Water Softener: Good Idea?

[swisscheese]

Hi,

 

I'm in a Very Hard water area; scale is an issue. Is a Water softener a good idea?

The wife likes the idea of soft water for Bathing and reducing the time for cleaning scum/lime scale.

Are they cost effective?

Any recommendations on type and supplier.

Cheers

 

[lizzie]

Ask me in a couple of months LOL.

 

I am a laughing stock with the plumbers...i have bought a water conditioner at huge cost LOL its esentianlly 4 inch piece of pipe that goes on the incoming main. Supposed to ‘condition’ the water and remove limescale. I went for this because I thought better than a great big softener and salt and all that. We will be fitting the Halcyon device shortly so watch this space.........you may hear the sounds of plumbers laughing reverberating around the county or it may just work!

[ragg987]

In our old place I fitted one of those powered coils thingies. I would say no use, it is meant to keep the hard bits in suspension.

 

In our new build I fitted an ion-exchange unit. This has a resin bed that removes the hardness and you use salt to regenerate the bed. Sounds complicated, it is fully automated 'just add salt'. It is great to shower in soft water, and we are able to reduce the dose of detergents etc in washes. Also no calcium deposits on shower screens and taps, though we are seeing a light haze on chrome taps 15 months in which may be able to wipe off with a cleaner (have not tried this yet).

 

We go through approx 75kg of salt (£28 delivered) for approx 75,000l of water. An average person in UK uses 120-150l of water per day, so <5p per person per day. It also uses water to regenerate the bed - about 100l for every 3,000l of water you soften depending on the model you use.

 

I looked at a few options and settled on this technology, and then searched around to find the best prices. Try these guys, great prices and Mark is a pleasure to deal with. Suggest you buy their plumbing kits while you are there - you need wide bore flexis etc which are not easily found. We use the 20l Caribbean with Clack valve, this meters the water usage and regenerates only when needed

Edited February 7, 2018 by ragg987
the usual typos...

[Ferdinand]

I use things called LIFF Limebeater 2 in-line devices, which say they are electrolytic in mechanism. As opposed to LIFF Limefighters, which claim to be magnetic.

 

Not as complete a solution as salt-based things I think, but I have found they provide some significant benefit with our water over a number of years.

 

Cost around £30 from the more competitive Ebay suppliers, and so can be swapped routinely every few years. I use them in tandem with Surestop off-switches-for-water in all my rentals, as at least one person on BH has reported that Surestop may be vulnerable to scale - and the total cost is far less than a fraction of the cost of even one serious leak every 15 years.

 

@swisscheeseKeep away from historical films about Romans, or you may end up bathing in asses' milk. That would be interesting.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ferdinand

[NSS]

We too live in a very hard water area. Wve had a Twintec water softener for about 10 years (removed it from our previous home and refitted in the new one last year). Not cheap to buy/install but pretty much pays for itself after that in so much that the cost of the block salt is paid for by the saving in soap, shampoo, washing powder, cleaning products, etc. And of course, it takes less time and elbow grease too. For Mrs NSS, who has eczema, it's also a lot better for her skin.

[Jeremy Harris]

8 minutes ago, NSS said:

We too live in a very hard water area. Wve had a Twintec water softener for about 10 years (removed it from our previous home and refitted in the new one last year). Not cheap to buy/install but pretty much pays for itself after that in so much that the cost of the block salt is paid for by the saving in soap, shampoo, washing powder, cleaning products, etc. And of course, it takes less time and elbow grease too. For Mrs NSS, who has eczema, it's also a lot better for her skin.

 

 

I agree 100%.  The Twintec (or the other badged Harvey units that have the same internals) are excellent, use very little salt, waste little water and give water that is really nice for washing and bathing.  Everything from the washing up, through showering to the washing machine, works a great deal better with softened water.  Well worth the money in my view (although I'd say that the hoses they supply are really far to small and need replacing with proper large bore flexis to get the best from it).

[jack]

2 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Well worth the money in my view (although I'd say that the hoses they supply are really far to small and need replacing with proper large bore flexis to get the best from it).

 

The hoses they supply are laughable to say the least. The "full bore 22mm" flexis supplied had internal diameters of around half that from memory.

[RichS]

@swisscheese,  this is a question that I would also have been asking eventually, so thank you.

