On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:35:54 +0000, Larry wrote:

Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091021343611272-
jerelull@maccom:

We have a filter and dedicated "drinking
water" tap at the kitchen sink.


What bothers me about "filters" is the same thing that bothers me about
RO. Whatever is filtered from the water backs up on whatever filter
media is used, whether it's a paper and carbon filter...or an expensive
RO membrane. In an undersink filter, with no backflush capability, there
it sets...for months...or YEARS....breaking down under the water pressure
and flow into SMALLER, less filterable, more toxic things. Once it has
broken down far enough, it passes THROUGH the filter into the drinking
supply...bacterial toxins that cause Legionaires' Disease is a good
example. Viruses are so small they aren't filtered in the first place!
The filters aren't molecular level. There are NO viruses in distilled
water....NOT EVEN DEAD ONES. Distilled water is safe even if the CIA
pours Anthrax into the water to reduce Social Security costs or for false
flag operations to keep us under control, a real possibility lately.

Am I better off filtering or drinking the water straight? Noone I can
find in the filter business wants to talk about what happens on the
pressure side of the filter element "as-time-goes-by". I can't even get
a straight answer from the SC Dept of Health and Environmental Control on
this subject. This may be because every coffee pot in every restaurant
has this little metal filter in its water supply line that is NEVER
changed unless the whole machine changes. I'm sure glad it's boiled
before I drink it! The iced tea is NOT! Most of it is just water poured
in as the tea brews...filtered, of course.

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.

You say an RO filter doesn't work at molecular level? Just what would
call it then?

Casady

On 2007-09-11 12:06:19 -0400, (Richard
Casady) said:

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.

As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic
chemicals that will pass.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091120440443658-
jerelull@maccom:

As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic
chemicals that will pass.



The bacteria, not viruses, contain the toxins that make you sick. The
toxins are as small or smaller than the water molecules....and flow through
as soon as the bacteria are crushed by the pressure as they deteriorate
from the flow and pressures.

Are there viruses as small as H2O? Yes, there are....

Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......

Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091120440443658-
jerelull@maccom:

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...dimensions.svg

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?
&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0 735750

See. I think the chart on this RO-promotion website is very telling....
http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/rejection.htm
It says RO passes the pollutants test from NSF 58 on the left column and
REDUCES/rejects the pollutants on the right column. Reduces? It doesn't
say HOW MUCH it reduces. I find this omission on lots of "charts" like
this one telling me we're not hearing the full story.

http://www.pwgazette.com/tfc.htm
Here's a "partial list" that does show the percentages.....
94-96% of arsenic. How much arsenic should we drink?
95-98% of the radioactivity. I hope there's no radioactivity in your
seawater, but there is. Again, is this too much?
99% of the viruses. Will 1% of the herpes viruses in my glass give me
herpes? YES IT WILL...just like the 3% of the radium will cause cancer
in laboratory humans.

RO is a FILTER, that lets a fair percentage of the bad stuff flow
through. These numbers come from an RO company. Are they higher than
reality in an RO system with a 3-year-old membrane that's been running on
a boat filtering seawater? I'd suspect they'd be quite optimistic
numbers on an older membrane.....


Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.

As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic
chemicals that will pass.

Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may
drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check
out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.

Smaller isn't necessarily the issue with retention of ionic species. A
membrane that electrostatically adsorbs ions can still pass much larger
non-polar molecules and materials.

As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic
chemicals that will pass.

Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may
drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check
out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants.

Casady

There are a number of studies showing that RO membranes (which are not
absolute porosity filters, but are spiral wound depth filters) are not
100% viral retentive, or bacterial retentive (especially for Giardia
oocytes, and certainly not for mycoplasma) when challenged with a
significant upstream population. The prevalence of these organisms (and
almost-organisms) in seawater is, however, extremely low, and a 2 to
3-log reduction (about what the literature seems to support) gives a
very high probability of 100% removal. Safer than tap water, by a long shot.

As for viral proteins being toxic, the only studies I'm aware of have
been done on the common viral pesticides, where no oral toxicity has
ever been observed - doesn't mean it can't happen, but given how rapidly
protein is denature in the stomach, it's pretty unlikely. For
injectables, some hepatotoxicity has been shown in mice injected with
solubilized viral proteins - hence my reluctance to inject RO water
while out sailing...

The DNA/RNA does not appear to be orally toxic either.

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e8db3d$0$3579
:

Safer than tap water, by a long shot.

I also don't believe this to be true. From the time it was injected with
Chlorine and other chemicals until it reaches your tap is longer than you
think....plenty of time for the chemicals injected into the water to, at
least, KILL the bugs in the water. This is not true in a boat RO system.
If any kind of live organism makes it through the membrane, it's STILL
live when you drink it. It STILL can multiply in the storage tanks,
probably already contaminated by dock water from Smiley's Marina and
Tire's swamp water well out back of the old outhouse.

