I am making this a "new post" because I took some pains to list some relevant links,
Yes, you did. TAM!
and I think it is a potentially interesting, though certainly not new, topic for debate.
I agree 100%
The most widely known article debunking microbiology hazards in backcountry water
Ooops .... disagree. Big Time!
1) What exactly is being "debunked?" It's a *fact* that water contamination exists.
2) Due to the nature (no pun intended) of water source contamination, the article is *practically* worthless.
2a) Contamination may happen at any time, anywhere.
2b) What was valid during the study period(s) is unlikely to apply to today's risks.
Take a close look at the long list of citations at the bottom of the article. This is not just some loopy guy's opinion. A number of the cited articles are available on the Web.
Tsk, tsk, johndavid .... i've already made it clear that "scientific consensus" is not a definitive tool for determining the validity of any particular theory.
Rockwell believes that water filters have no value in the Sierra Nevada, and by implication, also, in many other areas.
Wrong again:
A) As above (#2b), not necessarily true today. E.g. how much has wildlife and usage increased since then?
B) Conditions in the Sierras do not necessarily apply in other locations. Mountainous, or otherwise.
It's unhelpful to say that science is of no value because some scientists are liars, or that they make mistakes. Generically speaking, science is collaborative and depends on repeating the results obtained by others.
A Straw Man argument.
"1) I said nor implied no such thing. 2) Context johndavid, context. Within the context profit making, we know for a fact that "liars sho do figger." 3) Do you deny that #2 is the case?"
And: "Do you deny that scientists make mistakes?"
And: "Or [may be] engaged in deception? E.g., should I refer you to the marketing methods used by Steripen when they first appeared on the scene? Just ask. ;-)"
And: "...scientists make mistakes and lie, cheat and steal just like other human beings. As for peer review and re .... again, generally speaking .... widely accepted (ie, after peer review, a consensus was reached) scientific truths have been found wanting or simply bogus again and again over the centuries.
...Let's agree that the water treatment options we have available when used as directed will perform as claimed and move on. OK?"
My reply to you remains unanswered. I am disappointed in you. You can do better. Please try again.
To simply say that somebody, somewhere, might be a liar, or has "no experience" is completely unreasonable.
Whom are you quoting? I don't recall anyone claiming that any such thing?
As for diseases other than giardiasis, typically one measures coliform bacteria as a proxy for infectious disease.
A patently false methodology for testing the efficacy of water treatment methods and filters in general. As well as being of little value when considering other common contaminants.
Robert Derlet of UC Davis School of Medicine is slightly more conservative that Rockwell about the efficacy of backcountry water treatment, but in essence, he says the much same thing.
Do they deny that backcountry water sources may be contaminated and that proper water treatment may reduce or eliminate said contaminants?
After he discusses the science, Derlet,
Science of dubious, if any, value as I noted above.
who has made a study of Sierra Nevada water quality for a number of years,
This fact alone makes the study virtually useless, as I noted above.
"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."
Then I submit to you that he is a fool and nothing he says should be trusted. There are many other sources of water contamination which may occur anywhere and at any time unbeknownst to the water user.
For a "so called" scientist to advise us that water treatment is pretty much unnecessary and to imply that there are only two situations where one should treat water is bloody well irresponsible!
I note that it ought to be easy to avoid these two types of sources specified by Derlet, while relying on other sources.
This statement is so ridiculous that I think you're just trolling. Sorry, but you do this kind of thing often enough johndavid.
Though my outdoor resume is unavailable, let me mention that in nearly forty years of lots and lots of camping, for the most part, I've never treated water.
Personally I couldn't care less if you've never hiked at all. 2+2=4. It doesn't matter if Einstein says it or a 4 year old child.
What matters is that your arguments .... don't hold water.
Peace,
Richard.
Previous Topic
Index
