http://rawlivingfoods.typepad.com/1/2010/02/strong-link-bet.html
Showing posts with label issue: drinking water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issue: drinking water. Show all posts
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, August 16, 2009
H2Uh-Oh From Arrowhead to Volvic, Fiji's not the only bottled water with a PR challenge.
H2Uh-Oh
From Arrowhead to Volvic, Fiji's not the only bottled water with a PR challenge.
By Jen Phillips Link to full article below
WET REGRET Water comes from the Las Vegas municipal supply. A test by the Environmental Working Group found it had 200% of the allowable trihalomethane, a carcinogen, and included several chemicals known to cause DNA damage.
Dasani (Coca-Cola)
WET REGRET Coca-Cola's bottling plant near the village of Plachimada in Kerala, India, began pumping groundwater in 2000. When wells dried up and villagers couldn't irrigate their fields, Coke offered a goodwill gesture: heavy-metal-laced sludge from the plant to use as fertilizer. After company ignored years of protests—and two government orders to install wastewater treatment and provide drinking water to villagers—the state ordered Coke plant to close in 2004. (Coke won the right to reopen the next year.)
Arrowhead (Nestlé)
WET REGRET Nestlé is seeking a permit to pipe 65 million gallons a year from a spring in rural Colorado. When critics raised concerns about the effect of climate change on local water supplies, Nestlé said it was "illogical" to base decisions on changes "many years in the future."
To read the full article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/h2uh-oh
******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
From Arrowhead to Volvic, Fiji's not the only bottled water with a PR challenge.
By Jen Phillips Link to full article below
WET REGRET Water comes from the Las Vegas municipal supply. A test by the Environmental Working Group found it had 200% of the allowable trihalomethane, a carcinogen, and included several chemicals known to cause DNA damage.
Dasani (Coca-Cola)
WET REGRET Coca-Cola's bottling plant near the village of Plachimada in Kerala, India, began pumping groundwater in 2000. When wells dried up and villagers couldn't irrigate their fields, Coke offered a goodwill gesture: heavy-metal-laced sludge from the plant to use as fertilizer. After company ignored years of protests—and two government orders to install wastewater treatment and provide drinking water to villagers—the state ordered Coke plant to close in 2004. (Coke won the right to reopen the next year.)
Arrowhead (Nestlé)
WET REGRET Nestlé is seeking a permit to pipe 65 million gallons a year from a spring in rural Colorado. When critics raised concerns about the effect of climate change on local water supplies, Nestlé said it was "illogical" to base decisions on changes "many years in the future."
To read the full article: http://www.motherjones.com/
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
Bottled Water Boom Appears Tapped Out
Bottled Water Boom Appears Tapped Out
Environmental Concerns, Recession Put Crimp in Sales
By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009 Link to full article below
The recession has finally answered the question that centuries of philosophers could not: The glass is half-empty.
That's because sales of bottled water have fallen for the first time in at least five years, assailed by wrathful environmentalists and budget-conscious consumers, who have discovered that tap water is practically free. Even Nestle, the country's largest seller of bottled water, is beginning to feel a bit parched. On Wednesday, it reported that profits for the first half of the year dropped 2.7 percent, its first decline in six years.
The biggest loser? Water.
To read the full article below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html
******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
Environmental Concerns, Recession Put Crimp in Sales
By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009 Link to full article below
The recession has finally answered the question that centuries of philosophers could not: The glass is half-empty.
That's because sales of bottled water have fallen for the first time in at least five years, assailed by wrathful environmentalists and budget-conscious consumers, who have discovered that tap water is practically free. Even Nestle, the country's largest seller of bottled water, is beginning to feel a bit parched. On Wednesday, it reported that profits for the first half of the year dropped 2.7 percent, its first decline in six years.
The biggest loser? Water.
To read the full article below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Losing Rivers
Losing Rivers
by Roddy Scheer
April 27, 2009
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647&printview&imagesoff
A study released last week by researchers from the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water quickly as a result of climate change. Large affected rivers include China’s Yellow River, the Ganges in India, West Africa’s Niger and the Colorado in the southwestern U.S.
The researchers, whose study came out last week in the American Meteorological Society’s peer-reviewed Journal of Climate, reported that water loss as a result of global warming combined with the negative effects of damming, irrigation and other profligate water use could mean a threat to future supplies of food and water. They looked at records of river flow in 925 big rivers around the world from 1948 to 2004, finding “significant changes” in about a third of the world’s largest rivers.
To read the full article:
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647
by Roddy Scheer
April 27, 2009
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647&printview&imagesoff
A study released last week by researchers from the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water quickly as a result of climate change. Large affected rivers include China’s Yellow River, the Ganges in India, West Africa’s Niger and the Colorado in the southwestern U.S.
The researchers, whose study came out last week in the American Meteorological Society’s peer-reviewed Journal of Climate, reported that water loss as a result of global warming combined with the negative effects of damming, irrigation and other profligate water use could mean a threat to future supplies of food and water. They looked at records of river flow in 925 big rivers around the world from 1948 to 2004, finding “significant changes” in about a third of the world’s largest rivers.
To read the full article:
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4647
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Drinking water: Toilet to tap -- get used to it!
Drinking water: Toilet to tap -- get used to it!
by Joseph Romm
26 Mar 2009
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2009/3/26/13338/6707?show_comments=no
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/26/13338/6707?source=daily
In the future, your drinking water is going to be recycled from your toilet -- believe it.
As the population grows and global warming drives desertification and the loss of the inland glaciers (see here), fresh water will become increasingly in short supply. As the AFP reported recently:
Surging population growth, climate change, reckless irrigation and chronic waste are placing the world's water supplies at threat, a landmark UN report ...
The global population is growing by 80 million people a year, 90 per cent of it in poorer countries. Demand for water is growing by 64 billion cubic metres per year, roughly equivalent to Egypt's annual water demand today.
Read the full article: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/26/13338/6707?source=daily
by Joseph Romm
26 Mar 2009
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2009/3/26/13338/6707?show_comments=no
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/26/13338/6707?source=daily
In the future, your drinking water is going to be recycled from your toilet -- believe it.
As the population grows and global warming drives desertification and the loss of the inland glaciers (see here), fresh water will become increasingly in short supply. As the AFP reported recently:
Surging population growth, climate change, reckless irrigation and chronic waste are placing the world's water supplies at threat, a landmark UN report ...
The global population is growing by 80 million people a year, 90 per cent of it in poorer countries. Demand for water is growing by 64 billion cubic metres per year, roughly equivalent to Egypt's annual water demand today.
Read the full article: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/26/13338/6707?source=daily
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Purifying the Business of Selling Water
INNOVATION: Purifying the Business of Selling Water
By Astrid M. Krogstad
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4493&printview&imagesoff
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4493
In 2004, Jonathan Ritchey and Rick Howard joined forces to address the loss of one of the world’s most precious resources: water. The majority of the planet is covered with water (326 million cubic miles), yet only 3% is fresh water and even less is accessible to humans. Element Four is Ritchey and Howard’s answer—a company devoted to easing the global fresh-water shortage. Their product, the WaterMill, converts air into potable water through condensation followed by antimicrobial processes. The water then travels to various “points-of-use systems” such as home faucets and refrigerators. Ideally, the WaterMill will produce 3.2 gallons of water per day—enough to meet the needs of a family of six. And at an average operating cost of 35 cents per day, it far surpasses in cost-effectiveness the price of bottled water. The point is to alleviate the environmental burden of bottled water, while placing control of fresh water sources into the hands
of consumers.
The WaterMill is at the intersection of technology, environmentalism and philanthropy. Though the company’s target demographic will initially consist of suburbanites, Howard and Ritchey envision adapting the product for worldwide use. “With a minimum relative humidity, the WaterMill can be of benefit to any consumer in almost any environment, and this is where Element Four can have a global impact on the water crisis,” says Howard. Available in February, it is the first in an upcoming line of products that will include a solar-powered version of the WaterMill as well as the WaterWall, a large-scale adaptation for use on an industrial scale.
By Astrid M. Krogstad
http://www.emagazine.com/view/
http://www.emagazine.com/view/
In 2004, Jonathan Ritchey and Rick Howard joined forces to address the loss of one of the world’s most precious resources: water. The majority of the planet is covered with water (326 million cubic miles), yet only 3% is fresh water and even less is accessible to humans. Element Four is Ritchey and Howard’s answer—a company devoted to easing the global fresh-water shortage. Their product, the WaterMill, converts air into potable water through condensation followed by antimicrobial processes. The water then travels to various “points-of-use systems” such as home faucets and refrigerators. Ideally, the WaterMill will produce 3.2 gallons of water per day—enough to meet the needs of a family of six. And at an average operating cost of 35 cents per day, it far surpasses in cost-effectiveness the price of bottled water. The point is to alleviate the environmental burden of bottled water, while placing control of fresh water sources into the hands
of consumers.
The WaterMill is at the intersection of technology, environmentalism and philanthropy. Though the company’s target demographic will initially consist of suburbanites, Howard and Ritchey envision adapting the product for worldwide use. “With a minimum relative humidity, the WaterMill can be of benefit to any consumer in almost any environment, and this is where Element Four can have a global impact on the water crisis,” says Howard. Available in February, it is the first in an upcoming line of products that will include a solar-powered version of the WaterMill as well as the WaterWall, a large-scale adaptation for use on an industrial scale.
