There’s been a lot of talk lately about alkaline water and in particular an expensive Japanese machine that makes your water – and supposedly your body – alkaline.

Here’s the premise – some natural health practitioners suggest that maintaining an alkaline body is the key to good health. Some go even farther, suggesting that cancer cannot survive in an alkaline body.

As with everything opinion on this topic varies but from what I am able to discern there is validity to the fact that pH is an important element of good health. And I would suggest to you that the pH of your water is an important factor in your health regimen.

It is my opinion that it is a mistake to seek high pH in your water. From my perspective you want water that is moderately alkaline and in the range of 7.4 to 7.6 ideally. One key to good health is to drink plenty of ‘filtered’ water and water with a pH in this range will do you good and certainly do you no harm.

Most municipal water will already be slightly alkaline and there’s little need to modify it. As anyone reading this will know I highly recommend reviewing the contents of your water, its characteristics and contaminants, before determining what type of water treatment will best serve you.

If you’d like to make your body more alkaline then I suggest you focus on your diet. Here’s a list of alkaline and acidic foods:

http://www.essense-of-life.com/info/foodchart.htm

If you’d like to learn more about the affect of pH on health you can search Amazon for ‘pH’.

And of course if you’d like to learn more about how to make your water healthy, I suggest you call me.

A study released by the Associated Press on Monday showed test results indicating the presence of drugs in drinking water of some 41 million Americans. Since then consumers around the country have been scrambling to learn what they can do to remove these contaminants. Many people are purchasing water treatment equipment in an attempt to find peace of mind. Often they will purchase the wrong equipment.

There are problems with making a quick decision about what to buy and Ecologist James P McMahon, owner of Sweetwater, LLC points these out.

The probe on http://www.cleanairpurewater.com (drugs in drinking water) recommended reverse osmosis as the treatment method that proved most effective in removing pharmaceuticals from water. What the study failed to mention are the downfalls of reverse osmosis.

Reverse osmosis refers to a multi-stage system in which one stage consists of a film membrane. Water is forced through the membrane leaving contaminants behind. This removes not only contaminants but also naturally occurring minerals. Numerous studies funded by the World Health Organization show that people who drink water with minerals suffer lower rates of disease than people who do not.

Another issue with reverse osmosis is that because water is the universal solvent removing minerals will lower the pH of that water. Consumers will therefore be drinking acidic water, which some health practitioners would suggest is unhealthy. McMahon recommends drinking water that is pH neutral or only slightly alkaline. Most city water is already alkaline.

Finally, reverse osmosis systems have been known to grow bacteria colonies or mold in the storage tank. If a consumer chooses to use a reverse osmosis system they also must be sure to clean the system annually or they may create new problems with their water.

Each of these objections to http://www.cleanairpurewater.com/water_equipment.html (reverse osmosis) can be overcome by purchasing a system that addresses them.

The way an individual can make certain that they are purchasing the correct http://www.cleanairpurewater.com (water purification system) is to start by looking at a copy of their city’s water report. Consumers may call the city and request a copy and can often find the report online with a simple search for ‘city, state water quality report’. Because pharmaceuticals and other complex chemicals are not regulated they will not be listed in this report. What they will find in the text of the report is the specific water source – be it a lake, river, or well. If the source is surface water such as a lake or river, then just look upstream. If there are cities upstream of their water source then these types of contaminants will be present. The larger the upstream population, the larger the problem.

After determining the source of water, a consumer may then look at the table of contaminants in the water report. The specific contaminants will determine the type of http://www.cleanairpurewater.com (home water purification system) that is appropriate.

McMahon recommends that consumers buy the system that removes the contaminants in their water. “In many cases a multi-stage filter system is superior to reverse osmosis”, says McMahon. Whether or not carbon filters remove pharmaceuticals is unknown.

McMahon describes a five step process for determining the appropriate water purification system in Sweetwater’s http://www.sweetwaterllc.com (Ultimate Guide to Selecting the Perfect Water Treatment System), available for free for a limited time.

According to McMahon, “Regardless of the presence of unregulated drugs in drinking water, http://www.cleanairpurewater.com (chlorinated tap water) has been linked by numerous studies to a variety of cancers and other health issues.”

“The problem of municipal tap water is one of both language and perception,” adds McMahon.

Water utility managers maintain that the water they deliver to consumers is safe and meets all EPA standards. The fact remains that drinking chlorinated water is not safe even if it does meet EPA standards. These standards are a political compromise and only tangentially based upon health.

McMahon’s perspective is that people expectation that government agencies deliver water that is healthy is unrealistic.

“The world has grown very complex and the fact is that there is much we do not know,” says McMahon. “Let’s expect government to deliver disease free water and then also expect to treat it ourselves if we’d like to make it healthy.”

There are thousands of man made chemicals all of which are potentially in drinking water. Additional studies of unregulated contaminants are necessary and perhaps most importantly is the need to identify which treatment processes, including carbon, reverse osmosis, and ozone will remove them.

McMahon advises that “Rather than rushing out and buying a water purification system that may bring peace of mind without providing actual protection, consumers should take the time to consider where they live and which water purification system will provide the healthiest water.”


***

Ecologist James P McMahon works from his home in Brookside, Utah. He provides home water purification systems to families seeking to enjoy healthy water.


You may view the AP study here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i;_ylt=ArfsrHNhpmbZ3qmZJH2nCsCs0NUE

This article discusses treatment methods that address pharmaceuticals:

http://www.wcponline.com/column.cfm?T=T&ID=2199

More testing for drugs in water sought

By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer
Sun Mar 16, 3:38 PM ET


Test it, study it, figure out how to clean it — but still drink it. That's the range of reactions raining down from community leaders, utilities, environmental groups and policy makers in reaction to an Associated Press investigation that documented the presence of pharmaceuticals in major portions of the nation's drinking water supplies.
"There is no wisdom in avoidance. There is wisdom in addressing this problem. I'm not suggesting that people be hysterical and overreact. There's a responsible way to deal with this — and collectively we can do it," said Washington-based environmental lawyer George Mannina.
A five-month-long inquiry by the AP National Investigative Team found that many communities do not test for the presence of drugs in drinking water, and those that do often fail to tell customers that they have found trace amounts of medications, including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones. The stories also detailed the growing concerns among scientists that such pollution is adversely affecting wildlife and may be threatening human health.
As a result, Senate hearings have been scheduled, and there have been calls for federal solutions. But officials in many cities say they aren't going to wait for guidance from Washington to begin testing.
Pharmaceutical industry officials said they would launch a new initiative Monday with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service focused on telling Americans how to safely dispose of unused medicines.
The subject of pharmaceuticals in drinking water also will be discussed this week when 7,000 scientists and regulators from 45 countries gather in Seattle for the annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology. "The public has a right to know the answers to these questions," said Dr. George Corcoran, the organization's president.
"The AP story has really put the spotlight on it, and it is going to lead to a pickup in the pace," he said. "People are going to start putting money into studying this now, instead of a few years from now, and we'll get the answers sooner than we would have otherwise."
Environmental leaders said some answers are easy.
"It's basic. We need to test, tell and protect health," said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Washington-based Environmental Working Group.
Wiles said the Environmental Protection Agency needs to widely expand the list of contaminants that utilities are required to test for. That list currently contains no pharmaceuticals. He also said government agencies and water providers that don't disclose test results "are taking away people's right to know, hiding the fact that there are contaminants in the water. We don't think they have that right. It's hubris, it's arrogance and it's self-serving," said Wiles.
As part of its effort, the AP surveyed 62 metropolitan areas and 52 smaller cities, reporting on positive test results in 24 major cities, serving 41 million Americans. Since release of the AP investigation, other communities and researchers have been disclosing previously unreleased local results, positive or negative.
In Yuma, Ariz., for example, city spokesman Dave Nash said four pharmaceuticals — an antibiotic, an anti-convulsant, an anti-bacterial and caffeine — have been detected in that city's drinking water. In Denver, where the AP had reported undisclosed antibiotics had been detected, a Colorado State University professor involved in water screening there e-mailed the names of 12 specific drugs that had been detected.
Officials at many utilities said that without federal regulations, they didn't see a need to screen their water for trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. But others have now decided to test, including Scottsdale and Phoenix in Arizona, Palm Beach County in Florida, Chicago and Springfield, Ill., Bozeman, Mont., Fargo, N.D.; Danville, Va.; and a group of four sewer partners in the Olympia, Wash., region.
"We read the AP story and made a determination that we should test our water and be transparent, just let the people know what we find. I'm confident we have safe and clean drinking water," said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
Officials in Freeport, Ill., one of the smaller cities surveyed, said they plan to work with the state EPA to test the area's drinking water for pharmaceuticals. Mayor George Gaulrapp said he is looking to the state agency for standards, regulations and testing procedures for that city's water, which comes from a deep well.
In some places, residents learned that the rivers and lakes that feed their drinking water treatment plants have already been tested, or that tests are under way.
In Marin County, California, officials said repeated tests in their watershed for pharmaceuticals have come back clean. In Massachusetts, the state Department of Environmental Protection announced a program to screen rivers, streams and reservoirs for pharmaceuticals.
Dozens of newspaper editorials called for testing in communities where water is not being screened and the release of any test results.
