| Author |
Topic |
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 09:44 AM
|
So what's the holy grail for water treatment? Something that's light weight, kills absolutely everything in the water, including viruses, bacteria and encysted spores, and doesn't leave an aftertaste.
I just got a Camelbak All Clear, which is a UV system like the Steripen, but doesn't have the risk of breaking the bulb. The unit is a module that screws onto the top of a standard Camelbak bottle (or a Nalgene, or a Rubbermaid, although they don't tell you that). It treats 750 mm in 60 seconds, and when you're done it goes back into a padded bag to protect it. Treats 60 litres of water per charge (or 80 bottles) so it should be good enough for at least a week of backpacking.
The only things it can't handle are chemicals, like agricultural runoff or heavy metals, or suspended particulate, like glacial flour. A coffee filter helps with the latter, but there's not much you can do about chemical contamination except try to hike as far from civilization as you can!
Yeah, I know this is a gear revue, and I'll post it there, too, but this gadget struck me as just too good to bury away on the back pages. |
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 3:35 PM
|
I'd argue that the holy grail would also remove particulate and funny tastes.
In a third-world country, I might prefer to kill everything and drink down whatever particulate, but in the Rockies, I prefer to physically remove everything, and not worry about nonexistent viruses. then again, when you're hiking in places where the water's great and treatment is largely just in case, often particulate isn't an issue anyways, it makes sense to just use a quick killer.
I've been under the impression that the UVs can't handle any water that isn't clear - whether a little muddy, or rock flour, or whatever. |
|
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
344 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 07:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
I've been under the impression that the UVs can't handle any water that isn't clear - whether a little muddy, or rock flour, or whatever.
No objective evidence that I can recall at the moment, but I have also heard this. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1609 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 08:07 AM
|
Looks interesting. You raise the point that it "doesn't have the risk of breaking the bulb"
Have you ever heard of a Steripen bulb breaking? Eventually, all UV bulbs will burn out like any lightbulb (I pack some treatment pills as a backup) but I've never heard of a catastrophic failure where the outside of the bulb breaks.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry Pirate
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
I've been under the impression that the UVs can't handle any water that isn't clear - whether a little muddy, or rock flour, or whatever.
No objective evidence that I can recall at the moment, but I have also heard this.
The UV method uses light to kill stuff. Imagine you have a small piece of dirt that is full of bacteria. The UV light will kill all the bacteria on the surface but it can't penetrate the dirt. I suppose there is also the potential for the light transmission to be reduced in water that is not clear. Imagine your water is full of harmless particles that make it very cloudy and your water also contains some bad bacteria. Unless that bad bacteria passes directly in front of the UV lamp, it may not get killed because the power of the light will be diminished.
One option is to use the handle/pump of the MiniWorks (but leave the normal cartridge at home) to pump your water through this light pre-filter before giving it the UV treatment:
http://cascadedesigns.com/msr/water-treatment-and-hydration/water-treatment-and-hydration-accessories/sweetwater-siltstopper/product |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:28 AM
|
I didn't buy the Steripen because the bulb was exposed. If you're relying on it for your drinking water, I'd want it to be more protected. I like that the Camelbak has it up in the lid. Because it's run by a microchip, the bulb is timed for 10,000 uses, then shuts down so there's no loss of effect.
As for viruses, there are many that I wouldn't want to deal with. 'Non-existent' doesn't make a lot of sense - there are viruses of all kinds everywhere we go. Like bacteria or spores, many are harmless; drinking them doesn't mean you'll necessarily catch anything, but why would you take the chance?
And if you're hiking at any elevation, you will want to know that high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) can occur when viral infections affecting the lungs increase the risk. So, yes, you could definitely put yourself in danger by not dealing with viruses.
The Hepatitis A virus can be as small as 22 to 24 nm, which makes it small enough to get through most of the filters that hikers use. I think MSR offers a extra pre-treatment option, but that adds iodine, which isn't safe for long-term use. Might as well just carry Micropur tabs instead.
As for the penetrating effect of the UV light, UV light doesn't work by nuking the germs. It disrupts their DNA so they can't reproduce. If it works on cryptosporidium (which is an encysted spore) I don't see why it wouldn't work on everything else. The process involves sloshing the water around during the cycle, which will even out the exposure, but if I had any doubt, I'd just run the cycle twice.
