Water Filters?

[Neurosis]

Just looking for a little input on what type of filter is best. Ive never used any of them, a pump or a chemical. Ive done most of my hiking in NH and as far as Im concerned if its moving, in NH, its ok to drink. So Im not sure if its worth the wieght and money to buy a pump filter or if chlorine or iodine will work equally as fine. Let me know, thanks.

[jersey joe]

Neurosis, you will hear a lot of varying viewpoints on this. I can share my experience.
I started my thru hike with a pure filter and ditched it in the smokies. I drank right out of springs and streams the rest of the way. I did carry iodine tablets and used them on the rare occasion when the water source looked questionable. I did not get sick. If I were to thru again, i'd just bring some iodine tablets and again drink out of springs.

[rafe]

Opinions are all over the map, and the evidence is inconclusive. If anything, the evidence says that water filtering/treatment makes little or no difference with regard to frequency of illness among hikers. Are you feeling lucky?

[Footslogger]

Well ...with a trail/screen name of "Neurosis" I would guess you might have relatively high level concerns about water purity ???

In the end only YOU can decide which method makes you feel most safe. I've gone through ALL available methods, starting with filters - then PolarPur and finally AquaMira.

Over time I grew increasingly concerned about the true efficacy of mechanical filters - especially when being used many times during each day for weeks/months on end. There is fairly good potential for cross-contamination of the input/output hoses AND ...the filter element (which traps the contaminants) sits inside the filter housing and stays damp throughout it's use -- a perfect environment for the growth of bacteria and other pathogens.

I am personally comfortable with chemical treatment (AquaMira) and use it exclusively nowadays.

'Slogger

[Panzer1]

I'm using the MSR Miniworks filter. $85 from REI.
http://www.rei.com/product/695265

I've had a lot of filters and I like the way this one works. If your a "filter person" you'll like this one too.

Panzer

[Doctari]

Take whatever makes you feel best.
I used to carry a First need filter, I filtered EVERYTHING! Didn't get sick, figured it was cause of the filter.
I now carry the Iodine with the nutrelizer, but rarely use it. Still don't get sick.
FWIW: Went on a hike recently with Hammock Eng. HE treated all but one quick drink from a nearby waterfall. I didn't treat ANY of my water. We both got water at the same time from the same sources. HE got sick, I didn't, go figure.

IMHO: You pays your money, you takes your chances.

[Jason of the Woods]

Yep. MSR mini. It works just fine. Just make sure that you boil it before use......

[hobojoe]

The msr sweetwater is an awesome design. They bought the rights to this filter a few years ago. Easier to pump than the Kitahdyn, which has an akward handle, and easier than the msr miniworks. I've had friends who got giardia. I won't take chances anymore.

[Tipi Walter]

I agree with jersey joe that most drinking water can be had from little springs with no treatment. BUT.

There are many spring sources where heavy camping occurs, and unless you're careful about following the source upstream beyond human impact, getting water at some of these heavily used sites(mostly around shelters)can be a problem.

I always either boil or filter at these sites since some humans will defecate anywhere and everywhere, especially the dayhikers and uninformed squatters. They aren't too careful around shelters where they dump their loads, etc.

I've found the old Pur/now Katadyn Hiker filter to be fast-flowing and good though I've broken the handle off of it twice. On my last trip I used a Katadyn mini-filter(the little blue thing)and it took me about 150 pumps for a liter, much slower than the Hiker.

[jersey joe]

There is fairly good potential for cross-contamination of the input/output hoses 'Slogger

Slogger, this is exactly why I stopped using my filter. I dropped my entire filter including the output hose into a stream in the smokies. I figured there was no point in continuing to filter at that point so i drank directly out of the stream and continued to do so the rest of the way.

[Panzer1]

... On my last trip I used a Katadyn mini-filter(the little blue thing)and it took me about 150 pumps for a liter, much slower than the Hiker.

One of the things I look at when buying a filter is how many pumps it takes to fill a liter. Many times when I am filtering I am in a awkward and uncomfortable position and mosquito's are trying to bite me. That's why I am willing to carry a larger filter if it saves me pumps and time. Also I'm of the opinion that the larger filters will pump more water before clogging.


Panzer

[Panzer1]

There is fairly good potential for cross-contamination of the input/output hoses AND ...

You can buy a filter that does not have an output hose. I will not even look at a filter that has an output hose for that reason. I only consider the type that you screw a liter nalgene bottle into the bottom of the filter. I think this is an important point when choosing a filter.

Panzer

[Footslogger]

You can buy a filter that does not have an output hose. I will not even look at a filter that has an output hose for that reason. I only consider the type that you screw a liter nalgene bottle into the bottom of the filter. I think this is an important point when choosing a filter.

Panzer

=============================

Right there with ya Panzer. I had the PUR model that screwed directly onto the wide mouthed Nalgene ...however, that only worked for me until I stopped carrying Nalgene's

'Slogger

[rpettit]

Opinions are all over the map, and the evidence is inconclusive. If anything, the evidence says that water filtering/treatment makes little or no difference with regard to frequency of illness among hikers. Are you feeling lucky?

Is this evidence documented my a qualified orginization, medical labs, CDC etc.? If so, post a link, I would like to read it. Thanks

[Neurosis]

Thanks everyone for the input, I'm feeling a little lucky(knock on wood) im going to probably use a chemical product, for like I siad, Ive been drinking of out streams unfiltered for years now, so chemical sounds sufficient enough for me! Thanks again!

[Footslogger]

I think the real issue in establishing ANY method among distance hikers is control and true corelation. The "laboratory" test results are of intellectual value/relevance but the rules all change when you take it out of the lab and introduce all the other possible sources of pathogenic intestinal conditions.

I've tried ALL the methods and have concluded that for me, chemical treatment (chlorine dioxide) presents the most reproducible positive results.

Just my personal $ .02

'Slogger

[Panzer1]

Thanks everyone for the input, I'm feeling a little lucky(knock on wood) im going to probably use a chemical product, for like I siad, Ive been drinking of out streams unfiltered for years now, so chemical sounds sufficient enough for me! Thanks again!

Well at least bring some coffee filters. You can use them to get out the big pieces of dirt, if there are any. Coffee filters don't weigh much or take up a lot of space.

Panzer

[rafe]

Is this evidence documented my a qualified orginization, medical labs, CDC etc.? If so, post a link, I would like to read it. Thanks

Several references are cited in this book, by Roland Mueser. It's a great book, in any case, for anyone interested in long-distance hiking on the AT.

[Panzer1]

Several references are cited in this book, by Roland Mueser. It's a great book, in any case, for anyone interested in long-distance hiking on the AT.

The so called "evidence" in his book is not a "study". It was an informal "survey" where hikers were asked if they got sick and what the thought it was from. It was not meant to be a "scientific study". In fact there was nothing "scientific" about the survey. The author did not try to portray it as scientific. The survey cannot be used to support any arguments either way.

Panzer
ps I do agree that its a book worth reading.

[rafe]

The so called "evidence" in his book is not a "study". It was an informal "survey" where hikers were asked if they got sick and what the thought it was from. It was not meant to be a "scientific study". In fact there was nothing "scientific" about the survey. The author did not try to portray it as scientific. The survey cannot be used to support any arguments either way.

Panzer
ps I do agree that its a book worth reading.

The survey was as formal as these things can be. Written questionnaires, about 150 of them.

Mueser cites other studies, opinions of scientists with whom he spoke, etc. I've seen no better study that relates to this specific topic, as it applies to AT thru-hikers.

Specifically, I've seen no "scientific" study that relates rate-of-illness to method of water treatment. Mueser's data is the best I've got.