To: Terry May
Subject: Re: WATER FILTERS
TM>I agree that has to play a factor for those of us who are not filthy
  >rich.  But I don't think it should play a part in the ratings.
  >The ratings should only judge performance, and let the consumer
  >decide value.  And AFAIK, that's exactly how they're done.
You can rate the filters or anything else for that matter on performance
alone but there comes a time when the money question comes into play.  I
would like to see a money factor added in as one of the ratings so that
the consumer can see if an affordable model is also an acceptable
performer.  What good is the best if you can't afford it?
TM>I have a Pur Plus faucet-mounted filter, which I bought for smell and
  >taste, and it dramatically improved both.  They didn't test the
  >Pur Plus, but they did test the regular Pur, which is not supposed to
  >be as good, and it was their second rated faucet-mounted filter.
  >That made me happy, since I bought it before the ratings came out.
I bet it did.  You did good and I bet the unit is affordable.  Before I
had the IR-10, I used the faucet mounted filter from Teledyne but that
one was not well made but the taste of the filtered water was great.
TM>I think you're giving government way too much credit (also about
  >possible lead content).  Many cities have bad water.  If
  >government was all that, we wouldn't need filters and bottled water.
There comes a time when you have to trust someone sometime.  Sure, there
are things that fall through the cracks but you have to remember that
this is a public safety issue and they can't get away with gross
negligence.
TM>I would, if $500 was not a lot of money to me.  But since it is,
  >forget it.
I work hard for my money.  Even if I were rich, I would still try to
spend it in a responsible way.   Besides, how do you think the rich stay
that way?
---
   OLX 1.53   Private Reply?  E-Mail Me At:  NK2U@JUNO.COM
1:2605/159)
---------------