Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: Are water filters good enough in the UK?

  1. #61
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894
    No company connection to my family sadly, else I would be out using all the most expensive outdoors kit going.
    Trevor DC Gamble

  2. #62
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    617


    That's a cool thing there capn.

    Chlorine based I'm thinking.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    Flocculant will probably be aluminium sulphate, which is used for the purpose in water treatment plants. And yes, probably something chlorine-based for the biocide.

    Been around for a good ten years now, but I've never seen it for sale; would be useful, I think.

  4. #64
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    Flocculation-Chlorination section sounds familiar...

    ..and, finally, the CDC page gives the full story.

    "The P&G‚?Ę product is a small sachet containing powdered ferric sulfate (a flocculant) and calcium hypochlorite (a disinfectant)."

  5. #65
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    617


    Yummy. Where I go the flocculant isn't necessary but I can see its value if you are scooping a drink out of a puddle

  6. #66
    Initiate Toot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cornwall UK
    Posts
    557


    Not sure how many hikers would be prepared to treat 10L of water at a time or carry the kit needed to use the P&G product. For my needs I'll stick to the Sawyer Mini to do what it does with less hassle by comparison.

    I'm glad to see the P&G flocculant is not aluminium sulphate at least... If it was, I'd still want to filter the clean water because there's no point in replacing one contaminant with another potentially harmful one! That said, I'm not sure what ferric sulphate does to the human body - does anyone here know?

  7. #67
    Ultra King Peter Clinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,252


    Ferric sulphate... I remember having some tablets of that from the doctor when I was a veggie and donating a lot of blood and my iron levels were a bit depleted, so I doubt it's exactly high on the list of Killer Chemicals...

    Pete.

  8. #68
    Initiate Toot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cornwall UK
    Posts
    557


    I too doubt that ferric sulphate (F-C) is high on the Killer Chemical list PC, but then, nor is the aluminium sulphate (A-S) used as a flocculant by local water authority's in public water supply treatment plants.

    My query about F-C came in mind of some consequences from the 1988 Camelford Water Treatment Works Incident where 20 tonnes ofaluminiumsulphatewas introduced directly into the public water supply to North Cornwall. This "safe" flocculant caused effects which suggest it is not healthy to ingest in elevated concentration! Unfortunately, due to a failure to carry out long-term health studies in response to Britains biggest poisoning incident, exactly what this can result in is difficult to define.

    Decades later, post-mortems have found extraordinarily high concentrations of aluminium in the brains and bones of deceased people who drank the contaminated water from Camelford, with some expert opinion linking the same to a particularly rare type of dementia. Because of this, if aluminium sulphate had been the flocculant used in the P&G product, I personally would filter their "clean" water through my Sawyer so that no contaminant residue found its way into my body (the public water supply is also filtered after treatment with aluminium sulphate, but that stage was missed at Camelford in 1988).

    I noted that P&G don't use aluminium sulphate as a flocculant, but ferric sulphate instead. Is that a choice based on price, performance, or long-term health effects in comparison? The later point is where question about health effects came from and led to my previous post - a mere curiosity voiced aloud.

    I also note P&G instruct the user to filter the "clean" water using a cotton cloth. This too would remove contaminant residue, although perhaps not as much as passing through a Sawyer would do. That had me wondering if the P&G reduction of diarrheal disease from 90% to 16% for example, could be improved by better post-flocculant filtering...

    This is still only mild curiosity - an unoccupied mind seeking to entertain itself! I wont be using the P&G product because it doesn't suit my needs, so interest in it is academic, not personal.

    macleod 92 and others may be wondering what any of my questions have to do with the original post? Apart from filter use, perhaps nothing! Except... An idle mind also notes that the P&G product removes arsenic and pesticides from water. Hello 'ello 'ello, that's interesting... It may even have relevance to the original post. Why? First off, tin mining was once practised on Dartmoor, and arsenic is often found in tin production. That idle mind always wondered why no thought appears to be given about this contaminant in relation to some sources of Dartmoor water as a consequence. Secondly and probably of greater relevance is a question I was asked about pesticide contamination of Dartmoor water. It's unlikely on high moor sources, but probably does feature in lowland areas so perhaps the P&G product could be useful in such cases?

    Like I said, questions questions...

  9. #69
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894



    I still think the main answer to the question posed by this thread is still a positive, and definitive emphatic big fat YES!
    Trevor DC Gamble

  10. #70
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    617


    A quick mooch at some MDS sheets shows higher toxicity for ferric sulphate.

    Iron tho is used by the body, unlike aluminium and over time aluminium can accumulate which is where the problems lie.

    There's very little in the wrong dose that won't be toxic but it makes sense not to ingest aluminium.


  11. #71
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894
    Agricultural run off as well as factory wastes in water are too to be guarded against for health reasons.
    Trevor DC Gamble

  12. #72
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894
    Trevor DC Gamble

  13. #73
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894



    Trevor DC Gamble

Similar Threads

  1. Water filters
    By Clarks in forum Gear
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-03-2016, 08:51 AM
  2. Water Filters
    By waldo in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-05-2010, 11:04 PM
  3. Water Filters
    By i-duck in forum Gear
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-10-2007, 10:39 AM
  4. water filters
    By dapparob in forum Gear
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 03:43 PM
  5. Water Filters
    By Simon Hodgson in forum Gear
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-05-2004, 01:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •