What do you do with distilled water that works???

thanks
Lynn

I was on the verge of ordering Aquaspace's Fluoride filtering carafe when I stumbled on this thread - just in time! Thank goodness!

I've known about Doulton filters for awhile so I read the specifics today and saw that they also use activated alumina to filter fluoride. I sent them an e-mail asking if they could tell me why it would be safe to use this for filtering water. I received this very prompt reply:

"Although there is some speculation that a trace amount of alumina can leach from the media to the filtered water, there hasn't been any scientific confirmation of this. However, if there is any leaching of alumina residue in to the water, it would be trapped by the ceramic filter in the final filtration stage. We sell the A-2 (Activated Alumina) filters as a specialty filter that are part of a dual or triple housing system in which always has a Doulton Ceramic Filter as a final polisher, and in itself has the capability of removing micro-contaminants as well as inorganic/organic chemicals and heavy metals. However, this filter alone does not have the capability of high fluoride removal, hence the reason why we also use activated alumina. If you still do not feel comfortable using this filter, try the B-2 (heavy metal/fluoride filter) which is a highly activated catalytic carbon filter. This too will significantly reduce fluoride as well as heavy-metals and arsenic. In any case, the medias that are used in all of our filters are NSF approved and are industry standard. I hope this helps and thank you for your inquiry."


http://www.doultonusa.com/


Does anyone have any thoughts about his response and these filters?

more at link


http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/schwerpunkte/ws/projects/...


Fluoride Removal

Development, optimization and promotion of simple and low-cost fluoride removal methods

Download this document

Background

Fluoride is the 13th most abundant element in the earth crust (625 mg/kg) and often has a natural rock-derived origin in drinking water (Koritnig, 1951). Different minerals and their corresponding rocks, such as granites, basalts, syenites, shales etc., can contain high fluoride concentrations. Groundwater, interacting with these rocks, can dissolve fluoride and pose a health risk if used for drinking water supply.

Often drinking water is the main source of total fluoride intake, especially in areas where fluoride concentrations in groundwater and/or surface water are high. However, in some areas foodstuff or indoor air pollution, due to burning of coal, may make significant contributions to the daily intake of fluoride (e.g. Nielsen and Dahi, 2002; Ando et al, 2001). The WHO international guideline value for fluoride in drinking water is 1.5 mg/l. In hot climates this value is more stringent and a range between 0.7–1 mg F/L is recommended (WHO, 2004), due to higher water consumption. Different fluoride experts suggest the fluoride threshold concentration should be lowered to 0.5 mg/l (e.g. participants comments on WHO draft publication “fluoride in drinking water”, 2000; Heikens et al, 2005).

Excess fluoride intake causes different types of fluorosis, primarily dental and skeletal fluorosis. White line striations followed by brown patches and, in severe cases, brittling of the enamel are common symptoms of dental fluorosis. Skeletal fluorosis first causes pain in the different joints, then limits joint movement and finally causes skeletal deformities, which become particularly acute if fluoride uptake occurs during growth. Since these ailments are incurable, fluorosis can only be mitigated by preventing intake of excess fluoride. According to estimates of UNESCO (internet source, status January 2007) more than 200 million people worldwide rely on drinking water with fluoride concentrations higher than the present WHO guideline value.

For several decades, different fluoride removal techniques have been studied in various different countries. Nevertheless, implementation especially in developing countries is sparse and most often restricted to limited areas.

Bone char defluoridation

In 1928, Wayne suggested the use of bone char to reduce the fluoride concentration in water. Hence bone char defluoridation was one of the first defluoridation methods at all. The chemical composition of bone char is dominated by hydroxyapatite (Ca5(PO4)3OH) with a significant carbon content (3-5 wt%).

Bone char is an effective filter material for the removal of fluoride, provided the bone char is of high quality. “Unless carried out properly, the bone charring process may result in a product of low defluoridation capacity and/or deteriorated water quality” (Dahi, 2000). Production of high-quality bone char requires much practical experience..

The Catholic Diocese of Nakuru, Water Quality Section, Kenya (CDN WQ) has successfully developed and is currently producing, implementing and disseminating simple and low-cost defluoridation units, using bone char as a sorption medium. The following production steps are carried out to obtain high quality bone char and to guarantee successful treatment:

· Charring: During the charring process organic impurities are partially mineralized and the specific surface area of the bones is increased. Oxygen content, temperature (particularly temperature distribution in the furnace) and charring time are the most important parameters that determine the quality of the bone char.

