Pure Water Occasional, September, 2023
|
Greetings from Pure Water Products, the Pure Water Gazette, and the Pure Water Occasional.
In this end of summer Occasional you’ll hear about the health implications of minerals in drinking water, the use of UV in home rainwater systems, and PFAS certification for MatriKX filter cartridges. Hear about “Agricultural Exceptionalism” and how it affects our water, how salt intrusion is degrading water quality in Louisiana, and which well water contaminants are the biggest health threats. Learn about five American cities whose public water systems are in danger and how Utah’s Great Salt Lake is dying. Learn how reverse osmosis shutoff valves work, how there is great advantage to installing backwashing filters in parallel, and, as always, there is much, much more.
Thank you for reading, and sincere thanks from Pure Water Products for your continuing support. |
|
Thanks for reading!
Please visit the Pure Water Gazette, where you will find hundreds of articles about water and water treatment, and the Pure Water Products website, where there is much information about water treatment and specific information about the products we offer. On both of these information-rich sites, pop-up ads and other distractions are strictly against the law.
|
Will Drinking Reverse Osmosis Water Turn Your Bones to Putty?
Come, Let Us Reason Together
by Gene Franks
Several years ago a leading Natural Hygienist and distiller merchant wrote an article praising the health benefits of low-mineral distilled water. He used as a negative example the spring water at Hot Springs, Arkansas, which, he said, was so high in calcium and other minerals that it clogged the arteries and joints of the the natives, causing severe arthritic crippling. He offered no evidence except his personal observation.
This caught my attention because I had been to Hot Springs several times and the native Arkansans seemed to me as supple of limb as people in Texas or California. They did not clank or creak or cry out in pain when they walked.
Then I read a short book by another health authority, also a distiller vendor, named Dr. B., who described a scientific experiment he did with goats. Dr. B. put out several bowls of water, all high in dissolved minerals except one. When some thirsty goats were brought to the area, they all went straight for the distilled water and ignored the high mineral spring water. Dr. B said that this proved natural creatures instinctively know that distilled water is best.
However, when I tried to replicate Dr. B’s experiment with my own lab animal, my dog Pu Ch’i, I found that she always drank from the bowl closest to her, whether is was low in minerals or high, whether it was clear or muddy, whether it was bottled water or tap.
Drinkers of reverse osmosis water often have bones that bend easily because of calcium deficiency. Photo Courtesy of Get Rich Marketing Corp.
When I started selling water filters in 1986 I was exposed to the opposite view. Those who sell filters, as opposed to distillers or reverse osmosis systems, take the view that minerals in water are not just good but necessary, and that drinking low mineral water not only fails to provide essential nutrients but actually leaches calcium from bones and organs. Filter sellers at the time, especially the MLMers, cited a popular book (now forgotten, even by me) which gave examples of populations who drank hard (calcium rich) water as having healthier hearts than those of people who lived in areas where the water was naturally soft (low in calcium).
Since that time the great mineral war has continued, usually fueled by one marketing program or another. The arguments have remained essentially the same over the years. The mineral war is fought mainly at MLM rallies and on commercial websites. Independent science has not been a big player.
On one side are vendors of distillers, reverse osmosis units, and, more recently, deionizing cartridges, backed by many alternative health experts, who advocate “pure” water, which is defined as water with very low “dissolved solids” (minerals); they view anything in the water other than pure H2O as sludge, an impediment to water’s main function as the body’s purifying solvent, and they blame high-mineral water for everything from arthritis to kidney stones. Many doctors appear to support this view by putting patients with kidney ailments on low-mineral reverse osmosis water.
The other side, more vocal, is comprised mainly of sellers of conventional drinking water filters and, more recently, the curious devices called “ionizers.” Their pitch focuses on the body’s need for minerals and they argue that low-mineral water actually removes (“leaches” is the favorite word) minerals from the body. With the arrival of “ionizers” to the market, the issue of pH has been added. Ionizer vendors preach that the body needs water that is sky- high in pH and alkalinity, and that low-pH reverse osmosis water is harmful.
