Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Filtering water?

"As I mentioned before, most people who are infected with giardia have no symptoms. It looks like that's the case for cryptosporidium too. An infection by a water borne pathogen is even more insidious if a child doesn't experience any overt symptoms, it is undetected, and it goes untreated and affects a child's growth."

Bob K, perhaps you are, uh, "expanding" upon things somewhat, but the assertion you make about growth is simply not true. This sort of spreading of a falsehood is the sort of thing that would make a cautious parent not allow their child to go into the wilderness, at all. Why take a chance, as others in this thread are saying?

"It's not as inconvenient a test as one might at first think because people routinely take fecal smears at home for annual colon cancer screening and mail them into a lab. Probably a larger sample would be needed to test for parasites but that shouldn't be a problem."

Wrong. Different test, that has totally different collection requirements. The smear that you mention would turn up Giardia 0% of the time, when it is 100% present. Innovative thought, though!

"That's a false and irresponsible remark. That's easy to write on a message board when you have no responsibility. It's a different matter when you are responsible for the well being of children that parents have entrusted to your care."

Bob K, mountainboy11's best defense is that what he says is actually true. let's take the next step; I think it is reasonably certain that the most likely source of Giardia in the wilderness, on a child's trip, are the other participants. If one ignores that, and takes great measures to prevent infection from an unlikely source, and ignores the actual dangers, how would one typify that decision-making and action?

Here's the assertion I made, "An infection by a water borne pathogen is even more insidious if a child doesn't experience any overt symptoms, it is undetected, and it goes untreated and affects a child's growth." And here's a related reference, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006312 which had the following conclusion for a study of the water borne pathogen cryptosporidium parvum in Peru,

"These findings show that C. parvum infection has an adverse effect on growth. Asymptomatic cryptosporidiosis is of special concern, since it was more prevalent and thus probably would have more of an overall adverse effect on child growth in the community."

Ken, Do you have a link to an article on the subject that supports your point?


Ken, Here’s the last sentence of the paragraph, "Probably a larger sample would be needed to test for parasites but that shouldn't be a problem." This would be as large as necessary and put in a container to be mailed in. I can see how you might have mistakenly thought it to mean a larger smear sample. But hey, jump in and suggest the best way to do it.

My two cents worth... as someone who has been afflicted by Giardia before... I was symptomatic of the little critter... and there was a smear test thingie that I had to do.. I just don't remember if I mailed it in or if it was something that needed to be dropped off at the lab.. but I -did- do the smear at home... and as I recall.. the sample wasn't all that large.

By the way... my giardia was not contracted at or near Whitney... it was a hitchhiker from a family vacation to Zion NP in Utah...

~Chris

Most people in the United States and Canada get Giardia from child day care centers and public swimming pools or similar transmission sites. Most places tested in the Sierra had less giardia levels than did some California municipal water systems.

That being said, it takes a few of the critters to set up housekeeping inside you. There is the big 'G' in and around the Portal area (probably). But it is also probably the least likely thing to make you sick there or a few days after.

Pristine water from a beautiful spring tastes the same after it is filtered as it does before filtering. Might as well take the time to commune with nature and pump a few jugs full.

Keep the economy going and buy one of the darn filter thingys. You will look like you are an experienced outdoor person if you do it efficiently (practice at home).

BTW the term "drink smart" has come up so it may be worth knowing what that means. Here's an excerpt from the article that mentions it. http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/pcs/articles/giardia.asp

Personal observations

I started visiting the Sierra Nevada in the early 1950s and have spent much of my free time there. I have never treated the water, and I have never had symptoms of giardiasis as a consequence of my visits. My many similarly active friends and acquaintances also drink the water, in the High Sierra and elsewhere, with no ill effects. But we are always careful to “drink smart”:
* Drink from large streams whenever possible, preferably those entering from the side rather than those paralleling the trail.
* Water in fast-flowing streams is safer because any contaminants present at any location are swept downstream, being quickly displaced by presumably clean water from above.[vii]
* Water at higher elevations is safer, partly because of reduced human and animal presence, and partly because water flowing to lower elevations has a chance to pick up more contaminants the farther it travels.
* Taking water from a lake is best advised at the inlet, with the next best place at the outlet. Inlet water has a tendency to flow somewhat directly to the outlet, undergoing little mixing with the lake water as a whole.
* Few Giardia cysts survive harsh Sierra winters. Contamina­tion begins essentially anew each year, so springtime water is safer than summer or fall.
* The colder the water is, the more likely it is freshly melted, meaning less opportunity for contamina­tion.
* Because filtration of water through soil removes Giardia cysts, deep well water is considered safe.10 By implication, springs in the wilderness should be, too.
* One would think that, after a heavy snow year when streams run full and long, some kind of “flushing out” of lakes and streams must be occurring. Conversely, it makes sense to be more cautious in dry years.
* Avoid water that likely could have passed through an area subject to heavy human or animal use.
* If it doesn’t look good—it’s cloudy or has surface foam—treat it or don’t drink it.
________________________________________________________________