· Crushing and sieving: After charring the bones are brittle and easy to crush. CDN WQ developed a crushing machine that replaced the laborious hand crush. Sieves are attached to the machine that enables the separation of the crushed bone char into three different fractions.

· Washing: The bone char may still contain organic impurities and dust from the crushing process that is removed during the washing steps. NaOH and CO2-solutions are used to wash the bones.

· Drying and packing: For safe storage and facilitation of transport, the bone char is dried outdoors, packed and stored, ready for use.

Household units

Two different designs of household units are available: A defluoridation bucket (20 L) containing bone char and a combined household unit that removes microbiological contamination, heavy metals and fluoride (Picture 1). A monitoring survey, conducted in October 2006, showed that 32% of the household units had a fluoride removal efficiency of above 99%. In 80% of the household units the fluoride concentration in the treated water was < 1.5 mg/L. According to interviews carried out with the users, the bone char of the household units that exceeded 1.5 mg F/L have never been regenerated, hence the filter medium is saturated with fluoride and further uptake is reduced.

bone char is used in the Sugar industry to dechlorinate the sugar. here is some interesting info about that. more at link.


http://www.mad-cow.org/jun99_late_news.html


Almost all cane Sugar refineries require the use of a specific filter to decolorise the Sugar and absorb inorganic material from it. This whitening process occurs towards the end of the sugar refining procedure. The filter may be either bone char, granulated carbon, or an ion exchange system. The granular carbon has a wood or coal base, and the ion exchange does not require the use of any animal products (2).

Bones from cows are the only type used to make bone char. According to the Sugar Association and several large sugar producers, all of the cows have died of "natural causes" and do not come from the U.S. meat industry. Bone char cannot be produced or bought in the United States (3).

Bone char is derived from the bones of cattle from Afghanistan, Argentina, India and Pakistan. The sun-bleached bones are bought by Scottish, Brazilian, and Egyptian marketers, who sell them to the U.S. sugar industry after the bones are first used by the gelatin industry (4).

Bone is heated to an extremely high temperature, which results in a physical change in the bones composition. The bone becomes pure carbon before it is used in a refinery.

Refined sugar does not contain any bone particles and is therefore kosher certified. The bone char simply removes impurities from the sugar, but does not become a part of the sugar.

Individual pieces of bone char, like granular carbon, can be used for several years. They must be continuously washed to remove the sugar deposits. Companies that use bone char claim that the char is more economically feasible and efficient than other types of filters (4).

Many cane refineries use bone char. Domino, the largest sugar manufacturer, uses bone char in the filtration process. The cane refineries of Savannah Foods, the second largest sugar manufacturer, also use bone char. California and Hawaiian Sugar employs bone char filters in addition to granular carbon and ion exchange filters. All these companies use the bone char in the refining process of brown sugar, powdered sugar (sugar mixed with corn starch) and White Sugar .

the more i look into RO the more i dont like it. this link says it can encourage bacteria growth due to the slow process, and he doesn't believe its very affective at removing fluoride.


http://onibasu.com/archives/cl/2742.html


RO is basically a filter with very small pores and water is forced
through
under pressure. It's a slow system, producing filtered water gradually
and
storing it in a tank. Here are the problems.

1) The filter material, which has _very_ small pores, allowing through
only
those molecules of atomic weight less that about 180 (water is 18), is
made
in a high tech process. There are two kinds, "Thin Film Composite"
(TFC)
and "Cellulose Acetate"/"Cellulose Tri-Acetate" (CA/CTA). The second
is
preferable on a techinical basis because it is not as easily degraded
by
chlorine as the first. Problem is that the process necessary to make
such a
thing involves the use of some nasty chemicals:

[From Lono Kahuna upua A'O's book "Don't Drink the Water", second
ed. 1998, ISBN 0-9628882-9-x]

A major question about RO systems using CA or CTA membranes
recently
surfaced through the research of Gene Shaparenko, owner of Aqua
Technology Water Stores, a company which manufactures distillers.
He
discovered that a chemical, known as 1,4,dioxane, is applied to the
cellulosic materials of which CA or CTA membranes are made.
[reported in
_The South Valley Times_, article "Lifelines", Apr 1990] Its
purpose is
to etch the small pores in the material through which the water is
filtered. 1,4 dioxane is a colorless solvent which mixes easily
with
water. It is known to be extremely toxic when inhaled or absorbed
by
skin contact. It is ranked alongside asbestos, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, DDT, formaldehyde, msutard, gas, PCBs, TCE, and
vinyl
chloride in the State of California's Toxic Chemical List.