My Take on All This
Since our company sells both reverse osmosis and conventional filters, we don’t have a dog in the fight. If someone asks my opinion, I give it, but we’re happy selling either a filter or an RO unit and we try to make the product’s ability to reduce known contaminants, not mineral content, the issue.
We do this because we believe that except in extreme cases (like sea water, which I don’t advise you to drink) the mineral content of water is not a big issue.
Consider that in some parts of the United States, the total dissolved solids (TDS) count in drinkable city water is 20 times that of other regions. Is there an ideal TDS? Is there a correlation between the health of the citizens and the TDS of the local water? The total solids count contains both calcium and sodium. Some natural water has almost no calcium, while some naturally hard water has almost no sodium. Does this matter?
If you live in a city in west Texas, the tap water you drink may have 500 ppm (parts per million) hardness (calcium and magnesium), but if you live in Bolivar, Texas, your tap water has 500 ppm sodium and virtually no hardness. Does this matter? My unscientific observation has been that people in Bolivar and people in Lubbock both do fine, as do people who live in northern California where the TDS of tap water may be 30 ppm with very little calcium or sodium. I spoke with a customer in Colorado this week whose natural TDS reading is 27. He has a reverse osmosis unit to protect against fluoride and arsenic that reduces the TDS to 2. Should he put a “remineralizing” device on his reverse osmosis unit to restore the water to its original TDS, although that TDS is less than 1/20 of the TDS of the natural water in many areas? Does the difference between 27 and 2 matter? Does the difference between 1000 and 50 (typical reverse osmosis reduction) matter?
The human body has evolved and learned to thrive on a planet whose water differs greatly in mineral content from place to place. When water is in the clouds it is distilled water—literally–because the earth’s recycling process is a giant water distiller. When the distilled water precipitates and falls to earth it picks up impurities from the atmosphere and becomes very much like reverse osmosis water in mineral makeup, having roughly the same Total Dissolved Solids count (around 10) as lake water that has been run through an undersink reverse osmosis unit in your kitchen. People who have rainwater collection systems to provide water for their homes have essentially the same water they would have if they pulled water from a well and processed it through a reverse osmosis unit.
Should we assume that drinking rainwater is unhealthy and that the only suitable drinking water is water that has filtered through dirt and rocks and picked up their impurities?
To me it seems obvious that the human body has exceptional ability to adapt to its environment. Just as we can adjust to cold climates and hot, we have a wide range of tolerance for food and water. If you drink water with 20 parts per million dissolved minerals or 400, the inner wisdom of your body will quickly adjust it to what it needs. When your body needs minerals, it takes them the easy way, from the organic minerals in foods. It does not waste its time trying crack open the inorganic minerals (rocks) dissolved in water unless no other minerals are to be had.
Although the pH issue raised by “ionizer” vendors doesn’t deserve an argument, I’ll make a single comment: Simply ask yourself–does it seem reasonable that the human body, which has evolved over eons and done extremely well drinking natural waters from a wide pH range, from very acidic to very alkaline, now in the the 21st century suddenly requires high pH water that can only be obtained from a $2,000 “ionizer?”
|
The Advantages of Parallel Installation of Backwashing Water Filters
The illustration shows two carbon backwashing filters installed in parallel so that each filter gets half of the treatment stream.
The challenge in sizing backwashing filters for residential applications is that the filter must be large enough to support sufficient service flow to the home but small enough to fit the space available and to be regenerated on the amount of water available. With filters for challenging contaminants like iron and manganese, the filter often needs more gallons per minute to regenerate itself than it is capable of treating. For example, a well that puts out only six gallons per minute usually cannot support an iron filter that will treat six gallons per minute because backwashing the filter requires more than six gallons per minute. Challenges like this can often be overcome by installing two small filters side by side rather than a single larger filter.
