Lifestraw Vs. Sawyer Mini

>>659204
I use the Sawyer mini. I want to say it was some huge lifetime. I have every expectation that I'll break it or lose it before it dies. The Sawyer is just wide enough to wrap in duct tape, and who doesn't need extra duct tape? The Lifestraw I think does a buy one gift one deal, where they send one to Africa.

sawyer claims 100,000 gallons. that's what i have. like the screw on. just carry a couple extra bags.

I have the sawyer mini. I don't like it but it does what it's supposed to. It even comes with a straw btw.

What I don't like about it is how the bag only fits maybe 500 mL and it takes some time to press it through. Way too annoying for me I just use these disinfection tabs now.

>>659218
you realize those tabs have to be in the water 30 minutes to 6 hours (depending on what you're using) to be effective? and you can buy bigger bags. i like the 16 oz ones.

>>659220
yeah I know. But if you have say 2x1.5 liters you just put them in, hike on and drink an hour later or so. Instead of wasting half an hour filling and squeezing the bag. I still carry it on longer trips because it isn't heavy and I like a second option, but still I don't regularly use it anymore.

>>659218
Yeah, the way it's supposed to be used kinda sucks. I just carry a second hydration bag and use the Sawyer as an in-line filter between the two. That way I can fill my dirty bag, hang it up and go do other things while it's filtering. Takes about 10-20 minutes for three litres, depending on how recently I've cleaned the filter and how clean the water is. You don't need the plunger either, when you have two bags, just give the clean bag a squeeze, and it'll back flow enough to clear it.

>>659218
>I don't like how the bag only fits 500ml
>>659220
>you can buy bigger bags, I like the 16oz ones

Topkek. 16oz is almost the same as 500ml, if not a little less.

>>659228
He said he likes the 16 oz. (500ml) ones.
I don't think he was implying they were bigger than standard

File: Screenshot_2016-01-05-02-49-52.png (380KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1440x2560px

Sawyer mini fits flawlessly onto a platy bottle.

And the platy bottle is one of my favorites to begin with because of its compact ability, and the fact the bag is rated to be boiled or frozen, a division still not leak bphs

>>659257
I thought I read that the didn'the fit those, but maybe not. I'll probably get one as the sawyer bag started leaking around the neck, which is a common problem I believe.

>>659273
I'd send a photo, but I'm in Los Angeles for work until Friday. If this thread is still alive and kicking, I'll send a photo. Or you can just take my word for it.

The Sawyer has a really long, single thread, un like a soda lid which is a double or triple, and the platypus is also a single thread.

I like the platypus bottle more than other foldable water bottles, because it feels more like rubber than plastic. Very payable, and very durable. Sawyer aside, I recommend them.

And it sort of looks like you're drinking out of an I. V. bag, which is kind of cool.

>>659273
Mine came with 3 different sized bags .5l, 1l and 2l but since it's a standard thread size even a 2L soda bottle works.

>>659204
Katadyn makes a similar filter to the life straw plus it has an active carbon filter and also is housed in a squeezeable bottle so you don't have to have to do as much sucking.

It's is a little more expensive but if you are going to use often its nicer than a lifestraw.

The sawyer I believe claims significantly more than the lifestraw in terms of lifespan. However the lifestraw will cease to filter once it has reached the end of its life, where the sawyer just keeps filtering, even if it's letting bateria through.

I forget where I found the data, but an independent tester found after a year of use the sawyer was no longer filtering 99.999% of bacteria, but was only filtering like 65% of all bacteria.

The lifestraw is the more tested product for sure, however the sawyer is more versatile.

I use a lifestraw go bottle. It's a straw built into a nice water bottle. Just fill the bottle, and drink. Works like a charm.

>>659273
I have one of the older platypus bags and it doesn't work. I think someone said they changed their threading though, so maybe if you have a newer bag it'll be fine.

