping the elastic off their underwear (why even bother wearing it?) and counting the grams of everything they take. Same sort of fanaticism, but like peak baggers or folks who must hike every weekend and never do anything else, that's their choice, and they're certainly entitled to it. Hopefully they won't be calling anyone who has elastic in their underwear a lemming, and if not, deserve the same respect, whether we agree or not.
As I mentioned here before, I surf near Morro Rock in central CA, and there are zillions of birds around it, and swallowing a gulp of seawater now and then is inevitable, yet I've never had any digestive issues from it, and no illnesses that could logically be attributed to it. Nor have I had any issues with the river water I drink from the Merced. I do carry a Katadyn Hiker filter, and if I'm drinking from a questionable source that I'm not comfortable with, I'll use it. No need to be a fanatic either way. There is a theory that keeping yourself too clean diminishes your ability to deal with dirt and germs, and considering how immunities develop, there's some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't be overzealous regarding germs, purification, etc. (not meaning we should be negligent of basic sanitation practices either).
So one set of lemmings can be trying to figure out where the water's safe and drink it unfiltered (risky!), another set can take no chances because it's deemed dangerous, and then drink their chlorine or iodine, eat their white bread and spray with their legal pesticides, smear DEET all over their family, drink their artificially-sweetened sodas, eat their Bigmacs from hormoned cattle (at a safe level), gobble down their antidepressants and other pills that are all safe and solve every little issue (many of which are probably caused by the above), while managing their weight through expert-approved diets that change every year, and be the picture of health because they've listened to the experts. Just look at our general population, you'll see how effective this is!
Seems to me, if you are worried about the safety of the water, you should purify it in one way or another; if you're not, because you considered the source, and the conditions, and figured it should be OK, that doesn't make you an idiot (or a lemming), just for going against the advice of government experts.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
I drink out of the Merced fairly often, but then I don't usually go to Yosemite in summer. I probably wouldn't be as inclined to do so when people are swimming above Vernal, or rafting from Curry, if I was below those places. But given a choice of putting chlorine or iodine in, I think I'd probably take my chances, find a spot that looks like it's free-flowing, and get a drink from there, sans chemicals. UV pens don't impress me...I suppose they work but there are enough tech gadgets that are more useful, and I don't like taking a pen's word for it that the water's OK.
We never called it "drinking smart" or anything else when I learned to drink from rivers in Colorado as a boy, but I suppose you'd call it 'comon sense'. I think 'drinking smart' is Bob Rockwell's term for it, and Bob's a heckuva guy, but like anything else, a fan club forms and the 'fans' get overzealous about it (fan=fanatic). Look at the ultralight people who are ripping the elastic off their underwear (why even bother wearing it?) and counting the grams of everything they take. Same sort of fanaticism, but like peak baggers or folks who must hike every weekend and never do anything else, that's their choice, and they're certainly entitled to it. Hopefully they won't be calling anyone who has elastic in their underwear a lemming, and if not, deserve the same respect, whether we agree or not.
As I mentioned here before, I surf near Morro Rock in central CA, and there are zillions of birds around it, and swallowing a gulp of seawater now and then is inevitable, yet I've never had any digestive issues from it, and no illnesses that could logically be attributed to it. Nor have I had any issues with the river water I drink from the Merced. I do carry a Katadyn Hiker filter, and if I'm drinking from a questionable source that I'm not comfortable with, I'll use it. No need to be a fanatic either way. There is a theory that keeping yourself too clean diminishes your ability to deal with dirt and germs, and considering how immunities develop, there's some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't be overzealous regarding germs, purification, etc. (not meaning we should be negligent of basic sanitation practices either).
So one set of lemmings can be trying to figure out where the water's safe and drink it unfiltered (risky!), another set can take no chances because it's deemed dangerous, and then drink their chlorine or iodine, eat their white bread and spray with their legal pesticides, smear DEET all over their family, drink their artificially-sweetened sodas, eat their Bigmacs from hormoned cattle (at a safe level), gobble down their antidepressants and other pills that are all safe and solve every little issue (many of which are probably caused by the above), while managing their weight through expert-approved diets that change every year, and be the picture of health because they've listened to the experts. Just look at our general population, you'll see how effective this is!
Seems to me, if you are worried about the safety of the water, you should purify it in one way or another; if you're not, because you considered the source, and the conditions, and figured it should be OK, that doesn't make you an idiot (or a lemming), just for going against the advice of government experts.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
August 30, 2009 04:44PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 06:17PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
August 30, 2009 07:36PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 07:37PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 08:07PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Trying to make some risk-benefit calculations for a giardia infection:
Cost of infection = lost work or vacation days + treatment cost (MD+ Lab test+ medication)
Cost of infection = 3 days at $100/day( minimum) + ( $100 (est.) + about $300 + prescription at $4-10 )
Cost of infection = $300 + $400 = $700 (assuming a short infection quickly treated)
If 1/100 risk with each water ingestion of developing an infection, it cost $7/drink
It the risk is 1/1000 of developing an infection, then the cost is $0.70/ drink
If you use an $80 filter that is 100% effective then it costs $0.80/ drink or $0.08/ drink depending of the risk of infection.
Realistically, if the risk is less than 1/1000, maybe it is not worth the effort to take a filter to prevent giardiasis. Of course there are other bugs to consider. I suspect that the risk is somewhere in the 1/500 range but I have no data for that guess. Waiting to be corrected.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Cost of infection = lost work or vacation days + treatment cost (MD+ Lab test+ medication)
Cost of infection = 3 days at $100/day( minimum) + ( $100 (est.) + about $300 + prescription at $4-10 )
Cost of infection = $300 + $400 = $700 (assuming a short infection quickly treated)
If 1/100 risk with each water ingestion of developing an infection, it cost $7/drink
It the risk is 1/1000 of developing an infection, then the cost is $0.70/ drink
If you use an $80 filter that is 100% effective then it costs $0.80/ drink or $0.08/ drink depending of the risk of infection.
Realistically, if the risk is less than 1/1000, maybe it is not worth the effort to take a filter to prevent giardiasis. Of course there are other bugs to consider. I suspect that the risk is somewhere in the 1/500 range but I have no data for that guess. Waiting to be corrected.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
August 30, 2009 08:31PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Frank,
It all makes good statistical sense as long as you are not in the sample group. A gun with 600 chambers in the cylinder is 100 times less likely to kill you during a game of Russian Roulette but who'd want to play even with the better odds?
I've been on, I think, 18 backpacking trips so far this year and would say I have filtered 6-8 liters of water a day. Each trip averaged three days so 3X18X7 = 378 liters. Filter element $25. 2500/378=6.6 cents per liter. Say 6.6 drinks per liter = 1 cent per drink. No doctor visits thus no medical costs. Am I wasting money?
Old Dude
It all makes good statistical sense as long as you are not in the sample group. A gun with 600 chambers in the cylinder is 100 times less likely to kill you during a game of Russian Roulette but who'd want to play even with the better odds?
I've been on, I think, 18 backpacking trips so far this year and would say I have filtered 6-8 liters of water a day. Each trip averaged three days so 3X18X7 = 378 liters. Filter element $25. 2500/378=6.6 cents per liter. Say 6.6 drinks per liter = 1 cent per drink. No doctor visits thus no medical costs. Am I wasting money?
Old Dude
August 30, 2009 08:54PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
mrcondron
Frank,
It all makes good statistical sense as long as you are not in the sample group. A gun with 600 chambers in the cylinder is 100 times less likely to kill you during a game of Russian Roulette but who'd want to play even with the better odds?
I've been on, I think, 18 backpacking trips so far this year and would say I have filtered 6-8 liters of water a day. Each trip averaged three days so 3X18X7 = 378 liters. Filter element $25. 2500/378=6.6 cents per liter. Say 6.6 drinks per liter = 1 cent per drink. No doctor visits thus no medical costs. Am I wasting money?
Doesn't sound like a waste of money to me.
There is an ER doctor at the UC Davis Medical Center who appears to have gone backpacking with some microbial test equipment or culture tubes. Articles noted below. He has shown that a marker for fecal contamination, coliforms (usually e. coli bacteria), can be found in water at lower elevations in association with humans, cattle, and pack animals. At very high and isolated locations, there is 0-9% chance that the water contains organisms associated with fecal contamination. But, if you are going to garry the filter anyway for use at lower elevations, why not just continue to use it in alpine regions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Travel Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):209-15.
Backpacking in Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks and neighboring wilderness areas: how safe is the water to drink? Derlet RW. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. rwderlet@ucdavis.edu OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the risk of acquiring disease from popular Sierra Nevada wilderness area lakes and streams. This study examines the relative risk factors for harmful waterborne microorganisms using coliforms as an indicator. METHODS: Water was collected in the backcountry Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks and neighboring wilderness areas. A total of 72 sites from lakes or streams were selected to statistically differentiate the risk categories: (1) natural areas rarely visited by humans or domestic animals; (2) human day use-only areas; (3) high use by backpackers; (4) high use by pack animals; and (5) cattle- and sheep-grazing tracts. Water was collected in sterile test tubes and Millipore coliform samplers during the summer of 2006. Water was analyzed at the university microbiology lab, where bacteria were harvested and then subjected to analysis using standardized techniques. Statistical analysis to compare site categories was performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Coliforms were found in none of the 13 wild sites, none of the 12 day hike sites, and only 3 of 18 backpacker sites (17%). In contrast, 14 of 20 sites (70%) with pack animal traffic yielded coliforms, and all 9 sites (100%) below the cattle-grazing areas grew coliforms. Differences between backpacker versus cattle or pack areas were significant, p <or= 0.05. All samples grew normal aquatic bacteria. Sites below cattle grazing and pack animal use tended to have more total heterotrophic bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Alpine wilderness water below cattle areas used by pack animals is at risk for containing coliform organisms. Water from wild, day hike, or backpack areas showed far less risk for coliforms. PMID: 18666919 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/PR05-05.1
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/07-WEME-OR-1511.1
Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 19(2):82-90. 2008
doi: 10.1580/07-WEME-OR-1511.1
Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Backcountry Lakes and Streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains: A 5-Year Study
Robert W. DerletMD, K. Ali Ger, John R. RichardsMD, and James R. CarlsonPhD
From the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA (Drs Derlet and Richards); The John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA (Dr Derlet); the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA (Mr Ger); and the Department of Public Health, Microbiology Section, San Mateo County, San Mateo, CA (Dr Carlson)
101Corresponding author: Robert W. Derlet, MD, Emergency Medicine, 4150 V St, Suite 2100, Sacramento, CA 95817 ([email protected])
Abstract
Objective.—To provide a 5-year longitudinal assessment of risk of acquiring disease from Sierra Nevada Wilderness area lakes and streams. This study examines the relative risk factors for harmful water microorganisms, using coliforms as an indicator.
Methods.—Streams and lakes in the backcountry of Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks and neighboring wilderness areas were selected and water was analyzed each year over a 5-year period. A total of 364 samples from lakes or streams were chosen to statistically differentiate the risk categories based on land usage, as follows: 1) areas rarely visited by humans (Wild), 2) human day-use-only areas (Day Hike), 3) areas used by backpackers with overnight camping allowed (Backpack), 4) areas primarily impacted by horses or pack animals (Pack Animal), and 5) cattle and sheep grazing tracts (Cattle). Water was collected in sterile test tubes and Millipore coliform samplers. Water was analyzed at the university microbiology lab, where bacteria were harvested and then subjected to analysis using standardized techniques. Statistical analysis to compare site categories was performed utilizing Fisher exact test and analysis of variance.
Results.—A total of 364 sampling sites were analyzed. Coliforms were found in 9% (4/47) of Wild site samples, 12% (5/42) of Day Hike site samples, and 18% (20/111) of Backpacker site samples. In contrast, 63% (70/111) of Pack Animal site samples yielded coliforms, and 96% (51/53) of samples from the Cattle areas grew coliforms. Differences between Backpacker vs Cattle or Pack Animal areas were significant at P ≤ .05. All samples grew normal aquatic bacteria.
Conclusion.—Surface water from watersheds below cattle areas and those used by pack animals is at high risk for containing coliform organisms. Water from Wild, Day Hike, or Backpack sites poses far less risk for contamination by coliforms.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
August 30, 2009 09:01PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 09:50PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
mrcondron
I'm tired. I read your post as proposing no filtering but I see you are pro filtering.
Now where's that fork?
I filter. I was trying to make some risk-benefit calculations earlier. I think Derlets articles support filtering due to the high level of contamination. In fairness, there are high and remote water supplies in the Sierra that have very little contamination measurable in his studies (although 9% risk is a little high for me, see his 5 yr study). Also, the article summaries do not test for giardia, only fecal contamination. I have not read the original articles. One additional assumption is that coliform testing would identify contamination of water by marmots, beavers, goats or chick-ons. Coliform testing is standard to assess human contamination of water, it may not be completely accurate for estimating the contamination of water by other creatures.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2009 09:57PM by Frank Furter.
August 31, 2009 01:37AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
August 30, 2009 06:22PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
Sierrafan
Wow, a lot of hostility toward anyone who doesn't think that filtering is as necessary as the 'experts' tell us it is. One could just as easily use 'lemmings' to describe anyone who follows so-called "expert" advice from government, doctors, scientists, and all the others who are always right. Aren't they...? (Need I go down the list of drugs/pesticides/foods/chemicals that were deemed safe, only to discover later they have killed/disfigured/destroyed lives, or the quality thereof?)
I drink out of the Merced fairly often, but then I don't usually go to Yosemite in summer. I probably wouldn't be as inclined to do so when people are swimming above Vernal, or rafting from Curry, if I was below those places. But given a choice of putting chlorine or iodine in, I think I'd probably take my chances, find a spot that looks like it's free-flowing, and get a drink from there, sans chemicals. UV pens don't impress me...I suppose they work but there are enough tech gadgets that are more useful, and I don't like taking a pen's word for it that the water's OK.
We never called it "drinking smart" or anything else when I learned to drink from rivers in Colorado as a boy, but I suppose you'd call it 'comon sense'. I think 'drinking smart' is Bob Rockwell's term for it, and Bob's a heckuva guy, but like anything else, a fan club forms and the 'fans' get overzealous about it (fan=fanatic). Look at the ultralight people who are ripping the elastic off their underwear (why even bother wearing it?) and counting the grams of everything they take. Same sort of fanaticism, but like peak baggers or folks who must hike every weekend and never do anything else, that's their choice, and they're certainly entitled to it. Hopefully they won't be calling anyone who has elastic in their underwear a lemming, and if not, deserve the same respect, whether we agree or not.
As I mentioned here before, I surf near Morro Rock in central CA, and there are zillions of birds around it, and swallowing a gulp of seawater now and then is inevitable, yet I've never had any digestive issues from it, and no illnesses that could logically be attributed to it. Nor have I had any issues with the river water I drink from the Merced. I do carry a Katadyn Hiker filter, and if I'm drinking from a questionable source that I'm not comfortable with, I'll use it. No need to be a fanatic either way. There is a theory that keeping yourself too clean diminishes your ability to deal with dirt and germs, and considering how immunities develop, there's some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't be overzealous regarding germs, purification, etc. (not meaning we should be negligent of basic sanitation practices either).
So one set of lemmings can be trying to figure out where the water's safe and drink it unfiltered (risky!), another set can take no chances because it's deemed dangerous, and then drink their chlorine or iodine, eat their white bread and spray with their legal pesticides, smear DEET all over their family, drink their artificially-sweetened sodas, eat their Bigmacs from hormoned cattle (at a safe level), gobble down their antidepressants and other pills that are all safe and solve every little issue (many of which are probably caused by the above), while managing their weight through expert-approved diets that change every year, and be the picture of health because they've listened to the experts. Just look at our general population, you'll see how effective this is!
Seems to me, if you are worried about the safety of the water, you should purify it in one way or another; if you're not, because you considered the source, and the conditions, and figured it should be OK, that doesn't make you an idiot (or a lemming), just for going against the advice of government experts.
