Re: O/T - Plan to buy water filter - please comment

April 22, 2007

The doctors that I spoke to suggested that I use reverse osmosis

water. There are reverse osmosis units in every grocery store where I

live (Canada) or I can go to the main company (Culligan) and pick up

water there. This is the best I can do for now.

There are people in this group who use distilled water.

I am not aware of anything that Andy has posted about water/ water

filters.

I would suggest using reverse osmosis water until you have time to

investigate the options. Advantages/disadvantages of various systems

is really beyond the scope of this chelation discussion forum. There

is a water debate forum on curezone.com (and possibly other forums

that I am not aware of).

J

>

> Perhaps a bit off-topic....but important to me:

>

> I will start chelation soon, but I am still drinking tap water. In

> the Netherlands - where I live - everybody does; I think our tap

> water is relatively ok.

>

> Of course I want to minimize my intake of chemicals and heavy metals.

> So I thought a water filter might be a good choice. As I studies

> about alkalize/acid body balance, I am not a fan of drinking acidic

> water (distilled, R/O). What water do you drink? Is there some

> consensus what is best during chelation in terms of water?

>

> I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are certified.

> Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the multi-pure

> does, see:

>

> http://www.kliescolon.com/perform_data.htm

>

> Do you think this will be a good investment? If you have a water

> filter, what kind of water filter (+brand) do you use? If not, why

> not? What kind water system do you use?

>

> I am also looking for disadvangates/warnings about the proposed water

> filter to make a good choice.

>

April 22, 2007

Andre

I live in Cape Town, South Africa and here we also drink our tap water. However

we should seek the best water you can get and not settle for even clean tap

water. I found a farm with fresh springwater in Paarl (about 50 minutes drive)

and every 2 weeks I drive there to fetch about 75 liters. Is it possible for you

to find a farm close to where you live perhaps.

Go to Dean's website at www.livingnetwork.co.za and he explains ALL about the

importance of your water and also very important is the type of plastic you

store your water or drink from. All VERY interesting. Good luck, Kai

Nothing happens anywhere that doesn't affect everything everywhere.

O/T - Plan to buy water filter - please

comment

Perhaps a bit off-topic....but important to me:

I will start chelation soon, but I am still drinking tap water. In

the Netherlands - where I live - everybody does; I think our tap

water is relatively ok.

Of course I want to minimize my intake of chemicals and heavy metals.

So I thought a water filter might be a good choice. As I studies

about alkalize/acid body balance, I am not a fan of drinking acidic

water (distilled, R/O). What water do you drink? Is there some

consensus what is best during chelation in terms of water?

I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are certified.

Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the multi-pure

does, see:

http://www.kliescolon.com/perform_data.htm

Do you think this will be a good investment? If you have a water

filter, what kind of water filter (+brand) do you use? If not, why

not? What kind water system do you use?

I am also looking for disadvangates/warnings about the proposed water

filter to make a good choice.

April 22, 2007

Andre

I live in Cape Town, South Africa and here we also drink our tap water. However

we should seek the best water you can get and not settle for even clean tap

water. I found a farm with fresh springwater in Paarl (about 50 minutes drive)

and every 2 weeks I drive there to fetch about 75 liters. Is it possible for you

to find a farm close to where you live perhaps.

Go to Dean's website at www.livingnetwork.co.za and he explains ALL about the

importance of your water and also very important is the type of plastic you

store your water or drink from. All VERY interesting. Good luck, Kai

Nothing happens anywhere that doesn't affect everything everywhere.

O/T - Plan to buy water filter - please

comment

Perhaps a bit off-topic....but important to me:

I will start chelation soon, but I am still drinking tap water. In

the Netherlands - where I live - everybody does; I think our tap

water is relatively ok.

Of course I want to minimize my intake of chemicals and heavy metals.

So I thought a water filter might be a good choice. As I studies

about alkalize/acid body balance, I am not a fan of drinking acidic

water (distilled, R/O). What water do you drink? Is there some

consensus what is best during chelation in terms of water?

