Eh? Was my last post specifically aimed at you then Trev? After all, there was a total of 19 posts to this thread before I tossed in my three pennyworth and they weren't quite all written by you.
As so many women, so often seem to say to their partners/husbands/boyfriends these days, "It isn't always just about you, you know!"
No, the post talking about 'irrrationality' of worries over water borne disease carrying pathogens, was posted by Mal right after I'd posted the links listing all of the many actual possible nasties for you to look at there, Parky.No one much else was listing the nasties to be found in more than anything other than the most general terms before that; till I put in the specific details of the bad viruses and bacteria you see. So mine was the obvious candidate of all there to be deemed most as irrational overall there; I therefore thought then most likely, it seemed to me, the comment was actually in fact made directly in reply to that one factor, rather more than anything else at the time to be perfectly honest. Which does in fact make a lot of sense, if you think about it like that.
no trevor not at all. your lnks were most educational and helpful. i think, and it would appear mal concurs, is that we "overdramatise" what may be in the water and the effectiveness of precautions. yep, things are teensy weensy and may be smaller than the filter size but that in itself doesn't necessarily means that they will get through the filter. we don't consider that most of the "it will go through the flter" nasty things just aren't in the water in the first place and those that are generally need to be consumed in sufficient quantity to actually make you very unwell.
it does not trivialise, as i said, the need for proper clean water but demands a appropriate perspective of the perceived problem. it the skewed perspective that is irrational in thinking/believing that every conceivable teensy weensy nasty is in the water to start with. in the uk chemicals are a bigger hazard than germs in treated/filtered water which is why we must be selective about our water sources.
Perspective indeed, exposure to a few germs is good for the immune system, the mains water in the settlement where I live is from an open spring and untreated, never did me any har..............................................................................
My goodness! I didn't realise when I posed the question just what a response it would solicit.
Thank you for drawing my attention to the aquagear. However I think it is unfair to compare these two as they are really designed for two different markets. The aquagear seems to be aimed at personal use for trekkers and military, whereas the Lifesaver appears to be aimed at disaster relief and the military and is also available to trekkers.
The Lifesystem, though much more expensive, does have a much higher flow rate, enabling much quicker filling of storage containers and does not require chlorine or idodine. Its filter is also much finer than the aquagear, so if you find yourself in the unenviable position of being flooded out, with water contaminated with raw sewage, animal remains etc, then the Lifesaver would appear to be able to cope. Equally a long distance trek with more than one person requiring drinking and cooking water in quantities larger than making a brew or rehydrating the noodles, means that the much slower flow rate of the aquagear, would for my money become a pain.
Hiking on my own in the UK the aquagear seems a good bet.
One poster said that most UK water is safe. I would beg to differ. I have lived in Snowdonia and our drinking water is taken from a fast flowing moutain stream. I have several times encountered agricultural pollution (sprayers being washed out etc) and lazy campers pooing and peeing into and by the stream! Further up the mountain is a forest. There the harveters are often to be found parked with the gearbox leaking oil into one of the streams that feed ours. Then there is the chemicals that are sprayed on the trees and the noxious mix that is painted on the stumps of clear fell to prevent regrowth. Asulux is reguarly sprayed onto the bracken in these hills and is known to contaminate ground water. A mountain stream can look very inviting, but often it is not what is happening 30 yards up the stream that you need to look out for. Our water is brilliant for bathing but I wouldn't drink it. The drinking water is first filtered through a sediment filter and then passed over an ultraviolet light.
On balance of reading all the very helpful posts, I will probably buy an aquagear for UK hiking with a steripen as back up. I may also buy the Lifesystem for group trips and keep it as a standby, in case the home system goes down.
It would have been rather cool to have turned up in flooded Gloucester last year with a Lifesystem, scooped up some icky water and start
Thanks computer......ed dispensing clean drinking water to beleagured families who were frightened and fed up by the floods that had wrecked their lives. An aquagear in that situation might have been a bit pressed.....
If you're referring to my post I actually I said Most running water found in the hills is most probably perfectly safe without filtration unless there's a dead sheep 20 yards upstream!
Maybe that was a slight generalisation, but in the main and employing a little common sense (avoiding obvious agricultural areas for example) I believe it to be true. These types of places, particularly the Lakes and Snowdonia are exactly the places I bought the Aquagear for.
As you say, there are quite obviously circumstances where the Lifesaver would be more appropriate, but I can't see personal use in the UK being one of them. So it's kinda like debating whether a one man or a four man tent is better
Lowland agricultural areas are likely to have the most polluted water then maybe. More so if you factor in the raw untreated sewage effluence discharges being flushed into many of our streams and rivers by the water industry as overflow regularly today too; as indicated in my Yahoo news post of the other week, in the article there recounting the concerns today of the Environments Agency upon this controversial and worrying otential health matter. Then there are the chemical and other factories polluting water, in various areas of the land - where heavy industrial work is going on daily - to be considered, I suppose as well perhaps here.
No, the post talking about 'irrrationality' of worries over water borne disease carrying pathogens, was posted by Mal right after I'd posted the links listing all of the many actual possible nasties for you to look at there, Parky.No one much else was listing the nasties to be found in more than anything other than the most general terms before that; till I put in the specific details of the bad viruses and bacteria you see. So mine was the obvious candidate of all there to be deemed most as irrational overall there; I therefore thought then most likely, it seemed to me, the comment was actually in fact made directly in reply to that one factor, rather more than anything else at the time to be perfectly honest. Which does in fact make a lot of sense, if you think about it like that.
I guess that if we were in the same room, face to face, I would have to say, "Read my lips Trevor, my post was not specifically aimed at you or at any of your copious posts on this matter." Anyone with an ounce of sense could see that my post was couched in general terms and addressed the, sometimes extreme, paranoia and subsequent overkill, in terms of unnecessary complexity and expense, in the approach to water treatment in the outdoors in this country.
To be perfectly frank, I hadn't read any of your links and very little of anything else that you contributed. I have an aversion to information overload and tend to be put off reading posts that contain multiple links to reams and reams of regurgitated opinion and supposition. I'll admit that you often come up with factual gems, nevertheless, If I want information on a topic I tend to research it myself since, through work, I have access to sound, medical scientific journals and papers on the aetiology and prevalence of waterborne diseases and many other epidemiological and medical subjects.
I realise this is an old thread but I witnessed the Lifesaver bottle at the Outdoor Show a couple of years ago.
Water was taken straight from the NEC lake, goose & duck crap and all.
After passing through the bottle it was crystal clear, tasted fine and I didn't end up with any nasty bugs. I don't know what was in the water but it certainly impressed me.
Any filter that doesn't state its filter size (in micron's) I really do not trust to do the best what's achievable with same kind of filters from other brands who are transparant about it.
Oké it has carbon for chemicals, it has a pre filter but does it make topnotch? No not without transparancy about pore size in the main filter.
After all, there was a total of 19 posts to this thread before I tossed in my three pennyworth and they weren't quite all written by you.
Then there are the chemical and other factories polluting water, in various areas of the land - where heavy industrial work is going on daily - to be considered, I suppose as well perhaps here.
