Big Berkey Water Filters

Atrazine, one of the most widely used weed-killers in the United States and more than 60 other nations, causes reproductive problems in a variety of animal species including amphibians, fish, reptiles and mammals, according to new study in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Animals and people far from the fields should be concerned about this scientific review because atrazine is commonly found in groundwater, rivers and lakes, and rain.

Atrazine Causes a Wide Variety of Problems in Many Species

A team of 22 researchers from around the world set out to figure out exactly how much we should worry. Their paper describes how the chemical disrupts the normal reproductive development and functioning of males and females. Among their findings, “atrazine exposure can change the expression of genes involved in hormone signaling, interfere with metamorphosis, inhibit key enzymes that control estrogen and androgen production, skew the sex ratio of wild and laboratory animals (toward female).”

“The most robust findings are in amphibiansâ€�, said University of Illinois comparative biosciences professor Val Beasley, a co-author of the review. “At least 10 studies found that exposure to atrazine feminizes male frogs, sometimes to the point of sex reversal,â€� he said.

Atrazine Contaminates Drinking Water in U.S. Farming Regions

A full 75 million pounds of atrazine is applied to corn and other U.S. crops annually. In 2010, the Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report on atrazine contamination of drinking water sources in the Midwest and Gulf states and found:

1. Approximately 75 percent of stream water and about 40 percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas tested in an extensive U.S. Geological Survey study contained atrazine.
2. Atrazine was found in 80 percent of drinking water samples taken in 153 public water systems.
3. All 20 watersheds NRDC looked at showed detectable levels of atrazine, and 16 had average concentrations above 1 part per billion (ppb)—the level that has been shown to harm plants and wildlife.
4. Eighteen of those watersheds were intermittently severely contaminated with at least one sample above 20 parts per billion (ppb). Nine had a peak concentration above 50 ppb, and three watersheds had peak maximum concentrations exceeding 100 ppb.

Protecting People and Drinking Water from Atrazine Contamination

NRDC called for a complete phase-out of atrazine use, for farmers to reduce atrazine application without waiting for new regulations or a ban in the U.S. They also called for the Environmental Protection Agency step up monitoring in likely contaminated areas, and for people in contaminated regions, especially farming communities, to install and use a home water filter system. The new scientific review supports these recommendations and at least one of the authors echoes the call for a ban on atrazine.

“I hope this will stimulate policymakers to look at the totality of the data and ask very broad questions,” Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley and lead author of the review, told Science Daily. “Do we want this stuff in our environment? Do we want — knowing what we know — our children to drink this stuff? I would think the answer would be no.”

Atrazine Water Filter

The good news for Berkey customers is that atrazine is one of the compounds that the black berkey filters remove to below a detectable level. You can find out more about what the berkey water filters remove here.

A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council documents progress around the United States in protecting some of the nation’s most polluted rivers and lakes by installing green infrastructure in urban environments. Instead of directing rainwater off streets and rooftops into sewers and storm drains, and ultimately area waterways, green infrastructure captures rainwater where it falls for irrigation and other uses.

Green Infrastructure Prevents Water Pollution

This is good news, especially in cities with what’s known as combined sewerage overflow systems. In cities such as Syracuse, NY, and Washington, DC, storm drains direct rainwater into the same pipes that carry household sewage to treatment plants. During major rainfalls, the system overflows, raw sewage and all, directly into local rivers.

Green Infrastructure Relieves Overburdened Sewer Systems

Green infrastructure prevents overflows with landscaping enhancements such as replacing concrete and blacktop with semi-pervious surfaces to allow rainwater to reach the ground below sidewalks and driveways. It means rooftop gardens and green roofs which capture rainwater and grow plants, which also help clean the urban air and capture climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. And, it means repurposing rainwater for other uses like landscaping irrigation, rainwater collection systems, and in Syracuse, hockey rink ice.

Green Infrastructure Example: Syracuse NY

NRDC’s report Rooftops to Rivers II documents green infrastructure practices in a dozen U.S. cities. The video below describes just one city’s experience.

Anyone Can Install Green Infrastructure

While major projects such as those described by Syracuse NY and Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney in the video above are quite large in scale, just about anyone can implement green infrastructure enhancements on their property.

