Hello everyone,

In about a year from now I will attempt to backpack the Pacific Crest Trail from Mexico to Oregon (through-hike California the long way) . I'm really having a hard time deciding what water filter will best suit my needs. Please reply with your suggestions on what to buy for this extended journey. The filter I'm looking for needs to be rugged, field maintainable, and under $150 if at all possible. I would prefer if I didn't need to use any chemical additives because I'll have to be constantly resupplied with them, and I feel that it's probably not a great idea to frequently ingesting chemicals that kill bacteria/etc. However, if you think that additives are the way to go, please make your case.

What dose a filter need to have on a long trip like this?

Does it have to filter out viruses, or can I get by with just protozoa & bacteria? I've been vaccinated against Hep. A,B, & C.

Is gravity fed a necessity, or will a hand pump do just fine?

Is this an area where I should sacrifice weight for functionality?

What else should I look for?

I'll be using both a Camelbak & Nalgene bottle.

In addition, what other gear do you think will be essential to making this adventure a success.

Also, if you're interested please visit the website I've published. As of this posting I've JUST STARTED working on it, but soon it will be full of content. Garrett's Pacific Crest Trail Experience

The MSR sweetwater system would cover all the bases - virii and bacteria. Part of the deal is selecting your water source; as long as you're not trying to filter sludge or taking water from a source near a former/working mine that's likely to contain metals or chemistry from the mining process (filter doesn't work on those), you'll be okay.

I have an Amigo Pro gravity filter because I don't mind filtering the next day's water after I've made camp. I don't think it takes too long once the filter cartridge is primed; I filled two Platypus bladders in about 5-7 minutes. It takes a Katadyn filter cartridge, and I have a small fitting that turns the bag into a camp shower if you remove the cartridge. On a long hike like you're doing, I'd take my Amigo plus some of the MicroPur tablets as backup, just like I do on every hike, and plan to have a spare cartridge in one of the drop boxes, or possibly in the bump box - the cartridge is very light. My filter weighs about eight or nine ounces, including a fitting for my bladders and a small shower attachment that's less than a gram of plastic.

There are other gravity filter systems like the MSR Autoflow and the Platypus version with two 4L bags; I liked the Amigo because it's only 45 bucks, which is about five more than the cartridge by itself. Some people like the Sawyer inline filter, which you can pick up for minimal $$ at Walmart. Personally, I try to stick to klutz-proof gear. I'd probably bust a pump filter in no time. One of my many limitations. :P Pump filters work well for many people and if you have any concerns about viruses you will need something comprehensive like the filter/chemical combo of the Sweetwater. I don't think there's much concern for viruses in the Sierras. Bacteria and so forth is a numbers game - filters or water treatment is a just in case sort of thing, better safe than sorry.

What else should you take? That depends on your preferences and your definition of success. I can't live without chocolate and I hate sleeping on the ground, so I take a hammock and Trader Joe's dark chocolate. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I highly doubt you will get Hepatitis in any form from backpacking.

In my opinion you could get away with a regular filter while in the States, but you'd better get a purifier for Mexico. On possible solution is to use a filter for the brunt of the work, then use chemicals or boil water while in areas that you feel you may be at risk from those pathogens that a filter won't take care of. Or, you could use a purification device for the entire trip and not worry about it.

Depending on a filter element's longevity you may need replacements over the course of a trip; I've never done such a long hike, so I couldn't tell you. I've always had a preference to ceramic-element filters that I can clean while on the trail, as opposed to disposable element filters.

Greetings Ballzout and welcome to the forums.

Ballzout Wrote: "I'm really having a hard time deciding what water filter will best suit my needs."
"In about a year" there'll likely be new choices for water treatment. Check back w/me then. Seriously.

Ballzout Wrote: "Please reply with your suggestions on what to buy for this extended journey."
Wholly subjective. Depends on how you plan to hike those sections of the PCT. Sorry, all I can say here is to try before you buy as much as possible while looking for items which are the lightest available. I repeat: "In about a year" there'll be many new items for your consideration.

In the meantime: Don't buy any more stuff! I guarantee in about a year you'll end up replacing much if not most of it.

Ballzout Wrote: "The filter I'm looking for needs to be rugged, field maintainable, and under $150 if at all possible."
Well if not now perhaps "in about a year." ;-) Please keep in mind that long distance hikers seldom use filters. Not that I think you should be a Sheeple. E.g. Most LD hikers don't use Micropur tabs because they are *considered* too expensive.

Ballzout Wrote: "I would prefer if I didn't need to use any chemical additives because I'll have to be constantly resupplied with them,"
Well here's an example of why I have trouble advising you: You mention being "constantly resupplied." How do you intend to resupply w/other consumables and re?

Ballzout Wrote: "and I feel that it's probably not a great idea to frequently ingesting chemicals that kill bacteria/etc."
Why do you feel that way? Any data for us?

Ballzout Wrote: "However, if you think that additives are the way to go, please make your case."
Lightest weight. Reliable. Nothing to break. Efficient. Easy to use. Nuff said?

Ballzout Wrote: "What dose a filter need to have on a long trip like this?"
A chemical back-up. Get the point?

Ballzout Wrote: "Does it have to filter out viruses, or can I get by with just protozoa & bacteria? I've been vaccinated against Hep. A,B, & C."
Bacteria and protozoa will be your biggest worries. But why risk what is usually a dream of a lifetime requiring great sacrifice? Use Micropur MP1 or whatever the equivalent may be "in about a year."

Ballzout Wrote: "Is this an area where I should sacrifice weight for functionality?"
Only you can answer that question. I can say that in re water treatment it's not necessary to sacrifice either.

Ballzout Wrote: "What else should I look for?"
I'd look for a dealer with liberal return policies and products from an MFG w/a good record of support after the sale.

Ballzout Wrote: "I'll be using both a Camelbak & Nalgene bottle."
Lousy choices Ballzout. Sorry. Both unnecessarily heavy. And more expensive than lighter alternatives. Sell them to fear driven day hikers, newbies, etc, and use soda bottles.

Ballzout Wrote: "In addition, what other gear do you think will be essential to making this adventure a success."
Experience! When you can do 20 mile days for a few days in a row under harsh conditions w/o hurting yourself .... you'll be ready to leave. ;-) And interestingly enough you'll be the one lending a helping hand on the forums by then.

To be of adequate service to you we need to know much more about you Ballzout. Tell us about yourself and more about your LD hike.

Peace,

Richard.

I'd carry just TWO items for water treatment. Neither is a filter.

1. SteriPen Adventurer UV light purifier> The SteriPen adventurer is light (it floats) and the Lithium batteries it uses are light and will last for at least 30 days of water treatment.

2. Katadyn Micropur chlorine dioxide tablets> Chlorine dioxide is used by your local water treatment plant. Properly used it has no taste. It is used as a backup for your SteriPen (one tiny tablet per liter). and to occassionaly sterilize your hydration bag.

A water filter is not what you want to be carrying as you struggle up thousands of feet of mountain, cursing every ounce you're carrying.

But, if you MUST carry a filter check out the new, small MSR filter coming out soon.

Eric

Hi, Garrett,

No moving parts. Seriously. I would venture that the majority of long distance hikers give up pump-style water filters and most of them move to chemical treatments or no treatment. The others go to a gravity-fed system, though that has some serious drawbacks in terms of time. (Gravity filtration takes time, and you have to wait for it to finish, while chemically treated water can finish treating while you are walking.) I use Aqua Mira, but there are other choices.

Most also switch to 1-liter soda bottles (like the wide-mouth 1-liter Aqua Fina bottles), because 1) it's almost impossible to keep stuff from growing inside the drinking tube of your Camelbak on a long hike, and 2) Nalgenes are heavy. Platypus bottles are also popular, and I like my Nalgene Cantene, a soft bottle with the wide Nalgene screw-top. But soda bottles are very light, easy to replace, last a long time, and come with free soda inside!

