# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Culligan water reverse-osmosis filters no longer remove fluoride???

## Reason

*Following up from the other thread where I was looking for water filtration I made an appointment with a Culligan rep after LE recommended them to me.

Well... here is where it gets interesting...

The main system that they install is called the "AC30" or "good water machine"



It is 75$ for installation and 28 bucks a month to rent & about 1200 to buy.

The rep had mentioned on the phone that if I wanted to know how much fluoride is removed with the reverse osmosis filter then I should check the "data sheet" that is on the website.

Well....

Here is the link to the data sheet.

Check out page 15.

You will notice that fluoride is nowhere to be found...

So as I show this to the rep in my living room is very surprised.

So we do some searching and find this data sheet...

Check out page 18...

You will notice that fluoride is right there.

Here is the problem....

The Data sheet that has fluoride listed on it is significantly outdated in comparison to the data sheet linked to on their website...

The rep who is a salesman started bending over backwards calling everyone from here to the moon trying to figure out why fluoride had been removed from the recent revision...

He was unable to get an answer, everyone he talked to seemed to have no idea and wasn't even aware of the fact.

What ended up happening is that I have a 30 day 100% money back guarantee and I let him leave with a sale under the condition that they get me in writing the answer as to why fluoride had been removed, and how much fluoride is being removed.

After he left I started calling corporate. After getting bounced around for about half an hour I got a hold of a person that put me on hold and called their research and development.

Get this...

He told me specifically that the reason it was removed from the data sheet is that the filter has not passed the tests for fluoride removal.

Now the model numbers for the filter are exactly the same in both data sheets from what I can tell and from what the rep told me.

So it makes no sense that the filter would suddenly stop passing the same test unless the test standards had been changed.

They were unable to provide any information as to why the filter was no longer passing the fluoride test or how much fluoride is being taken out. They said that was private information and I was barely able to convince the man to give me his name so that I could give it to the local rep.

The corporate guy told me that the local rep must be using an outdated brochure if it says that it is removing fluoride...

I called the local rep back and this is all news to him and he is very upset that he essentially lied to me (unknowingly most likely).

The question now is...

Why is the exact same filter suddenly no longer passing the fluoride removal tests?

The only answer they would give me is that "they are working to make the filter pass the test".

Is it most likely that the filter is still removing a lot of the fluoride but can no longer pass whatever the test requirements are?
*

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Hmmm...

We use a Berkey with anti-flouride attachments because they seem the best (and are RP supporters  )

----------


## angelatc

I'm hardly an expert but I don't see anything from the EPA after 1986 on fluoride removal.  I suppose its possible that the filter medium changed, or maybe even that they were lying then.

Or perhaps they sell a special fluoride attachment - meaning they're trying to get you to pay extra for something you don't need ? It doesn't make any sense to me.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...vefluoride.htm
http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com...tillation.html

Somethings up. They changed their certification logo from the NSF/ANSI standards to "tested and certified under industry standards."   But the text still reads they test to standard 58, but only part of it?  You might want to call NSF/ANSI and see if they're cool with Culligan claiming to meet their standard when Culligan claims only to meet a portion of it.  They might also have a scoop about why Culligan isn't using their logo any more.

It seems weird. Reverse osmosis removes things based on the size of the molecules (who knew?) so the only thing that could have changed would be the membrane filter.

When DH gets home I'll ask him his thoughts. He's familiar with NSF/ANSI in that he's HAACP certified. Which has nothing to do with water filtration, but what the hell.

----------


## Romulus

prolly because it never removed it in the first place?

----------


## micahnelson



----------


## tmosley

traceanalysis.com

You can have water tested for fluoride if you like.  I think it's something like $34.  Test it before and after the filter.  I bet you could get the salesman to pay for it.

Also, fluoride is natural and healthy, so long as it doesn't exceed a certain amount which is far above the amount added to water for dental health.

----------


## angelatc

Ok, according to DH probably 1 of 2 things.  1, they changed something mechanically that means it no longer filters out fluoride.  

2, They decided against paying for the NSF/ANSI certification for their lower end models, in order to give them a tool for up-selling.  Apparently your poor salesman didn't get the memo.  Check to see if their upper end models have the NSF/ANSI certification on their manual.  

Or call them and see what they have to say.

----------


## Romulus

> traceanalysis.com
> 
> You can have water tested for fluoride if you like.  I think it's something like $34.  Test it before and after the filter.  I bet you could get the salesman to pay for it.
> 
> Also, fluoride is natural and healthy, so long as it doesn't exceed a certain amount which is far above the amount added to water for dental health.


health or not isnt the issue. its that we are all forced into this treatment beyond our will... all for our




teeth.

we should have the right to opt out.

informed consent is the REAL issue here. dont be fooled.

----------


## akihabro

That's too bad for such an expensive filter.

----------


## steve005

You guys should really look into getting a water distiller, that gets out EVERYTHING, also why filter shower and toilet water anyway? I have a water distiller that I can put over a fire and do 16 gallons a day, the electic ones are very energy saving

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You guys should really look into getting a water distiller, that gets out EVERYTHING, also why filter shower and toilet water anyway? I have a water distiller that I can put over a fire and do 16 gallons a day, the electic ones are very energy saving


Have any recommendations?

----------


## Reason

*I ended up canceling the whole deal.

They were never able to give me any info as to why the same device would suddenly not pass the fluoride removal test or what % it was still removing, if any.

Will be looking for a local water filtration source soon, I have heard there is a shop with a crazy awesome filtering process that people get their water from in jugs.
*

----------


## Krugerrand

> You guys should really look into getting a water distiller, that gets out EVERYTHING, also why filter shower and toilet water anyway? I have a water distiller that I can put over a fire and do 16 gallons a day, the electic ones are very energy saving


I seem to remember reading on this forum that your body absorbs more fluoride in the shower than by drinking.

----------


## Reason

> I seem to remember reading on this forum that your body absorbs more fluoride in the shower than by drinking.


*I did a water purity project waaay back in school and remember that the testicles actually absorb the most chemicals and metals from tap water during a shower!

oy vei!*

----------