 

After having to dismantle our en-suite macerator (pee only use, thank heavens) the other week and finding the inside resembling part of the Great Barrier Reef I also looked into softeners and found these,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AquaHouse-Softener-Alternative-effective-Prevention/dp/B00JVZE5P6/ref=pd_sbs_328_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QBASAFFDN78A1T35P87T

which appealed to me because basically there is nothing to do other than re-new the filter approx every 3 years.

 

Does anyone have any views on them as opposed to the "salt" type

 

[Jeremy Harris]

13 hours ago, RichS said:

@swisscheese,  this is a question that I would also have been asking eventually, so thank you.

 

After having to dismantle our en-suite macerator (pee only use, thank heavens) the other week and finding the inside resembling part of the Great Barrier Reef I also looked into softeners and found these,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AquaHouse-Softener-Alternative-effective-Prevention/dp/B00JVZE5P6/ref=pd_sbs_328_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QBASAFFDN78A1T35P87T

which appealed to me because basically there is nothing to do other than re-new the filter approx every 3 years.

 

Does anyone have any views on them as opposed to the "salt" type

 

 

Strictly speaking these aren't water softeners, as they do not remove any of the calcium ions in the water at all, so all the issues that excessive calcium ions in water cause, like soap not forming  good lather, tea tasting a bit funny etc will still be there.  What these claim to do (and I have to say that the scientific validation of these is not that solid - I'm being polite here.......)  is to reduce scale build up.  There are ways of reducing scale from sticking to surfaces, and some work well.  Most just cause the scale to precipitate out, rather than stick to a surface, and sometimes this may be effective.  We used a unit that did this at our old house and it reduced scale in some areas, but didn't in others, and did have some interesting effects.  Our boiling water urn didn't get scaled up, but instead filled up with fine scale particles, like dust, that built up as a thick layer of sediment, that still needed washing out every few weeks.

 

Maybe it will work well enough for your purposes, it's hard to say for sure.  What might work more effectively might be a phosphate dosing unit, as they do stop calcium carbonate from sticking very well.  There is good science behind units like this: https://www.wrekinwatersofteners.co.uk/wrekinwatersofteners/category_final.asp?department=Scale Inhibitors&category=Phosphate Dosing

 

 

[Russdl]

4 hours ago, lizzie said:

Ask me in a couple of months LOL.

 

I am a laughing stock with the plumbers...i have bought a water conditioner at huge cost LOL its esentianlly 4 inch piece of pipe that goes on the incoming main. Supposed to ‘condition’ the water and remove limescale. I went for this because I thought better than a great big softener and salt and all that. We will be fitting the Halcyon device shortly so watch this space.........you may hear the sounds of plumbers laughing reverberating around the county or it may just work!

 

I’ve seen those around the Bazaars Lizzie and always been interested - until I heard the price! But if they work (and I guess, more importantly, how long they work for) then they look like a great solution to the hard water problem.

 

I’m surprised that no one has commented on the technology so far...

 

Anyone?

 

I’m on tenterhooks waiting for your feedback in a couple of months. 

 

[Gone West]

15 hours ago, swisscheese said:

I'm in a Very Hard water area; scale is an issue. Is a Water softener a good idea?

 

We first fitted a domestic water conditioner around 1993 which didn't work so was replaced with a 'commercial' version. That didn't work either so we fitted our first resin based water softener which I think was a Kinetico which worked well. Since then we have had Minimax and Twintec and in our new house I have recently fitted a Harveys Crown which we bought from https://www.fountainsofteners.co.uk/harveys-crown-water-softener-c2x17510096 These are all compact block salt softeners which don't require an electricity supply. The water hardness around here is 320ppm.

[RichS]

11 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

Strictly speaking these aren't water softeners, as they do not remove any of the calcium ions in the water at all, so all the issues that excessive calcium ions in water cause, like soap not forming  good lather, tea tasting a bit funny etc will still be there.  What these claim to do (and I have to say that the scientific validation of these is not that solid - I'm being polite her.......)  is to reduce scale build up.  There are ways of reducing scale from sticking to surfaces, and some work well.  Most just cause the scale to precipitate out, rather than stick to a surface, and sometimes this may be effective.  We used a unit that did this at our old house and it reduced scale in some areas, but didn't in others, and did have some interesting effects.  Our boiling water urn didn't get scaled up, but instead filled up with fine scale particles, like dust, that built up as a thick layer of sediment, that still needed washing out every few weeks.

