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

"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,

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.

"Dirk" > wrote in message
> 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?

I've been using an Insta-Pure by WaterPik for about 12 years or so. I use
the carbon filter that sells for about $11. The Omni cartridge will not fit
this housing as the intake is not deep enough.

It has been trouble free and our water is now great to drink compared tot he
swampy taste it used to have from the town reservoir. No matter what brand
you get, be sure it has a clear housing. There should be a way of shutting
the water and relieving the pressure before removing the canister. It can
be part of the filter or a valve installed nearby.
Ed

"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.
snip

MLM stuff is mostly scams. Well Tupperware isn't but much of the rest is.
Arsenic is regulated by the feds and is only a problem in certain areas.
There is no mercury in pipes. MBTE could be a concern in those areas that
use it in gasoline. I think maybe you don't have enough real concerns.

As far as I can tell, the only real reason to filter municipal water in the
USA is for taste. If a contaminant is at levels below the parts per billion
level that is detectable, then they won't affect you.

del cecchi
>
> Dirk

In article >, said...
>
> "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.

You probably won't want to pay what it costs to remove some of thost
contaminents. It will be much cheaper to get a water service.

> MLM stuff is mostly scams. Well Tupperware isn't but much of the rest is.
> Arsenic is regulated by the feds and is only a problem in certain areas.
> There is no mercury in pipes. MBTE could be a concern in those areas that
> use it in gasoline. I think maybe you don't have enough real concerns.

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

In rec.food.equipment Brad > wrote:

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

Define "most places." Probably in the places with
most of the population of the US, but if you go
by geographic area probably nowhere near most places.

Basically, oxygenation of gasoline is required in
areas which meet certain air pollution levels.
Those tend to be the in and around the larger
cities and heavily populated areas.

Note that MTBE is not the only oxygenate that
can be used. Ethyl alcohol works too, but is
more expensive.


Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

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

>
>"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,
>
>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.
>

he said he didn't want RO filter. I don't blame him.

I use a PUR plus 7000L undersink model. I have been very satisfied,
changing filters 2x/year. Unfortunately they stopped selling the
filters in Canada, so ïll have to find a new type in a few months.
They are still available in the States though.
Zed


---
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups:
Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar & Fat"

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message . com>...
> "Dirk" > wrote in message
> > 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?
>
> I've been using an Insta-Pure by WaterPik for about 12 years or so. I use
> the carbon filter that sells for about $11. The Omni cartridge will not fit
> this housing as the intake is not deep enough.
>
> It has been trouble free and our water is now great to drink compared tot he
> swampy taste it used to have from the town reservoir. No matter what brand
> you get, be sure it has a clear housing. There should be a way of shutting
> the water and relieving the pressure before removing the canister. It can
> be part of the filter or a valve installed nearby.
> Ed

I suggest you get a model that uses the standard size filters (11.5" I
think). This way you can buy filters from different sources. You want
two cartridges so you can have a prefilter and a final that does
something specific for your water source, such as heavy metal or bio.

"MaxAluminum" > wrote in message
> I suggest you get a model that uses the standard size filters (11.5" I
> think). This way you can buy filters from different sources. You want
> two cartridges so you can have a prefilter and a final that does
> something specific for your water source, such as heavy metal or bio.

The wound type filters are universal. The problems is only between the
GAC1-ss and the Insta Pure housing. they are the same length. Most filters
are hollow core. These are not and the outlet in the top of the housing is
longer than the depth of the recess in top of the Omni cartridge. The
Insta-Pure IR-10 does not need a pre filter as it is part of the cartridge.
Ed

"Dirk" > wrote
> 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/Li...2730&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

If you are looking at only certified filters, you won't find many, nor
the vast majority of filters that are sold everyday by the water quality
improvement industry (us water treatment guys). In essence the certified
part is very expensive marketing designed to attract those that look for
such things. That goes for all water treatment equipment. You don't see
any commercial equipment that is certified, do you? BTW, that market is
probably 100 to 1000 times larger than the residential market and I do
not know of any certifification body for 'it'.

Anyway, if I take what you are looking for literally, one piece of
equipment to accomplish your wish list doesn't exist. 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.

I suggest you look into bottled water or an undercounter dual stage
filter with its own faucet on the sink with a sediment prefilter and
high quality carbon block and accept the improvement it makes in your
already more than adequate water quality knowing that disinfection
byproducts are being removed. Lead will not be in your water naturally
(or the solder in your copper plumbing if the house was built after say
1988), mercury is not possible to be in your water or plumbing and IIRC
fluoride will go through the filter. If you want a quote email works.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"MaxAluminum" > wrote
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
> > "Dirk" > wrote in message
> > > 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?
> >
> > I've been using an Insta-Pure by WaterPik for about 12 years or so.
I use
> > the carbon filter that sells for about $11. The Omni cartridge will
not fit
> > this housing as the intake is not deep enough.
> >
> > It has been trouble free and our water is now great to drink
compared tot he
> > swampy taste it used to have from the town reservoir. No matter
what brand
> > you get, be sure it has a clear housing. There should be a way of
shutting
> > the water and relieving the pressure before removing the canister.
It can
> > be part of the filter or a valve installed nearby.
> > Ed
>
> I suggest you get a model that uses the standard size filters (11.5" I
> think). This way you can buy filters from different sources. You want
> two cartridges so you can have a prefilter and a final that does
> something specific for your water source, such as heavy metal or bio.