Friday, January 23, 2009
When will the water run out?
When will the water run out?
Climate change, increased industrial demand and wanton wastefulness: is 'peak
water' upon us?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change/prin\
t
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change
[Read comments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change?comm\
entpage=1 ]
Peak oil may be the least of our problems, scientists warned today. Growing
industrial demand for water in developing countries such as China, rapidly
expanding urban populations and the efficiency with which we use water have
increased the risk of "peak water" – a resource that most of us presume will
be infinite – entering a terminal decline.
Of course, we already knew one of the big eco-bummers of our modern lives is
that products from beer to microchips use inordinate amounts of water. Last
August, the WWF revealed that each Brit effectively uses 4,645 litres of water a
day to produce the food on our tables and the T-shirts on our backs; see our
world map for an idea of where Britain's "borrowed water" comes from.
Unsurprisingly, one of the solutions advocated by this new report is a better
use of the water we have. To that end, the authors have estimated the water
footprint of everyday food and drink, which encouragingly shows that one litre
of beer consumes less water (300 litres) than one litre of orange juice (850
litres). One kilogram of coffee is reportedly more thirsty (21,000 litres of
water) than one kilogram of hamburger (16,000 litres). Take a look at our image
gallery to see the hidden water cost of everything from your daily cuppa to a
glass of wine.
According to the report, this is adding up to a global crisis. "We are facing a
crisis of running out of sustainably managed water," says Peter Gleick, the
author of the sixth edition of the World Water report by California's Pacific
Institute. Despite human demand accounting for over 50% of the world's
accessible freshwater, the report warns that billions of people still lack
access to basic water services. Developing countries, it notes, will suffer
worst from peak water because of supply problems exacerbated by flooding,
drought and water pollution. Developed countries won't be entirely spared
though, as Peter Preston discovered in Spain last year.
The World Water report continues by singling out China as a country in danger of
water stress because of its inefficient water use and large projects such as the
Three Gorges Dam scheme. "[Chinese] Rivers and lakes are dead and dying,
groundwater aquifers are overpumped, uncounted species of aquatic life have been
driven to extinction, and direct adverse impacts on both human and ecosystem
health are widespread and growing," warns Gleick.
His team also highlights how climate change is adversely affecting water global
supplies and its impact on food production.
"The stress on global food production from temperatures alone is going to be
huge, and that doesn't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher
temperatures," said David Battisti, the lead author of another study published
earlier this month.
Gleick's report is keen to stress that the concept of peak water, or more
specifically "peak ecological water", isn't completely analogous to peak oil.
Unlike oil, some water supplies are infinitely renewable. But even those regions
with a water supply that could be exhausted are only likely to suffer peak water
locally – whereas peak oil will be a global issue.
Climate change, increased industrial demand and wanton wastefulness: is 'peak
water' upon us?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change/prin\
t
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change
[Read comments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change?comm\
entpage=1 ]
Peak oil may be the least of our problems, scientists warned today. Growing
industrial demand for water in developing countries such as China, rapidly
expanding urban populations and the efficiency with which we use water have
increased the risk of "peak water" – a resource that most of us presume will
be infinite – entering a terminal decline.
Of course, we already knew one of the big eco-bummers of our modern lives is
that products from beer to microchips use inordinate amounts of water. Last
August, the WWF revealed that each Brit effectively uses 4,645 litres of water a
day to produce the food on our tables and the T-shirts on our backs; see our
world map for an idea of where Britain's "borrowed water" comes from.
Unsurprisingly, one of the solutions advocated by this new report is a better
use of the water we have. To that end, the authors have estimated the water
footprint of everyday food and drink, which encouragingly shows that one litre
of beer consumes less water (300 litres) than one litre of orange juice (850
litres). One kilogram of coffee is reportedly more thirsty (21,000 litres of
water) than one kilogram of hamburger (16,000 litres). Take a look at our image
gallery to see the hidden water cost of everything from your daily cuppa to a
glass of wine.
According to the report, this is adding up to a global crisis. "We are facing a
crisis of running out of sustainably managed water," says Peter Gleick, the
author of the sixth edition of the World Water report by California's Pacific
Institute. Despite human demand accounting for over 50% of the world's
accessible freshwater, the report warns that billions of people still lack
access to basic water services. Developing countries, it notes, will suffer
worst from peak water because of supply problems exacerbated by flooding,
drought and water pollution. Developed countries won't be entirely spared
though, as Peter Preston discovered in Spain last year.
The World Water report continues by singling out China as a country in danger of
water stress because of its inefficient water use and large projects such as the
Three Gorges Dam scheme. "[Chinese] Rivers and lakes are dead and dying,
groundwater aquifers are overpumped, uncounted species of aquatic life have been
driven to extinction, and direct adverse impacts on both human and ecosystem
health are widespread and growing," warns Gleick.
His team also highlights how climate change is adversely affecting water global
supplies and its impact on food production.
"The stress on global food production from temperatures alone is going to be
huge, and that doesn't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher
temperatures," said David Battisti, the lead author of another study published
earlier this month.
Gleick's report is keen to stress that the concept of peak water, or more
specifically "peak ecological water", isn't completely analogous to peak oil.
Unlike oil, some water supplies are infinitely renewable. But even those regions
with a water supply that could be exhausted are only likely to suffer peak water
locally – whereas peak oil will be a global issue.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
What Happens When We Run Out Of Drinking Water?
What Happens When We Run Out of Drinking Water? - Audio
By , National Radio Project
January 15, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/119935
http://www.alternet.org/story/119935/
From Australia to Arizona, it's become clear that humans are using water at an unsustainable rate. Many communities only respond with water restrictions during droughts, and in most cases development continues, making things worse.
On this edition, we'll take a look at three growing communities facing water shortages along with the pressure to grow. We'll hear their different approaches to finding solutions -- including denial
= = =
Comments:
Posted by: EinMD on Jan 15, 2009 8:41 AM
We all die.
Not a complicated question, really.
Though, there are ways to continue. Apparently there's a product called the Dragon-Fly that can distill up to 8 gallons of distilled, sanitized water a day from the air. So I suppose anyone can become a scruffy nerf herding moisture farmer for just $1400!
Price Price Price!
Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM
EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Price Price Price!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Conservation isn't enough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 15, 2009 6:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even with the most strict conservation efforts, even those that significantly reduce the the quality of life, we will still run out of drinking water, if we leave the making of it to nature.
But when you put a nuclear reactor on the coast, a byproduct of the process is the conversion of salt water to clean drinking water.
Imagine carbon-free electricity, and new rivers of clean water while getting rid of all that radioactive waste we currently have (by using it as fuel), all at the same time.
3 major problems with one stone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Simple, you learn the old native Indian methods of trapping water.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 16, 2009 1:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember that episode in that old kids show Mr. Wizards World.
By , National Radio Project
January 15, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/story/
From Australia to Arizona, it's become clear that humans are using water at an unsustainable rate. Many communities only respond with water restrictions during droughts, and in most cases development continues, making things worse.
On this edition, we'll take a look at three growing communities facing water shortages along with the pressure to grow. We'll hear their different approaches to finding solutions -- including denial
= = =
Comments:
Posted by: EinMD on Jan 15, 2009 8:41 AM
We all die.
Not a complicated question, really.
Though, there are ways to continue. Apparently there's a product called the Dragon-Fly that can distill up to 8 gallons of distilled, sanitized water a day from the air. So I suppose anyone can become a scruffy nerf herding moisture farmer for just $1400!
Price Price Price!
Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM
EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Price Price Price!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Conservation isn't enough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 15, 2009 6:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even with the most strict conservation efforts, even those that significantly reduce the the quality of life, we will still run out of drinking water, if we leave the making of it to nature.
But when you put a nuclear reactor on the coast, a byproduct of the process is the conversion of salt water to clean drinking water.
Imagine carbon-free electricity, and new rivers of clean water while getting rid of all that radioactive waste we currently have (by using it as fuel), all at the same time.
3 major problems with one stone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Simple, you learn the old native Indian methods of trapping water.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 16, 2009 1:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember that episode in that old kids show Mr. Wizards World.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
New Years Resolution: Live on 13 Gallons of Water a Day
New Years Resolution: Live on 13 Gallons of Water a Day
By Abigail Brown, Water For The Ages
January 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/117557/?type=blog
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://waterfortheages.wordpress.com//117557/
Recently, someone asked me "Do you track your water use?" I thought thoroughly about my reply to that question. In many ways I conserve water: only flushing the toilet when necessary, turning off the faucet during hand washing and teeth brushing, taking short showers, limiting outdoor watering, and only washing full loads of clothes and dishes. But, do I track my water use -- in detail -- gallon by gallon?
Well, our three-person (two-unit) household does keep track of monthly water use through our utility bills. On average, our household uses 216.92 gallons per day. That equals 72.3 gallons per person each day. Now, I´m ashamed to say this is higher than the average in my town of 66 gallons per person each day. So, where are we going wrong? I´m a water-conscious person, but my house and the attached mother-in-law unit are still exceeding the municipal average.
