Filter Carbon: What It Does and What It Doesn’t

by Gene Franks

If you’ve wondered what makes water filters effective, this article will give some answers. Water filters aren’t magic. Except for rare specialty items, what we call a water filter works because of a single ingredient–activated carbon. The present article is a slightly truncated and revised version of one that’s been on Pure Water Products’main commercial website for a number of years.— Hardly Waite, Editor.

The largest single section in the “EPA Regulated Water Contaminants” list is the section on Organics (including VOCs, or “Volatile Organics”). In this category the EPA lists numerous very nasty organic chemical contaminants—many with familiar names like benzene, 1,1 dichlorethylene, carbon tetrachloride, dioxin, styrene, toluene, chloroform, and vinyl chloride. To give an idea of the extensiveness of this list, a single item,  “Total Trihalomethanes,” consists of hundreds of chemicals, some  still undiscovered or unstudied, that are formed as by-products of the chlorination process. The EPA’s maximum allowable level for trihalomethanes, many of which are suspected or known cancer causers and are present in virtually all chlorinated tap water, is less than 1/10 of one part per million.

For the Organics category, the primary treatment in all cases and the only recommended treatment in most cases, is activated carbon.

The EPA’s Pesticides category lists many familiar poisons such as Aldicarb, Chlordane, Heptachlor, and Lindane. In all cases, activated carbon is the only recommended treatment.

Of the Herbicides listed (2,4-D, Atrazine, etc.), activated carbon is the only treatment recommended.

In short, for Organics, Pesticides, and Herbicides, which together make up 90% of EPA’s regulated substances, the standard treatment, and in many cases the only treatment recommended, is activated carbon.

What carbon filtration does not do can be seen in the remaining three categories of the EPA contaminant list.

Microbiological contaminants.  Carbon is listed as a treatment in only under one category–turbidity. It is not recommended for coliform removal or for cysts, though in reality some of the very tight solid carbon block filters now on the market remove bacteria (though manufacturers seldom make this claim), and many carbon block filters are now certified for removal of cysts (giardia and cryptosporidium).

Inorganic contaminants.  Carbon appears in the EPA list only as a preferred treatment for mercury.  Carbon filters are also frequently engineered to remove lead (by the addition of ion exchange resins) and some carbon filter makers claim asbestos reduction, but by and large carbon is not a good treatment for most inorganic water contaminants.

The same is true in the final category, Radionuclides, where carbon is ineffective and reverse osmosis (RO) and ion exchange are definitely the treatments of choice.

Chloramines and Chlorine

Chlorine was not considered in the discussion above because the EPA does not consider it a water contaminant. Nevertheless,  chlorine removal is a top priority of water filter purchasers.  Chlorine removal is what carbon is best at, and nothing else equals carbon’s ability to remove chlorine. Carbon, especially the specially processed carbon known as “catalytic carbon,” is also the best treatment by far for chloramines, the increasingly (un)popular chlorine substitute.

Fluoride, another EPA-unlisted additive that people frequently want removed from tap water, is not readily removed by carbon filtration.  (Although carbon can remove fluoride under the right circumstances, its performance is sporadic and unpredictable, so it’s best not to count on it.) I should note, too, that a unique carbon called “bone char,” which is made from animal bones, is widely used as a fluoride remover in some parts of the world, though rarely in the United States.

TDS, “total dissolved solids,” the count of the total mineral content of water, is not affected by carbon filtration. The EPA suggests a non-enforceable upper limit of 500 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids. TDS can be reduced only by reverse osmosis or a distiller or by a very expensive process called deionization.

Sodium, Fluoride, and Nitrates

Tap water ingredients that people most frequently want removed that are not readily removed by carbon filtration are fluoride, nitrates, and sodium. (Sodium is measured in water as part of the Total Dissolved Solids, discussed above.) Reverse osmosis and distillation remove all three. so either of them, combined with a high quality carbon filter, provides complete treatment. All three can also be removed by selective, non-carbon filters designed for the purpose. For example, you can obtain a double filter with one fluoride and one carbon cartridge if fluoride removal is desired. The fluoride cartridge does not contain carbon but a specialty medium called Activated Alumina.

When distiller sellers or zealous home marketers show you a chart that indicates that reverse osmosis (RO) units do not remove chlorine or certain chemicals, keep in mind that RO units contain one or more carbon filters. In fact, “thin film” RO units, the most common type, must remove chlorine from the water as the very first operation else the unit’s membrane will be destroyed. Such statements are simply advertising cheap shots that are technically true but in reality totally false and intentionally misleading. It’s surprising and disappointing that some large companies actually do this in their promotional literature.

A reverse osmosis unit that has at least two high quality carbon filters is the best and most complete drinking water treatment for the home. When people say they want a water treatment system that “removes everything,” reverse osmosis is as close as you can get.

Military Waste in Our Drinking Water

By Sunaura Taylor and Astra Taylor

Friday 04 August 2006

The US military is poisoning the very citizens it is supposed to protect in the name of national security.

In 1982 our family was living on the southside of Tucson, Ariz., in a primarily working class and Latino neighborhood not far from the airport. That year Sunaura was born with a congenital birth defect known as arthrogryposis, a condition that severely impedes muscle growth and requires her to use an electric wheelchair. On nearby blocks, women were giving birth to babies with physical disabilities and neighbors were dying of cancer at worrisome rates. Over time, we learned that our groundwater was contaminated.

