[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] RE: RE: [at-l] filter

In short, the PUR filters are less effective over an extended period of time
(potentially even a small period of time).  I once hiked across 3 states of
the AT without any filter, simply drinking from streams/springs.  However,
this does not prove anything about the condition of the water.  In other
words, a person can use a pathetic filter and get away with it, and
potentially use a 'good' filter and get sick.  So, all we can do is look to
science and get what appears to be the best method, along with the
weight/practical considerations.  I'd like to be sure as I can though!
There are scientific facts with regard to these methods/devices - not simply
limited to personal experience.

It is great that more people are taking on the responsibility of treating
their water before drinking.  Some still feel it is unnecessary to use

I, personally, find the Safewater to be the best for the task at hand.  It
is cheap, effective, light and very practical. [I can even add iodine
tablets to the Safewater bottle and all the bad taste of the iodine is
removed before it hits my mouth]. However, I do have several other filters.
The MSR is outstanding when it comes to cleaning, effectiveness and
longevity of the replaceable filter.  The Katadyn (with the silver) is a
good, though expensive choice - and that amount of money does not need to be
spent with the other options that are available.  The paper PUR filters are
the least admired by those in water quality/treatment vocations.  They've
done the math - in this case the science!

There is a lot that people may overlook with regard to water purification,
especially with regard to taking risks in the 'wild,' and even at home.
Quickly... bottled water in many cases is glorified tap water...granulated
charcoal filters can breed bacteria...and on and on...but I'll refrain from
getting too far off here...

We all have our opinions, and we can only hope to sift through to the facts.
In this case, we hope to make a safe, effective, affordable and
lightweight/practical choice.

BTW, another great method that I have used is 'Stabilized Oxygen.'  It comes
in a small bottle, and ten drops purifies an 8 ounce drink - while it
supplies electrolytes of oxygen (energy at its best) directly into the
bloodstream.  It is great stuff, generally used as a natural supplement for
energy, circulation and general well-being, but will make water safe quickly
without any added taste...

Both Stabilized Oxygen and Safewater Filters are located at the site
previously indicated
(http://www.eoutings.com/products/safewater/index.html).  There may be other
options, ask your local backpacking dealer - but these are the best I have
found over the years...

Anyway, I don't like to carry any more equipment than I have to, but I do
not want to compromise safety in any way.  So, I have found the
aforementioned to be the cheapest, yet most effective and practical, methods
to date.

I tend to be a little overly concerned (if that is possible) with my safety
on the trail...  I may worry more these days about bad water than most.
However, I find that I carry less water-related gear than those who are
apparently even less prepared (but carrying heavier equipment).

Many harmful things in water are both odorless and tasteless... Like other
deadly viruses/diseases going around today, bad things in water are often
undetected by the senses (sight, smell,...). So, I carry and use protection.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhymworm@mindspring.com [mailto:rhymworm@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 9:40 AM
> To: Justin Case
> Cc: shannon williams; at-l@backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: RE: [at-l] filter
> 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.
[ *** too many quoted lines.  automatically truncated *** ]

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