Tag Archives: water filters


This topic is rather lengthy, therefore I’ve split it into two blogs.

 Rainsoft of Ottawa would like to recommend that you check out the benefits associated with Rainsoft Water Treatment systems – the world’s finest Whole House Water Treatment Systems.


Household Maintenance and Upgrading – Economic Benefits

– extends the life of the hot water tank by 50%
– extends the life of plumbing by 50%
– extends the life of appliances by 200%
– extends the life of faucets by 50%
– extends the life of clothing by 15%
– reduces the use of soap and soap products by 75%
– reduces the use of skin creams and oils by 75-100%
– prevents congestion of plumbing by 60-70%

Martin Barrett at Eternally Pure Water Systems (Rainsoft) wonders if you have any water problems and offers to come out and do a free water analysis.


For you reference I have included videos and links for information on our water treatment products in .pdf format. I’ve also added a few of the Google and HomeStars Reviews we’ve received from our customers:

IRON, SULPHUR AND MANGANESE FILTER/TREATMENT VIDEO – Martin Barrett, Eternally Pure Water Systems, Ottawa



Would recommend this system to anyone – Gatineau customer: I have this system for 11 years now. No regrets…..would not drink water if I did not have it……would recommend this system to anyone. I don’t regret for one minute buying a rain Soft System.

Service and Installation – The kind that is hard to find – Greely customer: Whether service or sales, Martin and his staff are always there to assist. Service is polite, quick, clean, helpful – even fixed a problem that was not the company’s issue without cost or complaint. Overall it has been an excellent relationship – inital setup, additional equipment and supply purchases. Something that is hard to find these days. Thank you Martin and David!

WATER SOFTENERS, EC4 & TC SERIES VIDEO – Martin Barrett, Eternally Pure Water Systems, Ottawa


RAINSOFT TC WATER CONDITIONING SYSTEM_GIMPGoogle Review – Limoges customer: In Limoges and extremely happy with the results! Got only good things to say about Martin and Rainsoft of Ottawa! … we noticed that the water here was extremely hard. It was actually to the point that fixtures were getting etched, sediment clogging faucets and shower heads and well our skin was taking a beating as far as dryness goes! So after bringing a sample of water to Martin, he advised us of the hardness of the water and what solution he could provide. He not only recommended the equipment but also helped fit it into my budget. His installer was prompt and did a nice, clean and professional installation. Being that I was skeptical of how much of an impact the Rainsoft water softener would make, I took a shower that night with no expectations and I gotta tell ya, what a DIFFERENCE! The water was absolutely different and so much softer. I have a good friend that came for a visit from out of town and even he commented on how soft the water was compared to his own home. We have now had the system for a year and of course before I give a review, I like to test the product out thoroughly. Cost of ownership is not that much as far as replenishing the salt either! I always love coming home to shower after being out of town and staying at a hotel. So all in all, you can’t go wrong dealing with Martin! He is a professional and a straight shooter and makes sure his customers are taken care of. If you live in the Limoges area and don’t have one of these water softeners, you should contact Martin! No matter where we live, we will definitely be sure to have Rainsoft products in our home! Keep up the good work!

Excellent product! – Manotick customer:  We live in country and needed a water purification system. The sales rep was informative and helpful without being pushy. have had system for 3 years and am extremely satisfied.have recommended this product to others who are happy with results.




We hope to see you back for Part 2 of Rainsoft Ottawa, Water Treatment Systems – Benefits.

Rainsoft Ottawa, Eternally Pure Water Systems, Inc. is located in Canotek Park, Ottawa.

            Telephone: 613-742-0058 ~~~~Mon – Fri: 9:00 – 5:30

We’ll be more than happy to answer  your water related questions.


BOTTLED WATER IS COMING UNDER ATTACK ON COLLEGE CAMPUSESTo contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Theen in New York at atheen@bloomberg.net

More than 90 schools, among them Brown University and Harvard University are banning the sale or restricting the use of plastic water bottles, unnerving the $22 billion retail packaged-water industry in the U.S. The University of Vermont is the latest to join the movement, announcing in January it would stop sales early next year.

     A forklift moves bails of plastic bottles at the San Francisco Recycling Center. More than 9 billion gallons of bottled water were sold in the U.S. last year.