The ONE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM for making this adventure a success isn't a special piece of gear, or the perfect item of clothing, or some super-energy food. It's flexibility. No, not the yoga kind (though that doesn't hurt) -- I'm talking about mental flexibility. Semper Gumby ("always flexible") is your motto. To quote Captain Reynault in Casablanca, you need to "take what comes." You have chosen a trail with a wide variety of tough hiking conditions, from the desert to the high mountain passes, and you will find minor and major challenges on a daily basis. (Where can I find water? Can I actually DRINK that? Is the next spring dry? Can I get a hitch into town to resupply? How deep is the snow at that pass? Can I hike with that blister? Will I ever see pizza again?) Trying to bull your way through -- to make the trail conform to your expectations -- is a recipe for misery. Keep your sense of humor, rely on your wits, relax your expectations, and be open to enjoying the entire experience, no matter how miserable it seems at the time.

Thanks everyone for your advice. I guess I'm going to need chemicals no matter what. I just don't want to be boiling my water all the time b/c it takes too much time with set up, cool down, an stuff. And ditch the Camelbak and Nalgene for soda bottles? Sounds reasonable, I'd like to hear more opinions on this. Also I think my favorite quote was Semper Gumby. That is going to be my new quote.

You might want to look at this

http://www.wemjournal.org/pdfserv/i1080-6032-006-02-0162.pdf

I hope we're able to help you make your hike an event you'll tell your grandchildren about.


Hard to say. *For now* it looks like the best option .... IMO.


And too much fuel.

No worries Ballzout. You'll be fine with "chemicals" if you choose to use them. Chlorine Dioxide is unlike bleach and iodine. But it can be expensive.


W/o doubt!


Well I could give you chapter and verse but it should suffice that soda bottles are tough, easy to find, free, recyclable and don't need cleaning/maintenance to speak of. In addition if a leak develops at an inopportune time a small piece of tape should do until you can replace the bugger.


Outstanding quote!

As for johndavid's (thank you!) link: Some are immune to Giardia and it's clear that many intestinal ailments are due to poor hygiene.

BTW; Learning how to evaluate a water source is very useful but I don't think it's worth risking an LD hike to save a buck and/or some time treating water.

Please keep in mind that what works for me/us may not work for you. So don't take our word for anything. Think for yourself while challenging authority.

Peace,

Richard.

I did the PCT last year and used Aqua Mira the whole time. We used Gatorade bottles most of the time, with 3L platypuses as additional volume when needed. I did get sick despite religiously treating water, and think it may have been Crypto rather than Giadia (AQ won't handle Crypto unless you leave it standing for several hours).

I second the poster on good hygene being at least as important as water treatment - we used Purel alcohol hand sanitizer all the time to keep our hands clean.

If/when we do it again we may consider the UV treatment option - there's a fairly lightweight version out now and we met some other thruhikers who were using it.

We met a number of hikers who were using regular filters and were happy with them, but they were relatively heavy packers by PCT standards (base weights 20 lbs or so) so the weight didn't bother them as much.

The linked article in Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, by Thomas and Timothy Welch of Cincinnati Childrens' Hospital, poses a rhetorical question:

"If the agencies charged with investigating communicable disease in the United States do not have data linking giardiasis to backpacking within their jurisdictions, who does?"

"Nobody" is the the authors' clearly implied answer.

"Nobody" it is and so it shall remain due (among other difficulties) to the lack of control groups.

I recall reading about an individual who studied AT hiker illnesses (mostly GI related, iirc). He may have published it somewhere. But I doubt it's of any use either.

Personally speaking .... i've never been very concerned w/giardia, etc., while hiking in the USofA. But i'm pretty careful in comparison to most hikers I know.

One other consideration: Contaminated water sources. E.g. on a recent hike I knew that one of the larger creeks was said (by reputable sources) to be contaminated w/Arsenic. Lotsa mining in the area in past years. Surprisingly enough, when discussing water sources w/a highly experienced group leader (they'll remain anonymous), she stated that since the creek was running at high volume it would be fine to drink from. I didn't contradict her. But when I reached the creek .... I moved on. ;-)

Peace,

Richard.

It isn't as if a fair number of scientists interested in public health haven't tried to investigate this subject. It's just that they can't find anything to study.