>>659511
Carbon has to be changed, though. If you don't mind the extra money and it's just for short to medium trips it's better, but a lot of people here are peppers and would have to consider it's shorter filter life and higher replacement cost if planning for anything more.

>>659516
>Only filtering 65%
Can anyone source this? I've had mine a while and need to know if I should replace it.

>>659526
>Can anyone source this? I've had mine a while and need to know if I should replace it.

You can do a test yourself. It's not very difficult.

>obtain a water sample
>obtain a sterile glass container that is air tight
>filter some dirty water through the filter into the glass container
>store the glass container in sunlight, around body temperature
>seal it and wait for a few days
>check it out under a microscope for bacteria/protozoa/discoloration/smell

It might filter out enough to make you have to wait a few days before the bacteria/protozoa increase in population enough to be visible. A microscope helps a lot more, but you should be able to observe some trace of them by smell or color within a week or so. Alternatively, you could give it to a friend in uni or at a job with microscopes and have him take a loot at it.

File: IMG_20160105_150507.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>659526

The Sawyer takes a standard thread. These all work exactly the same

>65%

That seems unlikely.

Their website claims 100,000 gallons

>>659526
The carbon filter is to get rid of chemicals to a degree which the basic life straw does not do at all. It operates (filters protozoa, bacteria, and other particles) without it so saying it has shorter life and replacement cost makes no sense.

This is why I use aquamira drops. Don't need to keep track of filter life, I use up the drops and then buy a new set. Also aren't destroyed by freezing.

In all honesty probably both filters are more than satisfactory for all practical wilderness applications. If you're using it for Mumbai sewer water, *then* you need to pay attention. Most water sources in the backcountry are remarkably clean though.

>>659571
those drops work good against viruses and bacteria however they don't kill all protozoa and are largely ineffective against Cryptosporidium

>>659582
ClO2 is effective against oocysts

File: isteripen.jpg (29KB, 641x900px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 641x900px

Do these work? Do you feel comfortable using one of these over a normal filter?

>>659617
I'd only use one in conjunction with a filter. Any particulates can protect a bacterium, virus or oocyst by casting a shadow where the UV light cannot hit.

>>659617
I'm a little paranoid about those. You need to strain the water still, to get out the chunks of shit and dirt. Then you need to flash it with the light, which requires bulbs and batteries. So to use it effectively you need some sort of filter already, plus extra batteries and bulbs.

My issue with the Lifestraw is that there's no way to use the basic model to filter water into a bottle or bag or something. If you want water you have to fill up a container with dirty water or lean down by a pond and suck. There's not really a way to filter clean water into something for storage. You could rig up some sort of system I guess, but the Sawyer comes with everything you need.

>>659563
Fair point. I still feel pretty good about my Sawyer. The only issue I've had is that lake water still tastes like lake water. Not an issue for cooking usually, but it usually takes a couple days for me to get used to drinking it straight.

I've heard that the issue with filters not working isn't that the filter breaks down, but rather that if it sits with any water in it, things will start growing on either side of the membrane. I've had issues where it tastes a little funky when I've not used it for a while, but I also make a point to not use antibacterials on a regular basis and try to keep myself exposed to things that will keep my immune system active, so I've probably drank water and been fine that could have made most people sick. Eat dirt, stay healthy.

>>659204
sawyer mini, only problem with it was that after using it for quite some time the bag broke, so I cut the line for my platypus and spliced it in. Its just easier if you actually want to filter a decent amount of water

>>659582
you're a cryptosporidium

>>659731
>ew mom this faggy resort you brought me to smells like the dirty lake where the fuck is my ipad i need to get on farmville

>>659204
Lifestraws fucking suck. It takes an amount of sucking force equal to OP's mom's nightly average, multiplied by 10^100, just to get a single drop through it. Then, if you don't blow through it with the force of an F5 tornado when you're done, mold and shit will accumulate on the end.

You can't rig them up through a water bottle or hydration pack. You can't collect purified water for later use, unless you want to spit it all into a container, drop by drop.

