how do you purify water? a poll
Alan S. Mazer
filters or iodine or boiling or what? I've never been anywhere where the
water wasn't reliable before (okay, I'm sheltered) but now I need to know
and since I'm taking some other people with me I'd like to get it right
the first time :-). Thanks.
--
-- Alan # Mountain Dew and doughnuts...
..!ames!elroy!alan # because breakfast is the most important meal
al...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov # of the day.
Todd Anthony Delong
>What method do people prefer for purifying water? That is, do you like
>filters or iodine or boiling or what? I've never been anywhere where the
>water wasn't reliable before (okay, I'm sheltered) but now I need to know
>and since I'm taking some other people with me I'd like to get it right
>the first time :-). Thanks.
I've boiled and used a filter system. The filter system, by far, provided
the best tasting water. However, there is some work involved to produce
a reasonable amount of water for a day of canoeing, for instance. Boiling,
while much easier, makes the water taste like smoke, the bottle you pour it
in, or both. I always had to flavor it with something like Kool-Aid if I
was going to boil the water. If you have the time and don't mind a little
work before dinner, go with the filter system.
Mark A Johnston
>filters or iodine or boiling or what? I've never been anywhere where the
>water wasn't reliable before (okay, I'm sheltered) but now I need to know
>and since I'm taking some other people with me I'd like to get it right
>the first time :-). Thanks.
You say that you've never been anywhere where the water wasn't
reliable? I'm curious where you've been. Giardia has been found
practically everywhere in the U.S.. It's even been found in high
mountain springs, which people often assume are safe.
Filtering is my choice, by far. It doesn't alter the taste of the
water like boiling or tablets will. It doesn't introduce traces of
poison, like tablets can. It doesn't require you to carry extra fuel,
which can be very heavy if you're planning a long trip. It's also
probably the safest, as boiling and tablets can leave parasites if not
done properly.
I have a First Need filter, which is relatively inexpensive, and
works great (though it's a little slow).
Happy camping!
Mark Johnston (john...@crd.ge.com)
Charles H. Hemstreet IV
What method do people prefer for purifying water? That is, do you like
filters or iodine or boiling or what? I've never been anywhere where the
water wasn't reliable before (okay, I'm sheltered) but now I need to know
and since I'm taking some other people with me I'd like to get it right
the first time :-). Thanks.
--
I use the filter method. I have a first need and replaced the filter
twice. Life expectancy on the filter was pretty small. So I used the
replacement filter cartridge of a filter made in Boulder Co. and that
worked a lot better. By far filtering is the fastest for me, and I
always bring along kool-aid for the backup tablets should my filter
get lost or destroyed.
Charles
--
!===========================================================================!
! Charles H. Hemstreet IV ! internet: hems...@greyrock.MSO.ColoState.Edu !
! Colorado State University ! Computer Consultant !
!===========================================================================!
kil...@memstvx1.memst.edu
al...@george.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Alan S. Mazer) writes:
>What method do people prefer for purifying water? That is, do you like
>filters or iodine or boiling or what?
In the July issue of CANOE p. 31, there is a wilderness survival quiz.
The answer given to question 3 reads as follows:
Boiling water for one minute (longer at higher altitudes) is the
most effective way to sterilize drinking water. Filters with pores
.2 microns or smaller that work well against giardia can't always
remove certain viruses, such as hepatitis. While chemical treatments
work well against viruses, it isn't always effective against giardia.
-David Kilman-
Bill Bill Tuthill
> The answer given to question 3 reads as follows:
>
> Boiling water for one minute (longer at higher altitudes) is the
> most effective way to sterilize drinking water. Filters with pores
> .2 microns or smaller that work well against giardia can't always
> remove certain viruses, such as hepatitis. While chemical treatments
> work well against viruses, it isn't always effective against giardia.
The last sentence is completely wrong. Even near the freezing point,
8 milligrams of iodine per liter of water is sufficient to kill giardia
in 1/2 hour. At this temperature, .5 mg per L is enough to kill viruses
and bacteria. [Am J Trop Med Hyg, 29(1), 1980, pp. 8-11.] You can taste
8 mg/L, but you probably can't taste .5 mg/L.
The penultimate sentence is partly wrong. Neither the Katadyn filter,
with its .2 micron pores, nor the MSR filter, with its .1 micron pores,
has a prayer against *any* kind of virus, including hepatitis A and
hepatitis non-A non-B. Hepatitis B is caused by bacteria. There are
no known viruses larger than .2 microns.
The first sentence has the wrong implications. Boiling water is not an
effective method if you're low on fuel or short on time. Carcinogens
leached out of plastic bottles by boiling water probably pose a greater
health risk than the chance of encountering hepatitis virus in most
wilderness areas of the US.
Eugene, did you get my panel about water purification?
Steve Bonds
>What method do people prefer for purifying water? That is, do you like
>filters or iodine or boiling or what?
I've found that a saturated iodine solution is the method that agrees most
with my taste buds, with the exception of filtration.
I'd never heard of this method before I read _Walking_Softly_in_the_
_Wilderness_, a Sierra Club book. (RECOMMENDED READING!) Basically, you
need a container with a tight, watertight lid, and four to eight grams of
pure Iodine crystals. (Not tincture of iodine, or "iodine" tablets.) Put
the crystals in your container and add water. They will not all dissolve.
To treat water, add 13cc's (13mL) to a quart of water and allow to stand for
a half hour. Replace the liquid drawn out of your container with new water.
More iodine will dissolve, keeping the concentration constant.
I like this method because it's cheaper than buying those "iodine"
(tetraglycine hydroperiodide) tablets and it works just as well. I think
that it leaves less of a nasty taste to the water, or maybe I was just much
thirstier this last trip... ;-)
-- 007
--
00 00 77777 | NEW address - Techbooks no longer valid
0 0 0 0 7 +----------------------------------------------------------
0 0 0 0 7 | che...@agora.rain.com sbo...@jarthur.claremont.edu
00 00 7 | "Give me FTP or give me death!"
