[at-l] The cost of NOT treating water

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Sir Toe wrote:
>Not to speak to water on the CDT, Jim, but did I miss the post's
>discussion about any new evidence regarding the equal likelihood of
>acquiring giardiasis (whether you treat/filter or not)? This little
>factoid, developed and much-traveled from Rolly Muesser's (1995?)
>book, but re-substantiated each year since, would be a good starting
>point. But as far as the CDT goes, you were in attendance at the
>Gathering's Colorado Trail presentation, yes/no?, where in a group of
>7 or 8, some filtered; some treated; one drank gratefully, and never
>felt thirst in bypassing what he termed "questionable" water sources?
>Now, that's only 400 miles of a 2500 to 3000 mile route, but that
>seems a fair observation, none-the-less.

Toey (and others) -
There were several points here - one of which was (as OB pointed out) the 
cost of illness on (or off) the trail.  For a lot of people, the cost of 
curing the problem would also be the end of their thruhike.  For some, the 
illness itself would end the thruhike - I can name a dozen people without 
even trying who went home because they couldn't physically continue the 
thruhike after they got sick.

The second point is real simple - the fact that a water source "looks good" 
is immaterial.  Nearly ALL the water sources in Colorado "look good".  And 
nearly ALL of them (99+%) contain some sort of nasty livestock. That's not 
"off-the-cuff" numbers, but the result of a water resource survey done by 
the State of Colorado several years ago.

There are many water sources on the AT that also "look good" - but we know 
from watching and listening to thruhikers for the last 10 years or so, that 
there ARE water sources on the AT (and the PCT) that are bad and make a lot 
of people sick - even though they "look good".  We gave a lift to a 
thruhiker on the way back from the Gathering who used one of those "look 
good" water sources - and spent some time recovering from Giardia.


>(Just don't ask me about the 3"/4oz cylinder that pops into my
>squeese Nalgene and replaced the annual (unopened) iodide re-purchase
>in my pack, traveling entirely safe and unused through such alleged
>pathogen hot spots as the Smokys' AT or the Long Trail. Nor do I wish
>you to ask me about how I deal with the fetid flows found here in
>Hoosierland....)

Don't ask, don't tell, Toey???   :-))


I'm gonna add a comment here for Weary, too -

Weary wrote:
>I'm not opposed to anyone treating their water. I just think that the 
>evidence is pretty strong that treatment as practiced by most hikers >is 
>ineffective and that most times giardia is transmitted from sources other 
>than drinking water.

I won't agree with "most" but I'll certainly agree that it's a large factor. 
  Those who have spent any time in Third World countries know that "mouth" 
discipline (or lack therof) is a prime source of disease, dysentery, the 
"runs", "Montezuma's revenge", whatever.  Meaning that "anything" that goes 
in your mouth is suspect - water, your toothbrush, your fingers, an unwashed 
spoon or cup, a toothpick, a candy that falls on the ground, whatever.  Much 
the same thing applies on the trail - ANY trail, including the AT.  The 
"nasty" isn't always giardia - sometimes it's other, related (and sometimes 
even nastier) bugs - or worms.  The point here is that you CAN, and many 
people absolutely DO get sick even though they've filtered or otherwise 
treated their water.

But there's also a second point - and that is that giardia, in particular, 
is generally a waterborne "nasty".  And that if you get it from dipping your 
toothbrush or rinsing you hands (or your pot) in untreated water - then you 
can absolutely count on getting it if you drink that same water without 
treatment.  In other words, the infection rate would be even higher if 
everyone stopped filtering/treating.

A lot of people point to Roly's numbers as being definitive - and it just 
ain't so.  From a rigorous logic point of view, his statistics do NOT prove 
that filtering is ineffective - only that there are those who acquire the 
bug in different ways (i.e. - by getting careless in their filtering 
technique or in their personal habits).

On the other side of this equation, I have my own doubts about the 
effectiveness of some filters under some conditions - on the CDT we very 
often watched green water go into the filter ---- and green water come out 
of the filter.  It was just a little less green coming out.

Bottom line for me is that I can afford to go without the filter if I'm out 
for a weekend (or maybe a week) in an area where the water is generally 
good.  But for a thruhike, there's just no way - I'm not willing to bet my 
thruhike against the unknown probability that I won't run into some hungry 
little bug (or worm) that'll put me down and stop me from finishing.

But ---- y'all get to make your own decisions -

Walk softly,
Jim

PS - almost forgot - we ran across a place last weekend that made us think 
about the list - it was Wheary's Country Store --- in Cummings township, PA. 
  :-)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp