Lost link to Katadyne info, and want to compare with Berkefield filter. Looked in Archives, and we don't have a Water Category... si I checked "Food", "Survivalist Issues" and "Misc." without luck.

Help!

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 12, 1999

Answers

I did a quick search on yahoo (www.yahoo.com) and hotbot (www.hotbot.com) using Katadyn for the search term. I found links leading to comparisons, performance specs, recommendations, etc. Of course, you'll have to sift through the spam to get to the nuggets :-)

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), March 12, 1999.

Thanks, Tim. I'm on it. Yahoooooo!

I'm also interested in evaluations/experiences of folks here with either of these filters or another, better, one.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 12, 1999.

Katadyn's a good filter, but does not filter out virii or chemicals unless you use the one model that has an optional charcoal element. The "First Need" filter is cheaper and better, will filter out virii, pesticides, chemicals, radionuclides, but the elements only last a few hundred gallons.

-- sparks (wireless@home.com), March 12, 1999.

John Koskinen is the best filter I've ever seen. All impurities and 'bad' things are rendered harmless.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), March 12, 1999.

Hi, Sara. The British Berkefeld is a metal filter and I believe the Katadyn is plastic. The Berkefeld filters 30 gallons a day and the Katadyn considerably less. Best of all, the filters for the Berkefeld last a very long time and cost only about half what the Katadyn filters cost. Go to the Water page on my website at http://www.y2ksurvive.com/water.html for more information. If you click on the link on the Water page, you will be taken to Safe-Water, a company that sells the Berkefeld and offers a fair amount of documentation about it.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), March 12, 1999.

PNG: Isn't that the truth!

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), March 12, 1999.

Different Katadyn models are plastic and metal. Katadyn COMBO and MSR Water Works are both charcoal and ceramic filters. .3microns is pretty small,and this is the nominal size on the ceramics I have checked. Any viri that are smaller I guess I'll just have to catch.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), March 13, 1999.

Read this comment on the G. North Discussion Forum (an excerpt):

"All Filters -- including Reverse Osmosis (RO) Membrane Filters -- act as a Trap and Breeding Ground for Bacteria & Viruses which, in the case of bacteria, can reproduce and double in quantity in as little as 20 minutes, eventually creating such a high concentration of bacteria/viruses that they force their way through the microscopic holes in the Filter or RO Membrane.

Thus, the user ends up with Highly Contaminated Water that is mistakenly believed to be Pure Water since it passed through the filter.

Despite advertisement and claims to the contrary, Katadyn, Pur and other types of filtration products ARE NOT Water Purification Devices -- they TREAT water, not PURIFY it.

By contrast, Steam Water Distillers are recognized by the U.S. Government as a Water Purification System, and the most effective way to produce Pure Sterile Water."

So is a steam water distiller preferable?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 13, 1999.

Couldn't you occaisionally pour some chorine (several times the concentration you'd use in drinking water) and some alcohol through a filter to kill the germs that might be growing there?

Got Everclear?

-- y2kbiker (y2kbiker@bellatlantic.net), March 13, 1999.

The March 1999 issue of Backpacker magazine has a comparision of 11 brands of portable water filtration production starting on page 195.

One of the best rated filters is made by General Ecology (www.general- ecology.com). Their products range in price from $75 to $466.

-- waterboy (waterboy@waterboy.com), March 13, 1999.

Advice I read in Tippery bulletin: pour water thru coffee filter, add regular clorox (not unscented) let stand overnight then put in Berkey Filter container. Sounded pretty thorough to me. What do you think?

-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), March 13, 1999.

I'm not sure I understand...are you saying that the use of chlorox added to the filtration handle the chemical threats?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 13, 1999.

Sara, Chlorine is not going to do squat for filtering out chemicals. Chlorine is only for killing stuff that might be living in the water.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 13, 1999.