Jamie Ide
In article <1991Jul2.0...@agora.rain.com>, che...@agora.rain.com (Steve Bonds) writes...
>al...@george.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Alan S. Mazer) writes:
>
>>What method do people prefer for purifying water? That is, do you like
>>filters or iodine or boiling or what?
>
>I've found that a saturated iodine solution is the method that agrees most
>with my taste buds, with the exception of filtration.
[ . . . ]
>I like this method because it's cheaper than buying those "iodine"
>(tetraglycine hydroperiodide) tablets and it works just as well. I think
>that it leaves less of a nasty taste to the water, or maybe I was just much
>thirstier this last trip... ;-)
To get rid of the chemical taste and clarify the water, add a pinch of vitamin C
crystals (the crystal form can usually be found at health food stores) to the
water after the iodine does its thing. The water clears up instantly upon
adding the C, and the chemical taste is either eliminated or masked, leaving the
water with just a citrus note. You still end up ingesting the iodine, so this
isn't a solution for people who are sensitive to iodine. I was skeptical (as
most of you readers probably are :^)) when I first heard this, but it really
works. Disclaimer: I've only used it with the tablet iodine, never the
crystals.
Some people I know are concerned about the toxicity of iodine treated water.
The only guideline I've heard is "don't treat all your drinking water for a
period of more than six months." Is this accurate? It leads me to believe that
there's little to worry about when drinking treated water.
Jamie Ide
Hal Lillywhite
>I've found that a saturated iodine solution is the method that agrees most
>with my taste buds, with the exception of filtration.
>I'd never heard of this method before I read _Walking_Softly_in_the_
>_Wilderness_, a Sierra Club book. (RECOMMENDED READING!) Basically, you
>need a container with a tight, watertight lid, and four to eight grams of
>pure Iodine crystals. (Not tincture of iodine, or "iodine" tablets.) Put
>the crystals in your container and add water. They will not all dissolve.
>To treat water, add 13cc's (13mL) to a quart of water and allow to stand for
>a half hour. Replace the liquid drawn out of your container with new water.
>More iodine will dissolve, keeping the concentration constant.
One word of caution here. Be *very* careful not to allow a crystal
to get into the water you are purifying. Preferably have a fine
screen in place to keep this from happening. The technique suggested
of diluting the solution by putting 13mL into a quart of water will
help keep the concentration to a safe level. However if an
undisolved crystal gets in your drinking water it will disolve
unless the saturation point is reached first. Iodine concentration
will be *high*. Not only will it taste horrible but the effects of
that much iodine are suspect to say the least.
Gardner Cohen
Some people I know are concerned about the toxicity of iodine
treated water. The only guideline I've heard is "don't treat all
your drinking water for a period of more than six months." Is this
accurate? It leads me to believe that there's little to worry
about when drinking treated water.
From Wilkerson's "Medicine for Mountaineering"
Iodine is not highly toxic. ... The generally accepted lethal dose
is 2 to 3 gm, but survival after ingestion of 10 gm has been
reported. Iodine is a strong gastrointestinal irritant and causes
immediate vomiting, which eliminates most of the iodine.
Ingested idodine is absorbed as iodide, and an average adult
requires 150 to 200 micrograms a day. Daily consumption of one to
two liters of water disinfected with 8 mg/L of iodine would provide
thirty to eighty times that amount, but such quantities would not
affect most individuals with normal thyroid function. Almost all
patients who have developed iodide goiter after consuming excess
iodide have consumed far larger amounts for six months to more than
five years. [ goes on to describe fetal risks, and that fact that
one asthma treatment involves chronic use of large amounts of
potassium iodide, and results of tests on Florida prison inmates. ]
The book goes on to describe different purification methods, including
the one described in a recent posting, Saturated Aqueous Iodine
Solution, which is currently sold as Polar Pure. It comes in a bottle
with a strip thermometer to indicate the appropriate concentration;
the bottle has some sort of trap to help avoid accidentally decanting
the crystals.
As always, instead of believing what you read here, check out the
source material, and make an informed decision. Relatives and pets of
George Bush should consider boiling instead of chemical methods.
--
Gardner Cohen bel...@mips.com {ames,decwrl,...}!mips!beldar (408) 524-8267
Kathy Lankford
boiling water for 3-5 minutes (not just one) to
kill giardia. They also request that hikers use
pocket stoves whenever possible to avoid the problem
of campers overgrazing the firewood in an area.
(I've seen some camps several days from trailheads
where the firewood was badly depleted.) Given
that, I prefer a filter, since I don't want to haul
that much stove fuel. I use a First Need too,
because it's inexpensive. It does go through filters
fast, though.
John S. Reece
Is all this concern justified? Is there really an *epidemic* of
Giardia contamination, or is it just that people's attitudes have
changed over the last decade or so about a risk that was *always*
there?
From Medicine For Mountaineering:
In the last few years outdoor publications have contained many
articles about giardiasis resulting in undue concern about this
infestation among many of their readers. Gastroenterologists and
epidemiologists agree that Giardia have essentially always
been present in wilderness streams and in the water supplies
for most cities but have not [previously] been detected because
they because they are not isolated by routine bacterial culture
techniques...Little is known about the number of Giardia
necessary to establish an infestation. In one thoroughly
studied epidemic, only 11% of a population exposed
to heavy water contamination developed symptomatic
disease, although 46% had organisms in their stools. In the
same study 8.5% of the population of a neighboring city was found
to have totally asymptomatic Giardia infestations...
