Here’s a list of scientific papers related to backcountry water pathogen risk

Thanks for the list. I have come full circle and treat water much less than I used to with no ill effects. With a little common sense the risk can be reduced to almost nil, and statistically speaking "nil" isn't significant. Most people pack their fears and phobias and are at a greater risk from themselves and others less than effective sanitary habits.

I would find this more useful (and less argumentative) if you moved your critiques to a different section of your website. Make this an unbiased list (with an uncritical synopsis). You could include a link to your critique if someone is interested. Otherwise, well done.

Nice job Buck. You've put together a great resource. Thanks.

"I have come full circle and treat water much less than I used to with no ill effects. With a little common sense the risk can be reduced to almost nil, and statistically speaking "nil" isn't significant. Most people pack their fears and phobias and are at a greater risk from themselves and others less than effective sanitary habits." I have to weigh my three cases of giardia and the current conclusions of professional epidemiologists based on decades of scientific study against your opinion. I don't think it's "phobic" to go with the former. I would find this more useful (and less argumentative) if you moved your critiques to a different section of your website. Make this an unbiased list (with an uncritical synopsis). You could include a link to your critique if someone is interested. The whole point of my post was to select the most relevant papers and boil them down to the most salient points. I believe it is fully appropriate to comment where a paper has been refuted by the current scientific consensus. And thank you, Greg!

Buck – excellent work on this. Thanks,

Thanks Buck, that's a very comprehensive list you've assembled. Appreciate the work you did putting it together.

"The whole point of my post was to select the most relevant papers and boil them down to the most salient points. I believe it is fully appropriate to comment where a paper has been refuted by the current scientific consensus. " It is certainly your prerogative. When creating an exhaustive list, it seems like a neutral act to give people the opportunity to do there own research. When you scatter your opinion/critique it is no longer just an exhaustive list, but moves into advocacy. Someone who hasn't come to the same conclusions as you might be more distrusting of your list and less willing to read the papers, which I think is the exact opposite of what you would like to accomplish. Again, it is your website. My suggestion is just that.

The most "unbiased" way to do things would be to provide a link to Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/ but few people will have the patience to do all their own research. I believe the selected quotes and comments make my page more useful than citations alone. Furthermore, I believe it's more important and ethical to be factually accurate than neutral.

Wow Buck that looks great! thanks for all that work…. It just amazes me how just because some people don't get sick themselves they believe that there is no risk. I mean, I've never been in a car accident, but I still use air bags and anti lock breaks and a seat belt because I know that even though it hasn't happened to me, it is still a possibility……

Yes, Jennifer, it's certainly a logical fallacy that just because some people don't get sick themselves that there is no risk. It doesn't bother me if people don't want to treat their water, I do plenty of things that are somewhat risky. What bothers me is "experts" who are willfully ignorant. One of the most widely quoted "experts" said "Show me evidence that water is unsafe. No one has been able to produce a shred of it." That is willful ignorance. The studies disproving him are easily found.