water filter

[Guest guest]

I just saw a bathtub filter in a new catalog I received. Go to www.gaiam.com and search for product 01-0169. It only filters out chlorine, though. They have just about every type of filtration device possible, including crocks and terra cotta filter/dispensers.

SJ

Re: [ ] Water Filter and multi-vitamin> > > >Joe,> >Water filters are (sometimes, usually, always...?) rated by NSF> >International which is an independant organization. You should > check> >what the system is rated for. Many meet their Standard 42, which > is just> >vague stuff like taste, odor and color. Some meet Standard 53 > which has> >quite a list of bad stuff like lead and pesticides. The best of > the> >carbon block based ones can meet this criteria. Unfortunately I > don't> >have a complete list. > >> >I would think for our kids (anyone actually) Standard 42 is quite> >inadequate.> >> >Somebody's probably gonna ask so I'll go ahead and say what I > know.... I> >used to be an active Amway distributor and know that their water > system> >which is a 4 stage carbon block system was the first carbon based > system> >to be able to meet Standard 53 a few years back. (If you want to > go> >better than carbon block, I believe you'de be looking at reverse > osmosis> >technology filtration which are more than triple the price. The > Amway> >under the counter model wholesales at $370. (retail 466.) (I think > the> >little faucet is extra but this catalog isn't really clear to me > right> >now...) It has a filter change light on it that is nice. I think > around> >6 months is a common usage length for the filter -replacement > filter is> >$81. (+tax + ship)> >> >I still have a distributorship and would be happy to let anyone buy> >through me (...just so you know, I wouldn't make any $ at the > purchase,> >but all products have a point value and at month's end they > determine> >bonus, so I actually would make a little money off it.)> >> >Bottom line is I'm pretty sure you want to look for an NSF STD. 53> >rating....> >> >Hope that's helpful,> >Chris> >> >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:38:05 EDT CentreAv2C@... writes:> >> In a message dated 7/8/00 9:22:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >> jsuenick@... writes:> >> > >> << I am currently using the Brita water filter, to filter water > for > >> my> >> family. I understand this is not ideal, so I am looking for > >> another> >> one. Can anyone make a good suggestion? >>> >> > >> We used the Brita pitchers which do not indicate that they remove > > >> mercury.> >> We switched to the Pur filter that attaches to the faucet, which > >> states that > >> it removes mercury as well as other products. It appears to be > >> working fine, > >> and you switch it when you want filtered water, and when you > don't. > >> It also > >> reduces to a drip when it is used up, so you know when to change > it. > >> My only > >> complaint is that we seem to use up the replacement filter > >> cartridges > >> relatively quickly (approx. 2 weeks is my estimate). If cost > isn't > >> a > >> problem, then I would recommend this one. It is called PUR > >> Ultimate, we > >> purchased it at a Costco several months ago.> >> > >> If you are interested you might try their website at:> >> > >> http://www.purwater.com/> >> > >> Joe Marciano> >> > >> > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is devine. > >> We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.> >> 1/6808/9/_/705339/_/963322699/> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > >>

[Guest guest]

chlorine is bad enough, and yes, not good for our kids, I notice it increases my sons seizures, arrgh, no summer swimming for him? Mercury related? Don't mix the chemicals? On a number of lists for seizures, all the same response?

KAthy

Re: [ ] Water Filter and multi-vitamin> > > >Joe,> >Water filters are (sometimes, usually, always...?) rated by NSF> >International which is an independant organization. You should > check> >what the system is rated for. Many meet their Standard 42, which > is just> >vague stuff like taste, odor and color. Some meet Standard 53 > which has> >quite a list of bad stuff like lead and pesticides. The best of > the> >carbon block based ones can meet this criteria. Unfortunately I > don't> >have a complete list. > >> >I would think for our kids (anyone actually) Standard 42 is quite> >inadequate.> >> >Somebody's probably gonna ask so I'll go ahead and say what I > know.... I> >used to be an active Amway distributor and know that their water > system> >which is a 4 stage carbon block system was the first carbon based > system> >to be able to meet Standard 53 a few years back. (If you want to > go> >better than carbon block, I believe you'de be looking at reverse > osmosis> >technology filtration which are more than triple the price. The > Amway> >under the counter model wholesales at $370. (retail 466.) (I think > the> >little faucet is extra but this catalog isn't really clear to me > right> >now...) It has a filter change light on it that is nice. I think > around> >6 months is a common usage length for the filter -replacement > filter is> >$81. (+tax + ship)> >> >I still have a distributorship and would be happy to let anyone buy> >through me (...just so you know, I wouldn't make any $ at the > purchase,> >but all products have a point value and at month's end they > determine> >bonus, so I actually would make a little money off it.)> >> >Bottom line is I'm pretty sure you want to look for an NSF STD. 53> >rating....> >> >Hope that's helpful,> >Chris> >> >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:38:05 EDT CentreAv2C@... writes:> >> In a message dated 7/8/00 9:22:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >> jsuenick@... writes:> >> > >> << I am currently using the Brita water filter, to filter water > for > >> my> >> family. I understand this is not ideal, so I am looking for > >> another> >> one. Can anyone make a good suggestion? >>> >> > >> We used the Brita pitchers which do not indicate that they remove > > >> mercury.> >> We switched to the Pur filter that attaches to the faucet, which > >> states that > >> it removes mercury as well as other products. It appears to be > >> working fine, > >> and you switch it when you want filtered water, and when you > don't. > >> It also > >> reduces to a drip when it is used up, so you know when to change > it. > >> My only > >> complaint is that we seem to use up the replacement filter > >> cartridges > >> relatively quickly (approx. 2 weeks is my estimate). If cost > isn't > >> a > >> problem, then I would recommend this one. It is called PUR > >> Ultimate, we > >> purchased it at a Costco several months ago.> >> > >> If you are interested you might try their website at:> >> > >> http://www.purwater.com/> >> > >> Joe Marciano> >> > >> > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is devine. > >> We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.> >> 1/6808/9/_/705339/_/963322699/> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > >>

[Guest guest]

check out amways...go to quixtar.com, if you need a number to order use

271394...they have the top rated water filter. We have it with well water and

it is great...filter is around $80 replaced about every 1 1/2 t 2 years with our

water.

DenNeg01@... wrote:

> Does anyone know of a good water filter that will filter copper also? We

> have copper pipes. We can't replace those, so I figure a good filter should

> help. Any recommendations? Thanks.

> , DJ's Mom

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

if you go to quixtar, typ in the search area..water treatment system...I have

the under counter one...all are good but you might want to read them all and

even try calling customer relations to ask about the copper...1-800253-6500.

Hope this helps

DenNeg01@... wrote:

> Does anyone know of a good water filter that will filter copper also? We

> have copper pipes. We can't replace those, so I figure a good filter should

> help. Any recommendations? Thanks.

> , DJ's Mom

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

and others,

I have been corresponding with Lono Ho'ala, the author of " Don't Drink the

water " about many water issues raised in this forum. Here is his response

to your concerns about MTBE and chromium-6.

" MTBE is a hazardous chemical that is a particularly difficult environmental

problem because the substance is 1) so widespread; 2) so readily dissolvable

in water; and, 3) once it is in the environment, it isn't very easy to

remove. In large doses over a long period of time it is considered

carcinogenic. The EPA suggests a MCL of 20 - 40 µg but the good news is

that most people can taste and smell MTBE in doses of as little as 5µg. It

smells and tastes like turpentine. Your source of info is correct in that

RO systems remove MTBE - but it is not the RO process that does so. It is

the granular activated carbon pre and post filters such units contain that

does so. Activated Carbon adsorbs organic compounds like MTBE and remains

the best material to remove the toxin at the faucet. While MTBE is far more

difficult to remove than other volatile organic compounds, most units that

treat drinking water at the tap (POU-Point of Use) can easily achieve the

task if they use activated carbon. Carbon block filters are much better than

granular activated carbon because they do not permit " channeling " , the

process whereby some water flows around media particles instead of through

them. "

" Chromium VI or hexavalent chromium is more debatable as to how big a hazard

it is. Breathed in the air it is clearly dangerous. However, as the attached

reference material demonstrates, when ingested in water it appears that

Chromium VI gets converted into Chromium III which is a healthful nutrient.