--
John Reece | -- You are in a maze of twisty
Not an Intel spokesman | little logging roads, all alike --
Bill Bill Tuthill
jre...@stravinsky.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John S. Reece) writes:
> Is all this concern justified? Is there really an *epidemic* of
> Giardia contamination, or is it just that people's attitudes have
> changed over the last decades about a risk that was *always* there?
I think the answer is, both. On one hand, risk of Giardiasis is higher
now than 20 years ago because there are more humans the high country,
shi*ting in the wrong places and wiping their butts while washing off
in a stream or lake. But even 20 years ago, I'm sure that deer, bear,
beavers, marmots etc. spread Giardia.
On the other hand, people have become more acquainted with Giardia over
the past 20 years. Pioneering research on Giardia disinfection was
only published in 1980. Articles published as late as 1974 contained
no mention whatsoever of Giardia, although they made a big deal about
Entamoeba histolytica (the cause of amoebic dysentery), which requires
the same water treatment precautions as Giardia.
A personal data point: I know more people infected by E coli (cystitis
or turista) than people infected by Giardia. Yet according to the
Forest Disservice or the Bureau of Livestock and Mining, you'd think
Giardia is the main hazard out there. Note that the USFD and BLM both
have big interests in renting out land for grazing cattle, the principal
transmission vector for E coli infections.
I have to laugh when some know-it-all responds to water purification
questions on this newsgroup, saying they use the First Need filter and
la-dee-dah, everything went OK. That's nice. I'm glad you feel safe,
but when you're in the hospital with cystitis, typhoid fever, dystentery,
gastro-enteritis, septicemia, brain abscess, or subacute endocarditis--
all of which result from bacteria small enough to go right through the
First Need-- you may feel differently.
Unless you use your First Need or Timberline in conjunction with small
doses (.5 mg/L) of iodine, throw them away. They are useless. Even the
Katadyn doesn't filter out hepatitis and who-knows-what-other viruses.
Eugene N. Miya
jre...@stravinsky.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John S. Reece) writes:
>Giardia contamination, or is it just that people's attitudes have
>changed over the last decade or so about a risk that was *always*
>there?
You might have considered asking this in sci.med rather than
rec.backcountry. Tell you what. This is so frequently asked......
I will do two things to research this. 1) I will call upon "the family
genius" and see what he thinks as a pathologist and bacteriologist.
He is not an outdoorsman other than being a skier.
2) I will contact the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and try to get
back issues of Morbidity and Mortality on the topic.
And we can make a new panel. Maybe I should get the one for Lyme Disease
as well and replace the existing panel (since I know Uncle Fred
is much more concern with that than Giardia). The mail should take a couple
of weeks (not like I don't have tons of other work...).
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Ilana Stern
>Unless you use your First Need or Timberline in conjunction with small
>doses (.5 mg/L) of iodine, throw them away. They are useless. Even the
>Katadyn doesn't filter out hepatitis and who-knows-what-other viruses.
On our recent Grand Canyon river trip, we used a homebrew multi-filter
method (settled water --> pillowcase --> 1 micron --> 0.35 micron --> out)
and followed the Park Service recommendation of adding 1 drop Clorox/gallon
of water to kill viruses. The water must sit (keeping the lid open
reduces clorox flavor) for 1/2 hour before use.
16 people, 18 days, filtering water every other day. Nobody got sick.
--
Ilana Stern / il...@ncar.ucar.edu / DODMC #00009
'86 Honda Nighthawk S (CB700SC), '86 Univega Gran Rally, '89 Bianchi Volpe,
5.10 Verticals, 15'6" SuperScout Self-Bailer, looking for a kayak...
*** So many toys, so little time, such a small bank account ***
Geoff Allen
>
Well, a friend got a nasty case of it a few years ago. I wouldn't want
to get it, that's for sure. It wasn't a pretty sight.
--
Geoff Allen \ What's the difference between a garden slug and
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ a two-inch long, living booger?
ge...@pmafire.inel.gov \ -- Calvin
Eugene N. Miya
>2) Contact the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Status: done.
The Parastitic Disease Branch is sending information.
Now to contact Uncle Fred (PhD, MD).
Bill Bill Tuthill
il...@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>
> On our recent Grand Canyon river trip, we used a homebrew multi-filter
> method (settled water --> pillowcase --> 1 micron --> 0.35 micron --> out)
> and followed the Park Service recommendation of adding 1 drop Clorox/gallon
> of water to kill viruses. The water must sit (keeping the lid open
> reduces clorox flavor) for 1/2 hour before use.
I'm glad you feel good about keeping the Clorox Corporation profitable,
a company now running a disinformation campaign against environmentalists
in order to preserve the corporate "right to pollute" and chlorine's lock
on municipal water supply and swimming pool disinfection systems.
However, you should consider that chlorine is highly toxic, and easily
combines with organic compounds to form carcinogenic chloramines. You
might also consider these words from Kahn & Visscher's article "Water
Disinfection in the Wilderness", in the _Western_Journal_of_Medicine_,
published May 1975:
"Chlorine under ideal conditions, namely a pH of 7 or lower and the
absence of nitrogenous compounds* [makes] an excellent germicide.
But in the presence of amino and ammonia ions, HClO is quickly
converted to relatively inactive monochloramine. Above pH 7 HClO
hydrolyzes to the less active hypochlorite. These two problems
are solved in [municipal] water purification plants by the practice
of breakpoint chlorination...
"Simple chlorination is unpredictable, and may be useless against
bacteria and enteroviruses when water is contaminated with organic
material.** A number of waterborne disease outbreaks have occurred
when simple chlorination was practiced. Neefe's classic study of
an infectious hepatitis epidemic demonstrated the failure of simple
chlorination to inactivate the hepatitis virus.*** Enteroviruses
were recovered from chlorinated tap water in Paris where breakpoint
chlorination was not practiced."
