unheard

I used to think that I'm familiar with difficulties associated with remote locations. But your case is on a completely different scale.

Do you really want to waste your time on trial-n-error and still getting far from the optimum results? Why not to pay for someone in the business to come in and evaluate the system and offer workable solutions? There are multiple companies out there doing this very thing. Getting a conceptual advise over the forum is all fine but the actual engineering can not be done remotely.

I'd say just run a standard test at first. Close proximity to big industrial estates is a legitimate concern but that in itself doesn't necessary mean that your well water is contaminated. If your standard test turns out OK then your well water should be suitable for drinking - just make sure to use a good consumer RO system.

Could you elaborate on the types of the chemical contamination? Is there anything related to mining or fracking activity going on in the nearby vicinity?

The best way to reach them is to call the number displayed at the top of their webpage. Did she try either of those numbers?

Agreed. This is being one of the reasons why I question the validity of the Coliform bacteria count results on the test.

You find them the same way you do it in the west now - mostly online, especially if you're in the sticks and far away from "civilization". I'd admit it would be a big challenge for those not speaking Thai or having Thai wives, girlfriends or good friends But even then it's not an unsolvable situation. I'd guess it's more of a learning experience - one must experience the part-time farmers first hand in order to get a taste of local realities. It's seems some never learn (or maybe can't afford to learn).

I see, it makes sense now.

I'm not trying to stir up anything here. It's not my intention. I just want to understand the thinking process behind the decisions to hire part time farmers in place of skilled tradesmen. Yes, it saves tons of money but in the end you always (with real few exceptions) get what you pay for. It's just super weird (to me at least) to see so many rants around this forum on the botched up jobs done by unskilled workers. I want to ask then why you guys keep hiring them? If you don't live in big enough of a city with readily available skilled workforce then face the reality and adjust your expectations. Skilled labor in most cases will always be willing to travel to even remote areas, if you make it attractive to them. But if you choose not to then what's the point behind the complaints about part time farmers not having proper tools?

Adapting and adjusting for the future? Are you claiming to know what's coming to the car tech even in the near future? According to the Toyota's CEO with all available to him nearly unlimited resources and cutting edge latest tech the car's future is uncertain so they as a company decided to continue to develop ICE, solid-state batteries and hydrogen.

Sure, I also have a big (real big), custom built concrete rain water storage tank that has been used by my in laws for many years as a primary source of household water , without known ill effects. But I've never considered it as a reliable, preferred or even equal solution when compared to a deep water well, which is significantly more expensive to build.

He has corrected himself that the well is actually 190m deep. It depends on the contractor, but from what I've seen the price is pre-negotiated in advance, regardless of depth as long as it's a working well with specifically mentioned minimally acceptable water flow rates. If the initial bore location doesn't deliver for whatever reason, they will drill another one without any extra surcharges. Better equipped well drillers don't charge by the meter: a 30m well would be the same price as a 190m one if they choose to go that deep without trying a different spot. Rain water has multiple downsides. 1. Availability In most areas of Thailand precipitation amounts vary significantly by season. Most areas get almost no rain for several months. 2. Storage The prolonged storage of rain water in plastic tanks would require constant sanitation. Plastic in itself is not a great material for long storage, regardless of the material safety ratings. 3. Water quality Rain water is almost always contaminated by bacteria, much more so than deep well water that is being sourced from the relatively bacteria-free environment. Over time the bacteria tend to multiply creating real danger if the tanks are not sanitized. Sources of bacteria: to the lesser extent the atmosphere, but the main source of contamination being water collecting surfaces (roof).

I think the better and cheaper option would be to install filters consisting of manganese dioxide, carbon and resin - no aeration tanks necessary. Your water report is not bad at all, why to spend on the unnecessary stuff. UV won't hurt but I don't see much of a benefit, considering the cost if you intend on installing RO for drinking. I would not pay that much of attention to the elevated bacterial count: I don't particularly trust that metric on their report. If your well bore is properly sealed from the surface water ingress then it shouldn't have any problem with bacteria at those depths.

Why?

Can you substantiate your claim?

@farang712093 Regarding the bacterial count. Wonder what containers were used to send the water samples to the lab? The lab suggests buying drinking water bottles, then emptying them out and immediately refilling with water to be tested in their lab. All done in order to prevent bacterial cross-contamination.

RO systems will filter fluoride out making it perfectly suitable for drinking. Your untreated water should be fine for showering/washing dishes. I don't know what's the deal with hexavalent chromium content and why it should be a requirement to be included in the drinking water lab tests. In other words - don't bother.

You're correct - nothing is wrong with you calcuations.

The arsenic content is virtually non-existent in his water. Are we looking at the same report? Fluoride is slightly elevated but still within the American EPA guidelines. His report shows slightly elevated manganese. But the most concerning part is the significant presence of Coliform Bacteria.

After re-reading your post... I apologize If I have misread your statement assuming that it's been done with tongue-n-cheek. I'm kind of used to very argumentative back-n-forth on this board. ????

With all due respect, we as consumers decide if the product is worth the price for our particular preferences and usage cases. I think the OP is fully qualified to make that decision on his own, based on the information so far provided in this thread. ????

UV systems are effective at elimination of bacterial loads and nothing else (when they work). The UV bulbs need to be monitored for output and cleaned when necessary. One of the reasons why UV systems are rarely used in pool sanitation - almost never on their own, usually only as a supplemental part. UV works well in RO systems attached to storage tanks where they should be kept sanitized.

Maybe just a dribble in "your" system. 4-6, or even 8 seconds in lower models required to fill up a glass is hardly a dribble.

The Chinese MG car has very similar in function 4 wheels, engine and a steering wheel, gets you from A to B and is 4-6 times cheaper than a similarly sized Merc. Must be all in the name?

I've used this lab: https://www.testtech.co.th/th Their test includes the following parameters: