OT: home water filtration and reverse osmosis (RO)

[AngryScientist]

a recent article about hexavalent cromium (Erin Brockovich anyone??) being found at potentially toxic (whatever that means) levels in the drinking water of a number of US cities (including NYC, which generally has great water) got me thinking about a home reverse osmosis system.

i drink a lot of water home, a lot, and i'm generally opposed to buying bottled water for the expense and the waste created by the bottles. i should probably be drinking the cleanest water possible no?

anyone have one of these installed and care to comment on its function vs price or anything else?

here's the article that sparked my interest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101220/ts_yblog_thelookout/study-tap-water-in-31-cities-contains-cancer-causing-chemical

[William]

Here is some info from a thread I started a while back....

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=14414&highlight=water





William

[AngryScientist]

Here is some info from a thread I started a while back....

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=14414&highlight=water





William


ahh, nice. (forgive my Tuesday morning laziness to use the search :banana: )

[97CSI]

Can't comment on the smaller home systems, but the ones I've been involved with in the semiconductor industry are expenseive to purchase, install and operate. Small RO systems have been available for sail-boats for quite a while. They don't make that much water, but if you are drinking more than 5gpd, then you are a real sponge. Set one up with a separate tap for your driniking water supply and you should be good. Purchase a copy of 'Sail' or any of the other popular sailing mags and several will be advertised. I would think one of these would be more reliable than a home system, as folks purchase them for sailing around the world. Home water treatment systems of all sorts seem to be based strictly on what the seller can charge you on an on-going basis. More salt, more filters, more technician support, more whatever.........

[rice rocket]

Friend of mine has a double reverse osmosis system. If I recall correctly, it only produces 2 gallons a day, and burns a good bit of energy to do it.

Water comes out tasting really dry. Great for cooking, tastes a little funny for drinking (although I guess you get used to it). Ice cubes come out almost completely clear, which is neat.

[Dave]

A little research might change your mind on the wisdom of drinking RO water.

http://www.articlesbase.com/wellness-articles/reverse-osmosis-does-not-make-water-safe-to-drink-537128.html

[AngryScientist]

A little research might change your mind on the wisdom of drinking RO water.

http://www.articlesbase.com/wellness-articles/reverse-osmosis-does-not-make-water-safe-to-drink-537128.html

interesting Dave, the biggest factor there, i would guess would be the electricity usage. i only want this system for drinking water, nothing else, so i think the water wasted argument is moot.

i also think the "removal of all minerals" flaw is really a non-issue for me, i think i get enough salt and whatnot through the other seasoned foods i regularly consume, to make this another moot point.

as far as bacteria - i'd be filtering tap water, which should have that covered already.

good food for thought though.

[dekindy]

I chose the Kinetico whole house system because it is powered by water, not electricity, and has a meter instead of a timer to determine when the unit needs to regenerate so salt is not wasted.

Kinetico's RO unit is certified to perform as claimed which includes bacteria and viruses. Like the whole house unit it does not use electricity either. The previous reply that claimed to be research sounded more like sales than research.

It has been a long time since I researched this so I would be interested in current research if anyone has any. Does anyone kinow if this website is accurate? http://www.reverse-osmosis-water-filter-guide.com/compare-filtrations-methods.html

[Karin Kirk]

Before you settle on one method over another, I'd suggest finding out what your potential issues are, if any. Start by getting a copy of the annual water quality report issued by your water supplier. This annual report is mandated by law and is available for free to everyone. Or, if you are on a well, you need to have it tested yourself.

Ask your county health dept about the common issues for water quality in your area. Or, if you really want the details, you can have your own tap water tested. There is a range of different analyses and a phone call to a water testing lab can help you identify which type of analysis you want.

Then, based on what you learn, it will be easy to find a treatment method that works for your situation. I don't advise going headlong to RO without at least some indication that you actually need it. Despite the bad press, US drinking water is amazingly safe. Safer than our food system, IMO.

[dave thompson]

If the water in your area is hard or contains lots of 'other' ingredients, an RO system may not be in your future. I built, installed and maintained RO systems in supermarkets some years ago and the regions that had the worst water were the hardest on the RO systems. Frequent replacement of the semi-permeable membrane was our biggest, and most expensive headache. The membrane is the single most expensive component of the system.

A small self-contained RO system can run many thousands of dollars. Karin Kirk's advice is extremely good; find out what you have first. Maybe a very good multi-stage filtration system would work for you, giving the results you desire.

[Lifelover]

I suspect you won't care, but you might be trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/scientists-call-report-chromium-drinking-water-alarmist/story?id=12440751&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

Dillution is the solution to pollution. Even within our bodies.