* Note that the Colorado river would be full of nitrogenous compounds
from agricultural fertilizers used upstream.
** Note that most dissolved organic materials would easily penetrate
even a .2 micron filter; yours was only .35 micron.
*** You are very lucky that the Colorado river below Glen Canyon dam
comes from cold water at the reservoir's bottom, where hepatitis
viruses are not likely to proliferate.
John S. Reece
|> You might have considered asking this in sci.med rather than
|> rec.backcountry.
Actually, I was more interested in whether the risk is increasing, or
if it's just that the public's perception/tolerance of a risk that has
always been present is changing. I remember when I started backpacking
circa 1970 we considered that the possibility of getting "the runs" or
"the trots" came with the territory, like getting dunked when crossing
a stream. It was usually attributed to slipshod pot-washing or keeping
fresh food too long.
Risk perception is certainly an interesting exercise in psychology.
Are there any rock climbers out there who are white-knuckle fliers?
Eugene N. Miya
(John S. Reece) writes:
>Actually, I was more interested in whether the risk is increasing, or
>if it's just that the public's perception/tolerance of a risk that has
>always been present is changing.
>
Recently, I made mention that I had acquired a gieger counter
(actually a gamma ray spectrometer). I should say I gave this
instrument to the wife of a friend, the head of the League of
Women Votes in Bishop, CA. She had a 3 day tour of the Proposed Yucca Mtn.
High Level nuclear waste storage facility. She also toured the
Nevada Test site, saw big holes in the ground, etc. I gave her
this instrument for "fun." I am temporarily borrowing it again.
I am currently having "fun" roaming the West with this instrument
which "sees" beyond human senses. The radiological world is very
interesting to me (background radiation) and how people perceive
it is also an interest to me.
For instance, I have wandered in and out of Yosemite, the Park Offices,
the high and low Sierra, and I get a chance to sense an aspect most
people are not aware. I need to write down on a piece of paper
the various readings I get. For instance, hot springs seem to consistently
show higher levels of gamma radiation (3x) over nearby backgrounds.
Now, this is where the spectrometer is more powerful than a gieger
counter: I can distinguish different emissions. (I can't detect beta
or emissions of different gammas, this is basically a prospecting
instrument).
I plan to bring this instrument to SIGGRAPH in Lost Wages, and I also wish
to visit places like St. George (where the Duke got his exposure to fallout)
Zion, etc. looking at unfissioned refuse. If you see a person with a
green box (suspicious looking), that might be me, if its a she, that might be
my old officemate (and her husband), or else some one I'd loan the toy.
I have also brought it here to work, near my current officemate's home
in Livermore, CA [now, why would I do that?!]. And I will ride with it
to another part of Moffett Field where they have these signs
which say "Use of deadly force authorized." I wonder if I would detect
something. It's a radiological world out there.
Oh yes, I have received some wood samples and attempted to test them, but
got no significant readings. My officemate has given them to a nuclear
chemist friend of his for "fun." I will post the results of those tests.
(Are Wayne, Bill, and Ralph reading this? [you can borrow the GRS, too,
if you come to SIGGRAPH.])
Bottom line: just be aware that hot springs are potentially radioactive.
(Slight) (Really, where do you think the heat comes from? [decay products])
Breakdown by my instrument: U: ~50%, K: ~25%, Th: ~25%.
Yes, you take a risk stepping into those nice little hot pools!
Hot in more than one way. Something to think about.
Peter Beckman
>> [..] adding 1 drop Clorox/gallon
>
>I'm glad you feel good about keeping the Clorox Corporation profitable,
>a company now running a disinformation campaign against environmentalists
>in order to preserve the corporate "right to pollute" and chlorine's lock
>on municipal water supply and swimming pool disinfection systems.
Huh? Ilana only mentioned that some people suggest a little Clorox to
kill viruses. Sheeesh! The term "Clorox" is like "Kleenex",
"Band-aid", "Chapstick", and "Vaseline". They are brand names that
most people commonly use instead of the more generic terms "Facial
Tissue", "Adhesive Bandage". "Lip Balm", and "Petroleum Jelly". Don't
be so quick to flame. When I saw her article, I didn't read in
anything about her feelings toward Clorox Corperation. Relax. Take a
walk in the woods. Chill out. -Pete
IAD...@asuacad.bitnet
a study cirtout it. I have some personal experience with this subject that
caused me to start asking the same questions, and he provides some statistics
that also raise those questions.
I've been flirting with disaster since 1982, when I got tired of waiting 20
minutes for the iodine to dissolve and I didn't want to waste all my stove
fuel boiling my drinking water. I was hiking the Appalachian Trail at the
time and tried not to carry any more weight than necessary...
Anyway, I came through that experience with no problems, and I have not treated
my water since then, either, and still had no problems until my doctor told
me a couple of weeks ago that I had giardia. It was discovered accidentally --
I thought I had another kind of infestation because I saw it, not because of
any symptoms. Thinking back, I decided I contracted it in April, when I had
a few days of diarrhea after a fishing trip on which I sipped a little stream w
ater. The diarrhea passed (no pun intended -- well, maybe it is intended) in a
few days and I didn't worry about it. So, like the 46% of the people tested in
the study cited in John Reece's post, I was an asymptomatic carrier.
The doctor prescribed a drug called Flagyl that *can* have lots of nasty side
effects, but the doctor and the pharmacist both told me that the side effects
are very rare unless you drink alcohol while taking the drug. Since I don't
drink, I took the Flagyl for three days, as directed, with no side effects, and
now I'm perfectly healthy again. And I don't feel any better or worse than
before the doc found the giardia.