That's a lot of considerations for water that some people seem to be saying is generally safe to drink. The author (Bob R) appears to say that those considerations are necessary when he writes,

"My many similarly active friends and acquaintances also drink the water, in the High Sierra and elsewhere, with no ill effects. But we are always careful to 'drink smart' "

If someone believes that there aren't sometimes significant levels of pathogens in Sierra water, why would they feel that they have to always be careful to "drink smart"?

This thread still has a life. I will post here plus a new thread

Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, Summer 2008

5 year/364 sample study of animal fecal contamination of Sierra streams/lakes by Derlot, Ger, Richards, Carlson in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, & other, but none in Whitney area itself:

Risk of positive E. Coli positive water culture:
Wild sites............9%
Dayhike sites.......12%
Backpacker sites...18%
Pack animal sites..63%
Cattle sites.........96%

Their conclusion: "In Sierra Nevada wilderness areas, water from alpine sidestreams that are free from upstream domesticated animal use have a very low risk of harboring coliforms and we believe have a minimal risk of illness if drunk untreated."

My conclusion: Choose wisely. I don't like that 9% as their lowest risk category. I always filter with one exception: drinking from a running stream literally on or in a glacier or a very high snow pack. However, last time I did this, ten seconds later I noticed ptarmigans in the snowpack streamlet uphill from me. oops. Got lucky. Harvey

LOL. Bird poop and filtering. Interesting connection. A local story comes to mind, a local beach is sometimes posted as closed to swimming/surfing due to high bacteria counts caused by a pigeon issue near the pier. Though I don't see anyone intentionally drinking beach water on good days there. More connected, I don't remember having seen migrating seagulls( or other birds) over Sierra elevations, just military jets and people poop dropping jets.

Bob K.

I have had my own version of "drink smart" for going on 30 years of backcountry travel up and down the Sierra. It is based on my own personal experience and sense. I always consider the possibility and probability of contamination of any kind of the water I am considering for consumption.
My intent here is not to be rude, but your last comment sort of irritated me; like you are trying to make something out of this that is not there. My answer to your question is simply common sense.

David Trujillo

Last time I was up in the North Fork, I didn't use a filter. We drank freely at the river coming out of Upper Boy Scout Lake. It was clean and clear and fast moving.

When I was passing Lower Boy Scout Lake I looked down to see an area of water, all mossy and full of bugs, along the shoreline. You can be sure I didn't drink there.

There were also areas where the snowmelt was flowing across the trail people were walking. I didn't drink there also.

Drinking smart is always best and works for me.

I don't. But then, I'm not particularly interested in the hiking performance of 3 month olds from Peru, as they attempt their summit of Mt. Whitney. This is a considerably different group than that involved in Boy Scout troops, which was the group under discussion. With the explosion of obesity in this group, a little cryptosporidiosis might be a good thing. Your statement about infection was broad, not limited to cryptosporidiosis, which may, or may not extrapolate, but is not the same as evidence.

However, seriously, I was really not meaning to discuss cryptosporidiosis, but giardiasis. I guess I was distracted by the discussion of Giardia lab testing. I see your point, although I think it is not of practical consequence in the situation under discussion. However, your assertion that the risk of giardia infection not being equal to the risk of encountering Bigfoot has some merit. It would be better to compare it to the risk of being hit by lightning.





Ken, Here’s the last sentence of the paragraph, "Probably a larger sample would be needed to test for parasites but that shouldn't be a problem." This would be as large as necessary and put in a container to be mailed in. I can see how you might have mistakenly thought it to mean a larger smear sample. But hey, jump in and suggest the best way to do it.
[/quote]

There are two methods of testing: The outmoded microscopic technic, which requires special preservation of stool specimens, and was frought with problems, and the newer antigen-detection method, using ELISA technology. This specimen can be collected and allowed to dry, the same as a test for occult blood for the early detection of colon cancer. HOWEVER, the specimen must be tested within 24 hours, or will be unreliable, per the test manufacturer's recommendations. It cannot just be mailed into the lab, and that is not how it is handled, unless one wants a lot of reliably negative tests.

www.rapidtest.com/Giardia_8304-3.pdf

Ken, Thanks for the info.