I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are certified.

Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the multi-pure

does, see:

http://www.kliescolon.com/perform_data.htm

Do you think this will be a good investment? If you have a water

filter, what kind of water filter (+brand) do you use? If not, why

not? What kind water system do you use?

I am also looking for disadvangates/warnings about the proposed water

filter to make a good choice.

April 22, 2007

>

> Perhaps a bit off-topic....but important to me:

>

> I will start chelation soon, but I am still drinking tap water. In

> the Netherlands - where I live - everybody does;

I think our tap

> water is relatively ok.

TK--- you would actually need to test this and not assume it is the

case.

>

> Of course I want to minimize my intake of chemicals and heavy

metals.

> So I thought a water filter might be a good choice.

TK--- Water filters do not remove heavy metals [Hg] except of course

big pieces of actual metal.

As I studies

> about alkalize/acid body balance, I am not a fan of drinking acidic

> water (distilled, R/O). What water do you drink? Is there some

> consensus what is best during chelation in terms of water?

>

> I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are

certified.

> Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the multi-

pure

> does, see:

TK--- this is misleading advertising

>

> http://www.kliescolon.com/perform_data.htm

>

> Do you think this will be a good investment? If you have a water

> filter, what kind of water filter (+brand) do you use? If not, why

> not?

What kind water system do you use?

TK--- distilled

>

> I am also looking for disadvangates/warnings about the proposed

water

> filter to make a good choice.

>

April 22, 2007

> > I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are

> certified.

> > Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the multi-

> pure

> > does, see:

>

> TK--- this is misleading advertising

Are you sure that it is misleading advertising? If only chlorine were

removed, why would such a filter then so expensive? And NSF, what

kind of certification is that? I am from the Netherlands, so I do not

know such USA organisations:

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?

Company=32730&Standard=053

>

> What kind water system do you use?

>

> TK--- distilled

>

Distilled is pure indeed, but also acidic. I have read many negative

comments about distilled, but others are a big fan of it indeed.

April 22, 2007

> http://www.kliescolon.com/perform_data.htm

>

> Do you think this will be a good investment? If you have a water

> filter, what kind of water filter (+brand) do you use? If not, why

> not?

>What kind water system do you use?

>TK--- distilled

Hi

I'm not a fan of distilled water. There seems to be a lot of controversy

surrounding it. The most notable that comes to mind is that it is a 'hungry'

water. Meaning it lacks minerals and therefore draws minerals into it. This has

the effect of leechings minerals out of your system. Now if this is true, it

means we would be using up much needed minerals during chelation by drinking

distilled water..

I tried distilled water for 2 months. At first I felt instantly better, but then

I started to feel low in energy and weak and it got worse. Hair stopped growing

and nails also. My experience with it made me conclude that it should be used

only intermittently, like for instance a 2-week detox, but not on a permanent

basis. I know there are 2 camps on this one. I started off in one camp believing

it was good for me, and ending up in another with my mind changed.

I have also chosen to collect spring water at a mountain source. This is a very

pertinent topic and many people become heavy metal poisoned through their water.

Even if your water is fine once it gets to your house, old pipes in your house

(copper and lead containing solder) can render it harmful before it is drunk.

It is a very difficult topic to reach consensus over.

I was under the impression reverse osmosis units where very good at getting the

metals out?

Dean

April 23, 2007

>

> > > I came accross the filter products of multi-pure. They are

> > certified.

> > > Many water filters do not filter lead and mercury, but the

multi-

> > pure

> > > does, see:

> >

> > TK--- this is misleading advertising

>

> Are you sure that it is misleading advertising?

TK--- yes

If only chlorine were

> removed, why would such a filter then so expensive?

TK--- they remove more than chlorine, you should do some more

research to make a decision. Manufacturers & distributers will sell

things for whatever they can to make money, doesn't always mean the

product is any good or does what it says, this is what advertising is

all about.

And NSF, what

> kind of certification is that?

