[at-l] A logic for no water treatment... was Filter or iodine for 6-day trip (TN-VA)

[sloetoe@yahoo.com (Sloetoe)]

--- kahley7 <kahley7@ptd.net> wrote:
> > > ### Advice? Bring neither. Do nothing. Drink long and live healthy.
> > > Sloetoe
> > > (Who treats his AT water with nothing but respect.)
> > >
> 
> Toey, I've always wanted to ask this.  You drink au natural from
streams.  Is it that you just don't think about it or is it that you don't
care.
### Actually, it's BECAUSE I've thought about it. What worries me is what
I *don't* know about. Rememeber that this fever-pitched fear of water is a
new deal: chlorine/iodine was a rarity on ANY trail way back when, except
for trips to foreign lands/waters. Your choices used to be limited to a
bandanna and a boil, and that's if you were *really* pressed, in the
Rockies or the Pacific crest. On the AT? Puh-lease. So just look at the
ATC/ALDHA record of throughhikers since Earl in '48, and remember that
until Madison Avenue decided there was death waiting for us in the woods,
we didn't "need" the damn things. Nor their cost, weight, bother, or time
to consume in use. 

### Now, did I want one when *I* first saw them come out in 1985? You bet!
I'm not a gear weenie for nothing! But I needed evidence as to the claims
of waiting pathogens that I never saw, and still haven't seen. As for
recent history, the northern LT is supposed to be rife with nasty, but on
the extended hike last year, I never saw a spot that tempted me to use the
iodine I carried; and none of Cole, Connor, or myself were laid low by
waterborne malady.

### Now, does this mean that there wasn't (suspected) waterborne sickness
on the AT in '79? No. I spent time at The Place with Donna From Wisconsin,
who had what was termed amoebic dysentary, supposedly contracted from the
Iron Mountain area. [OK, that's not proof, but...] Anyone else? No. I
myself was laid QUITE low my first few days in Vermont (recall the Girl
Scout story?); dropped me, at times, face first onto the trail, pack and
all, from cramps. So that's ... 4 days out of 165. I'll bet people who
filter spend a guaranteed 96 hours on their cramping knees wrestling their
way through a water pumping session; boy, that's some rest stop. And then
look at the results: the one [limited] study of giardiasis amoungst
throughhikers found a 50-50 split between those who treated/filtered and
those who didn't. Sense a slight efficacy problem there? Lessee: weight,
time, cost, bother, and no impact. Yucko.

### I mentioned before that it was what I *don't* know that worries me.
What I meant is this: having grown up in the New England woods, and
knowing enough of east coast history and geography to project a similar
ecological history for the Appalachian ridge, I observe that most of the
manmade pollutants are down in the valleys, if they're in still in
circulation at all. The AT deals with spring upon spring upon stream
generally generated in the landscape you can see around you. Not much
chance for hidden heavy rustbelt impact.

### What of the _natural_ pathogens/pollutants? You and I are both
ecologically aware enough to know that the biota we *don't* see is putting
much more poop, pee, dead body decay, etc. into the watershed than the
great storied "dead deer floating around the next corner." But somehow
we're supposed to worry more about 100 pounds of cow manure we *can* see
than the 4000 pounds of mouse and catepillar shit we forget about. Phooey.
It's ALL part of the great mix of life on this little blue dot, and in the
woods, the filtering provided by most watersheds (or geologies, for the
mountainside springs) provides all the filtering that a logical person
could need. (OK, "IMNSHO".) How could you swim in your beloved Susquehanna
without reconciling yourself to the inevitable ingestion of unfiltered
water? It's ok to ingest while swimming, but if you put the same water in
a glass, you'd want it filtered. (To a degree, I'm the same way, but we're
humans.)

### What of landscape that I *don't* know about? When investigating a
throughhike of the PCT or CDT, I hear much the same water debate as for
the AT, but I don't consider myself sufficiently informed to make a
decision or offer an opinion outside of the observation that "some do,
some don't." But I can tell you this: I DON'T know the history of Indiana
to be comfortable in taking water out of anyplace but a resevoir. What I
DO know suggests taking a filter. For example, the Deam Wilderness
[Indiana? don't laugh] is full of recent homestead sites -- did Billy Bob
empty his Model T crankcase into that hollow over there? On the AT, the
ridge geology limits transport and storage of water to a relatively small
area. In Indiana, underlain with clay and mixes of limestone and
sandstone, you could be drinking from that cattle slough over there -- or
maybe sucking up Billy Bob's old waste oil -- or maybe sucking the
fertilizer/herbicides/pesticides percolated from farm fields from a
hundred square miles. *I* DON'T KNOW. Bottom line? As Connor and Cole and
I spend more time in the Hoosier hills, my inability to find reliable
water (and my reluctance to use water in the times when I've found it) is
putting a hurt on our ability to get out or stay out comfortably. Iodine
won't touch pollutants, so I'm left with considering a filter. I'll
probably shop for one this year.

### Hope that helps.
Sloetoe
Ga->Me'79
(And not the earliest throughhiker on this list, Thank God.)

=====
There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and generous emotions of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.

T.Roosevelt 4/23/10

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/