The industry is growing 5.4 percent annually. Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty


Discarded water bottles lay in a trash can in Washington, D.C. Students at Brown, in Providence, Rhode Island, started a campaign to reduce bottled water consumption in 2010 and more than a dozen U.S. schools have campus-wide bans on the sale of plastic water bottles. Photographer: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images

Freshmen at colleges across the country are being greeted with  stainless-steel bottles in their welcome packs and encouraged to use hydration stations where free, filtered water is available. Brown, which used to sell about 320,000 bottles of water a year in vending machines and campus stores, ended sales in dining halls in 2010. Harvard and Dartmouth College are installing hydration stations in new buildings to reduce trash.

“The product just doesn’t make common sense,” Sarah Alexander, 20, an environmental-studies major at Hanover, New Hampshire based Dartmouth, said by e-mail. “Companies are taking something that is freely accessible to everyone on the Dartmouth campus, packaging it in a non-reusable container and then selling it under the pretense that it is somehow better than tap water.”

In response to the growing movement, the water industry released a video on YouTube last month poking fun at “Ban the Bottle,” an organization that advocates banning one-time-use plastic water bottles. The spot, which features “Star Wars”- like music and flashbacks of antiwar demonstrations, says bottled water is a safe, convenient product that is “one of the healthiest drinks on the shelf” and that its packaging is recyclable.

‘Serious Issues’

There “are really serious issues over here, and now you’re dealing with bottled water?” Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, based in Alexandria, Virginia, said in a phone interview.

 While “there are anti bottled-water groups   going from campus to campus,” Doss said he doesn’t consider it “a big threat” at this point.

More than 9 billion gallons of bottled water were sold in the U.S. last year, and the industry is growing 5.4 percent a year, according to Gary Hemphill, senior vice president of the Beverage Marketing Corp., a New York consulting firm. Sales to colleges and universities aren’t tracked separately.

The bottling industry may be worried about losing brand loyalty from college kids, said Eric Meliton, an industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan.

“If they lose that access, yeah, you would see a big drop-off on that demographic,” Meliton said in a phone interview. College students are “on the go, they’ve got backpacks and they may not choose to use bottled water.”

Saving Money

Reducing or eliminating plastic bottled water saves students money and has the environmental benefit of reducing the need to truck bottles across the country, Niles Barnes, project coordinator with the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, said in a phone interview.

“It’s a really tangible, sustainable activity that students can get behind,” Barnes said.

Students at Brown, in Providence, Rhode Island, started a campaign in 2010 to reduce bottled water consumption and the school stopped selling it in dining halls that September. Brown holds about 50,000 bottles in reserve in case of a natural disaster or to distribute at graduation or other events, Chris Powell, director of sustainable energy and environmental initiatives, said in an interview.

“There’s an environmental impact to the waste” of disposable water bottles, Powell said. “We realized there were alternatives that we could put in place that everybody was agreeable to.”

Culture Shift

Dartmouth is trying to “shift the student culture” about purchasing bottled water, said Rosi Kerr, the school’s director of sustainability. Princeton University, in Princeton, New Jersey, promotes a “Drink Local” initiative to reduce plastic bottle waste.

Some departments at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard have banned the purchase of bottled water for meetings. Cornell University has a reduction campaign, as does Yale University.

 The University of Pennsylvania encourages administrative offices to use   hydration stations rather than bottled water.

Sitting back and “doing nothing” as environmental groups campaigned to ban bottled water wasn’t an option for the water industry, the water association’s Doss said. His niece, a student at The College of Charleston, alerted him to an effort on her campus, and he said there is an “active movement” across the nation.

More than a dozen U.S. schools have campus wide bans on the sale of plastic water bottles, according to Barnes.

Sweetened Beverages

Some colleges with a history of activism have rejected bans on packaged water. The University of California, Berkeley opted against the idea on concern it would drive students toward sweetened beverages, said Trish Ratto, a university health services official. So did Columbia University, after students said they’d buy it elsewhere, according to Nilda Mesa, assistant vice president of environmental stewardship at the New York based college.


Brown philosophy major Terrence George, 21, calls the university’s policy an “unwarranted assault” on bottled water.

“The bottled water ban is downright absurd,” he said. “I’m buying apple juice and tea every night instead of water. Last time I went to the dentist, I have a few more cavities than usual.”

