Slashdot Mirror


Water + Salt + Energy = Clean!

codesmith.ca writes "CTV News is reporting about a device built at the Russian Institute for Medical Engineering that can convert standard water and salt into an antimicrobial solution. Apparently it's works on almost anything (virii, bacteria, cysts...) and it's safe for human consumption to boot. I can't find a site for the institute, but there are articles around. This one is fairly detailed, but hard to reach. Here's the Google cache. Here's one about a paper shows it's not exactly super-new technology." Any chemist care to comment on what sounds to be too good to be true?

368 comments

  1. i think we know where this is going by r00tarded · · Score: 2

    val kilmer shows up and proves it to be a hoax.

    1. Re:i think we know where this is going by scott1853 · · Score: 1

      That's going to bug me now because I can't remember the name of that movie. Somebody, what was it?

    2. Re:i think we know where this is going by netsharc · · Score: 1

      That was The Saint, a Nokia and Volvo-sponsored competition to the Ericsson and BMW-sponsored James Bond, a remake of a 60's series of the same name. I heard rumours about a sequel, I wonder if it would be true. In any case, the TV series seemed a lot cooler, the guy had more mystery.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    3. Re:i think we know where this is going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How funny. I was thinking of one of my favorite movies of all time, Top Secret, where Val Kimer says to the kidnapped scientist, "Wow! We'd have enough salt to last a long time."

  2. cool by jomast · · Score: 2, Funny

    cool
    does this mean that windows machines will be virus free from now on??

    --



    Stand on you own head for a change! --TMBG
    1. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm sure that one way to purge any viruses/trojans/spyware on any machine would be to pour salt water on the motherboard! That will definately stop these hostile programs from running.

    2. Re:cool by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Funny

      cool
      does this mean that windows machines will be virus free from now on??


      I guarentee you that if you pour the solution into your computer, it will be free of viruses from now on. Should work on any operating system ;)

      OK Disclaimer-- don't try this at home, or if you do, don't complain to me :)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:cool by jomast · · Score: 1

      This has given me an awsome idea! i'll make millions by bottling salt water and marketing it as the first and only platform idependant anti-virus, anti-hacker, anti-whatever solution!
      It works on windows, linux, bsd... on x86, PPC, SPARC, and more!
      Get yours today!
      $29.95
      Supplys are limited so email your orders NOW!

      --



      Stand on you own head for a change! --TMBG
    4. Re:cool by Squareball · · Score: 1

      I'll compete with you and sell a cheaper version.. it will be dehydrated and so less packageing. :) Just add water ;)

    5. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I wish there was a "-1 stupid" mod. Not just for this post, but for all the stupid posts I've seen today.

    6. Re:cool by packeteer · · Score: 1

      this is why you dont use salt water for water cooling... pure water will not conduct but just add salt and bam you have a fried computer...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    7. Re:cool by wheany · · Score: 1

      This would work if you have absolutely pure (as in distilled) water, and you could be absolutely sure that nothing would dissolve from the pipes, or the heatsink, to the water. So in practice, it doesn't matter if you have salt water in your water-cooling rig...

    8. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, there is definately need for moderation options "stupid", "not funny" and "wrong/misinformed/not informative/not insightful"

    9. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would work if you have absolutely pure (as in distilled) water, and you could be absolutely sure that nothing would dissolve from the pipes, or the heatsink, to the water. So in practice, it doesn't matter if you have salt water in your water-cooling rig...

      Serious overclockers run super cooled alcohol in there systems...

  3. Correction... by thelinuxking · · Score: 2, Funny

    This one is fairly detailed, but hard to reach.

    ALL links in Slashdot are hard to reach. This one is just soon to be impossible to reach.

  4. Kidneys? by twenex · · Score: 1

    This can't be good for the kidneys.... are you sure this is for consumption, and not just for external use?

  5. Am I the only one... by ahoehn · · Score: 2

    who has ever been told to gargle with salt water for a sore throat?

    1. Claim to have invented salt water

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      You just forgot to dip the electrodes in your mouth while you were gargling.

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      TIPS FOR YOUR EYE

      If you've ever got an inflamed eye dip it in a cup of water with one teaspoon of salt.

      If you've got something between your eye and your eyelid that you can't reach hold your eyelash, pull out slightly, and clench the muscle to close your eye. Your eye will now clean itself.

    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like anyone would take medical advice from a post on slashdot! hah!

      If people took anyone seriously on /. then we would see far more 2nd degree burns from hot grits down people's pants and natalie portman bodygaurd injuries.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by Dthoma · · Score: 1
      like anyone would take medical advice from a post on slashdot! hah!

      Well, if people are willing to take cookery advice from Slashdot...

      --

      Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    5. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Like anyone would debunk medical advice with FUD on slashdot.

      It's good advice. Remember it.

    6. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ermmmm..dude? It works. I wear contacts and do it all the time. :)

    7. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I was just trying to weird people out by talking about the singular eye and eyelash. Meh.

    8. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Am I the only one... by azav · · Score: 1

      That is warm salt water. Use it to gargle. For viral throat infection (clear phlegm).

      It works. It is simple My DR told me about it. Really helps with colds. Pretty amazing if you think about it.

      I have my theories but you don't need to hear em. Just try it. 2 to 3 times a day or when your throat is sore.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  6. Me too! by Overcoat · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can convert beer into a water and salts solution! What do I get?

    1. Re:Me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      yellow sheets?

    2. Re:Me too! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      a hangover?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe if you were 5...then if you killed animals and burnt things youre probably a serial killer by now...otherwise all you'd get is a divorce...

  7. My guess. by Crusty+Oldman · · Score: 1

    This wouldn't be a collodial silver generator, would it?

  8. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by Warped-Reality · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    more than one virus.

    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  9. What about the anti-gravity angle? by theonomist · · Score: 0, Troll

    I saw the same infomercial on Russian TV one late night, and they said the very same device has been shown to cancel gravity in certainly irreproachably irreproducible experiments conducted at the Skvorny Prkgkvrkngov Institute for Mysterious Russian Research in Moscow.

    You get a cool knife set, too, and five winning lottery numbers (based on your unique horoscope and biorhythms), if you order your device immediately and pay cash.

    Dionne Warwick bought three.

    --
    "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
    1. Re:What about the anti-gravity angle? by be-fan · · Score: 2

      And don't forget, the first 20 collers get a free Elbrus E2K CPU!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:What about the anti-gravity angle? by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      That's not a name, its a short story.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    3. Re:What about the anti-gravity angle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:What about the anti-gravity angle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry kind sir, but, YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      I replied to a troll with a troll. I win, suck my anal tulup.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. If this is so good for you by thelinuxking · · Score: 2

    Then why aren't you supposed to be in the ocean during a thunderstorm? Seems highly similar...Except apparently with real lightning and salt water you die.

    1. Re:If this is so good for you by jdkincad · · Score: 1

      Salt water conducts electricity. So if you are in water struck by lightning, you might as well just be struct by the lightning directly.

      --
      The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
    2. Re:If this is so good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, may I ask? It's not like the ligtning is trying to ground through you, as if you were holding a golf club high above head. You're less salty than the ocean, so one might think you conduct worse than the water itself. Sure, the energy blast might give your heart a jolt, throwing it into fiburlation, but you would not be nearly as badly injured as if it went through your skull...

