I lived on reverse osmosis water for a year and it nearly destroyed me. Just don't do it, seriously.
WHO reviewed reverse osmosis water and if you read their report (as I did after figuring out the water made me sick), it is a damning indictment of reverse osmosis or other demineralised waters.
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap12.pdf
" In addition to an increased risk of sudden death, it has been suggested that intake of water low in magnesium may be associated with a higher risk of motor neuronal disease, pregnancy disorders (so-called preeclampsia), sudden death in infants, and some types of cancer."
It's true that reverse osmosis takes out all dissolved minerals from the water, both the good and the bad minerals.
If you use reverse-osmosis treated water for drinking, you have to guarantee sufficient intake of the good minerals in other ways.
"ideal" drinking water purification system would demineralize the water from all minerals and then remineralize it based on each user's personal needs.
@Jan Jal: I get your point about minerals, but I think the demineralization and remineralization according to individual desires would be more trouble than it would be worth - you can get the minerals elsewhere.
Alines: Yes, but earlier posts in this thread demonstrate that it's not always the case. One can be left without substituting mineral intake for various reasons - not knowing to take them, forgetting to take them, etc.
Also it's not only about desires, but biological requirements. For average joe indeed more trouble than worth, but there are some groups of people who would benefit from such system (assuming they could afford it).
A water purification system which can be configured to "doctor's orders" with mineral and other supplements (after cleaning the water of everything) of each family member could be a big hit among wealthy Chinese.
I'll get excited about this possibility when it's applicable to ordinary Chinese.
FYI, Here is the latest overview of independent test results for the purifier I will be bringing to Kunming. 1 purifier will treat 6000 gallons before replacement is needed. That is about 8-10 years of use in a normal household. Throughput is 2.5 GPH.
2014 Lab Test Results from Envirotek Laboratories Inc., New Jersey
In the latest round of tests commissioned by NMCL the Black Berkey filters have been found to remove Chloramines, Pharmaceuticals, BPA, as well as an expanded list of pesticides and heavy metals. The 2014 lab test results in PDF format can be found here. For the highlights of the 2014 round of testing please see below.
Black Berkey Testing Highlights:
Bisphenol-A - Removed to greater than 99.9%.A common endocrine disruptor found in PET plastic bottles, for all those who pour bottled water into their Berkey.
Chloramines - Removed to greater than 99.9%.In response to increasing uncertainty among existing and potential Berkey customers as to whether the Black Berkey filters are removing chloramine. Many water authorities have been switching to chloramine instead of chlorine for water disinfection.
Pharmaceuticals - Removed to greater than 99.5%.Due to rising concerns about the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply, the Black Berkey filters have been tested for the removal of 17 different pharmaceuticals. There were no additional types of pharmaceuticals available for testing at this lab, however we can safely presume that these results would be similar to others not tested for.
Petroleum Contaminants - Removed to greater than 99.9%.Unfortunately it's increasingly common that oil spills and petroleum are contaminating our water sources, this has been of increasing concern to our customers for some time, especially since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The Black Berkey filters remove these contaminants.
Pesticides - Removed to greater than 99.9%These tests were performed as confirmation of earlier testing, however more pesticides were included in this round of testing
Heavy Metals - Removed to greater than 99.1%.These tests were performed as confirmation of earlier testing, however more heavy metals were included in this round of testing.
Coliform and e-Coli - Removed to greater than 99.9%.These had already been tested for before and shown to be removed to over 99.9999%. This could be considered as confirmation testing.
A couple of additional remarks:
It was decided by NMCL and the lab to set the limit at 99.9% or Log 3 reduction before testing began. Each Log level or percentage reduction costs significantly more for testing and is typically not needed. It comes down to a function of cost versus what levels they believe are acceptable to customers & dealers. Log 3 (99.9%) reduction is significant and the testing costs remain within acceptable limits; that is why this level was settled upon.
You may notice in the test results that almost all of the contaminates measured after running through the Black Berkey filter, show "less than" as the measured contaminate level left in the water. This actually means that the actual reduction levels are "greater than" 99.9% - exceeding the target reduction level tested for.
This thing really sounds good - but how much is it going to cost?
In the end, it sounds like it leaves the state, as (theoretically and hopefully) agent of the people, free from needing to deal with water pollution and offloading the cost of doing so onto individuals.
Or maybe not, lot I don't know about handling water pollution.
It is one thing to handle water pollution, and another thing to produce drinkable water.
Water pollution (in lakes, rivers and underground water reserves) also affects animals and vegetables that feed the world.
I understand, but then if the water wasn't polluted it wouldn't have to be treated when it comes out of the faucet, would it?
Anyway, about how much would this thing cost?