Filters are used with great success by backpackers and third world relief workers. You can't filter out viruses, but chlorine or iodine will kill them. Chlorine won't kill cryptosporidium, and doesn't work well on giardia, but those are large and easily filtered. The combination gets it all unless you have bad chemical contamination-- in that case your only solution is find another source. Viruses could be a serious problem if sewage systems quit. Make sure you're up on your vaccinations. The info that came with my filter mentioned the "breeding ground" problem, but said the solution is to let the filter dry out between uses.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), March 14, 1999.

Assuming I wanted to purchase one--where would I find a steam water distiller? Also--is distilled water--available at stores, ok for long term storage. Water wizards unite! Comments please. :)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), March 14, 1999.

Yes, any links to the steam water distillers referred to?

Thanks, Shimrod, for passing along the solution of drying out the water filters between use; although that might become "if-y" should the equipment be pressed into daily use.

Maybe a two-step process is the answer? Filter AND steam distill.

I keep digging on this issue, because the answer doesn't seem to be quite there yet. And so much disease can be spread this way; it bears pushing through unbtil we get the best possible solution.

Any more experience and expertise out there on this topic?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 15, 1999.

Maybe take a higher road than filtering - it may not really be necessary to do the job you're after. Check out

http://www.accessone.com/~sbcn/solarwat.htm

http://www.redrok.com/water.htm

for some lower tech alternatives.

-- j (sandpine@juno.com), March 15, 1999.

Good subject. If it's been "beat to death" in the old threads I couldn't see where, but apologize if this is repetitive. Anyway, hardly anything is more important than water.

Seems to me that combining a solar still with some kind of carbon pre- or post-filtration (to remove VOCs and THMs), then you have taken care of all four water hazards:

(1) protozoan parasites (giardia, cryptosporidium)

(2) toxic bacteria

(3) viruses

(4) industrial chemicals and byproducts, heavy metals, trihalomethanes, pesticides.

The THMs (trihalomethanes) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) are certain chemicals (#4 category) which get carried over as a gas with the distilled water, since their boiling points are low. These are byproducts of the chlorine in public water system combining with plant and organic matter. Of course, only electric distillers come standard with the carbon filtration that filters them out. So how to do it with a solar still? I am still looking into what filters are best at removing the THMs and VOCs. The Everpure does, but it is an under-sink unit requiring water pressure.

#4 (of the water hazards above) is less immediately critical to me, than #1-3, in a survival situation. The concern with #4 is long-term toxicity. (Although, what if the public water supply becomes majorly chemically unsafe...?)

I do lean towards the solar still. You can build them, but it has to be efficient (create enough water) or it's not practical. One-two liters is just marginally enough water. Also, a still is hard to pick up and move somewhere. So you'll need anyway, as well, a reasonably portable filter you can always have with you at a moment's notice.

Filter technology seems weakest where viruses are concerned, just because nobody knows how small viruses can really get, and there are new ones mutating all the time. (Thinking on some kind of worst-case scenario.) However, the Katadyn is very successfully used throughout the world in very bad water. (I don't have much more to add on filter brands. A discussion (34 pages of scientific and personal observations, interestingly written, with brand comparisons but not the latest data - 1995) is at

There is another interesting, non-electric still I just happened upon at

called the "E-still". It has carbon filtration, and distills a respectable 24 oz. in half an hour. Disadvantage is it requires a source of energy such as a stove, making it much more fuel-intensive than acceptable. But it could be a good option to have for emergency. (The more options you have, the better.)

I hope this has been more useful than confusing. Researching it myself.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 15, 1999.

Errr, link-challenged today. Make those:

http://www.fc.net/~tdeagan/water/one.html (water purification discussion)

and

http://www.puresurvival.com (E-still)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 15, 1999.

Debbie, Both links are excellent. The E-still looks like what I imagine folks have referred to as a "steam distiller".

It seems that the one question I am still left with is, "whiach is the best, all-around" method?

If you were the panel of experts from Consumer Reports, evaluating all of the models and types, which would you select?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 17, 1999.

