An Article we wrote on Berkey Water filters

[Zac]

If you're concerned [about fluoride], why not install a reverse osmosis water filter?  Those are the only commonly available filters that will effectively remove fluoride as well as most other dissolved contaminants. 

Response:
Reverse osmosis systems remove beneficial minerals from the water, and to what level do RO systems remove fluoride?  That is an important question.

RO systems usually specify to what extent they remove various substances.  For instance, the GE Merlin RO filter I attached the datasheet for removes 93.7% of fluoride when the incoming water has a fluoride concentration of 8.1 mg/liter. 

The Berkey filter is not a reverse osmosis filter.  The Berkey filter only removes the larger particulates and has no effect on dissolved contaminants.  The optional "Black Berkey" is just an activated charcoal filter.   The activated alumina used in their fluoride/arsenic filter cartridge is likely to add aluminum compounds to the output water. 

Response:
The standard black berkey elements are not just activated charcoal, and do not remove just larger particles from the water.  They have been tested to remove viruses, and more testing is being done.  I am not sure where you got  your information, but it is not correct.  You are correct about a minute amount of alumina to the water, but check how much alumina is in your toothpaste, and the levels are much higher.  Alumina is a well known way to reduce the amount of fluoride in the water.

I didn't say the black berkey elements removed larger particulates.  I said that the standard berkey filter removes only larger particulates and the black berkey elements were made of activated charcoal. 

Berkey has published no evidence I am aware of that their filter can remove viruses which are usually several orders of magnitude smaller than bacteria and parasites/cysts. 

Berkey also has not published comprehensive test results such as are commonly provided for RO filters.  I would guess the reason they have not published such information is that their filter, unlike RO units, is ineffective against most dissolved contaminants or even very small particulates such as viruses.

If the black berkey elements are not just activated charcoal, what else is in it?

Also, it's funny that a "minute" unquantified amount of aluminum compound (presumably mostly aluminum oxide otherwise known as alumina) is harmless, but a minute amount of fluoride and other substances is a serious health hazard. 

One easy way to test the efficiency of a filter is using a TDS (total dissolved solids meter) which is available inexpensively ($10-20).  Water filtered using reverse osmosis will read close to zero while water filtered by the Berkey and other such filters will read no differently than the input water. 

Response:
Here is a response to that TDS:
I did a TDS reading on the purified water and was surprised to find that the reading was about the same with the purified water as it was with the unpurified water. Is my system working properly?
Yes, a TDS meter measures only Total Dissolved Solids or minerals; dissolved solids are simply dissolved minerals in an ionic form.  A TDS meter does not measure the amount of biological and chemical contaminates.  Black Berkey® elements are designed to leave in your water the healthful and beneficial minerals and to extract only the unwanted heavy metals such as lead and mercury as well as sedimentary minerals such as iron oxide and aluminum.  Therefore, your TDS reading will not change much unless you have a significant amount of heavy metals or sedimentary minerals in your water.

This is very misleading as well.  Berkey is essentially selling a filter that they do not provide comprehensive specs for and claim that a TDS meter will not quantify its efficacy.  So, that leaves a typical user with no way to test the effectiveness of the Berkey filter.  I certainly would not trust Berkey any more than I would a municipal water company, and probably much less since at least the water company publishes their test data. 

Also, how does the Berkey filter distinguish between "healthful" and "unhealthful" minerals/metals/substances?  What it comes down to is the Berkey filter will remove a portion of the substances that are attracted to activated charcoal if the black berkey option is used, and a portion of the substances attracted to alumina if the fluoride/arsenic option is used.  If neither option is used, all it does is remove the larger particulates. 

[theberkeyguy]

Also, some older Berkey (pre-2008) filters used polycarbonate (lexan) containers to hold both the input and output water.  Polycarbonate will release small amounts of BPA into the water.

Response:
While you state correctly that the berkey light was lexan, you incorrectly state that it leaches BPA into the water.  Evidence is lacking when it comes to leaching in the Pre-2008 models.  The debate on this front is still going on, but the makers of the berkey products decided in 2008 to change the berkey systems to Non-BPA. 
This issue reminds me of the global warming debate and Al Gore, even if he thinks the debate is over about Global warming, doesn't mean the actual debate among scientists is over.

And Berkey's claim to remove viruses and 99.999% of several dissolved substances is dubious at best.

Response:
Check the answer above to TDS, and that should answer this claim as it is not "dubious" at best.

