Boiling cooking water?

[peakbagger]

From a fuel use perspective the amount of energy required to get boil is quite a bit more than bringing the water up to near boil. Water needs 1 Btu to raise the temperature of a pound of water 1 degree F. It takes roughly 1000 btu's per pound to boil water. I avoid boiling unless needed by the recipe. Assuming 60 degree water and raising to 160 degrees, I can kill all the nasties in 10 pounds of water for the same energy use as boiling 1 pound of water. No brainer to me.

[10-K]

First I want to go on record stating that it's never a mistake to filter water. With that out of the way....

As a rule, I don't filter or treat in the southern Appalachians. I carry a few MSR purification tablets but that's it and I've had the same pack of tablets for 2 years if that tells you anything.

On unfamiliar trails I take a lifestraw and aquamira. Hand operated water filters are just something else to carry and malfunction.

And if you're going to filter your water be aware of cross contamination. If you watch someone filter water almost always you'll see that they don't pay attention to that which kind of defeats the purpose.

[pickNgrin]

The reason that boiling is the guideline is that it eliminates all guesswork. There is no estimating the water temperature. There is no thermometer to misread, break, get damaged, or become uncalibrated. If you observe the boil, then you are guaranteed by physics to be at or near 212F (depending on a known altitude correction). Mother Nature don't lie!

If you decide to be "smarter" than the time-proven, scientifically determined guidelines, then you would be wise to carry a good thermometer and make sure that it reads correctly. The only ways that I know to do this are to compare it against a known thermometer (there's a chicken-and-egg problem there), or to test it by physics at home. Make sure that it reads the boiling point and freezing point correctly by placing it in boiling water and also in an ice water bath. Obviously it should read 212F and 32F respectively. It is does those things right, it is a good bet that it reads properly in between.

[garlic08]

The reason that boiling is the guideline is that it eliminates all guesswork. There is no estimating the water temperature....

True, but...I would posit that if the water is hot enough, long enough to cook a pot of pasta, it's hot enough to kill the nasties.

But if you're just having coffee or tea, then I would agree a layer of bubbles forming on the bottom of the pot is not accurate enough.

[nsherry61]

From a fuel use perspective the amount of energy required to get boil is quite a bit more than bringing the water up to near boil. Water needs 1 Btu to raise the temperature of a pound of water 1 degree F. It takes roughly 1000 btu's per pound to boil water. I avoid boiling unless needed by the recipe. Assuming 60 degree water and raising to 160 degrees, I can kill all the nasties in 10 pounds of water for the same energy use as boiling 1 pound of water. No brainer to me.

But peakbagger, That 1000 btu's is to boil away that pound of water by turning it all into steam. I takes no more energy to bring water from 1 degree below boiling to boiling than it does to bring that same water from 50 degrees to 51 degrees.

[pickNgrin]

But peakbagger, That 1000 btu's is to boil away that pound of water by turning it all into steam. I takes no more energy to bring water from 1 degree below boiling to boiling than it does to bring that same water from 50 degrees to 51 degrees.

Not exactly true, because some energy is required to convert the water to steam as the water boils. This is known as "latent heat".

[peakbagger]

The latent heat of vaporization at standard conditions is 1000 btu/lb. That's what it takes to get the liquid water to change to vapor. When you see bubbles coming off the bottom its a waste of fuel. The "bugs" are long since dead. Of course steam has a lot lower density than liquid water so a little bit of liquid water creates a whole lot of steam. BTW, the specific heat of water is not constant over the range of liquid water, the difference isn't a lot but its not a constant so the amount of energy required to raise 1 pound of water from 50 to 51 is different than 210 to 211.

[nsherry61]

. . . When you see bubbles coming off the bottom its a waste of fuel. . .

So don't hold your boil, but go ahead and bring it to boiling.

. . . The "bugs" are long since dead. . .

Maybe the mosquitoes and flies are dead. And surely, some of the microorganisms as well. BUT, absolutely not all of the microbes are dead. If boiling for a full minute kills everything of concern, probably bringing to a boil and then letting it sit at temperature in a cozy for a minute would be nearly the same effectiveness. However, bringing the water to 160 degrees would not be close to as effective.

FYI: Milk is pasteurized under pressure at well above boiling because hotter than boiling is more effective than boiling temperatures (also higher heat for shorter periods changes the flavor of milk less than lower heats for longer). And, if one still thinks everything is killed by boiling, we culture some deep-sea bacteria inside autoclaves (>250 degrees F) because boiling isn't hot enough for them to grow.

. . . BTW, the specific heat of water is not constant over the range of liquid water, the difference isn't a lot but its not a constant so the amount of energy required to raise 1 pound of water from 50 to 51 is different than 210 to 211.

Are we really digressing to an argument over 0.008 degrees C when the boiling point of water changes by 20 times that much for every 1000 feet of elevation change (+/- a little I'm sure).