"The first, and least expensive, step is to let the sunshine in: Water utilities that currently test for pharmaceuticals should make that information freely available to their customers, along with more information on the potential impacts of drugs in the water supply," read an editorial in the Daytona Beach News-Journal.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has filed an open records request for a copy of a study conducted on the city's water after the mayor refused to give the AP and the newspaper the name of a pharmaceutical detected in the drinking water. City officials say publishing that information could jeopardize public safety, citing post-Sept. 11 security concerns. A Texas attorney general's opinion is being sought on possible release of the information.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urged readers to take responsibility as well.
"It's a problem in which the average person has both a stake and a role in the solution," read a Journal Sentinel editorial. "He or she can do something as simple as not flushing unused medications down the toilet or into the drain."
And the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette observed that "given the national scope of the problem, a strong leadership role for the federal government suggests itself in areas such as testing and upgrading water treatment plants. So it is discouraging to note that the Bush administration in its 2009 budget proposal cut $10 million from the water monitoring and research program."
While the local responses are encouraging, Lisa Rainwater, policy director of Riverkeeper, a New York-based environmental group, said the EPA should step aside and let the National Academy of Sciences or the General Accounting Office study the impacts on humans and wildlife.
"Frankly, the EPA has failed the American public for doing far too little for far too long," she said.
At least one local water official is putting part of his faith in another quarter. Wayne Livingston of the Oxford Water Works in Alabama said he has confidence in the existing treatment system. But he said his agency probably will test for pharmaceuticals now, although he doubts anything will turn up because the water is pumped from underground.
"The good Lord filters it," he said. "But this is something we should keep an eye on."
___
National writer Jeff Donn in Boston and writers Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles and Gene Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org

AP probe finds drugs in drinking water

By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writers
March 10, 2008


A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.

In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas — from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.
Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.

How do the drugs get into the water?

People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation's 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.

Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:

_Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.

_Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.

_Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.

_A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.

_The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

_Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.

The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.

The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.

Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water — Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.

The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.

City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" — regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.

In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the sex hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.

Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.

The AP also contacted 52 small water providers — one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas — that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.

Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.

The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City's upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.

He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. "Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail," Aufdenkampe said.

Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.

Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe — even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.
For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.

In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs — and flushing them unmetabolized or unused — in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

"People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.
Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.

One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.

Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.

Human waste isn't the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.

Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.

Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity — sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.

Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby — director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. — said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."

Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.

Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life — such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.

"It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?" EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. "It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven't gotten far enough along."

With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.

"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health," said Snyder. "They need to just accept that these things are everywhere — every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental."

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater. "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."

While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it's being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.

So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.

There's growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs — or combinations of drugs — may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.

Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.

Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.
For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants — pesticides, lead, PCBs — which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.
However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.

"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.

And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That's why — aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies — pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.