If you look into the various scientific literature on the Web, you'll see that backcountry water contamination in the USA has never been proven as a health hazard, despite some rather impressive scientific efforts.

So that leaves folklore.

That said, there's some spooky water out there. I've drank it mostly unfiltered, and sometimes filtered. The older I get, the more I lean toward filters when it looks spooky. In western alpine mountains in Washington and Canada, I'm happy to drink untreated water.

My two most dubious experiences:

Five years ago I bought my first filter at behest of girl friend, and camped on a small stream forty miles from NYC. The filtered water didn't taste too good. Next day, I walked upstream and found small sewage treatment plant a mile away (operated by Harriman State Park near Queensboro Lake.)

In early 70s, I camped for a week with a group on upper Kennebec River in Maine. There was a sparse, local population that mainly drew its drinking water directly from river and had done so for generations. They probably also used "straight pipes" for plumbing. We drank the river water without treatment.

One of our group came down with hepatitis. I'm quite skeptical that it came from the river water. It's certainly possible though. He got sick in my cooking pot, which I kept until fairly recently.

We all got shots. I'm fine, and didn't treat any water until decades later.

I've not done anything as long as you're proposing, but I can only echo the sentiments here you have already seen. Filters have their proponents, but I've seen too many of them
break and clog on shorter trips - never mind something longer. No way I'd personally start
something that long with a filter. - take Cl02 - whether it's aquamira, pristine, or micropur, and get used to filtering the chewies through a bandana or sock if you have to take water from somewhere skanky <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I guess I'm parinoid. I filter my water even from a crystal clear source. I then boil it to rehydrate food. I should boil the city water here in Memphis, even though it artisian from underground aquafier. But the city adds all the chemicals to kill whatever could be in the water and adds flouride so the kids teeth don't fall out of their heads. We use filters in our refridgerator and at the taps. From my experience drinking water from elsewhere in the U.S., the water here is good. The water in Sacramento CA , as I remember as a child, stunk. You could pour a glass and smell it before you could raise it to drink. If I had no other choice though, I can make due with what is available. But you don't have to ingest much bad stuff to give you the runs the next day. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

You're not paranoid but you may be misinformed.

SOAP BOX:

Obviously filter makers have an interest in this. So does advertising supported media. They can run an article about water filters, then go out and sell advertising space to the manufacturer.

Also one can blame the credulity of the "backpacking public," which understandably, has a mindset that is highly receptive to the notion of the "despoiled purity of nature."

I mean, let's face it, the term "fecal contamination" does get an emotional response.

Then there is the "medicalization" of culture, which accounts for the rather large dietary supplement industry, and ironically, is bringing us back to the days of folk medicine, which unfortunately, many people never actually discounted in the first place.

There's also the question of "acceptable risk" regarding life in general, which has been declining in recent decades. Three examples are seat belts, bicycle helmets and intolerance for cigarette smoking, all of which are proven to enhance public health.

There is an expectation that life is risky and an increasing expectation if you do X, then you can improve your odds. But despite lots of study, the efficacy of filtering backcountry water is unproven and there is much reason to believe that it has no benefit.

Wow, you'll be the first so you should keep a detailed log of your trip to tell us all about it <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> If you research the threads before posting you'll find your answer here <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />here is a thread about water filters once a month it seems. A better place for your post would've been in the Newbie Beginner's Forum as many newbies ask the same question.

Isn't this the same guy singing the praises of his Wengel tent -- writing a "user review" even though he hadn't used it in a good hard rain or wind to really know?

Like I said, newbie threads belong in the Beginner Forum <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Wengal now there's a quality backpacking tent to trust your life to <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ummm.... thread drift? I used that cheap pup tent for about decade, and like, sx months maybe of total actual nights out? ....D'ya suppose it never rained hard or that the wind never blew in all that time? The tent was fine.

Matter of fact something very similar was sold at a rather high price, as a "top of the line" backpacker's tent in 1968 catalog of "Camp & Trails" a super-specialty retailer then on Chambers Street in lower Manhattan, that now exists as a paltry shadow of its former self, as "Tent & Trails" on nearby Park Place.