My point is that I do wonder if this is all too much. Animals and people have
been shitting and dying in streams forever. Sometimes we get sick from it,
sometimes, at least some of us, perhaps many of us don't. I don't mean to
belittle this problem. I know people for whom both the disease and the cure
were terribly uncomfortable. Also, if the disease can be asymptomatic in that
many people, how many of them are blithely shitting in the woods too close
to water sources and putting the little protozoans right back in there?
But for me, I have to wonder if the expense, weight and inconvenience of
the common purification systems is worth the effort. For the moment, at least,
I plan to use some type of purification, probably iodine, on an upcoming
trip to Montana, and I plan to carry a water bottle into the rivers when
I'm flyfishing there, rather than sip the water from the river.
George Cathcart
Arizona STate University
Jim Roberts
OK, Bill, we all know Ilana has iron guts. What else do you drink,
Ilana? I wish my guts were as tough as yours.
--
Jim Roberts rob...@stsci.edu scivax::roberts
Peter Hickey
I use a simple method to determine if I should worry or not. I look at
my map. If the stream follows a trail, I worry, and won't drink
the water without treatment. (Unless its a really obscure trail
that nobody ever takes). If the stream simply crosses the trail
I figgure that its good to drink.
I worry about the people. All the animals that I speak with tell
me that they don't shit in the streams :-).
-Pete
P.S. I'm a bit tougher with the water for my kids, though...
--
Pete Hickey | Pe...@panda1.uottawa.CA
Computing & Communication Services | or (if desperate)
110 Seraphin-Marion -- U of Ottawa | pet...@uottawa.bitnet
Ottawa, Ont. Canada K1N 6N5 | (613) 564-7646
Ilana Stern
>OK, Bill, we all know Ilana has iron guts. What else do you drink,
>Ilana? I wish my guts were as tough as yours.
I figure that after growing up in the Golden Age of Processed Food,
I've ingested enough sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, dipotassium phosphate,
trisodium citrate, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate, potassium
sorbate, calcium disodium edta, monosodium glutamate, and propylene glycol,
that my insides are better preserved than King Tut's.
Of course, there was that time I got suckered into going to that
"Natural Foods"-type restaurant, and accidently ate an organic whole-wheat
muffin. I was sick for *days*!
wayne trzyna
>
>
>drink, I took the Flagyl for three days, as directed, with no side effects, and
>
>now I'm perfectly healthy again. And I don't feel any better or worse than
>before the doc found the giardia.
But you are probably several hundred dollars poorer for having
payed the doctor!
-Wayne Trzyna
trz...@cs.colostate.edu
Steven J. Dovich; x272
impressed with their stoves. This filter mates directly to the
wide-mouth 1 liter Nalgene bottles (and to collapsible MSR water
bags). The convenience of not growing another arm or two to hold
container, filter and pump handle was a big factor.
Following the sponge prefilter on the inlet host, water is pumped
through a fine mesh screen, an activated carbon filter cartridge, and
finally a 0.1 micron membrane filter. The filter is claimed to handle
bacterial, chemical, and some viral contaminants.
The filter body, together with the pump mechanism, is constructed of
Lexan. The body can be broken down easily for maintenance. The design
seems typical MSR, ie. make it rugged, yet relatively simple for field
maintenance.
While shopping, I was comparing against the First Need, and Katadyn
filters. The MSR filter was priced between these two, but seemed (to
me) unmatched in capability or convenience.
Obviously I am a satisfied customer. Is there evidence that this
product is less than satisfactory for producing sufficiently purified
water? What reasons are there for using chemical purification as
opposed to filtration? I am curious to see other opinions about this
filter, or other filter products for that matter.
I am beginning to wonder though if MSR will do to the water filter
market what they did for stoves (offer a quality product that most
competitors will be find hard to compete with).
/sjd
--
Steven J. Dovich <dov...@cadence.com>
Cadence Design Systems/ACAE Div.
2 Lowell Research Center Dr
Phone: (508) 934-0272 Lowell, MA 01852-4995
Jim Roberts
They are loathesome critters, aren't they?
Allen Miller
In article <1991Jul11....@nas.nasa.gov>, eug...@nas.nasa.gov
(Eugene N. Miya) writes:
> I am currently having "fun" roaming the West with this instrument
> which "sees" beyond human senses. The radiological world is very
> interesting to me (background radiation) and how people perceive
> it is also an interest to me.
[....]
> Bottom line: just be aware that hot springs are potentially radioactive.
> (Slight) (Really, where do you think the heat comes from? [decay products])
> Breakdown by my instrument: U: ~50%, K: ~25%, Th: ~25%.
> Yes, you take a risk stepping into those nice little hot pools!
> Hot in more than one way. Something to think about.
>
It's fun to plop a Coleman lantern mantle on such an instrument. It needs
to be fairly sensative, but you will observe emmissions corresponding to
some Th isotopes, which happen to emit a nice white light when heated.
Allen Miller mil...@lamar.colostate.edu
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
Fort Collins CO 80523
Alan Munn
In article <DOVICH.91J...@cosmic.cadence.com> dov...@cadence.com (Steven J. Dovich; x272) writes:
>I have recently purchased the MSR water filter, having been favorably
>impressed with their stoves. This filter mates directly to the
>wide-mouth 1 liter Nalgene bottles (and to collapsible MSR water
>bags). The convenience of not growing another arm or two to hold
>container, filter and pump handle was a big factor.
[rave review of MSR filter deleted]
When I was last at REI (sometime in late May) I went looking for the
MSR filter, and they were all gone. An REI-person told me that MSR
had taken them off the market temporarily because of unspecified
'problems'. That was all he knew/would say about it. Does anyone
know more about this? Steven, did you buy your filter after May or
just as they first came out?
Alan
<am...@umd5.umd.edu>
>Steven J. Dovich <dov...@cadence.com>
J. Hardy
>In order to back up my political comments about Clorox Corporation, I
>offer this news item, which was enough to make me puke. I would boycott
>Clorox, if I hadn't already stopped using it. Before Clorox drags me
>off to court, I'd like to urge everyone to buy 1-2 bottles of PolarPure
>(iodine crystals) and use them in place of Clorox. Please!!!