[Karin Kirk]

A little perspective is always good, but that ABC story is misleading. Is the scientist in the interview saying that we needn't be worried about substances that are only present in the parts per billion range? There are plenty of compounds that have EPA limits down in the ppb range. Benzene, for example. The limit is less than one ppb! Basically if a lab can detect benzene, then you have too much benzene. The laboratory detection limit is the same as the allowable limit.

What is true is that the quantities that are considered dangerous vary depending on the substance. It sounds like they have not yet come up with a limit for chromium-6. The current EPA drinking water standard is for total chromium, at 0.1 parts per million. Determining the allowable limits can be an imperfect process, but you need to have some guidelines. Sounds like they need to work up a guideline for Chromium-6 specifically. In the meantime would I want any detectable chromium-6 in my tap water? No thank you!

Here are the EPA drinking water standards
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

[schneiderrd]

Before you go out and spend some money, check with your local water district as they probably publish an annual report on the quality of your water. If you think you need to do something, you can install an under the sink unit for not too much money. Check with Culligan.

[Lifelover]

A little perspective is always good, but that ABC story is misleading. Is the scientist in the interview saying that we needn't be worried about substances that are only present in the parts per billion range? There are plenty of compounds that have EPA limits down in the ppb range. Benzene, for example. The limit is less than one ppb! Basically if a lab can detect benzene, then you have too much benzene. The laboratory detection limit is the same as the allowable limit.

What is true is that the quantities that are considered dangerous vary depending on the substance. It sounds like they have not yet come up with a limit for chromium-6. The current EPA drinking water standard is for total chromium, at 0.1 parts per million. Determining the allowable limits can be an imperfect process, but you need to have some guidelines. Sounds like they need to work up a guideline for Chromium-6 specifically. In the meantime would I want any detectable chromium-6 in my tap water? No thank you!

Here are the EPA drinking water standards
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

I kinda agree with you but ATMO it's the Yahoo story that is misleading. The ABC story give more info than the other.

[Seramount]

the topic of drinking water seems to come up a couple of times each year on this forum.

since I work as a state (TX) regulator in the Public Drinking Water arena, I might as well put in my usual 2 centavos...

from a safety perspective, most large municipal water supplies do an excellent job of providing properly disinfected water that is safe to drink. some consumers may have objections to odors, colors, tastes of the final product, but these can be eliminated using a relatively inexpensive activated carbon (charcoal) filter.

the public water suppliers that typically run into trouble with the state over monitoring and reporting issues are the small, mom-pop places that have a single well for a convenience store or other small business. but, even those sources are rarely producing water that is harmful to human health.

the report that people are referring to is known as the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). each public water supply must provide this info annually. it should list any violations incurred and other problems with the water supply.

fwiw, I wouldn't recommend an RO system for home use.

and whatever you do as a consumer, avoid the bottled water habit. it's an expensive scam that creates a disastrous amount of waste and uses vast amounts of energy. just say no to that stuff.

[cyclorist]

I have this and like it:

http://www.nutriteam.com/servlet/the-Water-Distillers/Categories

[vqdriver]

this is probably the best advise. the way you treat your water will depend on what you're treating.

a news article this week had a few interesting findings for my area. turns out that arsenic (however dilute) is the issue in my area. so with two little kids in the house, i'll be getting a RO system for drinking water. another interesting note from the article, most of the water quality engineers for the city have home filtration systems in their own homes, and they're all RO.



Before you settle on one method over another, I'd suggest finding out what your potential issues are, if any. Start by getting a copy of the annual water quality report issued by your water supplier. This annual report is mandated by law and is available for free to everyone. Or, if you are on a well, you need to have it tested yourself.

Ask your county health dept about the common issues for water quality in your area. Or, if you really want the details, you can have your own tap water tested. There is a range of different analyses and a phone call to a water testing lab can help you identify which type of analysis you want.

Then, based on what you learn, it will be easy to find a treatment method that works for your situation. I don't advise going headlong to RO without at least some indication that you actually need it. Despite the bad press, US drinking water is amazingly safe. Safer than our food system, IMO.

[Karin Kirk]

Thanks Seramount for your perspective.

Agreed on avoiding bottled water! All I can taste is the plastic anyway - it's a real turnoff. I have become a big fan of stainless water bottles and taking our tasty tap water everywhere I go. We also got one of those nifty Soda Stream carbonators to make sparkling water. Although I think you would have terrible results with that if you didn't already have nice tasting and nice smelling water.