[at-l] The cost of NOT treating water

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

Ron wrote:
>I won't bother to attempt to debate Jim point by point. I've neither the 
>time nor the energy. I would like to pass along a few thoughts (meaningful 
>or not).

Ron -
I have no more time for debate than you do.  If I didn't consider this 
important, I wouldn't be here.

>Jim's case is antidotal and only so. Why? Simply because there maybe many 
>vectors for ingesting Giradia and becoming infected.

Unless you can define or at least suggest the mechanisms for those "many 
vectors", you're obfuscating.  In any case, when you're alone in the South 
San Juans and the Weminuche, the vectors are severely limited - and that 
makes this particluar case considerably more than anecdotal.

In any case, ignoring "anecdotal evidence", especially when it's the only 
available evidence is considerably less than "scientific".

>It may also just that the majority of cases may be traced to hand mouth
>contact, poor sanitation, or even breathing in Giradia found on dust from 
>fecal matter.

Now you're really stretching the limits of credibility.  As a vectors, the 
first two are possible only if there are other people involved.  See the 
scenario in Roly's book. The third might work for some infections - but it's 
not consistent with the organism in this case.


>So far the only response
>really comes from two groups. One is from water treatment folks whose
>interest is having us buy their products. The second is from Governments, 
>who, lacking definitive evidence, follow the path of least resistance, or 
>fewer law suits.

<snip>

>Not in the least, I believe the water purification folks are making a
>genuine effort to attempt to solve a problem.

Having worked for, around and with the Government for 38 years, and 
considering that the Government can't be sued, and having been involved in 
both basic and applied research as well as the practical engineering side of 
Government operations, I'll tell you straight up that your take on 
Government needs drastic modification.  I don't believe for a second that 
the Government is my "friend", but your statement there is a long way from 
being even marginally accurate.

As for the "water treatment folks" as you put it, you and I are probably in 
agreement although Weary seems to blame them to some degree for the present 
situation.  But the way I remember it is that the "Great water treatment 
debate" came from places like Backpacker and Outside magazines, hiking 
clubs, some basic research by Government agencies and word of mouth among 
hikers.  Companies like MSR and Pur have attempted to meet a perceived need, 
but to blame the debate on them because they advertise their products is 
nonsense. If there were no perceived need on the part of hikers, there would 
be no advertising and no water treatment products, cause it wouldn't be 
profitable.  And if they don't make a profit, then all the gear discussions 
on this list would be real short - cause there wouldn't be any gear to 
discuss.


>The problem as I see it is that there isn't enough research. Part of what
>makes me believe this is also supported by the antidotal evidence rejected
>by Jim.

OK - back up -  my take here is that "you" are the one rejecting "anecdotal 
evidence".  Where did that get turned around?  I don't take it as Gospel, 
but I've found it to be extremely useful, especially when collected from 
multiple sources over a long period of time.  I'll agree about the lack of 
research, but rejection of anecdotal evidence (under any circumstances) 
doesn't improve the probability of determining reality.  And "real" 
scientific research has to fit reality - including the anecdotal evidence.

The fact that the Giradia infection rates between people who use
>each form of treatment (filtration, chemical or none) seems to be the same
>has me somewhat baffled. At the very least I would expect that if it was
>just the water, then people who don't filter would have remarkably higher
>infection rates. Nor do I believe that the differences in infections can be
>simply explained away by the natural immunity of some people vs. others.

I'm not that confused, Ron.  Considerations - 1. that Roly's sample size 
wasn't statistically significant with relation to the size of the problem.  
And that his data was taken 10 or 12 years ago.  The Trails (all of them) 
and the water sources have changed since then.   2. that not EVERY water 
source is contaminated, but that a significant number of them are  3. that 
the water sources that are contaminated will produce illness on a consistent 
basis year after year.  And they do.   4. that the "anecdotal evidence" that 
comes from hikers year after year can and does produce patterns that 
indicate which water sources are contaminated.  This has worked for us on 
the AT, PCT and CDT.   5. that other vectors WILL confuse the issue but the 
basic data (anecdotal evidence) is still valid.  We're talking basic data 
analysis here - something that VERY few people seem understand any more 
because they allow the "noise" to confuse the issues.