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
(stuff deleted, don't worry it wasn't worth reading anyway)
This was supposed to provide backup to your prefious comments???
Greenpeace, an organization perhaps most widely known for its attacks on
corporations, gives a press release in which it pretty blatantly quotes
its source out of context, and which is also written in a style which seems
indicative of a desire to inflame rather than inform, and on this basis we're
supposed to support a boycott of Clorox?
I do thank you for including a source for the actual Clorox statement, I only
wish you had done the net the service of posting it, rather than Greenpeace's
diatribe.
There may be some very good reasons for avoiding the use of Clorox products.
However, you have yet to present any. Are we really to believe that a company
as large as Clorox, one that spends huge sums on public relations would publicly
say the sorts of things which the greenpeace article implies it did? And this
without reading the statement from Clorox? Or was this supposed to be some
sort of internal memo, only for the high ups in the corporation? If so, how
did it get leaked? Did the leak alter the content?
I could go on and on and on and on.
Again, there may be some very good reasons to not patronize Clorox. If you
have any please share them. But lets not all run off jerking our knees at everypiece of propaganda spewed forth by anyone who calls themself a nature lover.
I certainly don't intend this as an attack on Greenpeace. But in this case
they are obviously biased (aside from distributing news which appears a bit
yellow around the edges). Before you go advocating that people boycott a
company do your research. Find out whats really going on. Not just what some
biased source heard through the grapevine.
Anyway its late and time for bed.
gnight all
Bill Bill Tuthill
>
> >I'm glad you feel good about keeping the Clorox Corporation profitable,
> >a company now running a disinformation campaign against environmentalists
> >in order to preserve the corporate "right to pollute" and chlorine's lock
> >on municipal water supply and swimming pool disinfection systems.
>
> Huh? Ilana only mentioned that some people suggest a little Clorox to
> kill viruses. Sheeesh! The term "Clorox" is like "Kleenex",
> When I saw her article, I didn't read in anything about her feelings
> toward Clorox Corperation. Relax. Take a walk in the woods. Chill out.
Do you know any other manufacturers of diluted chlorine for the household
market? Clorox supplies most store brands under contract. I disagree
that Clorox is a generic name, it is a specific brand. That's why they
took the "h" out.
I'd like to defend myself against charges of flaming. After re-reading
my comments, I fail to see anything that could be construed as insulting
towards Ilana. Since when has "keeping [corporations] profitable" been
considered in poor taste?
In order to back up my political comments about Clorox Corporation, I
offer this news item, which was enough to make me puke. I would boycott
Clorox, if I hadn't already stopped using it. Before Clorox drags me
off to court, I'd like to urge everyone to buy 1-2 bottles of PolarPure
(iodine crystals) and use them in place of Clorox. Please!!!
[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
CLOROX COMPANY'S PUBLIC RELATIONS "CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN"
LEAKED TO GREENPEACE
Seattle, May 13, 1991 (GP) -- A public relations "Crisis
Management Plan" prepared for the Clorox Corporation and leaked to
Greenpeace recommends labeling environmental critics as
"terrorists," threatening to sue "unalterably green" journalists,
and dispatching "independent scientists" on media tours as means
to counteract bad news for the chlorine industry.
The plan, prepared by the public relations division of Ketchum
Communications, was apparently prompted by fears that the
environmental group would target household use of chlorine bleach
and call for its elimination.
Greenpeace has an international program aimed at ending the use
of chlorine in the pulp and paper industry. Its slogan
"Chlorine-Free by 1993" is cited in the Clorox plan, which
outlines numerous "worst case scenarios" in which Greenpeace and
"unalterably green" journalists figure prominently.
"They failed to anticipate the worst of worst case scenarios,"
said Shelley Stewart, Greenpeace toxics campaigner. "That some
conscientious person would obtain the plan, and leak it to us."
Greenpeace verified that Ketchum Communications, a Pittsburgh-
based firm which is one of the nation's largest advertising and
public relations entities, is under contract to Clorox. One
portion of the leaked document is comprised of a fax transmission
between two Ketchum offices.
"Lying is a growth industry," Stewart said of such PR firms.
"The truth is that chlorine is a chemical whose days are numbered.
Its use has created some of the most intractable environmental
problems in history."
DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, CFCs and dioxin all originate from use
of chlorine.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Clorox plan is that while
it's clear that the company knows it has a genuine environmental
problem on its hands, the document suggests that Clorox feels more
threatened by a public interest group like Greenpeace than they do
by the federal authorities.
The Crisis Plan makes reference to studies linking chlorine use to
cancer, and with remarkable candor suggests ways to discredit the
findings if they ever became public. Ketchum recommends that Clorox
should "cast doubts on the methodology and findings," of potentially
damaging scientific reports which haven't yet been written.
The PR firm also recommends labeling Greenpeace as violent self-
seeking "eco-terrorists;" attempting to sue newspaper columnists
who advocate use of non-toxic bleaches and cleaners for the home;
"immunizing" government officials; dispatching "independent"
scientists on media tours; and recruiting "scientific ambassadors"
to tout the Clorox cause and call for further study.
While "crisis" public relations specialists have been deployed to
effect spin control on virtually every major environmental issue
in recent years, the chlorine industry has been a prolific consumer
of the type of service outlined in the Ketchum memo. The Clorox
PR strategy sounded familiar to Stewart. "We've seen the same kinds
of ploys coming from the American Paper Institute and the Chlorine
Institute surrounding the toxicity of dioxin," she said.
NOTE: Copies of the Clorox Crisis Management Plan are available
from Greenpeace's offices in Washington, DC, Seattle, San
Francisco, and Toronto, Canada.