    3. Re:If this is so good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a dumbass Cartman.

    4. Re:If this is so good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not supposed to go on the sea in a thunderstorm not just because of differences in conductivity but also differences in height - your boat's mast sticks up above the (relatively) uniform surface of the sea and acts like a lightning rod.
      Cheers
      Mat

  12. Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 4, Informative

    Using electricity, it splits table salt (NaCl) into Na+ and Cl- ions, and you get chlorinated, swimming pool water. And the Na+ is recycled by recombining with Cl- and all you ever add is salt. I saw one of these units on "This Old House," for a swimming pool. Bottom line: never add chlorine, just salt and electricity.

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    1. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding electricity to a pool is real smart.
      With all those ions floating around it would sure make a pretty display.

    2. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by dpilot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try:

      http://www.watermaid.com.au

      for one. There are quite a few others, too. Just throw "salt water chlorination" into google.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by mesocyclone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I built one of these things (salt water hydrolizer) in a (foolish) attempt to cut my pool chemical costs. Unfortunately, it leaked chlorine gas! I don't think my lungs have yet recovered, and it's been 20 years! Done right, however (and not being a putz as I was in the way I built it), people used to chlorinate their pools this way.

      The Cl- ions form chlorine gas> If you can keep it involved in the water, the whole thing works. It does, however, produce lots of NAOH, which is not a nice thing to have around either!

      Oh, and the design I used (I found it somewhere around town) used asbestos to separate the positive and negative regions.

      In general, it was your all around chemical warfare and carcinogenic dream!

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    4. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by prichardson · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually. you dont need electricity for the NaCl to turn into Na+ Cl-. In fact, salt water does kill bacteria. I think the electricity just makes it run faster.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    5. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you were in my chemistry class last semester, weren't you?

    6. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      used asbestos

      Of course it leaked chlorine gas, you forgot to stabilize the reaction with dioxin. You also need to use lead pipes.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      Nah, he just forgot to modify the warp core emitters and cycle the shield harmonic frequencies...

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    8. Re:Just a Swimming-Pool Chlorine Generator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sodium chloride is *ionic*! That means in an aqueous solution, it splits into... drumroll... ions. Na+ and Cl-. You don't need to add any electricity whatsoever.

      His idea that you can just zap a large current through the water *sounds* reasonable:

      2 Cl- (aq) --> Cl2 (g)

      But that's not a balanced equation, now is it? You've got two extra electrons. *Adding* electrons by running a current isn't going to do you any good. If the Na+ recombines with the Cl-, you'll just get salt precipitating.

      It doesn't work. It's complete bollocks.

  13. This thing makes no sense by forkboy · · Score: 2

    From what the article says, it sounds like all they're doing is passing a high electrical current through a saline solution. I don't understand how this solution is supposed to retain its charge, let alone not decompose the salt solution into base molecules. (hydrogen, chlorine, oxygen)

    Has anyone seen a more detailed description of how this thing actually works? It can't be as simple as the article describes, solutions just don't work that way.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  14. Meaux by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    Add some cough syrup to it and you get a Flaming Hom^H^H^H^HMoe!

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Meaux by Vegeta99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      a flaming homo?

    2. Re:Meaux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or time starts to slow down and music sounds really good.

      don't knock it till you've tried it.

    3. Re:Meaux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Flaming Homer. It's in a Simpson's episode. If I can remember correctly, Homer invents it as a new drink, then Moe steals it (I could be wrong, it's been a while). Anyway, you light in on fire before you drink it, hence "flaming".

    4. Re:Meaux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to be near that

    5. Re:Meaux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the best is at the end when the secret recipe gets revealed and all these knock-off bars spring up and one of them is called Flaming Meaux.

    6. Re:Meaux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, maybe you already realize this honey, but just in case:
      • Flaming Homer flaming homo
      • Flaming Moe flaming (ho)mo


      While I do love that episode, my absolute favorite is the one with the gay steel mill.
  15. Is that really new? by G0SP0DAR · · Score: 1

    That greatly resembles something much older called the ViruStat system, which was basically just a water purifier at the time, which was used to kill 99.9999% of waterborne bacteria to make it safe for drinking and medical purposes and such. That used mainly iodine and electrical charges, and probably some patented method of carbon scrubbing whith purifies the water through some grand lengthy process.

    That's not news. What is even cooler is that some less-mainstream chemists and health professionals modified these techniques using certain ions of silver, gold, and vanadium to make some disinfectant agents that are not only cheap and easy to make, but are probably far more effective than older conventional disinfectants. Although aqueous silver and similar products are becoming more popular these days and are being taken more seriously by more respected health professionals, there's still a big 'voodoo' like following, so you'd be likely to find a bunch of snake oil ads if you were to try to find this stuff on the Internet. My best bet if any one is interested is to look for WaterOz or Grise, I'm not even sure now, but ionic solutions of certain transition metals in water are proven to disinfect and are safe to drink, so they make good panaceas in many cases. As it is with any such new products and techniques, buyer beware.

    --


    Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Great, I can finally throw out my brita by DaBjork · · Score: 1

    This is just a water filtration device, it's not as outlandish as you people are trying to make it sound. if the "hard to find" article is accurate it's not a panacea just a water detoxifier. That's nice, but it's not exactly revolutionary. I guess this one must be fast or cheap or something, I know the destillers we use take forever to fill up. Good knews for the third world, but don't stop worrying about cancer

    1. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by DaBjork · · Score: 1

      one day I will learn which news to use too. News not knews provides views!

    2. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by sillyman71 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, brita (and other brands as well) filter out chemicals, particles and stuff, not bacteria. I have no idea if this thing actually works, but it sounds like it only kills germs/parasites, not filter out things such as lead particles. If this thing is for real, you might want to use both, not replace the brita with it.

    3. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to pour a cup of espresso into a brita pitcher and see what comes out. ;)

      I know my kidneys don't do so well, it smells the same on the way out!

    4. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by DaBjork · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic, my point is that this is not a technology revolution, it's just a better piece of equipment which does what other stuff already does...it doesn't "work on cysts" that doesn't make sense

    5. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by yokem_55 · · Score: 1

      That would be an expensive experiment. Last I checked brita filters were going for $8 each....

      --
      ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    6. Re:Great, I can finally throw out my brita by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      All in the name of science!

  18. W0W!!! -- NOT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I hate how p33ps who post news always make it sound revolutionary untill you actually read the story and/or think about it.

    1. Re:W0W!!! -- NOT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tired of "science" stories on Slashdot. Being a physician and biochemist, I find most stories posted on those topics here old, incorrect, sensationalistic or just plain silly. I read Slashdot for news on computers and related subjects, and I wouldn't expect the sites that provide me with biochemical and medical news to do accurate or interesting reporting on computing. Maybe it's all the scifi geeks who think it's k00l with "genes and stuff"...

    2. Re:W0W!!! -- NOT!!!! by Disevidence · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, what sells more papers? Good discoveries on topics or things which the layperson has no understanding off. Or "revolutionary" discoveries doing miracle things everyone can grasp the basics of?

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    3. Re:W0W!!! -- NOT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the "old, incorrect, sensationalistic or just plain silly" shit will come out in the comments, where knowledgeable people such as yourself can educate us scifi geeks who are willing to learn.

  19. Important! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is important to note that the plural of virus is VIRUSES, not "virii".

    Learn why there's no such thing as "virii" here:
    http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

    1. Re:Important! by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1
      "Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men"

      There are some who consider man a virus upon the planet earth.

      Have you ever had a dream, that you were so sure was real?