Here are a few links both for and againstBottled Water Bans: (Some views also express the other side of the coin)






Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems – wouldn’t it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang.

This is a 6 page article, hence the condensed version follows.

For the complete article see:

Every day, Jittawadee Murphy unlocks a hot, padlocked room at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, to a swarm of malaria-carrying mosquitoes (Anopheles stephensi). She gives millions of larvae a diet of ground-up fish food, and offers the gravid females blood to suck from the bellies of unconscious mice — they drain 24 of the rodents a month. Murphy has been studying mosquitoes for 20 years, working on ways to limit the spread of the parasites they carry. Still, she says, she would rather they were wiped off the Earth.

That sentiment is widely shared. Malaria infects some 247 million people worldwide each year, and kills nearly one million. Mosquitoes cause a huge further medical and financial burden by spreading yellow fever, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya virus and West Nile virus. Then there’s the pest factor: they form swarms thick enough to asphyxiate caribou in Alaska and now, as their numbers reach a seasonal peak, their proboscises are plunged into human flesh across the Northern Hemisphere.

So what would happen if there were none? … Nature put this question to scientists … and unearthed some surprising answers.

There are 3,500 named species of mosquito, of which only a couple of hundred bite or bother humans…intense efforts are under way to develop methods that might rid the world of the most pernicious, disease-carrying species (see ‘War against the winged’).

… scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better… A world without mosquitoes would be “more secure for us”…

Elimination of mosquitoes might make the biggest ecological difference in the Arctic tundra, …
“If there was a benefit to having them around, we would have found a way to exploit them. We haven’t wanted anything from mosquitoes except for them to go away.”

…Bruce Harrison, an entomologist at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Winston-Salem estimates that the number of migratory birds that nest in the tundra could drop by more than 50% without mosquitoes to eat. Other researchers disagree. Cathy Curby, a wildlife biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Fairbanks, Alaska, says that Arctic mosquitoes don’t show up in bird stomach samples in high numbers, and that midges are a more important source of food. “We (as humans) may overestimate the number of mosquitoes in the Arctic because they are selectively attracted to us,” she says.
Mosquitoes consume up to 300 millilitres of blood a day from each animal in a caribou herd, which are thought to select paths facing into the wind to escape the swarm. A small change in path can have major consequences in an Arctic valley through which thousands of caribou migrate, trampling the ground, eating lichens, transporting nutrients, feeding wolves, and generally altering the ecology. Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere?

“Mosquitoes are delectable things to eat and they’re easy to catch,” says aquatic entomologist Richard Merritt, at Michigan State University in East Lansing. In the absence of their larvae, hundreds of species of fish would have to change their diet to survive. “This may sound simple, but traits such as feeding behaviour are deeply imprinted, genetically, in those fish,” says Harrison. The mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), for example, is a specialized predator — so effective at killing mosquitoes that it is stocked in rice fields and swimming pools as pest control — that could go extinct. And the loss of these or other fish could have major effects up and down the food chain.

Many species of insect, spider, salamander, lizard and frog would also lose a primary food source. In one study published last month, researchers tracked insect-eating house martins at a park in Camargue, France, after the area was sprayed with a microbial mosquito-control agent1. They found that the birds produced on average two chicks per nest after spraying, compared with three for birds at control sites.

Most mosquito-eating birds would probably switch to other insects that, post-mosquitoes, might emerge in large numbers to take their place. Other insectivores might not miss them at all: bats feed mostly on moths, and less than 2% of their gut content is mosquitoes. “If you’re expending energy,” says medical entomologist Janet McAllister of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colorado, “are you going to eat the 22-ounce filet-mignon moth or the 6-ounce hamburger mosquito?”

With many options on the menu, it seems that most insect-eaters would not go hungry in a mosquito-free world. There is not enough evidence of ecosystem disruption here to give the eradicators pause for thought.