Contact: Shelley Stewart in Seattle, 206/632-4326
Bill Walker in San Francisco, 415/512-9025
Peter Dykstra in Washington, DC, 202/319-2491
Tamara Stark in Toronto, Canada 416/345-8408
####
Jim Roberts
>t...@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>>Clorox, if I hadn't already stopped using it. Before Clorox drags me
>>off to court, I'd like to urge everyone to buy 1-2 bottles of PolarPure
>>(iodine crystals) and use them in place of Clorox. Please!!!
>
>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
> (stuff deleted, don't worry it wasn't worth reading anyway)
>
And apparently, you didn't Jim. Bill's posting very clearly labeled
the source as an internal memo. We can be thankful that it was leaked
(I wish it were available in electronic form, too), because that shows
that there are some good guys at Clorox.
>without reading the statement from Clorox? Or was this supposed to be some
>sort of internal memo, only for the high ups in the corporation? If so, how
>did it get leaked? Did the leak alter the content?
That's exactly what the press release stated.
>I could go on and on and on and on.
>Anyway its late and time for bed.
Yes. But that info is not of nearly such wide interest as the
Greenpeace memo you disparage.
Stirling Olson
I'm sorry to post this question on the net, but does anyone have the email
address of the person that is compiling the backcountry cookbook? If you
do have it please send it to me at the above e-mail address. Thanks in
advance.
Stirling
Jack Campin
> The term "Clorox" is like "Kleenex", "Band-aid", "Chapstick", and
> "Vaseline". They are brand names that most people commonly use
> "Lip Balm", and "Petroleum Jelly".
It may be over there: here people would have no idea what you were talking
about and would use "Domestos" the same way, which I assume _you_ wouldn't
understand either. Please, if you know the generic name for a chemical,
use it, and if you don't, try to find out what it is before using the
brand name as a last resort. (We usually say "tissues" and "Elastoplast"
here, too).
I am a little puzzled by the differences people are drawing between the
chemistry of chlorine and iodine. Isn't iodamine formed from iodine in
contaminated solutions to a similar extent as chloramine from hypochlorite,
and isn't it similar in toxicity?
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Bill Bill Tuthill
jha...@milton.u.washington.edu (J. Hardy) writes:
>
> >[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
> (stuff deleted, don't worry it wasn't worth reading anyway)
>
In your zeal to not read the Greenpeace release, you must have missed
this part:
"The Crisis Plan makes reference to studies linking chlorine
use to cancer, [and] suggests ways to discredit the findings
if they ever became public.
My wife read somewhere (in one of her non-toxic product books) that
chlorine use in municipal water supplies, swimming pools, and household
bleaches accounts for about 10,000 cancer deaths per year. Who knows
whether this is accurate or not?
Go ahead, buy a bottle of Clorox and read the warning label. It doesn't
say anything about cancer, but does provide plenty of warnings.
P.S. What does this have to do with backcountry?
J. Hardy
>In article <1991Jul12.0...@milton.u.washington.edu> jha...@milton.u.washington.edu (J. Hardy) writes:
>>t...@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>>>Clorox, if I hadn't already stopped using it. Before Clorox drags me
>>>off to court, I'd like to urge everyone to buy 1-2 bottles of PolarPure
>>>(iodine crystals) and use them in place of Clorox. Please!!!
>>
>>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
>> (stuff deleted, don't worry it wasn't worth reading anyway)
>>
>And apparently, you didn't Jim. Bill's posting very clearly labeled
>the source as an internal memo. We can be thankful that it was leaked
>(I wish it were available in electronic form, too), because that shows
>that there are some good guys at Clorox.
actually I did read it. did you? care to share with us just how this internal
memo was leaked? The Greenpeace release mentions intercepting some fax
transmission. Doesnt say if this was during the transmission or after the
transmission. Doesn't say what motivated the leak. Doesn't mention whether
the info was leaked legally or illegally.
Now, admittedly these are not the sort of things one expects from a Greenpeace
press release. Hopefully, the press release will serve as motivation for
people to explore the actions and policies of the Clorox corporation. But
it is clearly inadequate as justification for a boycott. To take it as such
is to allow oneself to be influenced by the media in just the way that
Greenpeace says Clorox is intending, though in the opposite direction.
>>without reading the statement from Clorox? Or was this supposed to be some
>>sort of internal memo, only for the high ups in the corporation? If so, how
>>did it get leaked? Did the leak alter the content?
>That's exactly what the press release stated.
Again you seemed to have missed the point. To my recollection, (I didnt save
a copy of the article, I dont normally save supermarket tabloids either, which
seem to me to be about the same level of journalism as the greenpeace article),
no mention was made about who wrote the memo, and to whom. Was this an official
policy statement? Or just one person spouting off to another? Why should we
believe that this "intercepted memo" reflects the official policy and opinion
of the corporation as a whole?
Again, I'm not saying that there is no reason to avoid Clorox's products, only
that the Greenpeace press release does not, by itself, provide any such reason.
It provides no more reason than would a Clorox press release, which reported
an "interecepted memo" from Greenpeace attributing environmentally hazardous
activities to Greenpeace, provide a reason to boycott Greenpeace.
If you really want to follow this thread then email me a copy of the article
and I'll point out exactly what I take to be wrong with it. I had thought
it relatively self-evident but I guess not.
>--
>Jim Roberts rob...@stsci.edu scivax::roberts
Mike Smith
>Do you know any other manufacturers of diluted chlorine for the household
>market?
Isn't Purex a competitor brand to the Clorox company?
>Clorox supplies most store brands under contract.
Have you some evidence of this? House brands are most often
supplied by who ever bid lowest on the last contract, and that
is often NOT the market leader... I'm not saying you are wrong,
just that I'm skeptical that a single vendor would dominate
the competitive bidding without hitting an anti-trust suit ...
>I disagree that Clorox is a generic name, it is a specific brand.
>That's why they took the "h" out.
It is somewhat of both, as the original poster stated. It is a
specific brand name, it is also commonly used as the generic term,
much to the chagrin of the Clorox legal staff. Just as was stated
in the original posting, Kleenex et. al. suffer the same problem.
Aspirin used to be a proprietary name of Bayer brand acetylsalicylic acid
(hope I spelled that right); until the public used it as a generic name
too much ... that is what Kleenex and Clorox have bad dreams about ...
Being on the cusp is a real mixed blessing for them. Lots of name
recognition, but the risk of loosing ownership of the name...
So, yes, it is a proprietary name; and yes, it is commonly used as a
generic name (and "shouldn't be"), and may or may not someday become
a legally generic term, depending on the effectiveness of the Clorox
Co. legal staff.
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
We all agreed that reducing the deficit was important.
Unfortunately the Republican congress critters thought this meant
'Soak the Middle Class' and the Democrats thought it meant to
'Soak the Rich' while what the people wanted was less spending ...
Jim Roberts
In article <1991Jul11.1...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
[...]
>I am a little puzzled by the differences people are drawing between the
>chemistry of chlorine and iodine. Isn't iodamine formed from iodine in
Jack, chlorine is a *lot* more electronegative than iodine, and hence
a lot more oxidizing. So it's also more vulnerable to the
environment.
Jim--
peter g millard
I work for a store that carries the MSRs, and as I understood it, they
(MSR) had a quality control problem with the plastic handles on the
pumping mechanism (that may be wrong, but I think that was it.)
We (EMS) never got any filters until they were all fixed...caused
some major dirtibution problems for us and MSR. :)
As far as I know, the filters out right now, are fine. As Steven
mentioned, I also think that this filter looks like the way to
go. I have no idea how Kathydin (sp?) can stay in business with their
filters costing 200+ dollars????
Peter
--
******************************************************************************
Peter G. Millard * INTERNET: v057...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
SUNY @ Buffalo * : mil...@acsu.buffalo.edu
*****************************************************************************
Steven J. Dovich; x272
>
> When I was last at REI (sometime in late May) I went looking for the
> MSR filter, and they were all gone. An REI-person told me that MSR
> had taken them off the market temporarily because of unspecified
> 'problems'. That was all he knew/would say about it. Does anyone
> know more about this? Steven, did you buy your filter after May or
> just as they first came out?
I can't shed any light on this. I got mine the first of June from EMS.
Peter's comments (below) seem to adequately describe what happened.
The Dromedary bags were in my local store several weeks before the
filters...
In article <83...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> peter g millard writes:
> I work for a store that carries the MSRs, and as I understood it, they
> (MSR) had a quality control problem with the plastic handles on the
> pumping mechanism (that may be wrong, but I think that was it.)
> We (EMS) never got any filters until they were all fixed...caused
> some major dirtibution problems for us and MSR. :)
The staff at the local EMS didn't seem too wary of the WaterWorks.
Several busy working out how and when they were going to replce their
current water purification methods. There wasn't much question what
that replacement was going to be... :-)
Joel J. Hanes
>
> ... Is there evidence that this
>product is less than satisfactory for producing sufficiently purified
>water?
If you are in any but the most remote areas, you stand a small risk
of contracting water-borne viral diseases because the mechanical
filter in your (MSR, First Need) filter is too coarse to intercept
many viruses.
Hepatitis is no joke. I iodize water first, using *fresh* iodine
tablets, and let it stand for several hours. If you then pump the
iodized water through your charcoal filter, *voila*, the water is
virtually sterile, the iodine is removed, and the water tastes fine.
If I was going to omit one step of my iodize -> filter process,
I'd omit the filtration. The filter is heavy, and is by itself
questionably adequate. The iodine is lightweight and known to
be completely effective - it's only disadvantage is taste.
My opinion, of course.
---
Joel Hanes
Barnacle Wes
% (actually a gamma ray spectrometer). I should say I gave this
% instrument to the wife of a friend, the head of the League of
% Women Votes in Bishop, CA. She had a 3 day tour of the Proposed Yucca Mtn.
% High Level nuclear waste storage facility. She also toured the
% Nevada Test site, saw big holes in the ground, etc. I gave her
% this instrument for "fun." I am temporarily borrowing it again.
%
% I am currently having "fun" roaming the West with this instrument
% which "sees" beyond human senses. The radiological world is very
% interesting to me (background radiation) and how people perceive
% it is also an interest to me.
Great fun! Take it to the Canyonlands with you - with the number of
Uranium mines in the area, you'll probably get sick of it bleeping and
turn it off.
You always wondered why the poeple in Moab and Hanksville keep their
tans year-round, didn't you?
Wes Peters
--
#include <std/disclaimer.h> The worst day sailing
My opinions, your screen. is much better than
Raxco had nothing to do with this! the best day at work.
Wes Peters: w...@harem.clydeunix.com ...!sun!unislc!harem!wes
Barnacle Wes
>
> I use a simple method to determine if I should worry or not. I look at
> my map. If the stream follows a trail, I worry, and won't drink
> the water without treatment. (Unless its a really obscure trail
> that nobody ever takes). If the stream simply crosses the trail
> I figgure that its good to drink.
What's all this talk about purifying water? You pour it out of the tap
on the kitchen sink into your water bottle, or the bathtub if you're
filling BIG water bottles, and drag it into your camp. No problem.
Oh. OH! You mean water found on the GROUND, in nature. Sorry. I
guess you guys aren't talking about the deserts, huh?
Wes Peters
P.S. Don't flame me - unislc has been unfriendly lately and I'm
suffering from net.withdrawal.