Granted, it is suggested that water be filtered to take the larger bits out out (Camelbak sells a prefilter for that purpose), and in the case of very fine sediments like glacial flour, a simple coffee filter takes care of that. And, if you have any experience, you'll do the same before pumping murky water through any kind of water filter.
No, nothing's perfect. The water that comes out of your tap undergoes something like 180 tests before it gets to you, but the equipment used obviously can't be carried by a hiker.
There seems to be a real Luddite theme on CT, or maybe it's just that nobody likes being told their equipment is old-fashioned, that they paid too much, or that there's something better out there. Instead of trying to find flaws, why not look for the advantages? Even good water filters are heavy, prone to plugging, get damaged if they freeze, and they don't work on viruses. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:22 PM
|
Different people have different levels of risk comfort.
True, viruses exist. I might well pick up a virus from my tent partner as we breathe near each other!
All viruses can go through water filters. Mechanical filters specifically say that they are no good for viruses.
Have you EVER heard of someone coming back from a Rocky Mountain backpacking trip having picked up Hep A? I don't worry about Ebola in the Rockies, I don't worry about Malaria, and I don't worry about Hepatitis.
I also don't hike at altitude in the Rockies. I'm certainly not worried about HAPE camping at 2000m. And as I've stated from the beginning, international travel (where I might run into high altitude) is an entirely different story.
"Like bacteria or spores, many are harmless; drinking them doesn't mean you'll necessarily catch anything, but why would you take the chance? "
With this kind of thinking, I'm surprised you're not worried about consuming DNA-disrupted critters.
Instead of 'why would you take the chance', I think from a basis of 'what is safe enough' and 'what works best for a given situation.
Pointing out the problems with filters is just as flaw-finding. It's not necessarily ludditism to find that a new product is not necessarily better.
If I were travelling to many other countries of the world where viruses are likely to be a problem, I would definitely not consider a filter to be sufficient water treatment. I would probably want to double up just to be sure, and either chlorine treat the water, then filter it, or filter it, then UV-treat. Quite possibly all three if I was in a place with really sketchy water. :) And that is because for me, I really like what the carbon and ceramic filters do to remove anything physical, as well as odours or tastes. I also don't add anything to my water (drink crystals or whatever), so I notice more when it is off. Or, in many places, a coffee filter and a UV pen might do the trick. But that's international travel, and a whole different reasoning than Rockies backpacking.
I do my hiking in the Rockies, where I value no bugs, and good taste. Since water-borne viruses are not known to be a problem, I find a filter to be the best for me. It makes complete sense to me that others may have different priorities, and find a steripen works better, or be unwilling to accept even that much weight (again, different priorities), and prefer chlorine treating. Heck, some people simply have a higher risk tolerance for water-borne pathogens, and not bother treating good sources at all.
There is no single 'right' answer to water treatment. Different people and different situations have different best solutions. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:23 PM
|
| Does the Camelbak tell you how many uses are left (since you mention that it shuts down automatically after 10,000)? |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 2:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
Does the Camelbak tell you how many uses are left (since you mention that it shuts down automatically after 10,000)?
Why would I want to know that? I just want it to shut down when it's no longer safe to use. For a cost of $112.00 the price per litre is low enough that I won't be too worried if it only lasts for 7,500 shots.
But I am curious about your retraction of this:
"... in the Rockies, I prefer to physically remove everything, and not worry about nonexistent viruses." Were you just speaking in haste or have you changed your mind? And by the way, your filter doesn't remove everything by any means, although it does a decent job on stuff you can see and taste.
And since you are, I assume, an intelligent person, you know that my example of hepatitis was used only to show that the size of a virus will fit through a filter. I hadn't realized you would need something more specific to the Rockies to understand that point - perhaps I should have -refaced it with "For example...". I had also thought you would be able to understand that for anyone who goes to the mountains, your vulnerability to HAPE can be increased by being exposed to viral infections, even for those who never go above 2,000 metres. Of course many people here actively look for higher elevations. They would want to know that, too.
