I looked at your local report, and I think page 4 of the 2011-2012 report, the "Vulnerable Populations Statement," is a good reference. If your son falls into any of the categories mentioned, talk to his doctor about water treatment. If you pay to have your water tested you're spending money to catch a snapshot of water quality that changes daily to some degree and definitely seasonally. I don't think it's very valuable.

If not, I lean toward filtration at the point of use, assuming that drinking water is the main concern regarding chlorine. If you filter for the whole house, most of that lovely filtered water is flushing toilets, washing clothes/dishes, and maybe even watering the yard. Seems like a lot of cost to make sure the grass has filtered water.

There's also a slight concern that, if you remove the residual disenfectant (i.e. chlorine) at the point of entry to your house, bacteria can grow in the piping downstream and cause you harm. Legionella is the most recognizable pathogen that could propogate this way. Note it does require specific conditions to grow (the last outbreak I remember reading about was at a hotel in Miami that filtered all its water and then the hot climate did the rest).

I also lean toward conventional filtration instead of RO for your point-of-use filter. There are systems with sediment, carbon, and carbon/lead removal cartridges that take care of the main concerns- 1-chlorine taste, 2-lead/iron from pipes, and 3-low-probability pathogens (Giardia, cryptosporidium). They cost less than reverse osmosis and so do the replacement cartridges.

My office has 2 water coolers with carbon filtration, and we spend $30 or $40 a year to replace the 3 filters. They've long since paid for themselves over the bottled water coolers we had for a while. No complaints from ~80 folks.

@Thull: " If you pay to have your water tested you're spending money to catch a snapshot of water quality that changes daily to some degree and definitely seasonally. I don't think it's very valuable".

On the contrary... when one pays to have the water at their location tested they are getting test results of the water they are consuming at their site. When one relies on mandated water quality reports then you get a snapshot of a range of results over a period of time and usually a year ago of what was in the water that the water authority has to test for back then, not necessarily what YOU want to test for now and at the treatment plant location which can be miles and miles and miles away from one's home traveling through (many) decades old pipes and valves.

A competent water treatment professional should ALWAYS size and configure water treatment equipment for the worst test results and not for the most favorable test results and at the equipment installation site, not at the water treatment plant.

Water treatment is chemistry, physics, and mechanics. Hardly disciplines that are based on a range of values accumulated at a site other than where the equipment will be installed. Money spent on tests of YOUR water is hardly wasted, but a necessity if you want the most effective and efficient water treatment which will more than save one the cost of the tests necessary to achieve it.

@Susan: Would a "sensitivity to chlorine" be by contact or ingestion? If contact, then a POU filter is very effective and relatively low cost. If ingestion, then an RO is most effective at removing pretty much everything from water but the H and the O. As long as the child is instructed to drink ONLY the RO supplied water your child will not get chlorine from that water.

I don't recommend filtering anti-bacterials at POE.

Thank you for your postings and insight.

Thull- My son does not have any specific conditions listed in the report. However, imo, his immune system is compromised because his body has a constant state of low inflammation.

I see your point with the cost of filtering everything -- however, since chlorine vaporizes, I do have a slight concern with it simply in the air. My primary focus would be removing it from our drinking/ cooking water, and bathroom faucets.

Justalurker- I believe his sensitivity to chlorine would be both contact and ingestion.

So here's the question... is there any perfect system? I would like to remove all VOC's, chlorine, bacteria, metal's, fluoride -- but would like our water not to be stripped of all minerals. An impossibility?

Are there specific models or brands that are recommended?

Also, around how much does an independent lab test usually cost?

Thanks again for all of your help!

I really would talk to your son's doctor about whether you need to do anything special with regard to the water he comes in contact with. When the report talks about "immunocompromised," I typically think of HIV positive folks and cancer patients, for example. And I think the main concerns are giardia and cryptosporidium cysts. These are pathogens that have a very low incidence but are very resistant to conventional water treatment processes. Most folks, if exposed, would get sick, but someone who's immune system is already in rough shape would have real trouble as a result. The good thing is that these pathogens haven't shown up that often, and some utilities have gone to extra lengths to add processes that address the concern.

If you had a well at home, I'd pretty much punt and say to work with someone to test and treat your water to get the desired result. But you don't.

I stand by my suggestion on testing. Your utility monitors water quality continuously and under pretty stringent federal regulatory requirements. The folks who do that are licensed by the state. If they don't do their jobs, or if they were to falsify the data, they can go to jail. As a result they tend to be professional and take things pretty seriously. IâÂÂm a licensed professional engineer and work with a lot of these folks.

Water is distributed under pressure (leaks out, not in) and with a residual disinfectant that has to meet a minimum concentration in the furthest points of the distribution system to protect against growth of microbes in the distribution system. That leaves, as justalurker stated, old pipes and valves as the real concerns (iron, lead) once the water leaves the treatment plant.

Otherwise, you could test for lots of things and likely still come to the same conclusion. Carbon filtration, because the right filters can handle chlorine (what 99% of people who filter actually care about b/c they can taste it), cysts, lead, and anything organic. Anything more, especially for major uses like faucets and showers, e.g., will be cost prohibitive.

I would definitely talk to someone- doctor first. I would hate for you to go to a lot of expense with someone whoâÂÂs maybe also selling you equipment/service and not see the benefit youâÂÂre looking for. Chlorine taste in municipal water is pretty obvious to identify, so it might be tempting to leap from correlation to causation.

ChlorineâÂÂs a nasty chemical. Many water and wastewater utilites have quit using chlorine gas in favor of high-strength bleach (sodium hypochlorite) for disinfection because chlorine gas is so hazardous. But you also have to realize that that the very small amount of residual disinfectant in your tap water is one of the biggest public health achievements of the last 100 years.

Hope that helps, Susan. Good luck.

Here is a link that might be useful: CDC History of Drinking Water

thull,

Whether a city uses chlorine gas or hypochlorite (sodium or calcium) makes absolutely no difference to the homeowner - the disinfectant components and their concentrations will be the same.

Susan,

There is really no good way to do what you want. If you truly want to remove "all VOC's, chlorine, bacteria, metal's, fluoride . . ." then reverse osmosis is the only reasonable method for a homeowner and then only for drinking water. It is not practical or remotely cost effective to attempt to treat all of the water to your home with reverse osmosis. BUT it wall also remove minerals. Frankly, the amount of minerals you would get from drinking water compared to those you will consume with a health diet is tiny so I wouldn't worry about the loss of minerals in your water.

Since you have stated only a sensitivity to chlorine, however, you could take care of that with a simple GAC filter.

alice- the point I was trying to make was that lots of folks make the leap from how hazardous chlorine is (in any of these forms, but the gas being the worst) at commercial/industrial strength to assume that it's as dangerous in the low doses as a residual in drinking water. That doesn't mean you shouldn't filter it out (though the primary reason seems to be taste), but it overlooks the essential function it serves in keeping the drinking water safe.

I see - from what you wrote the first time, I thought you were saying exactly the opposite.