I tried this $35 Honeywell model that Sigman recommended, which was certainly easy to install. However, even after running for 3-4 minutes, there was still a significant aftertaste. I would say it was maybe a 30% improvement. I even tried making coffee with it, and again was noticeable enough that it detracted from enjoying it. Two other people I asked agreed.
It might be a case of being stuck with bottled water which has zero aftertaste. Darn.
We use a Pur faucet mount and fill 3 Brita filter pitchers for a double filtered overkill, and the Pur has LED's built in.
Quando Omni Flunkis Moritati
Mine are the sealed "throw away" type and I've got a few stashed, so though I appreciate the offer...someone else possibly needs it worse than I.
I called the guys at filter direct, and somehow they talked me into a $140 reverse osmosis setup under the sink, with full credit back on that Honeywell sink top unit, so it is really only costing me $105. He wasn't surprised when I told him my city water still tasted bad with the countertop filter. I figure at $60/mo, I have some leeway to explore and find what I want.
and the water from that will taste...tasteless, but that's going to be primarily because it's going to *3* carbon filters...not because of the Reverse Osmosis stage.
I don't really care if I get tasteless with 3 carbon filters, and/or the RO stage. For another $80 and yearly filter changes, this seemed to be the next worthwhile step in my pursuit. I don't need filtering for the rest of the house.
Sigman, they offered the full credit. He even told me to just toss the wet cartridge as it would not be useable anyway. I just called to see what other options there might be.
I'm using R/O like glockboy. I understand about too much R/O not being good either, but you can always mix it with something when you're drinking a whole lot of it. The concern stems from the idea that if you drink a bunch of absolutely pure water then the osmotic pressure will draw needed stuff from inside your cells and in the extreme can even cause cell damage. I'd assert that in general people these days eat way too much salt and other junk so we're more than safe from any danger when drinking a normal amount of R/O water.
When I go biking I take a 70 or 100-ounce water bladder. With the crummy, super-chlorinated water in our town it was literally killing me. Shortly after I moved here I started getting sick very often. One time I had the flu for about 3 months straight. My neighbors would come over & ask "Is your water black too?" My complaints to the water company fell on deaf ears, and the town wouldn't approve a well.
I have a whole-house particulate filter and R/O for drinking water & ice. Since I got the R/O system and switched to drinking that, no more crazy illness. Immediate change.
No I can't certainly identify the cause, but the correlation is enough for me.
Mine's an old 5-stage Flowmatic system. That was bought by Watts. Watts has a zillion residential options on this page.
I am sure the FilterDirect system and glockboy's setup are good too.
I am with this opinion.
Unless what I'd learnt for years in 80's is not true any more... the tap water filtered thru 3 or more stages including sediment filters and carbon filters would be perfectly good enough for drinking with most impurites removed, even purer than most spring water selling in stores. RO water is kind of over kill, very wasteful for drinking water because RO membrane rejects 80~92% of filtered water to produce pure water which is not desirable for drinking.
The technical guy at filter direct said with absolute certainty that this results in the best tasting, cleanest water, so I'm not accepting your saying it is not desirable for drinking.
Reverse osmosis, along with carbon filtering for chemical removal, is an effective means of filtering drinking water particularly for short term use.
Committing yourself to long term use is best done while considering its drawbacks, for both efficiency and health.
OK, useful link. Thanks, Empath. This system does have the 3 charcoal filters, and I have used this trace mineral supplement for years, and various vitamins, so I think I have that legitimate downside covered. I'm not in a water shortage area, so however much is wasted in the drain I'll gladly pay in exchange for having a couple gallons of nice tasting quality water per day. At bottled water expense of $720-750/year this should be a wonderful replacement system.
don't confuse good taste with good water or bad taste with bad water.
bad tasting water can be good drinking water (except for the taste, well duh.)
good tasting water can make you sick.
if you want to avoid getting sick, you must use a filter that traps either bugs, and or, chemicals.
most of the time the bad taste is from minerals..charcoal filters will not remove hardness/minerals from the water.
RO will remove the minerals, and the bugs, but you should should take a mineral supplement every day to keep your bones et al. healthy.
Using RO on hard water wastes most of the water, and uses energy..
it's best to analyze your water (can be somewhat expensive these days) and discover what is in it that you need to remove, and then get the appropriate filters.
I'll see how this works out, rather than going through water testing, etc. This is an $80 step after the counter top $65 suggestion didn't work.
I'm starting with city water that already has "acceptable" water, but has an undesirable after taste. I'm not worried about getting sick given the setup linked.
I don't care about how much water is wasted by RO, or energy costs related to having 2-3 gallons of great tasting water per day. Hell every time I flush my toilets, there goes 7.5 gallons + watering lawn + filling swimming pool. We don't have a water shortage here...in fact last night after a 3"+ rain, I backwashed my pool for 30 minutes to waste--just to lower the water level.
What I want is acceptable tasting water for drinking, coffee, etc. instead of $60/month on heavy 5 gallon water jugs with their own sanitary, unregulated risks. Worst case I continue with the jugs.
+1 for what TedTheLed said, and that basically is what I was trying to tell. But I guess taking or not is up to them, not to me.
Last edited by seaside; 07-25-2009 at 03:15 PM.
This is an interesting and timely subject. There is a case to be made that muni water supplies in general will continue to trend downward in quality as time goes by. Clean water is no longer just a Third World problem.