It's also curious that Berkey does not release comprehensive results, but only a cherry picked version:


http://www.enerhealthbotanicals.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/berkey-lab-test-results.pdf

Response:
No cherry picking here, there are more than one independent lab tests done on the black berkey elements. Three are atleast 3 tests done. Also, the tests are independent labs, that costs thousands of dollars, which needs to be taken into consideration.  If you don't pass a test, the thousands of dollars your spent is not refunded.
[/quote]

Examples of comprehensive test data for some reverse osmosis filters:

http://www.gewater.com/pdf/resdntl/home/merlin/1263717_Merlin_PerfDataSheet.pdf

http://www.multipureco.com/BR170RO.pdf

Just looking at the data provided above, you can begin to see that while the multi-pure system are good water filtration systems, but the black berkey elements used in conjunction with the PF2 fluoride filters is superior.  Also, when it comes to survival and emergencies, RO systems will be of no use.   That is a strong point of the Berkey's.

I hope these answers have been a help to others.

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Also curious is that the Berkey filters are not listed as a certified water treatment devices in California:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/device/Pages/WTD2009Directory.aspx

One might first suspect a problem there, but CA testing is done and certified for residential filters, which the Berkey's are sold as Emergency outdoor filters and are gravity based.  Getting a CA certification sounds great at first glance, but it doesn't mean that the Berkey's are any less because of it.

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Also curious is that the Berkey filters are not listed as a certified water treatment devices in California:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/device/Pages/WTD2009Directory.aspx

Katadyn is also not on that list, but Brita and Pur are. Which water would you rather drink?

I use a reverse osmosis filter at home and use a Katadyn filter for backpacking.

Glad to hear you have a water filter, even if its not a berkey, as Katadyn is a good brand, and even without a CA certification, it is much better than Brita and Pur.

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Also curious is that the Berkey filters are not listed as a certified water treatment devices in California:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/device/Pages/WTD2009Directory.aspx

Katadyn is also not on that list, but Brita and Pur are. Which water would you rather drink?

I use a reverse osmosis filter at home and use a Katadyn filter for backpacking.

You use a Katadyn even though it isn't on the California certified water treatment device list?

Backpacking filters are not included on that list. 

I also am not saying that a filter not included on that list is necessarily ineffective.  But, manufacturers are required to disclose comprehensive test data to be certified and included on that list.  The certificate also species what substances the filter is effective for.  Manufacturers that have things to hide will not want to seek certification.  I don't really care if they're certified or not, but it would be helpful if they would disclose comprehensive test data, something Berkey has chosen not to do.  (presumably because that data does not look good for them and would show their filter is only effective for removing particulate matter)

Berkey has not hid from Certification in CA, just as Katadyn hasn't hid from CA by not getting certified.

I would totally disagree with your statements about the Berkey's as they have had more than one independent lab test done, which are not "in house" testing companies.

theberkeyguy

[Zac]

Also, some older Berkey (pre-2008) filters used polycarbonate (lexan) containers to hold both the input and output water.  Polycarbonate will release small amounts of BPA into the water.

Response:
While you state correctly that the berkey light was lexan, you incorrectly state that it leaches BPA into the water.  Evidence is lacking when it comes to leaching in the Pre-2008 models.  The debate on this front is still going on, but the makers of the berkey products decided in 2008 to change the berkey systems to Non-BPA. 
This issue reminds me of the global warming debate and Al Gore, even if he thinks the debate is over about Global warming, doesn't mean the actual debate among scientists is over.

BPA is a principal ingredient in the manufacture of polycarbonate so virtually all polycarbonates leach BPA.  What is unclear is whether such small amounts of BPA are harmful. 


And Berkey's claim to remove viruses and 99.999% of several dissolved substances is dubious at best.

Response:
Check the answer above to TDS, and that should answer this claim as it is not "dubious" at best.

Let me be more blunt.  The claims of 99.999% removal of dissolved substances and viruses is completely false.   

It's also curious that Berkey does not release comprehensive results, but only a cherry picked version:


http://www.enerhealthbotanicals.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/berkey-lab-test-results.pdf

Response:
No cherry picking here, there are more than one independent lab tests done on the black berkey elements. Three are atleast 3 tests done. Also, the tests are independent labs, that costs thousands of dollars, which needs to be taken into consideration.  If you don't pass a test, the thousands of dollars your spent is not refunded.

They only provide test results for a handful of contaminants such as e-coli and chlorine.  They provide no data on the other substances which are more difficult to remove. 