Most of us are vaguely aware that war devastates the environment abroad. The Vietnamese Red Cross counts 150,000 children whose birth defects were caused by their parents’ exposure to Agent Orange. Cancer rates in Iraq are soaring as a result of depleted uranium left from the Gulf War. But what about closer to home?

Please go here to read the rest of this excellent article.

The Poisoning of America’s Water Supplies

By Mark Sircus Ac., OMD

Every day in the United States more than 240 million people turn on their faucets in order to drink, bathe, and cook, using water from public water systems. But more people are arriving to the point where they will not let a drop of water touch their lips in their own homes unless that water comes from a bottle shipped from a fresh water source. And even then we still have trouble in the home. Researchers at the University of Texas found that showers and dishwashers liberate trace amounts of chemicals from municipal water supplies into the air [i].

“The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.” – American Indian Proverb 

Squirting hot water through a nozzle, to produce a fine spray, increases the surface area of water in contact with the air, liberating dissolved substances in a process known as “stripping.” So if we want to avoid those chemicals drinking bottled water is not enough. Chemically sensitive individuals would also have to wear a gas mask in the shower, and when unloading the dishwasher if they want to avoid chemical contamination. And even then the skin will absorb directly in the shower chemicals like fluoride so we cannot assume we are safe from the contaminants even if we are drinking pure water. The majority of people still take the purity of their tap water for granted when they shouldn’t.

When we look deeper we can see that even in a rich country like the United States, we all have reason to be concerned about not only drinking, but even bathing in water that comes from public treatment systems. Albuquerque, Fresno, and San Francisco are examples of cities that have water that is sufficiently contaminated so as to pose serious potential health risks to pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, according to Dr. David Ozonoff [ii]. What we find in these waters are contaminants that occur with surprising regularity, regardless of location, such as chlorination by-products, lead, and coliform bacteria. Other contaminants, such as Teflon and rocket fuel occur less frequently but pose major health concerns. If we include the fact that fluoride is actually poisonous we have water that is slowly killing some Americans and depressing the health of almost everyone who drinks and showers in it.

And the problems with water just do not end. In August 2005 we learned that common household brass plumbing fixtures may release far more lead into drinking water than previously believed. As a result, even new homes built with brass fixtures like ball valves and water meters could end up with potentially unsafe lead levels. In a report trumpeted by the National Science Foundation, Virgina Tech researchers charged that the standards used to certify the brass plumbing supplies found at most hardware stores may be inadequate to predict lead contamination of water. This contradicts years of assumptions that lead contamination primarily comes from old leaden pipes or public water systems with lead contamination problems [iii]. Contrary to popular belief, many plumbing supplies sold today are not lead-free but contain up to 8 percent lead content in brass fixtures [iv]. Lead makes brass and other metals more malleable, helping manufacturers create intricate shapes.

The consequence though is extraordinarily high for exposure to lead in drinking water which results in delays in physical and mental development, along with slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. In adults, it can cause increases in blood pressure. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure according to the American EPA [v]. The Romans had their engineers turn the populace into neurological cripples when they started using lead in their water systems but they did not have to deal with either fluoride or mercury. The three together, mercury, lead and fluoride become a kind of devil’s triangle of chemical toxicity that is only made worse by aluminum and a host of other hostile chemicals that are clogging up our bodies.

Water pollution by drugs is an emerging issue that is extremely important. Pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a whole new class of water pollutants. At the recent American Chemical Society conference, Chris Metcalfe of Trent University in Ontario reported finding a vast array of drugs leaving Canadian sewage treatment plants. Padma Venkatraman, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins concluded that antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticancer drugs and antimicrobials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at “toxicologically significant levels” in the environment.

These drugs and many more [vi] are finding their way into public water systems because pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities as well as households dispose of unused medicines and even human excreta can contain incompletely metabolized medicines. Millions of doses of prescription drugs that Americans swallow annually to combat cancer, pain, depression and other ailments do not disappear harmlessly into their digestive systems but instead make their way back into the environment where they may contaminate drinking water and pose a threat to life, according to researchers at John Hopkins medical center.

These drugs pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater. And farm animals also are a huge source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment because of the massive use of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines used in their care. Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.

It is hard to tell which is worse, the toxic chemicals and drugs that are leeching into the public water systems or the noxious chemicals deliberately put in the water by public health officials. Standard water treatments result in health threats yet health officials are loath to admit any problem that we should beware of. Chlorination of drinking water supplies virtually eliminates most disease or bacterial contamination, but creates traces of several toxic by-products in drinking water — such as chloroform, trihalomethanes and other chlorinated organic compounds. In recent years municipal water districts across the United States are changing the way they disinfect public water supplies. Many are adding ammonia to chlorinated water to produce chloramines [vii], or chloraminated water. They are doing that in order to meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While chloramination has been used as a way to lower the level of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by chlorination, it has led to extreme water toxicity. Chloraminated water kills fish and reptiles and there is no reason to believe it is safe for human consumption.