This new year, I´ve decided to make two important resolutions:
1. Conduct a Household Water Audit
2. Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water
It is my hope that these actions will reduce my water consumption and raise my awareness about the importance of access to water. Read on to follow my endeavors in the new year.
Conduct a Household Water Audit
Today, I conducted something called a water audit. A water audit is method to evaluate the efficiency of a water system and estimate daily water use. First, I checked and changed all of the water faucets in my home to low-flow water faucets that only use 1 gallon per minute. Then, I changed my showerhead to a low-flow showerhead that only uses 1.6 gallons per minute.
dscf1619
Luckily, I already have a low-flow toilet that uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks. Then, I used a bit of food coloring to check my toilet for leaks.
Cheap Leak Check
Finally, I made signs to identify the amount of water necessary for all of my fixtures and appliances. It is my hope this last step will serve as a reminder for myself and my housemates. If you are interested in completing a water audit on your home, there are several step-by-steps available. Try this audit or this audit or this audit.
Water Use Totals for Fixtures and Appliances
Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water
I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while. Declaring water a human right will require that a certain amount of water will always be available for free to humans. This measure is to ensure that those without money still have access to water. Obviously, access to water is important because water is necessary for life. As posted recently on Water Wired, in 1996 Peter Gleick suggested a human right allocation of water at 50 liters (13 gallons) each day for basic human needs such as bathing, sanitation, and drinking. The Constitution of South Africa also acknowledges water as a human right, and courts declared this amount to be 50 liters each day. So, I wonder, how does it feel to live on 50 liters (13 gallons) each day? Well, there´s only one way to find out.
For one week, I will live on this amount estimated as a basic human right. This means, I will count every toilet flush, every hand wash, and probably miss most showers. I will live on this human right allocation at home, at work, and everywhere. Tomorrow, I will begin. My journal of this undertaking will be posted to Water for the Ages. Stay tuned.
Abigail Brown manages water resources in Washington State.
= = =
Comment:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/#comments
A thesis of the obvious...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 5, 2009 10:26 PM
Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks.
Check meter. Don't run water for six hours. Did it move? Then your meter is "equipped for leak recordings".
I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while.
It's not a matter of unavailable H20. It's a matter of potability and deliverability in extreme circumstances. Pulling a gallon of water out your back yard pond doesn't affect the grobul wadurh supply anymore than buying a gallon off the shelf at wal-wart does.
All told though, I liked the article. It pointed out some things that otherwise duhmb induhviduals could do to live less ignorantly...
....unfortunately...
....so that others might, cheaply.
By Abigail Brown, Water For The Ages
January 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/117557/?type=blog
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://waterfortheages.wordpress.com//117557/
Recently, someone asked me "Do you track your water use?" I thought thoroughly about my reply to that question. In many ways I conserve water: only flushing the toilet when necessary, turning off the faucet during hand washing and teeth brushing, taking short showers, limiting outdoor watering, and only washing full loads of clothes and dishes. But, do I track my water use -- in detail -- gallon by gallon?
Well, our three-person (two-unit) household does keep track of monthly water use through our utility bills. On average, our household uses 216.92 gallons per day. That equals 72.3 gallons per person each day. Now, I´m ashamed to say this is higher than the average in my town of 66 gallons per person each day. So, where are we going wrong? I´m a water-conscious person, but my house and the attached mother-in-law unit are still exceeding the municipal average.
This new year, I´ve decided to make two important resolutions:
1. Conduct a Household Water Audit
2. Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water
It is my hope that these actions will reduce my water consumption and raise my awareness about the importance of access to water. Read on to follow my endeavors in the new year.
Conduct a Household Water Audit
Today, I conducted something called a water audit. A water audit is method to evaluate the efficiency of a water system and estimate daily water use. First, I checked and changed all of the water faucets in my home to low-flow water faucets that only use 1 gallon per minute. Then, I changed my showerhead to a low-flow showerhead that only uses 1.6 gallons per minute.
dscf1619
Luckily, I already have a low-flow toilet that uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks. Then, I used a bit of food coloring to check my toilet for leaks.
Cheap Leak Check
Finally, I made signs to identify the amount of water necessary for all of my fixtures and appliances. It is my hope this last step will serve as a reminder for myself and my housemates. If you are interested in completing a water audit on your home, there are several step-by-steps available. Try this audit or this audit or this audit.
Water Use Totals for Fixtures and Appliances
Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water
I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while. Declaring water a human right will require that a certain amount of water will always be available for free to humans. This measure is to ensure that those without money still have access to water. Obviously, access to water is important because water is necessary for life. As posted recently on Water Wired, in 1996 Peter Gleick suggested a human right allocation of water at 50 liters (13 gallons) each day for basic human needs such as bathing, sanitation, and drinking. The Constitution of South Africa also acknowledges water as a human right, and courts declared this amount to be 50 liters each day. So, I wonder, how does it feel to live on 50 liters (13 gallons) each day? Well, there´s only one way to find out.
For one week, I will live on this amount estimated as a basic human right. This means, I will count every toilet flush, every hand wash, and probably miss most showers. I will live on this human right allocation at home, at work, and everywhere. Tomorrow, I will begin. My journal of this undertaking will be posted to Water for the Ages. Stay tuned.
Abigail Brown manages water resources in Washington State.
= = =
Comment:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/#comments
A thesis of the obvious...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 5, 2009 10:26 PM
Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks.
Check meter. Don't run water for six hours. Did it move? Then your meter is "equipped for leak recordings".
I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while.
It's not a matter of unavailable H20. It's a matter of potability and deliverability in extreme circumstances. Pulling a gallon of water out your back yard pond doesn't affect the grobul wadurh supply anymore than buying a gallon off the shelf at wal-wart does.
All told though, I liked the article. It pointed out some things that otherwise duhmb induhviduals could do to live less ignorantly...
....unfortunately...
....so that others might, cheaply.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Where Have all the Water Fountains Gone?
Where Have All the Water Fountains Gone?
By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute
October 29, 2008
Sources:
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/105051
http://www.alternet.org/water/105051/
http://www.alternet.org/story/105051/
People are turning away from bottled water as fast as they turned onto it. Municipalities across Canada and the United States are limiting the sale and purchase of bottled water in city buildings, bottled water free zones are popping up on college and university campuses, community groups are phasing out the use of bottled water, and the message about the ills of this product is all over the mainstream media.
I was recently asked in an interview about the next steps for the movement away from bottled water given that the backlash had spread so widely. The interviewer mentioned that he wasn't sure what people would do at his local hockey arena when the only access to water was from an old dusty water fountain. His question struck a chord and confirmed my belief that the success of the anti-bottled water movement must more and more be accompanied with stronger demands for the renewal of public access to potable drinking water.
Municipal leaders have shown that there is a strong political will for increased use and promotion of tap water. However, we continuously hear of new buildings being constructed without water fountains and existing buildings decommissioning older water fountains without replacing them.
One example comes from the University of Central Florida (UCF) where a $55 million football stadium was constructed with no water fountains.
In September 2007, UCF opened the 45,000 seat football stadium for a home game. The day of the game was very hot and the concessions had less than 45,000 bottles of water on hand. The concessions ran out of bottled water and fans were left thirsty. More than sixty people were treated for heat exhaustion.
In the aftermath, it became clear that by omitting water fountains from the building plans the University administration had not followed the latest building codes that required either fountains or large water coolers. The administration hid behind the fact that the plans for the stadium were created in 2001 when the building code stated that selling single serve bottled water would be enough to hydrate tens of thousands of people.
The University and the developers knew that there were no water fountains in the building plans, and relied on the concession stands to supply drinking water at $3 a bottle. This was a conscious choice to exclude water fountains, and in this case, the choice was to interpret the building codes in such a way that would ensure expensive single serve bottled water would be the only water available in the stadium.
Outraged students quickly mobilized an online campaign to pressure the university administration to install water fountains. The campaign got the attention of the media, and the university administration quickly promised to install 50 water fountains in the stadium.
A Canadian example of water fountain omission comes from a recent survey of corporate presence on Canadian university campuses. The survey confirmed that access to drinking water on university campuses is becoming increasingly limited. Respondents to the survey noted a reduction of the number of fountains on campus and an increasing number of broken fountains. One respondent from Brock University said that, "In new buildings on campus, there are no water fountains, only Pepsi machines, and the water fountains that do exist are sparse and in inaccessible places."
These two examples show that serious questions need to be asked about how developers, and, in these cases, university administrations, can get away with leaving water fountains out of building plans.
Who writes the building codes that allow for the omission of water fountains? How are the codes interpreted or manipulated by developers to exclude proper access to municipal drinking water sources? Regulatory bodies charged with writing and overseeing building codes need to hear loud and clear that bottled water is not the right option for hydrating large numbers of people.
Now that the bottled water industry is on the ropes and municipalities are shunning these products in favour of tap, water activists have a golden opportunity to start looking for answers. The question of public infrastructure should be thrust into the bottled water debate with strong and well organized calls for greater public investment in water services.
