Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Filter question

Absolutely. Clearly, my comfort threshold is a lot higher than others. I guess it is because of where I come from (NJ). Could you get sick from drinking water on the JMT? Yes, will you? Probably not. Would I drink it unfiltered? Only if I had to.

So now, every time I drink Sierra water, I need to worry about whether or not Tomcat had his face in it?

Me too! Me too!

Someone recently emailed me and told me they did not like me posting heavily on a subject (excessive in their words) and questioning the sources they cite as a study.

I would like to point out that when I talk about a study, I mean a Scientific Study which was published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. These are the sort of studies and publications that are accepted by the scientific community. I questioned the sources this individual posted because they were not scientific studies in journals. What that means is they and their sources have not undergone a review process to determine credibility. It does not necessarily mean they are not credible. However, contained with in two of the sources was WRONG information and claims which were not backed up.

This individual was angry that I chose to ignore what I then considered a poor and therefore un-credible source. He also went so far as to tell me that I was making false claims and I was spouting opinion as misinformation. I was not. I was making very general claims about a topic and I made no claims about the topics prevalence in the Sierra Nevada.

I would like to encourage people who use this website to question the motives of those who post, and to question the information they receive. Just because a person registered 5 years ago and posted 4300 times does not make them any more trustworthy than the newest member who posted 3 times. How a person chooses to make a decision is their business and it should be allowed that people can question the information posted by other members with out fear of bullying or retaliation.

Peer-reviewed journals? Ask and ye shall receive.

Title: Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wilde...ls, and cattle?
Author(s):Derlet, RW, Carlson JR
Source: WILDERNESS & ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Pages: 15-20 Published: SPR 2006

Title: Risk factors for coliform bacteria in ba... A 5-year study
Author(s): Derlet, RW, Ger KA, Richards JR, et al.
Source: WILDERNESS & ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Pages: 82-90 Published: SUM 2008

Title: Backpacking in Yosemite and Kings Canyon...water to drink?
Author(s): Derlet, RW
Source: JOURNAL OF TRAVEL MEDICINE Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Pages: 209-215 Published: JUL-AUG 2008

Fantastic! Unfortunately, I can't read them since they lack a link, but this is probably very good information.

I'm originally writing about good sources, but also the harassment that was directed at me by the person who chose to do so. He is upset that I disagree with him and do not trust his sources for reasons I already addressed. He would not stop accosting me for disagreeing with him. He continued his harassment telling me I was making false claims, yet I was not. I feel this is simply rediculous behavior, and we should not be afraid of it.

Why some people find it so hard to believe that others will disagree with them is beyond me.

Thank you for posting, AlanK.

Here are accessible links to copies of the full articles:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1580/PR05-05.1?cookieSet=1
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1580/07-WEME-OR-1511.1
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120840129/PDFSTART

Thanks!

"j", I must say, that I was puzzled by some of your assertions in the other thread.

I certainly can see a point being made by referring to the most credible sources being peer-reviewed journals. But as a journal editor myself (New England Journal of Medicine), I find that many times, such articles are misinterpreted. For general, non-technical discussion of sometimes complicated scientific discussions, I find it totally acceptable for people with adequate scientific background, who have read the relevant studies, to summarize and lay out key points. I think of this as a real service, not an attempt to mislead.

You would probably not know this, but this topic has been the subject of a lot of debate, both here and in other places in cyberspace. I would say that there are two credible experts, widely thought well of in technical circles. One is VERY well thought of on this site, and you are giving the impression of dismissing and disrespecting the information that he has spent decades gathering, testing, discussing with many other technical experts. I'm positive that some find that offensive.

However, if you want to put down others' writings, which have been accepted and are widely published by the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, and many other agencies, on the basis of not being rigorous scientific studies, that is, of course, your right to do. However, you cannot then turn around and profess your own beliefs, not backed up by scientific journal studies. That would be hypocritical. This may represent the apparent frustration and irritation that you appear to have provoked.

If Journal Articles are your position, then I, for one, want to see nothing but Article Citations in your assertions. Seems only fair.

(disclosure:)
I am a physician, and do hold two advanced degrees in microbiology.

dont get too butt hurt, everyone here is friendly, it just may not seem that way from certain perspectives. we, (I) value your information, knowledge and feedback. that being said, i am one that has never filtered and never had a problem due to the information i recieved on this board. appreciate your comments and dont take anything personal.

It seems to me that the referenced studies confirm most of the anecdotal evidence offered by several of the regular contributors to this board. They also agree with general "common-sense" risk rankings of various water sources.

Sources downstream from cattle are almost certainly contaminated.

Sources frequented by (or crossed by) pack stock are risky.

Sources in heavily-used (by humans, not pack stock) may be risky but less so than areas frequented by pack stock.

Lightly or rarely used areas are almost certainly safe without treatment.

The "drink smart" consensus seems to agree with the risk rankings and you may also have to apply some of your own risk tolerance to sources in "heavy human use" areas.

Thanks for the references.

As a scientist (physical, not bio or medical, so no claimed professional expertise on the issue under discussion), I appreciate the importance of peer-reviewed studies. On the other hand, most people on Earth will go through life without ever encountering a peer-reviewed study, yet many of these people will be able to make rational decisions on a host of issues on which they are not expert. In many cases, they will rely on non-technical articles of the sort often cited here on the filtering issue.

It is obviously important to make sound judgments about such sources (also about peer-reviewed ones, by the way). In the case of the filtering issue, many people on this board have been able to do so because there have been long conversations with much information exchanged. Although it is correct to say that a person who has been here for 5 years and posted 4300 times is not inherently more credible than one who just joined and has made 3 posts, it is possible for the former person to have established credibility here. Not so for the latter person. In the case of this board, people like SteveC, BobR, and Ken, among others, have excellent records here. BobR's article on water in the Sierra has had a huge positive effect on many of us.

I don't see any sign of bullying here, but there may be some defensiveness, which is understandable given how many times we ahve all discussed this issue right here on these pages.

Hi recall last year when the water war started , so I bet if a search was done we could all rest and read the other 925617843 post but then if we only want to sop....... Thanks Doug