“I almost died,” Denise Kula Johnson of Menlo Park said the day after chloramines were added to her water supply. “I was in the shower and suddenly I could not breathe. I passed out on the floor. I was terrified.”

“The government is hiding the fact that the drinking water is not usable,” says medical scientist Dr. Winn Parker who tells us that the most at-risk groups from chloraminated water are the fetus in the first trimester, children to age three, people over age 60 and those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Women in the 35-45 age group are at risk of recurring rashes on the inner thighs and chest, he added. Parker is calling for government funding of alternative disinfection methods, such as ultra-violet and reverse osmosis, which would make harmful chemical disinfection methods obsolete. “We need to amend the Constitution,” Parker said, “to give the people in each state the right to vote on what goes into their water.”[viii] A recently discovered disinfection byproduct iodoacetic acid, found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines, is the most toxic ever found according to Dr. Michael J. Plewa, a genetic toxicology expert at the University of Illinois [ix].

“Individuals who consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” [x] – Dr. Michael J. Plewa

When Washington DC changed in 2000 to chloramines, this newly treated water reacted with the lead in the pipes to poison the drinking water. Lead levels were found in Washington’s water 3,200 times the EPA’s “action level” and 4,800 times the UN’s acceptable level for the toxic heavy metal. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the problem with lead has mostly disappeared but nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Washington Post, “In New York City, the nation’s largest water provider has for the past three years assured its 9.3 million customers that its water was safe because the lead content fell below federal limits. But the city has withheld from regulators hundreds of test results that would have raised lead levels above the safety standard in two of those years.”[xi]

“The drinking water lead crisis in Washington D.C. poses serious public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital area, and casts a dark shadow of doubt over the ability, resources, or will of federal and local officials to fulfill their duty to protect our health,” said Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water Action [xii].

After switching to chloraminated water, children in Washington ingested more than 60 times the EPA’s maximum level of lead with one glass of water [xiii].

Jim Elder, who headed the EPA’s drinking water program from 1991 to 1995, said he fears that utilities are engaging in “widespread fraud and manipulation. It’s time to reconsider whether water utilities can be trusted with this crucial responsibility of protecting the public. I fear for the safety of our nation’s drinking water. Apparently, it’s a real crap shoot as to what’s going to come out of the tap and whether it will be healthy or not.”

Cities across the country are manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk. – Washington Post [xiv]

Underground aquifers can become contaminated with bacteria and viruses because of insufficient topsoil layers to filter rainwater as it trickles down to recharge the groundwater. Livestock manure, human sewage sludge, fertilizers, weed killers [xv] and pesticides seep down into groundwater supplies. The intensification of agricultural practices — in particular, the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides — has had a huge impact on water quality. The main agricultural water pollutants are nitrates[xvi], phosphorus, and pesticides. Rising nitrate concentrations threaten the quality of drinking water, while high pesticide use contributes substantially to the direct poisoning of our water supplies.

The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM, 1992) concluded that “groundwater is threatened by pesticides in all European states.” WHO (1993) has established drinking water guidelines for 33 pesticides but an awareness is growing that in all matters water related we are not being protected from serious harm. There really is no limit to the concerns and chemicals that make drinking public water a bad idea.

There really is no end to the serious problems with tap water that are being seriously underestimated. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that arsenic is so dangerous in drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later suspended by the Bush White House were not strict enough. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable arsenic level of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer. A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be made stricter “as promptly as possible.” President Bill Clinton ordered the limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006 and scientists doubt if even this low level of concentration is safe [xvii].

References:

i. (http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/8/4/44118/79781)

ii. National Resources Defence Council. Ozonoff is chair of the Environmental Health Program at Boston University School of Public Health and a nationally known expert on drinking water and health issues ((http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/usci…)

iii. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C29130.html)

iv. Drinking Water Act in 1996 banned plumbing devices with pure lead pipe but still allows low levels of lead. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have lead pipes, fixtures and solder. However, new homes are also at risk: even legally “lead-free” plumbing may contain up to 8 percent lead. The most common problem is with brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures which can leach significant amounts of lead into the water, especially hot water.

v. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead/index.html) Amendments made to the federal Safe

vi. Detected contaminants include caffeine, which was the highest-volume pollutant, codeine, cholesterol-lowering agents, anti-depressants, and Premarin, an estrogen replacement drug taken by about 9 million women. Also chemotherapy agents were found downstream from hospitals treating cancer patients. Final results from the study are expected to be released in the fall. For additional information about the U.S.G.S. study check the website: (http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html)

vii. Chloramine is a disinfectant put into many municipal water supplies. In recent years it has often replaced chlorine for two main reasons. The first is that it is much longer lasting, so it continues to provide a disinfectant action in supply pipes, where chlorine typically loses its capacity to disinfect. The second is that it does not react with organics nearly as readily as does chlorine. The reaction products of chlorine and organics (chlorinated organics) are very toxic to people, and water supply operators elect to use chloramine to reduce this toxicity.

viii. Bollyn, Christopher. The Unhealthy Consequences of Chloraminated Water. ((http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c…)

ix. ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20…)

x. Sep 2004 ((http://www.watertechonline.com/News.asp…)

xi. (http://www.americanfreepress.net/)

xii. US House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform
Hearing on the District of Columbia’s Lead Contamination Experience
Statement of Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water Action
May 21, 2004. (http://www.dcwatch.com/wasa/040521i.htm)

xiii. From April 2 to May 8 of 2004, utility officials switched back to chlorine, a yearly change intended to rinse bacteria from the pipes before summer. During that time, officials said yesterday, lead level test results in homes with lead service lines were 25 percent to 30 percent lower than they would have predicted. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar…)

xiv. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar…)

xv. The weed killer atrazine affects the levels of a number of hormones needed for normal development and function of the reproductive system, including estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone, and follicle stimulating hormone. Atrazine has been linked to sexual malformations in frogs that were exposed to water containing just 1/30th as much atrazine as the EPA regards as safe in human drinking water. Sanders, Robert. Popular weed killer atrazine feminizes native frogs across Midwest, could be impacting amphibian populations worldwide 30 October 2002. University of Berkely. ((http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele…)

xvi. Nitrate in drinking water is also associated with increased risk for bladder cancer, according to a University of Iowa (UI) study that looked at cancer incidence among nearly 22,000 Iowa women. The study results suggest that even low-level exposure to nitrates over many years could cause increases in certain types of cancer, said Peter Weyer, Ph.D., associate director of the UI Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination (CHEEC) and one of the study’s lead authors. The study was published in the May 2001 issue of the journal Epidemiology. “From a public health perspective, source water protection is a main concern. Sources of nitrate which can impact water supplies include fertilizers, human waste, and animal waste,” Weyer said. “All of us, rural and urban residents alike, need to be more aware of how what we do as individuals can impact our water sources and, potentially, our health.” ((http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/O…)

xvii. New York Times September 11, 2001
About the author

Mark A. Sircus Ac., OMD, is director of the International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA)http://www.imva.info/. Dr. Sircus was trained in acupuncture and oriental medicine at the Institute of Traditional Medicine in Sante Fe, N.M., and in the School of Traditional Medicine of New England in Boston. He served at the Central Public Hospital of Pochutla, in México, and was awarded the title of doctor of oriental medicine for his work. He was one of the first nationally certified acupuncturists in the United States. Dr. Sircus’s IMVA is dedicated to unifying the various disciplines in medicine with the goal of creating a new dawn in healthcare.

He is particularly concerned about the effect vaccinations have on vulnerable infants and is identifying the common thread of many toxic agents that are dramatically threatening present and future generations of children. His book The Terror of Pediatric Medicine is a free e-book one can read. Dr. Sircus is a most prolific and courageous writer and one can read through hundreds of pages on his various web sites.

He has most recently released his Survival Medicine for the 21st Century compendium (2,200 page ebook) and just released the Winning the War Against Cancer book. Dr. Sircus is a pioneer in the area of natural detoxification and chelation of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. He is also a champion of the medicinal value of minerals and is fathering in a new medical approach that uses sea water and different concentrates taken from it for health and healing. Transdermal Magnesium Therapy, his first published work, offers a stunning breakthrough in medicine, an entirely new way to supplement magnesium that naturally increases DHEA levels, brings cellular magnesium levels up quickly, relieves pain, brings down blood pressure and pushes cell physiology in a positive direction. Magnesium chloride delivered transdermally brings a quick release from a broad range of conditions.

International Medical Veritas Association: http://www.imva.info/

_________________
Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

How Much Water Should You Drink?

Introduction by Pure Water Gazette Editor Hardly Waite.

The article below, from an extensive bodybuilding website, says several things that need to be said and repeated, since much of what is usually said and repeated about human water consumption requirements is pure nonsense.

The 8-glasses-per-day slogan has been mindlessly repeated for decades by physicians, nutritionists, diet gurus,  mothers, grannies, teachers,  and others who should know better.  Who knows where it originated.  You would think there was an Eleventh Commandment that says, “Thou shalt drink eight eight-ounce glasses of water per day.”

Does a slender woman who works in an air conditioned office and eats salads and fruits need the same 8-glass water ration as the beefy construction worker who spends the day in the sun and wolfs down potato chips and salami sandwiches?

Do both the secretary and the construction worker need the same amount of water on Tuesday and Friday?

Since we sweat more some days than others, and we pee more some days than others, and we eat more some days than others, and we sleep more some days than others, and we work harder some days than others, it would seem obvious that we need more water some days than others.  And it should be equally obvious that that people in different geographical regions, under different socioeconomic circumstances, and in varying states of physical and mental health don’t all need exactly eight eight-ounce glasses of water per day.

So how do you decide how much water you should drink? The Pure Water Gazette endorses the radical view that plain water should be your drink of preference and that you should get a drink when you feel thirsty and drink no water if you aren’t thirsty.

How Much Water Do You Really Need?

by Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale

Almost everyone agrees that water is good for you and that the biggest problem with water intake is that you don’t drink enough. We have all had it drummed into us that we need to drink at least eight glasses of water a day. That it’s important to drink water before and during exercise.

That coffee and tea don’t count because caffeine can dehydrate our bodies. And that you can’t trust your thirst as an accurate measure of when you need water since if you’re thirsty you’re already dehydrated. Well think again. According to a recent review in the Journal of Physiology, most of these accepted truths seem to be myths.