Fuck lifestraws.

>>659830
>2016
>don't know about lifestraw go bottle

Get with the times anon. This solves most of your issues with the lifestraw.

Reminder that one of the /out/ mods has shilled Sawyer consistently since this board's inception.

Lifestraw has considerably more testing and has real results, has Sawyer had independent lab testing done on its filters? Are people just buying the damn things without researching? Anyone drank a toilet bowl of shit water with a Sawyer?

>>659544
http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/uv-water-purifiers-are-bullshit-and-so-are-some-filters-1704387492

This article has a link to a pdf with the test of the sawyer. I was wrong with some of my original stats. After 2 months of regular use there was a noticeable decrease in effectiveness. After 23 months of regular use it was only 54% effective at filtering e.coli bacteria.

Now I understand that most people won't use the filter for 23 months regularly (meaning every day). However it does show that the filter DOES NOT work as well as it is claimed by the manufacturer.

The lifestraw however does, and Google will turn up many results of independent testing.

OP mentioned claims of % effectiveness, indicating that maybe Sawyer was better. Lifestraw claims 99.9% of protozoa because that's what is required by the EPA for it to be able to do. However independent tests show the lifestraw exceeds what the EPA requires, and performs above what is advertised.

Bottom line. The Sawyer probably works if it's used infrequently by most sc/out/s. The Lifestraw definitely works if it's used in any capacity by sc/out/s.

>>659617
Yes, it work. The UV kill all the living things in the water, but do not remove them. You have to use it as long as written in the notice and in the good conditions or it won't work.
It will also make you blind. Do not look at the light.

I've been researching this, the sawyer kicks ass.

Avoid the aquamira frontier pro, it's entirely ineffective.

Protozoan cysts are easy mode to remove size wise they are 5 microns to 15 microns so almost anything will filter them.

Bacteria are 0.2-10 microns so this is where most filters will fall down. The sawyer will take care of these as it is 0.1 micron absolute not sure on the lifestraw.

Viruses (0.004-0.2approx) are rare enough not to worry about, if you are going to get one you are going to get one. Select a decent water source and if you want to be 100% sure you'll get rid of them boil it.

Toxins and chemicals you will want activated charcoal which the sawyer lacks but the lifestraw has, this will also improve taste.

Ultimately water filtration is a game of odds, you will improve your odds the better the water source and filter but ultimately for safe water you will want to boil water then take it through a straw to remove sediment etc.

On the move a filtration straw will give you good odds of drinking water and not catching anything but like any sort of gambling eventually you will get fucked by it.

TLDR; get a straw with smallest micron filter and preferably activated charcoal, they should be used sparingly and water boiled whenever possible. They are a survival tool not a longterm solution

>>659830

> all straws are treated so shit doesnt grow in them

> you collect dirty water and filter it as you drink from it

>you suck like a bitch

>>660059
The only problem is that they only kill if the water is completely clear. Any cloudiness at all greatly reduces the effectivness.

>>660074
Hey bro, you might wanna read this >>660035

Sawyer may not kick ass so well.

Also, only the lifestraw steel model has a charcoal filter, which is mainly to improve taste.

Lifestraw makes 2 models that will filter viruses. They are not as portable as the regular lifestraw.

>>659218
You can buy bigger bags. I think they come as big as 2 liters. But screw the bags... you can use a Sawyer on any standard sized bottle.

No Berkey water bottle? What are you guys doing?

>>660097
The sawyer needs a shut off really but I wouldn't recommend using any of the straw type filters long term

Used both. Prefer Sawyer due to threading.

File: 1373646553697.jpg (28KB, 475x263px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 475x263px

>>660035
That article makes me a little more confident in buying a Sawyer. They claim the sawyer loses effectiveness after about 100,000 gallons, which is what Sawyer claims now. I guess it just goes to show there is no "forever" what filter, at least when you're talking about these micropore style filters. I find it unlikely that the Honduran test subject backwashed their water perfectly, but maybe that's just me.

