Can humans get shots for giardia and cryptospordia

just read down below in the "do you filter your dogs water"post that dogs can get shots for giardia, is this a shot that humans can get and if so where can I sign up. I would love to get a shot that allows me to drink straight from the stream without issues.

no, not that I am aware of

Even if you could (I'm not aware that you can), it's not an immunity. From talking to my vet, it just doesn't make them immune, but limits the effect. So instead of a sick dog for 3 weeks, you have one for 3-5 days, for example.

wikipedia

Not the definitive resource, but fairly complete. No mention of a vaccine and based on the info, one does not exist.

From the Mayo Clinic - a reliable source.
Mayo clinic

call me crazy but when i was a young tike the small rural town that i grew up in got its water from a mountain spring that ran directly into the water lines. I was about 12 when a group of college students tested the water and found that because the water ran for approx 1 mile before entering the pipes the water was found to have giardia in it. the entire town was told to boil their water and the drinking fountains were turned off at schools we were told to bring canteens w/ boiled water to school to drink. now the water had been loaded with giardia for at least 50 years. the towns folk just filled their canteens with water from the faucet and sent their kids to school. I to this day have never had an issue with giardia in streams ( and i have drank out of a lot of streams) now crypto on the other hand thats a b?tch. ps sorry about the grammer and spelling I've been up for over 24 hrs and needed somthing to help keep me awake.

I don't know but it might be one of those things you are better off developing your own natural immunity or resistance to. It's mostly a matter of intestinal fortitude, and it depends alot on the environment you are hiking in. Thing is, they can carry bugs of their own, so life is always full of surprises. Also, my own understanding is that treating your water is something people should do to protect the environment from them, and not so much the other way around. If it does multiply in your gut it might be weeks later spreading your disease, but you might be back out there by then, and that's not good. So it's tied in with personal hygiene, meaning it's about protecting the environment and others as much as yourself. True, if you develop immunity you are protecting the environment as much as yourself, but life is full of surprises and there are just too many of us now. We have to go further to reduce our impact.

I use a Kelly Kettle, which provides plenty of boiling water for tea and for washing up and even for some laundry action. When you consider the complete life cycle a Kelly Kettle by itself is probably the most environmentally friendly option for most places, but perhaps not all places. Desert hikes for example, probably call for a filter. Don't know anything about deserts. I ain't got much culture. Then there's the whole mountain top thing. I can only imagine some of the things you guys and gals do up there.

'nother crazy poem I wrote...


The Maiden and the Skink

There once was a Maiden so fair yet so lowly,
all these creatures came stirring, but who'll love her truly?
I said the Sparrow, with my bow and arrow,
though rather cruely, I'll love her truly.
I said the Fly, 'til the day that I die,
though rather cooly, I'll love her truly.

But the Maiden was clever, and unimpressed,
so she chided, and bided, to hear from the rest.
I said the Lark, only after its dark,
proper and duly, I'll love love her truly.
I said the Thrush, but I'm not in a rush,
when I'm through with Julie, I'll love her truly.

Still the Maiden was doubtful, and growing depressed,
'til this fearsome wee creature fell on her chest.
I said the Skink, with my little dink,
though a wee bit unruly, I'll love you truly.

So when spring cleaning, or washing your hair,
or whatever you do on those mornings down there,
leave the leaves for the worms, or other dear
wriggling fearsome creatures only birds may hear,
burrowing into your earth, struggling for air.

The water system most likely had not been giardia-contaminated for 50 years. Water systems and water sources in the U.S. have become contaminated...the vast majority did not start that way.

Until the 50s or 60s back-country water sources were pretty safe, especially high-country sources. We backpackers, with help from livestock and grazing permits, changed that. Missoula, MT had some nice uncontaminated mountain water until sometime in the 60s but that changed and hikers and their dogs got the blame. Happily, uncontaminated sources remain throughout the country and there are studies that suggest giardia is not as widespread as feared.

Clean systems sometimes become contaminated but can be returned to a safe condition. One of the reasons for the growing popularity of UV treatment of municipal water is it's better efficacy against giardia when compared to the more traditional chlorine treatment.

FB

FB:

Your assertion that the safety of high-country water sources changed after the 50s or 60s due to backpackers (or for any reason at all) may be based only conjecture.

It's my opinion that you are incorrect. I think what changed was attitudes and awareness. Back then, nobody wore bicycle helmets or seat belts, and 60% of the population (or whatever) smoked cigarettes.

There is lots of evidence that bike helmets, seatbelts and not smoking are good for health. There is little or no evidence that treating backcountry water is helpful.

There is an assumption that became deep-seated in 1970s, that technology can improve health and safety. But it's not automatically true.

Here's an alternate explanation that is also based on conjecture:

Somebody once said the "Safe Drinking Water Act" in 1974 was the start of the backcountry water scare.

The law mandated treatment of public (municipal) drinking water derived from surface sources. Certain federal bureaucrat/forest ranger types misinterpreted the law, and signage on federal hiking trails that directed walkers to nearby springs were thereby removed. The scare spread from these misguided actions.

It sounds plausible to me.

In the 1980s, an official at a small, suburban water company that had just completed a high-tech super-expensive treatment plant, told me that, according to extensive daily testing, one could safely (but not legally) drink untreated water straight from his company's reservoirs, which were located in the midst of a densely populated drainage basin. I don't doubt it was a highly biased statement, but I bet he was right.

Hector in private message, says:


You mean you took a drink? No? Oh, then you didn't actually bet. Money. Mouth.

Twit file.

Since I can't reply privately to Hector, I'll reply to him here.