[rocketsocks]

The latent heat of vaporization at standard conditions is 1000 btu/lb. That's what it takes to get the liquid water to change to vapor. When you see bubbles coming off the bottom its a waste of fuel. The "bugs" are long since dead. Of course steam has a lot lower density than liquid water so a little bit of liquid water creates a whole lot of steam. BTW, the specific heat of water is not constant over the range of liquid water, the difference isn't a lot but its not a constant so the amount of energy required to raise 1 pound of water from 50 to 51 is different than 210 to 211.

1 cu. inch of water will expand to 1,728 cu. of steam IIRC

[rocketsocks]

So don't hold your boil, but go ahead and bring it to boiling.


Maybe the mosquitoes and flies are dead. And surely, some of the microorganisms as well. BUT, absolutely not all of the microbes are dead. If boiling for a full minute kills everything of concern, probably bringing to a boil and then letting it sit at temperature in a cozy for a minute would be nearly the same effectiveness. However, bringing the water to 160 degrees would not be close to as effective.

FYI: Milk is pasteurized under pressure at well above boiling because hotter than boiling is more effective than boiling temperatures (also higher heat for shorter periods changes the flavor of milk less than lower heats for longer). And, if one still thinks everything is killed by boiling, we culture some deep-sea bacteria inside autoclaves (>250 degrees F) because boiling isn't hot enough for them to grow.


Are we really digressing to an argument over 0.008 degrees C when the boiling point of water changes by 20 times that much for every 1000 feet of elevation change (+/- a little I'm sure).

i think your right about some bugs, botulism needs to be held at 212 degrees for several min. to render it inoperable. IIRC

[swjohnsey]

Did y'all read the article about letting you kids eat dirt?

[MuddyWaters]

First I want to go on record stating that it's never a mistake to filter water. With that out of the way....

Yes, theoretically, except that filters, ALL of them , will fail or plug eventually, so that the less one is used, the more likely it will be there when really needed.

Just my experience.
Which is why I only use AM as well 98% of time

Stay away from pond sources and not much need for one on AT imo.

If theres stagnant water and livestock around......i want a filter too for nasty sources, realizing it has limited life and prefiltering/settling is required to prolong it. Drink mix required too to cover up taste, smell, and water color even.

Ive gotten really sulfurous water before too in NM, that was so smelly I couldnt drink it without strong drink mix. Cooking with it would ruin food.

[cmoulder]

I've been forced more than a few times to drink some really stanky standing water treated with AM and have never gotten sick. Just last weekend I drank AM-treated stagnant water from Lilypad Pond in the Pharaoh Wilderness of the Daks and am not yet sick, knock wood. The water tasted like dirt, but I find that if I hold my nose while drinking nasty water the taste is not nearly as bad. I give really nasty water a couple extra drops of AM, for sure, and wait longer than the recommended treatment period to use. However, I feel okay about not treating it with AM but bringing it to a full, rolling boil and dumping it into my FD dinners... never been sick from that, either.

[Venchka]

So when I was preparing dinner earlier this month at 11,000 ++ feet, according to the Dark Ages rules, I should have boiled my water for 21 minutes.
Right.
Didn't happen.
Therefore I must have died.
Wayne


Old. Slow. "Smarter than the average bear."

[dudeijuststarted]

I've heard the privy works as an excellent aquifer for filtration if you have time to wait

[KDogg]

I used a sawyer squeeze for the entire trail. Always filtered cooking and drinking water and never worried about contamination or wether I should treat or not. I'd never waste fuel by boiling an extra minute (or five, whatever the case is). Depending on your stove this could make a big difference in fuel use. The Sawyer did start to clog towards the last two weeks of my thru as it did for others that I was hiking with. You can still use it when it starts to clog but your squeeze bottles will also start to fail due to the excess pressure required to filter. My group had four bottles between us and only one was intact on Katahdin.

Some folks like the tablets to disinfect but I found that many switched to the Sawyer over time. We hit rain in the Smokeys and all the water sources were brown with mud. The filters had no problem getting rid of this.

[nsherry61]

Just a couple (okay, 4) thoughts about common water safety misconceptions . . .
1) Pond water is not necessarily bad or even worse than running water. If the pond is calm and has been in the sun for a few hours, the top couple inches in the surface layer will be well sterilized by the sun's UV and will actually be cleaner and safer water than a clear running stream. The trick is collected from just the top few inches while avoiding and surface scum. If you haven't already learned, stick a hard bottle, narrow mouth is easier, open end first through the surface of the water so air pressure keeps the water from filling the bottle. Then gently turn the bottle right side up under water while keeping the opening just below the surface of the water while it fills. Done. Clean water, naturally sterilized, from a lake or pond!
2) Small amounts of contamination by dirty water is rarely an issue. Most of us have functioning immune systems and it takes significant contamination to actually lead to infection. In reality, just rinsing out a dirty bag with clean water is clean enough to reduce the risk of significant contamination to almost zero. And, cleaning dirty threads on a bottle cap is unlikely to ever be necessary.
3) Many of use have hiked 1000's of miles and spend many 100's of days and nights outside without ever treating any of our water and never getting sick. So, the likelihood of any one, relatively clean appearing, source getting anyone sick is unlikely (although it is always that one clean source you didn't treat that seems to get you sick).
4)Don't ever think that because you haven't gotten sick your treatment method is working. You are unlikely to have ever gotten sick even if you didn't treat your water at all.