The Sawyer combines many more useful features than the Lifestraw and only has the drawback of still working past its useful life. In reality though, it still filters quit a bit of shit out of the water past its 100,000 gallon lifespan. As long as you date your filter or keep an accurate log of approximately how much water you filter, I'd say you're pretty safe up until the end. Just throw a little notebook in with your camping stuff and write down "X liters of water filtered on Day X of year X".

The Lifestraw is ideal for what it was made for, giving poor, uneducated people who live in the backwoods clean water. It will stop working when it's no longer safe to use meaning no one has to keep a record of how often it's used, and it's cheap as fuck so many can be air dropped or brought into villages.

>>660372
But if you read the pdf file the sawyer starts to fail long before those 100k gallons. It starts to fail after about 75L of water has gone through it. The study even found some of their samples failed completely. After 2 months use it no longer meets EPA requirements even.

I love how everyone argues how more useful the Sawyer is.... what does that matter if it's letting through 1% e coli after a few liters have gone through it.

The lifestraw exceeds EPA requirements even at the end of its life.

ITT Sawyer shills btfo

>>660424
Maybe we're reading different studies. I'm looking at:
http://whconference.unc.edu/files/2014/10/murray.pdf

Which basically says they gave out 200 Sawyers to a village in Honduras, then came back 23 months later and tested 6 of them. 1 had failed completely by that point, the other 5 were pretty toast. There's nothing saying that after 75L they begin to break down.

Basically this was a torture test, and there's no real way of knowing exactly how much each filter had been used. I realize they don't work forever, so it is important to keep a log if you use this type of filter and dispose of it when it reaches the end of its life because it won't stop like a Lifestraw will.

The study itself leaves a lot to be desired. They only analyzed 6 total filters, and they had no way of knowing exactly how much water had gone through them. They didn't touch on the quality of the water either. Certain contaminants may effect the filter's lifespan. There are just a lot of unknowns that make this study a little dubious to make a large generalization.

>>660075
Sorry I don't have as much sucking experience as you, anon

Real talk, the amount of force needed with mine is insane. And yeah, I had shit growing in mine after the first use.

>>660611
Thank you for your post trusted Sawyer (tm) associate. Your cheque is on it way!

>>660660
I've actually never used a filter since. Lifestraws kinda ruined 'em for me. I boil all my water.

>>659218
They go up to 2L bags.

>>660663
Who could possibly be behind this post?

1. Fill a container with muddy water from a shoreline and shake it up.
2. Within minutes, the sand will fall to the bottom. Pour everything except the sand into a second container.
3. Once the water is clear (usually a couple hours), gently pour off the water.
4. Wrap the remaining precipitate in a piece of cloth and squeeze out excess water.
5. Shape the clay into a bowl shape.
6. Bury and fill the bowl with hot coals.
7. Fill the bowl with water and place above a clean container.

Unglazed clay is porous enough to filter water.

>>659204
>muh straw filters
MSR Miniworks EX screws right onto a nalgene bottle and you don't have to suck a golf ball through a garden hose, just use your arm muscles. Filters out chemicals, protists, bacteria and nuclear fallout. Can filter enough water for 2 people for a year, apparently.
>tfw I will never get paid to shill for MSR
feels bad man

>>660660
>>660705
>people post reasonable thoughts and opinions of Sawyer filters
>Lifeshill calls for backup

Wew lads, the cheque is in the mail! :^)

>>661250
How can I shill for my water boiling, Shlomo? At least LS has a good deal of rigor behind it and tons of real world use, but honestly boiling water > all.

>>661241
The miniworks has a 0.2 micron ceramic element, which is the same as the Lifestraw. The only difference is that it has a hand pump and carbon filter. It's also 5x more expensive that the Lifestraw, though it does claim to have double the lifespan.

