Scenarios where storing water isn't the best option

[ChrisC]

Moderator cut: Off-topic, valid comments but different scenario and plan than the one being discussed.

[wittic]

u IMAGINE that you need water that you don't need, that's all. You need 1 gallon per day per person, and you will get help or get to help, or have snow to melt, in a week. The water does not have to be potable to start with, you just need a filter, that's all.

[joe from dayton]

Originally Posted by wittic

water filter, I said. Deals with water problems. I didn't say it had to be in your backyard, either. Moderator cut: judgmental, argumentative Dont bother to haul water, move to where the water IS, if shtf.

I agree that it is not practicle to carry large amounts of water; nor is it practicle for a large amount of people to move to a limited number of water supply points.

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Originally Posted by wittic

u IMAGINE that you need water that you don't need, that's all. You need 1 gallon per day per person,

So a typical family would need to have/store at least 4 gallons per day

and you will get help or get to help, or have snow to melt, in a week.

There is no guarantee that you will get help or get to help, or find accessible water that is treatable, or have precipitation in any form within a week. Even if this were guaranteed, the typical family would still need to have access to or store 28 gallons as backup, and a way to transport it, if a week is your "rescue" or "escape" time frame.

The water does not have to be potable to start with, you just need a filter, that's all.

This is true in many instances where the contaminates are easily removed by filtration and the water made potable by low tech treatment (organic solids, coliform and other microbials). However, some contaminates (arsenic, pesticides, benzene, etc) are not easily filtered or treated with portable low-tech equipment, so you should also carry a water test kit to determine whether any water that you do find can be made fit to drink with the equipment you have. And the ability to replenish your portable backup water stores and at least two vessels of the appropriate size, one for dirty and one for clean).

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by wittic

u can't stash enough of it to do you any good, and you'll just have to abandon your place, anyway, due to riots, floods, etc. All that's necessary, or that makes sense, is to have a way to carry it and treat it to make it safe to drink. There's water nearly everywhere.

Apart from governmental action, it highly unlikely that I'd need to leave my place as I have already relocated to my retreat. Therefore, common sense dictates that I both store water and have the means to purify additional water whether through chemical means or distillation. Filtration is fine for removing sediment, etc.; but it doesn't adequately remove microoganisms.

[Fairwinds]

Drinking distilled water will leach out the necessary minerals from your body such as calcium, for example. You need to add trace minerals to distilled water or double up on your mineral supplements. Also, distilling water sanitizes the water but doesn't remove things like nitrogen ammonia or endocrine distruptors. To remove nitrogen ammonia you need to run your distilled water through a packed column of selective ion exchange resin beads, available from water lab supply catalogs and tropical fish supply catalogs. Reverse osmosis is a good option for safe drinking water. First, prefilter the cleanest ground water you can find, then run it through your hand pumped RO membrane filter, available in backpacking supply stores. For larger quantities, you'll need a larger RO filter and a gas or electric pump. You will still need to supplement RO water with necessary minerals for optimum health.

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Here is a good article discussing the pros and cons of Reverse Osmosis vs. Steam Distillation.

And another one discussing various water filtration methods.

Please note that BOTH systems require identical carbon pre-filtering which remove nearly all organic chemicals from the water before it even enters the purifier. This includes VOCs like chloramine. Neither system removes these compounds in the purifier, they both require the carbon pre-filter.

BOTH systems require identical pre-treatment in ion-exchange units ("softeners" or "deionizers") which remove nearly all dissolved inorganic chemicals from the water before it even enters the purifier. Neither system removes these compounds entirely in the purifier, the both require ion exchange pre-treatment.

The discrepancy occurs because when people discuss RO, they are normally talking about an entire treatment unit -- which includes the softener/deionizer and the carbon pre-filter in addition to the RO membrane. When people talk about distillers, they normally are only discussing the boil chamber and the condenser coil, not any of the pre-treatment and pre-filtering.

Both systems, with the pre-filters and pre-treatments, provide equally pure water and remove the same compounds. The operating costs are about the same -- RO membranes need replacement and SD requires fuel/electricity to achieve boil.

BOTH systems remove trace minerals, but these can be replaced with supplements... including post-treatment of the water.

The biggest issues in long-term SHTF scenarios that I can see, which makes me lean toward steam distillation, is the RO membrane requires constant and consistent water pressure and the expensive membranes may not be available when they need replacement. This is already a problem for several off-grid household in my remote location served by low pressure water systems.

With SD, you can use any means available to achieve boil (wood, solar, etc) you don't necessarily have to have electricity. SD boiler and condenser has no consumable parts, Since you have to stock the consumable carbon pre-filter and ion exchanger in both systems for maximum purity, I prefer not to add the risk of an additional consumable.

ETA: In a SHTF scenario you can also make your own distiller, which is not the case with RO membranes.

Anyone who states emphatically that one method is inherently better than the other is selling it, or has been sold it. If you must take recommendations from dealers, at least listen to dealers who sell both systems and are honest about the advantages and disadvantages. For a reality check... supplemented RO is used in many municipal waste water treatment plants, supplemented SD is used by many military/naval water treatment facilities.

[PacificFlights]

There are thousands of people on Hawaii who uses catchment water. If you look in their tanks, yuo will see all sorts of stuf washed from the roof, bugs, feathers, bird poop, dirt and the occasional mongoose carcus. The majority of the drinking water is purified with a simple cartridge filters but no fancy anything except some pump (many are 12volt battery with a solar charger). There are no reports of any illneses or health issues from these "simple" systems. Maybe simple is better.

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Catchment systems are basically distillation systems... surface water evaporated by the sun, condensed in the atmosphere and precipitated into our catchment tanks via rain or snow. 90-99% of any icky flotsam and beasties that can enter and contaminate our catchment tanks can be removed with bulk and fine filtration and sterilized (if necessary) by simple boiling. There are virtually no dissolved solids (organic or inorganic) in rain or snow. You may have some solid particulates and dissolved gases depending on where you live and your climate (i.e. smog, ash, pollen). There are several low-tech methods available to reduce the contamination of the precipitation during and after collection (screens, sealed chambers, etc).

Groundwater is again basically a distillation system with the added benefit (or detriment) of soil and rock filtration. You do tend to have a larger amount of dissolved solids and gases in groundwater, normally from the rock formations, but it can also contain variable amounts of dissolved solids, gases and liquids that percolate down from the surface (like pesticides). Again, a large portion of these contaminants can be removed with simple bulk and fine filtration, and many of the remaining can be removed with common settling agents.

Surface water has the highest risk of microbial contaminants, as well as all the others. Surface waters require the most intensive filtration and purification methods, but extensive research by the EPA, WHO and other authorities shows that the majority of contaminants in even heavily polluted surface water can be removed with slow sand filters.

Simple bulk and fine filters will remove particulate solids, and any dissolved contaminant larger than the filter pores. Knowing what your water source is, or is likely to be, contaminated with will greatly improve your chances of rendering it safe for consumption. Complex systems are not always necessary or better. In a long-term SHTF scenario, the simplest system necessary to remove the actual contaminants present and that you can maintain indefinitely with minimal additional inputs is the best system to rely on as your primary (but you should also have at least one backup).

The simplest, most effective, and least resource intensive methods of water treatment are gravity-fed slow sand filters and solar distillers with carbon/charcoal filters to improve appearance/smell/taste. Neither of these processes inherently require supplementary power or consumables, and can be constructed on-site with common materials.

[newfarmertoo]

For the short term why not use a still? A quart will sustain life, a gallon is recommended for storage. It cannot take too long to distill or the "Moonshiners" would have gone broke.