illegal Iowa water filters
used2...@aol.com
Today I got my new Cabela's and Campmor catalogues. My whole family is
wondering why both are not allowed to sell water filters/purifiers in
Iowa??? The iodine tablets seem ok, but all the filter systems have a
note that they cannot sell them if you live in Iowa? What gives?
Lee Schwartzberg
In article <19961115015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
used2...@aol.com wrote:
We (Campmor) actually got a letter from the State of Iowa Department of
Health stating that the sale of water filters and purification devices in
the State of Iowas was illegal and that we had to stop selling them there
immediately. I think it had something to do with the fact that Iowa Health
Dept. likes to run its own lab tests on things like this, and since they
figure the demand for these life saving appliances wasn't great, it
wouldn't be a priority.
I guess we (and Cabelas, too, I'm sure) would encourage all Iowa residents
to write letters or make phone calls to state representatives, to see if
this silly ban can be lifted. Let us know if you make any progress. I'm
guessing if the ban is lifted, it'll take the State of Iowa an eternity to
let us know. Meanwhile, if you live in Iowa...don't risk it! Get your
hands on a filter/purifier (ship it to a friend in the next state or
something), but don't risk Giardia or other nasties. You know what they
say about Giardia...it won't kill you, but you'll wish it did.
Lee S.
Campmor
J. Clarke
Lee Schwartzberg <lee...@campmor.com> wrote in article
<leeschw-1511...@206.181.14.102>...
Sounds like they passed a law aimed at products to be attached to home
plumbing systems and worded it so loosely that it also covers backpacking
filters. Your tax dollars at work :)
--John
W T Meyer
In article <leeschw-1511...@206.181.14.102>, lee...@campmor.com (Lee Schwartzberg) writes:
|> In article <19961115015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
|> used2...@aol.com wrote:
|>
|> > Today I got my new Cabela's and Campmor catalogues. My whole family is
|> > wondering why both are not allowed to sell water filters/purifiers in
|> > Iowa??? The iodine tablets seem ok, but all the filter systems have a
|> > note that they cannot sell them if you live in Iowa? What gives?
|>
|> We (Campmor) actually got a letter from the State of Iowa Department of
|> Health stating that the sale of water filters and purification devices in
|> the State of Iowas was illegal and that we had to stop selling them there
|> immediately. I think it had something to do with the fact that Iowa Health
|> Dept. likes to run its own lab tests on things like this, and since they
|> figure the demand for these life saving appliances wasn't great, it
|> wouldn't be a priority.
|>
|> I guess we (and Cabelas, too, I'm sure) would encourage all Iowa residents
|> to write letters or make phone calls to state representatives, to see if
|> this silly ban can be lifted. Let us know if you make any progress. I'm
|> guessing if the ban is lifted, it'll take the State of Iowa an eternity to
|> let us know. Meanwhile, if you live in Iowa...don't risk it! Get your
|> hands on a filter/purifier (ship it to a friend in the next state or
|> something), but don't risk Giardia or other nasties. You know what they
|> say about Giardia...it won't kill you, but you'll wish it did.
|>
|> Lee S.
|> Campmor
Thanks for posting this. I live in Iowa and have been pissed about this for some
time. I wrote a letter to the public health people about a year ago and I'll
post their reply tomorrow. The bottom line is that they knowingly included
backpacking stoves in the ban, although the original intent was to regulate fraud
in under-the-counter water purifiers, some of which are out and out fraud.
Technically, the filters aren't illegal, they just have to be tested by state
laboratories first, for which the manufacturer is charges something like $10,000.
For the volume of business in IA is just isn't worth it to them. Third party
tests (e.g. those at the U. of WA. and U. of AZ) don't count.
It's a fine example of a stupid law. Anyone willing to help me fight it, please
email me. Perhaps we can get some of the local outdoor organizations involved as
well (Iowa Mountaineers - yes they are for real, local Sierra Club chapter, etc.).
--
Thomas Meyer internet: me...@iastate.edu
High Energy Physics hepnet: isuhep::meyer
Iowa State University
Ames, Ia 50011
USA
Bill Fishel
In article <19961115015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
used2...@aol.com says...
>
The iodine tablets seem ok, but all the filter systems have a
>note that they cannot sell them if you live in Iowa? What gives?
It has something to do with Iowa regs in that it has to be guaranteed to
be failsafe and I haven't read of a filter yet that was 100% BTW I have a
MSR filter I've used for a couple of years but after reading some other
posts on safe handling of filters ie, not storing the intake with filter
supply tube in the same bag I'm wondreing if maybe I was just lucky
W T Meyer
The following is the entire text of a reply I received a year ago from the
Director of the Iowa Department of Public Health to a letter I wrote asking
about the situation regarding the sale of water filters in Iowa.
As you can see, the stated intent is one of "consumer protection". Does anyone
know of any other area of the world that feels they have to protect their
consumers by regulating the sale of water filters in such a way as to drive
them off the market?
If anyone has experience in fighting such stupidity, I'd like to hear from you.
----------------The letter----------------
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1995. I have reviewed the
circumstances with the staff of the Department of Public Health.
Iowa law since 1989 required that water treatment systems sold or leased in
Iowa that _claim to remove health-related contaminants from water intended for
drinking_ be registered with the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH). If
they do not make such claims, they do not need to be registered.
The Attorney General's Office issued an opinion in 1990 that stated that the
law applies to home water treatment systems and to "backpack" filters. This
law was passed to provide the consumer protection from fraudulent practices
that endanger the health of our citizens.
In order for the "backpack" water system to be sold in Iowa, companies must
comply with the law. To register a water treatment device or system, the
manufacturer must have the equipment tested by an independent, third-party
laboratory under a protocol approved by the University of Iowa Hygenic
Laboratory. The testing laboratory must be approved by IDPH.
To the date of your letter, no manufacturer of personal water filters has
applied to register a filter with IDPH. I am told that one company is now
pursuing Iowa registration of personal water filtration systems. Other
manufacturers have bee[sic] contacted and may pursue registration.
If you have any questions, please contact Michael Magnant at 515-281-8722.
Sincerely,
Christopher G. Atchison,
Director [of IPDH]
rschool
W T Meyer wrote:
>
> The following is the entire text of a reply I received a year ago from the
> Director of the Iowa Department of Public Health to a letter I wrote asking
> about the situation regarding the sale of water filters in Iowa.
>
> As you can see, the stated intent is one of "consumer protection". Does anyone
> know of any other area of the world that feels they have to protect their
> consumers by regulating the sale of water filters in such a way as to drive
> them off the market?
>
> If anyone has experience in fighting such stupidity, I'd like to hear from you.
What's the problem? If the filters work as they claim to work, why
shouldn't they have an independent third party test them? If they don't
work as claimed, why should I put my health and the health of my scouts
at risk when we go into the backcountry and have to depend on a water
filter for our potable water?
Seems to me that the sale of filters haven't been "driven them off the
market" but the manufactures haven't chosen to enter the market in the
first place.
Yours in the Outdoors
Bill Schooley
High Adventure Chair
Troop 391
Hamburg, Mi.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
rschool wrote:
> What's the problem? If the filters work as they claim to work, why
> shouldn't they have an independent third party test them? If they don't
> work as claimed, why should I put my health and the health of my scouts
> at risk when we go into the backcountry and have to depend on a water
> filter for our potable water?
>
I believe the problem is states with hungry agencies. Note (in previous
posted letter) that the state requires the filters meet a testing
protocol established by that state. This is typical cover language by
government agencies who create regulations that can only be met by
companies or government divisions within that state, meaning any company
wishing to sell a product must in effect pay off the state in question.
Please don't be blind to bureaucratic reality. (Real health risk isn't
an issue. I live in Vermont, with lots of barrier regulations. Ever see
that little notice on your bag o' cookies that says 'Reg. Penna. Dept.
Agr.'? Same thing. Also, the old pretense of computer interference that
drove small computer companies out of business with $10K-$50K fees for
each approval, lobbied for by the big manufacturers.)
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
Malted/Media: http://www.maltedmedia.com/
The Middle-Aged Hiker: http://www.maltedmedia.com/books/mah/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://www.maltedmedia.com/kalvos/
J. Clarke
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bat...@maltedmedia.com> wrote in article
<3297A6...@maltedmedia.com>...
> Also, the old pretense of computer interference that
> drove small computer companies out of business with $10K-$50K fees for
> each approval, lobbied for by the big manufacturers.)
Umm, that one was not a pretense. The Radio Shack TRS-80 series could jam
radio communications for a block or more, and when asked politely to do
something about it, Radio Shack refused (information comes from a fellow
whose day job is an electronics technician and whose night job is a fireman
and fire safety instructor--he gets livid every time he sees a Trash-80).
Hence a law was passed which forced them to fix the problem. I understand
a lot of the lobbying was from EMTs.
--John
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
To the point: government required cert. from ind. labs who charged
exhorbitant fees with coop. of govt., who set standards to accommodate
lab lobbyists. (BTW, R.S. did not refuse; shielding on units, as well as
Apples, was immediately improved, incl. cabling. 'Block or more'?
