6 ms·

Money quote: > readings of PFAS that exceed EPA limits have been found in just 8% of small public water systems (those that serve fewer than 10,000 people) and

Money quote: > readings of PFAS that exceed EPA limits have been found in just 8% of small public water systems (those that serve fewer than 10,000 people) and 15% of large ones 15%! Anyone who trusts their municipal water supply because of *handwave* regulations and reports needs to read that again. Even if my water were 100% pristine as the author's apparently is, which they only know for their own homes because they've tested it at their taps half a dozen times with different laboratories, my tap water still tastes awful, and maintaining a dedicated three stage filter spout next to my kitchen faucet costs me approximately nothing and provides substantially better tasting water. And I don't need to worry about whether I live in the next Flint, Michigan. It took two whole years for administrators in Flint, Michigan to acknowledge their lead pipe crisis. What your treatment plant claims it does and what your municipal government claims your safety profile is do not matter one bit if you aren't constantly testing the water actually coming out of your taps. I'd rather just filter my water. It's much less hassle and I get better tasting water as a nice bonus.

timr 1y ago
I'm failing to see your point. If you think it helps -- whether because of taste or personal trust issues or something else -- then great, filter your water. You do you. The article is clearly for someone who is otherwise on the fence and doesn't have those issues.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  > I'm failing to see your point That's weird because I'm pretty sure that my point is explicitly spelled out. But just in case, here it is again: If your trust is based in municipal numbers or statements, you should be aware that municipal numbers and statements are not trustworthy because there's a lot of widespread decaying infrastructure (and coverup!) between where they test, what they make public, and where your water comes out of your faucet. And if your trust is based on "Rah, rah, America!", you should know that 15% (!!) of water systems serving over 10k people have PFAS levels measured above what the EPA says is safe. (And if you don't think that 15% is a lot, holy smokes, that's nuts.) So if you aren't testing your tap constantly then you have no idea what your water is like, no matter what the city says their water is like. And if you are testing your taps constantly, it's less hassle and gives a better result to just filter your water instead. The author says "I don't filter because I constantly test my taps and they're good each time." That's not the same at all as saying that filtering isn't a generally good idea, especially for anyone who isn't constantly testing their taps. The author ALSO says "a fuckton of you have more PFAS in your water than the EPA says is safe, just not me, lol". The author also chooses to ignore that their good water today may become bad tomorrow.
  - rufus_foreman 1y ago
    >> municipal numbers and statements are not trustworthy The claims of the manufacturers of filters, of course, are completely trustworthy. If you aren't testing the capabilities of your filters constantly, this is fine.
    - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
      You can sue a manufacturer for lying about independent testing and certification. Good luck suing your county.
      - rufus_foreman 1y ago
        If you win the lawsuit against the manufacturer, do you get your health back?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        Xss3 1y ago
        The point is they have a reputation to uphold and not just skin in the game but multiple peoples livelihoods. Just one or two bad test results, or one failed audit, can sink a business like that. The county can have thousands of people scream for years (flint, Michigan) without panicking.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - mousethatroared 1y ago
      I don't trust the manufacturer, but I can test the manufacturers water. I don't trust my municipality because they cheaped out on the corrosion inhibitors chemistry, leached lead into the water and my house is now filled with developing pinhole leaks. I've had five in four years. Hint, I don't live anywhere near Flint MI.
donnachangstein 1y ago
> and maintaining a dedicated three stage filter spout next to my kitchen faucet costs me approximately nothing Calling bullshit on this one. I have one, it's positively wonderful, but the filters are expensive and per the manufacturer's recommendation you're supposed to change them all simultaneously. So when one times out, they all time out. This runs approximately $150 a year minimum depending on usage.
- tguvot 1y ago
  filters are cheap if you don't use fancy branded system that came up with it's own filter that incompatible with anything else
  - an_aparallel 1y ago
    You generally want to avoid cheap filters as they apparently can be tainted with formaldehyde
    - tguvot 1y ago
      standard, 2x10 filters from well known brands (pentek, apec or membranes from dow filmtec) are "cheap" compared to non-standard filters.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  > This runs approximately $150 a year $150 per YEAR at american prices is approximately nothing. That's a measly 41 cents a day. People spend far far more than that on far far more frivolous things without thinking twice.
  - EA-3167 1y ago
    People spend an order of magnitude (and much more) on coffee every day, never mind smokers or drinkers who spend crazy amounts just to hurt themselves. Not that I don't love and respect Wirecutter (I don't), but I'm on team "I like how my water tastes when it's filtered."
zahlman 1y ago
> three stage filter spout ... But does it remove the PFAs?
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  You can read the independent test data sheet: https://www.brondell.com/content/UC300_Coral_PDS.pdf https://www.brondell.com/content/UC300_Coral_PDS.pdf But if you want a full RO system, go for it. They cost only slightly more and just take up more room under the sink.
OptionOfT 1y ago
Your filter system is not set up for water that is microbiologically unsafe to drink. And if that filter setup also has an RO system your cost is more, as with RO you have a certain amount of rejection rate.
- tguvot 1y ago
  last time i made calculation, it was still cheaper than bottled water
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  I trust my municipality to give me microbiologically safe water. Because I trust bleach, not my local water authority. I certainly do not trust them to give me chemically clean water. So I have a $150 under-sink RO system.
  - bilsbie 1y ago
    Is there a chance it can get contaminated with bacteria? I worry about the water sitting in there.
    - Xss3 1y ago
      A properly working RO system will prevent viruses and bacteria from passing. For the extra paranoid you can get systems with a UV sterilisation step.
      - Xss3 1y ago
        Just to add, most municipalities chlorinate the water slightly, so its highly unlikely youll find anything alive in it. My water is fairly heavily chlorinated where i live compared to my previous county. Letting the glass of water sit in open for a few minutes after pouring helps with taste because the chlorine evaporates.
        vel0city 1y ago
teruakohatu 1y ago
> Anyone who trusts their municipal water supply because of handwave regulations and reports needs to read that again. A better approach is to decide whether your municipality meets or exceeds guidelines (the 85% that do). I trust my city (in New Zealand), but there are other cities I wouldn’t because their water infrastructure is old and under funded, or because of known problems in the recent past.
dzhiurgis 1y ago
Have you tested your filtered water in “ half a dozen times with different laboratories”?