Hit the wrong button. I guess I need to say something now.
It seems to me that one would want to follow the advice of someone who has studied a problem scientifically for sufficiently long to become an expert rather than the advice of someone who is using intuition, anecdotal evidence, and their "common" sense. No true scientist would argue that they are always right. In fact, the best scientist is always looking for contray evidence or exceptions to the rule to test a theory or observation so that it can be refined and improved to explain the new and contradictory information. Einstein was interested in the "exceptions" to Newtonian physics.
That said, maybe the Sierra waters are more safe than we think. Maybe it is not worth the cost of a filter to purify water. I would be interested in a study of the risk of infection or prevalence of contaminated water in the Sierras. Surely someone has done such a study. You can buy a lot of filters for the cost of treating one infection, however.
It seems like a dangerous manuever to try to guess how much exposure to infected waters will "build up your immunity". It is just not a good way to avoid a gastrointestinal illness. Partly because, after an illness your digestive tract is actually weaker (damaged to the mucosa and elimination of normal flora).
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2009 06:39PM by Frank Furter.
August 30, 2009 07:33PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 08:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
August 30, 2009 08:52PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 30, 2009 10:04PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
mrcondron
Nicely said. Somebody stick a fork in this thread. It's done.
Ok. Final point: It is like arguing that you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are on a straight road in the desert and can see 5 miles in either direction. Just not worth the hassle of adjusting behavior for varying conditions. Filter and wear your seatbelt.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 31, 2009 09:18AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 141 |
Quote
Frank Furter
It seems to me that one would want to follow the advice of someone who has studied a problem scientifically for sufficiently long to become an expert rather than the advice of someone who is using intuition, anecdotal evidence, and their "common" sense. No true scientist would argue that they are always right. In fact, the best scientist is always looking for contray evidence or exceptions to the rule to test a theory or observation so that it can be refined and improved to explain the new and contradictory information. Einstein was interested in the "exceptions" to Newtonian physics.
That said, maybe the Sierra waters are more safe than we think. Maybe it is not worth the cost of a filter to purify water. I would be interested in a study of the risk of infection or prevalence of contaminated water in the Sierras. Surely someone has done such a study. You can buy a lot of filters for the cost of treating one infection, however.
It seems like a dangerous manuever to try to guess how much exposure to infected waters will "build up your immunity". It is just not a good way to avoid a gastrointestinal illness. Partly because, after an illness your digestive tract is actually weaker (damaged to the mucosa and elimination of normal flora).
We were built to drink water, and it undergoes a natural purification process as a matter of course. Streams and rivers have always had beavers, animals crossing, things washing in during rain, before the first chlorination plant or water filter were ever imagined. Our bodies are designed to be able to cope with things beyond sterilized, distilled water and still function normally. Even the most foul things, when diluted with enough water, become within reasonable limits of what we can tolerate (look at chlorine, the vile poison that people deliberately put in their drinking water).
Some folks wouldn't set foot out the door without their insurance being paid up, and covering every possible thing that can happen to them. Some folks wouldn't set foot in the ocean because there are known, without a doubt, to be great white sharks and other predators therein. Those folks might well reason that it's much safer and more reasonable to ride a surfboard in a building with a wave machine. But it ain't the same, not even close. And likewise, there's a certain good feeling of being able to just dip in to an icy cold mountain stream and take a wonderful-tasting drink of natural water, as it was meant to be before the protections of government and paranoia took over our lives. There's a "freedom" there, of just being able to do what nature and your gut instinct tells you is how it's supposed to be, rather than a government expert-approved process (of course, check with your lawyer and physician first, before embarking on such a wild and crazy mission!)
I have nothing against filtering; as I said, I carry and use one when I feel it's appropriate...in fact, my backpack holds a small bottle of iodine pills, heretofore (and hopefully forever) unused. And if you want to carry a hi-tech pen and that floats your boat, great. Drop in an iodine tab, or a shot of chlorine, and enjoy, but I probably won't be joining you in that "cocktail" unless the water is in really pitiful condition and I'm desperate.
When the "experts" informed us last year of the imminent swine flue disaster, we had folks here wandering around the Thursday night farmer's market wearing breathing masks, and carrying hand sanitizer of their own. No doubt these folks would be filtering their water, should they not have bottled water available. Uh-oh, that bottled water is stored in plastic, which raises other issues of safety along with environmental concerns... Boy, that was some epidemic, good thing we have the experts.
Anecdotal evidence works both ways. Yes, there is no proof of cause in someone saying "I've been drinking from streams for 80 years and never had a single digestive upset". But likewise, there's no proof in someone returning from a trip with digestive problems and assigning the blame to something when they haven't a clue as to where the problem really came from. No doubt there are dangers, probably similar in threat level to the shark in the ocean, and how much you let these dangers govern your life is up to you...but don't consider others foolish who may not share your (choose one: paranoia, prudence).
There are things floating and living in that water, certainly. But they're everywhere...germs etc. are on everything, along with other peoples' skin cells, dust mites, and all sorts of evil things, which fortunately, our bodies are designed to cope with in most cases. Such is the case with water. We're MEANT to drink water, it's normal for us as it is for every other animal. And we're the only ones who think we're so special that we need to get every single impurity out of it, and then build plants where we happily add diluted poison (chlorine) to it. Because that's OK, so the experts tell us, and one should not question experts. How do you know that Uncle Elmer's dementia isn't caused by a lifetime of drinking over-chlorinated water from approved, safe, sources? You don't. Think that's silly? How many medical problems have been caused by stuff developed by experts? Take the fiber and nutrition out of a grain, then eat what's left. Talk about digestive nightmares, and the ones from that don't go away, they kill. Extract the sugar from natural products, and dump it in everything you eat. Worried about your health? Take vitamin pills, they'll take care of that. Don't eat fat. Well, eat some kinds, not others. Until tomorrow, when that will all change. Just ask the experts.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
August 31, 2009 11:32AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 31, 2009 02:52PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 141 |
Quote
mrcondron
Well then I guess we can leave all the water stuff at home, lightening our packs, and then just squeeze the juice out of fresh trail apples.
Come on Gary, you are losing credibility.
Where on earth did you get that from my post? Obviously not from reading it.
This is an old issue, and the only reason I responded was the "lemmings" comment made, when in truth lemmings are depicted as blind followers, and that applies just as much to anyone who blindly accepts anything and dutifully follows, including experts, scientists (yes, scientists have opinions), and government representatives.
There's no answer that can be reached by this type of discussion; if you live to 100 and drink from creeks every day, people will respond "just wait, you'll get yours". If you filter and purify every drop from everywhere, people will say it was unnecessary, you'd have probably been OK drinking from the creek. If you say it's a personal choice, do what you feel comfortable with, you're attacked as if you're saying no one should ever filter anything.
The only real answer that could possible be represented as true, would be from a large and double-blind test, giving some people 'smartly gathered' river water from various sources, and others nice plastic-bottled "official" drinking water, keeping accurate data over time, taking into consideration other extinuating situations in their lives (like the chili barbecue cookout they also attended), and looking at the statistics derived from that. If it shows that despite them having no idea of what they were drinking, the river water groups got consistently more digestive problems and upsets, then you have something.
Everything else is rhetoric, opinion, anecdotal proof of nothing. The fact is that there are a lot of folks that have never had any issues from drinking (using care) river, spring, or creek water, that didn't die at 30 and who don't "live in filth" as so nicely described. I didn't drink from Calfornia rivers for years, because I was under the delusion that it's teeming with giardia and other vicious organisms, and a drop will most certainly get you; if not this time, probably next time. In the period before, and after those "dark ages", I did not quit taking showers, brushing my teeth, cleaning up messes and so on, and I have no health issues at all when many of my same age friends are doctor-visiting half-crippled couch potatoes, despite never drinking from a river.
Obviously, from the reaction to my post, it's a religion, and you can never win or resolve a discussion on religion. Fortunately, the waves from the storm are backing off, and I can go back to doing something infinitely more rewarding than typing on a computer. And later, when the time comes and the swarm goes home, I'll dip my tin cup in the Merced and toast the wonders of nature that provided it.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
August 31, 2009 03:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 31, 2009 12:18PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
Sierrafan
There are things floating and living in that water, certainly. But they're everywhere...germs etc. are on everything, along with other peoples' skin cells, dust mites, and all sorts of evil things, which fortunately, our bodies are designed to cope with in most cases. Such is the case with water. We're MEANT to drink water, it's normal for us as it is for every other animal. And we're the only ones who think we're so special that we need to get every single impurity out of it, and then build plants where we happily add diluted poison (chlorine) to it. Because that's OK, so the experts tell us, and one should not question experts. How do you know that Uncle Elmer's dementia isn't caused by a lifetime of drinking over-chlorinated water from approved, safe, sources? You don't. Think that's silly? How many medical problems have been caused by stuff developed by experts? Take the fiber and nutrition out of a grain, then eat what's left. Talk about digestive nightmares, and the ones from that don't go away, they kill. Extract the sugar from natural products, and dump it in everything you eat. Worried about your health? Take vitamin pills, they'll take care of that. Don't eat fat. Well, eat some kinds, not others. Until tomorrow, when that will all change. Just ask the experts.
Our society has gotten to the point where we don't live in the kind of filth that previous generations used to put up with. We wash our hands often with treated water. The water we do drink is generally treated and in some countries boiled. Certainly that does help the overall chances of contracting some sort of food or water borne disease, but perhaps it isn't giving our bodies the regular dose of pathogens it needs to strengthen the immune system and resulting in bigger problems when it does hit. However - I don't particularly want to go back to drinking potentially fecal contaminated water just to give my immune system a boost.
August 31, 2009 12:25PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
August 31, 2009 12:36PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
August 31, 2009 12:47PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
August 31, 2009 02:19PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
When the "experts" informed us last year of the imminent swine flue disaster, we had folks here wandering around the Thursday night farmer's market wearing breathing masks, and carrying hand sanitizer of their own. No doubt these folks would be filtering their water, should they not have bottled water available. Uh-oh, that bottled water is stored in plastic, which raises other issues of safety along with environmental concerns... Boy, that was some epidemic, good thing we have the experts.
....
There are things floating and living in that water, certainly. But they're everywhere...germs etc. are on everything, along with other peoples' skin cells, dust mites, and all sorts of evil things, which fortunately, our bodies are designed to cope with in most cases. Such is the case with water. We're MEANT to drink water, it's normal for us as it is for every other animal............... Don't eat fat. Well, eat some kinds, not others. Until tomorrow, when that will all change. Just ask the experts.
There are way too many points here to comment on completely.
Somehow because we are 60-70% water, the argument is made that we can naturally handle whatever is ingested. I don't follow that or understand the connection between having water in our bodies and ingesting water that may be contaminated. We have alot of sodium in our bodies, I would not want to ingest elemental sodium however.
I am not aware of any CDC recommendations that people wear masks in public. Although crowds seem like a poor place to hang out during a respiratory epidemic. Hopefully we will not have significant impact from the Swine flu this year and there will be no mutations of the virus to a more virulent form.
A person should always scientifically question experts. I am repeatedly surprised how sophisticated some individuals can become on certain health, physiology, and medical questions. There is a lot of good information and someone who uses some judgment can develop better information than a physician about specific medical problems.
However, sometimes it is difficult to sort out the important information from the din of voices, differing opinions, and data overload. Unfortunately, some folks effectively give up, just through up their hands, and resolve the health questions by resorting to a value judgment that everything "artificial" is bad and everything "natural" is good and that all things work out for the best when there is no human intervention. That is a religious and philosophical discussion, not a scientific discussion. There are certainly anti-intellectual and luddite theories-- those really are not worth an argument because they are founded on a series of assertions and presumptions that are not scientifically based or related to objective data. In these situations and discussions, it comes down to "belief"-- which has no place in an objective and scientific discussion. Belief is immune to argument.
