Home » Forums » Water » Quality

Life Source Water Filter

rawmarcos
First, I received an email from Ed Begley, Jr. about this water filter and read it thoroughly. I had concerns about comments in this email so I did my own research.
Ed speaks about wasting as much as 5 gallons of water during the purification process using and R/O filter. Any good manufacturer of R/O systems can sell you a permeate pump that reduces waste by 80% or more. This means you're probably losing more to the lifesource filter annually that you are to an r/o with a permeate pump.
Secondly, Ed speaks of how most water treatments remove necessary minerals from the water. Ahh, I guess Ed is aware that there are virtually no minerals left in your water after desalination and treatment with chlorine, fluoride and other volatile chemicals to destroy germs. Minerals are actually added back to the water system at the central water plant.
Third, Lifesource provides a nice option but with a high price tag and it doesn't remove the most toxic chemical added to our water: fluoride. Yes, fluoride is a nasty chemical that the goverment allowed to be added to our water supply in the 1970's. Since then there have been no findings that prove young or senior dental patients teeth have been saved by fluouride. On the contrary, the average person has several cavities over a lifetime and this proves that fluoride doesn't work. Also, those nasty fluoride treatments are exposing your system to unnatural chemicals that are poisonous to your body. Did you know that fluoride is one of the three most poisonous chemicals known? Yes, that's right. There's a great book you can read that will validate this. You can also search the web for information on the big business behind the fluoride lie. Did I mention that Lifesource doesn't remove fluoride? Yes, it's a very special membrande that is only available on r/o systems, some distilling systems and a few select water treatment systems that will actually filter out fluoride. Obviously Lifesource must know something that 17 Nobel Laureates, who have all commented on the toxicity of fluoride and the need to remove it from our drinking water. Hmm, I wonder what that could be?
Ok, so Ed, I value your opinion and respect you as an avid hero to the environment and the animals. However, I'll do my own research when it comes to the health of my family. After all, my life, and theirs depend on it.
Mark
‹ Water Purification

Submitted by rawmarcos on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 19:51.

rawmarcos
Re: Life Source Water Filter
I already have done my own research. That's why I pointed to a book that clears up what "big business" fluoride has been since the 70's and why the government won't remove it. Actually, there have been no proven studies on the fluoride added to drinking water helping to prevent cavities. This much I know and I have been following this issue closely for 20+ years.
An RO system with a permeate filter or a home filter that specifically removes contaminants plus fluoride is what I want. I have a rainshow'r filter in my bathroom and it removes chlorine but not fluoride. I guess I can be as picky with my shower since there are no shower filters that remove fluoride that I've been able to find.
Anyway, thanks again for the posts. I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. I appreciate and respect Ed tremendously but the filter he got is not for me. Why would I spend a chunk of money on a filter for my house that won't remove fluoride??? Oh, and bone char to remove fluoride isn't going to cut it either. More about that later.

Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:40

ctyankee
Re: Life Source Water Filter

I guess we agree on the folly of the A/C system, but the book is IMHO just a negative propaganda piece, a fear factor and fright generator.

Sure I'm not going to drink highly concentrated fluoride solutions, no more than I'd drink seawater.  I'm far more concerned with real threats like selenium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, et.al.


Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:21

Markh
Re:Life Source Water Filter

RO water is not "clean water"  it is water with all of the minerals removed.  Do some research and you will find the municipal water districts do not deliver plain RO water because it is acidic and aggressive.  RO water systems are installed with PVC instead of copper because it will leach the copper from the pipes.  Is this the kind of water that you want to drink?  As for water waste, RO does waste water...Ed is right and has done his homework on this.  Granular Activated Carbon filters that are backwashed properly will remove dirt, VOCs, chlorine and chloramines from the water.  The key point is that municipal water is in most cases safe to drink, it just tastes and smells bad.  Carbon filtration solves this problem and gives an alternative to bottled water. 

 


Sun, 11/09/2008 - 18:33

ctyankee
Re: Life Source Water Filter

Hello... ???

clean = no minerals, clean = no contaminants, clean = no dissolved solids, etc.

Acidic? possibly? Alkaline? possibly?  Depends on what the original ions were  CO3- (carbonic acid) Cl- (hydrochloric acid) NH4+ (ammonia), etc.   

Copper pipes don't leach (corrode) in 'dirty' water if the 'corrosion' forms a thin stable protective film.

RO wastes water; OK, call it what you will.  RO skims a fraction of the pure water as product and allows the bulk of the input water to rinse away the contaminants with the effluent.  If I draw 100 gallons per day(minute, second week, whatever) of pure RO water from a 'dirty' river while the the river flows 1000 in the same time, have I wasted *any* water?

Again, carbon adsorbs[sic] contaminants.  Carbon has a finite capacity to hold wee beasties.  Once it's full, it's full.  Backwashing only removes macro contaminants silt, mud, bugs, plastic bags, bicycle parts, etc.  Now, you can call for a modified backwash that involves heat, pressure, solvents, salts, etc. but that's more than backwash, that's regeneration.

I'd go so far to say that municipal water is *always* safe to drink *except* in some abnormal circumstances which are called "accidents".  But I can promise you that a carbon filter that's run past exhaustion *will* become a breeding ground for some bacteria that manages to reach it alive.  Then you've got a nice local colony ready to make you sick.

Both technologies have their place.  I'm spoiled, I've got great municipal water; yay, Norwalk CT!  But If I had to improve my drinking water supply, I'd go 5 stage RO plus UV disinfection, which includes activated carbon as one of the stages.  Is it cheap? Heck no, but I could sweep up parking lot puddles if I needed the water (ultra survivor mode)

If my water just smelled bad because of Sulfur (sulfate, sulfide, etc.)  I'd just boil and aerate my drinking & cooking water and pour it through a paper coffee filter.


Mon, 11/10/2008 - 09:56

ctyankee
Re: Life Source Water Filter

I applaud your decision not to be suckered by the slick marketing of a simple activated carbon 'filter'. 

Since it's just activated carbon, the only things it can remove are solid particles, large molecules like detergents & dyes, and some volatile gasses like H2S, CN, hydrocarbons, etc.  Further the only thing backwashing accomplishes is to allow the system to capture more particles, the other 2 classes of contaminants will saturate the media and that's all it will hold.

Soluble salts and that includes 'minerals' will pass right through the system unaffected, perhaps oh-so-slightly reduced as the minerals permanently clog the pores in the carbon media.

R/O systems do an excellent job of producing very clean water.  They're great _if_ you want or need *very clean* water. They are inexpensive compared to other systems of similar capabilities, but not cheap.

Fluoride is an ion, it's not dangerous. Fluorine is a pale yellow gas, the element in pure form -- it is deadly, but, it's not something you're likely to come across.

The fluoride issue has been politicized for decades, since the 50's at least and probably even earlier too.  Kids in certain mid-western aead had fewer cavities (caries) than kids in other areas.  Scientists *observed*that the water in the low cavity areas has more F- (fluoride ion) then the other.  They tested their hypothesis by adding natural salts containing F- -et voila- the kids developed fewer cavities.

Sure too much F- did produce mottled tooth enamel, but that was about the worst of it.  But zealots don't need real reasons to rally, they just rally against things they do not understand.

Please do your own research!  That's commendable! Really!  When you do, I'm certain you will discover the facts, and if you make your decision based on facts then I expect you will reach a sound decision.


Sun, 11/09/2008 - 09:03