Examples of comprehensive test data for some reverse osmosis filters:

http://www.gewater.com/pdf/resdntl/home/merlin/1263717_Merlin_PerfDataSheet.pdf

http://www.multipureco.com/BR170RO.pdf


Just looking at the data provided above, you can begin to see that while the multi-pure system are good water filtration systems, but the black berkey elements used in conjunction with the PF2 fluoride filters is superior.  Also, when it comes to survival and emergencies, RO systems will be of no use.   That is a strong point of the Berkey's.

There is no evidence the Berkey filter with or without the optional elements is superior to any RO system.  Since Berkey does not provide comparable test data, we have no way of knowing with any certainty though basic chemistry and the data from a simple TDS meter strongly suggests the Berkey filter is not effective against dissolved contaminants.

[Zac]

Also curious is that the Berkey filters are not listed as a certified water treatment devices in California:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/device/Pages/WTD2009Directory.aspx

Katadyn is also not on that list, but Brita and Pur are. Which water would you rather drink?

I use a reverse osmosis filter at home and use a Katadyn filter for backpacking.

You use a Katadyn even though it isn't on the California certified water treatment device list?

Backpacking filters are not included on that list. 

I also am not saying that a filter not included on that list is necessarily ineffective.  But, manufacturers are required to disclose comprehensive test data to be certified and included on that list.  The certificate also species what substances the filter is effective for.  Manufacturers that have things to hide will not want to seek certification.  I don't really care if they're certified or not, but it would be helpful if they would disclose comprehensive test data, something Berkey has chosen not to do.  (presumably because that data does not look good for them and would show their filter is only effective for removing particulate matter)

Berkey has not hid from Certification in CA, just as Katadyn hasn't hid from CA by not getting certified.

I would totally disagree with your statements about the Berkey's as they have had more than one independent lab test done, which are not "in house" testing companies.

theberkeyguy

Let's see the data.

[theberkeyguy]

If you're concerned [about fluoride], why not install a reverse osmosis water filter?  Those are the only commonly available filters that will effectively remove fluoride as well as most other dissolved contaminants. 

Response:
Reverse osmosis systems remove beneficial minerals from the water, and to what level do RO systems remove fluoride?  That is an important question.

RO systems usually specify to what extent they remove various substances.  For instance, the GE Merlin RO filter I attached the datasheet for removes 93.7% of fluoride when the incoming water has a fluoride concentration of 8.1 mg/liter. 

The Berkey filter is not a reverse osmosis filter.  The Berkey filter only removes the larger particulates and has no effect on dissolved contaminants.  The optional "Black Berkey" is just an activated charcoal filter.   The activated alumina used in their fluoride/arsenic filter cartridge is likely to add aluminum compounds to the output water. 

Response:
The standard black berkey elements are not just activated charcoal, and do not remove just larger particles from the water.  They have been tested to remove viruses, and more testing is being done.  I am not sure where you got  your information, but it is not correct.  You are correct about a minute amount of alumina to the water, but check how much alumina is in your toothpaste, and the levels are much higher.  Alumina is a well known way to reduce the amount of fluoride in the water.

I didn't say the black berkey elements removed larger particulates.  I said that the standard berkey filter removes only larger particulates and the black berkey elements were made of activated charcoal. 

Berkey has published no evidence I am aware of that their filter can remove viruses which are usually several orders of magnitude smaller than bacteria and parasites/cysts. 

Berkey also has not published comprehensive test results such as are commonly provided for RO filters.  I would guess the reason they have not published such information is that their filter, unlike RO units, is ineffective against most dissolved contaminants or even very small particulates such as viruses.

If the black berkey elements are not just activated charcoal, what else is in it?

Also, it's funny that a "minute" unquantified amount of aluminum compound (presumably mostly aluminum oxide otherwise known as alumina) is harmless, but a minute amount of fluoride and other substances is a serious health hazard. 

One easy way to test the efficiency of a filter is using a TDS (total dissolved solids meter) which is available inexpensively ($10-20).  Water filtered using reverse osmosis will read close to zero while water filtered by the Berkey and other such filters will read no differently than the input water. 

Response:
Here is a response to that TDS:
I did a TDS reading on the purified water and was surprised to find that the reading was about the same with the purified water as it was with the unpurified water. Is my system working properly?
Yes, a TDS meter measures only Total Dissolved Solids or minerals; dissolved solids are simply dissolved minerals in an ionic form.  A TDS meter does not measure the amount of biological and chemical contaminates.  Black Berkey® elements are designed to leave in your water the healthful and beneficial minerals and to extract only the unwanted heavy metals such as lead and mercury as well as sedimentary minerals such as iron oxide and aluminum.  Therefore, your TDS reading will not change much unless you have a significant amount of heavy metals or sedimentary minerals in your water.

