mar 05 
Question by midwestmom
Send this post to a friendOur local tap water has radium in it so we don't use it. None of the usual filters remove the radium so we do buy bottled water but it is in #7 containers.
All the local bottled water carriers have #7 containers. I feel like we are between a rock and a hard place. Which is worse the radium or the BPA??
Comments (2) |  |
1. 03/11/2008 06:57:29 PM
You have an unusual situation, and this is a case where it may make sense to use bottled water. Radium is an emitter of alpha radiation, so it’s not something you want to get inside your body. Since the skin is effective at blocking absorption, it’s generally considered OK to use the water for bathing and dish washing, but not for drinking. The legal limit for radium is 5 picoCuries per liter, so if your water is above that, you really shouldn’t drink it.
Some water filters do remove radium. For example reverse osmosis systems (which are expensive and waste water) remove about 90% of radium, and ion exchange systems (water softeners) are generally effective as well, and those are usually less expensive and wasteful of water. So it might be worth exploring the water filter options a bit more thoroughly.
One funny thing about #7 plastic is that it actually stands for “other” in the recycling code world. That means that it includes polycarbonate plastic with bisphenol A, but it also includes some other types of plastic that don’t contain BPA. The reason I usually tell people to steer clear of #7 is because most plastic in this category does contain BPA and it’s usually easiest to just avoid the entire category. In this case, it might be worth investigating a little further. Your bottled water supplier should be able to tell you if it’s polycarbonate plastic and if it contains bisphenol A. Maybe you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find out that it’s not, and that would be a relief. If in the end it comes down to a choice between radium and bisphenol A containing bottles, I guess I’d go with the #7 bottles, since the risks of radium exposure are pretty serious. If you go that route, some simple steps are to keep the water bottles in a cool dark place, since sunlight and warmth may facilitate leaching, and use the water quickly, since prolonged storage is also not ideal.
Some water filters do remove radium. For example reverse osmosis systems (which are expensive and waste water) remove about 90% of radium, and ion exchange systems (water softeners) are generally effective as well, and those are usually less expensive and wasteful of water. So it might be worth exploring the water filter options a bit more thoroughly.
One funny thing about #7 plastic is that it actually stands for “other” in the recycling code world. That means that it includes polycarbonate plastic with bisphenol A, but it also includes some other types of plastic that don’t contain BPA. The reason I usually tell people to steer clear of #7 is because most plastic in this category does contain BPA and it’s usually easiest to just avoid the entire category. In this case, it might be worth investigating a little further. Your bottled water supplier should be able to tell you if it’s polycarbonate plastic and if it contains bisphenol A. Maybe you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find out that it’s not, and that would be a relief. If in the end it comes down to a choice between radium and bisphenol A containing bottles, I guess I’d go with the #7 bottles, since the risks of radium exposure are pretty serious. If you go that route, some simple steps are to keep the water bottles in a cool dark place, since sunlight and warmth may facilitate leaching, and use the water quickly, since prolonged storage is also not ideal.
2. 03/29/2008 06:09:19 PM
The statement you make regarding that Reverse Osmosis is wasteful is somewhat simplistic. It also signifies a limited understanding of what the purpose and nature of process filtration is and how it is essential; even as relates to processes that are provided by our current municipal systems as well.
Any municipal systems effectiveness and success is tailored solely on the ability to target a range, or level, of product(water) from the resultant processes. This is usually accomplished by spilling hundreds of gallons of water and contaminants just for each gallon to deliver. It is considered 'Broad Spectrum Filtration.'
To remove the harmful bio-agents as well as the trace or significantly difficult to identify compounds, either naturally occurring or introduced, is a rather lofty charge for any system/or systems to accomplish.
Reverse Osmosis has made it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s way into a current design as very efficient system as perfected in a very few examples. There are actually a couple that meet or exceed National Sanitation Foundation(NSF) standards. If the proper style and technology that a few companies have perfected are used, it will perform a better than 99% removal rates with out continuously running or wasting water.
After your comments, I found one such example of a company that does this responsibly and with a decidedly green concept. Kinetico is a company that was actually founded by a guy that was green from the start. They introduced the only non-electric filtration/remediation systems 39 years ago and have remained the forerunner of newer technologies to improve the systems efficiency, effectiveness and impacts. Please look into the differences in their Reverse Osmosis system and you may also see why it is an imperative that we all use better information regarding these issues. The terms are sometimes over used and it becomes confusing to most.
In Light of the risks we all are currently exposed to, (that you have highlighted) I encourage you to do some homework and discover for yourself the true issue at stake.
We all have to take responsibility. First, the contaminations; we all have continued to purchase and promote through demands, and the subsequent production, the proliferation of contaminants in our systems. Secondly, we ultimately have the responsibility to use appropriate systems and be sure for our own individual needs. To hand off the responsibility to a bottling company (which just charges you for trucking water around and depletes local resources for profit) or expect one centralized municipality to perform pure miracles for us is naive and unreasonable.
The water we have contaminated can be effectively remediated at the point of use (POU) with a process system (a proven non-electric Reverse Osmosis,) like the Kinetico one. It provides for several locations like the sink and refrigerator dispenser. It does take some water to produce safe pure water (approx. 2.3/1) but because it does so non-electrically, never wears out because it cleans itself with good water repeatedly and is certified by NSF to actually work, it seems a very small consideration for what it being done; continued SAFE WATER. Not to mention the whole issue with everybody being exposed to plastic containers through Bottle water.