"We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.
-----
To learn more about what you can do to protect your family visit Sweetwater LLC at http://www.cleanairpurewater.com

"water purification", "water purification systems", "home water purification", "home water purification systems"

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your interest. I am very interested in clean water. Recently I had an occasion to go into a "Water Store". They sell RO water etc.
I also buy bottled water for the office. Anyway, I was introduced to the concept of TDS (total dissolved solids). I purchased an inexpensive meter and was testing the water that I drink. How relevant is the TDS measurement when talking about water quality? As an example water out of the tap in
our office reads well over 500 ppm, and the bottled drinking water
reads about 30 ppm. That's a big difference. My question is so what?

Regards,

Steven Gillis

Steve,

Great question. TDS is the measure of solids (such as calcium, magnesium, and sulfates) which are dissolved in your water. In theory, the lower the TDS the more readily the water can be absorbed into your cells, thus hydrating you. But a lack of tds also makes water acidic. Because water is the universal solvent it naturally carries minerals.

So, once again, I try to strike a balance. I personally recommend a water with a tds of 175 to 200. This will mimic the water of a running stream. My theory is that humans evolved drinking water with minerals. Over 80 studies paid for by the World Health Organization support the notion that people who drink water containing minerals have lower rates of disease than those who drink water without minerals.

That's why I recommend treatment with a water filter that does not remove minerals. I hope that sheds some light on the matter.

Jim

If I have hard water, how harmful to my health is that? Do I need a water softner? What are the benefits?

The answer depends on how hard your water is. Numerous studies funded by the World Health Organization demonstrate that people who drink hard water (water with natural levels of minerals) have lower rates of some diseases than people who drink water with the minerals removed.

Everything in moderation - high levels of calcium in water can contribute to kidney stones.

So...hard water is good...generally.

Water softeners were introduced to ease maintenance by eliminating scale build up on fixtures, glass, and dishes and from within your pipes and hot water heaters. If you can get by without a softener that's what I recommend. But with water above about 15 grains it's pretty difficult to get by without a softener.

Water treatment is often about trade-offs. To learn more, visit http://www.cleanairpurewater.com

Jim

Jim,

What is going on???? Check this out
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1177&category=Environment

Are you beefing up your water treatment system???

-John

Thanks for asking, John. What I am doing is watching all of these developments and making specific recommendations to customers based on where they live and their particular water source. Most people have no idea how vulnerable they really are. Or how toxic small amounts of contaminants can be.

As for hormones and other pharmaceuticals in water, the research is still very preliminary. It appears that ozone is an effective treatment. That suggests to me that oxidation in general may work though clearly chlorine treatment by cities is not addressing these contaminants at all.

So...I watch and observe and will keep anyone on my list fully informed as these events continue to unfold.

We've screwed up and now we're going to pay the price.

Jim

No. It’s not spam. It’s me bringing you the latest water tidbits.

This is a big week for Colorado but the news pertains to all of
you so I thought I’d drop a note to my exclusive list.

First, in Boulder repeated experiments with male white suckers
have demonstrated that a male fish placed downstream of the
city’s wastewater plant will turn to females in a week.

So, if you were hoping for a daughter...

This demonstrates clearly the impacts of very low levels of
contaminants, in this case prescription hormones given to women
entering water through urine. Changes happened at levels as low
as 1 part per trillion. Tiny.

If you’re downstream of any American city this stuff is in your
water too.

And in Rocky Mountain National Park scientists have found high
levels of mercury in some of the high mountain lakes. This
demonstrates mercury’s ability to disperse by wind from as far
away as Nevada or even China. Interestingly, mercury can also
revaporize on a hot day and move again from one place to another.

So, next time you relocate you’ll need to study the tradewinds in
order to pick a healthy place to live.

Nobody has yet determined why 2,000 mallards were found dead
on a remote stream in Idaho or why hundreds of crawdads were
found dead in the stream in my yard.

If I find out, I’ll let you know. I’ve started a new blog and would
like some of you to generate questions that I can answer so that
anyone visiting my website can learn all about water and healthy
living.

You can find these articles and the blog in my resource library:

www.cleanairpurewater.com/resource_library.html

Here’s hoping you’re well and happy.

best wishes,


Jim