      Am I really watching The Matrix or is it just a dream of me watching The Matrix.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
  20. Hmm... I'm sceptical. by 26199 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's have a look at that CTV report:

    The resulting solution is so energy rich, it dissolves all microbes it comes in contact with, in water, on objects and on human skin. It also happens to be odorless, colorless, and completely safe for human consumption.

    It dissolves microbes, but is safe for human consumption? Is anyone else not convinced?

    Researchers said the technique used to control bacteria, viruses, cysts and germs is 200 to 300 times more efficient than any other purification alternative.

    200 to 300 times more efficient, how, exactly? And what does it do to help cysts?

    (and, er, what's the difference between a virus and a germ?)

    The process is cheap. It costs just fractions of a penny to purify a litre of water. Researchers have even been able to take spoiled milk and, by passing it through the Emerald, make it fresh once again. Sounds like science fiction, doesn't it?

    Yep... it does. Sorry.

    1. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      Doesn't sound like science fiction to me. Science fiction tends to be at least a little bit plausible. This thing sounds like ordinary everyday quackery.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(and, er, what's the difference between a virus and a germ?)"

      A virus is a germ, but not all germs are virii.

      Just kidding. Really, it depends on who you talk to. Sorta like what's a fruit versus a vegetable--you'll get a variety of answers, and some people fight over it (e.g. tomato is a fruit to some, a vegetable to others, blah blah).

      Germ could mean all pathological microorganisms, to include viruses or not. Hell, some people don't even consider viruses microorganisms. But in layman terms, most people consider germ to be pathological bacteria. Bacteria are cellular agents. Virii are not, and have at least replicated (but not necessarily self or all self) DNA and/or RNA.

    3. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      (and, er, what's the difference between a virus and a germ?)

      Doesn't "germ" generally just mean "small nasty things"? It isn't, as far as I'm aware, a scientific term, but rather is a historic term used before the things that affect us were classified, and hence includes viruses, bacteria, or even really tiny bugs if one were so inclined as to stretch the interpretation that far (goatse style).

      Regarding viruses: I've often been fascinated to here people talk about viruses "replicating", or about some sort of viral intelligence: Perhaps I'm just way out there (medicine is NOT my field, although my wife is a researcher for a drug company, so I..err...have proximity basis to say these things :-)), but is a virus nothing more than a spec of organic matter that causes interference in living organisms? While the differentiation may seem irrelevant, I find it questionable when news reports talk about viruses adapting, or as some evil force, when in reality I believe they are really our own bodies hurting themselves by reproducing and being confused by little strands of genetic matter. Bacteria is a little life form, whereas viruses are just a water droplet that, if it gets in that chip in your cars paint, will lead to internal rusting throughout. Blah.

    4. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It dissolves microbes, but is safe for human consumption? Is anyone else not convinced?"

      Uhm, that sounds like every antibiotic out there... Even alcohol! Are you denying those exist?

    5. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by Thyrsus · · Score: 1

      The previous posts gloss over the usual situation with viruses, that in addition to the core RNA or DNA, they usually have a complex chemical "shell" that keeps them intact outside the host cell. Naked RNA or DNA would self-destruct.

      You've apparently missed the entire concept of evolutionary adaptation. There is no "intelligence", as when human beings form a mental model of a situation, and use that model to choose a "solution". Evolutionary adaptation arises from errors in the chemical duplication of the RNA/DNA. The vast, vast majority of such errors is fatal to the new copy. Many, many such errors just don't matter - most DNA/RNA is full of sequences that just don't matter, so when they get mis-copied to a similarly inert sequence, it just doesn't make a difference. The "adaptation" comes from those enormously unlikely errors that actually improve the survivability (and thus reproductive capacity) of the resulting organism.

      Say you have a population of bacteria. Some have an inert sequence of DNA that does nothing, some have an erroneous copy that happens to allow them to cope with substance P in the environment. However, substance P never occurs in the environment so there's no reproductive difference between the two strains. So say the ratio of the two strains is about 100,000 to 1. Then, one day, substance P shows up, big time. The original strain survives only by accident, but the new strain doesn't have any problem. So suddenly the ratio of old strain to new strain is 1:10. But the population is so attenuated that it dies out anyway. But let's say P shows up in the environment, but then goes away again, and leaves a 1:1 ratio of old to new strain, with just enough population to build up again. Suddenly the new population gets big, and P shows up again. Now only half the population gets wiped out by P, leaving an almost pure population that doesn't have any problem surviving with P. That population gets bigger, P shows up again but has no effect. The bacteria have "learned" to live with P!

      Those in the know have already figured out that P might be Penicillin, with the first scenario of population attenuated to its demise being the administration of a full course of the antibiotic, and the second scenario being the one where the patient started feeling better and didn't bother to finish the course of medicine. Then they got sick again, and, oh, dear, the Penicillin isn't working! It doesn't work on their sick spouse, either!

    6. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's really gonna get your goat is when you realize that most flu-like conditions are caused by viruses rather than bacteria, and when you go to the doctor they feed your anti-biotics which kill bacteria and not virii.

      They only feed you the pills to stave off "secondary infections" and to make you feel better about yourself.

    7. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      ...odorless, colorless...
      Iocaine powder!

      ...and completely safe for human consumption.
      Oops...never mind.

    8. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      You've apparently missed the entire concept of evolutionary adaptation.

      Oh I'm fully aware of Darwinism, and I don't entirely believe that it is the sole explanation for adaption. i.e. I believe in survival of the fittest, but on the flip side I do believe that there is an intelligent, intentional manipulation of offspring traits by parents to best cope with the world. I say this having studied biology as a refresher course and in high school, so I have absolutely no credentials to speak of in this realm, however something about the survival of the fittest explanation just doesn't seem complete. Even using the example you gave regarding penicillin, what possible difference would a person not completing the medicine's regiment make to the survival of P-resistant strains of bacteria? Of course, it wouldn't: They're either resistant, or they're not, and it seems more likely that "injured" but not killed regular bacteria adapted their "offspring" to be p-resistant with what they have learned, so to speak.

    9. Re:Hmm... I'm sceptical. by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Well... this is a topic I know almost nothing about, but I'll reply anyway :-)

      I thought antibiotics relied on more complicated methods than a brute physical attack... targetting specific molecules on the cell walls of bacteria, that kind of thing?

      I can't think of a good reason why something that 'dissolves' microbes and viruses won't just dissolve human cells...

  21. so... by squarefish · · Score: 1

    is it CowboyNeal safe?

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  22. bacteria? by goatasaur · · Score: 1

    The human body is made of millions of bacteria. Especially the digestive system.

    I'd be interested in knowing how this solution can target only bacteria deemed 'harmful', and not wipe out my damn large intestine in the process.

    --
    ~D:
    1. Re:bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you intend to pass your large intestine through the electrical current, I think you'll be okay.

      This thing's a water purifier. Bully for them, but it's not exactly cold fusion.

    2. Re:bacteria? by goatasaur · · Score: 1

      The synopsis says it works on anything, including virii and cysts. It sounds like it's being marketed as a curative, to me.

      --
      ~D:
    3. Re:bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The human body is made of millions of bacteria. Especially the digestive system.

      "Millions"? Any healthy individual actually has a larger number of bacteria (the normal flora) than he has human cells in his body...

    4. Re:bacteria? by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      Whats a virii?

      Is it the cousin of an octupus?

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    5. Re:bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the human body isn't MADE of bacteria!! many millions of bacteria LIVE INSIDE the human body (esp. in the intestines), though.