This review looked at the scientific evidence of the 8*8 mantra about drinking at least eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day, and found that there really was none.

The claimed benefits of taking in that much water each day, including benefits for weight loss, bowels, fatigue, arthritis, mental alertness and headaches, losing weight, preventing constipation, are also mostly unsubstantiated.

Other Water Myths That Are Debunked In This Article Include:

• By the time a person is thirsty that person is already dehydrated. This in fact isn’t true and the best measure of how much water to drink is your thirst.
• Dark urine means dehydration. Again that’s not strictly true either as there are many other factors that can contribute to dark urine.
• Caffeinated beverages dehydrate us. As you’d expect much of this is also unsubstantiated. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, a recent study has found that coffee, tea and sodas are hydrating for people used to caffeine and thus should count toward their daily fluid total.

While this review focuses on the validity of the various water myths, no one seriously disputes that getting enough water is crucial. However, fears of dehydration and the constant barrage telling us we don’t drink enough water, has led to a mistaken belief that the safe thing to do is to drink as much and as often as possible. But drinking too much water can be hazardous to your health.

Too Much Water?

The reason why over hydrating can be dangerous is that when we consume large amounts of water when exercising, blood plasma (the liquid part of blood) increases, while the sodium concentration in the body fluids decreases, both as a result of the dilution by the water but also because sodium is lost by sweating.

Hyponatremia, or low blood sodium, generally happens after drinking too much plain water and can lead to adverse effects and tissue damage, and interfere with brain, heart, and muscle function.

Early symptoms can be difficult to spot and include:

• Confusion
• Nausea
• Fatigue
• Muscle cramps
• Weakness

More severe symptoms can include vomiting, muscle twitching, delirium, seizures, coma and death.

A new review of three deaths of US military recruits highlights the dangers of drinking too much water. Like in sports, the military has traditionally focused on dangers of not drinking enough, especially under conditions often associated with exercise and hot conditions. However, getting overzealous over the need to drink large amounts of water and over-hydrating can have deadly consequences.

So How Much Water Should You Drink?

My recommendation is to drink when you’re thirsty, and if you think you should be drinking more, don’t overdo it. As far as drinking water in and around exercise, I’ve outlined a few simple guidelines that will make sure you’re well hydrated without hitting any extremes.

Within an hour or so of training, drink a few glasses of water so you start well hydrated. While training you can drink a glass or so of water for every 15 minutes you train, especially if you’re sweating it out.

However, even during times of heavy sweating don’t take in more than a quart and half of water per hour. As far as how much your daily intake of water should be, The American College of Sports Medicine says that 12 quarts is the maximum amount to drink in a 24-hour period.

Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale’s Website

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Meshes and Microns: The Measurements of Water Treatment

by Gene Franks

So much attention is given to the materials of water filter media (coconut shell vs. standard bituminous filter carbon, for example) that the size measurements of filter media are often ignored. Size, however, is very important in water filters.

Filter media are usually manufactured substances that are ground to a specific size. The “grind,” usually expressed as a mesh size, greatly affects the performance of the filter.

In large tank-style filters, the general rule is that the smaller the granules of filter media, the more effective the filter will be at reducing contaminants, but the greater the restriction it will offer to the flow of water. Performance must be weighed against flow rate. A filter is of no value if water won’t go through it, nor is it of value if it’s so porous that it won’t remove the targeted contaminant.

The size of the particles in granular filter media is usually expressed as mesh size. Mesh refers to the number of holes or openings per inch in a testing sieve. A 12 mesh screen has 12 holes per inch. A 40 mesh screen has 40 much smaller openings per inch.

Filter media is usually described with a two number designation. Twelve by 40 mesh filter carbon is a common size. If filter carbon is said to be 12 X 40 mesh, it means that the granules of carbon will fall through a screen with 12 holes per inch but be caught by a screen with 40 holes per inch. (Since nothing is perfect, some allowance is made for a small percentage of granules to be outside the size range. The undersized particles that wash out of the filter when water first goes through it are called “fines.” Over-sized chunks are called “overs.”) Eight by 30 mesh carbon is a courser blend than 12 X 40 carbon. It will fall through an 8-mesh screen but be retained by a 30-mesh screen. Water goes through 8 X 30 carbon faster, but for many jobs it is less effective.

In general, the larger the mesh number, the smaller the granules.

The familiar term “granular activated carbon,” or GAC, is used to describe most granular carbon. The technical definition of GAC is carbon of which 90% is retained by an 80 mesh screen. Finer-ground carbon, often compressed into carbon block filters, is called powdered activated carbon. Powdered activated carbon is in the 80 X 325 mesh neighborhood. Powdered carbon is more effective than GAC, but it is much more restrictive.

Microns

As things get tinier, filter makers usually switch to another measurement, the micron.

Here’s the Wikipedia definition: A micrometer or micron , the symbol for which is µm, is one millionth of a meter. It can be written in scientific notation as 1×10−6 m, meaning 1⁄1000000 m. In other words, a micron is a measurement of length, like an inch or a mile.

To put this in context, an inch is 25,400 microns long, or a micron is 0.000039 inches long.

Here are measurements of some common items:

Red blood cell — 8 microns.

White blood cell–25 microns.

An average human hair (cross section) –70 microns.

Cryptosporidium Cyst — 3 microns.

Bacteria — 2 microns.

Tobacco smoke–0.5 microns.

The naked human eye can normally see objects down to about 40 microns in size.

In water treatment, the relative “tightness” of filters is usually expressed in microns. A five-micron sediment filter is a common choice for prefiltration for a reverse osmosis unit or an ultraviolet lamp. A 5-micron filter is one that prevents the passage of most of the particles of five microns or larger. A one-micron filter is much tighter than a five-micron.

Two qualifying words are used to describe the effectiveness of the filter: absolute and nominal. An absolute filter catches virtually all the particles of the specified size, while a nominal filter catches a good portion of them. There is, unfortunately, within the industry a lot of wiggle room in defining what exactly constitutes a nominal or absolute filter rating.

The nominal pore size rating describes the ability of the filter media to retain the majority of particles at the rated pore size. Depending on the standard used, a “nominal” filter can be anywhere from 60% or 98% efficient.

Absolute is a higher standard, but again the term is slippery and its meaning depends on whose definition you accept. The standard water treatment industry’s trade associations, to accommodate marketers, in some cases lower its definition of “absolute” to as little as 85% efficiency. Other standards exist, such as industrial/commercial filtration (98%-99%), US EPA “purifier grade” (99.9%), and very high purity industry standards, e. g. pharmaceutical, (99.99%).

To clarify: a “0.5 micron absolute” carbon block filter sold by an aggressive commercial marketer isn’t necessarily as tight a filter as a 0.9 micron absolute ceramic filter that is designed to purify water by removing bacteria. Marketing standards allow some leeway because the carbon block filter isn’t being sold as a purifier (i.e., bacteria remover).

Here is some common size information regarding water filtration that may be helpful.

Granular tank-style filters are generally assumed to have about a 20 micron particle rating. Some are tighter. A multi-media filter (containing filter sand, anthracite, garnet, etc.) is considered to be about a 10 micron filter. Some of the newer natural zeolite media (ChemSorb, Micro Z, for example) are considered 5 micron filters.
Good carbon block drinking water filters, which are manufactured by binding very small carbon particles together, are frequently in the 0.5 and smaller range.  Doulton ceramic filters, which are very effective bacteria reducers, are in the 0.9 micron absolute area.  As you would guess, flow rates are slow and pressure drop is significant.  Newer technologies known as ultrafiltration operate in the 0.1 micron range, and nano filtration (often called “loose reverse osmosis”) goes down to the 0.01 micron range.  Reverse osmosis membranes have a micron rating of around 0.0005 to 0.001 microns–so tight that they reduce the “dissolved solids” (minerals) in water which pass easily through carbon and ceramic filters.

Comparing and converting mesh sizes to microns is most easily done by visiting one of the many web sites that offer conversion charts. Some common equivalents, to give you the idea:

10 mesh equals about 2,000 microns.

100 mesh equals about 149 microns.

400 mesh equals 37 microns.

If you’d like to figure it out for yourself,  an engineer has worked it all down to this neat formula: microns = 14,992 X mesh(-1.0046). This can be rounded off to mesh = 15,000/microns. That’s certainly a lot easier than looking it up on a chart.

Coca Cola Donates Syrup Barrels to Celebrate Earth Day

In a press release, Coca Cola announced that to celebrate Earth Day it has donated 1000 syrup barrels to be used as rain barrels. Read the full story of Coke’s largesse. 

 Also read  Jim Hightower’s thoughts on Coke  in “Drink More Coke”  and Joshua Frank’s “Death by Coke” from our website.

Water Filter Delays Flights for 90 Minutes at Minneapolis Airport

The Humphrey terminal at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was evacuated for more than 90 minutes after a suspicious bag set off an alarm.

The suspicion centered on the bag’s two capped PVC pipes containing a benign granular substance and wires that were not connected to the pipes. The Bloomington bomb squad removed the bag and determined that the “sandlike substance was not an explosive.”

The bag’s owner said the items were for a water filtration device and that had caused a similar disruption in 2009 at the airport in Long Beach, Calif. The water filter owner was placed on a later flight.

Read all the gruesome details here.

Ultraviolet 101

by Gene Franks

Although ultraviolet light has several water treatment applications, such as reducing chlorine and chloramine, its main use by far is for microbe control.

Getting rid of microbial water contaminants can be done with chemicals, like chlorine or chloramines, by very tight filtration, as with ceramic filters, or by disabling the microbes with ultraviolet light.

Ultraviolet, UV, is not new. As early as 1877, the germicidal properties of sunlight were known.

Landmark events in the development of modern UV treatment include the use of mercury lamps as an artificial germicidal light source (1901), the development of quartz as a UV transmitting medium (1906), and finally the development of the first genuine drinking water application of ultraviolet as a disinfectant in France in 1910.

The technology is, therefore, a century old, and it is used world wide. Nevertheless, it is still unknown to many US state and local regulating agencies, who continue to accept chlorination as the only acceptable way to purify water.

