I think that one thing you need to do is discuss the whole situation with a really good construction attorney. You don't have to let your builder know you've hired a lawyer or anything, but I think you need to understand exactly where you stand given your specific contract, signed change orders, and the new unsigned change orders. And I think a lawyer should read through any letter before you send it, just to make sure you're not accidentally obligating yourself to something that wouldn't otherwise be your responsibility. I wouldn't worry about the builder talking about you in an unflattering way. It sounds like he's pulled this same "pay me an extra 50k" stunt at the end of other jobs, so frankly his credibility isn't very good. If you haven't closed yet, I think you should also consider delaying closing until at least the larger problems (plumbing etc) are fixed, and holding back money to cover the rest. I also would worry about the photovoltaic array being left in the flood setback area - maybe it's no big deal, but it just seems like something that might come back to bite you when you go to sell the house. I actually like the idea of bringing your realtor friend along. It would be a good reminder to him that his actions will affect how other clients and potential clients view him, without you having to spell it out quite so bluntly. It sounds like you've been on top of the details during your build, and that will be a big asset to you now. Keep your head in any phone calls or meetings, and don't feel obligated to agree to anything on the spot. And hang in there!

Thanks for your comment, Jake the Wonderdog. The reason I posted my original comment was because I got the impression from your earlier remarks that there were few if any peer-reviewed studies documenting any kind of effectiveness for EMF: Point me to some peer reviewed study that shows this works. You can't - because it's not out there. I've looked, I've looked for years. It's still not out there - 7 years from this original post there's still no legit documentation. Dude, if this was something that actually had some science behind it there would be studies, tests, peer reviewed journals, etc. We would see charts showing effectiveness given various variables such as hardness levels, temperature, iron levels, flow rates, etc. There's none of that. The meta-analysis I linked to suggests there have been many studies documenting some kind of effectiveness: "Over 4,000 studies have reported EMF associated anti-scaling and ani-fouling work from last century, and the quantity of publications increased exponentially during this century." I think it is not quite right to suggest that these studied are "still not out there." Regarding your latest points: 1. The study I linked to was a meta-analysis that did control for variables. Figure five, for example, documents effectiveness given variables of pH levels, pipe material, water temperature and flow rate. If the issue is variable control, then it is not clear why the lack of a study in a residence should matter. 2. Treatment variation is addressed in the meta-analysis: "EMF device configuration is not a primary factor for EMF efficiency." 3. Given that the meta-analysis controls for water chemistry and other variables, it is not clear why it is a leap to say that industrial and lab applications might also support domestic effectiveness. For example, I have copper pipes, and if I test my water for pH &c. I should presumably be able to see whether EMF will work in my house. Note that scale reduction is *all* I care about. I need to protect my old pipes. If EMF can do that, it will be a very big deal for me. The passage you quote from the meta-analysis is from the introduction: it is not a conclusion. As the next sentence states, "This review aims to elucidate the factors pertaining to EMF water treatment and their anti-scaling effects." The meta-analysis's conclusion regarding effectiveness is positive, as noted in the passage from the summary quoted in my first comment. Given that your criticisms are addressed in the meta-analysis, I'm inclined to think that it provides evidence for the effectiveness of EMF in at least some domestic contexts. Someone thinking about using it though should test their water first and then cross-check the results in the meta-analysis to see if it is likely to work.

