[pct-l] filter vs. chemicals

[Paul Mitchell]

I think, but can't back this up with any numbers, that the majority of
PCT-hikers go with chemicals, Aquamira being the #1 choice.  It's lighter
than carrying a filter and effective against the smaller contaminants that
can make it through filters.  Filters can break down and the filter itself
needs to be replaced.  Filters make more sense for murky or dirty water.
The vast majority of sources on the PCT are very clear, don't need
particulates removed and the chemical treatments are effective in clear
water.

Of course there's more to consider, that's a simplified summary and just my
impression.  I'm sure someone will respond with something more thorough.
Aquamira has worked well for me.

Cheers,
P178


-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Marlo
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 6:34 PM
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: [pct-l] filter vs. chemicals

I'm trying to put together a gear list and I was wondering what peoples
opinions on water filter systems vs. chemicals are.

-- 
- Marlo

"I am only one; but I am still one. I cannot do everything, but still I can
do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do." - Hellen
Keller
_______________________________________________
Pct-l mailing list
Pct-l at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.146/2627 - Release Date: 01/16/10
19:35:00