Drinking Stream/Lake Water?

[Bster13]

Boiling would be out for me.  Too time and fuel consuming.... heck I won't even have a stove with me. : And boiling would not get rid of metals if there are any.

I took the time to write the Vermont Department of Health and here was their response:

Some metals do occur naturally in groundwater, and may also be found in streams and lakes. However, it's difficult to predict concentrations in surface water. Without testing every stream and lake, you won't know what natural or manmade contaminants are present, and what the health risk is. 

If there is one particular water source that you will be drinking, you could have it tested through our health department laboratory for arsenic and other common contaminants. You can call our lab to order a kit for arsenic ($12) or for 11 common inorganic contaminants (Kit C, $100). Their number is 800-660-9997.

Also, when I googled the toxicologist's name, she had a video on Floruide:


In any event, since I will be moving around a lot, I think one forum member's point about limited exposure to any one spot speaks to me.  In the end, I'll gladly fill up with (fluoridated!) tap water where available.  I may pay for water once in awhile as it's cheap, but I won't hesitate for the occasional fill up at a stream and filter it.

 

[Bster13]

I'm feeling much better about surface water these days...


From me: 

Thanks for your response.  I guess there is a distinction to be made between surface water and groundwater w/ regards to metals?

Her response:

Yes, usually, that is the case. These elements (arsenic, manganese, fluoride, uranium, etc) are naturally occurring in the earth’s crust and can dissolve into groundwater aquifers. They are usually not present in surface water. If I had to pick one to test, it would be arsenic.

 

[anewbiewannabe]

The information about boiling was in response to Mobilesport's question about a three stage approach.  It would be a substitute for bleach for those who had the ability to boil or need to not use bleach---not needed in addition to bleach.  It wasn't mentioned as a way to remove chemicals or heavy metals.  As for fluoride, everyone has to make their own choice as I have read "experts" on both sides of the debate and it was the first chemical that came to mind.

Ultimately everyone has to make their own decisions as to what is a risk to them that needs attenuated.

ETA: LOL I went on fb right after this and there's a meme about "fluoride should be a choice and not a mandate." Fun coincidence.

 

[Vagabound]

Just some general comments on the topics of practicality and specific dangers.  Two things really matter:  Context and Location.

Context:  
All of this crap goes right out the window if you've been out somewhere with no water for 3 days.  Have you seen Bear Grylls squeeze elephant dung to get the embedded water out it and let it drip directly into his mouth?  Sure, he's making a TV program, buy you get my point.  By comparison, dunking your head is an iffy pond would be great.  And using your filter on the same pond ... heaven.  So, the practical level of pickiness reduces as time to the last drink of water increases, and vice versa.

Location:  
* Upstream:  No matter what water source you're planning to use in the woods, you should know with some degree of certainty what is upstream of you.  People have mentioned dead animals upstream.  But there are other, less obvious things.  

For example, I was in a mountainous area that seemed pretty pristine.  Took water out of the stream for filtering, and took an au naturel bath in the stream (yeah, yeah) and it was great.  The next morning, I went hiking upstream and made an interesting discovery.  Some thoughtful person had wrecked a backhoe in the stream and abandoned it.  It had been there a while.  However, not long enough for the leaking fuel tanks/oil reserviors to be completely empty.  Right.  There was fuel/oil leaking into the stream, and with a careful eye, and new awareness, I could follow the slick all the way back down to my camp.

* Geography:  Different concerns in different parts of the country.  The one that would worry me the most, other than obvious industrial zones, is common out west -- abandoned mines.  There is often some pretty noxious stuff mixed in with the water leaking from mines -- acid mine drainage/run-off.  And if it happened to be a uranium mine, well, that's a whole 'nuther level of fun.  In the East, it's coal mining.

Toxic to say the least.

Vagabound

---------------------

http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/acid_mine_drainage#.V_PIzPl97b0

http://www.sosbluewaters.org/epa-what-is-acid-mine-drainage[1].pdf

 

[TrainChaser]

Keep your Sawyer handy, and that will probably take care of most of the organic problems, which is probably the majority of what you might run across.  Giardia is very common, in both wild and domestic animals, and that would be my biggest fear, but the Sawyer should handle it.

Possibly/probably the most dangerous parasite is from the raccoon, Baylisascaris procyonis, a type of roundworm.  But roundworms have large eggs, so your Sawyer should catch any you might come across.  The dangers with this one are that the parasite can migrate to your eyes, brain or organs, that there is no reliable test for it, and there is no totally effective cure if you get it.  Here's some info from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/baylisascaris/

 

[Vagabound]

...
Possibly/probably the most dangerous parasite is from the raccoon, Baylisascaris procyonis, a type of roundworm.  ... Here's some info from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/baylisascaris/

My favorite line:

"If you are cleaning an indoor raccoon latrine and are not able to use a propane torch, ..."

Agreed.  Not something I want to drink.

Vagabound