The best gravity feed water filtration available.

[johnny b]

Just a note or two to add.
One of the systems tested was the 'Doulton'....which is made by Berkefeld in England.....which happens to be the parent corp of Berkey America. If the PF-2 Flouride module had been added to that unit it would have scored the same as the Berkey.

Also in the opening post the Berkey is praised as filtering 6000 gallons before filter replacement....well that's partially true. The main pathogen filter (black) is good for 3000 gallons and with two in place you get 6000.....BUT the PF-2 Flouride modules which reduce the heavy metals are only good for 500 gallons each, so two would give ya 1000 gallons....currently on special at Berkey site for $54.00 (per set of 2). Of course this is under ideal conditions....the 'dirtier' the water being filtered the shorter the filter life.

Diesel, I appreciate your enthusiasm....I am just a bit skeptical in general (old age i guess), and like to dig deeper when I see 'studies' like that.

 

[highdesertranger]

is it a full moon tonight. no it's not I just looked. highdesertranger

 

[johnny b]

I need to eat a bit of crow here as I have gone back and read over some of my conclusions and double checked on the Berkey site.

First I was wrong to assume the PF-2 modules were required for heavy metal reduction in the Berkey. The standard 'black' filters are listed as reducing heavy metals on their own.

From the Lab test originally referenced there is this when clicking on result for the Berkey:

"Big Berkey was by far the best-performing gravity water filter we tested, achieving near-total removal of all toxic elements when used with the attached arsenic / fluoride filters (which attach underneath the black ceramic filters)."

I must learn to never ASSUME...but you can see the confusion....they were testing ONLY for heavy metals and made a point of adding the optional PF-2 modules. (While the filters used in the Doulton and Crystal Drop brands were not rated for metal reduction). I still think the test was bogus for looking at only heavy metals with products that made no claim for metal reduction.


Also the 3000 gallon filter life I'll just have to accept from Berkey, even though they say it's because they can be 'cleaned' 100 times. Other similar sized filters with the same 100 cleanings claim are rated at around 1000 gallons with yearly replacement recommendations. Only experience could really answer that one.

My apologies to Diesel4Life

 

[oldogre]

I have had the big Berkey for almost 5 years, replaced filters for first time .
No complaints here.
I just like the fact my water always tastes good and no worry about questionable water.
Also the stainless steel construction holds up well when when a sudden wind blows it off table.

 

[GCAdventurer]

Get serious Diesel, with all the **** we have done to this world, there probably isn't a single source left that is free of anything! I'm sure if we even went and tested our own cities water there is still heavy metals (lead) and all kinds of crap that's not good for us. The places I'm talking about in stores here in Canada offer RO filtered water from city sources for a buck or two as well as municipalities offering their water by the gallon through a vending type dispenser. Are these sources pure? Probably not seeming they are treated sources, but drinkable water non the less. Again, you missed the whole question. With so much access to drinkable water, (I can go to the grocery store and buy 12L for under $2) and we all (at least I hope) would choose to get water from the cleanest source possible and carry a couple gallons when we travel, when have you ever had to test the capability of your system? I know that unless SHTF I would be safe with the water I would normally carry and only need my filter system if I exhausted all other avenues of treated water.

 

[GCAdventurer]

And regarding heavy metals; both the Berkey and my Rainfresh were tested with these two NSF Certifications for chemicals/heavy metals, read below.
NSF/ANSI Standard 42

The commonly tested chemical reduction claims for products seeking certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 are: chlorine (taste and odor), chloramines, iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, pH neutralization and zinc reduction.

Filters subject to line pressure in the field that are tested for one of these non-health claims are installed and operated at a 60 psi dynamic (flowing) inlet pressure and run at the manufacturer’s desired rated service flow rate until the filter’s reduction capacity is achieved.

All chemical reduction tests are ran using a 16-hour test period with an eight-hour rest period, unless the rated capacity of a filter is achieved prior to the completion of the 16 hours of testing.

Testing for point-of-use (POU) chemical reduction claims is conducted in duplicate, but iron, manganese and all POE chemical reduction testing only requires one system to be tested. The type of system and anticipated pattern use allows the manufacturer the option of choosing the operating cycle of the chemical reduction test.

Batch water treatment systems (pour-through pitcher and other gravity systems) are tested based on the manufacturer’s recommended pattern use, typically two to six gallons per day.

Depending on the intended frequency of use, plumbed-in POU systems can be tested using either a 50%-on/50%-off cycle or a 10%-on/90%-off cycle.

For whole house POE systems, one system is tested continuously for 16 hours followed by an eight-hour rest period each day until the rated capacity is reached.

All chemical reduction testing found in NSF/ANSI Standard 42 is conducted to 100% of the manufacturer’s anticipated reduction capacity for the drinking water filtration system with the exception of iron and manganese, which are conducted to 120% of the system’s reduction capacity.

NSF/ANSI Standard 53

The commonly tested chemical reduction claims for products seeking certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 53 are: heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and selenium), inorganics (fluoride and nitrate plus nitrite) and volatile organic chemicals (chloroform surrogate as well as individual organic chemicals).

Standard 53 testing differs from Standard 42 testing in the fact that testing is conducted at the maximum flow rate that results from a 60-psi dynamic (flowing) inlet pressure and is run to either 120% or 200% of the manufacturer’s anticipated reduction capacity.

Testing for health contaminants requires added safety, so NSF/ANSI Standard 53 allows the use of performance indication devices (PIDs). PIDs inform the end user when the product has reached its rated capacity by a flashing light, audible alarm or by reducing or stopping the flow of water through the system.

Chemical reduction testing conducted on a system that has a PID is required to run for 120% of the system’s rated capacity. Systems can also be tested without PIDs, but Standard 53 requires that these products be tested to 200% of the system’s rated capacity. Testing cycle options are the same as Standard 42, which are 50%-on/50%-off or 10%-on/90%-off for 16 hours with an eight-hour rest period. All chemical reduction testing conducted according to Standard 53 is conducted in duplicate, including POE testing.

 

[Diesel4Life]

Johnny b,

No need to apologize Sir, I believe that a true intellectual is always willing to reconsider former opinions when new or additional data, facts present themselves. Of which you've demonstrated you are, we are all here to learn and share with one another. I'm new here but do see great value in these forums-community, I also understand that in text often intent can be misunderstood. I hope my passion never offends others and did not offend you, I only suggest things that I believe in and that might be helpful/useful to others, and that I fully understand and actually have long term real time personal experience with. I look forward to future conversation with you. 


Encourage & Empower others, and stop feeding the beast. I try to lift up my fellow man, so that he can see above the heard mentality and realize the real world that exist beyond.

 

[Diesel4Life]

GCAventurer,

You did not mention "Reverse Osmosis" in your previous text, " with the access to clean town water stations, as well as commercial 'u fill' stations that do not charge much for clean water, how many times has anyone had to actually fetch water from a source so questionable that the limits of their own filtration unit may be tested? "

There are two levels above the Berkey gravity fed water system: Reverse Osmosis and Distillation being the number one. "These two additional levels are not practical for most dwellers," and that is why I did not suggest either in my original post. "Also my system does not rely upon access" to your listed sources, and so it is a great way to become more "self sufficient and self reliant." And also to create further "independence and security now and into the future." I do not believe there is any absolute pure water sources outside of the treatment systems I've mentioned, and adding this inexpensive system is "just plain logical." I am not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind, but will not without new additional data change mine either. 




Encourage & Empower others, and stop feeding the beast. I try to lift up my fellow man, so that he can see above the heard mentality and realize the real world that exist beyond.

 

[GCAdventurer]

Diesel,
Correct, I did not mention RO in my earlier post as it wasn't all that important. The point is that at least up here in Canada, there are many 'safe' access points to clean drinkable water for little to no cost without having to rely on having to filter questionable water sources. I would much rather use these access points as opposed to relying only on my filtration system, thus making the filters last longer before intervals. But like I said before, you have yours, I have mine and we are both happy with what we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken in Anaheim]

Kind of surprised no one has mentioned the Sawyer  brand filters and purifers.

 

[Diesel4Life]

Ken In Anaheim,

Sawyer brand filters address bacteria and pathogenic issues not heavy metals and toxins. Their fine for occasional back packer use I guess. But Berkey makes a much superior back packer type version of their larger water filter system that I would recommend called the Go Berkey. For reference; https://www.amazon.com/Berkey-Stain...UTF8&qid=1471262579&sr=8-1&keywords=go+berkey

The only caveat in my opinion would be, I would replace the plastic bottle that they included with a good quality stainless steel one. There are numerous great quality versions available online very inexpensively these days. 





Encourage & Empower others, and stop feeding the beast. I try to lift up my fellow man, so that he can see above the heard mentality and realize the real world that exist beyond.

 

[SoulRaven]

I was in the Goodwill last year and looking around. I already had the plasticy Berkey and it was cracking by the spigot. I looked up on the top shelf and there was a the stainless Berkey for $2.50. It had the ceramic filters in it, but I already had an extra set at home. They obviously had no idea what it was or how darn much they cost when new. It appeared to hardly ever been used, probably a gift for grandpa and grandma, we have lots of older people here. Goodwill does operate an online store that might be worth watching. I think that was probably my bargain of a lifetime!

 

[Diesel4Life]

Snow Gypsy,

Unbelievable bargain of a lifetime is right, what a fantastic find. And I'm sure your right they had no idea what they had. But you did. Just get some backup filters and your set. How long have you been a Berkey user? And thank you for sharing that great find story.