Any action taken by municipal governments moving consumers away from bottled water needs to be accompanied with a deep commitment to reinvest in the continent's public water infrastructure, which seems to be on the brink of crisis.
In the United States, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) found in 2005 that the "nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years." The ASCE also claims that water infrastructure in the U.S. faces an 11$ billion (usd) funding shortfall every year. Meanwhile, in Canada, a 2007 report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) declared it will cost more than $25 billion (usd) to bring water and waste water systems up to par. New water and wastewater needs are estimated at $48 billion (usd).
For-profit water services corporations exploit these funding shortfalls to push for public-private partnerships and full privatization of public water systems. Take United Water (US subsidiary of French water services giant Suez), for example, that states on its website that there are "options available to municipalities faced with shrinking budgets and aging infrastructures." The company then markets its services saying that it can provide "flexible solutions to these challenges through public-private partnerships and comprehensive asset management contracts."
Our political leadership is not doing much to help the situation either. When the FCM report was released, Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told municipal leaders to stop "whining" and to "do their job." This lack of sensitivity by elected officials and lurking for-profit water services companies means that we could see more privatization in the near future.
Consumers' love affair with bottled water is coming to an end. However, if vows are not renewed between politicians, public institutions and public water delivery, people may find themselves living in a society where cheap access to water is a privilege and not a right. This is the time for activists and concerned people everywhere to issue strong calls for greater public access to free potable water and a wholesale reinvestment in water infrastructure and services.
Richard Girard is the corporate researcher at the Polaris Institute.
By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute
October 29, 2008
Sources:
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/105051
http://www.alternet.org/water/105051/
http://www.alternet.org/story/105051/
People are turning away from bottled water as fast as they turned onto it. Municipalities across Canada and the United States are limiting the sale and purchase of bottled water in city buildings, bottled water free zones are popping up on college and university campuses, community groups are phasing out the use of bottled water, and the message about the ills of this product is all over the mainstream media.
I was recently asked in an interview about the next steps for the movement away from bottled water given that the backlash had spread so widely. The interviewer mentioned that he wasn't sure what people would do at his local hockey arena when the only access to water was from an old dusty water fountain. His question struck a chord and confirmed my belief that the success of the anti-bottled water movement must more and more be accompanied with stronger demands for the renewal of public access to potable drinking water.
Municipal leaders have shown that there is a strong political will for increased use and promotion of tap water. However, we continuously hear of new buildings being constructed without water fountains and existing buildings decommissioning older water fountains without replacing them.
One example comes from the University of Central Florida (UCF) where a $55 million football stadium was constructed with no water fountains.
In September 2007, UCF opened the 45,000 seat football stadium for a home game. The day of the game was very hot and the concessions had less than 45,000 bottles of water on hand. The concessions ran out of bottled water and fans were left thirsty. More than sixty people were treated for heat exhaustion.
In the aftermath, it became clear that by omitting water fountains from the building plans the University administration had not followed the latest building codes that required either fountains or large water coolers. The administration hid behind the fact that the plans for the stadium were created in 2001 when the building code stated that selling single serve bottled water would be enough to hydrate tens of thousands of people.
The University and the developers knew that there were no water fountains in the building plans, and relied on the concession stands to supply drinking water at $3 a bottle. This was a conscious choice to exclude water fountains, and in this case, the choice was to interpret the building codes in such a way that would ensure expensive single serve bottled water would be the only water available in the stadium.
Outraged students quickly mobilized an online campaign to pressure the university administration to install water fountains. The campaign got the attention of the media, and the university administration quickly promised to install 50 water fountains in the stadium.
A Canadian example of water fountain omission comes from a recent survey of corporate presence on Canadian university campuses. The survey confirmed that access to drinking water on university campuses is becoming increasingly limited. Respondents to the survey noted a reduction of the number of fountains on campus and an increasing number of broken fountains. One respondent from Brock University said that, "In new buildings on campus, there are no water fountains, only Pepsi machines, and the water fountains that do exist are sparse and in inaccessible places."
These two examples show that serious questions need to be asked about how developers, and, in these cases, university administrations, can get away with leaving water fountains out of building plans.
Who writes the building codes that allow for the omission of water fountains? How are the codes interpreted or manipulated by developers to exclude proper access to municipal drinking water sources? Regulatory bodies charged with writing and overseeing building codes need to hear loud and clear that bottled water is not the right option for hydrating large numbers of people.
Now that the bottled water industry is on the ropes and municipalities are shunning these products in favour of tap, water activists have a golden opportunity to start looking for answers. The question of public infrastructure should be thrust into the bottled water debate with strong and well organized calls for greater public investment in water services.
Any action taken by municipal governments moving consumers away from bottled water needs to be accompanied with a deep commitment to reinvest in the continent's public water infrastructure, which seems to be on the brink of crisis.
In the United States, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) found in 2005 that the "nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years." The ASCE also claims that water infrastructure in the U.S. faces an 11$ billion (usd) funding shortfall every year. Meanwhile, in Canada, a 2007 report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) declared it will cost more than $25 billion (usd) to bring water and waste water systems up to par. New water and wastewater needs are estimated at $48 billion (usd).
For-profit water services corporations exploit these funding shortfalls to push for public-private partnerships and full privatization of public water systems. Take United Water (US subsidiary of French water services giant Suez), for example, that states on its website that there are "options available to municipalities faced with shrinking budgets and aging infrastructures." The company then markets its services saying that it can provide "flexible solutions to these challenges through public-private partnerships and comprehensive asset management contracts."
Our political leadership is not doing much to help the situation either. When the FCM report was released, Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told municipal leaders to stop "whining" and to "do their job." This lack of sensitivity by elected officials and lurking for-profit water services companies means that we could see more privatization in the near future.
Consumers' love affair with bottled water is coming to an end. However, if vows are not renewed between politicians, public institutions and public water delivery, people may find themselves living in a society where cheap access to water is a privilege and not a right. This is the time for activists and concerned people everywhere to issue strong calls for greater public access to free potable water and a wholesale reinvestment in water infrastructure and services.
Richard Girard is the corporate researcher at the Polaris Institute.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Drinking Water Miracle Worker
Source: http://ecolocalizer.com
Written by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Published on October 15th, 2008
Posted in Cincinnati, Ohio
Danny Steaven at Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.)One billion people without access to clean water. Four thousand child deaths a day because of water-borne diseases. Most of us hear those statistics and shake our heads. Greg Allgood took action.
Allgood (a fitting name if ever there was one), a public-health specialist at Cincinnati-based Proctor & Gamble, led a team that developed what can only be described as a miracle powder: an inexpensive concoction that, with a little stirring and time, causes impurities in water to coagulate and settle to the bottom. Not just “regular” impurities like particles of dirt or even bacteria, but parasites like cryptosporidium and giardia, which can cause severe — sometimes fatal — intestinal illnesses.
This week, the PUR water purifier was named one of Popular Mechanics’ Top 10 World-Changing Innovations of the Year. It’s an honor that’s well deserved.
Allgood did more than help develop a miraculous life-saver, though: he convinced Proctor & Gamble not to stop making it after the powder didn’t prove profitable enough. Instead, Allgood persuaded the company to create a not-for-profit unit: the Children’s Safe Drinking Water program. The unit has since helped relief organizations around the globe provide people with more than one billion liters of clean, safe drinking water.
Allgood himself travels around the world to hand out packets of PUR and teach people how to use them to make sure their water is safe to drink. He’s been blogging about his experiences since 2005, and his posts make for fascinating reading.
Be sure to check out the PUR Packet link at the Children’s Safe Drinking Water Website to see this amazing powder in action — it’s awesome.
Written by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Published on October 15th, 2008
Posted in Cincinnati, Ohio
Danny Steaven at Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.)One billion people without access to clean water. Four thousand child deaths a day because of water-borne diseases. Most of us hear those statistics and shake our heads. Greg Allgood took action.
Allgood (a fitting name if ever there was one), a public-health specialist at Cincinnati-based Proctor & Gamble, led a team that developed what can only be described as a miracle powder: an inexpensive concoction that, with a little stirring and time, causes impurities in water to coagulate and settle to the bottom. Not just “regular” impurities like particles of dirt or even bacteria, but parasites like cryptosporidium and giardia, which can cause severe — sometimes fatal — intestinal illnesses.
This week, the PUR water purifier was named one of Popular Mechanics’ Top 10 World-Changing Innovations of the Year. It’s an honor that’s well deserved.
Allgood did more than help develop a miraculous life-saver, though: he convinced Proctor & Gamble not to stop making it after the powder didn’t prove profitable enough. Instead, Allgood persuaded the company to create a not-for-profit unit: the Children’s Safe Drinking Water program. The unit has since helped relief organizations around the globe provide people with more than one billion liters of clean, safe drinking water.
Allgood himself travels around the world to hand out packets of PUR and teach people how to use them to make sure their water is safe to drink. He’s been blogging about his experiences since 2005, and his posts make for fascinating reading.
Be sure to check out the PUR Packet link at the Children’s Safe Drinking Water Website to see this amazing powder in action — it’s awesome.
