New discussion on R.O. water

[Ross]

Great discussion. I'm glad I stirred something up.

[shakkai]

This isn't directly related to using RO water to water plants. However, I came across this information while I was searching and thought it would be a good idea to share it.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate for England and Wales issues this information on the web page:

Blank Page

In the section on RO systems they state:

Because of the correlation between cardiovascular disease and consumption of naturally soft water the Department of Health has advised that consumption of artificially softened water should be avoided.

And the section on water softeners states again:

The Department of Health has advised that consumption of softened water should be avoided because of its high sodium content, and the correlation between cardiovascular disease and soft water.

(emphasis mine)

[shakkai]

Originally Posted by Ray

Shakkai, My particular RO unit is a 1:3 - 1 part waste to three parts pure. I can "get away with" the slim flushing volume because my well water is fairly pure to start with. The waste fills a small fish pond just outside the greenhouse that also provides water for the local fauna, with the outfall reentering the GH and humidifying it, so the minerals must not be too high of a concentration. (Apparently the fish, frogs, and newts don't mind it, anyway. And it's a definite winter watering hole for deer, birds, etc.)

You seem to be fairly lucky with your water quality to begin with. And its really good to know that what would otherwise be going down the drain is being put to good use and is in fact a benefit. I think it takes some thought and a bit of work to achieve this. Most systems that I've looked at by default installation funnel the non-pure water down the drain. (Which in turn makes it difficult for people to actually see just how much water they are using...) Unless people are made aware of 1) how much water can potentially be wasted; and 2) that it is possible to make alternate uses of that water, if appropriate, then the use of RO units is more wasteful than it needs to be.

Originally Posted by Ray

I know your climate (and population pressure) has changed since I lived there (early 60's), but GB probably isn't in great danger of running out of water, so vendors have apparently not seen the need to introduce the technology there.

I think you are right. This past summer was the wettest on record, and I'm sure all of you heard or saw something about the flooding we had here. Funnily enough, the flooding forced people to use bottled water, as the floods also hit one of the main water treatment plants.

That said, last year the summer was one of the driest on record, with both the water table and reservoir levels at their lowest in recorded history. Many people had bans imposed, and there was even talk about having to institute 'stand pipes' - where mains water was turned off to households and everyone would have to go to a tap in the road to fill containers with water.

My overall fear is that the 'feast or famine' effect will continue (and probably worsen) so anything that can be done to try to manage water resources more effectively over the long term can and should be done.

[goodgollymissmolly]

Shakkai, I think you are talking about two different things. RO simply removes ions from the water. It's a high class filter if you want to think of it in that way though that's not technically accurate. It removes ions (mostly Ca++ and Mg+ but also anything else in solution) and leaves essentially pure water similar to distilled water.

Ion exchange is a method that substitutes sodium (Na+) ions for the hard water ions Ca++ and Mg+. The Na+ does not cause the bathtub rings and lack of soap suds that the hard water ions cause.

Consequently ion exchange does produce water high in sodium (Na) content which can be bad for some high blood pressure cases. I do not think RO could possibly cause problems because it produces pure water. I guess you could still drown in it though.

[goodgollymissmolly]

I hope you don't think I'm holier than thou or even holy, Ray. Since I drive two V8's (usually not at the same time) and water my daylilies, hostas, and orchids aggressively and since I use every pesticide known to mankind and worked for some time for Mobil Oil in their Beaumont, Texas refinery, I hardly qualify as tree hugger.

I just think rainwater is cheaper than RO water. Some do not have the facility that would allow collection of rain, but others could and choose to spend capital and expense money on RO. I'd rather spend on plants and cameras.

[Ross]

Originally Posted by goodgollymissmolly

I just think rainwater is cheaper than RO water. Some do not have the facility that would allow collection of rain, but others could and choose to spend capital and expense money on RO. I'd rather spend on plants and cameras.

Good response! I would be using rainwater except right now it's solid So I resorted to RO as more dependable. I'd love to be saving my rental fees, but ain't gonna happen up here. Rain water collected during a thunderstorm is perported to contain much nitrogen (so I was told a while back).

[goodgollymissmolly]

Originally Posted by rsfrid

Rain water collected during a thunderstorm is perported to contain much nitrogen (so I was told a while back).

I think that's a long held internet fabrication ,Ross. The nitrogen which makes up 78% of air is in the form N2. That is a non reactive species and not useful to plants. There is no reason that lightning would cause the formation of nitrate nitrogen. If it does it isn't much because it does not show up as dissolved solids (and it would if present).

There has never been anything like the internet for education but unfortunately about 90% of it is false information.

[Ray]

Goodgolly, I wasn't even including you in my chastisement! Did I miss something?

[Ross]

Originally Posted by goodgollymissmolly

I think that's a long held internet fabrication ,Ross. The nitrogen which makes up 78% of air is in the form N2. That is a non reactive species and not useful to plants. There is no reason that lightning would cause the formation of nitrate nitrogen. If it does it isn't much because it does not show up as dissolved solids (and it would if present).

There has never been anything like the internet for education but unfortunately about 90% of it is false information.

Got that little tidbit from a Soil Scientist back in the 60s (way before personal computers and before Al invented the internet ) That tells you how long it's been going on. I was told a "good lightning storm" can "fix" a certain number (don't remember the figure) of pounds of Nitrogen per acre. Supposedly that was why grass was greener after a thunderstorm or two.

[goodgollymissmolly]

Maybe grass likes a little ozone. Heck I have no idea. Maybe the rain just washes the dust off the grass.