Hector:

I'm not exactly sure what troubles you about the account of my conversation with the water company executive. It might be best to assume a modicum of good faith on his part and after all, it's not as though he could be considered uninformed about water-borne disease

No, I never drank straight from those reservoirs that I can recall, though I grew up swimming in them (as a trespasser) and probably ingested a fair bit of the water at various times.

I have drank a lot of water drawn straight out of New York City's reservoirs in the Catskills, as well as plenty of other slightly dubious places, that perhaps we might call "front country" sources, without filtering or treatment. I don't advise for or against.

Backcountry sources would be a different question.

You won't get much of an argument from me here. It's true that there's no certainty that backpackers, with the help of livestock, spread giardia to back-country waters. Afterall, it is callled, 'beaver fever.' None the less, giardia did spread in this country and it did spread to formerly clean back-country watersheds. Again, what happened in Missoula is an example. An amusing (or not so amusing) after effect of the Missoula contamination is that the particular watershed is still used but dogs are prohibited from certain areas of it.

Giardia has a way or reintroducing itself...many animals (people too?) are carriers without symptoms and giardia infestation from them can end up in previously clean waters. And every once in awhile, giardia shows up in a municipal water system...that's after the (not-so-effective) treatment. That's why UV treatment is being added to treatment systems that don't already have them. Similarly, I think some recent studies of waters in the Sierra Nevada found no giardia. But there's no assurance those waters will stay that way.

My own belief is that back country waters are pretty safe but that the story about dirty backpackers is probably true, too. So I treat or filter. I've watched an associate suffer through diagnosed giardia...the safeguards are no inconvenience or cost at all in comparison. If you're saying that the dirty-water threat is overblown, I agree, but...

I also wear my seat belt when I'm the only one on the road. S**t happens...sometimes in the water. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

FB

There is no baseline data available from fifties and sixties regarding backcountry water supplies. So to say that backcountry water became less safe in the 1970s is simply not possible.

That era does coincide with the '74 Safe Drinking Water Act, but to suggest a connection with the backcountry water scare, as I do, is also mere speculation.

What little data now available regarding the current situation suggests that backcountry water today is reasonably safe.

As for your friend's case of giardiasis, probably nobody can say what the relevant vector was. But it's a common disease, and not particularly among backpackers, that is normally or typically spread via unwashed hands. Day-care workers are especially susceptible.

I brought up my co-worker simply because her illness showed me how uncomfortable a true case of giardia can be. She contracted hers by mistakenly drinking from a hose connected to a 'closed' well on a farm. Interestingly, that impled that the dirty water was being used for landscape and livestock...ensuring a continuing animal infestation and cycle of probable reintroduction of the cysts into the watershed.

You're right, though. Personal hygiene is probably the most important preventive, on or off the trail.

FB

This just showed up at one of the forums I watch, "Coliform and Pathologic Bacteria in Sierra Nevada National Forest Wilderness Area Lakes and Streams", Wilderness and Environmental Medicine: Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 245–249. While it specifically did not look at giardia, it did look at illness-causing bacteria.

"Objective.—To analyze backcountry-area water quality in US Department of Agriculture Forest Service–designated wilderness areas for the presence of coliform and potentially pathogenic bacteria.

Methods.—Thirty-one backcountry lakes and streams were selected that would stratify the risk based on use by backpackers, pack animals, commercial grazing animals, or natural unaffected wilderness areas. Sites included Desolation Wilderness (10 sites), Carson-Iceberg Wilderness (4 sites), Emigrant Wilderness (3 sites), Hoover Wilderness (6 sites), John Muir Wilderness (3 sites), and Golden Trout Wilderness (5 sites). Water was collected in sterile tubes and quantification was performed through Millipore bacterial samplers. On return to the laboratory, bacteria were harvested from the samplers and subjected to qualitative analysis that identified species according to standard laboratory methods.

Results.—Coliform bacteria were detected in 14 of 31 sites (45%). Eight sites had high levels of coliforms. All 8 of these sites correlated with heavy human use or commercial grazing. Coliforms were identified as Escherichia coli. In addition, 1 sample contained Yersinia entercolitica. All samples contained expected amounts of normal aquatic bacteria, including Pseudomonas spp, Rahnella aquatilis, Serratia spp, and other nonpathogenic species of Yersinia in concentrations of 600 to 10000 colony-forming units per 100 mL.

Conclusions.—In this study, coliform bacteria were found at nearly half of the sampling sites. High coliform levels correlated with high-impact human use or cattle grazing."

"Many wilderness lakes and streams studied contained low to moderate levels of coliforms. The highest levels of coliforms occurred in watersheds heavily used by humans, livestock, or cattle grazing. The low levels of coliform bacteria found in a very few streams and lakes may be part of a natural ecological environment or may be secondary to occasional contamination from humans, pack animals, or natural wild animals. Noncoliform and nonpathogenic aquatic bacteria were present in counts consistent with other studies on environmental bacteria."

http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?req...p;amp;page=0245

Scroll down to the bottom of the above reference to see the list of locations sampled.

FB

Here is part of what lead author (Derlet) of the study linked above had to say, as of about a year after the samples were made:

"Should you treat your water to kill bacteria? This is a personal decision, and depends on the risk the individual wishes to take. I believe the risk is low and treat my water in only two situations: 1) below cow and sheep pastures; and 2) in slow flowing, warm streams immediately below places humans may be swimming or bathing"

Derlet goes on to say....."If one wants to be entirely safe, one could purify water but my suspicion is that perhaps less than 1% of streams in the Sierra would have Giardia significant enough to cause infection in humans."


It may be possible to simply choose sources that don't involve the situations to which the author Derlet refers. Also note that his comments and research refer to backcountry water in the Sierra Nevada


Here is link to article I'm quoting from

http://www.yosemite.org/naturenotes/DerletWater.htm