Sara, Three situations for needing a water filter are: (as I see it, caveat lector) (1) ELAWKI (Everyday Life as we know it),

Most of the good under-sink and countertop filters take care of all four water hazards (mentioned in my earlier posting) fairly well to varying degrees (not worth analyzing here), but they try to cover it all.

(2) Recreational backcountry camping and wilderness survival

Biggest concerns are bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. The 0.2 micron size of the best portable water filters such as the Katadyn and the First Need (0.1 micron), is superlative and will remove all but the tiniest viruses. There is not so much concern with chemical contamination in the backcountry.

(3) an urban survival situation with infrastructure failures, i.e., Y2k.

How is 3 different from 1 or 2? (a) there is far more concern with viruses, due to the threat of disease spreading in and from heavily populated areas because of possible sewage problems, famine and sickness, or Y2k being chosen as a time to unleash biological warfare; (hey, you didn't ask me to cheer you up, did you? ;-) (b) Only gross chemical contamination would be a big concern (and then it would be a huge concern, say, if municipal water supplies run amok) With the usual amount of chemical contamination in our typical tap water, this isn't such a concern since your priority is not to worry if you'll get cancer in the long term, you just want to survive the next x number of days, weeks, or months. But, you still want this filter, because when you need it, you need it badly.

So anyway. My choice for Y2k survival is these three together: (1) Use a pre-filter for coarse particles (microalgae, silt and cysts). Here's one that looks good: the Sweetwater Silt Stopper II (at www.campmor.com) (2) Then, use distillation that does not require electricity. I favor a solar still (NOT solar pasteurization). A solar still obviously isn't viable for Alaska, Oregon coast, etc. Also, have an E-still because it is portable and fast, whereas the solar still is neither. Do not have only an E-still; it uses too much fuel. (Yes, it's a steam distiller.) (3) Then, use the most excellent filter you can find for VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Why worry about chemical contamination, doesn't distilling make the purest water? Yes, before our industrial age, it did. It still does take care of heavy metals and many chemical contaminants. But some contaminants, the VOCs, are taken up by the steam as a gas and carried over into the distillate. (The reason is their boiling points are lower than water's.) Most electric distillers try to deal with this and are vented and have carbon post-filters, but the solar still does not. (The E-still does.) So which filter for this? I don't know yet!!! At the NSF web site (www.nsf.org) I look under Standard "No. 53", for chemical contaminants. NSF analyzes water treatment products by how well they live up to the claims they make. (Note they don't rate them by any absolute standards of effectiveness, just how well they do what they claim. So you have to look at what each one claims.) See their list of about 100 chemical contaminants in this category; some of these are the VOCs. NSF Standard 053 for reduction of chemical contaminants Every single one of the filters certified for NSF No. 53 is an under-sink plumbed-in or countertop unit (i.e. requires water pressure). I am now trying to figure out if any kind of hand pumping is possible with these, without compromising their effectiveness. And there may be other good filters out there, that didn't get evaluated by NSF. Very possibly some of the gravity fed ones would be perfectly good. Those are next to evaluate. Such as British Berkefeld, First Need (large model), others. * * Sara, I have only been studying this a few weeks, so I could go off on a brand new tangent with it tomorrow if I get some new information. Hope it's a good springboard for you. Any further ideas appreciated.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 18, 1999.

Bad formatting! Trying again....

Sara,

Three situations for needing a water filter are: (as I see it, caveat lector)

(1) ELAWKI (Everyday Life as we know it),

Most of the good under-sink and countertop filters take care of all four water hazards (mentioned in my earlier posting) fairly well to varying degrees (not worth analyzing here), but they try to cover it all.

(2) Recreational backcountry camping and wilderness survival

Biggest concerns are bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. The 0.2 micron size of the best portable water filters such as the Katadyn and the First Need (0.1 micron), is superlative and will remove all but the tiniest viruses. There is not so much concern with chemical contamination in the backcountry.

(3) an urban survival situation with infrastructure failures, i.e., Y2k.

How is 3 different from 1 or 2?