The EPA Refuses to Remove Rocket Fuel From Drinking Water
Source: Natural News - The EPA Refuses to Remove Rocket Fuel From Drinking Water
(NaturalNews) The EPA has apparently decided that it is not necessary to remove from our drinking water a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has been found in public water supplies in the United States. The EPA reached this conclusion in a draft regulatory document that has not yet been released to the public.
The ingredient is called perchlorate and has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states. The levels it is being found at could interfere with thyroid function and might also pose developmental health risks, especially for babies and fetuses, according to some scientists.
The EPA has stated that requiring a cleanup to remove perchlorate would not result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems." This conclusion was denounced by Democrats and environmentalist groups, who are accusing the EPA of giving in to pressure from the Pentagon.
The Defense Department has utilized perchlorate for years in their testing of missiles and rockets. Most perchlorate contamination comes as a result of defense and aerospace testing activities. The Pentagon could be found liable if only the EPA would set a national drinking water standard that would force water agencies throughout the US to participate in and complete cleanup efforts. Defense officials have spent years questioning the EPA's conclusions about the risks associated with perchlorate.
The Pentagon has objected strenuously to the suggestion that it tried to influence the EPA's decision. They state that they have not intervened in any EPA determinations for perchlorate regulation.
Apparently the Pentagon has been working for years to clean up perchlorate from its facilities. The Pentagon also suggests that they are not the source of as much perchlorate contamination as was once believed. Perchlorate contamination also comes from fireworks, road flares, and fertilizer.
They do admit, however, that perchlorate in drinking water presents a certain degree of risk. They also state that they are committed to working with states and scientists to ensure that public health is protected and that important opportunities for reducing these risks are utilized.
The EPA expects to seek comment and take any final actions before the end of the year.
Perchlorate is especially widespread in California and other areas of the Southwest. It has been found in groundwater is these areas as well as in the Colorado River. The Colorado River is a drinking-water source for approximately 20 million people. Perchlorate has also been found in lettuce and certain other foods.
Because of a lack of federal action, some states have decided to act on their own. California adopted a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion in 2007. Massachusetts has designated a drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion.
(NaturalNews) The EPA has apparently decided that it is not necessary to remove from our drinking water a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has been found in public water supplies in the United States. The EPA reached this conclusion in a draft regulatory document that has not yet been released to the public.
The ingredient is called perchlorate and has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states. The levels it is being found at could interfere with thyroid function and might also pose developmental health risks, especially for babies and fetuses, according to some scientists.
The EPA has stated that requiring a cleanup to remove perchlorate would not result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems." This conclusion was denounced by Democrats and environmentalist groups, who are accusing the EPA of giving in to pressure from the Pentagon.
The Defense Department has utilized perchlorate for years in their testing of missiles and rockets. Most perchlorate contamination comes as a result of defense and aerospace testing activities. The Pentagon could be found liable if only the EPA would set a national drinking water standard that would force water agencies throughout the US to participate in and complete cleanup efforts. Defense officials have spent years questioning the EPA's conclusions about the risks associated with perchlorate.
The Pentagon has objected strenuously to the suggestion that it tried to influence the EPA's decision. They state that they have not intervened in any EPA determinations for perchlorate regulation.
Apparently the Pentagon has been working for years to clean up perchlorate from its facilities. The Pentagon also suggests that they are not the source of as much perchlorate contamination as was once believed. Perchlorate contamination also comes from fireworks, road flares, and fertilizer.
They do admit, however, that perchlorate in drinking water presents a certain degree of risk. They also state that they are committed to working with states and scientists to ensure that public health is protected and that important opportunities for reducing these risks are utilized.
The EPA expects to seek comment and take any final actions before the end of the year.
Perchlorate is especially widespread in California and other areas of the Southwest. It has been found in groundwater is these areas as well as in the Colorado River. The Colorado River is a drinking-water source for approximately 20 million people. Perchlorate has also been found in lettuce and certain other foods.
Because of a lack of federal action, some states have decided to act on their own. California adopted a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion in 2007. Massachusetts has designated a drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
water filters buying guide
Water Filters Buying Guide
source:
http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/print_pr.mhtml?id=169
http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/Kitchen/Water_Filters?source=email_gg_20081001&email=gg&EID=
What To Look For
Filters only reduce selected contaminants. Therefore, be sure you know which pollutants you're targeting before purchase, and select a filter certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), as all the above filters are. When a product effectively reduces at least 93 percent of a particular contaminant, NSF certifies the filter for reduction of that contaminant.
Following are basic criteria to use when choosing a water filter:
Type
Carafe: Portable pour-through carafes are the simplest and cheapest filtration option. They use carbon filters, and most models require a filter change about every two months. For basic filtering and taste improvement, Brita pitchers work fine. Pur filters remove a wider variety of contaminants, but they've been found to clog easily. However, in areas with herbicides or other chemical contaminants that Brita filters can't remove, Pur is the least costly option.
Faucet Mount: Faucet mounted filtration systems also use carbon filters but eliminate the wait-time associated with carafes. The filter cartridges should be changed every three months.
Counter Top: Counter-top models are either manual-fill units, or they're filled via a tube connected to your faucet. They generally use either carbon filters or distillation.
Under Counter: Under-counter systems attach to the water pipes under your sink and provide hot or cold filtered water through your existing tap or a separate faucet (filter units requiring a separate faucet usually have high installation costs). The water flow with these systems tends to be better than with faucet-mounted systems, and filters generally only need changing twice a year.
Whole House: Whole house systems filter all household water, whether used for bathing, washing or drinking, before it comes into the home. When sediment in water is a problem, whole house systems can in fact prolong the life of major appliances, but they usually are ineffective at removing lead, chloroform, pesticides, and bacteria.
Portable Filters: Some reusable water bottles come equipped with a filtration system inside the bottle. Most remove chlorine, bad tastes and odors, as well as an assortment of heavy metals including lead, mercury, and copper.
Filtration Method
Carbon: These use activated carbon to adsorb lead, chlorine byproducts, certain parasites, radon, solvents, some pesticides and herbicides, and some organic chemicals as well as odors and bad tastes. They won't remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrites, bacteria or microbes.
Distiller: Distillers boil water into steam, then condense it back into water in a separate chamber, leaving behind particles and total dissolved solids. Since water is heated, distillers kill microbes. They eliminate many other pollutants including trivalent arsenic, fluoride, lead and mercury , but not volatile organic chemicals and chlorine, which are usually removed by an accompanying carbon filter. Upfront costs for distillers are steep, between $200 and $1500. They also use considerable amounts of energy: It takes one kilowatt-hour to produce one liter of distilled water. Because the average person uses 100 gallons of water per day, a whole-house distiller can increase daily home energy use by 378 kWh. If heavy metals are a problem, consider a counter top distiller for your drinking water only. Distilled water contains less dissolved oxygen, and many find that the water tastes flat.
Reverse Osmosis: Reverse-osmosis systems, typically expensive and difficult to install, operate by pushing water through a membrane, then flushing away a few gallons of contaminant-containing water for every gallon purified. These systems are the only filters that remove nitrates and perchlorate. They also remove industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic and asbestos but not radon or 100 percent of pesticides, which can be removed by an additional carbon filter. (As these filters waste enormous amounts of water and flush contaminants back into the water supply, they should be considered a solution to water contamination only if nitrates and perchlorate are problems in your area). The membrane generally needs to be replaced every two to three years.
Ceramic: Ceramic filters, often combined with carbon filters, will remove bacteria, parasites, asbestos and sediments. As water passes through the pores of the ceramic, particles as small as .2 microns are trapped. When the water flow is reduced, the filter requires a light scrub under running water. Ceramic filters are available in both counter-top and under the counter models, and are often combined with another filtration method.
UV: These use a 60-watt ultraviolet light bulb to kill giardia, E.coli, and Cryptosporidium, and are currently the only systems certified by the NSF to do so. Although the bulb is continuously lit, UV systems are more energy-efficient than distillers and are available in under the counter models and whole house units. UV purifiers are not certified to remove pathogens uncommon to North America such as toxoplasma and entamoeba and should be used in conjunction with another filtration method.
Contaminants Removed
Contaminants vary for each water supply, but those most frequently found include:
2,4-D: a common herbicide and suspected hormone disruptor
Arsenic: a heavy metal that has been linked bladder, lung, kidney, prostate and skin cancer in animal tests, heart and nervous system damage and skin problems; can enter water through natural soil deposits or industrial and agricultural pollution. Very low levels of arsenic have also been found to disrupt hormone functions.
Atrazine: an herbicide used on corn; short-term exposure leads to lung, kidney and heart congestion while long-term exposure may cause cardiovascular disease. Atrazine is a suspected hormone disruptor.
Chloramine: a chlorine-ammonia compound used as a disinfectant in 29 percent of U.S. water utilities; has been associated with asthma, rashes and fainting
Coliform bacteria: Not harmful in themselves, they may indicate the presence of dangerous microbes such as Cryptosporidium, which can be life-threatening to people with weak immune systems.
Cysts: microorganisms including Cryptosporidium and Giardia that are carried by animal and human waste and linked to gastrointestinal illness. Crypto can be life-threatening for those with weakened immune systems.
