between this 2 brand of water filter, which is that you prefer. currently considering between this two to use at my house. hope the lowyat friends can give me some advice. thanks

I am using Elken for like 5 years now. So far so good.

---

Added on October 14, 2012, 11:42 pmNo major breakdown. Just need to change the filter every year during our CNY clean-up. Hee...

This post has been edited by bb100: Oct 14 2012, 11:42 PM

Using Elken for 11years d. Hmm, macam no problem

panasonic water filter

So many mlm ppl here
I suggest u google nsf.
And then see whther their filter is certified or not.
Nsf is a water quality body.

amway ?
http://www.amway2u.com/miniweb/espring/espring_en_US.jsp

thanks all for the comments guys

Elken is by far the best, but costliest too in terms of maintenance.

ooo..really? the maintainence for elken are costliest? there anybody are using the coway water filter system?

World Health Organization has recommended not to use Reverse Osmosis water for drinking. AFAIK, Elken is R.O.

ooo..really? this is the first time i heard that actually.

amway, cosway, elken... mlm they use R.O. system 1

what about panasonic brand or giant brand

You can read about it here. Distilled and R.O. water are also called dematerialized water.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health...mineralized.pdf

same as cap ayam filter lulz.

inb4 diamond is the best and can pawn all.

Elken

doulton super rm80 filter

http://doultonusa.com/ =>check who use it

and stainless steel casing rm80

+ one USA imported carbon filter RM80

less than rm300 beat all direct sale filter

coway so far so good use it for mah office

Kozisek mentioned that this is a draft document and not for citation. Therefore, this document is subjected to review and further correction/editing. You should give the completed version instead: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health...trientsindw/en/ or http://www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation...trientsindw.pdf

I find that some of Kozisek statements often quoted from research studies which are not conclusive in evidence that drinking RO/demineralised water is bad for health, especially epidemiological studies. Most of the sickness, such as heart disease, osteoporosis and cancer also happens to individuals who doesn't drink RO water. Other factors could have cause these common illnesses.

I encourage you to read this document from WQA: http://www.wqa.org/pdf/Consumer%20Briefs/LowTDS.pdf
This document commented on the research done by Sidorenko and Rachmanin of Russia where the scientific methods used are questionable and the conclusions made are vague or not supported by data. Interestingly, Kozisek's WHO document also quotes the same Sidorenko & Rachmanin report.

In another statement, Kozisek states Nevertheless, severe acute damage, such as hyponatremic shock or delirium, may occur following intense physical efforts and ingestion of several litres of low-mineral water (Basnyat et al.2000). The so-called "water intoxication" (hyponatremic shock) may also occur with rapid ingestion of excessive amounts not only of low-mineral water but also tap water. The "intoxication" risk increases with
decreasing levels of TDS. In the past, acute health problems were reported in mountain climbers who had prepared their beverages with melted snow that was not supplemented with necessary ions. A more severe course of such a condition coupled with brain oedema, convulsions and metabolic acidosis was reported in infants whose drinks had been prepared with distilled or low-mineral bottled water (CDC 1994)."

If you read the original paper ( http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.co...03200707836.pdf ) you will notice that there is no mention of drinking "low-mineral water" by the patient but excessive drinking of water (10 L of water without eating any salt-containing food supplementation for that day and taking part in a rigorous trek in a hot and humid environment, which resulted in profuse sweating) which causes water intoxication.

Kozisek also wrongly intepreted CDC 1994 report ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032470.htm ) as "infants whose drinks had been prepared with distilled or low-mineral bottled water". No such case mentioned in the original CDC 1994 report. Instead, the original report mentioned that the infants were given tap water or bottled water as a substitute for infant formula before hospitalization. Doctors always advise us not to give 0-6 months babies too much water, just a few sip to wash the mouth will do. The reported cases in the CDC 1994 report has nothing to do with distilled or low-mineral bottled water. Even drinking tap water excessively can cause hyponatremic seizures in babies!

I suspect either Kozisek lacks critical thinking in his study of research papers, or has poor mastery of English (he's a Russian) or drunk while writing his WHO document https://www.facebook.com/frantisek.kozisek/...antisek.kozisek

This post has been edited by DanielW: May 13 2013, 03:16 AM

R.O. home water treatment are not cheap. In fact, pretty expensive. So I see no point in using such system when other systems which does not remove minerals exist.