The Sawyer has a 0.1 micron ceramic element which is better than the Lifestraw and miniworks. It's also good for more than 2,000L (supposedly). The Sawyer probably takes more energy to filter than the miniworks, but it can't be by much. The miniworks is much larger than the Sawyer mini, which is something to keep in mind.

>>661543
Lifestraw also makes a 0.1 micron filter as well, with attached hand pump, and is capable of filtering viruses.

File: download (5).jpg (5KB, 209x241px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 209x241px

How do either of them compare to an msr ceramic filter? That's what I'm using currently. I own a life straw but I only carry it as backup

>>661262
>I'm not shilling I promise
>*cashes checks*
>I just came to this Sawyer Mini vs Lifestraw thread to post about how awful Sawyer Minis are
>*downloads shill orders
>can't you see I'm innocent?
>*creates 50 slide threads*
>oh why do goyim like you persecute me so? Why can't you goyim just behave?

>>660567
Did you miss the part where after 2 months the Sawyer was below the threshold required by the EPA for filters?

>>662131
Isn't there a counter-paper out stating that they are fine as long as you wash them and don't put shit water through them the wrong way? Even the slides that were posted mentioned that user error was a possibility.

>>662145
The lifestraw doesn't seem to have those problems though.

>>662174
I guess, but for the informed user with access to bleach, vinegar and other cleaning products I think "those problems" are overblown. It's still a good filter and 2 months of water for household probably exceeds the lifetime of a Lifestaw as well (1.000L).

Filters will all eventually fail, the problem with the Sawyer is that it's hard to know when that is. The 100.000 gallon figure Sawyer gives might not be correct, but I'd bet it's still greater than the conservative 1.000L Lifestraw advertises.

>>662183
You still have to suck through it, which is less efficient than using arm strength muscles
>except for your mother, her muscles that do the sucking are particularly well developed

>>662193
Also MSR has a 0.02 micron filter
>2.5L/min
>10,000+L
>effective against viruses and anything bigger

>>662196
MRSP $350, of course it's going to be better than a $40 filter.

>>659204
If you think how the filters are built, it's clear something can get through the gap between the filter material and the plastic cover. All the percentages and liters advertised are bs.

>So which do you trust more
Lifestraw. It's longer and it has more filtering material, and it has been tested. For /out/ sawyer is superior. It's faster and it can be attached to bottles etc. no sucking required.

>>662205
But if it has problems you can repair it, you can't get a repair kit for Lifestraws.

>>662362
Yeah, like I said it's a better filter but most people aren't going to spend that much for a filter that will honestly only have marginally more benefit to them. Plenty of people forgo a filter altogether and are completely fine. If you use Lifestraw or Sawyer filters and still get sick you are immensely unlucky. Paying another $300 just so you can tell people your filter is the best out there is not something I'd do, then again I'm not drinking water out of a river with 3rd world filth running into it on a daily basis.

>>662214
For /out/ Sawyer is superior bc no one actually relies on water filters from the comfort of their parent's basement.

Sounds like we're still not at a concensus. It probably really doesn't matter that much, desu. They're both well reviewed low-cost filters. They both work in basically the same way. Lifestraw can be used in bottles, Sawyer can be used in-line. It really just comes down to preference. We may as well be arguing over whether Apple pie or pumpkin pie is a better dessert.

File: whynotboth.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

No seriously. Use the Sawer to filter into a bottle, and then use a Lifestraw to drink the filtered water? Anything one doesn't filter, the other might, and if they both miss something, you're just fucked anyway.

>>662457
I just meant that they both have a porous element that water passes through and contaminants don't. Also why I posted >>660765

>>662458

/out/ now has idorts

>>662183
1k liters is considered enough drinking water for 1 person a year.

The difference is that after 1k liters the lifestraw stops working. The sawyer keeps working and not actually filtering bacteria effectively.

After 2 months the Sawyer fails EPA testing, but it begins to fail before that, since 2 months in the sawyer let in much more e coli than is acceptable.