Industry standard is '10' inch and the cartridges range in length from 9
3/4" to 9 7/8".

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

"Brad" > wrote
> In article >,
said...
> >
> > "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.
>
> You probably won't want to pay what it costs to remove some of thost
> contaminents. It will be much cheaper to get a water service.
>
> > MLM stuff is mostly scams. Well Tupperware isn't but much of the
rest is.
> > Arsenic is regulated by the feds and is only a problem in certain
areas.
> > There is no mercury in pipes. MBTE could be a concern in those
areas that
> > use it in gasoline. I think maybe you don't have enough real
concerns.
>
> 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.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

> wrote
> In rec.food.equipment Brad > wrote:
>
> > MTBE is used most places in the winter, isn't it? I don't think
it's easy
> > to filter out.
>
> Define "most places." Probably in the places with
> most of the population of the US, but if you go
> by geographic area probably nowhere near most places.
>
> Basically, oxygenation of gasoline is required in
> areas which meet certain air pollution levels.
> Those tend to be the in and around the larger
> cities and heavily populated areas.
>
> Note that MTBE is not the only oxygenate that
> can be used. Ethyl alcohol works too, but is
> more expensive.
>
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

"most places"... I'd say just about everywhere vehicles with that type
gasoline travel; like out here in the middle of PA along any local,
state, federal or interstate road or highway. Most days I see many out
of state vehicles from as far away as California and Washington, Canada,
FL, TX etc.. Up until last year, PA had the distinction of having the
most rural population in the lower 48. TX now surpasses us.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
>
> "MaxAluminum" > wrote in message
> > I suggest you get a model that uses the standard size filters (11.5"
I
> > think). This way you can buy filters from different sources. You
want
> > two cartridges so you can have a prefilter and a final that does
> > something specific for your water source, such as heavy metal or
bio.
>
> The wound type filters are universal. The problems is only between the
> GAC1-ss and the Insta Pure housing. they are the same length. Most
filters
> are hollow core. These are not and the outlet in the top of the
housing is
> longer than the depth of the recess in top of the Omni cartridge. The
> Insta-Pure IR-10 does not need a pre filter as it is part of the
cartridge.
> Ed

Those makes are proprietary equipment, not industry standard. Any
independent water treatment dealer has equal or higher quality
cartridges at less cost that in many installations last longer due to
them being larger capacity wise.

Combination cartridges, such as 'taste and odor' with sediment outside
the carbon are not near the filtration of two separate cartridges.
Cartridges come in two types. Nominal and absolute. Nominal uses the
build up of 'sediment' (progressive) to reach it's rating and when the
surface and just below becomes blocked the filter has to be replaced.
Absolute cartridges filter through all but to the core.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

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

Bonnie

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.

"Dirk" > wrote
> "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

Yes I thought that was strange too. Really stainless steel housings are
overkill IMO. Here are some of the filter housings I sell, you may know
them as Ametek:

http://www.plymouthwater.com/Content...?CatalogPage=3

I also sell many different disposable cartridges from folks like KX
Industries. KX is the largest manufacturer of extruded carbon etc.
'filters' in the world. I also sell Osmonics Purtrex and Hytrex filters
among others.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

"Bill Seurer" > wrote
> 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.

Bill, most of the western civilized nations and many 'third world'
nations have discontinued or said no to fluoridation for some reason. A
Scandinavian country or was it England.... decided to not fluoridate
their water in the last month or two. I suppose you'd say that the
discontinuance and refusals has to be due to some of those bogus
reports.

Gary
Quality Water Associates

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:01:45 -0700, Miles > wrote:

>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!!

Exactly. Fluoride works best topically, not systemically. America is the
land where money can buy a study that shows whatever is desired, and money
pays for lobbyists to get whatever industry wants implemented.

Putting fluoride in the water supply is not giving people a choice. But is
forcing it down everybody's throat.

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.

"Gary Slusser" > wrote in message >...
> "Bill Seurer" > wrote
> > 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.
>
> Bill, most of the western civilized nations and many 'third world'
> nations have discontinued or said no to fluoridation for some reason. A
> Scandinavian country or was it England.... decided to not fluoridate
> their water in the last month or two. I suppose you'd say that the
> discontinuance and refusals has to be due to some of those bogus
> reports.
>
> Gary
> Quality Water Associates


Fluoridation wastes your tax dollars because as American children
become fluoride saturated via their fluoridated water, food and
beverage supply and fluoridated dental treatments, toothpastes and
other products as well as from fluoride containing pesticide food
residues, tooth decay is still on the rise.
The rise in cavities is linked to poor diet.

