In article , said...

"Brad" wrote

MTBE is used most places in the winter, isn't it? I don't think it's
easy
to filter out.

Not true, a water service costs much more and is never ending.
Filtration is much better both financially and water quality wise. I
know families paying as much as $100+ per month for delivered bottle
water. He can buy the filter he needs for less than two months of that
and a RO for an extra month. Annual maintenance for a RO would be less
than one month's worth of delivered water services.

RO doesn't remove everything.

NSF does have information listed as Sta-rite / Flotec / OmniFilter that does
seem to handle alot of what you are asking for....

"Dirk" wrote in message
...
Hi folk,

I have been using a Pur dispenser for a while - but now since I broke
it have decided that rather invest in a new one, it was time to
install a "real" carbon based faucet filter.

I am not interested in the ones that mount on the faucet and are in
the way - and likely will constantly get things splashed up on them.

I want a high quality carbon based filter (under-sink) that will
remove traditional contaminants (chlorine and lead), but also the more
uncomon ones that while they may not be detectable today... They
could still be in the water. (Mercury, Aresenic, MTBE, etc...)
Before anyone asks - I have reviewed my city water report. While
those ND contaminants are not reported - it still concerns me that
they are there at very low levels, or can be leached from pipes
(mercury perhaps?) or might slowly creep up to detectable levels over
the next few years.

I am concerned that moving from a Pur dispenser - which does filter
out arsenic (most likely due to long contact time with the water) to a
higher water pressure carbon based system, which would let those
contaminants pass through easily. (I do not want to go RO because it
does remove some important things - Magnesium and Calcium, as well as
Fluoride... But let's not even start a fluoridation debate )

Multi-Pure filters claim to filter out contaminants that no other
filter seems to. And NSF.org seems to back them up.

(http://www.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?Company=32730&Standard=053
)

I do not mind spending a little more money on a Multi-Pure product
over a competitor like Omni or Aqua Pure.... If I was 100% certain
that it was a real quality product. The fact they are an MLM concerns
me greatly.

Can I get some unbiased comments?

Thanks,

Dirk

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:01:50 GMT, "Gary Slusser"
wrote:
The only filter cartridge that can be used for "bio" is a ceramic.
Carbon is not to be used on water of unknown microbiological content.
Bacteria love to 'breed' in carbon unless it is silver impregnated,
which there is very little of. His concern should be disinfection
(chlorine/chloramines) byproduct caused THMs (trihalomethanes).

Gary
Quality Water Associates

Gary - and others... Thanks for all the great commentary so far.

Someone said that Mercury is not in "pipes".

Is that really true? I mean from my house to the acquifer - isn't it
very possible that some pipes or solder/welds could have mercury
content?

It is a moot point perhaps - because eventhough my water report does
not list Mercury (or Aresenic) contamination at my water supply, it
still could be there at very low levels.

I could spend ~$500 for a very thorough test of my water for all
detectable contaminants... To determine if there really is anything
detectable at my tap... But to me - even if I spend $150 for a
simpler test, it just makes sense to me to put that money into the
best carbon based filter I can buy. (E.g, it buys me insurance to
cover me on almost any serious non-radiological contaminant that is
there now and undetectable - or might show up in my water in the
future.)

Again - why Carbon? RO and distillation would remove Calcium,
Magnesium, and Fluoride. The relevance of magnesium intake to
cardivascular health cannot be ignored.

So that still makes me come back to my basic question... I agree that
MLM products are usually crap. In this instance, I have yet to see
any data that suggests Multi-Pure, which makes carbon filters that
will remove Mercury and pentavalent Arsenic, are "overpriced crap".
They are overpriced - but if they are worthy in terms of quality and
performance, I would consider them.

Dirk

Brad wrote:

In article , said...

"Brad" wrote

MTBE is used most places in the winter, isn't it? I don't think it's
easy
to filter out.

Not true, a water service costs much more and is never ending.
Filtration is much better both financially and water quality wise. I
know families paying as much as $100+ per month for delivered bottle
water. He can buy the filter he needs for less than two months of that
and a RO for an extra month. Annual maintenance for a RO would be less
than one month's worth of delivered water services.

RO doesn't remove everything.

Why do you need to remove *everything*? Some of *it* might not only
not be bad for you, it might even be good for you.

Do you expend this much concern over everything else you ingest?

------------------------------------------------------
David Eastwood -

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:41:56 GMT, Vox Humana wrote:

Have you looked at the reverse osmosis filters? Most under the sink models
have three canisters: sediment, reverse osmosis, and carbon. I think this
is a better option than a single carbon filter.

But he doesn't want to remove the floride. Nor does he want to remove the
magnesium and calcium. Gee, and I thought removing the floride was the best
reason to get an RO. Maybe Dirk has children...

Don donwiss at panix.com.

Gary could you post some links about floride not being pretty?


--
Lew/+Silat

"Gary Slusser" wrote in message
news
Sorry, but RO and
distillation (with carbon) are your only choices for the parameters you
list; but there go the minerals and fluoride. And you should really read
up on current data concerning fluoridation; it isn't pretty what that
stuff does to the human body and more and more (western civilization
type) nations are getting rid of it, except the US of A. Here we won't
even discuss it except on a very local basis if at all.
Gary
Quality Water Associates

"BonnieJean" wrote
What do you think of the Doulton System?
http://www.doulton.ca/wt-tech.html

Bonnie

Yes that's a ceramic. As with everything, they have limitations,
advantages and disadvantages. That site needs to update (copyright 1997)
their content, there are a number of things they are not current with
(on just the one page I read). Such as (certain) UV does deactivate
viruses and cysts. There are disposable cartridges containing either
cation or anion resins and a number of other medias. Ceramics don't
remove viruses and are hard to impossible to disinfect. Silver is not
good for humans if there is too much of it in the treated water etc..

For bacteria control, UV with a combination of pre/post filtering is the
best overall way of treatment. Usually POE (point of entry) treatments
are much better than POU (point of use) types but UV comes in both
types; with and without pre and/or post filtration.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"Brad" wrote
said...

"Brad" wrote

MTBE is used most places in the winter, isn't it? I don't think
it's
easy
to filter out.

Not true, a water service costs much more and is never ending.
Filtration is much better both financially and water quality wise. I
know families paying as much as $100+ per month for delivered bottle
water. He can buy the filter he needs for less than two months of
that
and a RO for an extra month. Annual maintenance for a RO would be
less
than one month's worth of delivered water services.

RO doesn't remove everything.

As nothing else does either and that includes, distillation and such as
DI water unless you pre and/or post treat it.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"Dirk" wrote
"Gary Slusser" wrote:
The only filter cartridge that can be used for "bio" is a ceramic.
Carbon is not to be used on water of unknown microbiological content.
Bacteria love to 'breed' in carbon unless it is silver impregnated,
which there is very little of. His concern should be disinfection
(chlorine/chloramines) byproduct caused THMs (trihalomethanes).

Gary
Quality Water Associates

Gary - and others... Thanks for all the great commentary so far.

Someone said that Mercury is not in "pipes".

Is that really true? I mean from my house to the acquifer - isn't it
very possible that some pipes or solder/welds could have mercury
content?

Nope, no mecury in solder, fluxes or any other approved for potable
water line plumbing or other materials of any kind now or in the distant
past. Now lead and copper yes; along with still in existance lead
service line and lead based solder which should not be used since about
1987 in the US. All brass is now 'lead free' also. That really means no
more than 2% by weight and many brass products are being replaced with
other materials due to manufacturing problems caused by the lead
reduction.

It is a moot point perhaps - because eventhough my water report does
not list Mercury (or Aresenic) contamination at my water supply, it
still could be there at very low levels.

Now arsenic is a very large problem in some to many areas; there are a
number of types of arsenic and the treatment varies depending on the
type.

I could spend ~$500 for a very thorough test of my water for all
detectable contaminants... To determine if there really is anything
detectable at my tap... But to me - even if I spend $150 for a
simpler test, it just makes sense to me to put that money into the
best carbon based filter I can buy. (E.g, it buys me insurance to
cover me on almost any serious non-radiological contaminant that is
there now and undetectable - or might show up in my water in the
future.)

That's what I've been telling people for 15 years, and $500 is about a
tenth of the cost of you testing for the EPA list of things that water
companies are to test for periodically.

Again - why Carbon? RO and distillation would remove Calcium,
Magnesium, and Fluoride. The relevance of magnesium intake to
cardivascular health cannot be ignored.

Take a daily vitamin or eat properly and you'll be fine. The human body
doesn't get much (uptake) of minerals out of the water we consume and we
can't drink enough water (it will kill you to try) to make up for an
improper diet.

So that still makes me come back to my basic question... I agree that
MLM products are usually crap. In this instance, I have yet to see
any data that suggests Multi-Pure, which makes carbon filters that
will remove Mercury and pentavalent Arsenic, are "overpriced crap".
They are overpriced - but if they are worthy in terms of quality and
performance, I would consider them.

Dirk

I don't agree when applying that to water treatment but will say all are
overpriced due to that type of distribution system. The mass marketers
are much more guilty of selling "crap" for many more dollars while
providing very little and questionable value. I refer to the 'toy'
faucet tip and inline 'fridge filter type folks.The MLMers usually are
very knowledgeable about the needs and use of their products and very
passionate about their use. And on average their products are very high
quality. A problem is that the parts etc. for their products can be
pulled out of production creating orphaned consumers. Yes that can and
does happen with other types too but many of them can use open market
replacements due to their use of that type material where MLM usually
can't. In many instances the MLM stuff will carry a patent and the
manufacturing is done by them or very exclusively for them as opposed to
normal industry channels. That also increases the cost.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"Lew/+Silat" wrote
Gary could you post some links about floride not being pretty?

Donchya know I can't find the site now.... but a quick
www.google.com web search for "flouride + poison" and then click on
using the correct spelling and both will produce from 3600 to 27000
hits. That's a lot of reading!

Gary
Quality Water Associates

Lew/+Silat

"Gary Slusser" wrote in message
news
Sorry, but RO and
distillation (with carbon) are your only choices for the parameters
you
list; but there go the minerals and fluoride. And you should really
read
up on current data concerning fluoridation; it isn't pretty what
that
stuff does to the human body and more and more (western civilization
type) nations are getting rid of it, except the US of A. Here we
won't
even discuss it except on a very local basis if at all.
Gary
Quality Water Associates

Gary Slusser wrote:
Donchya know I can't find the site now.... but a quick
www.google.com web search for "flouride + poison" and then click on
using the correct spelling and both will produce from 3600 to 27000
hits. That's a lot of reading!

Especially since 99.44% of them are bogus.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:21:26 GMT, "Gary Slusser"
wrote:

Nope, no mecury in solder, fluxes or any other approved for potable
water line plumbing or other materials of any kind now or in the distant
past. Now lead and copper yes; along with still in existance lead
service line and lead based solder which should not be used since about
1987 in the US. All brass is now 'lead free' also. That really means no

Ok - you're the expert. Thanks for the info.

I still am a tad concerned - considering the toxicity of mercury, I do
appreciate a filter that can remove it - in case it ever is able to
seep into my water supply.

Perhaps I am being overly concerned in that we are exposed to mercury,
lead, arsenic, PCB, and other toxins every single day... And our
bodies are able to cope with those low levels remarkably well. But
every trace amount that we could eliminate, I believe is beneficial to
one's health.



Take a daily vitamin or eat properly and you'll be fine. The human body
doesn't get much (uptake) of minerals out of the water we consume and we
can't drink enough water (it will kill you to try) to make up for an
improper diet.

Well to some extent I agree. However there is some evidence that
suggests disolved minerals in water are more readily absorbed by the
body. It has been a while since I did this research - specificalling
considering a DI system at the time... But the importance of
magnesium - specifically disolved magnesium is what made me turn to a
good carbon based "dispenser" system by Pur. (I know that may sound
crazy - but Magnesium is damn important to heart health)


quality. A problem is that the parts etc. for their products can be
pulled out of production creating orphaned consumers. Yes that can and
does happen with other types too but many of them can use open market
replacements due to their use of that type material where MLM usually
can't. In many instances the MLM stuff will carry a patent and the
manufacturing is done by them or very exclusively for them as opposed to
normal industry channels. That also increases the cost.

Yes I know - I guess one of the thinks about Multi-Pure is that they
seem to have been around a while, and it doesn't appear as if they are
no longer supporting filter systems that were sold 10 years ago?

I'm sort of thinking about buying one of Multi-Pure's Polypropylene
models - the one that has a filter that reduces As (pentavalent)
(http://www.multipureplus.com/sspidas.html) My thoughts are that
the MP and their distributors are making a ton of money off the
Stainless Steel product. Prices I have seen show a significant price
drop when moving to plastic.

Only problelm is I can't really seem to find anyone who sells this
particular model. Strange how they have another multipure website
which has different models. I can't for the life of me understand why
there is a multipure.com, multipureco.com, and multipureplus.com.
(With the first two having the same products - and the third having
different products)

Thanks again for your valuable comments Gary.

Dirk

"Bill Seurer" wrote in message
...
Gary Slusser wrote:
Donchya know I can't find the site now.... but a quick
www.google.com web search for "flouride + poison" and then click on
using the correct spelling and both will produce from 3600 to 27000
hits. That's a lot of reading!

Especially since 99.44% of them are bogus.


The people in my area that are against fluoride are all fringe,
fundamentalist type or white militia types like Timothy McVey who have a
paranoid distrust of government. There is no doubt that an excess of
fluoride can have some harmful effects such as turning your teeth brown if
you ingest the fluoride during the time of tooth development. Fluoride is a
natural element found in some water supplies. The initial studies where
sparked when public health officials noticed that people in a specific area
in the planes states (N. Dakota, I believe) had unusual brown stains on
their teeth. It was also noted that the same people also have a very low
incidence of tooth decay. Subsequently there have been many epidemiological
studies of that population to see if there was any correlation to diseases
such as cancer. There were none. There have also been studies looking at
the relationship between diseases in communities with artificially
fluoridated water and communities that do not have fluoride in their water.
I can tell you as a person who spent most of their career in the public
heath sector that people in rural communities or who are on wells suffer the
ravages of tooth decay that you would never see in an equally poor
inner-city neighborhood with a fluoridated water supply. I have worked with
both populations. The AMA and ADA set standards a few years ago for
fluoride supplements for children on non-fluoridated water supplies. I
believe that before spreading false information about fluoride one should
spend a few days in a rural public health dental clinic and see the
suffering that results from the lack of fluoride combined with poor dental
hygiene. It is truly sad to see 4 year old children with all their teeth
rotted off to the gun line and 20 something adults who need dentures.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

With so many people drinking bottled, RO, etc. water these days,
fluoridation is not needed IMHO. There are better ways to keep care of
your teeth than to ingest fluoride with your water.

Lew/+Silat wrote:

Gary could you post some links about floride not being pretty?

Vox Humana wrote:

both populations. The AMA and ADA set standards a few years ago for
fluoride supplements for children on non-fluoridated water supplies.

Treatments for children have been done by dentists for decades. They
may or may not provide a benifit but are a far better choice than adding
it to our water. There is just no need to do so with such treatments
available. Besides, toothpaste has fluoride in it, use it!!

I
believe that before spreading false information about fluoride one should
spend a few days in a rural public health dental clinic and see the
suffering that results from the lack of fluoride combined with poor dental
hygiene. It is truly sad to see 4 year old children with all their teeth
rotted off to the gun line and 20 something adults who need dentures.

Lack of fluoride in drinking water is not the cause of 4 year old
children with all their teeth rotted nor 20 year olds who need dentures.