[without an analysis of what's coming out of them (and it really would need to be over a period of time in order to establish their consistency), I would not recommend them. My primary concern is consistency, and carbon-based filters require religious replacement due to the possibility of the carbon releasing much of what it has adsorbed/absorbed after it has become saturated]
good point, however, brita is the most trusted home water filter, brita has tested it as you suggested, and i replace religiously it at recommended intervals (there is a timer on the pitcher).i am sure they know what they are talking about with their replacement guidelines, as consumer groups would nail them if otherwise. they don't need any negative publicity, lawsuits, etc.
as to their replacement schedule, i am sure it is very overly cautious for same reasons stated above, but more importantly, they make a recurring fee every time you replace one of their $8 filters. i would wager it could go 10 times longer than the suggested replacement schedule, but don't try it, this is my drinking water. the one thing they don't list as being removed is lead, however our local water utility had a big publicity problem with lead being found in drinking water and supplied all residents with this very filter as the corrective measure.
i used to use one of those carbon blocks hooked directly to the tap and changed a 55 gal gold fish tank with no problems. that filter was rated for an incredible # of gallons of water, and the fish were fine. i believe the worst thing that can happen if replacement schedule is not adhered to is bacterial contamination, as they start to grow in the filter media.





Reply With Quote
![Ireland [Ireland]](images/flags/Ireland.gif)