 

Maybe it will work well enough for your purposes, it's hard to say for sure.  What might work more effectively might be a phosphate dosing unit, as they do stop calcium carbonate from sticking very well.  There is good science behind units like this: https://www.wrekinwatersofteners.co.uk/wrekinwatersofteners/category_final.asp?department=Scale Inhibitors&category=Phosphate Dosing

 

 

@JSHarris, Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes, I had realised that they are not a water softener in the "normal" terms. I believe the associated bumph actually tells you as much. I think it mentions the "dust" effect as well but states this can be wiped off.

Tea tasting funny??, well I guess what it tastes like now is what I'm used to so a proper softener may make it taste funny to me

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at these. As stated I won't be needing one for quite a while yet (still waiting for warm weather to pour the slab) but it's always nice to have an idea of what to aim for.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by RichS
Typo

[richi]

11 hours ago, JSHarris said:

What might work more effectively might be a phosphate dosing unit, as they do stop calcium carbonate from sticking very well.  There is good science behind units like this: https://www.wrekinwatersofteners.co.uk/wrekinwatersofteners/category_final.asp?department=Scale Inhibitors&category=Phosphate Dosing

 

Agreed. I put in a Combimate a few months ago (plumbed for the whole house, not just the boiler). It makes it much easier to clean taps, etc.

 

You don't get the soapy benefits of soft water, but you also don't need to find space for a hulking great machine that uses additional water, electricity and needs refilling with salt. Phosphate-dosed water is believed safe to drink (many USA municipal water companies dose at source).

[RichS]

@PeterStarck

Thanks for that, just checked my water hardness and this is what I got:

Water hardness type: Hard

Water hardness average: 84.6mg/l calcium

which according to an online converter equates to 84.696638834ppm.

Does that make my water considerably harder or softer than yours??

[richi]

13 minutes ago, RichS said:

Tea tasting funny??, well I guess what it tastes like now is what I'm used to so a proper oftener may make it taste funny to me

 

There's a point of view, widely held, that you shouldn't drink softened water. Supposedly because of the extra sodium ions in the water, causing high blood pressure. I call shenanigans, for two reasons:

1. A properly adjusted, metered softener shouldn't add excess sodium
    
2. The "science" behind the theory that dietary sodium increases blood pressure is, frankly, bunkum. It's believed that more people suffer from poor health from not getting enough salt than from the tiny, tiny effect that salt has on blood pressure -- as a direct result of the public-health advice to cut down on salt. (At this point, @Coopers is muttering "don't get him started.")

Edited February 8, 2018 by richi
echo

[Jeremy Harris]

As someone who was diagnosed with essential hypertension when I was 34 years old, and who has been treated for it for over 30 years, I tend to agree.  The first advice I had was to reduce dietary sodium intake, which I did.  I periodically check (by reading the labels on stuff!) to see how much sodium I'm taking in each day.  Even with the occasional packet of crisps I never exceed the 3g/day recommendation, which is half the current limit of 6g/day that seems to be the target for many countries.  The softened water contribution to this is miniscule, and is hardly worth bothering to add in.  There is some evidence that electrolyte balance can be affected by a diet that's high in sodium and low in potassium, but then I like things like bananas, sweet potato and watermelon, so tend to have a reasonable potassium intake anyway.

 

BTW, massively reducing my sodium intake had zero impact on my blood pressure!

[Dreadnaught]

This PDF from Southern Water in my view summarises fairly the difference between (i) salt-based softeners, (ii) phosphate-based ones, and (iii) "physical-softeners". 

 

https://www.southernwater.co.uk/Media/Default/PDFs/2835b_WaterSofteners_A4Notes_Nov12.pdf

 

(By the way, I hold a different view on the sodium-health issue, a more conventional one in line with that of scientific-advisory councils around the World. As far as I can see, the evidence is strong that a high-sodium diet leads to higher blood pressure, which in-turn leads to increased cardiovascular disease, all on a population-wide basis (@JSHarris result not withstanding). Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death. (Degree in physiology and PhD in biochemistry).

 

Interesting thread. I plan to add a salt-based water softener to my build, when I get to it (and a non-softened tap for in the kitchen for cooking/drinking).

 

Having done so past research on water softeners some time ago, I am tempted to use an older design of softener, a single-tank type, and one that has a tried-and-tested mechanical mechanism for timing and managing the resin ionisation step (no power supply needed). My research suggested to me that the modern two-tank systems are a marketing gimmick. Anyone can tolerate a few minutes of hard water once in a while if one attempts to draw water while the tank is regenerating. The added complication of two tank system provide only that marginal benefit for rather more complication. Having said this, it seems from what I have read that most salt-based water softeners are low maintenance (other than feeding them salt), no matter the type, so its probably marginal.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Dreadnaught

[swisscheese]

Thanks All,

I'm looking at about 322ppm as Calcium Carbonate.

Interesting debate and more options available than I had thought.

Checking out some options.

[RichS]

Does that make my water considerably harder or softer than yours??

 

I've found the answer, your water is classed as very hard, mine is hard

[Nickfromwales]

A simple map from the Bristan site

[Jeremy Harris]

1 hour ago, Dreadnaught said:

This PDF from Southern Water in my view summarises fairly the difference between (i) salt-based softeners, (ii) phosphate-based ones, and (iii) "physical-softeners". 

 

https://www.southernwater.co.uk/Media/Default/PDFs/2835b_WaterSofteners_A4Notes_Nov12.pdf

 

(By the way, I hold a different view on the sodium-health issue, a more conventional one in line with that of scientific-advisory councils around the World. As far as I can see, the evidence is strong that a high-sodium diet leads to higher blood pressure, which in-turn leads to increased cardiovascular disease, all on a population-wide basis (@JSHarris result not withstanding). Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death. (Degree in physiology and PhD in biochemistry).

 

Interesting thread. I plan to add a salt-based water softener to my build, when I get to it (and a non-softened tap for in the kitchen for cooking/drinking).

 

Having done so past research on water softeners some time ago, I am tempted to use an older design of softener, a single-tank type, and one that has a tried-and-tested mechanical mechanism for timing and managing the resin ionisation step (no power supply needed). My research suggested to me that the modern two-tank systems are a marketing gimmick. Anyone can tolerate a few minutes of hard water once in a while if one attempts to draw water while the tank is regenerating. The added complication of two tank system provide only that marginal benefit for rather more complication. Having said this, it seems from what I have read that most salt-based water softeners are low maintenance (other than feeding them salt), no matter the type, so its probably marginal.

 

 

Worth looking at the Cochrane data if ever in doubt about the quality of health-related data.  I've recently applied to become a Cochrane reviewer, primarily because I've been very impressed with the impartiality and sifting out of dodgy data from biased studies, or those that weren't conducted to a recognised standard protocol.  This is an example of Cochrane's last review of the evidence available globally on the effect of reduced dietary salt on the prevention of cardiovascular disease:

 

http://www.cochrane.org/CD009217/VASC_reduced-dietary-salt-prevention-cardiovascular-disease

 

It's worth benchmarking the credibility of the Cochrane work with some of their other review, too, to get an idea as to their methodology.  Each sub-group tends to operate semi-autonomously, but does usually include a number of people who are recognised in that field for their expertise.  The main emphasis is in sifting out poor quality data from reasonably reliable data, then looking at what the best data available tends to show.

[richi]

1 hour ago, Dreadnaught said:

I hold a different view on the sodium-health issue, a more conventional one in line with that of scientific-advisory councils around the World. As far as I can see, the evidence is strong that a high-sodium diet leads to higher blood pressure, which in-turn leads to increased cardiovascular disease

 

Respectfully, that sounds like argumentum ad verecundiam. The only bodies I know that disagree with the data are those that stand to look stupid for their previous recommendations (notably, the AHA). I'm happy to learn of any truly independent bodies that still believe the evidence is strong, of course.

 

@JSHarris's point about Cochrane is right on. As with its previous reviews, its latest shows inconclusive evidence (but the reviewers stop short of recommending a reversal of the conventional advice). To be clear: the data show a moderate benefit of salt reduction among the hypertensive sub-population, but actually a dis-benefit for those with typical blood pressure. 

 

IMHO, Lewis Dahl is to dietary sodium as Ancel Keys is to dietary fat. Both unscientifically shouted from the rooftops about their data and their data alone. Self-aggrandisement is not the same as science. Despite the data being poor, their shouting caused the U.S. government to "do something" (because, hey, something must be done!)

 

Important: I am not your doctor (I am nobody's doctor). So talk to yours. And read the science to decide for yourself. Here are some pointers (this is an inexhaustive list):

 

Quote

Researchers analyzed data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), which was conducted by the federal government among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. ... “Our findings suggest that for the general adult population, higher sodium is very unlikely to be independently associated with higher risk of death from CVD or all other causes of death,” says Dr. Hillel W. Cohen, lead author of the study and associate professor of epidemiology and population health at Einstein. ... Since NHANES III was an observational study and not a clinical trial, no definite conclusions about cause and effect were possible, says Dr. Cohen. “However, our findings do again raise questions about the usefulness or even safety of universal recommendations for lower salt diets for all individuals, regardless of their blood pressure status or other health characteristics,” he cautions.

 

Quote

Graudal, Galløe, Garred: These results do not support a general recommendation to reduce sodium intake. Reduced sodium intake may be used as a supplementary treatment in hypertension. Further long-term studies of the effects of high reduction of sodium intake on blood pressure and metabolic variables may clarify the disagreements as to the role of reduced sodium intake, but ideally trials with hard end points such as morbidity and survival should end the controversy.

 

Quote

Mente et al: Several studies reported a U-shaped association between urinary sodium excretion and cardiovascular disease events and mortality. ... Increased sodium intake was associated with greater increases in systolic blood pressure in individuals with hypertension ... compared with individuals without hypertension. ... In those individuals without hypertension ... higher sodium excretion was not associated with risk of the primary composite outcome ... whereas an excretion of less than 3 g/day was associated with a significantly increased risk. ...  These data suggest that lowering sodium intake is best targeted at populations with hypertension who consume high sodium diets.

 

Quote

One oft-cited 1987 study published in the Journal of Chronic Diseases reported that the number of people who experience drops in blood pressure after eating high-salt diets almost equals the number who experience blood pressure spikes; many stay exactly the same. That is because "the human kidney is made, by design, to vary the accretion of salt based on the amount you take in," explains Michael Alderman, an epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and former president of the International Society of Hypertension. ... And low-salt diets could have side effects: when salt intake is cut, the body responds by releasing renin and aldosterone, an enzyme and a hormone, respectively, that increase blood pressure. ... Evangelical antisalt campaigns are not just based on shaky science; they are ultimately unfair. "A great number of promises are being made to the public with regard to this enormous benefit and lives saved," [Alderman's colleague Hillel] Cohen says. But it is "based on wild extrapolations." 

 

[Dreadnaught]

Quote

Respectfully, that sounds like argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

Fair point @richi  and well said. (should probably have skipped the bit in brackets).

 

3 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

Worth looking at the Cochrane data if ever in doubt about the quality of health-related data.  I've recently applied to become a Cochrane reviewer, primarily because I've been very impressed with the impartiality and sifting out of dodgy data from biased studies, or those that weren't conducted to a recognised standard protocol.  This is an example of Cochrane's last review of the evidence available globally on the effect of reduced dietary salt on the prevention of cardiovascular disease:

 

http://www.cochrane.org/CD009217/VASC_reduced-dietary-salt-prevention-cardiovascular-disease

 

It's worth benchmarking the credibility of the Cochrane work with some of their other review, too, to get an idea as to their methodology.  Each sub-group tends to operate semi-autonomously, but does usually include a number of people who are recognised in that field for their expertise.  The main emphasis is in sifting out poor quality data from reasonably reliable data, then looking at what the best data available tends to show.

 

 

Thanks @JSHarris I have not read that. I will do so with interest, appreciated. I agree that Cochrane surveys are the gold standard. Jeremy, more generally I am impressed by your breadth of knowledge and that of many on this forum. I am learning a lot by following threads on a great range of diverse subjects (even the splendid sparring with @Fredd).

Edited February 8, 2018 by Dreadnaught

[Jeremy Harris]

Thanks for the kind words.  As you may have gathered, I'm a retired scientist, so I tend to approach most things with a certain degree of scepticism until I've found enough reliable evidence to convinced me that it's correct.  Sadly there is so much misinformation around, and the internet and social media make it so much easier for false information to be spread, as if it were true, that it's really tough sometimes to dig under it all and find out where the truth lies.

[richi]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

the internet and social media make it so much easier for false information to be spread

 

I agree, although the reverse is also true. Without a peer-to-peer channel, we'd be restricted to mass media and the occasional windmill-tilting book. Unfortunately, critical thinking is required!