Parallel installation means splitting the water line in half so that each of two filters handles only half of the service flow to the home, then bringing the two lines of treated water together. In the system illustrated above, the carbon filters each get half of the water stream at half the flow rate. If the treatment stream is flowing at five gallons per minute, each filter has to process only 2.5 gallons per minute. The filters then backwash separately so that each gets the full water stream that the well is capable of.
Here are some common situations where two side-by-side filters work better than a single larger filter.
Space limitations. -- In a basement or crawl space with limited height, where a 52" tall filter holding two cubic feet of media won't quite fit, you can use two 48" filters each holding one cubic foot.
Water limitations. If the water source won't put out enough water to backwash the iron filter you need, you can use two smaller filters and set them up to backwash at different times. Each filter has to process only half of the service flow but gets the well's full output for backwash. (It is common for a backwashing filter to need a higher flow rate for backwash than it is capable of processing for service flow.)
Ease of upkeep. A single large backwashing filter can be too heavy for installation or for a media change without power equipment or special tools, but a single individual can often manage a smaller tank that has half the media and water of the larger tank.
Simplicity of equipment. Using two smaller filters rather than one very large one usually allows use of a more user-friendly small residential control valve rather than a large commercial assembly that is harder to service, harder to find parts for, and harder to program. Likewise, two smaller residential control valves are often less expensive than a single commercial-sized control.
Here are some tank size equivalents, based on media needed.
A 1o" x 54" filter can be replaced by two 8" X 44" filters to make a 1.5 cubic foot filter.
A 12" x 52" filter can be replaced by two 9" X 48" filters to make a 2.0 cubic foot filter.
A 13" x 54" filter can be replaced by two 10" X 44" filters to make a 2.5 cubic foot filter.
Larger units.
Two 12" X 52" filters can replace a 14" X 65" or a 16" X 65" filter.
Two 13" X 54" units and replace a 18" X 65" filter.
Three 13" X 65" filters can substitute for a 21" X 62" filter.
There are, of course, many other possibilities.
|
Well Water Contaminants that Can Affect Your Health
Adapted from a Vermont Health Dept. Bulletin
You have probably heard about the big three contaminants that could be in your well water: arsenic, lead and E. coli bacteria. But what about lesser-known contaminants, such as manganese and nitrates?
They can have harmful health effects, too, and testing is the only way to know if they’re in your drinking water.
Manganese is a naturally-occurring metal found in rocks and soil that can dissolve from bedrock and enter groundwater. We get manganese from the foods we eat, and small amounts are also added to most vitamin supplements and baby formulas.
Nitrogen, also a natural element, can be found in water in the form of nitrate. Nitrate contamination of water usually comes from fertilized agricultural fields, septic system failures, or manure piles that are too close to wells.
Manganese and nitrates are required for health, but we typically get all that we need from our diet, so we don’t need extra manganese and nitrates in our water.
Exposure to high concentrations of manganese over many years has been linked to toxicity to the nervous system.
Babies who drink formula made with nitrate-contaminated water are at risk for blue baby syndrome, a condition where the baby’s blood is less able to carry oxygen. Affected babies develop a blue-gray color and need emergency medical help.
Infants are more susceptible to adverse health effects associated with high levels of manganese and nitrates in drinking water because their bodies are smaller and still developing.
Health Departments recommend that people with private wells or springs have their water tested every five years for manganese and nitrates. In fact, comprehensive tests that evaluate all significant well-water issues, not just nitrates and manganese, are recommended.
Nitrate contamination of well water is a drinking water issue and is most easily removed by an undersink reverse osmosis unit. Manganese in amounts over about 0.05 parts per million is not only a health isssue but causes staining of household fixtures and a metallic odor. Undersink RO is a good treatment for small amounts of manganese in drinking water. Whole house manganese removal is more complicated and is discussed in the article linked below.