The comparison that you suggested about the risk of giardia and lightning is better than Bigfoot. (No offense Bigfoot, if you're out there reading this.)

There are confounding effects that seem to make it difficult to determine the actual risk: 1) many people filter or treat the water 2) giardia infection can come from unsanitary behavior 3) most people don't exhibit obvious symptoms 4) when symptoms do occur they don't show up for a week or two so the connection to a backpacking trip may not be obvious.

As far as the confounding effect of the filter use, if one is old enough like me they can recall what backpacking was like in the 70's when filters weren't used and people like me simply drank the water directly from the natural source. Well not exactly "directly", I didn't lap it up, but sometimes I scooped up a handful to drink. And I remember filling a canteen at my campsite next to Mirror Lake. In any case I didn't filter and I don't recall any problems that I connected with drinking the water. But since one doesn't always make the connection between intestinal problems a week or two later and the water, I can't be sure. For example, I do recall having intestinal problems once in awhile when I was young but I had thought it was due to stress.

been straining my neck as this question posted was given a quick "smart filter" and we haven't really heard from KodiakBoy and others, after question was buried by a smarter albeit small crowd

(does the term, "hi-jacked" apply?)

seems like a legitimate question, relating to time of year, snow melt, etc...

some would have liked to:

* have heard more discussion in regards to this; as in the snow fields should still be there in early July

* have the "a proclamation of sorts" thread subject/topic line NOT edited/changed by it's author when there was already an active discussion regarding agua

* not have new questions/posts diluted by a "smart" read and a "fast" post

KodiakBoy (if you still look to this board), what is your experience with treating water by filter or other means in wilderness/high use/other outdoor environments? (Once, I brought a filter to a 3 day N to S rim, Grand Canyon trip. Didn't use or need it.)

Mountainboy11 - I confess. As a former boy scout and current hiker/backpacker, I don't understand this statement. I think the Boy Scout motto is still "Be Prepared". Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having my guard up in the wilderness. The number of things that can go wrong out there are innumerable. Do you NOT tell your scouts how to handle food safely for fear they will have their guards up? Do you NOT tell them how attentive they need to be when traversing an icy snow field or how to use their crampons and axes? IMO only a fool has his guard down in the wilderness. As to the debate about filtering, to me it's like the motorcycle helmet law. I personally don't care if you want to feel the wind in your hair while you ride your motorcyle so long as I don't have to pay for your hospital bills while you lay in a vegetative state for 10 years. So filter or don't filter, it's still a free country. Just don't come knocking when you get sick. By the way, I've tried it both ways and the water is still DELICIOUS when it has been run through a filter. Who knew?

As a current Scout leader of both Boys and Girls.. and a recent Cub Scout leader.. .the first thing I do in ANY enviornment is make my girls and boys aware of the dangers. Be it human, reptile, animal, or landscape. I don't use scare tactics (i.e.: if you drink that water you're going to get bugs in your stomach that'll kill you)... but I let them know that they have to be careful about what they're doing and where they are doing it and to be aware of not only themselves but the others around them.

One of the foremost lessons that we reinforce constantly is "Leave No Trace"... and if they don't understand the enviornment that they are in how can they know what traces they might be leaving?

And WhitRat.. you are correct.. the Boy Scout motto is "Be Prepared"... which means having the filter with you even if you never, ever, ever use it.. because you NEVER know when you might need it.

(And just for the general information of any who might be interested... my Mom and I are seriously considering not filtering... but we will still have the resources if we need it. However... were I hiking Whitney (or any backcountry area) with my Scouts... I would insist on filtering of some sort. It's one thing to gamble with me.. however... if the parents are going to intrust those children's welfare and safety to me.. you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll do everything within my worldly powers to make sure those kids make it home in one piece, with no extra intestinal hitchhikers!!!)

WhitRat and SoCalGirl: I think you are missing a point here, especially expressed in Bob R's Giardia paper and in that thread that was killed.

That point is that there are far worse dangers for the intestinal tract than unfiltered water. If you really want to impart knowledge to your scouts, teach them what water is most likely (highly improbable of any serious contaminants) safe. Teach them that proper hygiene and proper food selection and storage is FAR more important for their intestinal safety. (I personally saw the effects on a hiker last week from food poisoning -- he was incapacitated and becoming dehydrated.)

Use the Rockwell paper to illustrate the idea of "drink smart". Use the works of Robert Derlet, where he finds only negligible traces of bacteria in Sierra streams (and even less in lakes), except where domestic animals are present.

