This broadcast is about drug residues and PFAS in water.
This involves 5 tests.
- water from a reverse osmosis water filter from influencer Coach Chicho
- water from the tap of the Water Laboratory in Haarlem
- water from the tap of this laboratory after treatment with electrolysis
- bottled spring water
- water from the same bottle after treatment with electrolysis
Facts in a row:
- Although a picture of our water filter is shown after about 42 seconds into the broadcast, NO water was tested from our Aqualine water filters.
- For this test, water was tested from a reverse osmosis water filter (was confirmed to us by the laboratory).
- Mr. Chicho's tested water he had brought from home in a water bottle he also uses to go to the gym.
- The test revealed that Mr. Chicho's tested water contained an excessive amount of bacteria.
- This large amount of bacteria was highlighted extensively in Pointer's media statements.
Explanation.
The sample provided by Mr. Chicho
Providing a water sample in a water bottle that is also used to take to the gym is completely out of the question. According to Article 11 of the Drinking Water Regulations, the laboratory should have provided a sterile bottle for a fair and independent test.
The large amount of bacteria cannot be explained by the reverse osmosis filter used. More logically, bacteria already present in the water bottle eventually contaminated the filtered water.
Comparison between the test of the filtered water and tap water
The program emphasizes that the amount of residual substances from medicines, among other things, is negligible. Here again and again, the danger of the filtered water is pointed out because the amount of bacteria was far too high and not even suitable as drinking water.
This very conveniently ignored the residues that did pass through the filter as well as the amount of 25 nanograms/liter PFAS substances.
Roberta Hofman of the KWR water laboratory in Nieuwegein even dared to say on the broadcast that she would rather drink PFAS than the large amount of bacteria (the program's hobbyhorse). Ms. Hofman has the test results in her hands so she knows that the amount of PFAS is 25 ng/l.
The RIVM has a safe standard of 100 ng/l. If we ingest this amount daily over a long period of time, we would not become ill. In the United States, where PFAS has been a major problem for more than 30 years, resulting in many lawsuits, the safe standard is 4 ng/l for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ng/l for the other PFAS substances.
This 25 ng/l of PFAS substances in the tap water from the Water Laboratory is, in my opinion, remarkably high. The water in Haarlem comes, among other things, from the springs in the Amsterdam Water Supply Dunes. A place where you expect to drink well-filtered water.
In my opinion, Dutch tap water does not exist. Tap water in any place in the Netherlands can have a different composition. This also depends on where the water comes from. 60% of our drinking water comes from wells and 40% from surface water such as the big rivers. Each type of water has its own challenge to be filtered. As far as our major rivers are concerned, we are the drain of Europe.
If source water from the Amsterdam Water Supply Dunes already contains 25 ng/l of PFAS substances after being filtered by the Drinking Water Company, how much could be in drinking water in other places in the Netherlands.
Summary:
- In our opinion, this has not been a fair and independent test of Mr. Chicho's filtered water. Article 11 of the Drinking Water Regulations sets clear requirements for a sampling. The Water Laboratory should have followed these rules (also according to their NEN-ISO certification) and offered a sterile bottle or a bottle with a preservative for taking the sample. In the case of the broadcast, they should have informed both Pointer's editors and Mr. Chicho of the consequences of testing water from a non-sterile water bottle.
- The makers of Pointer are bound by the journalistic code which states, among other things, that an investigation is "accurate and careful - errors are avoided as much as possible and the making process is verifiable." In doing so, I think the laboratory researchers and the editors of the program should have questioned the accuracy of these tests and investigated further. We are talking about a professional laboratory which is co-owned by the drinking water companies: Dunea, PWN, Waternet.
- There is no justification for a program like Pointer to question the use of ALL filters. They even indicate that a water filter makes the water worse by adding a lot of bacteria to the water. They draw this conslusion by testing only 1 filter. Unfortunately in the wrong way by not having used a sample collection according to the Drinking Water Regulations. In my opinion this is not according to the journalism code they are bound by.
- The test results do show that residues are removed as well as PFAS substances.
We still believe that a water filter can indeed make a difference. For years, we have indicated that we are proud of our drinking water companies but we also indicate that residues remain in the drinking water after filtering. This is also confirmed by the RIVM. By using an Aqualine water filter that is proven to remove PFAS substances and various other residues, these substances do not enter your body.
Of course, every day we ingest substances in various ways that we would rather not have in our bodies. By using an Aqualine water filter, we can remove at least some of these substances from our drinking water so that it can do no further damage to our bodies.
Bacteria and the Aqualine water filters
Most water filters available on the market do not have antibacterial protection. Our Aqualine water filters have antibacterial protection in 3 places namely:
- The ceramic filter in the upper tank has holes of 0.0002 mm, stopping any bacteria from the tap water.
- The carbon in the multi-step filter is mixed with silver impregnated carbon to prevent bacterial growth in the filter.
- Some of the stones in the lower tank are impregnated with silver to prevent bacterial formation.
Of course, our systems are not sterile. When commissioning, you have been on the filter and on the inside of the tank with your hands. If you work with clean hands and clean cloths when commissioning or maintaining the system, there are certainly bacteria in there but not pathogenic ones. However, the bacteria present cannot multiply.
Pointer and The Water Laboratory
We have written to the editors of Pointer and The Water Laboratory pointing out that the tests were not done in accordance with the rules of the Drinking Water Regulations. We have also pointed out to them that they have put ALL water filters in a bad light with these incorrect test results. However, this is not justified because no careful research was done here. The broadcast shows a picture of an Aqualine water filter which was not used for the test. The Water Laboratory has confirmed that according to the test results it is a reverse osmosis water filter. Therefore NO Aqualine water filter was used for this test.
The Water Laboratory has responded:
"For the NPO3 we indeed used delivered water (both spring water and filtered water) and therefore we do not make any statements about how representative the monserts are, only about the state in which the sample was delivered."
To our request to do the study again but then according to the provisions of the Drinking Water Regulations, their answer was:
"We find it an interesting research proposal, but are of the opinion that such a comparative commodity study is more a place at a research institution such as the VU. As an accredited inspection body, we prefer not to be involved in a comparative commodity study. Our contribution to the NPO3 program was from the perspective: factuality in tap water. We do not consider ourselves further involved in studying the quality of home solutions from people who want to filter their water."
There was no response to my comment about testing a sample collection that was not taken correctly.
Their website literally says:
"Research using samples
Samples may be taken by accredited samplers. A sample is a water-filled bottle that is transported refrigerated to the laboratory for examination. Sample bottles come in all shapes and sizes (from 100 ml to 5 liters). In addition, large-volume samples are also taken, sampling an amount from 100 to as much as 3,000 liters of water. Some sample bottles are specially designed for a specific test. For example, the sample bottle for taste and odor testing has a special cap that prevents air from joining the water in the sample bottle."
Pointer did not respond.
Marcel Luijendijk
Director Tradeline Hilversum