Hiking is about risk management, and I don't understand why, given the choice, you wouldn't want to find better ways protecting yourself. One advantage of the All Clear (or similar systems) is that it lets those purists who insist on drinking water from a mountain stream do so without risk, and without changing the taste at all. And while you have to stop and rig up your pump then slowly squeeze water through your filter, I'll be on my way with a bottle or two of fresh water ready to drink.
|
|
|
Hope, BC
Canada
7100 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 3:34 PM
|
| Of all the hiking reports in here, I seen one that was rather scary, the story about Wildman and I think Nickl? When Nickl got really sick from drinking some water that was tainted, scary situation. Hey Wally/Wildman if you read this, post the URL to the thread. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 4:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
Why would I want to know that? I just want it to shut down when it's no longer safe to use. For a cost of $112.00 the price per litre is low enough that I won't be too worried if it only lasts for 7,500 shots.
Personally, I would want to know that so I know, when I have had it for a good while, and am setting out on a backpacking trip, whether or not it will last the trip. It sounds like it lasts a good long time regardless, but since it will eventually stop working, and I can't just put in another battery, I would like to know when that is. Or am I missing something?
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
But I am curious about your retraction of this:
"... in the Rockies, I prefer to physically remove everything, and not worry about nonexistent viruses." Were you just speaking in haste or have you changed your mind? And by the way, your filter doesn't remove everything by any means, although it does a decent job on stuff you can see and taste.
I was modifying. I used the word 'nonexistent' where I intended to say 'not a concern'. I had assumed context would have implied 'concerning water-borne viruses are nonexistent' not 'there are no viruses', but it's easy to see implications in one's own head...
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
And since you are, I assume, an intelligent person, you know that my example of hepatitis was used only to show that the size of a virus will fit through a filter. I hadn't realized you would need something more specific to the Rockies to understand that point - perhaps I should have -refaced it with "For example...". I had also thought you would be able to understand that for anyone who goes to the mountains, your vulnerability to HAPE can be increased by being exposed to viral infections, even for those who never go above 2,000 metres. Of course many people here actively look for higher elevations. They would want to know that, too.
For example, no, your hepatitis example came across to me as an example of something we want to worry about - not just a demonstration of particle size. Despite your facetiousness, reasonably intelligent people can easily not catch the detailed implications intended by another person but not explicitly typed.
What sort of viral infections are you concerned about picking up on a backpacking trip in the Rockies that are going to give you HAPE at Curator campground? I have not been aware of any viruses that are reasonably likely to exist in Rockies water and cause any problems, but if you do have a specific one, I'm always up for learning.
And again, as I have said from the beginning, I think there are different best solutions for travel in the Rockies or Coast Mountains (where no-one goes to concerning altitudes or, to my knowledge, concerning water-borne viruses exist) compared to international travel. The needs are different and if a person is looking for a solution to one of the problems, the best solution might not be the same as a person looking for the other.
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
Hiking is about risk management, and I don't understand why, given the choice, you wouldn't want to find better ways protecting yourself. One advantage of the All Clear (or similar systems) is that it lets those purists who insist on drinking water from a mountain stream do so without risk, and without changing the taste at all. And while you have to stop and rig up your pump then slowly squeeze water through your filter, I'll be on my way with a bottle or two of fresh water ready to drink.
When you hike, do you hike wearing a climbing helmet at all times? There is a choice - don't you want a better way to protect yourself? Or have you decided that on an easy hiking trail, it's not necessary to protect your head, since the risks of injury are very very low?
Same principle applies. For backpacking in the Rockies, the risk of picking up a problematic virus in the water is sufficiently low that it does not factor at all in my decision as to the best method of water treatment. Therefore, selling me on the virus protection is a completely irrelevant factoid - feature as it is for international travel.
Why do people who come to a different conclusion in priorities automatically have to be wrong to you? Why is it impossible to believe that different people may come up with different ideal answers for their own situation? There are many different areas where depending on which factors matter to different people, the 'best' solution might be different. Consider, say, fixed vs adjustable leg loops on harnesses.. |
|
|
1097 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 4:32 PM
|
Nope, UV purifiers like the Steripen will work in cloudy water but you have to complete 2-3 additional doses per litre. What it doesn't work well in is water with a lot of sediment because the sediment will block the UV. Come to think of it, neither do filters which will clog in due time in such conditions. The better filters will come with a prefilter anyway.
The US Army now issues Steripens for their Military. Proven. |
|
|
High River, (just south of Calgary eh!), Alberta
Canada
1705 Posts |
|
1097 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 7:21 PM
|
Hi Sodbuster.
I am like you and will use Pristine or Micropur tablets most of the time. However, I do have a Steripen and use that if I am trying to move fast given it takes 45 seconds to purify 1 litre.