Sheesh. I did both computer & RF work on those units, & emissions
weren't even close. As for EMTs -- my wife ran the EMT & ambulance
system here & we discussed this -- largely didn't have a clue back then.
History rewritten again.)
J. Clarke
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bat...@maltedmedia.com> wrote in article
<32986E...@maltedmedia.com>...
> To the point: government required cert. from ind. labs who charged
> exhorbitant fees with coop. of govt., who set standards to accommodate
> lab lobbyists. (BTW, R.S. did not refuse; shielding on units, as well as
> Apples, was immediately improved, incl. cabling. 'Block or more'?
> Sheesh. I did both computer & RF work on those units, & emissions
> weren't even close. As for EMTs -- my wife ran the EMT & ambulance
> system here & we discussed this -- largely didn't have a clue back then.
> History rewritten again.)
Well, now, your wife as an EMT might not have had a clue. My friend the
EMT was also an electronics technician as I said, Class I, Radar
Endorsement, the whole nine yards. And he very, very definitely had a
clue.
Maybe history was rewritten, but I don't think so.
In any case, I've never been told by anyone that it is goint to cost
$50,000 to get a machine certified.
--John
stev...@aol.com
The issue is not as simple as you make it out. The problem with the Iowa
DPH is that their requirements for certification are designed on those for
household units. This requires different, and more expensive, testing than
required elsewhere in the USA. The volume of possible sales in Iowa does
not justify the cost of the additional testing required to register the
product there. It's a very simple money thing. Now, if they had the
population of California...
W T Meyer
In article <329342...@ic.net>, rschool <rsc...@ic.net> writes:
|> W T Meyer wrote:
|> >
|> > The following is the entire text of a reply I received a year ago from the
|> > Director of the Iowa Department of Public Health to a letter I wrote asking
|> > about the situation regarding the sale of water filters in Iowa.
|> >
|> > As you can see, the stated intent is one of "consumer protection". Does anyone
|> > know of any other area of the world that feels they have to protect their
|> > consumers by regulating the sale of water filters in such a way as to drive
|> > them off the market?
|> >
|> > If anyone has experience in fighting such stupidity, I'd like to hear from you.
|> (snip)
|>
|> What's the problem? If the filters work as they claim to work, why
|> shouldn't they have an independent third party test them? If they don't
|> work as claimed, why should I put my health and the health of my scouts
|> at risk when we go into the backcountry and have to depend on a water
|> filter for our potable water?
|>
|> Seems to me that the sale of filters haven't been "driven them off the
|> market" but the manufactures haven't chosen to enter the market in the
|> first place.
|>
|> Yours in the Outdoors
|> Bill Schooley
|> High Adventure Chair
|> Troop 391
|> Hamburg, Mi.
|>
|>
The problem is that the state charges something like $10,000 for the testing. The
market is too small in Iowa for it to be worth any manufacturer's while to pay
this amount. The result is that the filters are not available here, making it
harder for me to take reasonable precautions to protect my health and that of the
scouts I am responsible for.
It's not that the filters haven't been tested. Univ. of WA tested a number of
them, including the First Need, in 1989 and published the results in the American
Journal of Public Health. Also, the Sweetwater Guardian was tested at the
Unviersity of AZ. Both filters were found to be highly effective. As far as I
know, no one has demonstrated any of the major brand units to be anything other
than highly effective. But the tests weren't done according to the IA
requirements and thus can't be used.
If each state required its own tests and charged $10K there would be a start-up
cost of half a million dollars for each company wanting to enter the market.
LMwr...@yahoo.com
> Today I got my new Cabela's and Campmor catalogues. My whole family is
> wondering why both are not allowed to sell water filters/purifiers in
It appears to me that Iowas state's groundwater is extremely contaminated.
Len McDougall, author of http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-self-reliance-manifesto-len-mcdougall/1111080509?ean=9781616080617, and a dozen other survival-oriented volumes that might save your life.
hjlic...@lichtman.ws
> Today I got my new Cabela's and Campmor catalogues. My whole family is
> wondering why both are not allowed to sell water filters/purifiers in
> Iowa??? The iodine tablets seem ok, but all the filter systems have a
> note that they cannot sell them if you live in Iowa? What gives?
cjmc...@gmail.com
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/backcountry_water_treatment.html
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/drinking/Backcountry_Water_Treatment.pdf
And, as a brand new Iowa resident, this law is stupid.
jameshi...@gmail.com
Lender's Email: sloans...@gmail.com
Phone#: +1-254-242-0879