timr 1y ago

I'm failing to see your point. If you think it helps -- whether because of taste or personal trust issues or something else -- then great, filter your water. You do you. The article is clearly for someone who is otherwise on the fence and doesn't have those issues.

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> I'm failing to see your point That's weird because I'm pretty sure that my point is explicitly spelled out. But just in case, here it is again: If your trust is based in municipal numbers or statements, you should be aware that municipal numbers and statements are not trustworthy because there's a lot of widespread decaying infrastructure (and coverup!) between where they test, what they make public, and where your water comes out of your faucet. And if your trust is based on "Rah, rah, America!", you should know that 15% (!!) of water systems serving over 10k people have PFAS levels measured above what the EPA says is safe. (And if you don't think that 15% is a lot, holy smokes, that's nuts.) So if you aren't testing your tap constantly then you have no idea what your water is like, no matter what the city says their water is like. And if you are testing your taps constantly, it's less hassle and gives a better result to just filter your water instead. The author says "I don't filter because I constantly test my taps and they're good each time." That's not the same at all as saying that filtering isn't a generally good idea, especially for anyone who isn't constantly testing their taps. The author ALSO says "a fuckton of you have more PFAS in your water than the EPA says is safe, just not me, lol". The author also chooses to ignore that their good water today may become bad tomorrow.
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  >> municipal numbers and statements are not trustworthy The claims of the manufacturers of filters, of course, are completely trustworthy. If you aren't testing the capabilities of your filters constantly, this is fine.
  - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
    You can sue a manufacturer for lying about independent testing and certification. Good luck suing your county.
    - rufus_foreman 1y ago
      If you win the lawsuit against the manufacturer, do you get your health back?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Xss3 1y ago
        The point is they have a reputation to uphold and not just skin in the game but multiple peoples livelihoods. Just one or two bad test results, or one failed audit, can sink a business like that. The county can have thousands of people scream for years (flint, Michigan) without panicking.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - mousethatroared 1y ago
    I don't trust the manufacturer, but I can test the manufacturers water. I don't trust my municipality because they cheaped out on the corrosion inhibitors chemistry, leached lead into the water and my house is now filled with developing pinhole leaks. I've had five in four years. Hint, I don't live anywhere near Flint MI.