E.coli: a type of fecal coliform bacteria that can cause gastrointestinal illness; about 2 to 7 percent of E.coli of infections lead to kidney failure.
Lead: a brain-damaging and neurotoxic heavy metal that can enter water via decaying pipes and taps; "Every homeowner, especially if they have children under six, should have their water tested for lead," warns Erik Olson, a senior attorney specializing in drinking water at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Lindane: used as an insecticide and in prescription medications for head and body lice; a known hormone disruptor
Mercury: a brain-damaging heavy metal that can also cause kidney damage
Misc. heavy metals: Carcinogenic chromium can also cause upset stomach, ulcers, kidney and liver damage and death. Short term exposure to selenium, cadmium and copper can nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and long term exposure to cadmium and copper can cause kidney disease.
MTBE: The gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) leaks into groundwater from underground fuel storage, spills and storm-water runoff and is a possible carcinogen. MTBE has been banned in many but not all states.
Nitrates: come from animal waste on cattle farms, on feedlots and in dairies, and can cause "blue-baby syndrome," which prevents blood from holding oxygen.
Perchlorate: contaminant derived from rocket fuel; causes thyroid damage and is a possible carcinogen
Perchloroethylene (PERC)/tetrachloroethylene: PERC, also commonly listed as tetrachloroethylene, is the main solvent used in most dry-cleaning processes. It is a known carcinogen that can cause neurological, kidney and liver effects, and has been associated with reproductive effects such as spontaneous abortion.
Simazine: a common pesticide; long-term exposure may lead to liver and kidney damage
Trihalomethanes (THMs): Chemicals formed when chlorine used to disinfect water reacts with organic matter, such as animal waste, treated sewage or leaves and soil. They can increase the risk of cancer and may damage the liver, kidneys and nervous system, and increase rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): inorganic salts, such as calcium, sodium and sulfates, and small amounts of organic matter that are dissolved in water; the concentration of TDS in water is not a health hazard but can cause water to be corrosive or salty in taste and may lead to mineral build-up.
Toxaphene: a now-banned insecticide that breaks down slowly in the environment and is an EPA-classified probable carcinogen; high level exposure could damage the lungs, nervous system and kidneys.
VOCs: Including benzene, which can cause cancer and birth defects and toluene, which can cause nausea, weakness, confusion and hearing and vision loss.
Annual Filter Cost
The dollar amount refers to the cost of replacing filters for one year.
Shopping and Usage Tips
To ensure that the filter you buy is effective, find out which contaminants are specific to your water supply before you start shopping.
If you draw from a municipal supply, obtain a copy of your water quality report. Water utilities are required to send these to customers by July 1st of each year. If you have not received a copy, request it from your local supplier or the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791), or you can view it online at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm .
If your water source is a private well, check with your local health department to find out which contaminants are common where you live. The EPA recommends that you have it tested annually by a state-certified lab for nitrate and coliform bacteria, total dissolved solids and pH levels. Also, test for radon if that's a problem in your area (call 800-SOS-RADON to see if it's an issue) and for pesticides, if you live near a farm where crops are sprayed frequently. National Testing Labs can test for 95 contaminants, including 20 pesticides, by mail (www.ntllabs.com, 800-458-3330). For more information, call the Water Systems Council hotline (www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033).
Check for lead in your building's pipes. The NSF certifies reverse osmosis systems, carbon filters and distillers for the removal of lead, a neurotoxic heavy metal that gets into water as pipes decay. It's not present in all pipes, so find out if it's a problem before spending money on a costly filter. You can get the name of a state-certified laboratory from www.epa.gov/safewater/labs/index.html .
Usage Tips
Change the filter on time to ensure that water is being cleared of contaminants. If need be, mark a reminder on your calendar.
Continue to monitor your water reports or test your well water for contamination, especially in the event of unexplained illnesses, a chemical or fuel spill nearby, or if there is a change in water taste, odor, color or clarity.
Weigh in with your water utility and local environmental groups to urge better protection against industrial and agricultural contamination of your city's water source. Campaign to limit development around reservoir watersheds, and buy organic food to support farming methods that prevent pesticides from entering water. The cleaner your watershed, the less you have to rely on filters.
Product Comparisons
While America's drinking water supplies are tightly regulated and are among the healthiest in the world, health-threatening contaminants may occasionally enter drinking water from old pipes, wells or municipal water treatment disruptions. The filters below have been independently certified to remove major contaminants, so there are no worries about getting those requisite eight glasses of water a day.
Wondering what these table headings mean? They're the criteria we used to choose and evaluate the products in the chart below. Learn more about their importance in What To Look For.
Name Type Filtration Method Contaminants Removed Annual Filter Cost MSRP Purchasing Information Reader Rating
Shaklee Perfect Pitcher Carafe Carbon 4 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor $90 $17 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Pur 2 Stage 7 Cup Oval Pitcher CR6000 Carafe Carbon 19 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, 2-4D, atrazine, VOCs, cadmium, copper, cysts, lindane, mercury, MTBE, simazene,tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene, TTHM $82 $30 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
Brita Super Saver Carafe Carbon 8 including chlorine, taste, odor, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead*, benzene* $54 $22.99 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Pur Horizontal FM 9400 Faucet Mount Carbon 30 including chlorine, particulates, tastes and odor, 2,4-D, atrazine, VOCs, cysts, lead, lindane, MTBE, mercury, simazene, TTHM, tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene $80 $40 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXFM03C Faucet Mount Carbon 8 including atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, turbidity, chlorine*, particulates* $64 $20 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Brita Disposable CKFF-100 Faucet Mount Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, benzene, cysts, lead, mercury, toxaphene $0 $40 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Shaklee Best Water MTS2000 Counter Top Carbon 8 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs $105 $255 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Culligan CT-2 Counter Top Carbon 9 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, mercury $75 $50 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Sylvan Source Automatic Fill Distillation System M-600 Counter Top Distiller 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, TDS $0 $38 www.sylvansource.com, 800-640-0469
Avg. Rating
Aqua Pure by Cuno AP-DWS1000 Under Counter Carbon 10 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, MTBE, VOCs, pesticides* $180 $350 www.cuno.com, 800-22-7880
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXSV65F Under Counter Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, VOCs, rust* $80 $150 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Everpure H-300 Under Counter Carbon 14 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs, chloramine*, mold and algae*, oxidised iron*, manganese sulfides* $95 $300 www.everpure.com
Avg. Rating
Doulton Ultracarb IP200UC Under Counter Ceramic/carbon 7 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead est. $40 $319 www.doultonusa.com, 888-664-3336
Avg. Rating
Kenmore Elite 38556 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 13 including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cysts, lead, nitrates, selenium, TDS $80 $300 www.kenmore.com, 800-349-4358
Avg. Rating
Culligan Aqua-Cleer Good Water Machine AC-30 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, cysts, fluoride, chromium, lead, radium, selenium, TDS $50 $900 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Whirlpool WHCF-DWHV Whole House Carbon particulates $24 $35 www.whirlpool.com, 866-698-2538
Avg. Rating
TrojanUVMax Pro 20 Whole House UV 5 including E.coli, giardia, cryptosporidium $0 est. $1,600 www.trojanuvmax.com, 888-220-6118
Avg. Rating
*Manufacturer claims the filter removes this contaminant, although the filter has not been certified by NSF to do so.
The Backstory
Many of us rely on our state and local officials to ensure that the water coming out of our taps is clean and safe. They test water quarterly for synthetic organic chemicals and hundreds of times a month for bacteria, and municipal testing is actually more stringent than that required for bottled water, which is only tested annually. Nevertheless, a few localized problems with municipal supplies cast doubt on the entire nation's, leading consumers to opt for bottled water. Popular also because it's more convenient and may taste better, bottled water still costs 1,000 times more per gallon than tap, isn't as closely regulated and contributes to a host of environmental hazards.
Environmental Issues
Bottled water consumes 1.5 million barrels of oil annually in the production of convenient, disposable, petroleum-based plastics. Even though most plastic water bottles are recyclable, they're usually thrown out. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that each day, more than 60 million plastic bottles are incinerated or tossed in landfills.
Meanwhile, the contents of those bottles may be no different than the water coming out of your tap. As much as 40 percent of bottled water is actually drawn from municipal water supplies. PepsiCo has recently admitted as much by labeling it's Aquafina as coming from "a public water source" and then shipped cross-country, spewing greenhouse gases and burning more non-renewable oil in the process.
Water filters themselves create solid waste in the form of disposed plastic cartridges, which add to landfill problems. Unfortunately, water filters aren't recyclable and manufacturers currently don't have take-back programs designed to keep used water filters out of landfills.
Personal Health
People often turn to bottles because of threats to municipal supplies, the greatest of which is development, whether agricultural or urban, around reservoirs. Urban development seals green spaces under impervious roadways and parking lots, resulting in increased pollution from topsoil, lawn pesticides and fertilizers, animal and human waste (especially if septic systems fail), roadway oil, soot, landfill run-off and salt. Additionally, agricultural run-off carries pesticides into water supplies. A February 2007 U.S. Geological Survey survey of 51 "hydrological systems" found that one or more pesticides have been detected in 97 percent of U.S. streams in urban and farming areas, and five percent of shallow wells that provide drinking water in urban areas have pesticide concentrations above EPA human-health benchmarks.