UV treatment works not by “killing” bacteria, protozoa, and viruses, but by altering their DNA so that they cannot reproduce or infect. If chlorination is like chemical warfare directed at microbes, UV is more like a spaying and neutering program.

UV Light

UV light in the 200 to 300 nanometer (nm) range is the most effective at treating bacteria and viruses. (Visible light falls in the 400-700 nm area.) For most practical UV applications in water treatment today, the light is generated by a mercury vapor lamp, or in a gas mixture that contains mercury. Mercury is the gas of choice because the light it puts out is in the germicidal wavelength range.

Lamp output depends on concentration of mercury within the lamp, and the concentration depends on pressure. Low pressure lamps (called LP), the most common, produce UV light primarily at 253.7 nm, an ideal treatment wavelength. Some newer lamps are called “low pressure/high output” (LPHO) and some applications now use mixed vapor lamps called “amalgam” lamps. These require more electrical input and generate more UV output. LPHO lamps are roughly twice as powerful as LP, and amalgams may be about four times as powerful as LP.

The Delivery System

The standard way to treat unsafe water with UV is to send it though an elongated chamber where it is exposed to the intense light from the mercury lamp. UV bulbs are long and narrow to allow prolonged exposure as the water passes the length of the lamp.

The lamp itself is inside a “quartz sleeve,” which protects it from contact with the water, and on the other side of the sleeve there is normally a metal reflective chamber. The water enters one end of the chamber, flows past the lamp to exit at the other end, and is in the process exposed for some time and at close proximity to the UV dosage put out by the lamp.

UV Lamp, on left, and a quartz sleeve (for a smaller unit).

UV dosage is typically measured in units called “Joules,” and it is most frequently expressed in terms of “mega Joules per square centimeter,” or mJ/cm². (Microwatts per second per square centimeter, expressed as µWs/cm2, and mJ/cm2 represent the same dosage and the two systems are used interchangeably.) The higher the number, the higher the dosage.

UV Dosage

The UV dosage received by the water increases as the flow rate of the water decreases, so a UV unit that puts out a dosage of 16 mJ/cm² while treating water at a flow rate of eleven gallons per minute (gpm) will be rated as 40 mJ/cm² if the flow rate is decreased to 4.5 gpm.

Put another way, a UV system rated by its manufacturer to treat water at 40 mJ/cm² at 4.5 gpm will be delivering a dosage of 16 mJ/cm² even if the user exceeds the recommended limit and runs the water at eleven gpm.

The tendency now in UV dosage is to follow the “more is better” view we’ve all been indoctrinated in. If ten nuclear bombs will destroy the world, to be safe we need ten thousand. The most common concerns, E. coli, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, are effectively eliminated at less than seven mJ/cm². The minimum dosage now recommended by NSF, however, is 40 mJ/cm².

Factors That Affect UV Effectiveness

First, there is the age of the lamp. UV lamps lose strength with time, and almost all manufacturers assume a once-a-year replacement when they design their units. It is a mistake to believe that if the lamp is still burning all is well. UV lamps should be replaced once a year, and when replaced they should still be burning strong.

Then there is flow rate. The unit should be sized to provide adequate protection at the highest possible flow rates, but practicality should tell you that in most residential situations, most water is used at a couple of gallons per minute and a great deal of the time—most of the time, in fact—no water at all is being used.

Also a factor is general absorption of the UV light for unintended purposes. UV makers usually require that water have less than seven grains per gallon of hardness, less that 0.3 ppm iron, less than 0.05 ppm manganese, and that it be generally clear and free of particulate and tannins. All of these can create situations where the light is absorbed and, therefore, its anti-microbial activity is diminished. Hardness, for example, can form scale on the outside of the quartz sleeve which blocks the passage of light and greatly diminishes dosage.

A related factor is called shadowing. It is primarily caused by particles in the water which can allow microbes to “hide” from the light and not receive adequate UV dosage. The commonly accepted practice in UV treatment is to put a sediment filter of 5 microns or less in front of the treatment chamber to screen out any particles that could allow shadowing. Even if the water looks perfectly clear to the eye, putting a five-micron filter in front of the UV unit is a good idea.

UV as a Germicidal Treatment. Pros and Cons

The good thing about UV is that in addition to being a very effective treatment for microbes, it is relatively simple and inexpensive to buy and to maintain. It adds no chemicals to the water and leaves no “by-products.” It is very safe, if you follow a couple of simple rules (like don’t stare at a burning UV lamp because it can damage your eyes, and remember that treatment chambers can be hot to the touch). Compared to ozone, chlorine, or even hydrogen peroxide, UV is a very safe home treatment. Also compared with other treatments, UV requires little maintenance.

The main disadvantage of UV as germicidal treatment is that it has no residual effect. Bacteria are treated when they pass the lamp, but contamination that occurs downstream of the lamp is not treated. Chlorine, by contrast, stays in the water from the point of treatment to the final point of use and prevents reinfection. The need for a constant supply of electricity can be seen as an additional disadvantage. If the power goes out, you should not use the water.

Above, a very basic UV system. The quartz sleeve, lamp inside, inserts into the stainless treatment chamber. The simple control system provides both visual and audible warning of UV lamp failure. The system comes in 2, 6, 8, and 12 gpm versions. The lamps provide strong UV dosage (30 mJ/cm2 at the end of the lamp’s life). Very easy to install, the unit wall mounts with two simple clips.

