Drinking Water from watertanks

[DHLyman]

My brother, the scientist, tells me chlorine will "off gas" if left open to the air. We keep a glass jug of town water in then refrigerator at home with no top. The chlorine taste is gone in 24 hours. Helps to shake up the jug occasionally.
I added chlorine to my water tanks on Searcher, my Bowman 57, each spring, let it sit there for a few days, then pumped it out. Any residual chlorine left evaporated by the end of the week. The tanks were SS, not aluminum, the plumping was part copper and part plastic water tubes.
I never had a problem.
While living aboard fore a few years, the Britia filter pitch provided us with filtered water fo drinking.

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by DHLyman

My brother, the scientist, tells me chlorine will "off gas" if left open to the air. We keep a glass jug of town water in then refrigerator at home with no top. The chlorine taste is gone in 24 hours. Helps to shake up the jug occasionally.
I added chlorine to my water tanks on Searcher, my Bowman 57, each spring, let it sit there for a few days, then pumped it out. Any residual chlorine left evaporated by the end of the week. The tanks were SS, not aluminum, the plumping was part copper and part plastic water tubes.
I never had a problem.
While living aboard fore a few years, the Britia filter pitch provided us with filtered water fo drinking.

I have read that many municipalities are now using chloramine, which is not so easy to get rid of.

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

what a freakin argument reach

Learned long ago not to argue with people who are not open to new information.

[Mike OReilly]

Strikes me that the potential problems of ingesting very low levels of chlorine are easily balanced against the very severe impacts of untreated water. Contaminated water kills more people around the world than just about any other source.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the negative impacts of chlorine. As is so often the case, each action has both positive and negative impacts; the proverbial double-edged sword. But clearly the downsides of poor water sanitation far outweigh the negatives of low concentration chlorine use.

[Old fella]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

No filters for us
Water from the tap and from the sky to fill the tanks and drink it

Me too, mainly from the sky and possibly with a bit of seagull crap in it off the decks, didn't seem to hurt the wife and I over the 20 years living aboard, maybe just lucky.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Strikes me that the potential problems of ingesting very low levels of chlorine are easily balanced against the very severe impacts of untreated water. Contaminated water kills more people around the world than just about any other source.



Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the negative impacts of chlorine. As is so often the case, each action has both positive and negative impacts; the proverbial double-edged sword. But clearly the downsides of poor water sanitation far outweigh the negatives of low concentration chlorine use.

I agree and if people are testing to 1PPM or even close, that’s a small amount.
However I hear occasionally of people that toss in a 1/4 cup when they fill up, and that likely way over 1 PPM.
Unless the water has Cholera or fecal bacteria etc in it, you don’t need or chlorinate it.
If your filling from a US municipal supply, odds are it’s chlorinated already, why add more?

I’m in the camp as I stated earlier that doesn’t want to return to the good ole days of Chloera and other water borne diseases, however I don’t believe chlorine is harmless either, so as easy as it is to avoid exposure to it as it is, why not do it?
A good carbon block filter will remove chlorine, and if of contains colloidal silver, like a Seagull does, then it won’t be a trap for bacteria either.
By they way, our Seagull cartridge lasts years, yes they are stupid expensive, but if it lasts for years it’s not much money.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

Learned long ago not to argue with people who are not open to new information.

Doesn’t appear to have “taken”

If you drink water with enough chlorine to kill off your gut bio, well tomorrow’s dump isn’t going to be the concern.

Meanwhile treated drinking water is probably responsible for the largest leap in preventing illnesses in history.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I agree and if people are testing to 1PPM or even close, that’s a small amount.
However I hear occasionally of people that toss in a 1/4 cup when they fill up, and that likely way over 1 PPM.
Unless the water has Cholera or fecal bacteria etc in it, you don’t need or chlorinate it.
If your filling from a US municipal supply, odds are it’s chlorinated already, why add more?

I’m in the camp as I stated earlier that doesn’t want to return to the good ole days of Chloera and other water borne diseases, however I don’t believe chlorine is harmless either, so as easy as it is to avoid exposure to it as it is, why not do it?
A good carbon block filter will remove chlorine, and if of contains colloidal silver, like a Seagull does, then it won’t be a trap for bacteria either.
By they way, our Seagull cartridge lasts years, yes they are stupid expensive, but if it lasts for years it’s not much money.

No disagreement here. As I said, I use a carbon filter on our system, and so far I have never added chlorine to our tanks. I do go through a cleansing (shock) process at the beginning of each season following winter storage. The chlorine then gets flushed and then filtered out.