The question is, how early does the sawyer really start to fail?

>>662483
After 2 months of testing, but how much water? The study was, first of all, on a different model of Sawyer than the mini and was being used to treat water for a household. That could include cooking water, washing water, and who knows what else for multiple people. Does the study you quote actually talk about volume of water treated before failure? In the study they had the people testing the filters demonstrate backwash technique and said it with just clean water, no disinfectant. They even said one of the limitations of the study was that they don't know if it was human error that led to the failure.

Also, does the Lifestraw actually stop working if the filaments are broken? I understand that it stops flowing when the activated carbon filter is full but the filaments could fail well before that. Note on there website "If your LifeStraw has been used, and is then exposed to freezing temperatures, water inside can freeze and crack the filter. You may not see these cracks, so we recommend never letting it freeze once it’s been used." Why does it matter if I can't see the cracks if the filter apparently "stops working" if it's no longer effective anyways? Is there some other component in the filter I am unaware of?

>>662458
If you're going to spend to filter water while you filter that much you might as well buy an MSR filter that will do the job properly and add purification tablets to kill the viruses that the filter doesn't kill, kek. It'd be cheaper.

>>662483
This is the point none of the shills have responded to. You know exactly when your Lifestraw fails, it is foolproof.

File: kat0004.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>662032
I'm looking at this. I agree LS and the Sawyer are pretty much only good for emergency backups if you fuck everything else up.

>>659213
Buy one gift one is bad tho

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hX0g66MWbrk

>>662604
Well that's true if you ignore
>>662503

The lifestraw claims to stop working after 1.000L, but what of it breaks or is damaged? How exactly does it know to stop at 1.000L? Does the ceramic filter just degrade immediatly once it hits the 1.000L mark? That seems unlikely.

>>662605
Never go ceramic unless the water you are filtering is already quite clean. They clog up VERY easily when dealing with even a small amount of particulates

>>659204
Neither. Get this

>>662610
Katadyn Hiker Pro

>>662612
But anon,
http://www.glacier-national-park-travel-guide.com/katadyn-hiker-pro.html

>>662609
I have to agree with this, when I got the MSR miniworks I was skeptical about the instructions which have you clean the ceramic filter after EVERY use. Performance really does fall off significantly if you don't wipe it down nearly every day if you're backpacking. You need to be vigilant about where the inlet is floating in the water to make sure you're not sucking up bottom gook or anything else.

>>662606
I don't think that there's many personal water filter companies in Africa that would go out of business because Lifestraw gives them away. Funny video, though.

File: Scotch-Brite_Heavy_Duty_Scouring_Pad_86_D.jpg (14KB, 310x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 310x225px

>>662609
They don't clog up too bad if you pull from running water and keep the hose out if the mud and sand. Plus when they do clog they are very easily cleaned with a scotch pad. But for the sake of argument what would you suggest?

>>662608
It's not exactly 1k L, and it's not ceramic.

It's an average of 1k L.

That's when the pores will be closed off from use, and make flowing water through it impossible. Leading up to that, the flow will decrease, indicating it's time for a new filter.

If you were only ever filtering perfectly clean water, it would last past 1k liters.

>>662503
The cracks will be so small you can't see. The lifestraw isnt some smart device. It's not like it just knows it's not working then shuts itself off. It uses strands of filament with microproes in it. As water flows through these pores, then begin to degrade, and close off. Once enough water has flown threw the pores, the flow slows down, and the filter stops flowing, indicating it's reached the end of its life.

There is no "activated carbon" in a normal lifestraw. The lifestraw steel model uses a charcoal filter, mostly for taste.

If a filter is broken from being frozen, then it will not work properly period. This is true for almost any kind of water filtration system.

>>662608
It's like you've never done any research.