• A Rainwater collection system is readily available for purchase at home and garden stores or on online. Rain barrels enable homeowners to disconnect one or more of their roof downspouts from the storm water system and use that water for plants and landscaping during dry periods. It can also been used for drinking water as long as you purify the water with a system like a berkey water filter.

• Even without the barrel, homeowners can plant rain gardens and use rooftop runoff to enhance their yards. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has published a downloadable manual on rain gardens for homeowners.

• Though requiring professional installation, green roofs are becoming more popular on individual houses.

• And when renovating driveways and sidewalks there are more and more alternatives to traditional impermeable concrete and asphalt. Innovations such as interlocking concrete tiles provide the ease of traditional driveways while allowing the rainwater through.

For more information on green infrastructure and how individuals might install it, check out NRDC’s report or the Environmental Protection Agency’s website.

Many of us have seen the movie ‘Erin Brockovich’ with Julia Roberts, depicting the story of the residents of Hinkley village in California who won $333 million settlement from Pacific and Electric Co. in 1966. The company contaminated their tap water with chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium), which resulted in numerous cases of cancer.

High concentration of chromium in water was also recorded in Cameron (Missouri). The residents believed it was caused by contaminated fertilizer that was distributed to farmers for free. The contamination caused several cases of brain tumors in the town and the lawsuit is still on.

Recent drinking water tests have shown that the problem of contaminated drinking water with chromium 6 is much more widespread. Laboratory tests carried out in 2009 have revealed the presence of chromium-6 in tap water in 31 out of 35 cities in the United States. The highest levels were recorded in Norman (Oklahoma), Honolulu (Hawaii) and Riverside (California).

Chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium) is a highly toxic form of metal chromium that occurs naturally on the earth. Pulp and steel mills, leather-tanning facilities and metal-plating factories can pollute water with hexavalent chromium. Cooling towers disposed before 1990 can also contain the contaminant. Chromium 6 can also get into water through erosion of rock and soil. Chlorine, a commonly used solution for disinfecting tap water, can convert safe trivalent chromium into the harmful hexavalent form.

Experiments carried out on animal models have shown that exposure to chromium 6 in drinking water may lead to anemia, damage to liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract and lymph nodes and teeth damage. It also increases significantly risks of gastrointestinal cancer. Present in high amounts, chromium 6 can cause birth defects, respiratory problems and infertility.

Children and babies are particularly vulnerable as they are more sensitive to carcinogenic substances. People with less acidic stomach have difficulties transforming hexavalent chromium-6 into chromium-3 (nutrient form of chromium) and are therefore more exposed to the risk of cancer. Those suffering from mucolipidosis type IV, pancreatic tumors and some autoimmune diseases are also in the higher risk group.

Despite the mounting evidence of chromium presence in drinking water resources and its harmful effects on human health, the problem has not been fully recognized by the state and federal regulatory bodies. Presently, California is the only state that requires water facilities testing for hexavalent chromium. The state officials set a target for chromium 6 at 0.02 part per billion (ppb) in order to prevent residents from the risk of cancer.

In response to the growing public concern, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a regulatory limit for total chromium to 100 ppb as a precautionary measure of protection against skin reactions or irritation (‘allergic dermatitis’). The total chromium includes both the essential for human health trivalent chromium (it regulates metabolism, insulin and blood sugar level) and the carcinogenic chromium 6. It is worth to mentioning that in the tested wells, the majority of the total chromium was in the hexavalent form not the beneficial trivalent chromium.

According to some environmental watchdog organizations, the limit set by the EPA is too high and does not protect communities from exposure to chromium in their drinking water and against the risk of cancer. Recently, the US National Cancer Institute estimated that 41% of Americans will be diagnosed with a tumor during their lifetimes and 21% of them will die of cancer. In 2009 alone, about 1.5 million people were diagnosed. In face of such statistics, California health officials do not seem to be overprotective with their efforts to minimize the residents’ exposure to carcinogenic agents.

To check if chromium has been recorded in your water tap you can contact your local water utility. If your water contains high level of chromium the best way to protect you and your family is to install a water filter tested to remove the contaminant. Berkey Water Filters are a high quality water filter system tested to remove total chromium from tap water at the 95% level.  You can have peace of mind with the berkey water filter knowing that it is not only removing chromium 6 from your water, but many other contaminants including fluoride.

