Just got in a Katadyn Hiker Pro. Along with it, I order the Katadyn tablets also. My common sense is telling me doing both is just overkill for here in the states. The filter should be enough, right? Or, should I throw a tablet in as well?
I have the filter. It's going to get out everything down to .3 microns, so that's quite a bit.
The tabs will kill whatever is in there, no matter how small, but the dead stuff will still be in the water, along with silt, etc.
I prefer the filter. It's not as light, but I don't like lots of chemicals (ok, any chemicals) in my water.
YMMV.
_________________________
"Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls."
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Double treatment normally isn't necessary, unless you're downstream of human habitation. Other occasions for double treatment might be when the only water source for miles around contains dead animals or something equally tasty.
Since the chlorine dioxide tablets weigh so little, I always take several days' worth just in case something happens to my filter. I hate the taste, but it's better than aborting the trip!
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Depends - I carry the tablets as a backup for the filter if it breaks, but there has been a time when filtering out of a large tub of water piped from a spring that I also threw in tablets, just because it looked really, really scummy.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
I just take chlorine tablets. Yes, I have eaten a few bugs, chewy little things- maybe added a bit of protein to my diet. As for silt, you need a pre-filter if you are in a lot of silt, otherwise your regular filter becomes quickly plugged up. Some people get stomach upsets from glacial silt - I never have, but I seem to have an iron stomach. I take a coffee filter in my first aid kit, so if I ever get into a situation where I have to drink really cruddy water, I can filter it. I have never had to yet. The big issue with tablets only is that you have to wait minimally 1/2 hour and should weight 4 hours for your water. This requires a lot of planning. I have become used to it so it is not bothersome to me. If you are the type of person who must drink right away, then take the filter.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
If you are double-treating, the filter takes care of the protozoan cysts (giardia and crypto) which is what chlorine dioxide needs 4 hours to zap. You therefore can cut your purification time to half an hour or less if you double-treat. However, the only reason for double-treating would be if viruses may be present, since the filter takes care of everything else.
I've found that my homemade gravity filter (described in the Make Your Own Gear section) is far lighter than the amount of extra water I'd have to carry for several hours waiting for the pills to work. The exception would be if I'm in an area that has sparse water sources, in which case I'd be carrying the extra water anyway. My big objection to the tablets, though, is the chlorine taste. I actually had to throw some water out last summer that I had treated because I couldn't stand it. BTW, I have problems with chlorinated city water, too!
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
I usually just do one or the other. Recently I bought a new filter that has a 0.1 micron pore size. When I was looking through the company website, they were also showcasing another filter they have that has a .02 micron pore size, and can actually filter viruses. I might get that one some day.
Registered: 11/23/03
Posts: 430
Loc: Kitsap Peninsula, WA
Originally Posted By Barefoot Friar
I don't like lots of chemicals (ok, any chemicals) in my water.
YMMV.
Actually, water is a chemical, Hydrogen Dioxide if I recall correctly from my high school chemistry class. Seriously, I agree, your liver or kidney has enough to do without having to deal with more toxins. I wonder if FDA approves of the chemicals used for water purification. I wrote Chlorx (sp?) once and they said only use it for emergencies, not for regular purification. Yet, if done properly it seems to me the Chlorine gas all gasses off and leaves nothing but water behind. (Any Chemists reading this? If so; Let me know if that is right).
Actually, water is a chemical, Hydrogen Dioxide if I recall correctly ...
You're on the right track anyway. Water, as we all know, is H2O. That means it has two hydrogens and one oxygen. Thus the chemical name is Dihydrogen Oxide.
Bleach can (and likely will) produce NaCl (salt, laundry bleach ) or CaCl2 (calcium chloride, pool bleach), a different type of salt. Other undesireable by-products are also possible. http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-sodium-hypochlorite.htm Long story short, bleach can (not necessarily will) produce some undesireable by-products. Also, both sodium hypochlorite and chlorine do not deactivate Giardia Lambia and Cryptosporidium.
Registered: 11/23/03
Posts: 430
Loc: Kitsap Peninsula, WA
Thanks Perry. The links to Lenntech were most informative. The one thing I didn't see explained very well is the time/temperature curve. Isn't an increase in temperature usually accompanied by an increase in the chemical reaction rate? Here in the Pacific Northwest our stream water is often near 32°F. Which means we might have to wait much longer for the disinfection process to take place. It seems to me an increase of only 18°F (to 50°F) would be huge.
The general rule of thumb in chemistry is that every 10 degrees celcius (18 degrees F) doubles the reaction rate. There will be limits to this of course and different reactions can occur if the temperature is raised too far. Think of it as the difference between baking a cake and burning cake batter.
The short version is, 30 minutes is likely more than enough time using the manufacturer recommended dosage for water temperatures one is likely to actually drink.
Actually, water is a chemical, Hydrogen Dioxide if I recall correctly ...
You're on the right track anyway. Water, as we all know, is H2O. That means it has two hydrogens and one oxygen. Thus the chemical name is Dihydrogen Oxide.
You can also call it Dihydrogen Monoxide. Here is a funny website about it. DHMO facts
_________________________
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
I never treat my water twice and depending on the situation I don't treat it at all. The industry would love you to believe that you always need to double or triple treat your water. That is not the case but it sure sells a lot of filters!!!
_________________________ If you only travel on sunny days you will never reach your destination.*
* May not apply at certain latitudes in Canada and elsewhere.
The "water treatment" industry (aka fear-mongering/selling products) in context is part of the larger movement towards the Nanny Nation we now sadly are becoming.
I'm not saying never treat water (in some cases you MUST treat water), but the whole subject is so overblown as to be preposterous, let alone "double treating" water. Good grief.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
The only time I would double treat water is downstream of cities and towns. Filters don't remove viruses, and if there is sewage (even treated) coming in, there are going to be unpleasant things like noroviruses in the water.
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
I've made LOTS of VERY bad decisions about drinking untreated water over many, many years.
Yet have always been perfectly fine.
In general, you don't need to treat water at all, if you are minimally smart about sources.
There is MUCH scientific/medical literature debunking typical backpackers' ideas about treating water, and really nothing that supports them.
It may very well be that you are in the lucky 50% of the population that is carrying giardia and completely lacking in symptoms.
Congrats. I know personally far too many people who have had confirmed cases to ever risk it, myself. I will always filter, particularly in waterways that the pack trains cross on a regular basis, or where cattle are grazed. Which is a huge portion of the central Sierra Nevada, and primarily where I hike.
May your faith in "research" prove to hold true.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
Evil toxins in the body.... anti-biotic cactus enemas...etc. there is SO much folk-lore out there....and many specialists available to deal with these problems.
I've investigated the medical/science and public health literature, and the folklore just doesn't stand up to review.
I do not think individuals first hand accounts of having contracted a parasitic disease necessarily contradict the research. Even lab confirmed cases of a disease do not, and cannot confirm how the person contracted the parasite. It is very common to blame the water, but the more likely vector was another human, and that person was not necessarily in the backcountry with them.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!