    6. Re:bacteria? by Seehund · · Score: 1

      While the bacteria are not eucaryote cells sharing one common genome, we wouldn't survive without the normal bacterial flora, so functionally it IS part of the organism we call "the human body". They constitute a vital part of our immune system and our digestive/metabolical system.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    7. Re:bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably will, just like any antibiotic will.
      You need to eat some live culture yogurt after using anything that kills bacteria.

  23. A more balanced description by jbuhler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a report summary I found on the technology from the Foundation for Water Research. It's not all that and a bag of chips.

    http://www.fwr.org/wrcsa/832100.htm

    1. Re:A more balanced description by Dancing+Tree · · Score: 1

      This is the most informative and level headed paper I've seen on this subject. The results that were observed (albeit w/2 units that had problems consistently functioning) seem more in line with the sorts of results one would expect to see. It would be nice to think that they could (or perhaps even are sometimes) achieve all the results that the CTV article claims. This would seem to call for a fairly full investigation of what sort of equipment could be designed to be more reliable and what kind of results could be consistently achieved. If it really does work, it would be no suprise to me since the Russians have been building rockets that use less moving parts and run on kerosene (as opposed to American rockets which are much more complex and run on fuels that are much more unstable). When you've got less to work with, you often have to come up with simpler solutions.

      --
      :::Horrendous Experiences Make Amusing Anecdotes:::
    2. Re:A more balanced description by yoshac · · Score: 1

      Similar report here, complete with effects on biological matter http://www.datadiwan.de/iib/ib_004e31.htm

  24. Sugar too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sugar can also be used to kill bacteria, the sugar creates an osmosis effect to explode the bacteria. Place sugar on wound.

    1. Re:Sugar too by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Sugar can also be used to kill bacteria, the sugar creates an osmosis effect to explode the bacteria.

      Actually they dehydrate and essentially implode.

      The egyptions used honey on surface wounds, and mouldy bread on deeper wounds. THe honey worked on the same principle.

      As best I can tell, the idea here is to kill bacteria by applying charge. It might not be very effective after the charge was released (for those that don't know, the salt creates a pathway for electrons to pass through the solution, but they are passed in the form of H+ and O- ions, and this gives off H2 and O2 as the electricity is applied.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Sugar too by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • Actually they dehydrate and essentially implode.


      Scary thing is it took some dude with too much time on his hands and a microscope to find this out. Somebody was bored enough to bother finding out if a bacteria was IMPLODING or EXPLODING upon its death.

      Wow. That must have been a slow night in the lab.
    3. Re:Sugar too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it is really important for drug researchers.

    4. Re:Sugar too by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't really be necessary - I gather that it's just osmosis. Higher concentration of solute on the other side of the membrane = water flowing out.

  25. no electricity needed. by gimpboy · · Score: 2

    just putting salt into solution ionizes it. if you apply electricity you will hydrolyze the water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen gas. put the crackpipe down.

    --
    -- john
    1. Re:no electricity needed. by zaius · · Score: 2

      If you're so convinced that's what happens, then you should try hydrolyzing salt water and taking a nice, deep sniff of the gas that collects above the positive electrode.

    2. Re:no electricity needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err.. maybe you should learn the difference between chloride ions and dissolved chlorine gas.

      Hint: they aren't the same thing.

    3. Re:no electricity needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, the chlorine that kills is not an ion, it's Cl2. Nasty nasty substance.

    4. Re:no electricity needed. by rainwalker · · Score: 1

      what, you mean the oxygen?

    5. Re:no electricity needed. by SkewlD00d · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but that is incorrect. The net charge of any amount of table salt in DI water is 0. Na and Cl do become ionized (dissolved in water). The water does have the ionization power to break (dissolve) NaCl, but that doesn't really give you anything. Electricity (a source of charge) is needed to attract and seperate ions, since they are oppositely charged and tend to pull on each other. Na+ will be attracted to the (-) and Cl- will be attracted to (+). Potentially (hehe), the now net-charged solution, probably the solution containing more chlorine ions than sodium ions would be used for disinfection or whatever.

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  26. Mirror of hard to reach page by CoolQ · · Score: 1

    I put up a mirror of the hard to reach page. Yes, I see the google cache link, but don't you want to see the pretty pictures? :)
    Mirror is here

  27. It's plain simple ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No rocket science here, don't understand why something as simple as the electrolysis of brine makes in on Slashdot ...

    Freshman chemistry tells you:
    NaCl -> Na+ + Cl-
    H2O -> H+ + HO- (actually H3O+ instead of H+ but that's details)

    Then, you add some electricity and you get:

    At cathode (- electrode), H+ -> H2 (bubbles out) which means a lot of Na+ and HO- are left floating around - thus, per Google cached article in the original post: "The catholyte is a powerful alkaline solution used for [...]" -- not surprising at all, as you can see ...

    Then, at anode (+ electrode) you've got HO- and Cl- ... as expected, Cl- -> Cl2 ... but the trick here is that the formed chlorine reacts with water and even better with the NaOH that diffuses from the cathode to form ... bleach (hypochlorite that is) !
    Cl2 + NaOH -> NaCl + NaClO
    Now what does the article say? ... "The anolyte has powerful bactericidal characteristics and is effective in the control of harmful organisms like bacteria, viruses, cysts, and germs."

    Damn that highschool chem :-)

    END-OF-CHEM-LESSON

    1. Re:It's plain simple ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No rocket science here, don't understand why something as simple as the electrolysis of brine makes in on Slashdot ..."

      Because it happened in an "Institute"... Weee! Kneel at the cult of "higher education"!

      If I said I did that kind of stuff when I was 9, in my parent's basement, with some carbon rods I pulled from dry cells and some glassware, that's no good. No diplomas on the wall.

    2. Re:It's plain simple ... by yomegaman · · Score: 0

      You got that right, you dropout scrub. Now fetch me my coffee and be quick about it!

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
    3. Re:It's plain simple ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple, just probably not that...

      This is similar ro a system that has been out for a while to sanitize pools. The primary purpose is not necssarily to electrolyze H2O or NaCl to hydroxide or chlorine. Rather, the device uses dissolved O2 in the water as an electron receptor to generate short-lived superoxide radicals. The superoxide reacts with the water and other O2 to generate H202 and ozone (O3). Both of these agents (esp. O3) are good microbicides, viricides....Plus, this is easily converted into the mist to disinfect your hands. The 03 will react will and kill any biologics on the surface, and the fact that it is also reacting with the epidermis is trivial as it dead skin anyway. As mentioned, the 03 is relatively short lived and and fairly innocuous, much moreso than the chlorine gas that some people have mentioned (note to self...keep hands, lungs, and all other body parts far away). The H2O2 doesn't hurt because our cells have catalase to convert it back to H2O and O2 (although so do some pathogens)

      I think the main reason for the salt is to provide conductance. You don't really need it because normal water has plenty of ions to conduct electricity.

      The outer chamber could generate hydroxide. This would explain the anolyte solution...It wouldn't take much to make a reasonably alkaline solution.

    4. Re:It's plain simple ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Marine toilets for private boats have been manufactured for 20 years based on this process. The units had a mechanical timer that flushed the holding area filling the contents with new sh** next the holding area was zapped with 12VDC for about 30 secs. In fresh water you had to add salt before you flushed. Later models had an autofeeder.

      This story should be listed under the slashdot toilet icon in my anonymous opinion.