TK-- you will need to look that up yourself and you should if they

are using that to sell the product.

I am from the Netherlands, so I do not

> know such USA organisations:

>

> http://www.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?

> Company=32730&Standard=053

>

> >

> > What kind water system do you use?

> >

> > TK--- distilled

> >

>

> Distilled is pure indeed, but also acidic. I have read many

negative

> comments about distilled, but others are a big fan of it indeed.

TK--- yup, you will have to decide yourself, my distilled water has

the same PH as my tap water and the local bottled waters I have

tested. I have tried both for long periods and neither make any

difference [for me] other people it may.

>

April 23, 2007

greetings,

i'm also researching for water filter. so far, some general pros and cons:

a distiller uses electricity or fuel,

reverse osmosis wastes water,

and a carbon filter doesn't do either.

most reverse-osmosis systems deliver water very slowly--about 50 minutes per

half-gallon--too slow for most households, so they require storage tanks.

reverse-osmosis also waste up to 5 gallons for each gallon purified and

require periodic sanitizing with bleach.

i've been looking into some specialized carbon-type filters that do not

require electricity or fuel (to make distilled) and do not waste water or

require storage tank.

i'm also trying to decide between filter just for drinking water and/or

whole house water filter. i've read that the source of average person's

daily dose of organic chemicals from water is as low as 10% from drinking

and as much as 90% from bath-shower. i understand that the small filters put

on shower heads are very inefficient because they filter best in COLD water,

not hot. so best to filter the cold water before it enters the hot-water

heater.

i reviewed the multi-pure, but so far am interested in the Seagull IV (made

by General Ecology, available worldwide), which uses structured-matrix

composite carbon microfilters. the Seagull IV water purifiers leave the

beneficial minerals and electrolytes in the water. there is no bacteria

growth in the filters. Particle Retention (microns) 0.1 nominal, 0.4

absolute. has anyone experience with the seagull? http://generalecology.com/

test data on filters http://generalecology.com/testdata.htm

the seagull undersink model costs about $450 (includes cost of faucet).

seagull drinking filters cost about $70 and last for 1,000 gallons.

i talked with someone who says the seagull (and most other filters) do NOT

remove mercury, altho they do remove lead. not clear on this. how does the

multi-pure remove mercury?

i'm finding it difficult to compare the pros and cons of the multi-pure with

the seagull--any help is appreciated.

confused,

kendra

April 23, 2007

greetings,

i'm also researching for water filter. so far, some general pros and cons:

a distiller uses electricity or fuel,

reverse osmosis wastes water,

and a carbon filter doesn't do either.

most reverse-osmosis systems deliver water very slowly--about 50 minutes per

half-gallon--too slow for most households, so they require storage tanks.

reverse-osmosis also waste up to 5 gallons for each gallon purified and

require periodic sanitizing with bleach.

i've been looking into some specialized carbon-type filters that do not

require electricity or fuel (to make distilled) and do not waste water or

require storage tank.

i'm also trying to decide between filter just for drinking water and/or

whole house water filter. i've read that the source of average person's

daily dose of organic chemicals from water is as low as 10% from drinking

and as much as 90% from bath-shower. i understand that the small filters put

on shower heads are very inefficient because they filter best in COLD water,

not hot. so best to filter the cold water before it enters the hot-water

heater.

i reviewed the multi-pure, but so far am interested in the Seagull IV (made

by General Ecology, available worldwide), which uses structured-matrix

composite carbon microfilters. the Seagull IV water purifiers leave the

beneficial minerals and electrolytes in the water. there is no bacteria

growth in the filters. Particle Retention (microns) 0.1 nominal, 0.4

absolute. has anyone experience with the seagull? http://generalecology.com/

test data on filters http://generalecology.com/testdata.htm

the seagull undersink model costs about $450 (includes cost of faucet).

seagull drinking filters cost about $70 and last for 1,000 gallons.

i talked with someone who says the seagull (and most other filters) do NOT

remove mercury, altho they do remove lead. not clear on this. how does the

multi-pure remove mercury?