Reminds me of a couple of famous quotes that I will paraphrase here:
For every complex and difficult problem there is an easy solution-- and it is usually wrong. (H.L. Mencken)
The solution should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Einstein)
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 03:02PM by Frank Furter.
August 31, 2009 03:38PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,918 |
August 31, 2009 03:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
August 31, 2009 03:58PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 31, 2009 06:06PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
I'm all for drinking water. Its the stuff that's in it that I don't want to drink.
Facts and Figures: Water and Health
Water-related diseases are a growing human tragedy, killing more than 5 million people each year - 10 times the number of people killed in wars. About 2.3 billion people suffer from diseases linked to dirty water. Some 60% of all infant mortality worldwide is linked to infectious and parasitic diseases, most of them water-related.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1600&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
It is all those vile additives that save so many lives that some think are evil. Go figure.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 06:07PM by traildad.
Facts and Figures: Water and Health
Water-related diseases are a growing human tragedy, killing more than 5 million people each year - 10 times the number of people killed in wars. About 2.3 billion people suffer from diseases linked to dirty water. Some 60% of all infant mortality worldwide is linked to infectious and parasitic diseases, most of them water-related.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1600&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
It is all those vile additives that save so many lives that some think are evil. Go figure.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 06:07PM by traildad.
August 31, 2009 06:25PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
traildad
I'm all for drinking water. Its the stuff that's in it that I don't want to drink.
Facts and Figures: Water and Health
Water-related diseases are a growing human tragedy, killing more than 5 million people each year - 10 times the number of people killed in wars. About 2.3 billion people suffer from diseases linked to dirty water. Some 60% of all infant mortality worldwide is linked to infectious and parasitic diseases, most of them water-related.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1600&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
It is all those vile additives that save so many lives that some think are evil. Go figure.
Once the additives are in place, they can be effectively removed in a relatively sanitary setting by something like a reverse osmosis filter, steam distillation unit (a former employer had one in the break room), or UV + carbon filtration unit. The chloramine in water is supposedly not effectively removed by carbon filtration alone, but supposedly UV will break down the chloramine and the result will be filtered out.
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 31, 2009 09:30PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
August 31, 2009 10:34PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,372 |
Quote
traildad
Quote
y_p_w
Once the additives are in place, they can be effectively removed...
To be more clear, (pardon the pun), I meant I don't want to drink any disease causing micro-organisms. It is not the life saving water treatment I was referring to.
I understood your sarcasm directed at those who are freaked out about the assorted stuff added to water like flouride and chlorine/chloramines. I was just saying that there are means of satisfying even the conspiracy theorists out there.
September 01, 2009 12:28AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs August 31, 2009 10:07PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 923 |
September 01, 2009 12:30AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
August 31, 2009 10:19PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
September 01, 2009 12:31AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
September 01, 2009 12:33AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs September 01, 2009 08:10AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 668 |
September 01, 2009 11:07AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
September 01, 2009 12:03PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
September 04, 2009 10:14AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 17 |
|
Re: Katadyn Micropur Tabs September 04, 2009 10:23AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 5 |
September 04, 2009 10:34AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 17 |
September 04, 2009 05:29PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
abenebbish
Dip and Drink.
I have never used a filter, never will. Bugs are good for you.
If you can't see it, it can't hurt you. That is my motto.
This was a common view of the world in the 1600's.
You have missed the last 350 years of scientific development.
Read about Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
September 04, 2009 05:54PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
abenebbish
Dip and Drink.
I have never used a filter, never will. Bugs are good for you.
If you can't see it, it can't hurt you. That is my motto.
This was a common view of the world in the 1600's.
You have missed the last 350 years of scientific development.
Read about Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory_of_disease
September 04, 2009 06:17PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,918 |
September 04, 2009 07:00PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
Quote
bill-e-g
I produce plenty of "bad air".... especially after stopping for an egg-fart-muffin at Mikkie-D's
in Oakdale on the way to the park.
There are a select few out there that have first-hand experience.
This is whatlooked like on the way into HH :
Yeah...let's talk about a different kinda filter -- AIR FILTER!!!!
(GW must be an
to put up with 
and 
)Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