(a) there is far more concern with viruses, due to the threat of disease spreading in and from heavily populated areas because of possible sewage problems, famine and sickness, or Y2k being chosen as a time to unleash biological warfare; (hey, you didn't ask me to cheer you up, did you? ;-)
(b) Only gross chemical contamination would be a big concern (and then it would be a huge concern, say, if municipal water supplies run amok) With the usual amount of chemical contamination in our typical tap water, this isn't such a concern since your priority is not to worry if you'll get cancer in the long term, you just want to survive the next x number of days, weeks, or months. But, you still want this filter, because when you need it, you need it badly.

So anyway. My choice for Y2k survival is these three together:

(1) Use a pre-filter for coarse particles (microalgae, silt and cysts). Here's one that looks good: the Sweetwater Silt Stopper II (at www.campmor.com)

(2) Then, use distillation that does not require electricity. I favor a solar still (NOT solar pasteurization). A solar still obviously isn't viable for Alaska, Oregon coast, etc. Also, have an E-still because it is portable and fast, whereas the solar still is neither. Do not have only an E-still; it uses too much fuel. (Yes, it's a steam distiller.)

(3) Then, use the most excellent filter you can find for VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Why worry about chemical contamination, doesn't distilling make the purest water? Yes, before our industrial age, it did. It still does take care of heavy metals and many chemical contaminants. But some contaminants, the VOCs, are taken up by the steam as a gas and carried over into the distillate. (The reason is their boiling points are lower than water's.) Most electric distillers try to deal with this and are vented and have carbon post-filters, but the solar still does not. (The E-still does.)

So which filter for this? I don't know yet!!! At the NSF web site (www.nsf.org) I look under Standard "No. 53", for chemical contaminants. NSF analyzes water treatment products by how well they live up to the claims they make. (Note they don't rate them by any absolute standards of effectiveness, just how well they do what they claim. So you have to look at what each one claims.) See their list of about 100 chemical contaminants in this category; some of these are the VOCs.

NSF Standard 053 for reduction of chemical contaminants

Every single one of the filters certified for NSF No. 53 is an under-sink plumbed-in or countertop unit (i.e. requires water pressure). I am now trying to figure out if any kind of hand pumping is possible with these, without compromising their effectiveness. And there may be other good filters out there, that didn't get evaluated by NSF. Very possibly some of the gravity fed ones would be perfectly good. Those are next to evaluate. Such as British Berkefeld, First Need (large model), others.

* *

Sara, I have only been studying this a few weeks, so I could go off on a brand new tangent with it tomorrow if I get some new information. Hope it's a good springboard for you.

Any further ideas appreciated.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 18, 1999.

---

Debbie,

My thanks for your excellent research and reporting. I am sure others, like me, have benefitted from it. We'll eagerly await the next stage of your research as you have such an exceptional grasp of this.

Now, if you want to ask me how to make rice and beans sexy, or how to raise Y2K awareness in a community, I can tell you, but chemical filters and steam processing....duh?!

Thanks again.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@ptd.net), March 19, 1999.

---

What about Multi-Pur? Is it good?

-- Decisions? (tobuy@water.filter), March 19, 1999.

---

Multi-Pure has under-sink, and counter-top models, reverse osmosis filters, all with carbon block filter. They are excellent and highly thought of (despite being MLM) but IMO not so good for Y2k just because they require electricity and/or water pressure.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 19, 1999.

---

Is there somewhere that I can buy "activated charcoal" in bulk to make my own filters. Can I make charcoal that will function properly? Do university or industrial chemical labs use this stuff in bulk? Do water treatment plants buy this stuff in bulk?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 19, 1999.

---

Kicked to top, useful for newbies.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 24, 1999.

---

Try http://www.epicwater.com for gravity feed carbon water filters. They are non-electric and filter 2,500 gallons per filter. They filter all the bad bugs out, so you can drink questionable water. Chemical analysis, etc. is given on the website.

-- Arlia Dorough (arlia@worldnet.att.net), May 29, 1999.