In comment on the point of entry (POE) filtration systems, such as Softeners, all ELECTRIC Ion exchange Softeners are especially more wasteful because they are planned obsolescent. Not only do they waste water (1000 gallons a month) and electricity because they cycle on time not volume, they ultimately end up in a landfill; they are not recycled or even useful past and average of three to five years. I used a softener for twelve years only to discover that it had never worked properly because they are all designed to clean themselves with the same raw water it is supposed to filter. It basically recontaminates itself every cycle. Many use a caustic chemical, such as bleach, to remediate this design flaw. Also many distributors of these products are by from one of three manufacturers, including Culligan. They don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t care about it working because they primarily make money on the systems failed designs in repairs.
The driving force of our water safety and concerns should be the elimination of the wasteful and dangerous practices that confront us all every day with regards to water and how it is collected, contaminated and distributed.
It is a lofty goal to change the behavior of so many and expect they will do so willingly. The plethora of misinformation, callous disregard for resource management as well as Junk available that is to aid us but really is in the name of profit prevails.
Perhaps it will be no surprise that a catastrophe (like New Orleans) has to happen before the alignment or a consensus drives reason for the masses to be motivated towards such reason.
Look into the situation and I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m sure you will discover and understand why and how municipal systems we rely on are in desperate infrastructure condition and that it will not be getting better. This simple fact is it is ultimately all our responsibility to do for ourselves and be sure we are filtering for ourselves. If a modestly expensive Reverse Osmosis system insures this for us that lasts indefinitely and can be repeatedly rebuilt to perform that task to ensure safe water; it is worth every penny and more.
Please consider distributing the results of your findings and benefit us all by encouraging less confusion than necessary.
Any municipal systems effectiveness and success is tailored solely on the ability to target a range, or level, of product(water) from the resultant processes. This is usually accomplished by spilling hundreds of gallons of water and contaminants just for each gallon to deliver. It is considered 'Broad Spectrum Filtration.'
To remove the harmful bio-agents as well as the trace or significantly difficult to identify compounds, either naturally occurring or introduced, is a rather lofty charge for any system/or systems to accomplish.
Reverse Osmosis has made it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s way into a current design as very efficient system as perfected in a very few examples. There are actually a couple that meet or exceed National Sanitation Foundation(NSF) standards. If the proper style and technology that a few companies have perfected are used, it will perform a better than 99% removal rates with out continuously running or wasting water.
After your comments, I found one such example of a company that does this responsibly and with a decidedly green concept. Kinetico is a company that was actually founded by a guy that was green from the start. They introduced the only non-electric filtration/remediation systems 39 years ago and have remained the forerunner of newer technologies to improve the systems efficiency, effectiveness and impacts. Please look into the differences in their Reverse Osmosis system and you may also see why it is an imperative that we all use better information regarding these issues. The terms are sometimes over used and it becomes confusing to most.
In Light of the risks we all are currently exposed to, (that you have highlighted) I encourage you to do some homework and discover for yourself the true issue at stake.
We all have to take responsibility. First, the contaminations; we all have continued to purchase and promote through demands, and the subsequent production, the proliferation of contaminants in our systems. Secondly, we ultimately have the responsibility to use appropriate systems and be sure for our own individual needs. To hand off the responsibility to a bottling company (which just charges you for trucking water around and depletes local resources for profit) or expect one centralized municipality to perform pure miracles for us is naive and unreasonable.
The water we have contaminated can be effectively remediated at the point of use (POU) with a process system (a proven non-electric Reverse Osmosis,) like the Kinetico one. It provides for several locations like the sink and refrigerator dispenser. It does take some water to produce safe pure water (approx. 2.3/1) but because it does so non-electrically, never wears out because it cleans itself with good water repeatedly and is certified by NSF to actually work, it seems a very small consideration for what it being done; continued SAFE WATER. Not to mention the whole issue with everybody being exposed to plastic containers through Bottle water.
In comment on the point of entry (POE) filtration systems, such as Softeners, all ELECTRIC Ion exchange Softeners are especially more wasteful because they are planned obsolescent. Not only do they waste water (1000 gallons a month) and electricity because they cycle on time not volume, they ultimately end up in a landfill; they are not recycled or even useful past and average of three to five years. I used a softener for twelve years only to discover that it had never worked properly because they are all designed to clean themselves with the same raw water it is supposed to filter. It basically recontaminates itself every cycle. Many use a caustic chemical, such as bleach, to remediate this design flaw. Also many distributors of these products are by from one of three manufacturers, including Culligan. They don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t care about it working because they primarily make money on the systems failed designs in repairs.
The driving force of our water safety and concerns should be the elimination of the wasteful and dangerous practices that confront us all every day with regards to water and how it is collected, contaminated and distributed.
It is a lofty goal to change the behavior of so many and expect they will do so willingly. The plethora of misinformation, callous disregard for resource management as well as Junk available that is to aid us but really is in the name of profit prevails.
Perhaps it will be no surprise that a catastrophe (like New Orleans) has to happen before the alignment or a consensus drives reason for the masses to be motivated towards such reason.
Look into the situation and I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m sure you will discover and understand why and how municipal systems we rely on are in desperate infrastructure condition and that it will not be getting better. This simple fact is it is ultimately all our responsibility to do for ourselves and be sure we are filtering for ourselves. If a modestly expensive Reverse Osmosis system insures this for us that lasts indefinitely and can be repeatedly rebuilt to perform that task to ensure safe water; it is worth every penny and more.
Please consider distributing the results of your findings and benefit us all by encouraging less confusion than necessary.
New Comment
|
To receive tips, news and alerts by email. |
|
