Aqua Salveo drinking water treatment

Fair enough - go here for parent company info. when the big ebola problem was on in Africa this company couldn't keep up production meet UN demands. Aqua Salveo

In Gaynor's case she would have been pretty crook if it hadn't worked and would have had to abandon her trip.

In her words
'In 2013 I used Aqua Salveo, drinking not so good well water, without ill effects. In 2015 I drank positively horrible water, some of it was a clear but smelled, others green with camel poo or black and nasty, or muddy brown with heavy sediment. The worst of the water I strained to remove some of the sediment and then boiled it for a few minutes.
Boiling the water ... would separate and drop to the bottom of the billy, leaving reasonably clear water which I drank without ill effect ... The reason I did not Aqua Salveo treat and drink water with heavy sediment was because bacteria might reside in the small sediment particles that the Aqua Salveo might not get to it.'

I have used it but not water green with camel poo.

I'd still like to see the research! I worked in water treatment for years and I know the theory behind metallic ion anti bacterial effects.

Go for it Notso - as they say here every now and then - google is your friend.

atb

Ah yes, isn't google great. I was waiting for you to suggest that!

From a recent discussion paper prepared for the WHO.

Centre for Research into Environment and Health
Silver: water disinfection and toxicity
Dr Lorna Fewtrell Spring 2014

Silver: water disinfection and toxicity

Given these factors, it is suggested that the efficacy of silver as a drinking-water treatment is, currently, far from convincing.

Copper/silver ionization is often used to treated hospital hot water systems as a defence against Legionella spp. and outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease. Although a number of studies have shown that where ion levels are carefully controlled copper/silver ionization can be effective in reducing Legionella colonization it does not eradicate the bacteria completely and some water characteristics (e.g. high pH) may decrease the effectiveness of the method. While studies generally suggest that implementation of copper/silver ionization markedly reduces the number of cases of nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease, the outbreak of illness seen in Pittsburgh in 2012 is of concern and may suggest that ionization as a treatment system may not be a stand-alone long-term solution.

While the peer-reviewed literature on the use of copper/silver ionization for the treatment of swimming pool water is sparse, it does suggest that it is not generally effective against viruses and is only effective against bacteria in combination with chlorine.

For about $35 per year, I can get very effective water treatment for a year using liquid chlorine and a 1um active carbon/silver filter.
And there is plenty of good research to back that up.

99% of town water supplies in this country use chlorine.

ps....the filter costs about $32 of that $35. :)

Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 Motorhome

Excellent. I am always impressed by an investigative mind Notso.

So you believe that the WHO is a reputable agency with impeccable credentials and their recommendations would be what you would follow in water treatment?

Yep, Dr Fewtrell was commissioned by the WHO to review the current data on these Metallic Ions when used for water treatment. I would follow her recommendations for sure!

Gee Notso this is hard work, I'm not a scientist or ...ologist of any type just a mere mortal who doesn't get technical 'stuff'.

I'm not treating a towns water supply or an air-conditioning system against legionella, I'm just going outback in my 4wdrive and may need to treat some well/surface water for drinking.

Are you saying Aqua Salveo won’t work!
If not what should we do in an emergency? Presumably we shouldn't die of thirst by not drink any water that may be about. Wouldn't any treatment be better than none.

My comment does not relate to the efficacy of the product. I have never heard of it or used it.

My comment relates to the validity and reliability of the evidence referenced by Notso.

This document is not based on scientific research by the author. This document is, in the words of its author, nothing more than a literature review of other people's research. This is clearly stated in the first sentence of the document.

This document is merely a collection of quotes, tables and diagrams from a variety of sources. Anybody can put together a series of quotes, tables and diagrams to prove or disprove what ever it is they are being paid to argue.

Scientific Hyperbole at its best. We have all seen it in advertising campaigns (thinking hiclone, Firepower Fuel Pills etc etc). Lots of glossy photos, statistical tables and graphs.....

Read the document for what it is!

If an independent scientific review of this particular product has been commissioned... Let it come forth.

Cheers

Anthony

There are plenty of tried and proven methods of sterilizing water when you are unsure of it's purity.

The classic one is based on Chlorine, and it has a neutraliser that you add once the time period for sterilisation has elapsed. The first tablet is a chlorine compound and the neutraliser is Potassium Meta Bi Sulphite.

There are others that use Iodine as the sterilising agent. In any case you should filter the water till it's clear before adding any sterilisation chemicals.

Or boil the water.

Hmm, well I would have thought that an expert review of the available research by a well qualified scientist and researcher would be enough for me. It was obviously enough for the WHO Experts group who sought the review.

And I would call myself an expert on Kentucky Fried Chicken...

...but that doesn't mean I am any closer to being able to reveal the secret recipe to the 11 herbs and spices.

Cheers

Anthony

Yes, that is the problem, where is the research on the product. That is the question I posed at the outset. I'd like to see the research to support the product! So far all I can find says Metallic Ions are not effective enough to kill the bacteria. Also it was all the researcher found as well. She reviewed 115 papers on the subject. So until such time as I see a peer reviewed research project that supports this technology, I'll keep using the old methods.

Hi Notso.

I lived on the Canning Stock Route for a total of 6 months treating my well and rock hole water with Aqua Salveo.

I drank from water that animals died in, pooped in, slobbered in and swam in. I treated the water first with Aqua Salveo.

Not once did I get sick or have a runny guts.

Having used this product on my 2013 walk of the Canning Stock Route; in 2015 on my bush tucker and water availability research, I upped my level of commitment and drank from very foul water. I needed to know how far I could trust Aqua Salveo to make my water safe.

I never got sick. Not even slightly.

Now I realise that this level of research is unlikely to sway you. I have no letters behind my name. My experience is only in the field. Practical use of the product beyond any usage you can ever dream of for your own consumption.

So what I am going to do is gather the evidence you have asked for and present it as a detailed review on my website www.canningwalker.com. It will take me a while. There is a lot of paper work involved and I am sure it will be thrilling reading.

Will the technical data sway you?

I am not so sure. It is very hard to change a person's mind once they have decided on a particular belief. But I am willing to keep an open mind.

Give me a week will you?

IThat's no problems, you have your opinion I have mine. I prefer to believe the science, you prefer to believe your Gut, that's OK by me, as long as it's OK by you if I believe what I believe.

This is a discussion forum and if a post goes up you'll get all sorts of opinion on it. I have only ever quoted solid scientific findings. If you have some of the same, then being scientifically minded, you may be able to convince me!

Gaynor,

I see from the website that your trip was sponsored by Aqua Salveo.

I am sure you were happy with it but it kind of taints any further documentation that you may provide in my mind.

The sole purpose of a sponsorship is for the recipient to promote a product

I am not saying that you did not have success in your case with the product. But it is not a recommendation, it is a paid promotion. AKA an Advertisement.

Gee Boobook!

What is your problem with people advertising their product or services. This is he second post on the same day where you have had a crack at people promoting a product or service?

Tell me you have never bought a product or service after you have listened to people's advice (either paid or by word of mouth)!

I would be rather inclined to listen to someone who has lived on the stock route for 6 months - using the product and making it out alive and without illness, than read a 52 page document that the average person would not understand.

How did you decide on. 200 series landcruiser? Like the colour?
How did you decide on a T-van? Like the shape?

Tell me you have never picked up an advertising brochure at a 4WD/Camping Show? Tell me you have never read one of those useless 4WD magazines that are full of self promotion and self product reviews? Tell me that you don't believe the 4WD Camper Trailer of the Year is nothing more than paid advertising? (yes you have to pay premium to have your trailer reviewed -shock horror!).

Using people to advertise products through sponsorship has been around for years - just have a look at the sponsorship/endorsement deals sports people are involved with.

If Gaynor had gone into the desert with her sponsorship - never to be heard of again (except on forums where people criticise for having a go) I would never touch the product. Given she used the product, for an extended period of time, survived with no ill effects, I may be tempted.

cheers

Anthony

Anthony, I have no problem with advertising. I advertise for my business myself.

However both the issues you refer to are product placement related. Neither disclosed that sponsorship or product promotion was involved. In fact on the surface in both cases, the normal, uninformed reader would assume that accurate, independent information was being supplied, when in fact financial advantage was made by the suppliers of the information. It is important in these cases that full disclosure occurs so the reader can make up their own mind about the reliability.

Why has Pat Callahan gone from thinking that Patrols are the best 4wd 2 years ago to Amarok now. Why has Ron Moon gone from recommending 4 -5 brands of Mud tyres, and excluding Coopers several years ago, to only Coopers now.

Financial advantage to them, nothing to do with the reader. That's why.

If full disclosure occurs then I think all is ok.

Yes I realize that xxx of the year type competitions are often paid advertising. I was involved in marketing and knew the outcome of several similar reviews months before the competition had even 'run'. I also know how review articles were written by vendors.

That's the point, it is all set up to deceive the readers.

While a report commissioned by the World Health Organisation as posted by Notso has been discredited by those advertising Aqua Salveo here, nothing scientific to support the product has been posted here.

"If an independent scientific review of this particular product has been commissioned... Let it come forth."

Waiting, waiting, waiting.

Gee Motherhen you really are just stirring the pot now!

I expected better from someone whom I respect as somewhat of an elder statesman or stateswoman of this site.

Nothing scientific has been posted on this site to discredit the product either!

Read my post.

I don't care if this stuff works or not. I am not an advertiser of the product. I had never even heard of it until now.

What I care about is factually based discussion.

Notso's "scientific evidence" is based on an entirely different technology. Silver coated filters, silver nanoparticle technology and silver disinfection of water through ionisation and electrolysis.

None of this relates to Aqua Salveo! This product is about dissolved metal salts (ONE of which is silver) suspended in an aqueous solution. If Notso's "scientific evidence" is to be quoted, what about the bit that says that there is "a general efficacy of these metals as a bacteriacide." In other words this product may be effective in its stated use.

I say again If an independent scientific review of this PARTICULAR product has been commissioned...Let it come forth.

I have seen three well regarded contributors to this site be vilified - for what?