And BTW, I've never felt for a moment that I was "trusting my life" to a tent in summer.. ..Night Vapors now proven to be unhazardous.

BACK to water filters .....Personal opinions and subjective experiences are all fine as far as they go,. But science may be a more reliable guide relative to microbiology.

Please post links to any science or public health data that suggests drinking unfiltered backcountry water is a health hazard.

I've searched diligently for this stuff, yet all I can find are various studies that suggest it's NOT a hazard.


:

You are correct JD, your gear served you well. A caveat though, depending upon where you will use the gear you need choose it's quality accordingly. I know of those ny stores...over here in nj myself.

I once saw a photo in an articel on water quality in the backcountry that had a caribou standing in a 'pristine' stream up North peeing in the water <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> G <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />anted if one is out long eno <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />h to aclimate their body to the local waters no ill effects may occur. But then again I dont carry enough tp for a week long case of the backcountry 2 step <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

It happens. No biggie .... we usually get back on topic on this forum.

BTW; I have noticed that a few long time members here jump on you often. Very disappointing. I actually enjoy your posts .... even when I disagree.


Yes, filters are the the general topic (OP asked other Qs also). And in re filters as a rule .... anecdotal evidence is all we'll ever have. As I stated before.

IOW; there is no sound financial reason for anyone to invest the huge amount of resources necessary to prove the efficacy of filtration. Or lack thereof.


As a rule? OK, i'll buy that. But you know as well as I do that although figures don't lie .... liars do figure. Or should we forget that time and time again (and continuing, imho) respected members of the "scientific community" have lied repeatedly. Not to mention plain errors.


Backcountry water is contaminated w/a wide variety of substances, etc, which are detrimental to our health. Ipso facto .... backcountry water poses a health hazard.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you meant that there is no such definitive data either in general, or as a CDC initiative? Please advise. TIA.


I hazard to guess (pun) that I could look at the *same* data that you did (and i probably have because i too am a water quality freak) and I could honestly come to an opposite conclusion.

But let's stick to the topic at hand: Water treatment during the OP's hike.

Ballzout will be traveling thru a wide variety of zones. Some of which include contaminated water sources (e.g. julian area). Some of which are reasonably safe (e.g. jmt area).

Would you advise said poster to not treat his water? Or simply treat his water in some other manner (ie; not use a filter)? Or treat under certain conditions?

If the last .... please explain conditions. TIA.

Peace,

Richard.

I read that thread. IIRC, johndavid did not write nor imply otherwise. But it's good of you to mention it anyway. Newbies are prone to jump to conclusions. Specially ones who plan to LD and are *often* looking for the cheapest solution. Then again .... aren't we all. ;-)


One of the problems w/identifying causation (Giardia, for example), is that symptoms don't usually manifest themselves until a couple of weeks have passed.

I'm the kind of guy that takes many risks. But when it comes to water quality .... if I have good reason to suspect that it may be contaminated, I treat it or refrain from drinking it.

If I were Ballzout .... *doubly* so because I wouldn't want my dreams shattered by an easily preventable illness.

Peace,

Richard.

Ronin, while i agree that giardia symptoms may not appear before you exit the trail; other causes might <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Giardia is'nt the only cause of the backcountry 2step; if there are other contaminants present unseen by the user, they can cause digestive upsets also. Anyone who has endured bad health on the trail will tell you to carry the weight of the necessary gear in order to not go through it again.

if things were so plain and simple there'd be no need for the multitude of options with all of our backpacking gear IMO. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

The most widely known article debunking microbiology hazards in backcountry water was published in various updated versions over a period of years by Robert Rockwell. A version published in May 2002 is found here:

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

Take a close look at the long list of citations at the bottom of the article. This is not just some guy's opinion. A number of the cited articles are available on the Web.

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.

The data in this item http://www.wemjournal.org/pdfserv/i1080-6032-006-02-0162.pdf used reporting and data from 48 state health departments. To simply say that somebody might be a liar is unreasonable.

As for diseases other than giardiasis, typically one measures coliform bacteria as a proxy for infectious disease. So these measurements cover all your bases: http://www.yosemite.org/naturenotes/DerletWater.htm

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.