As larvae, mosquitoes make up substantial biomass in aquatic ecosystems globally. They abound in bodies of water ranging from ephemeral ponds to tree holes2 to old tyres, and the density of larvae on flooded plains can be so high that their writhing sends out ripples across the surface. They feed on decaying leaves, organic detritus and microorganisms. The question is whether, without mosquitoes, other filter feeders would step in. “Lots of organisms process detritus. Mosquitoes aren’t the only ones involved or the most important,” says Juliano. “If you pop one rivet out of an airplane’s wing, it’s unlikely that the plane will cease to fly.”…

In 1974, ecologist John Addicott, now at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, published findings on the predator and prey structure within pitcher plants, noting more protozoan diversity in the presence of mosquito larvae5. He proposed that as the larvae feed, they keep down the numbers of the dominant species of protozoa, letting others persist. The broader consequences for the plant are not known.

A stronger argument for keeping mosquitoes might be found if they provide ‘ecosystem services’ — the benefits that humans derive from nature. Evolutionary ecologist Dina Fonseca at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, points as a comparison to the biting midges of the family Ceratopogonidae, sometimes known as no-see-ums. “People being bitten by no-see-ums or being infected through them with viruses, protozoa and filarial worms would love to eradicate them,” she says. But because some ceratopogonids are pollinators of tropical crops such as cacao, “that would result in a world without chocolate”.

Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators. Adults depend on nectar for energy (only females of some species need a meal of blood to get the proteins necessary to lay eggs). Yet McAllister says that their pollination isn’t crucial for crops on which humans depend. “If there was a benefit to having them around, we would have found a way to exploit them,” she says. “We haven’t wanted anything from mosquitoes except for them to go away.”

Ultimately, there seem to be few things that mosquitoes do that other organisms can’t do just as well — except perhaps for one. They are lethally efficient at sucking blood from one individual and mainlining it into another, providing an ideal route for the spread of pathogenic microbes.

“The ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have more people. That’s the consequence,” says Strickman. Many lives would be saved; many more would no longer be sapped by disease. Countries freed of their high malaria burden, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, might recover the 1.3% of growth in gross domestic product that the World Health Organization estimates they are cost by the disease each year, potentially accelerating their development. There would be “less burden on the health system and hospitals, redirection of public-health expenditure for vector-borne diseases control to other priority health issues, less absenteeism from schools”, says Jeffrey Hii, malaria scientist for the World Health Organization in Manila.

Phil Lounibos, an ecologist at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory in Vero Beach says that “eliminating mosquitoes would temporarily relieve human suffering”. His work suggests that efforts to eradicate one vector species would be futile, as its niche would quickly be filled by another. His team collected female yellow-fever mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) from scrap yards in Florida, and found that some had been inseminated by Asian tiger mosquitoes (Aedes albopictus), which carry multiple human diseases. The insemination sterilizes the female yellow-fever mosquitoes — showing how one insect can overtake another.

Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the ‘collateral damage’ felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn’t buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito’s case. It is the limitations of mosquito-killing methods, not the limitations of intent, that make a world without mosquitoes unlikely.

And so, while humans inadvertently drive beneficial species, from tuna to corals, to the edge of extinction, their best efforts can’t seriously threaten an insect with few redeeming features. “They don’t occupy an unassailable niche in the environment,” says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. “If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over.”

Janet Fang is an intern in Nature’s Washington DC office.


from Water Online, January 18, 2012, By Kevin Westerling, Web Editor


In what could be a life-saving discovery, a toxic molecule sometimes found in drinking water has been linked to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.

As reported by Miller-McClune, botanist Paul Cox and biologist Sandra Banack have spearheaded a consortium of scientists in researching the effects of the toxic molecule beta-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) present in cyanobacteria, which blooms in water and is often referred to as blue-green algae (though, scientifically speaking, it bears no relation to algae). Their studies indicate that as the consumption of BMAA increases in humans, so does the incidence of ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

ALS has been the focus of the researchers because of its severe nature — victims are paralyzed and typically die within five years — and the ability to accurately diagnose the disease in living patients. However, the findings also link BMAA concentrations to increased incidence of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Like ALS, they have no known causes and no cure.

The work of Banack, Cox, and their team first met with resistance from the scientific community, in part because funding and research has focused on genetics as the cause of these neurodegenerative diseases, and also due to the fact that BMAA is not one of the 20 “building block” amino acids that make up proteins in all living organisms. Additional research, however, showed how BMAA could accumulate in nerve cells, giving scientific credibility to the hypothesis.

