Updated Well Lab Report With Flags; New Softener At Work

[bingow]

Returning here with situation recap and update. Recap: previous tests of our 21 year "virgin" mountain terrain water well (7,000 ft) included the original "basic" test of the freshly dug well that showed 38 gpg hardness, 1,100 gpg TDS, PH7.7, no odor, and no iron or other metal concerns. Six years later, after we had completed the building of our house, we added an under-sink R.O. system for drinking and cooking, and installed a cheap cabinet type softener that was woefully undersized. It functioned with only minor problems for 15 years, albeit a huge salt eater, then it started giving major problems. So, a few months ago, we belatedly tuned into this forum for more info, and ordered another lab test for hardness only, which reported 62 gpg.

Update: after help from this forum, but without us getting a another fully updated water test, we recently bought and DIY installed a Clack WS1-EE twin resin tanks (2 cu ft, 12"x52", 10% crosslinked). I programmed it with uncompensated 62 gpg, 8 lb salt/cu. ft, and with our 185 gallon/day usage, it regens every 4 days. It produces "zero" gpg hardness (1 drop Hach turns blue) immediately after gegen, and 1-to-2 gpg (2 drops turns blue) just prior to the next regen. Eight regens to date. We have no complaints about the new system, except for its noisy regens.

Concurrently with the above, we had ordered and received (28 day s-l-o-w reply time) a new "lite" lab test, with results reported below. The high TDS and sulfates got our attention, and with chemistry being by far my weakest subject, I'm wondering if these new findings might mean trouble for our new softener system, not to mention ourselves?

 

[bingow]

Apologies for the dragged files; computer ignorance here. Will gladly try to edit edit/redo if above doesn't work.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[Reach4]

Apologies for the dragged files; computer ignorance here. Will gladly try to edit edit/redo if above doesn't work.

I see the files. No big alarms that I see. Both images look the same to me. You did not post the page with the sulfate, unless I missed it.

I did some reading on lithium. https://water-research.net/index.php/lithium
In reading, gotta be alert for milligrams vs micrograms. Looks like lithium mellows people out.

Guess the aluminum should be researched -- Alzheimers. But maybe the lithium helps counteract ... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2649277

If the water tastes bad or you have concerns, run it through an RO unit for drinking. How does the raw water taste? Free mineral water.

 

[bingow]

Thanks Reach4. With luck, here's the missing page: just in case it's FUBAR again,
Chloride = 290 vs. 250 EPA,
Sulfates = 730 vs. 250 EPA

Ans to your q's: we still have the RO for drinking & cooking, it works fine. Softened water tastes very good to me, but hyper sensitive wife (both nose and taste) says she tastes some salt. I've always liked the tap and drank out of a hose for the 6 years of building. Yes, definite mineral tase but no disagreeable smell, especially no sulfur/rotten egg smell.
TDS: I read online that a TDS over 1000 is "unfit to drink"???

 

[ditttohead]

TDS over 1000 can be "unfit to drink" but this depends on what makes up the TDS. If it is calcium, magnesium, then we simply call it mineral water. if it is sulfate, nitrate, chloride, sodium, etc. then levels need to be monitored and considered. Looking at your water reports I would definitely recommend RO for drinking water.