More information about manganese and nitrates from the Pure Water Gazette:
|
Water News — September 2023
Can the Great Salt Lake Be Saved?
Environmental and community groups
have sued Utah officials over failures to save its iconic Great Salt
Lake from irreversible collapse. The largest saltwater lake in the
western hemisphere has been steadily shrinking, as more and more water
has been diverted away from the lake to irrigate farmland, feed industry
and water lawns.
A megadrought across the US
southwest, accelerated by global heating, has hastened the lake’s
demise. Unless immediate action is taken, the lake could decline beyond
recognition within five years, a report published early this year
warned, exposing a dusty lake bed laced with arsenic, mercury, lead and
other toxic substances. The resulting toxic dust bowl would be “one of
the worst environmental disasters in modern US history,” the ecologist
Ben Abbott of Brigham Young University said earlier this year.
Despite such warnings, officials have
failed to act, local groups said in their lawsuit. “We are trying to
avert disaster. We are trying to force the hand of state government to
take serious action,” said Brian Moench of the Utah Physicians for a
Healthy Environment, one of the groups suing state agencies.
Can the lake be saved? Despite
growing political momentum on the issue, scientists say the proposed
measures are not nearly enough to save the lake, which has lost about 40
billion gallons of water annually since 2020. The Guardian
Five American cities are one intense climate issue away from being in serious trouble.
CNN in an in depth report listed five
American cities –Buffalo, New York; Prichard, Alabama; St. Louis,
Missouri; Central Coast, California; and San Juan, Puerto Rico as all
facing existential vulnerabilities that could leave drinking water or
wastewater systems in total disrepair should climate-induced calamity
strike. And these potential worst-case scenarios range from drinking
water scarcity to stormwater inundation. Water Online.
In September, Antarctic sea ice shrank to the lowest level ever recorded. Full story from The Guardian
Salt Intrusion in Louisiana
The very low water level of the
Mississippi is allowing Gulf water to seep into drinking water sources
in parts of Louisiana. As a result, grocery stores are struggling to
keep up with bottled water sales.Residents have reported skin
irritations and damaged appliances, including water heaters and washing
machines, from salt exposure. “Unimpeded salt water continues to creep
upriver and threatens municipal drinking water. That makes it unsafe to
drink — especially for people with kidney disease, high blood pressure,
people on a low-sodium diet, infants and pregnant women.” U.S. News.
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell has signed an emergency declaration
over an intrusion of saltwater into the Mississippi River that officials
say could impact the water supply in the region.
The Carbon Footprint of Pet Fish
A lot has been written about the
environmental impact of owning pets like dogs and cats, but not a lot
has been said about the carbon footprint of pet fish ownership. As you
might guess, there’s a world of difference between owning a goldfish and
maintaining a full-fledged aquarium for tropical fish. What’s the carbon footprint of owning pet fish?
looks at the environmental consequences like water and energy use of
maintaining an aquarium in some detail. Environmental concerns related
to fish ownership are mainly water used, which can be considerable for
large aquariums requiring reverse osmosis water and frequent water
changes, and energy used for pumping and heating water. The Conversation.
A recent poll reported by Greenwire found that 79% of voters want more water infrastructure funding.
Study Finds Disparities in Public Water Quality Associated with Race and Income
Recent studies funded by the Superfund Research Program (SRP) reached the not-surprising conclusion that socioeconomic factors,
such as race and income, may be associated with disparities in exposure
to drinking water contaminants. For their studies, researchers
evaluated contaminants in private wells and community water systems in
various regions across the country.
These disparities stem from a long history of unequal environmental protections and investments in water infrastructure. As
a result, water is more likely to become contaminated in poor
communities and these communities face greater technical and financial
challenges in maintaining water quality that meets safety standards.Environmental Factor
|
How Reverse Osmosis Shutoff Systems Work
Modern undersink reverse osmosis units use a simple but effective shutoff device to turn off water production when the unit’s storage tank is full. The shutoff system monitors the pressure in the storage tank and shuts off water coming into the RO membrane when tank pressure reaches approximately 2/3 of the pressure of the incoming tap water.