>>662503
My Sawyer Mini failed after 3mos doing field work. I am not exactly sure if I can chalk it up to the filter, but I was using it day in/out for all of my water (archeologist) and I got sick from either eating food that essentially didnt have a shelf life or the Sawyer. PROMPTLY threw that shit out and just went back to boiling everything, this summer I may try Lifestraw as I've heard nothing but good things. Still though... A filter is always strictly worse than boiling and should only be used if you cant get a fire going.

File: RIMG0093.jpg (4MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2736px

>>662605
I can recommend the platypus gravity works.
It filters remarkably fast, with no pumping, you just fill the reservoir and let it take care of itself.
You can simply reverse the flow to if it gets clogged. Interestingly, it is fairly light and somewhat cheap.

File: 345345.jpg (183KB, 1048x806px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1048x806px

>>662771
>As water flows through these pores, then begin to degrade, and close off.
This source says the filter itself is made out of a halogenated resin. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-filtration-system/

The pores in polymers cannot "close themselves". They can be damaged by freezing or excessive force. A crack in the fiber would allow more water to come through, which did not pass through a hole. If this is the case then it would be essentially "unfiltered" and still contain all the bacteria and protozoa that it was supposed to filter out. There's no way for a user to know if any of the fibers were damaged like this, until they get sick.

The Sawyer mini's filter is most likely made of a similar halogenated resin, and thus susceptible to the same problems. I think the company which makes the Lifestraw is taking a very conservative approach. Their product was designed for uneducated people to filter extremely dangerous water. The unit is very cheap, and was meant to be available in high numbers to encourage replacing if it stops working.

>>662783
>you've never done any research!
>listen to this study which tested 6 total filters!

The study reported by that group leaves a lot to be desired. This slide doesn't even make any sense.

>200 filters installed
>October 2011 38 filters installed

So which is it? Were 200 installed or only 38?

They also say they imaged one fiber from each filter and a fiber from a new filter, but right next to that it says only 1 used filter was analyzed along with 1 new filter. And which used filter was it? the one that had stopped working completely?

And what does "household use" entail? Were the filters being run non stop for cooking, cleaning, and drinking? Were they only used for drinking water?

ITT Sawyer shills SCRAMBLING for the dollars

Lifestraw is best

Sawyer wins purely for being able to screw on a bag or whatever and fill a cooking pot or any other container with clean water.

Lifestraw would have you sitting like Augustus Gloop at the edge of a creek sucking single gulps at a time and spitting them back out. One mouthful at a time. Dislodged cheeto plaque and all.

>>659218
>What I don't like about it is how the bag only fits maybe 500 mL
You can use different fucking bags. You could use a fucking two liter from the side of the street.

>>659516
>but was only filtering like 65% of all bacteria.
Hello and today we're testing the Sawyer Mini Filter and it's claims of being able to remove 99.9999999999% of bacteria and similar pollutants.

After using it once, we left the filter--still wet and uncapped--in a warm, moist environment for two months.

Verdict? Shit broke. We shouldn't be held responsible when the gear we buy doesn't work when we don't properly use nor maintain it. Big thumbs down to Sawyer. Like comment and subscribe.

Sawyer is superior in every way.
Just remember that these doesn't do anything against viruses.

>>662605

I've got one of those. It's pretty good and I've filtered some pretty disgusting water into palatable water. It works fast and screws right onto my MSR bladders, so it's great for my bike touring. But it is bulky and I use a sawyer mini when hiking. The sawyer is so tiny that I carry it even when I'm packing the katadyn, in case it fucks up.

I wonder if any fags have ever filled up their bowels with water via an enema kit and then had their lover shove the life straw up their butt and drink the water out?

>>667062

That'd save grams in a SUL thru-hike like the AT.

>>667063
>implying SUL'ers would bother with the filter

>>667068

Genuinely lol'd.

>>665827
Sawyer is superior in every way except it stops working after a few uses and gives you e coli

>>667095
The same can and has been said about the Lifestraw.