[Traveler]

Just a couple (okay, 4) thoughts about common water safety misconceptions . . .

4)Don't ever think that because you haven't gotten sick your treatment method is working. You are unlikely to have ever gotten sick even if you didn't treat your water at all.

Agreed with most of what you said, and not taking a shot here by any means, however on number 4, I disagree. I would say if one treated water all the time and have not gotten sick, the method is working for them, as evidenced by the lack of incident(s). Prevention is designed to stop something from occurring and its success essentially measured by events that do not happen.

A good example would be flu vaccination. I used to get flus often, every two to three years or so when I was younger. Since I started getting annual flu shots at 35, I have not had a flu since. Saying "don't ever think because you haven't gotten a flu since your prevention method started, the method is working" would be flawed given the results where many others that did not get flu shots were taken ill by it.

Some people are sickened by water they don't treat. If treatment prevented ingestion at any water source, even if just one, by definition the preventive method would be working. Obviously there can be a lot of luck involved in not treating water, which there are a lot of people claiming water treatment is not necessary due to that "right place/right time" luck. Some people can contract parasites but never feel symptoms and become carriers that impact others. Since they don't feel sick they would claim to not have been taken ill by water as well. But, there is more to this than parasites.

Perhaps picking a nit here, however, my concern with this issue is related to the drought in the Eastern US (and other regions of the US), which is getting severe in some areas. There has been an increase in fecal bacteria counts following rain events in places that routinely test for this and do not have similar high count results in years when precipitation is average. Many of these test sites are at lakes and ponds and streams around reservoirs that receive run off water from rain events. Since fecal matter needs precipitation to break down, without it, breakdown is much slower and increases fecal contact with any run off rain water, elevating bacteria counts following local rain events. Extrapolation is not hard to understand if these readings are higher where measured, they are probably higher everywhere in the area/region, washing into surface water collection points like ponds and brooks that are sources for hiker water. What was safe two years ago to drink without treating may not be safe today as a result.

[nsherry61]

. . . I would say if one treated water all the time and have not gotten sick, the method is working for them, as evidenced by the lack of incident(s). . .

That's not entirely different than suggesting that since I wear a tin foil hat to avoid being abducted by aliens, and I haven't been abducted by aliens, my tin foil hat is working. . . I don't think that logic holds.

. . . A good example would be flu vaccination. I used to get flus often, every two to three years or so when I was younger. Since I started getting annual flu shots at 35, I have not had a flu since. . .

Again, I disagree. This is not a good example. In the vaccine case, you started with a problem and reduced it with an effective practice. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume your practice worked.

In the case of water treatment, unless you have been getting water born diseases in the past and after treatment quit getting sick, there is no way to know whether you are staying healthy because of your treatment or because you have never encountered the infectious element.

Please, don't take this to suggest that I think treading water is silly or uncalled for. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of examples of people getting sick from untreated water. And, there are many well tested ways to treat water and make it safe.

BUT, unless you have been sick several times in the past and found that your treatment method (whatever if may be) has eliminated illness consistently when used under similar circumstances where you got sick in the past, you cannot suggest that there is any evidence your treatment works based on your experience. In fact, most people in most back-country settings will not get sick repeatedly drinking untreated water.

In the end, use well tested and prescribed methods for water treatment, or don't. Whatever you want. BUT do not suggest that any water treatment shortcuts are still effective just because you haven't gotten sick while using them!

[Traveler]

That's not entirely different than suggesting that since I wear a tin foil hat to avoid being abducted by aliens, and I haven't been abducted by aliens, my tin foil hat is working. . . I don't think that logic holds.


In the end, use well tested and prescribed methods for water treatment, or don't. Whatever you want. BUT do not suggest that any water treatment shortcuts are still effective just because you haven't gotten sick while using them!

Not sure I am following your logic, I have been made ill by water before (parasite and bacterial issues), since I have filtered as a routine I have not. So in my instance, filtering is working for me. Thats why I used the vaccine example.

I didn't suggest short cutting water treatment (or not using it at all) may not be effective, only that it raises the potential of contracting something treatment prevents with drinking water. One could have the same admonishment of not suggesting any water treatment short cuts are effective just because someone did not get sick using them or not treating water.

The overarching point was water sources this year is drought related (moderate to severe in various parts of New England and the Eastern US) given the higher level of fecal bacteria being measured lately after rain events may render water sources bad that one may have used without treatment in prior average rainfall years.