Aside from industrial and agricultural pollution, chemicals not removed from wastewater treatment plants can infiltrate water supplies as well. A May 2002 USGS study of the nation's stream water discovered chemicals found in drugs, detergents, disinfectants, insect repellents, plastics and personal care products, including 33 suspected hormone disruptors. Non-prescription drugs were detected more frequently than almost all other organic wastewater contaminants, and those drugs have been detected in drinking-water supplies in Montana and New Jersey.
The EPA reported in 1998 that 6 percent of the country's water systems had violated health standards for at least one of 90 regulated contaminants that year. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an estimated seven million Americans are made sick annually by contaminated tap water; in some rare cases, this results in death. One study published in the 2006 Journal of Water and Health found that, between 1991 and 2002, 4,400 people were hospitalized and 50 died from exposure to pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and E.coli in tap water.
Related Articles
From the Green Guide:
"Lead, Straight From the Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/ask/leadwater
"American Waters: What Hurts, What Helps," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/121/water
"Three Simple Steps to Clean, Safe Drinking Water," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/threesteps
"Message in the Bottle: Drink Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/watershed
From Outside Sources:
Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water: www.safe-drinking-water.org, 202-895-0432 x135
Clean Water Lead Testing Inc. provides lead testing for $24: www.leadtesting.org, 828-251-6800
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline: www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm , 800-426-4791
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse: www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/ndwc_index.htm , 800-624-8301
National Testing Labs: www.ntlabs.com, 800-458-3330
National Sanitation Foundation: www.nsf.org, 800-673-6275
Radon Hotline: 800-SOS-RADON
Water Systems Council: www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033
"Making Sense out of Drinking Water 'Right to Know' Reports." www.safe-drinking-water.org/rtk.html
New York City residents can order free lead tests through the city's Department of Environmental Protection, 311.
Olson, Erik D. "Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?" Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp
"Protecting Groundwater from Pesticides: A Clean Water Action Guide." Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org/safefood/groundwater
source:
http://www.thegreenguide.com/
http://www.thegreenguide.com/
What To Look For
Filters only reduce selected contaminants. Therefore, be sure you know which pollutants you're targeting before purchase, and select a filter certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), as all the above filters are. When a product effectively reduces at least 93 percent of a particular contaminant, NSF certifies the filter for reduction of that contaminant.
Following are basic criteria to use when choosing a water filter:
Type
Carafe: Portable pour-through carafes are the simplest and cheapest filtration option. They use carbon filters, and most models require a filter change about every two months. For basic filtering and taste improvement, Brita pitchers work fine. Pur filters remove a wider variety of contaminants, but they've been found to clog easily. However, in areas with herbicides or other chemical contaminants that Brita filters can't remove, Pur is the least costly option.
Faucet Mount: Faucet mounted filtration systems also use carbon filters but eliminate the wait-time associated with carafes. The filter cartridges should be changed every three months.
Counter Top: Counter-top models are either manual-fill units, or they're filled via a tube connected to your faucet. They generally use either carbon filters or distillation.
Under Counter: Under-counter systems attach to the water pipes under your sink and provide hot or cold filtered water through your existing tap or a separate faucet (filter units requiring a separate faucet usually have high installation costs). The water flow with these systems tends to be better than with faucet-mounted systems, and filters generally only need changing twice a year.
Whole House: Whole house systems filter all household water, whether used for bathing, washing or drinking, before it comes into the home. When sediment in water is a problem, whole house systems can in fact prolong the life of major appliances, but they usually are ineffective at removing lead, chloroform, pesticides, and bacteria.
Portable Filters: Some reusable water bottles come equipped with a filtration system inside the bottle. Most remove chlorine, bad tastes and odors, as well as an assortment of heavy metals including lead, mercury, and copper.
Filtration Method
Carbon: These use activated carbon to adsorb lead, chlorine byproducts, certain parasites, radon, solvents, some pesticides and herbicides, and some organic chemicals as well as odors and bad tastes. They won't remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrites, bacteria or microbes.
Distiller: Distillers boil water into steam, then condense it back into water in a separate chamber, leaving behind particles and total dissolved solids. Since water is heated, distillers kill microbes. They eliminate many other pollutants including trivalent arsenic, fluoride, lead and mercury , but not volatile organic chemicals and chlorine, which are usually removed by an accompanying carbon filter. Upfront costs for distillers are steep, between $200 and $1500. They also use considerable amounts of energy: It takes one kilowatt-hour to produce one liter of distilled water. Because the average person uses 100 gallons of water per day, a whole-house distiller can increase daily home energy use by 378 kWh. If heavy metals are a problem, consider a counter top distiller for your drinking water only. Distilled water contains less dissolved oxygen, and many find that the water tastes flat.
Reverse Osmosis: Reverse-osmosis systems, typically expensive and difficult to install, operate by pushing water through a membrane, then flushing away a few gallons of contaminant-containing water for every gallon purified. These systems are the only filters that remove nitrates and perchlorate. They also remove industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic and asbestos but not radon or 100 percent of pesticides, which can be removed by an additional carbon filter. (As these filters waste enormous amounts of water and flush contaminants back into the water supply, they should be considered a solution to water contamination only if nitrates and perchlorate are problems in your area). The membrane generally needs to be replaced every two to three years.
Ceramic: Ceramic filters, often combined with carbon filters, will remove bacteria, parasites, asbestos and sediments. As water passes through the pores of the ceramic, particles as small as .2 microns are trapped. When the water flow is reduced, the filter requires a light scrub under running water. Ceramic filters are available in both counter-top and under the counter models, and are often combined with another filtration method.
UV: These use a 60-watt ultraviolet light bulb to kill giardia, E.coli, and Cryptosporidium, and are currently the only systems certified by the NSF to do so. Although the bulb is continuously lit, UV systems are more energy-efficient than distillers and are available in under the counter models and whole house units. UV purifiers are not certified to remove pathogens uncommon to North America such as toxoplasma and entamoeba and should be used in conjunction with another filtration method.
Contaminants Removed
Contaminants vary for each water supply, but those most frequently found include:
2,4-D: a common herbicide and suspected hormone disruptor
Arsenic: a heavy metal that has been linked bladder, lung, kidney, prostate and skin cancer in animal tests, heart and nervous system damage and skin problems; can enter water through natural soil deposits or industrial and agricultural pollution. Very low levels of arsenic have also been found to disrupt hormone functions.
Atrazine: an herbicide used on corn; short-term exposure leads to lung, kidney and heart congestion while long-term exposure may cause cardiovascular disease. Atrazine is a suspected hormone disruptor.
Chloramine: a chlorine-ammonia compound used as a disinfectant in 29 percent of U.S. water utilities; has been associated with asthma, rashes and fainting
Coliform bacteria: Not harmful in themselves, they may indicate the presence of dangerous microbes such as Cryptosporidium, which can be life-threatening to people with weak immune systems.
Cysts: microorganisms including Cryptosporidium and Giardia that are carried by animal and human waste and linked to gastrointestinal illness. Crypto can be life-threatening for those with weakened immune systems.
E.coli: a type of fecal coliform bacteria that can cause gastrointestinal illness; about 2 to 7 percent of E.coli of infections lead to kidney failure.
Lead: a brain-damaging and neurotoxic heavy metal that can enter water via decaying pipes and taps; "Every homeowner, especially if they have children under six, should have their water tested for lead," warns Erik Olson, a senior attorney specializing in drinking water at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Lindane: used as an insecticide and in prescription medications for head and body lice; a known hormone disruptor
Mercury: a brain-damaging heavy metal that can also cause kidney damage
Misc. heavy metals: Carcinogenic chromium can also cause upset stomach, ulcers, kidney and liver damage and death. Short term exposure to selenium, cadmium and copper can nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and long term exposure to cadmium and copper can cause kidney disease.
MTBE: The gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) leaks into groundwater from underground fuel storage, spills and storm-water runoff and is a possible carcinogen. MTBE has been banned in many but not all states.
Nitrates: come from animal waste on cattle farms, on feedlots and in dairies, and can cause "blue-baby syndrome," which prevents blood from holding oxygen.
Perchlorate: contaminant derived from rocket fuel; causes thyroid damage and is a possible carcinogen
Perchloroethylene (PERC)/tetrachloroethylene: PERC, also commonly listed as tetrachloroethylene, is the main solvent used in most dry-cleaning processes. It is a known carcinogen that can cause neurological, kidney and liver effects, and has been associated with reproductive effects such as spontaneous abortion.
Simazine: a common pesticide; long-term exposure may lead to liver and kidney damage
Trihalomethanes (THMs): Chemicals formed when chlorine used to disinfect water reacts with organic matter, such as animal waste, treated sewage or leaves and soil. They can increase the risk of cancer and may damage the liver, kidneys and nervous system, and increase rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): inorganic salts, such as calcium, sodium and sulfates, and small amounts of organic matter that are dissolved in water; the concentration of TDS in water is not a health hazard but can cause water to be corrosive or salty in taste and may lead to mineral build-up.