Number of dogs believed to be living in the United States–78.000,000.

Estimated percentage of these dogs that are in the country illegally– 23.9%.

Daily excrement output of these dogs, in tons–30.000.

Yearly excrement output of these dogs, in tons–10,000,000.

Number of 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks that would be required to haul away 10,000,000 tons of dog manure–267,500.

Length in miles of the caravan made by these 267,500 manure wagons if they were lined up bumper to bumper–3800.

Rank of the roundworm as the most common dog excrement parasite — #1

Percentage of Americans who tested positive for roundworms in a CDC study – 14%.

Number of canines required to generate enough bacteria in three days to close 20-miles of beach –100.

Approximate percentage of Americans who don’t pick up their dogs’ feces–40%

Percentage of US households that have at least one dog–60%.

Numerical rank of dog waste among the largest contributors of bacterial pollution in urban watersheds– 3 or 4.

According to a Seattle study, the percentage of watershed pollution that can be attributed to dog wastes–20.

Average daily output in pounds of feces per day per dog–3 to 4.

Pounds of excrement produced by 1000 dogs in a week — 750.

Percentage of the total residential waste stream that was found to be dog waste in a San Francisco study — 4%

Sharper’s Index

Gazette columnist B. Bea Sharper Ferrets Out the Facts that Harper’s Misses

B. Bee’s Second Series of Random Number Wisdom

Average time it takes blood to complete a complete circulatory cycle among vertebrates: 10 to 30 seconds.

Average time for a complete circulatory cycle among many insects: 30 minutes.

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321

The longest recorded flight of a chicken : 13 seconds.

Distance that the cruise liner Queen Elizabeth II moves for each gallon of diesel that it burns: 6 inches.

Number of persons in two billion who will live to be 116 or older: 1.

Number of cows required to make enough leather for a year’s supply of NFL footballs: 3,000.

Percentage of people who use personals ads for dating that are already married: 35.

Percentage of total weight of the world’s humans as compared with the total weight of the world’s termites: 10%

Average speed of catsup leaving the bottle: 25 miles per year.

Percentage of Russian government income that comes from vodka sales: 10.

Number of muscles in a cat’s ear: 32.

Average number of people who choke to death each year on ballpoint pens: 100.

Gallons of water required to produce a pound of wheat: 25.

Gallons of water required to produce a pound of meat: 2,500.

Percentage of typing done by the average person’s left hand: 56%

Percentage of harmful organic waste water pollution attributable to humans: 10.

Percentage of harmful organic waste water pollution attributable to livestock: 90.

Average pounds of paper consumed per person each year in the United States: 560.

Average pounds of paper consumed per person each year in Nigeria: 7.

Number of possible ways to make change for a dollar: 293.

Estimated percentage of the generic diversity of the world’s 20 key food crops that has been lost in just the past 50 years: 75%.

Gallons of water required to produce a ton of paper from virgin wood pulp: 24,000.

Number of dimples on a regulation golf ball: 336.

Amount contributed to members of Congress in the period 1987-96 by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: $1,422,434.

Amount received during the same period from meat industry lobbyists by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas: $611, 484.

Percentage of American grain that is fed to livestock: 70%.

Number of people in the U.S. killed each year by assault rifles: 250.

Number of people in the U.S. who die each year from cancer related to pesticides: 10,400.

Percentage of all pesticides used in the world that are used on cotton: 25%.

Average number of American soldiers who died per year during the 12 years of the Viet Nam War: 4,800.

Number of medical schools in the United States: 127.

Number of these schools that don’t offer even one course in basic nutrition: 102.

According to a Life magazine report, percentage of babies born to Gulf War veterans who have been born deformed: 67%.

Number of Americans who die prematurely each year because of alcohol abuse: 125,000.

Percentage of Britons opposed to Monsanto’s efforts to introduce genetically altered foods before the company staged an advertising blitz in 1998 to gain public support: 44%.

Percentage of Britons opposed to Monsanto’s efforts to introduce genetically altered foods after the 1998 advertising campaign: 51%.

Percentage of the American population that is made up by three out of four Americans: 75%.

Number of Americans who miss work each day because of digestive health problems: 200,000.

Approximate number of people on earth who have the same birthday as you: 9,000,000.

Number of bombs the United States has dropped on Iraq since 1990: Thousands.

Approximate cost of a single “smart bomb” dropped on Iraq: $1,100,000.

Number of year-long jobs paying $10 per hour that could be paid for by the price of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 60.

Number of $10 meals that could have been purchased for the price of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 1,000,000.

Number of four-year scholarships to a top private American university that could have been paid for by the cost of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 10.

Number of computers that could have been bought for American schools for the cost of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 1,000.

According to an audit commissioned by the EPA, percentage of violations to federal safe drinking water rules that are not reported: 88.

Percentage of Americans who believe that the sun revolves around the earth: 18%.

Percentage increase in American children aged two to four taking psychiatric drugs like Prozac and Ritalin between 1991 and 1995:  50%.

Percentage of these children who were 2-year-olds: 10%. 

Read BB Sharper regularly in the Pure Water Occasional.