61–70 of 222 posts
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 th…
... But does it remove the PFAs?
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 th…
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.
(How much PFAS do you get from plastic-bottled water / soft drinks instead of the stuff coming out of metal pipes?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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…
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.
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 th…
> 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.
A surprising amount of Americans refuse to drink tap water entirely, in their own suburban homes with quality municipal water, or anywhere else they travel, holding the opinion that plastic bottled water is safer and better. Of course bottled water is regulated far less than tap water, and contains an ungodly amount of microplastics from manufacturing and storage. Under-sink RO systems seem pretty great to me, anywhe…
Is it worse than the other groceries we can't readily get without them being wrapped in plastic? Or storing leftovers in plastic bags at home?
>Why you should trust me Absolutely zero mention of qualifications. If you do not have a chemistry/chemical engineering degree, or something closely related then why would anyone want to bother with your verbose writing?
ah yes, degrees. i only absorb information from qualified individuals with degrees.
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 th…
> three stage filter spout ... But does it remove the PFAs?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's even worse than that - they have the same anti-tech political bent as the rest of the legacy tech press. Thankfully we have better options now.
Question: Is there some implied negative critique of Consumer Reports here? I rather enjoy their work and the fact they're reader funded, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's something I should be aware of that's not clear from it (the way they test or how they accept another type of money). I know they review too many cars (every issue lately features a car banner at the top of the cover).
If I’m shopping for a hand mixer, I want to get a list of the best ones and then make my own call on price / performance. I don’t want to be told a $19 product is the best and have to carefully dissect the article to learn that it’s not actually the best, CR has just decided on my behalf that the actual best product isn’t worth $10 more.
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 th…
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.