[at-l] Water Purification Issues

[icw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Wright)]

I think there was another survey . . . for what it is worth, long term I
think the carbon filter on our home water tap that removes chlorine and
other stuff probably is more important to my long term health than
anything I do or do not do in the woods.  Again, personal medical
history is important (i.e., if you have any immune systems weaknesses,
etc.); but with that caveat, I'm with Weary.  Be careful around farm
areas and areas where you cannot be sure that there are no farms or
homes above the water source, use a bit of good sense re washing your
own hands after using the bathroom, and have a good hike! :)

thru-thinker

McDermott wrote:

> Clark Wright wrote:
> 3)  The one "study" I know of with some relevance concluded that there
> was little statistically valid difference between hikers who used no
> purification, versus filters, versus chemicals . . . I cannot recall the
> study name, author, etc. but I think that's what the conclusion was.
>
>
> Panzer says:
> I do not believe this was a "study", rather it was a survey.  Called the
> "Muesser survey".  The person who took it was an author, not a doctor.
> I do not believe that the survey had any real "conclusion".  As I
> recall the survey asked a relatively small number through hikers if they
> got sick during their hike and how/if they treated their water.  The
> hikers could not of known how they got  sick, only that they did get
> sick at one time or another during their hike. The hikers who treated
> their water and still got sick cannot conclude that they got sick from
> drinking treated water.  No one can truly know how the hikers got sick.
> They may have gotten sick from food or from being in town.
>
> A thru hike may last 6 months.  It is not unusual for people who live at
> home to get sick once in a 6 month timeframe.  Thru hikers should also
> expect to get sick in this timeframe.
>
> Actually, I see this survey as one of the most damaging and harmful
> surveys ever inflicted on the thru hiking community.  It was been quoted
> by the "anti
> water treatment" lobby many times.  And they have drawn many
> unwarranted conclusions from it.  The survey was totally unscientific.
> I believe many hikers have decided not to treat their water as a result
> of this unscientific survey.
>
> I just cannot believe this survey.  What I cannot believe is that there
> was no significant difference.  It seems to be that there would have to
> be some kind of a difference in the outcomes.  It would actually be
> easier for me to believe that the people who treated water got the
> sickest that to believe that there was no significant difference.
> Treating the water must effect the outcome in some way, either for
> better or worse, but I cannot believe that there would be no
> difference.  I believe this survey must be flawed in some way.  I would
> have to see many more "real studies" confirming this before I could
> believe it.  I have never heard of another survey that confirmed this
> survey.
>
> I believe that "newbees" who read these threads about treating water
> will walk away the idea that many knowledgeable people are advising them
> to not treat their water. Even if that is not what we are telling them.
> We should be careful not to give this impression as I think that is bad
> advice.
>
> Panzer (the doubter)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>> From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
>
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!
>
>