Re: RE: [at-l] filter

[rhymworm@mindspring.com]

Gotta disagree here. Granted, my t-hike was in 97, so I'm basing what I say on what I saw four years ago, but the Pur Hiker is a light, simple, reliable filter that worked well for me for 2160 miles, when other hikers were discarding their Sweetwaters (too slow) and Katadyns (too slow, too heavy, too expensive) in favor of Pur Hikers. The Hiker was fast, reliable, and cartridges were readily available. My waterbag was generally full, and I was back in camp, while hikers with other brands were still squatting over the creek and pumping.

As I understand it, the recall/warning on Pur products applies only to the Pur filters that claim to "purify" as well as "filter," most introduced as variants of the Hiker after its popular success. They treat with iodine in an attempt to clear out viruses and bacteria. The Hiker is a microfilter only, and is aimed squarely at preventing Giardiasis, which is the far more common waterborne problem for hikers. It is not, as I understand it, affected by the recall because it doesn't claim to treat the other beasties.

I would certainly recommend the Hiker, though on a thru-hike I'd plan or changing out the filter four or five times, as it tends to slow down after a few weeks in very silty conditions.

--Rhymin' Worm

Justin Case <jcase@worldimage.com> wrote:
> You want a filter that is not only light, but is effective.  The PUR filtersare made of paper with a volatile saturation of iodine - remove the filter
in the store and smell.

The MSR filter holds up very well, it is better than any of the PUR filters,
with the exception of the use of the iodine.  Be sure to ask about the
cleaning of the filter, and how long each filter can potentially last.

I've done independent research into filters/purifiers, and the PUR models do
not compare to the effectiveness/practicality (in real use) of the others.

You can even get a Safewater bottle to do better than the PUR, and it is
lighter, more effective and more practical (i.e. the filter is the drinking
bottle).  The MSR is great for effectiveness.  The only reason the PUR
models can be designated 'purifiers' is that there is the addition of the
iodine (which dissipates quickly) on the paper filter.  [Note: the
faucet-mount PUR filters are worth the money; however of little use to the
backpacker].

The more expensive Katadyn filters are good too.

Here are some websites...

Katadyn Website:
http://www.suuntousa.com/products_katadyn.htm

MSR Website:
http://www.msrcorp.com/prod/prod_filters.htm

Safewater (lowest price) Site:
http://www.eoutings.com/products/safewater/index.html

Hope some of this helps...

JC


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-at-l@backcountry.net [mailto:owner-at-l@backcountry.net]On
> Behalf Of shannon williams
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 8:14 AM
> To: at-l@backcountry.net
> Subject: [at-l] filter
>
>
> A surprisingly snipey woman working at the local backpacking outfitter
> informed me that the Pur Voyageur shouldn't even be on the shelves at any
> store -- the manufacturers found some defect in its design that
> renders it
> -- can't remember the exact word but the gyst was --
> Non-Functional.  Like
> won't work.  Like not something you wanna be carrying in the
> woods.  Anyone
> else hear about problems with the Voyageur?
>
> No thanks to her snottiness, I decided on the Pur Hiker.  Read a
> few reports
> that it did the trick, but I'll have to get back to you
> post-ground-truthing
> to let you know.
>
> 10-4
> shannon
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> * From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *
>

* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================