Topic

Not necessary to boil meltwater


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums General Forums Food, Hydration, and Nutrition Not necessary to boil meltwater

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1280610
    spelt with a t
    BPL Member

    @spelt

    Locale: Rangeley, ME

    Surface water can be contaminated with pathogens both directly and via runoff. However, waterborne pathogens don't go with water when it evaporates. Water fresh from the sky should in theory not need to be purified from biological agents. The only contamination in fresh snow should be the airborne particulates trapped in the snow when it forms in the atmosphere. These are potentially harmful to human health, but being non-living will not be affected by boiling. If you were seriously concerned about contaminated snow, you would want a filter that would catch both PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate matter between 2.5-10 microns and less than 2.5 microns). But filters are liable to freezing and I don't think many people carry them in winter. Now if you're melting water, it's likely you're going to be using at least some of it right then for a drink or meal, so it makes sense to just boil it. But as long as you are not using old or dirty snow, boiling should not be necessary. It should also be possible to melt a bottle's worth of water and just continue adding snow to your bottle to keep it topped up, assuming you take care to keep the bottle warm enough for the snow to be melted. This would save both time and fuel.

    I'm expecting someone to link me to an old thread where this has already been discussed, b/c few of my "awesome" ideas have turned out to be original. But I thought I'd throw this one out there anyway since the videos I have seen testing stoves' melting capabilities take the water all the way to boiling and that seems unnecessary unless you actually need boiling water right then.

    #1790556
    Marc Eldridge
    BPL Member

    @meld

    Locale: The here and now.

    check these out

    #1790559
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    "The only contamination in fresh snow should be the airborne particulates trapped in the snow when it forms in the atmosphere."

    Haven't you ever seen muddy little animal tracks in fresh snow?

    You don't know where they've been, and animals don't wash after using the toilet.

    –B.G.–

    #1790560
    Kattt
    BPL Member

    @kattt

    That's been my take on snow water as well. If it's fresh and clean, it's clean enough. Thing is, in the snow I am usually looking for something hot to keep me warm, so I end up getting it close to boil anyways.

    #1790564
    Kattt
    BPL Member

    @kattt

    Bob. I assumed we are talking about obviously clean, untouched, white snow.
    Yes, if it has brown stuff on it, it's another story….

    #1790569
    spelt with a t
    BPL Member

    @spelt

    Locale: Rangeley, ME

    Yes, I was assuming a person would avoid snow with visible disturbance or dirt visible to the naked eye.

    #1790576
    Kattt
    BPL Member

    @kattt

    @ Spelt:
    I could not imagine otherwise.

    #1790594
    spelt with a t
    BPL Member

    @spelt

    Locale: Rangeley, ME

    Kat, yup!

    Interesting about the pasteurization. Makes sense but I had only ever thought about it in terms of commercial food safety. Of course without a thermometer or a tuned sense for the right temp, it's easier just to boil. And the time required at pasteurization temp might well put you at a boil anyway as your stove runs while you wait.

    #1790603
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    While cross-country skiing, I have often been out during a snow storm, and I have followed fresh animal tracks through the fresh snow. When I return 30 minutes later, the tracks are invisible, but they are still there.

    Normally when we collect fresh snow to melt, we scrape off the top one inch of snow, and then collect snow underneath that. However, that still isn't perfect.

    –B.G.–

    #1790615
    spelt with a t
    BPL Member

    @spelt

    Locale: Rangeley, ME

    Bob, fair enough. Good cautionary measure to only scoop shallowly. I still think it would be less risky not to treat snow from where an animal may have walked than from a stream where you know many animals have been. Just looking at the surface area available for snow collection vs concentrated flows of liquid water, it has to be less likely that an animal has walked through your source point if your source is snow.

    #1790623
    Walter Carrington
    BPL Member

    @snowleopard

    Locale: Mass.

    It takes a lot of energy to melt snow. So, you'll always be better off if you can find any liquid water. Just don't fall into a stream at -40. If it's cold enough that there is no liquid water you'll probably want hot water anyway and if you want it to stay liquid you'll get it pretty hot. Heavy hot tent campers in the north carry a crow bar to chop through lake ice to get liquid water.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...