[para_parolu]

My guess it easier to buy different salt but hard to get second water pipe.

[Thorrez]

>A Reverse Osmosis (RO) system can remove 85-92%* of fluoride in your water.

https://www.paragonwater.com/does-reverse-osmosis-remove-flu...

[mixedCase]

An RO filter is not accesible to the majority of the population.

[Thorrez]

But it's a lot cheaper than "get[ting a] second water pipe."

[elif]

RO water is demineralized and the pH is impacted. It is not a healthy drinking water outside of occasional use. It is also not appetizing and thus it's easy to become dehydrated.

After years of RO water I switched to spring water due to health issues and I will never look back.

Of course, it is insanely expensive to drink 3L of spring water and so frustrating to not have unpoisoned water from the tap.

[webworker]

There are certain models which have a sixth stage to remineralize the water and balance the pH.

Also relying on municipal water for mineralization is a bad argument. The minerals in water supplies is highly localized, or drinking tap water could leave you deficient in one or more minerals depending just depending on where you live.

[Thorrez]

Huh, I drank RO water for most of my liquid intake growing up and loved the taste. I like it a lot more than tap water.

[sp0rk]

RO systems waste something like three gallons for every usable gallon they produce.

[Thorrez]

It won't be used for showering, bathing, flushing toilets, washing clothes, washing dishes, watering plants, washing cars, filling pools, or other outdoor water usage. How much does it increase a household's water usage?

[20after4]

I think that's improved, at least according to product literature (I haven't tested it myself), however:

The latest generation of small under-sink reverse osmosis filters claim to waste only 1 gallon for every 2 gallons of usable water. Still bad but much better than before.