---

If you like the data on the Berky"s, you'll LOVE the price on the replacement candles from:

http://www.pwgazette.com/gravity.htm

they have the royal Doulton filter candles that replace th ecandles in the Berky, but for way less than the $40+ that even Cheaper than Dirt sells replacements for. read the website!!

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 29, 1999.

---

.

-- - (-@-.-), May 30, 1999.

to the top again. Glad I found this!

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 02, 1999.

I would like to vouch for the British Berkefeld. After I moved into my rural home in April, I had both my tap water and filtered water tested. The filter nicely removes a technically unsafe level of Coliform that my well pumped mountain water contains. In addition, the filtered water has a soft, sparkling taste, whereas my tap water has a definite hard, "iron" type flavor.

I'd also like to thank code varian, who -- in this very thread (its an oldie as you can see by the dates) -- recommended the British Berkefeld

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 02, 1999.

Ooops, I meant cody varian, sorry!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 02, 1999.

Another idea to add to the confusion I started above :-)

If you already have an under-sink plumbed-in water filter, you may not want to buy a separate gravity water filter for use in absence of water pressure. We purchased a $75 device which goes by the name of the Emergency Water Provider that lets you use the plumbed-in type filters--it has standard fittings, you hook them together with a (manual only) bicycle pump, to provide the pressure.

http://www.pr ovidenceco-op.com/furman/furman1.htm

Many popular under-sink filters are NSF rated for filtering out organochlorines (VOCs, trihalomethanes), whereas camping filters are not. (This is good, but maybe not a big consideration for emergency water.) Also, check the capacity of your under-sink filter. Our Everpure goes about 1,000 gallons. This is not a lot compared to the Berkey. (I'm astounded at the Berkey's capacity BTW). It all depends on what you need.

We have:

50,000-gallon swimming pool
Emergency Water Provider (EWP) (w/ Everpure undersink filters which we already use)
E-still (non-electrical distiller); Zip-stove to provide heat (does not waste fuel)
Polar Pure iodine drops
2 small camping filters
clorox and chlorine tablets, more to be acquired
Ten 5-gallon containers for interim water storage after purifying

Also I may get the Doulton filter-only candle unit which Chuck, night driver recommended (which go in the Berkeys), wish I'd heard of this earlier!

It is good IMO to have a lot of water options, because no one water treatment method covers it all. It may all seem like overkill, but it (water preparation) is the single best thing I've done as part of "Y2k" preps. We are in Los Angeles. - semi-desert, earthquake country, had to rebuild our house which cracked right down the middle in the Northridge quake and even after that never had water preps, if you can believe that. The quake did take out the water for two weeks, and we had to go stand in lines for trucked-in water since we had no way to purify the pool. I am not expecting water problems for Y2k. Maybe that is because I was crazed enough to prepare and can now afford to relax and feel moderate and skeptical. :-) - staying in semi-desert L.A. and proud of it, but not taking water for granted.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 02, 1999.

My DWGI relations in So Cal say in the event of an earthquake they can always use water from their pools. {Not realizing they live in their cars most of the time!} In SF, after the earthquake which stopped the world series, people quickly found that 'their pool water' can be pumped out by the fire dept. Has happened with pond water around these parts, too. Think 'fallback', folks.

-- flora (***@__._), June 02, 1999.

The water filter you should look at is Big Berkey.

What the Big Berkey filter will remove:

1. Absolute filtration efficiency to 0.5 microns. 2. For particles from 0.2 to 0.5 microns, filtration efficiency is greater than 98%. 3. Reduces turbidity (cloudiness) by an efficiency greater than 99.7%. 4. Independently tested to remove the following parasites and pathogenic bacteria:

E. Coli >99.99%

Klebsiella >99.99%

Cholera >99.99%

Shigella >99.99%

Salmonella >99.99%

Guinea Worm 100%

Giardia Lambia 100%

Cryptosporidium 100%

For more information go to this website:

http://www.safe-water.com/ap/a273sw/index.html

-- Jake (jbc@sixteenstreetsouth.com), July 13, 1999.