>We know that Giradia and other organisms exist out there. Lying in streams,
>the ground and probably even in the dust we breath. We don't really know 
>how
>we are getting infected or for that matter what is the most likely way to
>reduce our risk. For all we know we may hundreds of dollars on water
>treatment, work religiously on keeping clean and still get just as infected
>by the air we breath. The point being we DON'T know.

Yep - but, like the Lottery, if you don't play you can't win.  If you just 
say "I don't know, so I won't do ANYTHING", then, in my view, you've just 
given up and allowed "chance" or "luck" or "karma" or whatever to become the 
deciding factor.  I don't operate like that.


>So when we're out here making great debates over the merits of water
>treatment with all the fervor of  a religious scholar. We should also
>endeavor to inform those new to the issue that there are limits to our
>understanding and while our beliefs maybe honest and sincere, they are 
>never the less beliefs.

Now we're down to where the rubber meets the road - the new people. One of 
the things that happens every time in this "discussion" is that those who 
don't filter, use "lack of scientific evidence" as justification for not 
filtering, and ignore the "anectodal evidence" that says there IS a 
"problem".  And I have a problem with that.  I don't personally give a damn 
whether any individual filters (or treats) their water or not.  That's their 
decision - and they get to live with the consequences, not me.  But I DO 
care that a few things get clearly understood when the discussion is raised 
here.

The first is that there IS a problem.  How big? No one really knows, but 
whether it's 10% of the water sources that are contaminated or 90% - or 1%, 
means that there's some finite probability that you're gonna get sick in the 
course of a long hike.  Are you willing to accept that risk - or do you want 
to at least attempt to short circuit the risk?

How sick?  No one knows.  But NOT treating the water isn't gonna improve 
your odds, regardless of Ron's confusion about one particular set of 
numbers.

In point of fact, this whole discussion has ignored the possibility of 
agricultural chemical runoff, among other reasons, for using not just a 
filter, but a carbon based filter.  And as a thruhiker (on ANY of the long 
trails) you WILL run into at least the chemical runoff.

Then there's heavy metal contamination.  But I'm not gonna carry a filter 
that'll handle that one.

>Do I care if either Jim or myself is right or wrong? No, my goal is simply 
>to get my arrow as close to the bulls eye of truth as possible.
>Unfortunately while the arrow is set and the bow taut, the target has gone 
>missing.

I don't agree - for me, the ultimate "target" is to do whatever I can to 
stack the odds as much as possible so that I'll successfully complete "my" 
thruhike.

In this particular discussion, the "target" is a reasonable presentation of 
the risks and options so that others (particularly the newer people) can 
make at least relatively informed decisions.  Denying "anecdotal evidence", 
for example, means that, since there are no "scientific studies" (which, by 
the way are to a large degree, wrong anyway), you're left with nothing.  One 
form of anecdotal evidence is those who claim to have had no problems even 
though they didn't treat their water.  Another comes from those who DID have 
problems.  And dismissing the latter is an invalid argument.

Just for the record, I haven't given you any real indication of how we 
actually operate on the trail.  Nor will I.  But I will tell you this - that 
there are places where I wouldn't drink the water without filtering - and 
places where I wouldn't drink the water without treating it - and that 
there's a difference between the two.  What others do is their concern, 
their decision - and they get to live with the consequences.

But I object to the presentation of a one sided view of the "problem".  And 
that's generally what I've seen from the "no filter" side of the argument - 
although not necessarily so much from Ron in particular.

AS Weary once said - let's keep the discussion "honest".

Walk softly,
Jim

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