One study, by neurologist Elijah Stommel of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, found that the rate of ALS doubles around lakes reported to have cyanobacterial blooms throughout New England, and he is building a database of ALS cases in the northeastern United States. There and elsewhere, sources of exposure to BMAA include direct drinking water, food (especially shellfish), or swimming in contaminated water.

According to the Miller-McClune article, no water treatment plants in the United States are known to test for BMAA. Standard water treatment methods such as sand filtration, powdered activated carbon, and chlorination have proven effective in removing the toxin, but flocculation was deemed less effective. Cox has lobbied for more BMAA monitoring, and the Institute for EthnoMedicine — which he cofounded with Banack in 2004 — has developed a dipstick-type water test to do so, as well as filter technology to remove the compound.

“People need to be very careful about the water they’re drinking,” the article quoted Cox. “At this point we suspect there may be a tie between cyanobacterial toxins and your risk of progressive neurodegenerative disease — but it’s still a hypothesis.”

If Cox and his colleagues are right, it would provide tremendous encouragement to the scores of people affected by these devastating illnesses. In fact, Phase II clinical studies are underway for a drug that could potentially remove BMAA from the body and slow the progression of ALS, which is diagnosed in around 5,600 Americans each year.

Needless to say, he has a lot of people rooting for him.


Scary stuff!!! This is why more and more people do not rely on city water. RainSoft Reverse Osmosis is the answer for our customers.


See video link below to watch Ottawa Rainsoft Reverse Osmosis System explained by owner, Martin Barett.


What is Reverse Osmosis?
Reverse osmosis (R/O) is a water treatment process in which water is forced through a semi-permeable membrane that has very small holes or “pores”. Clean water passes through and impurities that are too big to pass through the membrane are left behind and flushed away.
Do I Need a Reverse Osmosis Unit?
It is presumed in this document that the water you are using meets all health regulations and is known to be safe. Municipally supplied drinking water is microbiologically safe. It is treated to meet health and aesthetic requirements, and is subject to routine testing for microbiological contamination.
If you obtain drinking water from a private supply such as well, it may not be safe from microbiological, chemical, or other types of contamination. Drinking water from private sources should be tested periodically to determine if treatment is required; and, if so, for what specific contaminants or minerals.
Water chemistry is complex and no single water treatment device can be used to remove all types of substances from water. Different drinking water treatment devices have their own advantages and disadvantages. Each household must individually determine if there is a need for additional water treatment. If this is the case, determine the unit or combination of units best suited for your water needs.
How Does Reverse Osmosis Work?
Reverse osmosis systems purify water by forcing pressurized water through a very fine, plastic membrane. If the raw water being treated comes from a well or another private source, disinfection and pre-filters (to remove chlorine and/or particulates/sediment) may be needed in advance of the R/O unit to remove contaminants that can foul or damage the membrane.
Stages of reverse osmosis:
1. During the initial filtration stage, tap water or well water (pressurized by a booster pump) is passed through a particle filter (a pre-filter) that removes silt, sediment, sand, and clay particles that might clog the R/O membrane.
2. The water is then forced through an activated carbon filter that traps minerals and contaminants such as chromium, mercury, copper, chloramine and pesticides. It also removes chlorine, which is important, as chlorine will shorten the life of the membrane.
3. Water is transferred under pressure into the R/O module, allowing only clean water to pass through the small pores in the membrane. Impurities unable to pass through the membrane are left behind and flushed down the drain.
4. Treated water is then sent to a storage tank.
5. Treated water is passed through an activated carbon filter before use to further improve the water’s taste and smell.
Water that contains manganese, hydrogen sulphide or iron should be pre-treated to extend the life of the membrane. A dealer can recommend the pre-treatment needed.
Note: Reverse Osmosis units produce no noise other than the sound of water discharging into the drain (usually a sink or a floor drain).
How Do I Know What Size Unit to Buy?
R/O units are rated according to the amount of treated water produced per day. For example, one type of unit produces 50 litres of treated water per day under its design conditions. Such a unit is generally rated with 60 psi water line pressure, a water temperature of 25° C (77° F), normal dissolved solids and 2 atmospheres of pressure. In reality, conditions frequently vary. Line pressure is often lower, water will frequently be colder than 25° C and back pressure in the storage tank will likely reduce the performance of the unit. Consequently, you should examine water conditions and buy a larger rated unit than needed if any of the above problems are noted.