  28. This is SO snake-oil by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Oh goodness, catholite and anolyte from the cathode and the anode! What a scientific miracle!

    This is an experiment I did in elementary school.

    It's called electrolysis. You separate salt water into

    • Hydrogen a highly-reactive gas, thus antibiotic.
    • Oxygen, an oxidizer (duh), oxidation is about the most commonly used method of disinfection.
    • Sodium, a highly reactive chemical and thus disinfectant.
    • Chlorine, a superoxidizer (see above).

    Use enough voltage, and maybe you bump oxygen to ozone, a superoxidizer (see above).

    None of this takes any kind of chemist to see.

    Note also that these chemicals are extremely hazardous in their uncombined forms. Remember Apollo 1 and its pure oxygen atmosphere at full sea-level pressure? Skin catches fire almost explosively in that sort of atmosphere - it's truly horrible what pure oxygen can do. Combine hydrogen and oxygen in the right proportions and they will explode. Sodium is poison and explosive when combined with water. Chlorine is poision.

    Some of the more recent explorations into silver as a disinfectant with good tolerance in the body might be more profitable to follow, but also have snake-oil potential because too few people recognize that as another century-old technology that has a mass-market application in swimming pools today.

    Were I you guys, I'd kill the story.

    Bruce

    1. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      Combine hydrogen and oxygen in the right proportions and they will explode.

      Those right proportions are 2 hydrogens for every oxygen. The explosion is from the energy being released. Which is almost as much energy as it took to crack the hydrogen from the oxygen in the first place.

      Oh yeah, when the energy is released you have water again, I hope there is some sodium around at that time.

    2. Re:This is SO snake-oil by damien_kane · · Score: 0

      * Chlorine, a superoxidizer (see above).

      Technically chlorine is a chlorinator...

      By its very definition (and the base for the word) the only oxidizer is oxygen. Many compounds containing oxygen (such as water) are also oxidizers, but that is merely because of the oxygen in it.

      Chlorine gas has no oxygen in its purest form, and therefore is not an oxidizer.

    3. Re:This is SO snake-oil by serutan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, if only those stupid Russians had come to you, with your vast experience and insight, instead of wasting all those rubles doing actual research.

      You're a fool.

    4. Re:This is SO snake-oil by MAurelius · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just a friendly chemisty refresher on redox reactions:

      OIL RIG

      Oxidation is Loss (of electron) Reduction Is Gain (of electron)

      Anything atom or molecule that gives up an electron in a reaction is an oxidizer. Anything that gains or takes an electron is a reducer/reducing agent. They're paired reactions.

      Oxygen can be either a reducer or an oxidizer, depending on the reaction and its starting oxidation state.

      Thank goodness for B. Perens and the post right above his debunking this 'breakthrough' chemistry as high school chemistry lab exercises.

      I was beginning to worry that I would have to do it myself, and they did it much better.

      Marcus

    5. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sodium is poison and explosive when combined with water.

      Dammit.

      Sodium (Na) and the sodium ion (Na+) are not the same thing. Salt is an ionic compound; when I dissolve it in water, I get water and a whole bunch of dissolved Na+ and Cl-. They're ions, which behave chemically in a fashion distinct from the full atom, which is why the glass of salt water doesn't explode and why I don't oxidize my esophagus if I drink it.

    6. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called electrolysis. You separate salt water into

      Hydrogen a highly-reactive gas, thus antibiotic.

      Oxygen, an oxidizer (duh), oxidation is about the most commonly used method of disinfection.

      Sodium, a highly reactive chemical and thus disinfectant.

      Chlorine, a superoxidizer (see above).


      Actually, you just get the most easily reduced/oxidized species coming out. This means chlorine and hydrogen. The water stays water, and the sodium displaces the removed hydrogen to form sodium hydroxide. So, your saltwater turns into oven cleaner, which is not safe to drink, and you get chlorine gas bubbling off, which works quite well as a disinfectant (and is already used).

      I wouldn't worry about the hydrogen. It's not terribly reactive, contrary to what you appear to have heard. It does burn, but you won't have enough present to worry about.

      If they're using this for disinfecting, what's probably happening is that they're producing sodium chlorate. This can be formed instead of chlorine gas if your electrodes are close enough together that the ion species can mix. Sodium chlorate is a strong oxidizing agent; in weak solutions, it should be a decent disinfectant. I *really* wouldn't drink it, though (it's poisonous in significant amounts).

      Contrary to what the article says, I seriously doubt you could mist a letter with chlorate-rich water and have it stay dry while being disinfected. You'd also have the nasty side effect of the letter becoming quite flammable when the mist dried, if you sprayed any substantial amount of solution on it (powerful oxidizer, remember; unstable enough that it can even explode on its own if provoked enough).

      Alternatively, they could just be doing standard electrolysis and burning the hydrogen and chlorine together to get hydrogen chloride. On contact with water (or bacteria) it'll turn into hydrochloric acid, and so would be quite poisonous.

      Or they could be arcing through the air using the water as an electrode, to produce ozone or nitric acid vapour. The salt wouldn't be doing much in this scenario (except making the water conduct).

      In summary, the possible reaction paths are a bit more complicated than you're painting, though I agree that the article's claims are at the very least exaggerated.

    7. Re:This is SO snake-oil by chazR · · Score: 2
      You're a fool.

      And, obviously, because you said that, you are not a fool. That's nice.

      Obviously, you're too busy to post a response to this, since you're the only non-fool on the planet.

      As such, your income from your inventions must be measured in billions a year.

      Merely juggling the millions around must take hours every week.


      Inventing new things must take up the rest of your time. However, if you can spare a moment, could you tell me how to stop posting asinine and insulting comments on Slashdot?



      It is my dream that you will find time to read this comment. If you do, I shall know that I have communicated with a truly superior person.

      Foolishly yours,

      ChazR

    8. Re:This is SO snake-oil by jezmund · · Score: 1

      I agree. The story itself has logical inconsistencies. First they are spraying things with this "solution" or whatnot created by the machine, and later in the article they are purifying water using the machine. So is it this machine, or the solution it creates that is killing the microorganisms. Both? And as far as uncurdling milk....that's a chemical change. Killing the bacteria won't fix it. Will they be able to take American cheese and turn that back into milk as well?

      I think that in the rush to publish some sort of ground-breaking article related to anthrax, this station got conned. Just my opinion, tho.

      -Ryan

      --

      "fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
    9. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      Please don't get upset. We are talking about what you get once you electrolyze it.

      Bruce

    10. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      Actually, you just get the most easily reduced/oxidized species coming out.

      To take this past the point of absurdity, you would eventually run out of the easily reduced substances :-) . And yes, it's silly to expect all of those ingredients to stay elemental.

      Thanks

      Bruce

    11. Re:This is SO snake-oil by RoosterT · · Score: 1

      If this stuff is so simple, how come nobody is getting it right??

      1) Hydrogen is NOT an antibiotic
      2) Oxygen is not even produced in this reaction!
      3) Neither is Sodium!
      4) At least you got the chlorine right

      On a possibly interesting side note, combine chlorine and hydrogen in the right proportions and they will explode too...to form gaseous hydrochloric acid (HCl).

    12. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow. That's so incorrect, it's not even wrong.

      Oxidation is an increase in oxidation number. If a species increases in oxidation number, it has oxidized, regardless of whether or not oxygen was involved.