Thus, a “full” tank in a standard RO unit is defined by the pressure of the water entering the RO unit. If incoming pressure is 60 psi, a full tank holds about 40 psi; if incoming pressure is 50, a “full” tank holds about 30 psi. Shutoff is done at around 2/3 of incoming pressure because as the tank fills increasing back pressure makes production less efficient. It isn’t practical to fill the tank past 2/3 full.
The Payne brand shutoff pictured above is installed as follows:
1. After water leaves the RO unit’s prefilter, it enters the “In” port of the shutoff valve, lower right in the picture. It then makes a horseshoe turn and exits the “Out” port, lower left in the picture, through which it flows to the inlet side of the RO membrane.
2. When the “permeate” water (the product water of the RO unit) leaves the other end of the membrane housing, it flows to one of the “tank” ports on the other side of the shutoff valve. It doesn’t matter which port it enters, since the “tank” ports are interchangeable and water flows either way on the permeate side of the valve. Water then makes a horseshoe turn inside the top side of the valve and leaves through the other tank port. From there it flows to the storage tank.
3. The two halves of the valve are separated by a piston, which keeps the permeate water on one side and the incoming tap water on the other. As long as the pressure on the tank side is less than 2/3 the pressure on the tap water side, the piston remains open and the unit continues to produce water. As the RO produces water and slowly fills the storage tank, however, pressure on the tank side of the piston eventually becomes strong enough to force the piston toward the tap water side and shut off the incoming tap water, stopping production. The RO unit stays off until enough water is removed from the storage tank to drop the pressure on the tank side of the piston, allowing tap water pressure to push the piston toward the tank side and start RO production again.
|
The Flowmatic shutoff valve above works exactly like the Payne valve, although the flow pattern is straight through rather than horseshoe style. In other words. water enters lower right and flows straight ahead through the valve and out the other side.
It is important to know that in order for the shutoff system to work, a check valve (one-way valve) must be installed in the permeate tube between the membrane and the shutoff valve. Without the check valve to hold the back pressure from the tank, the shutoff valve cannot function.
The Payne shutoff valve is clipped to the membrane housing of the unit above. The tubes on the right side carry tap water to the membrane. On the left, or “tank” side, permeate water leaves the membrane, passes through the cigar-shaped check valve, and enters one of the shutoff valve’s “tank” ports. It leaves via the other tank port and flows to the tee, which sends it to the storage tank.
Note that the inline check valve will not be found on most RO units, since RO manufacturers usually prefer a tiny, inexpensive check valve that's contained in the elbow fitting where the permeate water leaves the membrane housing.
Troubleshooting your shutoff system
If you hear water running to drain more than you think it should or have some other reason to suspect that your RO unit isn’t shutting off properly, here’s an easy test you can do to check its performance.
Run a few glassfuls of water from the RO unit to start the unit producing water, then turn off the RO faucet and remove the drain line from the drain saddle connected to the undersink drain pipe. Drop the end of the drain line into a bottle or pan so that the drain water trickles into the container. Next, turn off the valve at the top of the RO storage tank. Water should stop flowing from the drain line within a couple of minutes. When it stops, leave the valve off, empty the container, put the tube back into the container, and come back in 10 minutes. If there is no water in the container, the shutoff system is working perfectly. The unit is shutting off and holding its shutoff.
If the drain fails to shut off, you need to find the reason. The main suspects are the shutoff valve or the check valve, not necessarily in that order.
If the drain shuts off initially, but comes back on during the 10 minutes, continue to watch it. If it comes on, runs briefly, then shuts off, and repeats this pattern over and over, you need a new check valve.
|
Places to visit for additional information:
|
Thanks for reading. The next Occasional will appear eventually--when you least expect it.
|
|
|
|  | |