A couple months ago a product advertising itself as the “Alternative” to Berkey began advertising. They directly compared their product to the berkey water filter products and made many claims that piqued our interest. It also resulted in some existing and potential customers asking for our opinion and feedback on this new “Alternative” gravity water filter system. Today, the manufacturer has responded to these inquiries and has just released an early hands-on analysis of the product. Please read below.

There is a “New� filter being advertised as the “Alternative Choice� to the Big Berkey water filter system so we thought we would put this “new� system to a couple of what we consider to be critical tests. The first test we conducted was a flow rate test. This is what we found:

Berkey vs “Alternative” Flow Rate Test

A fully configured four element Big Berkey water filter system can produce up to 7 gallons per hour of purified water.[1] By comparison this fully configured “alternate� system only holds two filter elements (the large diameter of the elements precludes the system from accommodating more than two elements).[2][3] The “Alternative� system when full only produces 80 ounces per hour. However, the flow rate rapidly decreases as the water level declines. For example, when 70% full, the flow rate declines to approximately 62 ounces per hour. At 50% full the flow rate declines to about 44 ounces per hour and at 1/3 full the flow rate drops to a trickle of about 26 ounces per hour (Approximately 5 hours to produce a gallon of water). Averaging out the above rates, one would expect a typical run cycle to produce an average of 53 ounces per hour. This is an average of one gallon of water produced every 2 1/2 hours.

Let’s do an economic comparison. Assuming the “Alternativeâ€� system is topped off continually, it can produce about 15 gallons per day whereas a fully configured Big Berkey water filter system can produce about 168 gallons per day. Therefore it takes over eleven (11) of the “Alternativeâ€� systems to produce as much water as one Big Berkey water filter system equipped with 4 black berkey filters. Here’s an economic breakdown if we were to base our purchase upon the system flow rate.

Cost of “Alternative� system: $239 X 11 = $2,629.00
Cost of Big Berkey water filter equipped with 4 black berkeys: $358.00
Big Berkey system savings: $2,271.00

Berkey vs “Alternative” Chemical Removal Test

The second test we conducted was designed to validate the claims that the “Alternative� filters have a lifespan equal to that of the Black Berkey purification elements. This test is designed to overwhelm the elements with a chemical contaminate in order to determine at what point a chemical breakthrough occurs. We added chlorine (Clorox) to the water but found that we could not complete the test because after approximately 1-1/4 cups of Clorox had been filtered through the “Alternative� filters, they began to break down. After 1-1/4 cups of Clorox had been purified through the Black Berkey elements, they continued to maintain their effectiveness.

We then decided to compare their respective performance filtering the same water. To do this we inserted both of the test elements, side by side, into a Berkey Light water filter housing and added an additional cup of Clorox to the pre-filtered source water. We also quarantined the water from the “Alternate� filter element from that of the Black Berkey purification element by inserting a canning jar under the effluent stem of the “Alternate� filter. Below is what we found:

Early In The Berkey vs “Alternative” Test

The “Alternative� filter excreted black inky solution (above)

A Close Up of The Black Ink-Like Solution (above)

The “Alternative� filter is having a hard time keeping up with the flow rate of the Black Berkey purification element. Note how the Black Berkey purification element is filling up the entire diameter of the lower chamber while the “Alternative� filter element is only filling up the jar.

Midway Through The Berkey vs “Alternative” Test

As the water level in the upper chamber declined, the flow rate of the “Alternative� began losing more and more ground to the water level, produced by the Black Berkey purification element, inside the larger diameter housing.

End Of  Berkey vs “Alternative” Test

The Black Berkey element continued to purify the contaminated water whereas the “Alternative� filter ran slow and continued to excrete a black inky solution.

"Alternative" Filter on the Left (Black Drip Forming); Black Berkey on the Right (above)

"Alternative" Filter Black Ink Drip Releasing on the Left; Black Berkey on the Right (above)

Which Water Filter System Would You Choose?

Final Test Results (above)

"Alternative" Filtered Water on Left; Black Berkey Filtered Water on Right (above)

The above pictures again highlight both the difference in flow rates and the quality of water produced by the “Alternative� (Left) filter and the Black Berkey purification element (Right) after approximately two cups of Clorox had been filtered through the elements. During an emergency, such as Katrina, in which source water may be laden with heavy chemical contamination, which water filter system would you choose?

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY:

• The Berkey water filter system can be primed, set up and begin purifying water in about 20 minutes; whereas the “Alternative� system must be conditioned for two days prior to use. [4]
• The 2 day conditioning process cannot be accelerated by priming the “Alternative� filter elements. When we attempted to do so, the filter broke, causing the element to explode.
• The wall thickness of the Black Berkey elements is approximately 60% greater than the wall thickness of the “Alternative� element.
• The Black Berkey purification elements remove viruses whereas the “Alternative� filter element does not.
• The flow rate of the system is only about 1/11th of the flow rate of a BK4X4BB. [5]
• When performing a Chlorine test, the elements began excreting a black inky solution.
• The claim is made that the new system is NSF certified, yet NSF has no record of their certification. [6]
• Relevant test data is not available for the “Alternative� system.
• Rather than using the expensive plasma welding on the 304 stainless steel housing, which also gives Berkey systems their beautiful mirror like lustrous shine and longevity, the housings use a low cost deep drawn method that make a tinny sound when thumped.
• The foot ring on the bottom of the system is a low-cost plastic, instead of rubber, that falls off and does not snug tightly to the system.

If you purchased an “Alternative Choice” filter and are not satisfied with its performance, you may be able to return it for a refund. If not, there is no reason to fret because Black Berkey purification elements can replace the filters in the “Alternative” systems. Thus, you can upgrade your system with the power of authentic Black Berkey purification elements.

FOOT NOTES:

[1] Fully configured Big Berkey water filter water purification system contains 4 Black Berkey purification elements.
[2] Fully configured “Alternative� system contains “alternative� filtration elements.
[3] Literature and website claim expansion to 3 elements. System obtained for test purposes did not physically allow this expansion. The elements were too wide at the base to allow claimed full expansion.
[4] Based on assembly instructions which stated: “…fill the upper container fully with cold or room temperature water. Allow all water to flow into the lower container. Open the spigot and
discard the water in the lower container. Let your system stand unused overnight. Refill upper chamber and repeat…� In other words, “alternative� system would not be available in an emergency situation until 48 hours after set-up.
[5] No flow rate is established on “alternative� website or literature.
[6] Claims NSF 42 certification – no such listing appears on NSF website using any combination of the “alternative� name or parent corporation.

Zion National Park in Utah eliminated 60,000 plastic bottles in the first year of its bottled water ban. According to documents received by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), it appears that, perhaps without actually asking, Coca-Cola may have scuttled a similar ban that could have had even more of an impact in the Grand Canyon.

Apparently, barely two weeks before a ban on sales of bottled water within the Grand Canyon National Park was to take effect at the end of 2010, word came down from National Park Service headquarters that the ban was to be delayed, indefinitely. “Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and … the project was being tabled,” reports the New York Times

This was after the park service had spent $300,000 to install filling stations for reusable bottles along the parks trails and launched a public education campaign to encourage their use. Why? According to the National Park Service “litter associated with disposable plastic water bottles is on the rise along trails and walkways and is one of the biggest contributors to trash below the rim.” Bottled water also uses much more fossil fuel energy and creates much more climate change pollution than refilling a reusable bottle and the park service has committed to saving energy and reducing its contribution to pollution.

“Why in the world would the Park Service Director swoop down at the last minute to veto a common-sense conservation measure that a park had spent significant taxpayer dollars to implement?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in a statement. “It would be outrageous if corporate contributions are influencing national park management decisions,” continued Ruch whose concern is heightened by efforts within The Park Service to encourage even more funding for park programs from big corporations.

Both Jarvis and Coca Cola deny that the company asked Jarvis to step in a stop the bottle ban or that Coca Cola’s funding for the National Parks Foundation, a non-governmental charity organization, was contingent on selling water in the parks.

However, Coca-Cola does not support bottled water bans: “Banning anything is never the right answer,� spokeswoman Susan Stribling told the Times, and she characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. “You’re not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume,� she said.

Interestingly there was no opposition to the ban from the vendor of bottled water in the canyon. Xanterra Parks & Resorts, an operator of lodgings, gift shops and general merchandise stores at the Grand Canyon and many of the national parks in the west actually campaigned for it. “We would like to see the ban of all petroleum-derived plastic water bottles in national parks,� Vice President for Environmental Affairs Chris Lane said told the New York Times.