      Take a portion of finely divided sodium metal. Spray some hot chlorine gas over it. You'll get an oxidation-reduction reaction. Like this:

      2Na + Cl2 --> 2NaCl

      Na's oxidation number goes from 0 to +1, so it's been oxidized. What did the oxidation? Well, there's no oxygen, so it must have been the chlorine. Chlorine therefore was an oxidizer in this reaction. The Cl went from 0 to -1, so it was reduced. This was a redox reaction.

      It involved no oxygen. Sheesh.

    13. Re:This is SO snake-oil by marshac · · Score: 1

      Skin catching fire in 100% O2? Whatever!

      So it's cruel when we stuff divers in the hyperbaric chamber with a 100% pure oxygen atmosphere (at 2-3atm)?

      If divers burst into flames, believe me, this wouldn't be common treatment.

      -Chris

    14. Re:This is SO snake-oil by ChrisKnight · · Score: 2

      > So it's cruel when we stuff divers in the hyperbaric chamber with a 100% pure oxygen atmosphere (at 2-3atm)?

      I take it you know diving the way that Bruce knows chemistry? If you are certified, but don't know your partial pressures, I hope I never have you as a dive buddy.

      Oxygen is toxic to humans at a partial pressure of 2.0, which is why divers shoot for a partial pressure of 1.2 to 1.4 at max depth when diving on a Nitrox mix.

      100% pure oxygen at 2atm is a partial pressure of 2.0, so the diver you stuffed in the hyperbaric chamber would be dead by the time you got them to 3atm.

      -Chris

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    15. Re:This is SO snake-oil by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It rather depends on the concentration...
      The sodium will combine with the water to produce lye.
      The hydrogen will go away.
      The chlorine will go away, but more slowly. Some of it will combine with the water to product HCl. This will combine with the lye to give salt water.

      It might well be a decent disinfectant, at the right voltage. And if it's weak enough, I suppose it would be approximately harmless. Disinfectants don't need to be particularly strong solutions... but I would tend to avoid using lye.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:This is SO snake-oil by MAurelius · · Score: 1
      Just to reinforce and expand the previous reply by ChrisKnight: 100% oxygen at 2.0 atm or higher is lethal to humans because most people so exposed will SEIZE , generally to death, unless the partial pressure of oxygen is immediately brought down and the patient treated medically. We don't put people in hyperbaric chambers using 100% O2 except at lower pressures (1.4 atm) and for short times.

      One professor at a Medicine of Diving course I took said that a seizure under water is essentially 100% fatal. Nitrox, Tri-mix are for use by trained divers to avoid oxygen toxicity and decrease nitrogen toxicity. Check this out: http://www.skin-diver.com/departments/ScubaMed/may 00_oxygen.asp?theID=1227

      Humans exposed to 100% oxygen at 1.0 atm for more than about 24-48 hours, e.g., on a ventilator in an ICU, will develop ARDS and will die of pulmonary toxicity of oxygen.

      Sorry this got off topic.

      Marcus

    17. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Paramedics use nearly pure oxygen masks all the time--skin doesn't do that, ya moron. Pure oxygen just makes it easier for stuff that is combusting to do just that.

      Spontaneous human combustion in the face of pure oxygen.. Give me a break!

    18. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also-- colloidal silver (folksy term for what you're talking about) is extremely dangerous--all heavy metals are and you should punch the lights out of anyone who suggests you try some to cure "what ails you."

    19. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Hey, if they could take American beer and turn it back into beer, I'd buy one of these things.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    20. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      I seem to remember using sulphuric acid in place of table salt sometimes. But it's been about 35 years. I've forgotten what a mole is.

      Bruce

    21. Re:This is SO snake-oil by dmiller · · Score: 2

      So you have built a device which cheaply and effectively does this for flowing water? This is only snake oil if it isn't effective.

    22. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      # units
      588 units, 44 prefixes
      You have: 1 mole
      You want:
      * 6.0221367e+23

      :)

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    23. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Fuck that dork.

    24. Re:This is SO snake-oil by chuckT · · Score: 1
      Good grief, this is really old. But it is not snake oil, just bad hype: My brother in law had a job selling these things a while back.

      The technology was apparently originally developed in the Russian space program, and the company involved have been doing reasonably well.

      The process is based on hypochlorite, and yes, you can patent a device to make the solution, or to do specific things with it.

      Take a look at: www.sterilox.com.

      --
      - These are small, *those* are _far away_
    25. Re:This is SO snake-oil by armb · · Score: 2

      [Sodium chlorate]
      > You'd also have the nasty side effect of the letter becoming quite flammable when the mist dried, if you sprayed any substantial amount of solution on it (powerful oxidizer, remember

      Used to be widely sold in the UK as a weedkiller and occasionally used by schoolchildren to make explosives. Now only sold with added fire retardant because of the IRA.

      --
      rant
    26. Re:This is SO snake-oil by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Not quite true. 100% oxygen at 3 atm has been used to treat patients whose red blood cell count was way, way low. At that pressure and concentration, the blood plasma dissolves enough oxygen to keep your tissues alive - you no longer need the red blood cells.

      It IS toxic, though, and bad things can happen if this is kept up too long.

    27. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      Of course, one must ask why you're:
      1. running units as root
      2. setting PS1 to `# '
      :-)
    28. Re:This is SO snake-oil by jezmund · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Have you seen all those beer commercials on TV? It must be good! Look at how much fun everyone is having! Plus, tell me this: how do you get to be the sponsor of "Guys night out" if you are just a crappy American beer?

      Exaaaaaactly.

      -Ryan

      --

      "fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
    29. Re:This is SO snake-oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've forgotten what a mole is

      so have I, although I remember it has something to do with avocado...

    30. Re:This is SO snake-oil by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Pink Lemonade is sugar, sulphuric acid, cheap frozen lemon pulp, and pink dye. Yum!

  29. Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by majestynine · · Score: 1
    More and more these days we see advertising for 'antibacterial' this-and-that. The problem with all of these products is not so much that it kills the bacteria, but that pretty soon, the bacteria develops defences aganist the things that will kill it - rendering them useless. When this happens, you then need to start using products which are stronger and stronger, each time as the bacteria becomes resistant.

    We have major problems in the medical world, because anti-biotics have been regularly prescribed for common colds since antibiotics have existed. As a result, strains of the flu, and other similar sicknesses are becoming highly resistant to antibiotics. I just hope that if we see the introduction of something like this, that it doesn't lead to the same thing. Perfectly clean drinking water is one thing, but perfectly clean water that kills bacteria? Thats another thing...

    1. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flu is a virus, so antibiotics would never have worked. THAT is why it is so rediculous to give them. All it does it mess up your natural bacteria, and make them resistent. Hence, antibiotic resistant strep and e coli

    2. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by Handpaper · · Score: 1

      I beg your pardon? Flu? Antibiotics? Influenza and "acute nasopharyngitis" (common cold) are viral and cannot be treated in any way by antibiotics. BTW the only effective antiviral drug is currently being sold over-the-counter to treat......Cold Sores!!

    3. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by anto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the common cold and the flu are both viruses, and as such antibiotics have absolutly no effect on them. It is/was quite common to prescribe antibiotics to help combat secondary infections (I seem to always end up with a chest infection for example) which seems to have lead people to believe that unless their doctor is prescribing something they are in some way not being treated effectivly.

