Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board How Much Water

That's an unedited photo (well, other than their dialogue..maybe?) when you and I were coming back down to Trail Crest and those ravens were eating the prunes.. Bet they were regretting the removal of the solar toilets about 15 minutes later.. :p

wbtravis - Ah..well..good thing you didn't..I always think Karma will get you in the end..(like you would have pulled out your back reaching for the Gatorade or something..hehe..)

On the water issue..reading Bob R's posts have convinced me to leave my filter at home when I'm hiking out there in the Sierras anyway. Of course..your results might vary..

Chris

Just curious, why wouldn't it be a good idea to bring a water filter as it is fairly lightweight and doesn't take up too much space? mc

Because the danger posed by giardia infection is lower than the danger from poor personal hygiene among backpackers.

Read this research paper by Robert L. Rockwell, PhD, posted on the Yosemite Association web site:
Giardia Lamblia and Giardiasis

Here is a quote from it:
And the conclusions of the paper are being confirmed by research by Robert W. Derlet, MD. You can find his work if you Google Derlet and giardia. His paper is not as direct as Bob R's, but an LA Times article gives you this:
Thanks to Bob R, I do not filter or treat the water in the Sierra any more, with no bad effects. This even includes hikes in the two most heavily traveled places in the Sierra: Half Dome and Mt. Whitney. I only take my filter on trips when there are others who would like to use a filter.

For more information on water availability along the Main Mount Whitney Trail, check out these links:
Bob R's Word document: Reliable Water Sources Along the Mt. Whitney Trail.
Bob R's Water sources: Main Trail and Mountaineer’s Route post has links to two PDF documents and pictures.
Three threads in this board on the topic:
Finding water on the Mt. Whitney trail
Water availability on the Whitney trail
Water recommendations for the Whitney trail

I don't filter anymore, with the exception of the Mt. Whitney area in the summer.

Yeah..what they said (sorry to derail the thread since it was originally about how much water..). The last two trips out to Whitney I've just dipped my bottles in and drank with no ill effects later. The reason I was keen to leave my filter behind though was because I have one of the older Katadyn Pocket filters which is ceramic and metal..and quite heavy:



Now that I have the SteriPen..I would consider bringing it since it weighs next to nothing. It uses 4 AA batteries which would raise the weight significantly, but as luck would have it my digital camera uses 4 AA batteries too..so I just take them out of the camera when it is time to treat water.

Regards..
Chris

I don't filter or purify my water in many places in the Sierra, but the first time I did Whitney I saw toilet paper floating by in the lake at Trail Camp when I was filling my water - I don't think I'd drink untreated water out of that lake.

Steve, thanks for the information links, and to Bob R. also. I've often wondered what happened, since as a kid in Colorado in the '50's and 60's, we drank from the rivers without worry; I assumed it was a 'California thing' 8^).

I was taught (by my stepfather, who was a miner) to only drink running water, and not from the edges or from lakes where the water is still, but out midstream where it runs over rocks etc. Never the water near a mine, or if it showed any foam. I'd always done it like that, and never had any ill effects, but hearing so much about the Sierras and giardia, I've been paranoid of drinking from rivers for years. From the links, it sounds a case of too much reporting of what amounts to misinformation. Nothing like anecdotal "proof" of something..."yeah, I drank from the river, that's why it happened".

Wonder what the count is in a motel spa? 8^)

I do have a Katadyn hiker filter, and don't mind the weight as some do, so I'll probably continue to carry and use it on any still water, small flows where a minor contamination would be a high percentage, etc., but it sounds to me like this scare is all a product of people forming conclusions based on their assumptions, then passing it along as a fact.

Maybe Mythbusters would be interested...nah, there's nothing to explode...8^)

Concerning the MythBusters thing... yeah there is... oh never mind, it'd be too disgusting a comment.

Regarding "still" water (and I wish I could remember the source), some water "expert" said that it was safer to drink "still" (like a lake surface) water because of the UV penetration killing bacteria. It'd be interesting to hear other comments regarding this.

Back to the MythBusters... they did a segment on cereal vs the cardboard box for nutrition, so this running vs still water being purer would fit.

Also regarding TV shows, what did the dude on "Man vs Wild" say when he was working his way out of the Sierra?

That was from Dr. Derlet's tests. From Sierra Nevada Mountain Water: Is it Safe to Drink?

did not read all this thread, but.....

it's not the use of a filter alone that helps, but filter AND "sterile technique".

Most people are careless and accidentally contaminant the equipment with dirty fingers, drop the tubing on the ground, forget to rinse the lid and threads with treated water, etc, etc,

I drank unfiltered water out of the snowmelt coming into Trail Camp Lake (which is in the water-runoff from thousands of people). Go up above the lake and its clean as far as I know. There and elsewhere. Higher is better. Harvey

"Lake water is better," he says, glancing up. "Most people think the water is better from a nice, running stream because it's so fresh and churned up. But the top few inches of lake water are zapped with ultraviolet rays from the sun, which are a very powerful disinfectant."

Thanks Steve. The above is from the L.A. Times article.

Don't let the folks at SteriPen find out..they will put out a hit on the sun...

Chris

This sounds like a nice theory, but I'd have to see something to substantiate it to believe it. Flowing water is always being diluted, so for example, if an animal contaminates it, the chances are what you'd pick up downstream would be seriously diluted (assuming it's a substantial river, not a trickle). In a lake, an animal could have been right where you were just a few minutes ago, or there could be something dead under the water, and the concentration in that area would be stronger and possibly dangerous, regardless of sunlight. And is there really enough UV under varying conditions to disinfect it?

Maybe a "lake stirrer", like a portable mixmaster would do the job of diluting things...just stir up the lake before you scoop...8^)

It's all a matter of chance, regardless...one person will drink from lakes and not happen to have any problems, and the next will get that dead skunk decomposing nearby 8^). Even in a flowing river, for example, I probably wouldn't knowingly scoop my drinking water from right below Vernal falls on a hot August day when 200 people are swimming up above. But in general, it seems more logical (to me) that moving water in a larger stream is less likely to be as contaminated as still water...the uv theory sounds a bit 'iffy' (not about it being a disinfectant, but about it being adequate on a lake surface to make contaminated water safe).

Regarding filters and contamination, my Katadyn's instructions make a very big deal of keeping the hoses separate and not allowing even a drop of unfiltered water to touch the output hose or container...but on a hot afternoon after hiking 15 miles, one could easily get a little sloppy. Fortunately, most of the time there's probably nothing in there to cause problems anyway 8^).

Gary -- You need to read Steve C's post above Richard's. The statement regarding uv was based on empirical evidence, not "nice theory." (As an aside, gravity, quantum mechanics, and evolution by natural selection are "nice theories.")

"Sunlight: The UV rays from sunlight are powerful killers of microorganisms (3). For this reason, the first twelve inches of surface lake water have the fewest microorganisms. In nearly 300 samples of water from Sierra wilderness areas, our research group consistently found fewer total bacteria in lake surface water when compared to streams."

Uhh... Gary? Dr. Robert Derlet is the expert currently doing actual research on the lakes and streams in the Sierra. Did you miss the quote I posted above from him, "In nearly 300 samples of water"?

Unless you are going to set up your own water lab and spend the hundreds of days collecting and analyzing the water yourself, you are not going to get any more reliable data.

Gary also wrote: And that is exactly the place personal hygiene hits the picture. I'll be watching the camp cook very closely from now on. Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode involving the chef Poppy and his unwashed hands?

One should often take generalities with a grain of salt. For example, <a href=http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003655#000004>here's my take.</a>

I should clarify my previous post. The statement about uv causing the top few inches of a typical lake to be cleaner than a typical stream was based on empirical evidence, not speculation (which is what non-technical people often mean when they say "theory"). But one can certainly find examples that do not fit this generalization. Every lake or pond is obviously not cleaner than every stream! Bob's posts on the subject are very helpful.

Well..UV light is how the SteriPen works...I'm guessing it is more powerful and intense since it only takes about 90 seconds to sterilize a Nalgene bottle (32 ounces). I can certainly believe that high altitude UV light shining 6 to 12 hours a day on a very still lake..day after day..would probably do the trick. It is interesting to note that UV light doesn't necessarily kill the organism..but rather screws up the DNA or something so that it can no longer replicate..

UV light at these germicidal wavelengths causes adjacent thymine molecules on DNA to dimerize, if enough of these defects accumulate on a microorganism's DNA its replication is inhibited, thereby rendering it harmless (even though the organism may not be killed outright).

UV radiation can be an effective viricide and bactericide. Disinfection using UV radiation was more commonly used in wastewater treatment applications but is finding increased usage in drinking water treatment. A process named SODIS [1] has been extensively researched in Switzerland and proven ideal to treat small quantities of water. Contaminated water is filled into transparent plastic bottles and exposed to full sunlight for six hours. The sunlight is treating the contaminated water through two synergetic mechanisms: Radiation in the spectrum of UV-A (wavelength 320-400nm) and increased water temperature. If the water temperatures raises above 50°C, the disinfection process is three times faster. It used to be thought that UV disinfection was more effective for bacteria and viruses, which have more exposed genetic material, than for larger pathogens which have outer coatings or that form cyst states (e.g., Giardia) that shield their DNA from the UV light. However, it was recently discovered that ultraviolet radiation can be somewhat effective for treating the microorganism Cryptosporidium. The findings resulted in two US patents and the use of UV radiation as a viable method to treat drinking water. Giardia in turn has been shown to be very susceptible to UV-C when the tests were based on infectivity rather than excystation[11]. It turns out that protists are able to survive high UV-C doses but are sterilized at low doses.

- From Wikipedia

Chris

This has been a fascinating topic! The sun's UV ray's helping to purify the top surface of lake or still water is very enlightening. I had come from the old school that you only drink from a running stream or river unless you filter the water.

As discussed by Bob R. and others, I think the bottom line is to use common sense. Analyze each situation independently and make your decision. I think Bob R.'s slogan of "drink smart" is right on.

Thanks all, for the interesting input! mc

I didn't miss it, but the article still leaves a lot unanswered. Where were the samples taken? Edge of lake where a hiker would get it, center-lake, midstream and flowing, edge of stream, deep, rocky, or just anywhere randomly, etc. There is not enough info given in the article to form a valid conclusion from our perspective, or should I say from my perspective. I don't doubt that UV will purify water, wasn't arguing that. But most anything can be proven by statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics...) and without further clarification, that's all the 300 samples are. I've worked with enough scientists to know better than to go by faith that they did it right.

I agree with Bob R's view on generalities, they don't work.

Bottom-line, If I had a choice of either drinking water from a lake with a dead horse floating in it, or from a similar quality good-sized river with a dead horse floating upstream, personally I'd probably take the river, and choose my spot carefully. Not scientific, just what my gut feeling tells me would be the best choice. If another wants to choose the lake surface believing that the UV will purify it, great.