3 ms·

That's $52/year per faucet. I've got four faucets in my home that a child could reasonably drink from. That's $200/year and 48 filter changes assuming you don't

That's $52/year per faucet. I've got four faucets in my home that a child could reasonably drink from. That's $200/year and 48 filter changes assuming you don't miss any changes. And that doesn't help with showers and baths, or even pools and hose water. Compare that to a whole-home filter: under $500 with a five year warranty. Filters are a couple hundred bucks every 100,000 gallons. The time savings alone is worth it, but the real value is knowing that you're not relying on $1 plastic filters. Nothing about these $1 filters is good for children. The idea that a household with kids has the time and energy to change filters on every faucet once a month (ignoring all the time your kids spend at school with lead water there!) is laughable.

thaway2839 5y ago
Do you drink water out of every faucet? You just need it for the one faucet in the kitchen you'd be drinking water out of. Would that completely eliminate all your lead consumption? No, when you are brushing I'm sure you swallow some water, etc, but it would eliminate at least 90% of it.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  There are at least three faucets in my house that we get drinking water from: kitchen and the two upstairs bathrooms. I'm not walking downstairs to the kitchen to get water in the middle of the night. I'd expect the average single family home is similar. That's still $150/year and 36 filter changes. And have you ever met a child? They'll play with and drink almost any source of water. Telling them not to drink from certain faucets is Sisyphean.
etskinner 5y ago
Using a whole-house filter misses the potential for lead to come from the pipes in the house. Using an after-the-tap filter eliminates that risk.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  A permanently installed filtration system isn't as cost effective as a whole home filter, but it's still more cost effective than what's been designed here, and requires an order of magnitude fewer filter replacements. In fact, you probably wouldn't even need a plumber to install the system for you.

thaway2839 5y ago

Do you drink water out of every faucet? You just need it for the one faucet in the kitchen you'd be drinking water out of. Would that completely eliminate all your lead consumption? No, when you are brushing I'm sure you swallow some water, etc, but it would eliminate at least 90% of it.

bastawhiz 5y ago
There are at least three faucets in my house that we get drinking water from: kitchen and the two upstairs bathrooms. I'm not walking downstairs to the kitchen to get water in the middle of the night. I'd expect the average single family home is similar. That's still $150/year and 36 filter changes. And have you ever met a child? They'll play with and drink almost any source of water. Telling them not to drink from certain faucets is Sisyphean.

etskinner 5y ago

Using a whole-house filter misses the potential for lead to come from the pipes in the house. Using an after-the-tap filter eliminates that risk.

bastawhiz 5y ago
A permanently installed filtration system isn't as cost effective as a whole home filter, but it's still more cost effective than what's been designed here, and requires an order of magnitude fewer filter replacements. In fact, you probably wouldn't even need a plumber to install the system for you.