[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GBlist: Re: Water Quality
There was a discussion on demineralization in Sept.96, on the archives
Buzz Burrell wrote:
> John Salmen forwarded (?) this, in part:
> >> One of my significant findings was that soft water (or demineralized water)
> >> was generally not a healthy water to drink. I have even gone so far as to
> >> say that soft water is a health threat under some conditions (like long term
> >> exposure). As you know both RO and Distillation systems remove minerals
> >> from water and I have run into many arguments from people in those
> >> industries who would not agree with me. Yet when I have asked them for
> >> their research notes etc. I have never received a reply. I would be glad to
> >> share with you all (or those specifically who are interested) my research
> >> summary notes, which are many pages right now.
> Who wrote this? I would definitly like to read this person's research on
> this topic.
> I would also like to echo John's comments (in part):
> >I know you posted this message a while ago but I am hoping your offer of
> >sharing your findings is still valid. I agree with you that water is a
> >prime element of the interior environment and have had similar
> >difficulties in gathering information on the potential negative effects
> >of water treatment....
> I am developing 176 acres of rural property, and the water source will be
> wells. I had one well drilled last month sort of as a test, and it came
> in as expected: extremely high in minerals. Unlike John, we have no
> problem with any bacteria, but according to my findings, bacteria is very
> easy to remove compared with sodium, sulphates and calcium. This water
> actually upsets your stomach if you attempt to drink it.
> What to do? I sent an RFP to 8 different water treatment companies, and
> they were in complete disagreement as to the solution. Here were the
> various options:
> 1. Water softening. This is the standard approach. It uses sodium
> ("soft") to remove the calcium and magnesium ("hard"). Since it already
> has too much sodium, I thought this was a terrible idea.
> 2. Water softening using a potassium salt instead of sodium. Some
> people said this was great, others said it would be no help, and I am
> 3. Reverse Osmosis (sometimes combined with above). This removes
> everything, but is costly, actually uses water, and the message above
> seems to indicate the quality might not be as good as suppossed.
> 4. Venturi chamber. This is really wierd, but one proposal said by
> "micronizing" the water, the minerals would not be a problem (?).
> 5. "Nano" filter. This is like an RO, but with a larger screen size, so
> the cost is reduced and less water is wasted.
> 6. Anion softener. This will take out the sodium, but not the calcium,
> so needs to be used in combination.
> 7. Forget the wells, and collect rainwater from the roof. If we had more
> than 15" of precipitation/year, this would be the preferred choice. As
> it is, we might do this as it will dilute the well water.
> 8. Haul water from town. Not a good long term plan.
> Any thoughts, suggestions?
> Buzz Burrell
> Bolder Building
> Boulder, CO
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
> and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
> send e-mail to email@example.com.
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.