My god, there's so much nonsense in this thread I don't know where to begin. (qualification: major in biology, minor in chemistry at top 50 ranked US university) There is: HARDNESS as used in the WATER TREATMENT FIELD, which means presence of (non-precipitable) alkaline earth metal cations (Ca, Mg, mainly) - these cause soap scum and can make skin seem dry to some people There is Total Dissolved Solids: which is the sum of all dissolved ions and organic molecules, whether ionized or stable colloids suspended in the water (like milk) Of course there are degrees of softness and hardness! Arguably there are 2 types of softness: water that has gone through a softener has the same overall TDS, but the water "feels" softer and doesn't cause limescale in a washing machine because the Calcium & Magnesium were replaced by Na or K (sodium or potassium) which do not form scale so easily and do not form soap scum at all. Then there's water that has gone through an RO unit and literally had most of the TDS of any type removed. This water is also soft and handles very similarly to resin-softened water. "Any RO, regardless of brand, will become unhappy if it is fed water with any hardness because hardness can not be filtered out by the pre filters of the RO and will foul the membrane." this isn't true at all - modern RO membranes do just fine with moderately hard (i.e., containing reasonable amounts of Calcium and Magnesium) water. I ran one for years on a municipal water supply that definitely left soap scum in the shower and measured over 200ppm of TDS, much of which was Ca according to their quality reports. Yes, if you want the membrane to last longer, it would be better to feed it softened water...i.e., Ca/Mg replaced with Na/K. But the membranes aren't very expensive compared to the cost of buying the amount of pure water they can produce...a $40 membrane will easily produce at least 800 gallons of water, which at the going rate of distilled water would be almost $800. I think I've gotten at least 2000 out of mine before I replaced them - that has taken me 3-5 years, and then only under a presumption they would fail soon. "What baffles me is why the filters would get clogged with such a soft input water." Yes, even if they were really junky filters, it doesn't make sense. But the softness is only part of the picture, if you had large (relatively) particles of some kinds of dirt in the water, they might not contribute to TDS depending on the way it was measured. Is it possible you had a leak in the supply line to your house or the muni. water had a leak at some point that let a lot of particulates in? I had a leak a few years ago in my line from the street and it clogged up my pre-filter, but not quite that quickly. The funny thing is many people insist softened water leaves their skin "smoother" because there's no "soap scum" on it, but this is usually just because the detergent, bodywash, or soap they used is not completely removed. In contrast, the combinations of cations AND anions in hard water both push more of the organic molecules off, and convert some of the remaining to a harder precipitate. Frankly, I can't stand the feeling of being in a place with really soft water like the Gulf Coast, that leaves my skin all slimy after a shower. Just a question of what you grew up with, I suppose. This can be seen quite easily by further rinsing the skin with a weak acid dissolved in deionized water. This will truly push the detergent molecules off and give you an impression of what your skin really feels like with nothing on it but pure H20. Glass has a similar way of holding charged organic ions which is why all scientific laboratories give their glassware a final acid rinse. I know, I used to work in one. "Also, if you used a saddle valve for the water supply to the RO that should be eliminated as they are MASSIVE water leaks waiting to happen." I do agree with this. I believe all of these start leaking sooner or later. I've been happy with John Guest part ASVPP2, which, in the ultimate irony of ridiculous stupid regulatory obstruction, is not permitted on drinking water systems because it isn't certified lead free, even though the absolutely minute amount of lead it might release over 20 year would be filtered out by...you guessed it...the reverse osmosis membrane. There's surely more lead in 75% of US municipal water supplies on a per unit faucet basis than will ever be released by such a miniscule piece of brass. BTW all this "alkalinize for health" stuff cracks me up. If you drink any municipal water, you're drinking water with a ph of 8 or above. They make it that way so that it won't dissolve pipes. Then look at all the supplemental calcium added to various foods. I really don't think there's a need to add even more to your water. In that case, why not just drink your municipal water which already has some calcium after passing it through a much cheaper carbon or KDF filter to get the chlorine flavor banished? Part of the whole reason SOME coffee & tea purists, for example, use RO water is because they believe the calcium ions interfere with the brewing process. It's like, what the %#^@ is the point of an RO unit that then turns around and makes the water non-RO? Is the Calcium they add FCC/USP grade? There's a lot of cheap raw ingredients coming from China that are contaminated with heavy metals! This post was edited by davidrt28 on Thu, Jan 16, 14 at 16:09

Larsi...I guess I'm just used to it. I've only ever had soft water (I don't get around much). But yeah, you only need really small amounts of shampoo/conditioner/shower gel etc (depending on hair length, a nickle or quarter size amount (more or less) is all you really need. It's going to take me a long while to finish my bottle of Persil. It's not the small one but the next size up and I'm using so little. I like to try different detergents but now I have to buy the smallest sizes or I'll be using them forever. I still want to try the Zero Suds when Amazon get's it. I do like the smell of A&H (with oxi) liquid. To me it has that smell of laundry from when I was a kid. A very clean smell. I don't know if you stay away from fabric softeners but you might want to keep some on hand in case you get suds half way up the window on the Electrolux like I did. Fabric softener really helps to cut the suds down when you make a dossing error. Vinegar did nothing to cut suds. How's the Wisk HE working for you? I was at Walmart to get cleaning supplies and was checking out the laundry aisle and they did not have the (big/exclusive) HE Wisk. They did have FOCA but the bag is too huge. I was going to try the FOCA liquid (from Amazon) but it's not labeled "he". I like liquids but use powders on occasion. With the liquids (like I said) I only fill the liquid cup to under the lip for normal sized loads and for larger I'd go up to MINIMUM.