Tell them that some people carry and use filters, while others do not. Tell them that neither group has ever identified any difference in the intestinal infection rates.

And finally, teach them about packing light -- where every extra pound of excess weight counts.

Then let them make an informed decision on their own whether or not to filter.

I do teach all of that stuff to my Scouts... most definitely. And when they're old enough (in the actual Boy scouts and higher ranks) they will not only be able to make their own decisions based on the information I've taught them.. but they will be required to make their own decisions.

The point that I was trying to make is that "Be Prepared" means knowing every part of your environment and being ready to deal with anything... contaminated water included in this. I wasn't speaking specifically of giardia as I know from very personal experience that you can not see those little buggers until it is waaayyyy to late.

And in all honesty... while we do talk about the importance of watching your food and drinking enough water and the necessary steps it takes to guard against intestinal issues... I think that you're much more likely to have a twisted ankle or some sort of injury like that as a result of escapading through the wilderness.

Most importantly teach them to wash their hands after they poop and pee. Teach them to handle food properly. Those are greater risks for GI troubles than drinking unfiltered water.

*LOL* Thats something I try to teach -any- child.. Scout or not. It's part of the Mommy Mantra "Did you wash your hands? Did you use soap?"

Interesting and opinionated thread.

My stepfather was a miner in Colorado, and as a kid we always drank from rivers there, though he taught me "drink smart" without calling it that.

When we moved to California, I continued to use river water for drinking, not "knowing" any better. Over all those years nothing adverse happened to any of us that even hinted it was caused by the water.

Then, I got "educated" about giardia being everywhere, and the general idea was that you never, ever drink untreated stream water, not even wash dishes in it or get a drop from a wet finger. It was a lousy feeling, thinking of all that pristine water as being ruined by man, a potential poison.

A couple of years ago I read Bob R's article linked from here. It was as if I was let out of jail, and suddenly everything made sense. I was the victim of man-made hype, more paranoia fomented by our overprotective society.

So I went back to using common sense. If there's no reason to believe water is contaminated, and it looks right as I was taught as a kid, I dip my cup in and it tastes fantastic. It may be true that running it through a filter won't change the taste, but there's a freedom there, that I think Mountainboy alluded to in his comment. It just feels "right", natural, normal.

I still carry a filter, and if there's any reason to suspect it may not be good water, don't have any problem with filtering it; the weight isn't an issue to me, I'm not drinking unfiltered water to save weight, I'm drinking it because that's the way things are supposed to be.

To this day, no issues with it whatsoever, for me or others with me, including my grandson who loves to dip the cup for a drink of that icy snowmelt river water, and will be taught to "drink smart".

I wonder just how "safe" that chlorine really is, that people stir in their water? Sure, scientists and doctors say there's no evidence it's a problem, but chlorine is a poison, and do you really trust the scientific and medical community to give us absolute facts when they've made mistake after mistake? I think I trust that icy pristine-looking river more than I trust a doctor to tell me the chlorine pill (that tastes awful) is safe.

Look at what animals drink (and eat!); have we pampered ouselves to the point where we can't tolerate the slightest impurity? (except the chemicals that plastic water bottles add 8^) Perhaps pampering yourself by sheltering yourself from the few natural impurities that may be in that river water, that we should be able to tolerate, is just shooting yourself in the foot.

As I said, I don't feel bad about filtering suspect water...but an electronic UV pen? No way.

SoCalGal, since we're both Scout leaders, you and I agree that our approach to the wilderness in general and water treatment in particular are more conservative when we are responsible for other peoples' kids.

As far as the general necessity of carrying some sort of water treatment means, if you either know that the water is suspect (used by pack stock, in a high-use area with significant probability of careless people, downstream from livestock pastures, etc.) or are unfamiliar with what lies upstream, the penalty for adding even a heavy filter like my First Need to the crew gear isn't much of an issue and makes all the sense in the world to me, based on the tradeoffs already discussed between chemical treatments, UV pens and various sub-micron filters. (If you're a solo hiker, the lighter stuff like the chemical tablets may definitely appeal but I'm usually with a group of 4-12 people.)

We also emphasize proper hygiene to our Scouts, especially regarding food preparation and eating. I absolutely agree that more people get sick in the back country because of poor handwashing or dishwashing habits than from contaminated water.

So, am I likely to dip'n'drink a little more often in the Sierra? Probably. Will I still carry my filter? Definitely. Will I use it if I'm the least suspicious of the source of the water? Absolutely.