On 15 Aug 2003 11:01:28 -0700, ben_nur at hotmail.com (ada) wrote:
>>Do you know if reverse osmosis system is any good?
IAN: The book "Water, The Ultimate Cure" by Steve Meyerowitz
says reverse osmosis extracts most pollutants including particulate,
matter, lead, mercury, radium, and uranium. But it also says it can
NOT remove toxic gases, chloroform, phenol, THMs, bacteria, viruses,
some pesticides or organic compounds of low molecular weight. It also
says reverse osmosis wastes 6 gallons of input water for every gallon
of purified water; membrane replacement is costly; requires post and
pre carbon filters; plumber is required for instillation; and water
quality diminishes as the membrane ages. Distillation is better.
The text generally disagrees with the views expressed on the page
Tim initially cited that cautioned against distilled water. It says
distilled water can be balanced (or reionized) by simply adding a few
grains of rice to a gallon which it says is better than spring water,
the contents of which may be unknown. It also says, "distilled water
cannot attract organically bound minerals from our bones or cells."
It also doubts that inorganic minerals in nondistilled water can
be used by the body and quotes Dr Paul Bragg: "You can no more
digest inorganic minerals than you can dirt." Is that true?
I've never been able to find (and haven't spent a lot of time
searching for) evidence supporting claims about the superiority
of organic (colloidal) versus inorganic minerals. If anyone has
scientifically valid evidence on that, please post it. The book
I cite here came free with the distillation unit I bought, the
title of which calls for caution regarding the claims therein.
Most claims about water-cures and such strike me as quackery.
"To practice justice is to practice liberty." Simon Bolivar