After he discusses the science, Derlet, who has made a study of Sierra Nevada water quality for a number of years, presents his personal bottom line:

"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."

I own and use a water filter but whether I take it along or not depends on where I'm going.

Agreed 100%.


Aye, there's the rub: What is necessary. :-) Which brings us right back to the OP's Qs.


Please allow me to differ: I do believe that most of the issues discussed on these forums are indeed subject to plain and simple answers/solutions. IMHO, the vast majority of the options we are given are primarily due to folks trying to make a buck. And as johndavid implied (methinks), some folks prey on our fears (present company excepted because i don't know you all) in order to separate us from our hard earned cash.

It's true that user preference plays a big part in the above. But I don't consider user preference relevant in general. For example, keeping in context, let's consider all of the options for treating water: Ok .... .... .... Done!

Plain and Simple Answer; There can be no doubt that CL02 is the best solution; at this time.

Some hikers prefer to exercise one or more of a "multitude of options." Most of which will work. Which brings me back to johndavid who made it clear that efficacy remains unproven due to the lack of reliable scientific data .... but I digress.

As for varying conditions affecting our perceived needs, e.g. particulate matter removal, a small piece of nylon and a rubber band weigh little, are low mass, are easy to use and will do just fine. But that option does not make the outdoors industry (which includes all of those working in retail, etc, which are *among* the most prolific of net denizens), a profit, is not status enhancing and is too plain and simple for those looking for complex solutions.

Other considerations not due to issues specific to a person's bias are either irrelevant or "the exception which proves the rule."

Finally, most tend to feel slighted when they're told that a choice(s) is not the bestest of all. Ouch, how could you! You all suck 'cause everyone knows Foahd is mo bettuh den Chebby.

It's a facet of our culture I find frustrating and just plain silly. Get over it folks. No one is attacking you!

BTW, Coke is way mo bettuh den Pepsi. So there!

Peace,

Richard.

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?

Do you deny that scientists make mistakes?


"Generally speaking" 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 not go OT again johndavid. Let's agree that the water treatment options we have available when used as directed will perform as claimed and move on. OK?


Aw heck, ok, i'll play w/u just a bit longer.

Or mistaken? Or 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. ;-)


Please note that the Sierras (ie; jmt) is the example I gave showing that treating water is not always necessary, IMHO.


Which I could rip to shreds easily. But I won't because I agree w/the gent.


I don't. But I have. If I feel the need to filter out particulate matter I use one of my nylon under-socks (nylon hose cut to ankle length) placed over my primary water container.

Somewhat on topic: I coat my feet with "Sportslick" or "Friction Zone" and then put a nylon sock on. Then I add a hiking sock (type depends on climate and re). Prior to this I was prone to blisters no matter what I tried. Zero blisters in the last 18 months.


Thx for repeating what i've said on this thread. ;-)

Peace,

Richard.

New here, quick question, don't mean to wander off topic...

Take it easy on me Richard if I'm missing something obvious but, as per the whole filtering the water w/wo treatment using bandana/sock/nylon/whatever, how does this work with small trickling sources?

I'm not generally too concerned about filtering and tend to drink from what's available but a couple of years ago on the AT somewhere in VA we spent one long hot exposed day without a decent source and stumbled upon just the tiniest trickle, it wasn't clear and it wasn't deep and I was sure glad we had a pump-style filter if for nothing else to suck up the water. I've often considered going without a filter but I can't imagine, at least in that situation, rare though it may be in that part of the country, what I would've done without the hose/straw whatever. It took us a good long bit but we managed to fill up quite a few bottles and carry on. I just can't think of an easy work-around. Anyone tell me the right way to get around this? Maybe some kind of mouth-initiated siphon method using a tube?

Thanks, sorry if I did anything wrong with my posting here.

Adam

I've strongly wished for a straw a few times on alpine climbs....

But these few instances have not been often enough that I'd actually bother with benefit of hindsight, to bring one along.

Richard,

You have begged the questions which I have not found asked.

"What generically is this statement referring to, and why does he have to wait a year to know anything about it?"

