High Sierra Topix

AlmostThere wrote:

Colter wrote: I think I've presented some new scientific perspectives.

You're free to think that.

That's very kind of you.

Look, there are many people who DO care what scientific research has to say about the topic, that is why if you Google Rockwell Giardia you come up with a couple hundred thousand results. Countless thousands of people, including myself, have made treatment decisions based on that paper. I ended up really, really sick in the Sierra as a result, beyond a reasonable doubt. I researched the science in Rockwell's paper and found errors, some of which I've pointed out here.

There are people who might not think it's worth discussing and that everything that needs to be said has been said. I disagree. My original post is not a rehash of the same old stuff for those who take the time to read it.

It's hard to imagine a more appropriate forum on which to discuss the Rockwell paper.

Colter,

I'd love to see you on other threads here. If this is it, then that's just not enough. I filter, so no discussion necessary.

You are aware that the time most of us spend in the backcountry is well below the gestation period for Giardia, and we'd be in a doctors care by then, right?

Rehash away.

Scientific research on this subject is outdated by the end of the season, IMO. Single celled organisms will see population and location shifts as conditions change, and that is happening each year. The presence in a single pool one year says nothing about the chances of the same pool having a high number of any single celled bug in it the following year.

Until they come up with kits for hikers to take with them, and accumulate information as they come to water sources and log conditions at the time - scientific research means bupkiss to me. You need a lot more tests, over time, in a lot of locations, and measurements of conditions in the environment to boot.

Of course, if someone wants to hire me to do the research I'd be happy to set up a network of resupply points and spend several years crossing and recrossing and hiking north and south along all the trails of the Sierra Nevada - I'll be more than happy to do it.

I will cease "talking to the hand" until when, and if, I detect some interest.

Colter wrote:I will cease "talking to the hand" until when, and if, I detect some interest.

Read the threads Mav linked to. You are way late to the party and unlikely to influence any of us that don't usually filter because as noted above.

A long history of authorities and others with an agenda crying wolf too often. So I no longer trust anyone refuting Rockwell or presenting new negative evidence.

The active debate ran its course years ago.

Your arguments IMO are weak at best and arguing about those points on this board would be an unproductive exercise we don't care about. There is nothing you might say that would get me to enter a technical discussion.

Most of us that do not usually filter obviously have not been getting sick over years.

I don't want to bother pumping water if it is a waste of time and effort.

What the individual that doesn't filter doesn't do will not effect others.

Agree with SSSave here...
Like many others here who get out into the wilderness quite often, I have not filtered Sierra water for 25 years - Never been giardia sick.
Maybe I have acquired natural immunity, maybe just lucky and/ or just drink smart, probably something to do with my parasite education - whatever.
HYOH and carry whatever floats yer boat.

deleted

longri wrote:

Colter wrote:For example, Rockwell says that Sierra water is cleaner than San Francisco city water. Absolutely false. San Francisco water is run through a water treatment plant.

I found it surprising that the very first example you gave for a factual error in Bob Rockwell's paper is based on the odd assumption that municipal water treatment implies the elimination of Giardia. The lastest (2011) water quality report available online from the SFPUC lists maximum detected Giardia at 7 cysts per 100 liters. This isn't very different from the maximum 12 cysts/hL that Rockwell's paper referenced for year 2000.

You missed my point, the water is treated and irradiated. Note that they don't say viable cysts. The cysts are killed. Doesn't matter much how many dead cysts there are.

The new ultraviolet disinfection facility ensures over 99% reduction of Cryptosporidium and Giardia; That's not even counting the chlorine and chloramine and the fact that cyst viability decreases as time goes on.

deleted

WTF guys! You have gone beyond informing and just trying to win a point. Use a pm for this!

M