Mr. Lane also told the Times that once the company accounted for a loss of $50,000 in bottled water sales and an increase in $25,000 in reusable bottle sales, they definitely lost money on the bottled water ban in Zion, but Lane is still a believer. “Revenue or no revenue, something’s got to be done about bottled water,� Mr. Lane said.

In 31 U.S. states, the natural gas industry employs a controversial drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves injecting chemical-laden water deep underground to fracture the bedrock and release natural gas trapped beneath. The process is largely unregulated by the states and this fracking debate has been heating up for years as a result. In 2005, President George W. Bush signed an energy bill that exempted natural gas drilling from the requirements of The Safe Drinking Water Act.

For an entertaining overview of the issue, take a look at this video from Studio 20 NYU and ProPublica:

EPA to Look at Fracking Impact on Drinking Water, Regulate Wastewater

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a few long-awaited details about its study of the drinking water implications of fracking.

“The new EPA study will look at the entire water lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing in shale deposits, beginning with the industry’s withdrawal of huge volumes of water from rivers and streams and ending with the treatment and disposal of the tainted wastewater that comes back out of the wells after fracking. Researchers will also study well design and the impact of surface spills of fracking fluids on groundwater,” reports the Associated Press.

EPA also began the process of regulating wastewater from fracking operations, which in many cases is stored on site it large lagoons and in others runs off into rivers or is pumped through municipal wastewater treatment, which may not be equipped to deal with drilling contaminants.

The regulatory process is likely to take years and complete results of the study won’t be ready until 2014.

Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

In the mean time, communities around the country are accusing gas companies of contaminating well water with solvents, chemicals, and escaped natural gas. In the case of Dimrock, Pennsylvania, a company has been providing bottled water to residents since January 2009 because of widespread well contamination in the community linked to drilling. In another case, a house outside Cleveland Ohio exploded when methane seeped into the house through the plumbing.

You may have seen this clip from the move Gasland:

The industry claims their operations are safe, “[b]ut a string of documented cases of gas escaping into drinking water — not just in Pennsylvania but across North America — is raising new concerns about the hidden costs of this economic tide and strengthening arguments across the country that drilling can put drinking water at risk,” reports ProPublica, an independent journalism organization.

Secret Fracking Fluid Formula Obscures the Risk

The industry has long claimed that the exact composition of the solvents injected into the ground to extract gas is a matter of trade secret. In order to study whether fracking fluid is contaminating well water, the EPA was forced to subpoena the ingredient lists from companies so they’d know what chemicals to test for.

In 2010, two companies admitted to a committee before the U.S. Congress that diesel fuel is among the ingredients in their fluids A report to Congress in April 2011 revealed more than 750 chemicals are involved, including several that Berkey Filters can remove below detectable levels.

Under a new environmental marketing law, the state of California filed a lawsuit this week against two bottled water companies and a plastic bottle supplier for false environmental claims, something known as “greenwashing.” Bottled water companies Aquamantra and Balance Water and bottle supplier ENSO Plastics have been marketing their water bottles as “100 percent biodegradable and recyclable,” but California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris says they are neither.

“Plastic takes thousands of years to biodegrade and may never do so in a landfill,” explains Harris’s press release about the lawsuit. ”Californians are committed to recycling and protecting the environment, but these efforts are undermined by the false and misleading claims these companies make when they wrongly advertise their products as ‘biodegradable,’” charges Harris. The lawsuit aims to remove thousands of bottles of Aquamantra and Balance Water from store shelves immediately because of the potential for litter and for contamination problems for plastic recycling programs around the state.

Aquamantra Water Bottle

Plastic water bottles are not biodegradable

Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste explained to the Silicone Valley Mercury News why the attorney general is right that ENSO Plastics don’t really decompose the way natural materials do and, therefore, are not truly biodegradable. “We are not adding nutrients to the soil when these things break down,” Murray said. “We are simply breaking the plastic into smaller and smaller pieces so it can’t be seen.”

Plastic water bottles with biodegradable additives cause problems for plastic recycling programs

Microbial additives, such as those in ENSO Plastics, can wreck havoc on plastic recycling, which is why NAPCOR, the National Association of PET Container Resources, opposes their use completely.

“Even in small percentages, like one-tenth of one percent, these are just catastrophic for us,” Ed Byrne, CEO of Peninsula Packaging in Visalia told the Mercury News. ”They melt at different temperatures. They ruin our products.”

Balance Water Bottle

Plastic water bottles falsely advertised as biodegradable could cause more litter

If Aquamantra and Balance Water customers believe the advertising claims made by the companies, they may think that the bottles will break down in the environment. But these are not banana peels or corncobs, natural materials that are truly biodegradable. Plastic litter is a significant threat to marine animals and the environment and these bottles, if disposed of improperly, could make those problems worse.

If plastic isn’t a good choice, what’s the eco-conscious water drinker to do?

The truly eco-friendly way to ensure pure water on the go is to filter your own. We recommend a Berkey water filter and then carrying it in your own BPA free reusable bottle. We’ve recently discussed how consumers of commercial bottled water have no assurance that they are getting the purity they are paying for anyway.

Greenwashing by companies is just one more reason to avoid buying bottled water. Check out our post on choosing the right Berkey water filter for you.

When reaching out for a bottle of water in a supermarket you expect to get a safe, high value drink that replenishes your bodily fluids and supplies the organism with valuable minerals. But is this always the case? The truth may surprise you.

Nowadays, consumers have become more and more aware of their rights and have requested manufacturers to provide information that enable them to make good choices. Surprisingly, the bottled water industry finds this already established trend difficult to accept and follow.

As bottled water can cost up to 1,900 times more than tap water, is it too much too expect to be well-informed on the product? What is the water’s origin? Has it been purified? If so, what techniques have been used in this process? Has it been tested for quality? Have the tests found any contaminants? In many cases this basic information is difficult to find on the label or on the producer’s website.

EWG’s Bottled Water Study

Environmental Working Group (EWG) carries out an annual survey on the level of transparency of information among the bottled water brands in the United States. In 2011 the group has reviewed 173 bottled water products and compared the results with those from the previous year.

It has turned out, that nine of the best-selling brands, including Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Nestle, do not answer at least one of the above questions. The survey results have revealed that 18% of the products do not provide the location of water source, 32% of brands do not disclose any information on the treatment or quality of water, and 13% of product are supported by ‘water quality reports’ that lack actual testing results.

Comparing the results with previous year findings, very slow progress was noticed. Over 50% of the surveyed brands did not improve, or even worse, included less information than in 2010. Only 39 brands scored better in information transparency in 2011 versus 2010. Even the best scored brads were not faultless. Believe it or not, some of them provided out dated water tests from 2008!

Bottled Water Vs Tap Water

It may be a surprise, but most companies producing bottled water source it from municipal tap (Food and Water Watch data). Moreover, the plastic material used for making bottles may incorporate chemical substances like BPA (Bisphenol A) that can leach into drinking water.

According to federal regulations bottled water is not much safer than tap water, as the chemical pollution standards are almost the same. As so many bottled water producers keep information on water quality to themselves, it is possible that most of the time you are paying for bottled tap water without even knowing it.

In addition to water quality arguments, there are serious environmental reasons for giving up bottled water. Between 2004 and 2009 the consumption of bottled water in the United States increased by 24%. It is estimated that every 27 hours U.S. citizens drink enough bottled water to circle the equator with empty bottles and each year more than 4 million of plastic containers go to the landfill nationwide. These are not good statistics!

Producing bottled water also has a high carbon footprint price – it takes 20,000 times more energy to produce bottled water than the same amount of tap water. In the United States, the production and transportation of bottled water is responsible for the level of CO2 emission comparable to that produced by two million cars.

Drink Filtered Tap Water

What are EWG’s recommendations then? Their main call is: Drink Filtered Tap Water.

A good quality domestic filter system lasts over 10 years. It can save you money and allow you to do your part in contributing to a cleaner environment. There is a wide variety of water filter systems that can be used indoors, outdoors or even during travelling. Good quality systems successfully remove bacteria, chlorine, organic solvents, VOCs, lead, mercury, nitrates and nitrites as well as other harmful substances. We believe the berkey water filter provides the highest quality filtration for the lowest initial and ongoing maintenance costs. There is also a different berkey water filter model available to accommodate every family size. Here’s a comparison of berkey and other top consumer water filters on the market. Regardless of what model or supplier you choose, they should provide you with detailed system specifications and ongoing maintenance costs estimates, so you will know exactly what you will be paying for.

After being out of stock for nearly 5 months, the very popular Wise Food survival kits are now again available. Last March, when the Japan earthquake impacted emergency preparedness supplies across the US, these survival kits sold out within days and resulted in a 5 month backlog of orders. Now, the manufacturer has not only caught up on these back orders, but they have also ramped up production operations and increased inventory reserves to better handle the fervent demand that typically follows the occurrence of a natural disaster. Note: We  happen to be seeing this currently with the Turkey earthquake and flooding in Thailand.

If you do not have any emergency preparedness items for you or your family, these kits are a great way to get started and cover all the basics in one easy purchase. I personally have a deluxe kit for my home and an essential kit in the trunk of my car. These have already proven to be a great investment over the past couple years as I’ve used the essential kit in two instances while on the road. The product concept is simple; an all-in-one emergency preparedness backpack that contains long term food storage packets and emergency supplies like a flashlight, medical kit, waterproof matches, knife, water bottle filter etc.

Wise Food Essential Survival Kit

The Wise Food Essential Survival Kit backpack weighs 16 lbs and is designed to support 1 person for 2 weeks, or 2 people for 1 week. It contains:

Pocket Tissue - Qty 6 packages
4-in-1 Dynamo Flashlight - Qty 1
Deck of Playing Cards - Qty 1
Water Proof Matches - Qty 50
Waste Bag - Qty 2
Note Pad - Qty 1
Golf Pencil - Qty 1
Mylar Sleeping Bags - Qty 2
Leather Palm Work Gloves - Qty 1
36 Piece Bandage Kit - Qty 1
Water Filtration Bottle - Qty 1
Portable Stove - Qty 1
Stove Fuel Tablets - Qty 16
Metal Fork Knife and Spoon - Qty 1
Sierra Cup - Qty 1

Wise Emergency Food Storage Included With Backpack (44 Servings):

Stroganoff
Creamy Chicken Pasta
Cheesy Lasagna
Chicken Teriyaki
Chicken Ala King
Southwest Bean and Rice
Beef Teriyaki and Rice
Multi-Grain Cereal
Honey Glazed Granola

Wise Food Essential Survival Kit

Wise Food Deluxe Survival Kit

The Wise Food Deluxe Survival Kit backpack weighs 27 lbs and is designed to support 1 person for 2 weeks, or 2 people for 1 week. It is an upgrade containing everything found in the Wise Food Essential Survival Kit described above in addition to these valuable supplies:

Emergency Duffle Bag on Wheels - Qty 1
Aqua Block Water - Qty 9 at 8.5 oz per container
Swiss Army Knife - Qty 1
Compact Multi-Function Shovel - Qty 1
5-in-1 Survival Whistle - Qty 1
Emergency Ponchos - Qty 2
Deluxe Hygiene Kits - Qty 2
NIOSH N95 Dust Masks - Qty 2
Hand and Body Warmers - Qty 2
2 Person Tube Tent - Qty 1
Deluxe First Aid Kit - Qty 1
12 Hour Bright Stick - Qty 1
30 Hour Emergency Candle - Qty 1

Wise Food Deluxe Survival Kit

Rather than doing hours of research and building your own food and supply kit, save yourself the time and energy with one purchase that’ll provide the essential preparedness supplies that you and your family will need. Both provide a great foundation for emergency preparedness.

For the first time a national study has been conducted testing for potential trace contaminants in wells and aquifers. Conducted by the United States Geological Survey, it was found that overall 19 percent of the 5,183 tested untreated public, private and monitoring wells exceeded health-based safety standards. When private drinking water wells were removed from the data set, it was found that a surprising 13 percent of all private wells exceeded the health standards or guidelines. As a result, the report recommends homeowners consider purchasing a home water filter to purify their drinking water to protect themselves from these trace contaminants. According to the study, the estimate of those potentially at risk are 6.5 Million households, or approximately 26 Million people!

A total of 20 trace elements were monitored in the study. The three that were shown to have the highest levels were Arsenic, Radon, and Manganese. These were not isolated to a couple regions, but rather found to be persistent nationwide stating, “Wells with human health benchmark exceedances were widespread across the United States; they occurred in all aquifer groups and in both humid and dry regions.”  A copy of the study can be found here.

The wells that were found to be most at risk were the private wells used by homeowners. This is due to the fact that these wells are not monitored by any agency and are not regulated. It is the homeowners responsibility to keep tabs on the water quality and for many reasons this is not commonly done. As a result, an increased amount of contaminants and health effecting trace minerals have seeped into these wells unnoticed.

Arsenic Well Contamination

Here we show the study results in map form for Arsenic:

Arsenic Well Contamination Levels

According to the EPA website on the dangers of arsenic,  ”Non-cancer effects can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.”

Joseph Ayotte, one of the researchers and a hydrologist with the U.S.G.S. states ”It was a bit surprising how many of these trace elements had exceedances of human health benchmarks, especially compared to other contaminants we are often concerned about. The findings certainly underscore the message we hear from the public health agencies, that everyone should test their wells for a suite of trace elements.” For interested customers, the Berkey PF-2 filters are used inside the lower chamber of our home water filter system for removing arsenic from the water.

Radon Well Contamination

Here we show the study results in map form for Radon:

Radon Well Contamination Levels

According to the EPA website on Radon; “Radon in water is only a concern if your drinking water comes from underground, such as a well that pumps water from an aquifer. Breathing radon in indoor air can cause lung cancer. Radon gas decays into radioactive particles that can get trapped in your lungs when you breathe it.. ..radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer.” This statement directly corresponds to the radon dangers this study has found.

Joseph Ayotte makes another statement many should pay heed to. He states, “We often get more upset about these anthropogenic contaminants but we have to remember that these naturally occurring elements are often times more of a widespread problem. Not to diminish the importance of the others, but trace elements are also hugely important and arguably more so.”  This is in large portion due to the fact that these trace elements build up in the body over time and can cause a slow degradation of health. This can be more dangerous as an individual can experience a slow growing health issue over many years. That individual and their doctor may struggle to isolate the root cause and not recognize that it could be harmful trace elements from their own well water. With this many Americans potentially at risk, we also strongly advocate that home owners take the necessary steps to test their wells on a yearly basis. We also recommend a home water filter like the berkey to remove these harmful trace elements from the water.

One additional poignant USGS statement was that harmful elements “far outpace” other pollutants, many of which get far more public attention. Based on previous USGS research, this 19 percent of wells that were discovered in this study compare with 7 percent of wells contaminated with nitrates and 1 to 2 percent for pesticides and volatile organic compounds.

Manganese Well Contamination

Here we show the study results in map form for Manganese:

Manganese Well Contamination Levels

The EPA does not have primary health risks associated with Manganese, rather they set secondary standards due to impacts “such as the corrosion of iron and copper, may stain household fixtures, and impart objectionable metallic taste and red or blue-green color to the water supply as well. Corrosion of distribution system pipes can reduce water flow.”  Manganese can have a “black to brown color; black staining; bitter metallic taste”

Protection With a Home Water Filter

The primary question we have to ask ourselves is: How have these concentrations gotten so high putting so many US citizens at risk, and how does one protect their family? There are two primary causes for these major well changes; natural chemical evolution / groundwater age, and pollution.

The geochemistry of groundwater changes in time due to the contact with it’s aquifer materials. This constant change and reactions with minerals is considered chemical evolution. Basically, the longer the water has been in contact with the aquifer, the more chemically evolved it is deemed to be and thus the greater concentrations of these trace minerals, some of which are harmful to the body such as arsenic and radon. Not stressed enough in this report is the fact that the study analysis is based on NAWQA (National Water-Quality Assessment) Program data collected from 1992 to 2003. Given the statements in the report and prior historical data, our feeling is that these harmful levels have most likely inclined, not declined since this data was collected.

In addition, while not discussed nor a focus of the USGS study, a major and still growing problem is pollution. As our lands continue to be treated with fertilizers and chemicals, in concert with continued land development, population growth, and industry pollution we experience an ever increasing trickling of chemical waste into our groundwater systems and waterways. Many of these chemicals seep and soak through the sediment impacting our wells directly. However, they also contaminate the wells indirectly by surface water runoff flowing into the underground waterway systems and ultimately finding their resting spots in karsts and water aquifers that these wells feed off of. The reality is that has been a growing problem for decades now. We’ve stressed the importance of conservation of karsts before as most folks do not realize that once these groundwater supplies are contaminated naturally or by human pollution, it is very difficult and expensive to reverse the condition. Regardless, protection with a home water filter is essential for homeowners whose wells have been compromised by these harmful trace minerals or chemical pollutants.