However, like Rachelo, I have a filter (Katadyn Hiker) that I use if I am absolutely sure of high sediment or if my sources will be something like what is found in Southern Utah (i.e. red with clay). If I am not sure, then I take a bandana to filter out large particles and use the chems or Steripen.
I agree that there is no 'perfect' system and I try to plan ahead. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 11:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FamilyGuy
The US Army now issues Steripens for their Military. Proven.
That proves that it is considered a satisfactory solution. I don't think anyone has contested that. The Steripen is a very neat relatively new idea, and the Camelback version is a neat take on the idea. I can absolutely understand why people are a fan.
I just don't think that there is necessarily one 'best' water treatment plan so much as a best solution for a specific person's preferences for a specific situation.
Filters will work in sedimented water, just clog more quickly and need scraping out more often. A pain, but workable. A prefilter definitely makes sense for less-than-clear water no matter what your next step is. |
|
|
1097 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 2:32 PM
|
Yes, I agree - I mention that there is no perfect purifier.
With respect to maintenance on the filter, that is limited with certain filters like the Katadyn Hiker. You can back wash it but the filter will eventually clog until it cannot be used any longer. The MSR ceramic filters are better for maintenance but those filters with a wet cartridge are 20oz or so. Too heavy for this cat. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 08:22 AM
|
| I like the MSR miniworks for simplicity - the outside of the ceramic clogs up, you pull it out, scrape it off, put it back together and keep going. But it's definitely not a great solution if weight is one of your top concerns. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 12:02 PM
|
No, there is no perfect solution, but IMHO the All Clear comes pretty close. Was I exaggerating when I called it the holy grail? Sure. Pardon my enthusiasm. 
UV technology is very well proven. The largest pool in Edmonton uses it for treating the water instead of chlorine, because it simply works better than any other method. And your eyes don't get all red and sore when you go swimming.
But to answer Rachel's question about bulb life, let's say that if you use 7.5 litres of water per day and you hike for 100 days a year, you've used 1,000 cycles of the UV bulb in one year. If it lasts for 10,000 cycles, you're good for 10 years. On most day hikes, though, I'll only have to carry one bottle of city water (.75 litres) and purify one more. Using my 100 day year,I'm only going to use up 100 cycles, so the bulb will last for 100 years.
A bit of thought before posting would have answered that question. See why I'm not worried?
|
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 12:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
But to answer Rachel's question about bulb life, let's say that if you use 7.5 litres of water per day and you hike for 100 days a year, you've used 1,000 cycles of the UV bulb in one year. If it lasts for 10,000 cycles, you're good for 10 years. On most day hikes, though, I'll only have to carry one bottle of city water (.75 litres) and purify one more. Using my 100 day year,I'm only going to use up 100 cycles, so the bulb will last for 100 years.
I think the 'holy grail' would kill everything, and remove everything. But I think we're doing just fine without the holy grail too. :) Hm, it would be interesting to think about that. How would we define the 'holy grail' of other products? this might make a good thread..
I didn't hear anyone questioning the fact that UV works.
For an individual level, 10 000 uses certainly sounds like more than I'll do for a really long time. I was thinking about it from a group level though. I suppose the screw-on to a waterbottle isn't perhaps ideal for a large group, but it certainly could be used. So if you have a group of ten people out using it, it's going to last much less time. Or if, say, I picked one up for an Outward Bound program, and sent it out with a group every week, it's going to get a lot of use. Or if I worked in a third-world country, and wanted to use it to purify all the water I use every day, I'd significantly speed things up.
So yes, I see why you're not worried. But it's also not unreasonable that other people would use it for different purposes where they might hit the end before they die. I don't think a blinking countdown over ten years is needed, but it would be a nice additional feature if something could notify you when you're close to the end. |
|
|
High River, (just south of Calgary eh!), Alberta
Canada
1705 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 2:13 PM
|
Hey Peter, nice to have gear that you can take to the grave eh? 
My wife uses a UV thing in her fish tank and it is amazing how fast it turns murky stirred up water clear again. |
|
|
Edmonton, AB
Canada
218 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 8:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sodbuster
My wife uses a UV thing in her fish tank and it is amazing how fast it turns murky stirred up water clear again.
But does it remove the fish for you?  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Camelbak All Clear