According to Mr. Shaparenko, no one at the state or federal level
of
government seems to know that this chemical has been routinely used
to
manufacture membranes which are used to "purify" water. Nor does
anyone
seem to know just how much of the chemical leaches into the
finished
water product, or how many gallons it takes to effectively purge
the
chemical, if indeed, it is purged at all.

This is a major concern, because the vast majority of RO systems
sold for
residential use have employed CTA membranes. Not only are they
cheper
than TFC membranes, but resistant to chlorine, and most residential
customers are on chlorinated water supplies...

He may want to know this. I am not clear what the manufacturing
process is
for the TFC membranes, but they have been around longer and they may
have
been more closely inspected for their manufacturing methods. If he
switches
to TFC then he will need to put in a prefilter to remove the chlorine
so the
TFC filter does not get degraded.

2) Another quote from the same book:

According to a study published in Canada by Canadian virologists,
[Pierre
Payment, Eduardo Franco, Lesley Richardson, and Jack Siemiatyci,
"Gastrointestinal Health Effects Associated with the Consumption of
Drinking Water Produced by Point-of-use Domestic Reverse osmosis
Filtration Units," "Applied and Environmental Microbiology," Vol.
57,
no. 4, April 1991, pp. 943-948.] it was discovered that RO systems
have a
penchant for growing bacteria, apparently because the finished
water is
devoid of chlorine and it takes so long to be made. Because the
water
sits stagnant at room temperature, sometimes for days, RO systems
become
an ideal breeding ground for bacteria, which can double their
populations
every 20 minutes or so. In their study of many types of RO
systems, the
virologists measured an average of 10,000 bacteria per millileter
of
water - 20 times the accepted level for city tap water. About a
third
of filters produced water with more that 100,000 bacteria per ml,
or 200
times more than average tap water. Some bred up to 10 million
bacteria
per ml!

The study went on to further demonstrate that, because of this
contamination (which occurs because bacteria contaminating the end
of the
dispensing faucet can be "sucked back" into the storage reservoir),
people who drink RO water suffer 10 times the number of bouts of
gastroenteritis as people who drink tap water.

The book's suggestion, if one has an RO system, is to replace CA/CTA
membranes by TFC membranes, put a prefilter like what is known as
"KDF" to
get rid of the chlorine, and add an ultra violet unit between the
storage
tank and the water dispensing faucet to kill the bacteria, and he even
suggests a carbon post-filter between the RO unit and the storage
tank.

Now, I have not looked into the manufacturing process used to make these
KDF
filters, so I don't know that they don't use something nasty too, but the
little I know so far, it seems like it might be ok (it's apparently just
a
zinc-copper alloy). Also the carbon filters include "Activated",
"Catalytic-Activated" and some of the "Catalytic-Activated" are
impregnated by
silver nitrate to keep bacteria from growing. This latter is also
poisonous
and to be avoided. I am not clear on the maufacturing process for other
"Catalytic-Activated" filters. Even the merely "Activated" ones are made
by
some sort of steam process starting from wood, coal or petroleum
products.
Those three get more distasteful as you do down the line. [Added for
this message:
Or coconut fibers - probably what we should go for.]

[Also I had a note about the availability of a] small KDF filter for
shower to get rid of the chlorine [29 bucks at HomeFocusCatalog.com, part
number 1181128, 800-624-2112 and supposedly it lasts for a year]. I'm
also
showering in cold so that I don't inhale the steam which contains all
kinds of
chlorine byproducts and fluorine (along with a whole list of others that
I
won't bother with here).

----------

CONCLUSION:

One more point on exposure. The EPA has standard methods to test
exposure to a pollutant in water. Accoring to those standard
calculations, 60% of our exposure comes through drinking the water and a
full 40% comes from a) showering (skin absorption and inhallation of
steam) and b) absorbing the pollutant through the skin which is in
contact with cloths washed in the water. Since I cant figure out how to
get the fluoride out of the water, I have taken the following measures:

1) I get my drinking water from a well tested spring. I use it to
drink, cook and wash my vegetables.

2) I get water from a well that is dependable and which I use to bathe (I
heat it on the stove, like the good old days) and wash my cloths (by
hand, it's not hard).

Nobody said that this was going to be easy!

In solidarity!
Dev.