      To compound the problem many people stop taking their antibiotics when they feel better (they have done their job right) which means that the bacteria have been exposed to a level of the antibiotic that hasn't killed 100% of the little nasties (a scientific term :) Soon enough we start to breed up a bigger better stronger bunch of killers. (Darwin by example)

      To compound the problem in the western world we think its perfectly ok to feed our livestock constant doses of antibiotics even when there is no real evidence that its a) useful or b) more efficient. There is some evidence that such animals do grow slightly faster - something thats worth throwing away our furture use of antibiotics for..

    4. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      Both of you are correct.

      majestynine: "We have major problems in the medical world, because anti-biotics have been regularly prescribed for common colds since antibiotics have existed."

      and

      Handpaper: "Influenza and "acute nasopharyngitis" (common cold) are viral and cannot be treated in any way by antibiotics."

      We have problems with antibiotic resistant bacteria because viral infections are not treatable with antibiotics and doctors have been giving antibiotics to patients who really didn't need them in the first place. Is this because the doctors are stupid and don't know any better?

      No, it is because the doctor's time is valuable and he doesn't wish to waste it going around in circles with Mrs. Dumbass explaining to her that antibiotics won't do a damn thing for her cold, so he just sticks her with penicillin or writes her a scrip to shut her up and get the ignorant bitch the hell out of his office.

      Later on when she comes down with a penicillin resistant strep infection he can make a bundle selling her one of the new miracle antibiotics (not that this was his intention but it works out that way because Mrs. Dumbass didn't know what was good for her and wouldn't listen to her doctor's advice.)

    5. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Troll, troll, troll your boat...

      No living thing will ever develop a resistance to being doused in chlorine.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      which means that the bacteria have been exposed to a level of the antibiotic that hasn't killed 100% of the little nasties

      So maybe evolutionary algorithms can be improved by applying a fitness test, then backing off on it, then reapplying it...

    7. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Living things have developed resistance to, for example, boiling water. Just that no organism could be adapted to such an extreme environment and be an effective human pathogen at the same time...

    8. Re:Killing bacteria is not always a good thing by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are now drugs that are effective against the influenza virus (one is marketed under the name Tamiflu). Just like the anti-bacterial antibiotics, these anti-viral antibiotics work by binding to and interfering with specific macromolecules in the pathogens.

      It's a really good thing we have these drugs -- if a major change in the flu virus (like the one that caused the 1918 pandemic that killed 20 million people around the world) were to occur they'd be the only hope for treating it.

      They've been working on similar drugs against the common cold, btw, with some promising results.

  30. Damn! by smashr · · Score: 1
    Here's the Google cache.


    No karma whoring for me now :(

  31. Nooooooo.... by extagboy · · Score: 1

    Water + Salt + Energy = Hydrogen + Chlorine + Sodium Hydroxide (lye)

  32. NEXT@CNN by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

    I saw this on CNN yesterday. I didn't understand how it works from this explanation, but here is the transcript page for NEXT@CNN. (Click August 31)

  33. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by limbostar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And yet language is such that it doesn't matter what OED says. If people say virii is the plural of virus, it is. It's the same with hacker / cracker.

    You cannot stop language from evolving.

    --
    this is a sig.
  34. i call bullshit on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cold fussion anyone?

  35. Anti-anthrax by shokk · · Score: 2

    This was already on the news this week. It's being touted as a non-toxic way to clean a building of anthrax and reoccupy the building within hours.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  36. It makes some sense... by anactofgod · · Score: 1

    It sounds like what they are doing is applying electricity to a solution containing a dissolved salt to create two "products". Around the anode, an "anolyte" is created that has antibacterial properties (though the article claims antiviral, anticyst(?), antigerm properties, as well). At the cathode, a "catholyte" is created that can be used "for treating industrial effluent like the ones from Electro-plating, photographic, and/or textile plants. Catholyte has powerful properties for flocculation, coagulation, bionutrient transfer, cleaning purposes, and neutralizing the toxicity of heavy metals."

    Of course, all of this would be apparent to anyone who actually reads the supporting material. *GRYNN* ...anactofgod...

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
    1. Re:It makes some sense... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically, the idiot who wrote the CTV article has taken a straight scientific story and turned it into a gee whiz pseudoscientific fantasy.

      Look, unless you believe in alchemy and slow retort cooking under the full moon, the only thing you're going to get from this contraption is Hydrochloric Acid and Sodium Hydroxide, a strong acid and a strong base (alkali), both of which have antibacterial properties. From the technical description of the actual device, it looks like they're using some kind of ceramic membrane to prevent the positive hydrogen ions and the negative hydroxyl radicals from actually recombining with the Sodium Chloride to form the respective acid and base, so what you end up with are free hydrogen radicals (basically just free protons) and free hydroxyl radicals (basically water that's missing a proton). Neither of these is safe in any sense I can imagine. I certainly wouldn't want to be around if the two products came into contact with NaCl by accident. Heat, Light, Boom, Burn! Or maybe just a slow dermal sizzle.

      There's a real pastiche of data here. Variations on a theme mixed together in a haphazard way. None of which adds up to what the CTV article suggests. What you get when you send a reporter to cover a technical story.

      Useful technology no doubt, but nothing you'd want to drink.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:It makes some sense... by Genjuro+Kibagami · · Score: 1

      Assumedly massively obvious question that just has to be asked and please excuse me if I sound like a fool for doing so, but;

      free hydroxyl radicals = water without protons
      free hydrogen radicals = protons
      and all the gunk left behind is assumedly in solid format?

      What happens when you mix pure water without protons, with protons?

      (puzzled look)

    3. Re:It makes some sense... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Sodium Hydroxide can exist as a solid. Hydrochloric Acid can't, at least in the real world.

      You mix hydroxyl radicals with hydrogen ions you get water. But it's exothermic. It takes less energy to maintain a water molecule than to maintain positive and negative ions, so, depending on how fast you do it, you either get hot water or an explosion of boiling water in your face, assuming you get the proportions right and can control the reaction. Otherwise, you get hot acid or hot alkali or some mixture of both. Neither is going to want to stay in its ionic state long enough for you to think about it, though. It's going to start eating through the container or grabbing carbon dioxide out of the air. Nothing you'd want to play with.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    4. Re:It makes some sense... by Genjuro+Kibagami · · Score: 1

      but best case scenario, you would get hot, though assumedly quite clean, water?

      Perhaps this is what they have done?

      I am not sure I completely followed you because you mentioned hydrogen ions where before you were using different terminology, free hydroxyl radicals = hydrogen ions?

      My apologies, it's interesting, but I'm not very clear on it.

      Cheers
      Genj

    5. Re:It makes some sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah..maybe,but i'm too dumb for that..and just simply add it to the gnomish invetions list

  37. This article just shows by Bytal · · Score: 1

    ...how many talented former Soviet Union scientists are wasting away in no name research labs in Russia and former republics. With no funding, no equipment and no corporate or government backing I am sure that countless great ideas are being discarded as we speak. It's too bad that while many companies are expanding into third world countries and building facilities and recruiting people there, a country with a huge established base of high class engineers, scientists and researchers is being forgotten about. I'm sure that any company that knows its business well would be able to recruit hordes of very competent scientists with wordclass education and knowledge for very little money and be lauded as a local hero and savior by the people in Russia.

  38. of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not make this into a Beowulf cluster?

  39. How can this be just a "water purifier" by Bobartig · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how everyone can be calling this a water purifier. I'm not saying I know what this thing is, or what it can and can't do, but a water purifier won't do any of what the article describes the machine doing. If I take de-ionized water and sprinkle it all over an anthrax laden envelope, it does nothing. Somehow, this salt water mixture is supposed to "scrub" all the baddies and microbes away, leaving the envelope safe for mucking. According to the article, this doesn't purify the water, it turns it into a purifying agent itself.