donnachangstein 1y ago

> and maintaining a dedicated three stage filter spout next to my kitchen faucet costs me approximately nothing Calling bullshit on this one. I have one, it's positively wonderful, but the filters are expensive and per the manufacturer's recommendation you're supposed to change them all simultaneously. So when one times out, they all time out. This runs approximately $150 a year minimum depending on usage.

tguvot 1y ago
filters are cheap if you don't use fancy branded system that came up with it's own filter that incompatible with anything else
- an_aparallel 1y ago
  You generally want to avoid cheap filters as they apparently can be tainted with formaldehyde
  - tguvot 1y ago
    standard, 2x10 filters from well known brands (pentek, apec or membranes from dow filmtec) are "cheap" compared to non-standard filters.
BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> This runs approximately $150 a year $150 per YEAR at american prices is approximately nothing. That's a measly 41 cents a day. People spend far far more than that on far far more frivolous things without thinking twice.
- EA-3167 1y ago
  People spend an order of magnitude (and much more) on coffee every day, never mind smokers or drinkers who spend crazy amounts just to hurt themselves. Not that I don't love and respect Wirecutter (I don't), but I'm on team "I like how my water tastes when it's filtered."

zahlman 1y ago

> three stage filter spout ... But does it remove the PFAs?

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
You can read the independent test data sheet: https://www.brondell.com/content/UC300_Coral_PDS.pdf https://www.brondell.com/content/UC300_Coral_PDS.pdf But if you want a full RO system, go for it. They cost only slightly more and just take up more room under the sink.

OptionOfT 1y ago

Your filter system is not set up for water that is microbiologically unsafe to drink. And if that filter setup also has an RO system your cost is more, as with RO you have a certain amount of rejection rate.

tguvot 1y ago
last time i made calculation, it was still cheaper than bottled water
mousethatroared 1y ago
I trust my municipality to give me microbiologically safe water. Because I trust bleach, not my local water authority. I certainly do not trust them to give me chemically clean water. So I have a $150 under-sink RO system.
- bilsbie 1y ago
  Is there a chance it can get contaminated with bacteria? I worry about the water sitting in there.
  - Xss3 1y ago
    A properly working RO system will prevent viruses and bacteria from passing. For the extra paranoid you can get systems with a UV sterilisation step.
    - Xss3 1y ago
      Just to add, most municipalities chlorinate the water slightly, so its highly unlikely youll find anything alive in it. My water is fairly heavily chlorinated where i live compared to my previous county. Letting the glass of water sit in open for a few minutes after pouring helps with taste because the chlorine evaporates.
      - vel0city 1y ago

teruakohatu 1y ago

> Anyone who trusts their municipal water supply because of handwave regulations and reports needs to read that again. A better approach is to decide whether your municipality meets or exceeds guidelines (the 85% that do). I trust my city (in New Zealand), but there are other cities I wouldn’t because their water infrastructure is old and under funded, or because of known problems in the recent past.

dzhiurgis 1y ago

Have you tested your filtered water in “ half a dozen times with different laboratories”?