i'm finding it difficult to compare the pros and cons of the multi-pure with

the seagull--any help is appreciated.

confused,

kendra

April 23, 2007

greetings,

i'm also researching for water filter. so far, some general pros and cons:

a distiller uses electricity or fuel,

reverse osmosis wastes water,

and a carbon filter doesn't do either.

most reverse-osmosis systems deliver water very slowly--about 50 minutes per

half-gallon--too slow for most households, so they require storage tanks.

reverse-osmosis also waste up to 5 gallons for each gallon purified and

require periodic sanitizing with bleach.

i've been looking into some specialized carbon-type filters that do not

require electricity or fuel (to make distilled) and do not waste water or

require storage tank.

i'm also trying to decide between filter just for drinking water and/or

whole house water filter. i've read that the source of average person's

daily dose of organic chemicals from water is as low as 10% from drinking

and as much as 90% from bath-shower. i understand that the small filters put

on shower heads are very inefficient because they filter best in COLD water,

not hot. so best to filter the cold water before it enters the hot-water

heater.

i reviewed the multi-pure, but so far am interested in the Seagull IV (made

by General Ecology, available worldwide), which uses structured-matrix

composite carbon microfilters. the Seagull IV water purifiers leave the

beneficial minerals and electrolytes in the water. there is no bacteria

growth in the filters. Particle Retention (microns) 0.1 nominal, 0.4

absolute. has anyone experience with the seagull? http://generalecology.com/

test data on filters http://generalecology.com/testdata.htm

the seagull undersink model costs about $450 (includes cost of faucet).

seagull drinking filters cost about $70 and last for 1,000 gallons.

i talked with someone who says the seagull (and most other filters) do NOT

remove mercury, altho they do remove lead. not clear on this. how does the

multi-pure remove mercury?

i'm finding it difficult to compare the pros and cons of the multi-pure with

the seagull--any help is appreciated.

confused,

kendra

April 24, 2007

> i talked with someone who says the seagull (and most other filters)

do NOT

> remove mercury, altho they do remove lead. not clear on this. how

does the

> multi-pure remove mercury?

For removing heavy metals, multi-pure uses something

called 'ADsorption', see also:

http://www.tanplusforhealth.com/water4.htm

But I do not know whether to trust this. I do not know whether to

trust NSF. Best test would be to analyse pre- and post-filtered

water. But that would be a quite expensive experiment as you need to

buy the filter and also 2x the cost of water analysis.

I hoped I could believe all this, so I would buy the water filter.

But up to now no independant person has acknowledged all this from

experience.... Maybe I should give it a try....

I will look at the seagull as well.

May 10, 2007

---

Okay, I " m researching all this as well. I'm having a hard time

finding a water filter for the shower that filters mercury. It seems

most of them only do chlorine. I called multi pure and they told me

that while their sink filters are designed to remove mercury, their

shower filter only does chlorine. I'm pretty sure Andy wrote that 90

percent of the exposure is from the shower and only 10 percent is

from the sink water. Another company told me the only shower filters

that filter the mercury are the whole house units which are really

pricey. So, i'm gonna keep looking too.

In frequent-dose-chelation , " andre_ligthart "

wrote:

>

> > i talked with someone who says the seagull (and most other

filters)

> do NOT

> > remove mercury, altho they do remove lead. not clear on this.

how

> does the

> > multi-pure remove mercury?

>

> For removing heavy metals, multi-pure uses something

> called 'ADsorption', see also:

> http://www.tanplusforhealth.com/water4.htm

>

> But I do not know whether to trust this. I do not know whether to

> trust NSF. Best test would be to analyse pre- and post-filtered

> water. But that would be a quite expensive experiment as you need

to

> buy the filter and also 2x the cost of water analysis.

>

> I hoped I could believe all this, so I would buy the water filter.

> But up to now no independant person has acknowledged all this from

> experience.... Maybe I should give it a try....

>

> I will look at the seagull as well.

>

May 10, 2007