This is very misleading as well.  Berkey is essentially selling a filter that they do not provide comprehensive specs for and claim that a TDS meter will not quantify its efficacy.  So, that leaves a typical user with no way to test the effectiveness of the Berkey filter.  I certainly would not trust Berkey any more than I would a municipal water company, and probably much less since at least the water company publishes their test data. 

Also, how does the Berkey filter distinguish between "healthful" and "unhealthful" minerals/metals/substances?  What it comes down to is the Berkey filter will remove a portion of the substances that are attracted to activated charcoal if the black berkey option is used, and a portion of the substances attracted to alumina if the fluoride/arsenic option is used.  If neither option is used, all it does is remove the larger particulates. 
[/quote]

It got really crowded up there, so i decided to responde below:

Response to first reponse: 

Just to clarify about the PF2 filters, the tests are from the EPA's study of the media used in the Fluoride filters, and not a test done "in house" by the berkey people.  Both systems use different terms, and it can be confusing to compare them.

Second response:

They do have certifications on some Viruses, and the information is forthcoming, as the tests were just recently done and certified.  Also, there will be more tests done on other viruses in the future.


Third Response: Black Berkey elements contain a Carbon mesh, clam shell version.  They are not just activated charcoal.

Fourth response:

I never said a minute amount of fluoride was a problem, i did say that drinking over 1ppm per day over a long term can have its effects on the body.  A minute amount of fluoride to me is less than .4 - .3 ppm, which at those levels may be naturally occuring in the water.

5th Response:

Reading your last 4 or 5 paragraphs shows your misunderstanding of the berkey elements in general, like statements like the city water atleast publishes there tests.  As i have stated above independent lab tests have been done, which are not in house and cannot be changed to make the berkey's look "good".

Also, the berkeys state on their main websites which healthy and unheathly metals and substances they reduce or remove.  I invite you to visit their site at www.berkeylight.com  This may also clear up a lot of the misconceptions people have on the berkey's. 

I do appreciate your critical thinking in all of this, and it has helped me to better understand misconceptions people have about the berkey's.

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Also, some older Berkey (pre-2008) filters used polycarbonate (lexan) containers to hold both the input and output water.  Polycarbonate will release small amounts of BPA into the water.

Response:
While you state correctly that the berkey light was lexan, you incorrectly state that it leaches BPA into the water.  Evidence is lacking when it comes to leaching in the Pre-2008 models.  The debate on this front is still going on, but the makers of the berkey products decided in 2008 to change the berkey systems to Non-BPA. 
This issue reminds me of the global warming debate and Al Gore, even if he thinks the debate is over about Global warming, doesn't mean the actual debate among scientists is over.

BPA is a principal ingredient in the manufacture of polycarbonate so virtually all polycarbonates leach BPA.  What is unclear is whether such small amounts of BPA are harmful. 


And Berkey's claim to remove viruses and 99.999% of several dissolved substances is dubious at best.

Response:
Check the answer above to TDS, and that should answer this claim as it is not "dubious" at best.

Let me be more blunt.  The claims of 99.999% removal of dissolved substances and viruses is completely false.   

It's also curious that Berkey does not release comprehensive results, but only a cherry picked version:


http://www.enerhealthbotanicals.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/berkey-lab-test-results.pdf

Response:
No cherry picking here, there are more than one independent lab tests done on the black berkey elements. Three are atleast 3 tests done. Also, the tests are independent labs, that costs thousands of dollars, which needs to be taken into consideration.  If you don't pass a test, the thousands of dollars your spent is not refunded.

They only provide test results for a handful of contaminants such as e-coli and chlorine.  They provide no data on the other substances which are more difficult to remove. 

Examples of comprehensive test data for some reverse osmosis filters:

http://www.gewater.com/pdf/resdntl/home/merlin/1263717_Merlin_PerfDataSheet.pdf

http://www.multipureco.com/BR170RO.pdf


Just looking at the data provided above, you can begin to see that while the multi-pure system are good water filtration systems, but the black berkey elements used in conjunction with the PF2 fluoride filters is superior.  Also, when it comes to survival and emergencies, RO systems will be of no use.   That is a strong point of the Berkey's.

