That seems to be that.

Filter failure:

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/documents/LIFESAVER_Warning.pdf

Company failure:

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/maintenance

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/documents/Business%20Life%20Memo%20-%20Lifesaver%20Systems%20Limited%20(In%20Administration).pdf

That is unfortunate, although the failure to filter viruses is not particularly significant for most water sources over on this side of the Atlantic. But it strengthens my opinion that boiling is the simplest, most straightforward, and most effective way to purify water.

I know you know this, but there's an important bit of terminology here that I'd like to get straight. Boiling and other methods of deactivating or removing pathogens are used to disinfect water. To purify water means to deal with the pathogens and also other contaminants, such as heavy metals or chemicals.

Duly noted. You are absolutely correct.

That's my one time this month. I will savor it.

There is still plenty of time - go for two!!

If I owned one of these filters I probably wouldn't stop using it to be honest. Although it doesn't live up to the company claims against viruses, it's still effective against bacteria and cysts, and that's all I use filters for anyway. None of the other popular filters are effective against viruses either (sawyer mini, squeeze, lifestraw, etc) and never have been.

Since filters generally do not cover the full spectrum of threats, it's always a good idea to use filters only as part of a system and either chemically treat or boil in addition to filtering.

Of course your average casual outdoorsmen may not be privy to such details and think they can just buy this and it will make their water completely safe -- so I can definitely see why it's a big deal that their claims do not match the performance! Holy litigation issues batman.


As far as viruses being common in the US, it's becoming more widespread. Areas that were essentially virus free a few years ago might not be anymore. Besides that, it's not just a matter of avid outdoorsmen venturing deep into pristine wilderness -- many hikers and backpackers use well traveled trails, and there are a lot of urban "preppers" who rarely actually go out and use this stuff but keep it for emergencies.

Pretty much anywhere where there are humans, there are viruses -- and not just urban population centers, even popular outdoor recreational areas. Well traveled trails, parks, etc. Besides, how far away is far enough? When do the viruses stop and the clean water starts? You can't see them, so it's best to just assume they are there and operate accordingly.

http://globalhydration.com/blog/are-there-viruses-our-recreational-lakes-rivers-and-streams

Where did you learn this?

AFAIK, if your filter removes viruses, if it is a ultrafilter, epa says you can call it a "Water purifier"


removal of chemical might be detoxifier/detoxification ... but I've not seen such info

I don't know what the EPA calls it; I was working from the dictionary definitions of the words. "Purified" shouldn't apply to water that isn't pure.

which definition has legal weight? its the only definition that matters

seems a lot of adcopy drops the key word Microbiological
Pesticide Registration Manual: Chapter 4 - Additional Considerations for Antimicrobial Products | Pesticide Registration | US EPA