Where Do I Buy Reverse Osmosis Units? Companies can be found listed under “Water” or “Water Companies” in the Yellow Pages. You may wish to talk to a variety of vendors to compare features.
How Much Do Reverse Osmosis Units Cost?
Reverse osmosis unit prices vary, from $400 for a portable or under sink unit to $2,500 for a larger, stationary (basement) unit where a booster pump and a pressure system are installed. Replacement pre-filters range in price from approximately $30 – $200 each.
Who Installs the RO Unit?
Many R/O units are designed to operate on the kitchen counter. Some of the larger units are connected under the counter or in the basement. The unit will need to be hooked up to the water line and a discharge-to-the-drain line. Larger units may require professional installation, where a special water supply line is run from the main household water line. If you are unsure about installation, contact a plumber or mechanical contractor.
What Are the Benefits of Reverse Osmosis?
Reverse osmosis can remove dissolved solids, salts, minerals that cause hardness, organic chemicals and other impurities. It can improve the taste of water for people who do not like the taste of dissolved mineral solids.
Treated water will not produce scale in kettles and coffee makers. Because sodium and potassium are removed, people on a medically prescribed sodium or potassium-restricted diet may benefit. R/O units may also remove contaminants such as chromium, mercury and nitrates. Before purchasing an R/O unit, check the certification and literature for the particular model to verify exactly what it can and cannot remove.
Is Reverse Osmosis – Treated Water Safe to Drink?
Reverse osmosis treatment systems remove minerals like calcium and magnesium from drinking water. In Canada, water is a minor source of such minerals when compared to foods. If you consume a reasonably balanced diet, you do not need to take a mineral supplement when drinking water treated with a reverse osmosis system. Low levels of minerals in drinking water may be a concern for people living in countries with very hot climates.
Is the Water Source Safe?
An R/O unit should be used only with drinking water that is known to be safe to drink. Although reverse osmosis can remove microbiological contaminants, R/O does not disinfect the water to drinking standards. A flaw or tear to the membrane could allow untreated water to flow through the unit without removing disease-causing organisms. Remember if you are unsure of the quality of your water, get it tested. If you have any doubts about the safety of your water, then it should be disinfected before using an R/O unit.
How Much Water Does the Unit Use? Is It Water-Efficient?
Some R/O units can produce 4 litres per minute and others will produce 30 to 94 litres per day. In operating an R/O unit, a large amount of incoming water is used to produce the final treated water. This unusable water (called brine) contains contaminants that the R/O unit has removed. The amount of brine created will depend on the quality of the incoming water.
Operating a reverse osmosis unit is not water-efficient — and the amount of water used depends on the quality of the incoming water. In some cases, where water is free of dissolved solids, two litres of water may be needed to produce one litre of finished water. In other cases, 4 or 5 litres of water may be used to produce one litre of treated water.
A family of four might need 40 to 80 litres of water to produce 8 to 16 litres of treated water for drinking and cooking per day. This would cost about ten to twenty cents per day for water. If more treated water is desired, then more water would be used. This will also increase water and wastewater bills, or create a higher demand on your well and septic system.
Watch the Water Pressure
R/O units will not operate efficiently at water pressures below 40 – 45 psi. If the pressure is too low, as in the case in many rural private systems; in an apartment on a higher floor of a building; or at the end of a long water line serving several units, a booster pump should be installed to increase pressure.
Do I Need to Maintain the Unit?
Reverse osmosis units must be maintained as per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Typically the sediment pre-filter and the activated carbon pre-filters should be changed at least annually. However, these pre-filters may need to be changed as often as once every six months if the water entering the unit contains sand, large amounts of chlorine or other substances that impair filter efficiency. Although membranes in a well-maintained unit can last for several years, the membrane may need to be replaced more frequently than the manufacturers suggested timeline.
Although drinking water materials such as water filters are not currently regulated in Canada, Health Canada recommends that all products that come into contact with drinking water be certified to the appropriate health-based performance standard developed by NSF International. In the case of Reverse Osmosis, it is recommended that they be certified as meeting standard NSF/ANSI 58. In Canada, CSA International, NSF International, and Underwriters Laboratories have been accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to certify drinking water materials as meeting the above-mentioned standards. These standards are widely accepted in North America, as they ensure the removal of specific contaminants, as well as the performance and mechanical integrity of the materials that come into contact with drinking water. Check the Reverse Osmosis unit’s packaging or ask your dealer for a listing of the substances that the unit is certified to remove.
Where Can I Get More Information?
Contact your local RainSoft Dealer. RainSoft carries a lifetime warranty from an international 59-year-old company. In home tests are done to insure the right Reverse Osmosis is installed.


Our bodies are made up of an amazing % of water.

How our bodies benefit from water. 

 A Cardiac Doctor was asked “Why do people urinate so much at night time?

Answer from the Cardiac Doctor: Gravity holds water in the lower part of your body when you are upright. When you lie down and the lower body (legs and other  things) seeks level with the kidneys it is then that the kidneys remove the water because it is easier. This then ties in with the last statement!

Correct time to drink water… Very Important… from A Cardiac Specialist!

Drinking water at a certain time maximizes its effectiveness on the body

2 glasses of water after waking up – helps activate internal organs

1 glass of water 30 minutes before a meal – helps digestion

1 glass of water before taking a bath – helps lower blood pressure

1 glass of water before going to bed – avoids stroke or heart attack

Our bodies are made up of an amazing amount of water:

Composes 75% of brain

Regulates body temperature

Helps carry nutrients and oxygen to cells

Moistens oxygen for breathing

Makes up 83% of blood

Helps convert food into energy

Removes waste

Protects and cushions vital organs

Accounts for 22% of bones

Cushions joints

Makes up 75% of muscles

Please pass this to the people you care about… they cramp and wake you up with a Charlie Horse. I can also add to this… My Physician told me that water at bed time will also help prevent night time leg cramps. Your leg muscles are seeking hydration when they cramp and wake you up with a Charlie Horse.


More and more I hear from my customers that the reason they improved the water in their home, is for the health benefits. With so many toxins and chemicals in our environment, we need to properly flush them away. People some times forget we are essential a high-end machine, that needs a good daily cleaning to stay in top form.


WATER SCARCITY – TIME TO ACT11, published April 2011, Public Service Europe


In 60 per cent of European cities, water is being used at a faster rate that it can be replenished – claims Philip Monaghan

Water is kind of important. It makes up between half and three quarters of the human body weight, needs to be topped up on a regular basis and we cannot go without it for more than about week.

As well as drinking it, we also use water for cooking and sanitation – not to mention industrial processes. Yet, despite water being essential to our survival – more often than not in the West, we treat it with distain. A fact reflected in its low price compared to petrol or electricity – things we may be addicted to but can live without. And how the developed world fritters it away! You may leave the kitchen tap running into an unplugged sink at home but you would not pour petrol from the station pump down the drain, right?

What makes matters worse in terms of our taking water for granted, is that despite 70 per cent of the earth’s surface being covered by water, only 2.5 per cent of the total volume is freshwater and fit for human consumption, coupled with the fact that in 60 per cent of European cities with more than 100,000 people, groundwater is being used at a faster rate than it can be replenished. By 2025, 1.8m people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity and two thirds of the world population could be under stress conditions.

No need to reach for valium just yet though, because this is all about change – maybe. It would appear that the United Nations leadership is mulling over whether to name 2012 as the year of water given the importance of sustainable water management in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. This should be welcomed, of course. But local governance needs to be a key area of any water campaign here. This goes beyond calls for a new shadow price for water or for the world’s largest industrial users, to develop water-security strategies. It requires new forms of water stewardship between citizens, municipal authorities and the private sector. Perhaps, a chance to do things differently then, by looking at the learning from water co-operatives in Bolivia and Finland?

In rural Finland, there are more than a thousand water cooperatives serving farm businesses and villages. According to the UN, while licensed by the government and allotted a limit to the amount of water they can extract, the cooperatives have complete control over price. This means they can offer favourable rates to their members, because their decision is not influenced by fluctuations of the market. The Finnish water cooperatives also have the network benefits of partnering with other regional associations. If, for instance, the water quality in one area is not sufficient due to extenuating natural circumstances – the cooperative may buy from a neighbouring cooperative-owned network. Therefore, ensuring continued low prices and supply dependency.