Toxaphene: a now-banned insecticide that breaks down slowly in the environment and is an EPA-classified probable carcinogen; high level exposure could damage the lungs, nervous system and kidneys.
VOCs: Including benzene, which can cause cancer and birth defects and toluene, which can cause nausea, weakness, confusion and hearing and vision loss.
Annual Filter Cost
The dollar amount refers to the cost of replacing filters for one year.
Shopping and Usage Tips
To ensure that the filter you buy is effective, find out which contaminants are specific to your water supply before you start shopping.
If you draw from a municipal supply, obtain a copy of your water quality report. Water utilities are required to send these to customers by July 1st of each year. If you have not received a copy, request it from your local supplier or the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791), or you can view it online at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.
If your water source is a private well, check with your local health department to find out which contaminants are common where you live. The EPA recommends that you have it tested annually by a state-certified lab for nitrate and coliform bacteria, total dissolved solids and pH levels. Also, test for radon if that's a problem in your area (call 800-SOS-RADON to see if it's an issue) and for pesticides, if you live near a farm where crops are sprayed frequently. National Testing Labs can test for 95 contaminants, including 20 pesticides, by mail (www.ntllabs.com, 800-458-3330). For more information, call the Water Systems Council hotline (www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033).
Check for lead in your building's pipes. The NSF certifies reverse osmosis systems, carbon filters and distillers for the removal of lead, a neurotoxic heavy metal that gets into water as pipes decay. It's not present in all pipes, so find out if it's a problem before spending money on a costly filter. You can get the name of a state-certified laboratory from www.epa.gov/safewater/labs/
Usage Tips
Change the filter on time to ensure that water is being cleared of contaminants. If need be, mark a reminder on your calendar.
Continue to monitor your water reports or test your well water for contamination, especially in the event of unexplained illnesses, a chemical or fuel spill nearby, or if there is a change in water taste, odor, color or clarity.
Weigh in with your water utility and local environmental groups to urge better protection against industrial and agricultural contamination of your city's water source. Campaign to limit development around reservoir watersheds, and buy organic food to support farming methods that prevent pesticides from entering water. The cleaner your watershed, the less you have to rely on filters.
Product Comparisons
While America's drinking water supplies are tightly regulated and are among the healthiest in the world, health-threatening contaminants may occasionally enter drinking water from old pipes, wells or municipal water treatment disruptions. The filters below have been independently certified to remove major contaminants, so there are no worries about getting those requisite eight glasses of water a day.
Wondering what these table headings mean? They're the criteria we used to choose and evaluate the products in the chart below. Learn more about their importance in What To Look For.
Name Type Filtration Method Contaminants Removed Annual Filter Cost MSRP Purchasing Information Reader Rating
Shaklee Perfect Pitcher Carafe Carbon 4 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor $90 $17 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Pur 2 Stage 7 Cup Oval Pitcher CR6000 Carafe Carbon 19 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, 2-4D, atrazine, VOCs, cadmium, copper, cysts, lindane, mercury, MTBE, simazene,tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene, TTHM $82 $30 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
Brita Super Saver Carafe Carbon 8 including chlorine, taste, odor, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead*, benzene* $54 $22.99 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Pur Horizontal FM 9400 Faucet Mount Carbon 30 including chlorine, particulates, tastes and odor, 2,4-D, atrazine, VOCs, cysts, lead, lindane, MTBE, mercury, simazene, TTHM, tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene $80 $40 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXFM03C Faucet Mount Carbon 8 including atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, turbidity, chlorine*, particulates* $64 $20 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Brita Disposable CKFF-100 Faucet Mount Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, benzene, cysts, lead, mercury, toxaphene $0 $40 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Shaklee Best Water MTS2000 Counter Top Carbon 8 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs $105 $255 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Culligan CT-2 Counter Top Carbon 9 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, mercury $75 $50 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Sylvan Source Automatic Fill Distillation System M-600 Counter Top Distiller 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, TDS $0 $38 www.sylvansource.com, 800-640-0469
Avg. Rating
Aqua Pure by Cuno AP-DWS1000 Under Counter Carbon 10 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, MTBE, VOCs, pesticides* $180 $350 www.cuno.com, 800-22-7880
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXSV65F Under Counter Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, VOCs, rust* $80 $150 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Everpure H-300 Under Counter Carbon 14 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs, chloramine*, mold and algae*, oxidised iron*, manganese sulfides* $95 $300 www.everpure.com
Avg. Rating
Doulton Ultracarb IP200UC Under Counter Ceramic/carbon 7 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead est. $40 $319 www.doultonusa.com, 888-664-3336
Avg. Rating
Kenmore Elite 38556 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 13 including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cysts, lead, nitrates, selenium, TDS $80 $300 www.kenmore.com, 800-349-4358
Avg. Rating
Culligan Aqua-Cleer Good Water Machine AC-30 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, cysts, fluoride, chromium, lead, radium, selenium, TDS $50 $900 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Whirlpool WHCF-DWHV Whole House Carbon particulates $24 $35 www.whirlpool.com, 866-698-2538
Avg. Rating
TrojanUVMax Pro 20 Whole House UV 5 including E.coli, giardia, cryptosporidium $0 est. $1,600 www.trojanuvmax.com, 888-220-6118
Avg. Rating
*Manufacturer claims the filter removes this contaminant, although the filter has not been certified by NSF to do so.
The Backstory
Many of us rely on our state and local officials to ensure that the water coming out of our taps is clean and safe. They test water quarterly for synthetic organic chemicals and hundreds of times a month for bacteria, and municipal testing is actually more stringent than that required for bottled water, which is only tested annually. Nevertheless, a few localized problems with municipal supplies cast doubt on the entire nation's, leading consumers to opt for bottled water. Popular also because it's more convenient and may taste better, bottled water still costs 1,000 times more per gallon than tap, isn't as closely regulated and contributes to a host of environmental hazards.
Environmental Issues
Bottled water consumes 1.5 million barrels of oil annually in the production of convenient, disposable, petroleum-based plastics. Even though most plastic water bottles are recyclable, they're usually thrown out. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that each day, more than 60 million plastic bottles are incinerated or tossed in landfills.
Meanwhile, the contents of those bottles may be no different than the water coming out of your tap. As much as 40 percent of bottled water is actually drawn from municipal water supplies. PepsiCo has recently admitted as much by labeling it's Aquafina as coming from "a public water source" and then shipped cross-country, spewing greenhouse gases and burning more non-renewable oil in the process.
Water filters themselves create solid waste in the form of disposed plastic cartridges, which add to landfill problems. Unfortunately, water filters aren't recyclable and manufacturers currently don't have take-back programs designed to keep used water filters out of landfills.
Personal Health
People often turn to bottles because of threats to municipal supplies, the greatest of which is development, whether agricultural or urban, around reservoirs. Urban development seals green spaces under impervious roadways and parking lots, resulting in increased pollution from topsoil, lawn pesticides and fertilizers, animal and human waste (especially if septic systems fail), roadway oil, soot, landfill run-off and salt. Additionally, agricultural run-off carries pesticides into water supplies. A February 2007 U.S. Geological Survey survey of 51 "hydrological systems" found that one or more pesticides have been detected in 97 percent of U.S. streams in urban and farming areas, and five percent of shallow wells that provide drinking water in urban areas have pesticide concentrations above EPA human-health benchmarks.
Aside from industrial and agricultural pollution, chemicals not removed from wastewater treatment plants can infiltrate water supplies as well. A May 2002 USGS study of the nation's stream water discovered chemicals found in drugs, detergents, disinfectants, insect repellents, plastics and personal care products, including 33 suspected hormone disruptors. Non-prescription drugs were detected more frequently than almost all other organic wastewater contaminants, and those drugs have been detected in drinking-water supplies in Montana and New Jersey.
The EPA reported in 1998 that 6 percent of the country's water systems had violated health standards for at least one of 90 regulated contaminants that year. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an estimated seven million Americans are made sick annually by contaminated tap water; in some rare cases, this results in death. One study published in the 2006 Journal of Water and Health found that, between 1991 and 2002, 4,400 people were hospitalized and 50 died from exposure to pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and E.coli in tap water.
Related Articles
From the Green Guide:
"Lead, Straight From the Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/ask/
"American Waters: What Hurts, What Helps," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/121/
"Three Simple Steps to Clean, Safe Drinking Water," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/
"Message in the Bottle: Drink Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/
From Outside Sources:
Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water: www.safe-drinking-water.org, 202-895-0432 x135
Clean Water Lead Testing Inc. provides lead testing for $24: www.leadtesting.org, 828-251-6800
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline: www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse: www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/ndwc_
National Testing Labs: www.ntlabs.com, 800-458-3330
National Sanitation Foundation: www.nsf.org, 800-673-6275
Radon Hotline: 800-SOS-RADON
Water Systems Council: www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033
"Making Sense out of Drinking Water 'Right to Know' Reports." www.safe-drinking-water.org/
New York City residents can order free lead tests through the city's Department of Environmental Protection, 311.
Olson, Erik D. "Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?" Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/
"Protecting Groundwater from Pesticides: A Clean Water Action Guide." Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org/safefood/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