Well before you hook up the RO part of that filtering system, you might just try the sediment+3 carbon filters. That might do the trick, and it would save you water costs, and you wouldn't have to replace the RO membrane. Keep the RO tank around for if there's ever an emergency maybe. I dunno. Just saying, if the 3 carbon filters will get you there, and they likely will, than running the RO at that point is just wasteful.
Knowing nothing before this thread about RO, you have all gotten my attention. I think once the new kit arrives in next day or so, I will have a better idea what the RO part involves. Off the top of my inexperienced head, it was seeming like there wouldn't be a significant waste issue in providing a few gallons of enjoyable, quality water. I don't think we have ever had a drought restriction. Ever. Many people have sump pumps in their basements to keep the water table from rising into it.
All this stuff could drive you nuts...this makes it look like I live next to the Buriganga river in Dhaka, Bangladesh. LOL!
The talk about RO water being bad for you got me going for a bit... so far the only "facts" I've found are from folks promoting alkaline water.
Reverse Osmosis FAQ
A guy told me reverse osmosis units waste a lot of water. Is that true?
It depends on what you mean by waste. A home RO unit uses water to clean itself and wash away impurities. It’s like a lot of other water-using appliances. We use water to wash clothes, to wash dishes, to wash cars, to flush toilets. A reverse osmosis unit uses more water in its operation than you actually consume, but it doesn’t use enough that you’ll notice it on your water bill. It uses water only while it’s filling its storage tank. When the tank is full, the whole unit shuts down and no water runs to drain. In terms of expense, it’s like a couple or three extra toilet flushes a day.
yes it seems to be true we can get all of the minerals and vitamins we need from veges and fruits, but who eats ALL those fruits and veges??
try googing "distilled water" and see what you get. RO water is basically distilled water, ie. all solids removed..
Mankind is on a collision course with his own destiny. I just want some nice water while watching the show.
While I don't doubt the bias of these guys: Reverse Osmosis Water Waste
Here is what they say to that:
Reading between the extremes...I think you get the idea that not all RO systems waste water all the time, though some apparently run almost continuously. Those that don't run continuously still run a lot of water down the drain for every bit that makes it into the RO system. Not only that -- but you are running water through filters before it even hits the RO.Some dealers tell you their units don't waste water after the storage tanks are full. That's an unfortunate, poor design, because those are the units which will fail the quickest because of membrane fouling from salts, metals and lime which may be added to many of our water systems to reduce metal pipe corrosion. With R/O, you're trapped either way!
Edit: Wait a minute...shouldn't the plethora of filters sitting in front of the RO system take out those salts and things? Hmm...obvious obvious bias there, their information *seems* to be directed towards running a RO system without any other kind of filtration. Ok, well, they still make a semi-valid point...but take it with the bias that obviously exists therein.
Soooo let's try and come up with some realistic numbers. Assume you filter 4 gallons of water a day. If 85% of that is wasted, then you dumped 23 gallons down the drain to get that 4.
Just to put that in perspective:
A high efficiency dishwasher (Bosch) uses ~8.8 gallons on it's least efficient cycle.
A high efficiency clothes washer uses about 22 gallons per load.
Most shower-heads are restricted to 2.5 gallons per minute, so a 10 minute shower is 25 gallons.
So 4 gallons a day equates to 3 dishwasher loads, 1 washer load, or an extra shower...each day.
4 gallons a day times 310 days a year (i'm subtracting a healthy 55 days, for vacation right? But some days you wouldn't use a whole 4 gallons so...) means 7130 gallons of water down the drain.
You keep saying you're in an area where water isn't a problem, and that's great! I guess all we're trying to say is that you're potentially wasting water when it doesn't need to be wasted...like going out and buying an inefficient car, old refrigerator, or some other inefficient item...where in this case there may be no distinct advantage to be had for all this inefficiency.
So all I'm saying, and you already said you'd look into this -- so I'll lay off after this post -- is truly, look into running the system without the reverse osmosis membrane in place. If that produces acceptably clean water, you'll save money on replacement RO membranes, have 1 less part to break down, you'll potentially be able to *easily* filter way more than 4 gallons a day (Remember the pre-RO filters are filtering more like 20 gallons a day), and you'll create a smaller environmental impact.
If, after you try that, you still find the water to be unacceptable tasting....than I don't think anything we could say would convince you to ditch the Reverse Osmosis system, but at least try the 4xfilter system first!
Last edited by Saaby; 07-27-2009 at 01:14 AM.
Yeah, I will try the filters first. I think based on averaging 3 of those 5 gallon jugs in 2 weeks, we are more using 1-2 gallons/day which would be more like wasting 5 gal/day.
We have 92 psi water pressure coming in (I measured it). I remove that shower restrictor, and usually take a hot shower until the 50 gallon hot water heater is empty, and some of that is cold mixed in. I suspect I would run more water getting the shower warmed up than the RO would use. 4 of our toilets are still the 7.5 GPF toilets, and I'm sure we flush them 15-20 times per day.
Most of the people around me have in ground lawn watering systems that run most the night. On the wasting issue, I don't see where that is a legitimate concern if you live in an area that has plenty of water, and city charges for it are a pittance. Maybe this is hard for people to relate to if they live in drought areas.
Overrunning a balcony in the French Quarter isn't very wasteful -- within a few minutes the water will be back in the river, where it came from, and again on it's way to the Gulf.
So I add a dose of Boku to one of my glasses of RO every day.
The original reason I went with RO was to cut down on estrogen, hormones, drugs, ... that are infiltrating our water system every day.
Now that I'm in the Pacific Northwest, and my water comes from snow melt rivers, I might just switch back to a ceramic candle filter.
Birth is terminal