Nevertheless, KDF treatment removes over 90% of chromium, carbon is also

effective. RO is not. "

" For proof, you may check the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) site to

see that even PUR water pitchers and faucet mounted filters are certified to

remove both of these substances. Their only media is granular activated

carbon combined with a lead absorbant resin media. You will also notice that

NO reverse-osmosis units are listed. "

" Regarding fluoride, activated alumina is the most proven method of removing

fluoride from drinking water that is known. It is a well-accepted method

that enjoys wide use in industrial applications. "

> > Message: 10

> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:08:58 -0000

> > From: " radlife2002 " <radiantlife@...>

> > Subject: Re: Water filters and fluoride removal

> >

> > Greetings ,

> >

> > I would suggest you inquire as to how a system comprised of just

> > carbon and KDF stages could address very difficult toxins such as

> > MTBE and chromium-6, which seem to be all over the place. Does one

> > have to get an extra cartridge for each of those too? What happens

> > when we find out about the next nasty thing which has been in our

> > water for years, and which is very hard to get out? (MTBE and

> > chromium-6 were in our water for years before we realized it. The

> > author of that book prob. was unaware of these in 1998. And only a

> > triple purifying system gets all this stuff out.)

[Guest guest]

,

I will confer with my water expert colleague and respond to these

statements as soon as possible. In the meantime you may want to

consider that the reason our system is so effective on the physical

level is that it uses solid and granular carbon plus the RO and then

two deionizer purifiers (and then UV). It is the synergy of all

these stages together that reduces the TDS of basically any water to

zero, and correspondingly any toxins that might be present....

Best,

--- In @y..., " McInerney " <djudd1@r...>

wrote:

> and others,

>

> I have been corresponding with Lono Ho'ala, the author of " Don't

Drink the

> water " about many water issues raised in this forum. Here is his

response

> to your concerns about MTBE and chromium-6.

>

> " MTBE is a hazardous chemical that is a particularly difficult

environmental

> problem because the substance is 1) so widespread; 2) so readily

dissolvable

> in water; and, 3) once it is in the environment, it isn't very easy

to

> remove. In large doses over a long period of time it is considered

> carcinogenic. The EPA suggests a MCL of 20 - 40 µg but the good

news is

> that most people can taste and smell MTBE in doses of as little as

5µg. It

> smells and tastes like turpentine. Your source of info is correct

in that

> RO systems remove MTBE - but it is not the RO process that does so.

It is

> the granular activated carbon pre and post filters such units

contain that

> does so. Activated Carbon adsorbs organic compounds like MTBE and

remains

> the best material to remove the toxin at the faucet. While MTBE is

far more

> difficult to remove than other volatile organic compounds, most

units that

> treat drinking water at the tap (POU-Point of Use) can easily

achieve the

> task if they use activated carbon. Carbon block filters are much

better than

> granular activated carbon because they do not permit " channeling " ,

the

> process whereby some water flows around media particles instead of

through

> them. "

>

> " Chromium VI or hexavalent chromium is more debatable as to how big

a hazard

> it is. Breathed in the air it is clearly dangerous. However, as the

attached

> reference material demonstrates, when ingested in water it appears

that

> Chromium VI gets converted into Chromium III which is a healthful

nutrient.

> Nevertheless, KDF treatment removes over 90% of chromium, carbon is

also

> effective. RO is not. "

>

> " For proof, you may check the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation)

site to

> see that even PUR water pitchers and faucet mounted filters are

certified to

> remove both of these substances. Their only media is granular

activated

> carbon combined with a lead absorbant resin media. You will also

notice that

> NO reverse-osmosis units are listed. "

>

> " Regarding fluoride, activated alumina is the most proven method of

removing

> fluoride from drinking water that is known. It is a well-accepted

method

> that enjoys wide use in industrial applications. "

>

>

> > > Message: 10

> > > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:08:58 -0000

> > > From: " radlife2002 " <radiantlife@e...>

> > > Subject: Re: Water filters and fluoride removal

> > >

> > > Greetings ,

> > >

> > > I would suggest you inquire as to how a system comprised of just

> > > carbon and KDF stages could address very difficult toxins such

as

> > > MTBE and chromium-6, which seem to be all over the place. Does

one

> > > have to get an extra cartridge for each of those too? What

happens

> > > when we find out about the next nasty thing which has been in

our

> > > water for years, and which is very hard to get out? (MTBE and

> > > chromium-6 were in our water for years before we realized it.

The

> > > author of that book prob. was unaware of these in 1998. And

only a

> > > triple purifying system gets all this stuff out.)