But the real problem is that those with the most cavities - those with
a low income - are the least able to get dental care.


About 4 million children aged 2 - 17 have untreated cavities because
they can't afford a dentist, according to a gov't report (
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_213.pdf )

Yet the California Dental Association is paying $5 million to the
Metropolitan ?Water District to fluoridate the water supply.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...0319_55_21.txt

And the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry takes Coca Cola's $1
million grant for research and they help sell a Coca Cola product -
fluoridated bottled water

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap...y.asp?ID=22448

While dentists themselves have discovered and reported in their
journals that fluoridation is failing. Here's just one of many, many
examples:


"It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a
strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC),"
reports dentist Howard Pollick, University of California, and
colleagues, in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry(1).

Pollick, a staunch fluoridation proponent and co-chairman of the
California Fluoridation Task Force, found that poor children had the
most cavities regardless of fluoridation status.

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-re...7E81925727268A

Fluoridation wastes your tax dollars - pure and simple.

San Francisco just spent $2,500,000 on a new fluoridation facility
but the mayor and water department officials drink non-fluoridated
bottled water which they sell also.
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/.../57/C_ID/1652/


http://sfwater.org/main.cfm/MC_ID/5/MSC_ID/72

http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MSC_ID.../holdSession/1

Write and call your legislators. Tell them to save your money and stop
fluoridation.

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Why, 98 percent of you and I are made of water. What do they use to
make ice cream, mandrake? Kids' ice cream! Fluoride use increased
sharply after WW II. How's that coincide with your post-war Commie
conspiracy?

"Don Wiss" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:01:45 -0700, Miles >
wrote:
>
> >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!!
>
> Exactly. Fluoride works best topically, not systemically. America is the
> land where money can buy a study that shows whatever is desired, and money
> pays for lobbyists to get whatever industry wants implemented.
>

NO. Not exactly. Fluoride works best when it is incorporated into the
enamel matrix during development. The only way to accomplish that is by
ingesting fluoride. (Remember, teeth start to develop in utero. The crowns
of all teeth develop in the jaw and erupt fully formed. There is no way to
treat them with topical fluoride during development, even if it was somewhat
effective.) Topical fluoride treatments are an inferior second tier measure
and should be seen as extra insurance to prevent decay. Topical fluoride
treatments do not penetrate very far into the enamel. They are somewhat
effective in reversing demineralization of the enamel and can reverse
insipient decay.

I find your logic about "what the industry wants" to be flawed. The
industry would be far richer if there was no fluoride in water supplies.
Dental offices would be overwhelmed treating rampant tooth decay.
Communities wouldn't have to spend money fluoridating water.

Vox Humana wrote:

>
> NO. Not exactly. Fluoride works best when it is incorporated into the
> enamel matrix during development. The only way to accomplish that is by
> ingesting fluoride.

Wrong. Teeth in children are rather soft. Fluoride treatments in
children have shown great success over the decades. As a child I had
treatments every year. I grew up on bottled water or purified RO/DI
water. Now in my 40's my teeth are in excellent shape. Dentist always
remarks at how much better mine are than average. Fluoride is a toxin
that shouldn't be put into our water. Especially the form that is used.
Fluoride in drinking water does little to help teeth especially in
adults. Why force it on society? Why not sell an additive that people
can put into their water if they so choose? Get out Gov. out of our
personal lives.

"Miles" > wrote in message
news:Fyjnb.35939$Rd4.33367@fed1read07...
>
>
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> >
> > NO. Not exactly. Fluoride works best when it is incorporated into the
> > enamel matrix during development. The only way to accomplish that is by
> > ingesting fluoride.
>
> Wrong. Teeth in children are rather soft. Fluoride treatments in
> children have shown great success over the decades. As a child I had
> treatments every year. I grew up on bottled water or purified RO/DI
> water. Now in my 40's my teeth are in excellent shape. Dentist always
> remarks at how much better mine are than average. Fluoride is a toxin
> that shouldn't be put into our water. Especially the form that is used.
> Fluoride in drinking water does little to help teeth especially in
> adults. Why force it on society? Why not sell an additive that people
> can put into their water if they so choose? Get out Gov. out of our
> personal lives.
>

Look, I'm a dentist. You don't know what you're talking about. You are
right about fluoridated water being of little benefit to adults. The rest
of this is simply a political argument.

Fluorine is a byproduct of some industrial processes.
Need to find something to do with it.

Ken Sternberg > wrote in message
om...
> Why, 98 percent of you and I are made of water. What do they use to
> make ice cream, mandrake? Kids' ice cream! Fluoride use increased
> sharply after WW II. How's that coincide with your post-war Commie
> conspiracy?

"Michael Baugh" > wrote in message
.. .
> Fluorine is a byproduct of some industrial processes.


So are wieners!