Link to comparison of water filtration systems.

Other than specified below
Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Link to comparison of water filtration systems.

Post by Mr. PC »

Here's a link to a filtration system comparison

http://www.waterfiltercomparisons.com/w ... n.php?d=gp

the first system, aquasana http://www.aquasana.com/category.php?category_id=2 seems to be the best choice. I'm not sure what a lot of those stats on the left are and it didn't seem to say anything about minerals. here's another system not on the list

http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-45-detail.htm


Is anyone able to tell what the best choice is? I'm hoping to get a whole house filter but might have to compromise with my family for only drinking water.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

That's a nice comparison chart. I do wonder what "removing cysts" entails, though.

Personally I hardly drink any water, so I'm not too concerned with filtering.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Link to comparison of water filtration systems.

Post by RRM »

Mr. PC wrote:Is anyone able to tell what the best choice is?
Not me.
I dont drink water either, but sure its better for your skin to bathe / shower in filtered water.
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Mr. PC »

I've been reading a TON about water filters, and am still not certain about it.

Carbon filters, the most common and what Brita uses, filter out most toxins/chlorine etc. and claim to leave minerals behind; but none say whether they partially filter minerals, which is what I'm looking for.

Reverse osmosis seems to be dangerously low, but still with some minerals. Since I'm not as strict as other people on this diet, a little bit of leaching I'd imagine wouldn't be harmful, although I really don't know if certain minerals in your body are more prone to leaching, which would really be the determining factor in this scenario.

You've said in some other threads RRM, that you're not certain whether mineral leaching would be harmful to someone not on the strict diet, because they have an unnaturally high mineral balance in their bodies; this would lean me toward reverse osmosis (although it's very wasteful) I wish there were a partial reverse osmosis filter.

Does anyone know how to test household water?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Mr. PC wrote:I...RRM, that you're not certain whether mineral leaching would be harmful to someone not on the strict diet, because they have an unnaturally high mineral balance in their bodies; this would lean me toward reverse osmosis (although it's very wasteful) I wish there were a partial reverse osmosis filter.
Not as much "unnaturally high mineral balance in their bodies", but rather 'unnaturally high mineral levels in their foods'. Of specific minerals, that is, whereas the levels of other minerals / trace elements are much lower. Thats why i would advice against very low levels through reversed osmosis (or even partial), because you need to be sure that you are not lacking a single one of them!
Does anyone know how to test household water?
Your water is basically the same as that of a whole bunch of other households in your city / town, so that you just need to get a hold of the testing results of samples of this water, which must be public. Im pretty sure you can find those results on the web.
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Mr. PC »

Haha, over a year since I posted this and I still have the same questions. I've encountered some filters that claim to remove "sediment", would that mean mineral reduction?

I don't think most filters want to advertise reducing minerals, because many people think the minerals are a good thing. I have noticed that using pitcher filter, that my kettle has less deposit over time. Does this mean there's less calcium/magnesium? Would it be a reasonable assumption that if the simple pitcher filter is removing the calcium/magnesium, that most under-the-sink filters will do it at least as well?

I was considering this http://www.rainfresh.ca/drinking_water_system_1.php

It claims to have a 0.3 micron carbon filter. I'm assuming that's the size it allows past; would this be small enough to filter out the minerals I don't want?

I wonder why there are no calcium / magnesium / fluoride / chlorine filters, for people not worried about bacteria etc.

Also, because I know someone will ask; I drink water just because I'm thirsty and I like to. Also I'd like the filter for my family who eat bad foods, and would benefit from having clean water to cleanse their systems a little.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Mr. PC wrote:Haha, over a year since I posted this and I still have the same questions. I've encountered some filters that claim to remove "sediment", would that mean mineral reduction?
Yes.
Does this mean there's less calcium/magnesium?
It might, or not.
I dont know the answers to your other questions.
Post Reply