There is almost no chemical that, if taken at a high enough dosage or concentration, won't cause harm. Heck, that includes water itself — too much will kill you. And likewise there is almost no chemical that is always dangerous at any low concentration. The old adage “the solution to pollution is dilution” remains true.

Chlorine is bad for biology; both nasty bacteria and bits of me. This is why it should be used wisely. It’s also why source matters. Those of us lucky enough to travel in developed countries, and who source our water from respectable municipal systems, have very little need to worry. Any problems here would almost all be operator-error, such as using a dirty hose, or otherwise letting in contaminants.

Those travelling in lesser developed areas should be more vigilant. In these cases I can certainly see adding chlorine to questionable water.

[surf_km55]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.....Those travelling in lesser developed areas should be more vigilant. In these cases I can certainly see adding chlorine to questionable water.

Did you say "Flint, Michigan?"


Sorry, I couldn't help it.

[Exile]

Meanwhile . . .

10 pages & 144 posts which report a wide variety of practices, recommendations & proposals. From 'shocking' tanks with various amounts of chlorine to drinking straight out of tanks with no treatment, in some cases for decades. Yet I don't recall any instances of reports of negative consequences, namely people getting sick from some sort of pathogen.

Lots of good information here for sure, and I'm not trying to discount the potential risks in less developed parts of the world, but for most of us it could just be that this falls into the category of smaller stuff that is perhaps not worth sweating.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by surf_km55

Did you say "Flint, Michigan?"

Ah yes, just shows there’s always exceptions .

But of course the Flint situation wasn’t an issue with biological contaminants, nor with the amount of chlorine used. It had to do with lead contamination from old pipes.

A more apt example is one from Canada: Walkerton disaster which actually resulted in six deaths and thousands sick due to inadequate water sanitation.

[Exile]

Fwiw, I use well water at home and have sediment filters, a water conditioner (to extract hard minerals), and an under-the-sink RO filtration system for drinking. I have been advised, however, that none of this will likely remove common pathogens such as e. coli and coliform. Only chlorine and UV will work for this. Perhaps the Seagull filters containing silver(?), but apparently not the standard water filters that many speak of using throughout this thread.

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Doesn’t appear to have “taken”

If you drink water with enough chlorine to kill off your gut bio, well tomorrow’s dump isn’t going to be the concern.

Meanwhile treated drinking water is probably responsible for the largest leap in preventing illnesses in history.

No disagreement about the benefits of treating water. IMHO - If you can remove chlorine just before drinking, it would be the best approach.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Fwiw, I use well water at home and have sediment filters, a water conditioner (to extract hard minerals), and an under-the-sink RO filtration system for drinking. I have been advised, however, that none of this will likely remove common pathogens such as e. coli and coliform. Only chlorine and UV will work for this. Perhaps the Seagull filters containing silver(?), but apparently not the standard water filters that many speak of using throughout this thread.

According to the CDC:
A reverse osmosis system has a pore size of approximately 0.0001 micron.
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing protozoa (for example, Cryptosporidium, Giardia);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing bacteria (for example, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, E. coli);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing viruses (for example, Enteric, Hepatitis A, Norovirus, Rotavirus);
Reverse Osmosis Systems will remove common chemical contaminants (metal ions, aqueous salts), including sodium, chloride, copper, chromium, and lead; may reduce arsenic, fluoride, radium, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, nitrate, and phosphorous.
☞ https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/dri...treatment.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to the CDC:
A reverse osmosis system has a pore size of approximately 0.0001 micron.
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing protozoa (for example, Cryptosporidium, Giardia);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing bacteria (for example, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, E. coli);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing viruses (for example, Enteric, Hepatitis A, Norovirus, Rotavirus);
Reverse Osmosis Systems will remove common chemical contaminants (metal ions, aqueous salts), including sodium, chloride, copper, chromium, and lead; may reduce arsenic, fluoride, radium, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, nitrate, and phosphorous.
☞ https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/dri...treatment.html

I suspect the variance between this CDC info and what I've been advised lies in the fact that most standard home/boat systems labeled as "RO" -- incl. mine -- rely on relatively low household-level pressure (35-60psi) to push water through one or more membranes. This is in contrast to the type of high pressure RO systems commonly associated with watermakers that are obviously much more effective at filtration. I'm not sure which type the CDC is referencing from your link, or if they even consider low pressure household-types as qualifying as true RO systems.