Sounds like mystic faith is required.

Bob.

WHAT!!!!! You must be an idiot!!!!! Anyone who thinks Coke is better, must be puting it up their nose! I will no longer listen to a thing you say.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

ken

Filter straw

It looks to me that you're right on topic Adam.


Not a chance buddy. You chose to enter the fray now .... "Lay on [Adam] and woe be he who cries 'Hold, enough.'"


I use LuxuryLite trekking poles (the Big Stik or Trail Stix) which may be used to direct, perhaps even siphon, water. But I also have a number of other items I might use. E.g.s; plastic bag, homemade cup or Heine pot, windscreen, Groundhog stake, etc, etc, etc. "Improvise, adapt, overcome!"


As i mentioned earlier .... one may finds exceptions for every rule.


No offense Adam but perhaps you lack imagination. I repeat no offense. Close friends, etc, have said the same to me.


What I did in similar a situation last year was to dig a small channel and divert water into an LL pole which then filled my cup and so on. I could also have dug a small hole and simply dipped a cup/bag in it but using the pole was quicker.

"Easy workaround?" Easy enough for me. YMMV.


Well Adam, we'll accept your apology .... this time. Fail us again and it's .... *Guillotine!* You've been warned.

Peace,

Richard.

How droll Bob. I assume you jest.

JIC you're serious: Haven't you noticed how every year there is a least one new water treatment option available?

Why spend hard earned bux now when they can sit around for a year gathering interest and may be used then for either a new product or one which is well researched?

I could also come up w/other reasons for waiting until close to one's starting date (reminder; OP said LD hike in about a year) but since you're obviously just funning us i'll stop here.

Peace,

Richard.

Guilty as charged sir. And it's true Coke does add life. It's a well known fact that Pepsi drinkers and huffers (like yours truly prefers his, ahem, Coke) have a much shorter life span. I read it on the Net in an article written by a respected scientist who's vested interests in re Coke, et al, had nothing to do w/his findings.

As for being a large shareholder in Coke, Inc., i'll have you know that has *nothing* to do w/my opinion.

Peace,

Richard.

Junk.

Peace,

Richard.

Without knowing your qualifications and due to your failure to provide scientific evidence, or even anecdotal evidence, to back up your assessment of the filter straw (which I personally have no experience with, and no opinion of) I find myself questioning the validity of your assessment.

Thanks for clarifying that it was just hot air.

Touche! And Bravo Lori!

Outstanding reply.

Unfortunately you avoided maximum effect by kindly, openly and honestly informing us of your suggestions' lack of validity.

WTS; the filter straw (keeps reinventing itself, and showing up like a bad penny) has been discussed all over the Net for years. Perhaps you would serve us best if you did a bit of research prior to recommending a product. Specially within a thread started by what appears to be a newbie LD hiker.

Anyway, thx for replying with such wit and candor.

Peace,

Richard.

Ahhh Bob, you remain such a card. But it really isn't necessary for you to belittle yourself.

BTW, if you are seriously annoyed w/me .... be a man about it and simply say so. Explaining why would be a nice courtesy also. You could PM if you prefer.

TIA for your consideration.

Peace,

Richard.

Plus One. Junk definitely.

1. Labeled 96% filtration rate is neither "astonishing" nor particularly effective.

2. Certain protozoa (crypto, giardia) are essentially impervious to iodine.

Gee whiz, did I accidentally recommend something? Someone simply stated they needed a straw for minimal water sources. I found a straw that happened to have a water filter in it. I fail to see anywhere in this thread where I vouched for said filter in any way.

Though it is interesting to note that similar items are being supplied to people in third world countries to deal with questionable water supplies. The life straw

And:

Lori did you miss the above which shows goodwill on my part? I ask because you seem miffed.


Yes, within the context of this thread, you did make a recommendation.


Context Lori, context. As you stated someone expressed a need and you led them to a product. Nuff said?


I didn't say nor imply that you vouched for said product Lori. In fact I made it clear that I thought you did not know much about the product by advising you to some research next time.


And once again, by direct inference and within the context of this thread, you recommend another product which is junk.

Peace,

Richard.