We have a private well, and currently get water delivery for drinking and coffee! Once we remodel we are going with the kinetico RO filter...not cheap, but will give us 1 spout at the faucet for drinking, cooking if we want, coffee (a must!), and another line for the fridge water. I think this system runs 1300 or so?? But the softened well water is too yucky to drink (IMO), and then we don't have the hassle of 5gal bottles and a dispenser any longer! I love the 3 sink idea, my space is not even big enough to justify 3, let alone 3, but I am going to store that baby away for the future---I have a dedicated "coffee" area in my kitchen---no matter how small it is--I love my coffee!

Most places have great water. Some places don't. And that's hopefully something you know about if you live there. It could be organic contaminants (e.g. pesticides, drugs, solvents, ...), it could be minerals (e.g. hard water, "dirty" iron deposits, ...), it could be other industrial inorganic contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, nitrates, ...), it could be biological contaminants (e.g. viruses, bacteria, ...), it could be radon gas, or it could be harmless nuisance impurities (e.g. chlorine smell, sand, ...). Some of these are more likely in municipal water supplies, others are more common in local wells. If you know what you are concerned about, then you can look for the appropriate type of filter. Quite frequently, a big activated-charcoal cartridge takes care of things. And that's the most commonly sold filter you'd get. But for other types of contaminants, charcoal is going to do zilch. Also, it really depends on whether this is just a nuisance contaminant or whether there are real health risks associated with it. If in doubt, have the water tested by a lab. The supply in your house might very well have different water than the one your neighbor has, because internal piping materials differ.

Before anyone goes off expecting miracles and the impossible, "found" roses exist because they have found the minimums of what they need to maintain their existence. Old cemeteries, abandoned gardens, what have you, must provide either sufficient rainfall and moisture retention or high enough ground water to allow the plants to exist. Add that the particular varieties also either have the right resistance to whatever types and races of those types of fungi surrounding them, or the conditions don't support fungal issues. NO rose exists without water, anywhere, period. There IS either sufficient rainfall, ground water, dew/fog condensation off or surrounding canopy plants, etc. to maintain and support that "found" rose. Take a look at many of the old cemeteries in the Gold Country. There are many oak trees in many of them. Those oaks transpire tremendous quantities of water and often result in "rainfall" of their own under their canopies. They also drop copious quantities of leaf and twig litter which, when allowed to remain on the ground, maintain a very high level of ground moisture. NO rose will survive if planted anywhere there isn't enough water supplied in whatever fashion necessary to maintain it. NO rose will survive where the heat levels are too high for it, either direct or radiated/reflected heat. If you take ANY of these "found survivors" and plant them where they don't receive the bare minimum of what they require to survive, they will NOT survive. Period. I agree that it's romantic and fun growing the found "survivors". I have for years. But, none of them are miracles. Every one of them will succumb to being cooked where it's too hot and too dry. Every one of them will die from lack of water if not supplied what is needed, however it's necessary to provide it. Every one of them will succumb to fungal issues when planted where conditions support the fungi and particularly when something is wrong with the plant's culture, making it more susceptible to whatever fungus issue is around. So, while these found survivors may be "tough", they are also blessed to have found the minimums of what they have required to survive in the specific locations in which they have survived. How many of the same varieties have NOT survived in less ideal situations? Instead of placing all the acclaim on the particular rose for its "durability", I strongly suggest more thought be placed on what it has been about the specific locations in which they have been "discovered" that permitted them to exist until being "discovered". Just as a case in point, Jesse Hildreth "survived" in the San Juan Bautista cemetery for decades UNTIL the drought took its toll and nearly eliminated it. Without locals bringing water to supplement the rains which didn't arrive and the ground water which subsided, the rose would not have made it. Of course the stupidity of the supervisory personnel in using Round Up around those plants certainly didn't help. But, had they not received enough water naturally to survive the heat on that hill, they wouldn't have survived to be found and now they aren't receiving it naturally and are having to endure greater heat than previously, without our intervention, they won't survive.

Arch13, I'm glad to hear it! That would be terrifying! Exactly Jake! There's dangers everywhere! And yuck for well water that has so many unknowns, can't wait to get it tested next week. Glad you get my point about chemicals being everywhere. now...do we just soak ourselves in chemicals on purpose because it's unavoidable (gotta die from something, right?)? Or do we limit the exposure to what we DO have control over? Logically (at least I'd hope so) we would naturally try to limit the risks that we can. It's pretty easy to filter the water. Is there really a risk, who knows. We know there's definitely leaching - that's been shown through various studies including those through NSF. We know there's been issues with other plastics in the past in finding hormone disruptors and other chemicals. So it's a reasonable conclusion that there could be a risk that we don't fully understand. You are free to ignore that risk, or believe that there is no risk at all. We all have to decide what risks are important to us as individuals. Neither of us are wrong, we just perceive the risk differently. You guys are referring to acute toxicity, which would be ridiculous with PEX. Small doses of chemical exposure is more likely to be a chronic and slow progressing problem that is very unlikely to ever get pinned on one thing like PEX. That's because there's probably not one culprit. It's likely a combination of our awful American lifestyle that includes processed foods, overeating, pollution, lack of exercise, and chemical exposure in every single thing we do and eat. And when you add it all up over time, you see a rise in autoimmune disease, inflammatory conditions, cancer, autism, depression, bipolar. What do we do about it? We do what we can. Can I eliminate all of it? Absolutely not. But maybe I can eliminate 20-30% of it, and that gives me peace of mind. Filtering the water, using cloth diapers on the kids, eating organic, that's what I can do. Does my peanut butter still come in a plastic jar, ugh unfortunately yes. Do I take the risk to drive my car as you pointed out, sure I do. Those aren't easy risks to eliminate. When you assess risk, you have to look at risk vs the benefit you get from continuing that risk, but also what risks are easy to eliminate and which are difficult. Then you make the changes that you can, and the changes that you feel have meaning. If you focus on trying to eliminate all risks, you'll drown in your fears. Filtering the water isn't a difficult one to attempt to eliminate. I am also a teacher and I feel myself getting into a lesson on risk analysis...lol..so I'm really done with this conversation. It was meant to be a genuine inquiry to get some advice about filtering. This debate is bogging down the other feeds of people trying to get help with their houses and unless anyone has some constructive advice on a type of filter, I'd ask you to just let it go. Patricia, Deborahhines, Decoenthusiaste, Jim Mat, and BeverlyFLADeziner...thank you for your help!