File: Aseptix E.jpg (83KB, 954x768px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 954x768px

>>659617
I doubt it. Or you have to hold them in there for an hour or more. There's a reason hospitals use fuckhueg ones that plug into 120 volts to do their sterilization. You need that power to do any real damage. Battery operation seems to me would not even tickle DNA.

Besides, if weak UV sources could do it, then leaving it out in the sun would probably have the same effect.

>>668914
Incorrect. The lifestraw filters above EPA requirements for the duration of its life.

The sawyer does not.

Simple as that.

>>668972
Are we really going to go through this again?

>>659204
Neither works in the ocean so who cares.
Same procedures that desalinate make river/lake water safe.

Mountain streams, I'll drink that shit up and hope to hell nothing died in it upstream. 50 years now and no issues.

Iodine and boiling in camp fires still works for me.

>>669106
The whole point of it is if you don't have iodine and enough fuel to boil it, you retard, or any other way to filter water.

I know you're trying to sound like a tough guy in your shit stained office chair, but why the fuck would you post if you think you're so much smarter than the purpose of both the product and the thread.

>This car comes with a spare tire in case something happens while you're driving, you can change your own tire
>DUR well I can just call my mom to come pick me up and she'll buy me new tires so I don't need a spare

>>667095
This. Lifestraw keeps dindus alive just fine, I have yet to see rigorous, long term field testing by the WHO or any similar organization. If the Sawyer is so great why isn't there more peer reviewed literature surrpunding it done outside of a household setting?

>>670287
Most people here posting about Sawyer are defending/justifying a purchase, not looking at real world results. Anyone with half a brain knows that no filter would work for 100k gallons and effectively filter bacteria, or ANYTHING for that matter. Sawyer moved the goalpost to 10k, which is still absurd but the damage is done.

All you need to know about Sawyer is this http://chicago.suntimes.com/outdoors/7/71/303640/advertising-regulators-question-sawyer-water-filter-claims

Do you guys have a separate bottle that you use for "dirty" water that you're going to filter ? or is it safe to use one bottle for dirty and clean water as long as you rinse it out ?

So have we reached a consensus here?
>Boiling is best but
>Lifestraw is second due to tons of real world testing, performs at an acceptable level until it stops working and
>Sawyer Mini is uninformed and or shill tier because Sawyer has backtracked on claimed amounts of water filtered multiple times and there's very little outdoor/real world usage backing it.

>>670645
Don't fill a bottle with dirty water and then clean water. You would have to sterilize it if you do that. I just went backpacking last week and had a dedicated dirty bottle. You can, however, filter from a dirty bottle into a clean bottle

>>670677
Ok thanks that's what I figured but wanted to make sure before I bought another separate bottle

>>670319
Do you have a better source than this? The "more" button links to this page:
http://www.odrmag.com/industry-news/industrystories/81-marketing/2624-advertising-regulators-question-sawyer-water-filter-claims.html

Which gives a 404 error.

>>670652
I'm very pro lifestraw, but I think if you're using the sawyer relatively infrequently (like a few times a month at most while hiking as most people do) it should work just fine for a year or so. I'd probably replace it maybe every few years.

I've had my lifestraw for a year. I have only had maybe 10L of water through it. I use it as a back up, and generally bring water with me.

>>670677
Agreed.

>>670652
The main drawback of the lifestraw is that the regular straw version gives you no way to store clean water. You have to have dedicated "dirty water" bottles which are unfiltered. You can't run it inline with a bladder and if you get thirsty you have to suck the water through the straw. If it gets damaged or stops working, well you're screwed.

The Sawyer mini allows you to filter clean water for drinking and storage ahead of time. Water can be filtered into clean bottles and saved, or the filter can be run inline on a bladder.

If the Sawyer stops working, hopefully you refilled all of your bottles when you had a chance, but you may not be screwed completely.

>>670846
Lifestraw will fit inside most water bottles ie Nalgene.

>>663219
My only assumption to this is 200 installed 38 inspected.

Then that leaves me asking why didnt they test 12 more? or 100 total or all of them?