Re: [pct-l] Guardia

["Joanne Lennox" <goforth@cio.net>]

Tom you wrote "The decisions to ignore the dangers of giardia endangers
none but yourself"

It is my contention that all the world travel by people that than go into
the backcountry, has been a primary reason that giardia has become so
prevalent.  Most of my long term hiking friends have been hiking in Nepal
where sanitation is non-existent (at least when I was there in l980), and
where the majority of my friends and myself originally got the infection.
At that point the contamination rate was so high that it seemed likely that
if you did not actually get the disease, you well could have been a carrier
 I am not saying that giardia did not exist in the backcountry before that,
only that increased world travel has contributed to its spread.  Since the
people who have been treated for giardia should no longer be spreading it,
it remains that those persons that are carriers are contributing to its
spread.  Animals such as beavers do their share of contaminating but they
also need to be infected first.

Thus, somebody who does not treat their water, and does not get sick, does
not necessarily harm only themselves.  Their inaction may in fact may be
the genesis of others getting sick.

These are suppositions of course. But If I could get away with not treating
my water, and not getting sick, I would do it.  If I knew I was a carrier,
I think it would be different.

Goforth 
----------
> From: reynolds@ilan.com
> To: dude1@pdq.net
> Cc: pct-l@edina.hack.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Guardia
> Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:25 AM
> 
> 
> I agree that water treatment is a function of risk. That is an individual
> decision. Unless someone else taking a risk increases my risk [ Keeping
> food in a tent] I don't care. The point I was trying to make in my last
> post was one of style, not risk.
> 
> It appears that most [not all] thruhikers adopt a risk taking, pain
> enduring style as a result of the cost and difficulty of resupply on the
> trail. However, it is possible to use a filter, bear canister, tent, camp
> chair etc. and still thruhike. In fact you can hike most of the trail
> completely supported by helpers in a van [as in bike touring] and carry
2-3
> days of food most of the time. In the feared Section A you can sleep in a
> camper and/or walk out and sleep in a hotel every night except in the
> middle of the San Felipe Hills.
> 
> My problem with this risk taking, pain enduring style, it that it takes
> risks that increases my risk, shows total disrespect for California
> National Parks rules and regulations and encourages others to do the
same.
> A decision to ignore the danger of guirdia endangers noone but yourself.
> However, taking a p*ss on the trail [I have seen, this year, a thruhiker
do
> this] degrades my mountains and keeping food in a tent risks my body as
> well as yours.
> 
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net  
*

* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================