Phil - because he made us aware of a new product.
Gaynor - because she had first hand experience of it and believes in it.
Bob Cooper - because he dares to share his wisdom with others and has the cheek to make a buck.

Yet others can cite a piece of Scientific Hyperbole and be put up on a pedestal, or another can tell an experienced remote solo walker that she has recieved bad advice in using granulated chlorine to disinfect her water supply. Which by the way is absolutely incorrect information (and that comes directly from the World Health Organisation).

If people are going to reference a discussion with "scientific evidence", let it be sound and proven.

Cheers

Anthony

Hi Anthony, I support most of what you have said above. I think we can add Notso, who was also flamed for his post, to the list.

Yes please - "If an independent scientific review of this PARTICULAR product has been commissioned...Let it come forth."

All I am trying to do is get real facts here and keep this discussion on the ground. Some of the responses have been less than pleasant and that I do not like to see.

I feel this post has been somewhat premature, and that has done more harm than good to the possible sales of Aqua Salveo in Australia. Useful responses from the key people have been lacking. It appears that Phil has posted and them gone so not able to respond to valid questions. Gaynor has picked up the gap but given no real facts other than that she did not get sick, and her posts have been less than polite instead of answering valid questions.

If someone posts about something they have a commercial interest in, let it be clear. If not and their posts make it appear that way, give the disclaimer that most of us do such as "I have no connection with this product other than being a satisfied customer". Something that looks like disguised advertising will never be as well accepted. So easy to clear the air.

I have sent a request to the company for documentation. It is the weekend.

I expect I will get a suitable response next week. If they knew Motherhen was waiting so impatiently, I am sure they would run into work to respond to her demands.

Thank you Gaynor.

I am not impatient, nor am I in the market to use the product. I deal in facts and share useful information to others it may help. Posting without all the facts was premature and has not been good for anyone, most of all the product. Personal experience is part of the package, but that on its own means nothing.

Phil is not dreaming about red deserts today. He is out there.
Back for a few days in Perth in May and then he is out there again.

Phil's knowledge is based on my use of the product. Field tested.

To say one is better than the other is fairly irrelevant, to me. I have used pool chlorine granules in 2010 and did not get sick for the two weeks I was out there.

In 2013 and 2015 I used Aqua Salveo for 6 months and did not get sick and I tested it with seriously gross water. What more do I want to know about the product? It works.

In about a week I will have a detailed review to offer, with technical data. The technical data is irrelevant to me, because I have tested this product beyond any water you will ever drink and it worked. But it might be relevant to those unwilling to test their limits in drinking water.

When I was in Kunawarritji in my 4x4 in 2015, the water in the Community smelled so strong of chlorine, I chose to fill up from the well instead. I exercised choice.

"To say one is better than the other is fairly irrelevant, to me. I have used pool chlorine granules in 2010 and did not get sick for the two weeks I was out there."

Liquid chlorine is Sodium hypochlorite. Granular chlorine is calcium hypochlorite
which is not recommended for purifying drinking water. I suggest you had some bad advise there.

" I have tested this product beyond any water you will ever drink and it worked."
I doubt you have any concept of what others have drunk.

Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 Motorhome

'I doubt you have any concept of what others have drunk.'

Peter.... I am from Africa.

You show me yours and I will show you mine.

"Peter.... I am from Africa."
And?.......

Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

Trying speak to a closed mind is as stupid the closed mind.

Hi Gaynor

I have great admiration for your achievements. I have also not knocked the product in which you seem to have an undeclared commercial interest in any way. I do not know it is works; I am not a scientist but I deal in facts. None of us will know unless questions are answered with facts including bacterial levels before and after water treatment, not just anecdotal evidence. You talk about a closed mind; who has the closed mind here?

I would like to being able to talk about different alternative methods to achieve safe drinking water in emergency situations on my website water articles, but as just talking about alternatives can appear like I am endorsing them, I cannot do without the right proof.

Please state what my undeclared commercial interest is?

Gaynor, why so defensive? I said

"in which you seem to have an undeclared commercial interest"

I did not say that you have. That is up to you to say aye or nay.

Because you are insinuating deceit.

I have stated what my connection is to this product and you have ignored my declaration in favour of wrongful belief that I must have a commercial interest.

Nothing can change a closed mind. The End

Gaynor I have certainly NOT insinuated deceit, but your overly defensive reactions in replies that lack any substance now may lead readers to a different conclusion about yourself. You have NOT stated on this thread whether you do or don't have any commercial interest in the product, but that is beside the point. Until we receive facts that prove the product is safe, it will be treated with suspicion. That would be a shame when it may have the potential be a convenient and lifesaving product for hikers.

I once made some cups of Milo from a tank that we thought tasted a bit strange.

Milo was good though,went and had a look in the tank.

Was two completely decomposed Keas ( not the cars) Mountain parrots.

We lasted about 1 mile and then blew apart. Cleaner than any colonoscopy medicine thats for sure.

Wasnt fun walking the remaining 3 miles home.

Funny now but not then.

Thanks Gaynor

Cheers

Anthony