You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will kill
whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've never seen
the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes power.

Larry
--
The seawater sucked into the RO is loaded with microscopic life the ocean
lives on. The plankton, alone, must represent a huge attack on the
system. Plankton is, probably not, toxic. But, microorganisms have a
tendency to, well, to put it bluntly, ****. That's, probably, a toxic
soup of organic chemistry I'd rather not talk about over dinner. It's
amazing all this doesn't just clog the filter dispite the constant
flushing.....and I keep thinking about all those people on the cruise
ships that got sick from drinking the water on the ship....RO water.
They didn't get sick off tap water.....

Larry wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e8db3d$0$3579
:

Safer than tap water, by a long shot.

I also don't believe this to be true. From the time it was injected with
Chlorine and other chemicals until it reaches your tap is longer than you
think....

No, it isn't. In my case, it's long enough for the chlorine level to be
undetectable at my tap. And long enough for plenty of growth to occur.
I've been looking at potable water micro results (total microbial and
coliforms) for 25 years - I know the quality of tap water.

plenty of time for the chemicals injected into the water to, at
least, KILL the bugs in the water. This is not true in a boat RO system.
If any kind of live organism makes it through the membrane, it's STILL
live when you drink it. It STILL can multiply in the storage tanks,
probably already contaminated by dock water from Smiley's Marina and
Tire's swamp water well out back of the old outhouse.

OK, where'd the storage tank slip into the discussion? You think
putting distilled water in a vented storage tank remains sterile?

You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will kill
whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've never seen
the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes power.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...you were bitten by an RO
unit as a small child weren't you? :-)

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes wrote in
:

OK, where'd the storage tank slip into the discussion? You think
putting distilled water in a vented storage tank remains sterile?

You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will
kill whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've
never seen the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes
power.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...you were bitten by an RO
unit as a small child weren't you? :-)

Keith Hughes



Gotta be stored somewhere, making all that water. Distilled isn't going
to make any difference UNLESS it's the ONLY water ever put in one.
Drinking out of someone's filthy water tank is always flirting with
sickness. Who knows what is in there?

No, I was never bitten by RO, myself. I'm not sure of your motives for
the big attack, either, but RO ISN'T as wonderful as the brochures say it
is. In the hands of a sailboat "captain", who's a lawyer, bank
president, with no experience in biology outside of suing doctors for
malpractice, I can't imagine them doing the proper testing and
maintenance these complex filters require to make them safe and reliable.

I'll drink distilled from my 5 gallon sanitary jug.....thanks.

Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:40:01 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:



Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got
A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it.

Smaller isn't necessarily the issue with retention of ionic species. A
membrane that electrostatically adsorbs ions can still pass much larger
non-polar molecules and materials.

As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic
chemicals that will pass.

Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may
drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check
out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants.

Casady

There are a number of studies showing that RO membranes (which are not
absolute porosity filters, but are spiral wound depth filters)

That explains a lot. I have cut open,[ they make a tool just for that]
a number of pleated paper oil filters. With those they seem to either
pass a particle size, or not. Like any sieve, its all or nothing. I
have seen filters made from spiral wound string, for fuel, if I
recall, but they didn't make any claims of micron size. That would be
a spiral wound depth filter? I can see how it could pass some, but not
all, of the same size particles. You could call it an attrition
filter. but clearly it isn't a simple sieve. Photographic filters take
out a percentage, but not all, of the light.I was under the impression
that RO filters were all or nothing,like any sieve. It is good of you
to post some actual information. A newsgroup with news, of all things.

are not 100% viral retentive, or bacterial retentive (especially for Giardia
oocytes, and certainly not for mycoplasma) when challenged with a
significant upstream population. The prevalence of these organisms (and
almost-organisms) in seawater is, however, extremely low, and a 2 to
3-log reduction (about what the literature seems to support) gives a
very high probability of 100% removal. Safer than tap water, by a long shot.

Can you run the stuff through twice and get the same percentage
reduction for the second pass?

Someone mentioned arsenic,and the CRC does list it as a component of
sea water. Three to twenty-four parts per billion. Or mg/ton. About
the same as iron. 1970 edition, your milage may vary.


As for viral proteins being toxic, the only studies I'm aware of have
been done on the common viral pesticides, where no oral toxicity has
ever been observed - doesn't mean it can't happen, but given how rapidly
protein is denature in the stomach, it's pretty unlikely.
That is the reason for having stomach acid isn't it? That and
dissolving "insoluble" heavy metal salts.
For injectables, some hepatotoxicity has been shown in mice injected with
solubilized viral proteins - hence my reluctance to inject RO water
while out sailing...

The DNA/RNA does not appear to be orally toxic either.
0