Taking this learning a step further should involve residents recognising and accepting that they have rights and responsibilities, when it comes to water. This, after all is, is a fair way to realise genuine change. Each of us would have a right to access quality water to sustain life, but we also have a responsibility to not abuse it – say, by watering our gardens during times of drought. This is something, which needs to be backed up by serious sanctions for those who cheat. Ever heard of a neighbour or local golf club being taken to court by the authorities for fragrantly disobeying a hosepipe ban? No, neither have I.

Real behaviour change will require new controls like water efficient planning rules for buildings and incentives including tax breaks for green roofs or water butts. For some laggards, it may also require a push rather than a nudge in the right direction. Clearly, this raises big dilemmas over our costly and ageing national water infrastructure. Especially, in an age of austerity. Take the UK’s forthcoming new water strategy, for example. Given parts of Britain suffer from worse water scarcity than areas of the Sudan and Syria according to Waterwise, it is a tremendous window of opportunity for Cameron’s administration to show the world how to do things better. The Prime Minister could also back up commitments to both devolve power and to be the “greenest government ever” by setting out a bold vision for water resiliency.


As Canadians we are some of the worst at conserving water. For most of us it is an after-thought because we are surrounded by it. But for us to change our habits even a little bit, could help us greatly in our future.


Fun Water Facts

1. The first municipal water filtration works opened in Paisley, Scotland in 1832.
2. More than 79,000 tons of chlorine are used per year in the United States and Canada to treat water.
3. Of all the earth’s water, 97% is salt water found in oceans and seas.
4. Only 1% of the earth’s water is available for drinking water. Two percent is currently frozen.
5. About two thirds of the human body is water. Some parts of the body contain more water than others. For example, 70% of your skin is water.
6. There are more than 56,000 community water systems providing water to the public in the United States.
7. Public water suppliers process 38 billion gallons of water per day for domestic and public use.
8. Approximately 1 million miles of pipelines and aqueducts carry water in the United States and Canada. That’s enough to circle the earth 40 times.
9. About 800,000 water wells are drilled each year in the United States for domestic, farming, commercial, and water testing purposes.
10. Typically, households consume at least 50% of their water by lawn watering. Inside, toilets use the most water, with an average of 27 gallons per person per day.
11. In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that drinking water is safe for human consumption. The Act requires public water systems to monitor and treat drinking water for safety.
12. More than 13 million households get their water from their own private wells and are responsible for treating and pumping the water themselves.
13. Industries released 197 million pounds of toxic chemicals into waterways in 1990.
14. The average daily requirement for fresh water in the United States is about 40 billion gallons a day, with about 300 billion gallons used untreated for agriculture and commercial purposes.
15. You can survive about a month without food, but only 5 to 7 days without water.
16. Each person uses about 100 gallons of water a day at home.
17. The average five-minute shower takes between 15 to 25 gallons of water.
18. You can refill an 8 oz glass of water approximately 15,000 times for the same cost as a six-pack of soda.
19. An automatic dishwasher uses approximately 9 to 12 gallons of water while hand washing dishes can use up to 20 gallons.
20. If every household in America had a faucet that dripped once each second, 928 million gallons of water a day would leak away.
21. A dairy cow must drink four gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk.
22. One gallon of water weighs approximately 8½ pounds.
23. One inch of rainfall drops 7,000 gallons, or nearly 30 tons of water, on a 60′ x 180′ piece of land.
24. 300 million gallons of water are needed to produce a single day’s supply of U.S. newsprint.
25. A person should consume 2½ quarts of water per day (from all sources of water, food, etc.) to maintain health.
26. A person can live more than a month without food, but only about a week, depending on conditions, without water.
27. 65% of the human body is water, 75% of the human brain is water.
28. 75% of a chicken, 80% of a pineapple, and 95% of a tomato is water.
29. The first water pipes in the U.S. were made of hollowed-out logs.
30. 352 days – record of consecutive days with no measurable precipitation in Sentinel, AZ (Feb 1901 – Jan 1902).
31. The world’s rainiest place is Mt. Wai’ale’ale, Kauai, Hawaii. During an average year, there are only 15 dry days.
32. The water in Lake Tahoe could cover a flat area the size of California 14 inches deep. This amount of water is enough to supply everyone in the U.S. with 50 gallons of water/day for 5 years.
33. Nevada is the driest state in the nation with an average annual rainfall of only about 7 inches.