On 6/14/07, Alok G. Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.eurekaforbes.com/aboutus/popup.htm
>
> How does this differ from say,
> http://www.eurekaforbes.com/products/product.php?catid=35&&prid=209
I wonder when the boffins are going to discover that storing water in
those mud pots has some curative,purifying and clarifying effects on
it....then I can bang my front door in the face of that intrusive
water-purifier salesman!
Deepa.
On 6/14/07, Alok G. Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.eurekaforbes.com/aboutus/popup.htm
>
> How does this differ from say,
> http://www.eurekaforbes.com/products/product.php?catid=35&&prid=209
From what I understood, both of them, properly used, would qualify as
'potable water'. I don't mean that the water purity is the same, just
that there is a minimum standard that they meet. The disadvantage of
the tap attachment is that the optimum water flow rate cannot be
enforced and forcing water through it at a higher rate would cause the
water quality to degrade.
The RO purifier is probably the closest you can get to distilled water
without it being entirely tasteless.
--
Alok
travel, n.:
Something that makes you feel like you're getting somewhere.