There is no evidence the Berkey filter with or without the optional elements is superior to any RO system.  Since Berkey does not provide comparable test data, we have no way of knowing with any certainty though basic chemistry and the data from a simple TDS meter strongly suggests the Berkey filter is not effective against dissolved contaminants.

Reading your response above shows that you need to do more research when it comes to the berkey's, and your blunt comments are simply false statements.  No claims are made to remove 99.999% of viruses especially.  I would do some more research before making such statements. 

Also, your comparison with RO systems and Berkey systems is incorrect, the berkey independent data does not loose any validity by saying the test results do not look like the testing results of your RO systems.  Also, the testing is going to be different as they are not both residential systems. 

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Feel free to PM me your email address and i can send you all the results i have.  Also, i can send the virus testing when it becomes available.

I will not do anything else with your email, or in other words this is not a ploy to get your email to communicate about anything other than sending you the tests results.

theberkeyguy

[Zac]

Feel free to PM me your email address and i can send you all the results i have.  Also, i can send the virus testing when it becomes available.

I will not do anything else with your email, or in other words this is not a ploy to get your email to communicate about anything other than sending you the tests results.

theberkeyguy

Are these the results you're referring to?

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/watertest.htm

If you have additional data, I would be interested in reviewing it.  But, is there some reason why that data cannot be posted publicly?

This is the 99.999% claim I was referring to:

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/waterfiltercomparison.htm

[Zac]

Third Response: Black Berkey elements contain a Carbon mesh, clam shell version.  They are not just activated charcoal.

A carbon mesh?  Activated charcoal *is* carbon.

Also, Berkey's advertising material claims their filter is effective on a variety of contaminants, but they do not specify the test conditions (concentration of contaminants in the feed water among other things). 

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkeytech.htm

The test data they released from reputable labs only address a handful of contaminants (the substances that are the easiest to remove such as E. coli and chlorine)

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/watertest.htm

[theberkeyguy]

Feel free to PM me your email address and i can send you all the results i have.  Also, i can send the virus testing when it becomes available.

I will not do anything else with your email, or in other words this is not a ploy to get your email to communicate about anything other than sending you the tests results.

theberkeyguy

Are these the results you're referring to?

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/watertest.htm

If you have additional data, I would be interested in reviewing it.  But, is there some reason why that data cannot be posted publicly?

This is the 99.999% claim I was referring to:

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/waterfiltercomparison.htm

Glad to hear you found the tests online, those are the 3 tests, and the virus test data will be forthcoming. 

theberkeyguy

[theberkeyguy]

Third Response: Black Berkey elements contain a Carbon mesh, clam shell version.  They are not just activated charcoal.

A carbon mesh?  Activated charcoal *is* carbon.

Also, Berkey's advertising material claims their filter is effective on a variety of contaminants, but they do not specify the test conditions (concentration of contaminants in the feed water among other things). 

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkeytech.htm

The test data they released from reputable labs only address a handful of contaminants (the substances that are the easiest to remove such as E. coli and chlorine)

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/watertest.htm

We understand that they are the same, just wanted to clarify that it was the clam shell version, as that is the superior version.

Please check the test data again, as it does show the amount of contaminants in the source water, it is technical, but it does explain how much was in before the test. NSF test protocol Standards were followed in the 2nd test also.
 
There are also more than a couple of contaminants tested, please recheck the tests.  It checked VOC's, trihalomethanes and other contaminants also.

theberkeyguy

[Zac]

We understand that they are the same, just wanted to clarify that it was the clam shell version, as that is the superior version.

I don't see why carbon from clam shells would be superior to carbon from coconut shells.  As long as the carbon is free of noxious contaminants, carbon is carbon.

Please check the test data again, as it does show the amount of contaminants in the source water, it is technical, but it does explain how much was in before the test. NSF test protocol Standards were followed in the 2nd test also.
 

I saw no information about the concentration of contaminants in the source water except for the few tests (e. coli, chlorine, lead, and some kind of cyst as I recall) they provided actual test data for.  There is no information about the source water in regard to their claims of removing dozens of other substances. 

It's also interesting that Berkey claims NSF compliance, but neither Berkey nor their parent company New Millenium is listed in the NSF database:

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/Common/Company.asp?CompanyName=new+millenium

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/Common/Company.asp?CompanyName=berkey

An example NSF listing of a GE reverse osmosis system:

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?Company=4T020&Standard=058

If you want to check NSF listing for any other company:

http://www.nsf.org/business/search_listings/index.asp