    Water purifiers don't really do anything for large scale sterilization like this device claims to. And if it is just a water purifier, it'd do no more for 3rd world countries and military soldiers than iodine tablets.

    --
    This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
  40. Difference between a virus and a germ by AlaskanUnderachiever · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Bare with me, biology was a LONG time ago and chemistry was more recent.
    A virus is basically a self replicating (with a hosts help) package of RNA.

    A germ (or bacteria) is a single celled organism.

    Here's the problem as I see it. "spoiled" milk is not JUST caused by bacterial action. It's also a chemical conversion of lactose and lipids. Unless this stuff is some Uber-Converter that can reverse time, this story is full of crap. Now, it COULD have enough energy to 'dissolve' the biological matter present in it. Hell, if I put a huge current though an ionic solution, I can almost guarantee everything in it is going to be toast too.

    That's not remarkable, that's bad swimming pool pump maintenace.

    --
    Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
    1. Re:Difference between a virus and a germ by t0rnt0pieces · · Score: 1

      A virus is basically a self replicating (with a hosts help) package of RNA.

      A germ (or bacteria) is a single celled organism.


      Allow me to make a few corrections. Viruses can be DNA *or* RNA, and they don't self-replicate, they take control of cells and use the cells' equipment to replicate. Germs and bacteria aren't neccessarily the same. "Germ" isn't really a biology term anyway. "Germ" is just the word lay-people use for pathogenic microorganisms.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (In Soviet Russia, karma pimps YOU)
    2. Re:Difference between a virus and a germ by jezmund · · Score: 1

      Actually, some viruses use RNA, and others use DNA to store their genetic material. Also, I think "germ" in this context is a word referring to any sort of pathogenic microorganism. So a virus can be a germ. That's all.

      -Ryan

      --

      "fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
    3. Re:Difference between a virus and a germ by olrik666 · · Score: 1

      Bare with me... I will certainly not.

  41. Just give it a nice name by Comrade+Pikachu · · Score: 1

    The less informed citizenry tend to reject beneficial technologies that don't sound nice. That's a big reason that there aren't many foods that have been "irradiated" (a harmless process that kills food-borne bacteria).

    "Electro-Chemical Activation" sounds a bit harsh. Allow me to suggest "Fuzzy Wuv-Bear's Magic No-Germy Stuff".

    1. Re:Just give it a nice name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      harmless process? if you knew better you would not buy a single irradiated product. the irradiation kills living entzymes from the food,
      rendering it "dead" in a way. this is intuitively understood by people, but very little scientifically researched.

      of course people like you see this as an "advancement", but is not much different than spraying insecticides on people.

      ever considered YOURSELF less informed?

  42. It makes some sense...(part deux) by anactofgod · · Score: 1

    I should have added (by way of further explanation) that the anode (the positive terminal) would attract the negative ions of a dissolved salt (the Cl- ions of NaCl), while the cathode (or the negative terminal) would attract the positve ions (the Na+).

    If you pump the water around the anode out, you will have H20 with Cl- ions floating freely in it, in a highly reactive state, ready to bind to any available positive ion. Likewise, pumping the catholyte out would have H20 with Na+ free floating in a highly reactive state,ready to bind to any negative ion.

    It seems like the biggest problem would be storing the end products, but it sounds like the anolyte and the catholyte could be produced fairly cheaply and easily as needed, in a small unit.

    Seems to be pretty reasonable to me, but I haven't studied chem for 16 years. ...anactofgod...

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
    1. Re:It makes some sense...(part deux) by forkboy · · Score: 2

      Ok, that makes more sense....the article itself states that the amount of energy being passed through it is equivalent to being hit by lightning, or a mini-reactor....that kind of juice would decompose the water itself into component H2 and O2, which is why this didn't sound feasible.

      Will Cl- ions react with a microscopic organism? I mean, Cl- ions are already present in sea water (albeit not in as high concentrations) and there are plenty of microbes in the sea....same deal with sodium ions.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:It makes some sense...(part deux) by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Cl is pretty much inimical to all forms of life, period.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:It makes some sense...(part deux) by forkboy · · Score: 2

      Actually....the human body in fact REQUIRES chlorine to live....what do you think makes up the "-chloric" part of hydrochloric acid in your stomach?

      Gastric juices are, for the most part, 1M HCl...so every liter of stomach acid your body produces requires about 35.5 grams of chloride ion, (about 58 g of table salt)

      There's even an FDA recommended daily allowance of sodium chloride that correlates to that. (they know how long it takes your body to make 1 liter of stomach acid...I don't)

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    4. Re:It makes some sense...(part deux) by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      I was speaking of elemental Chlorine, Cl2, not chlorine in compounds.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  43. The downside- by Joe+'Nova' · · Score: 1

    You electroplate stuff onto the electrodes, and even if they are "Royal" metals(platinum, gold, etc..), metals will still plate out on the electrodes.(in India, they have highly saturated Arsenic in the wells drilled, so this might not be so bad after all)
    But I suspect not for a while. Besides, who wants all the calcium ya can drink ;)
    I would imagine you have to have a continual flow, or else the solutions will mix, maybe 1 gal/min?
    But if it sterilizes water borne diseases, it would be a Godsend to thirdworld nations...

    --
    This mind intentionally left blank.
    The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
  44. Chemistry lesson time by ThesQuid · · Score: 2

    Ok, when you dump salt (NaCl) into water, it instantly dissolves into the respective ions, Na+ and Cl-. Cl- ions are not what are used for sterilizing swimming pools; Sodium hypochlorite is used for this, that splits into Na+ and a Hypochlorite- ion. Hypochlorite is very aggressive & will reduce (give an electron to) practically anything.

    What makes me suspicious of the Emerald device is the following line:

    "The catholyte is a powerful alkaline solution used for treating industrial effluent like the ones from Electro-plating, photographic, and/or textile plants. Catholyte has powerful properties for flocculation, coagulation, bionutrient transfer, cleaning purposes, and neutralizing the toxicity of heavy metals."

    Ok, if the catholyte is a powerful alkaline solution, it then follows that the anolyte is a powerful acid solution. Can't make one without the other. And powerful acid solutions aren't exactly benign.

  45. well, if you're in russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    you get Frost Pist (note for those that aren't frequenty spelunkers into the zoo known as Threshold: -1, that's one of the misspellings the FPcretins use(d) to get around the first post bouncer)

  46. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by beanyk · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    You cannot stop language from evolving.


    No you can't, but that's no reason not to try. I mean, death and is inevitable as well, but there's no reason to hurry it along.

    Same thing happens at home (Ireland) with the word referendum. People pluralise it as if it were a neuter 2nd declension noun -- referenda, when in fact it's a gerund (or gerundive, I forget which), not a noun at all, in Latin. But in English it is a noun, and its plural is therefore referendums. Nothing else makes sense.

    Right now, virii is wrong. Sure in the future, if enough people make the same mistake, it'll become the right plural, in some sense. But why help it along? As the perl.com link demonstrates, using fake plurals like virii is being pretentious. It *sounds* plausible, but by helping it along, you just spread ignorance.

    My point? If in doubt, just use the normal English rules of pluralisation: add an "s".
  47. You are forgetting the sodium by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    The water breaks down the sodium and chlorine ions itself, the eletricity just pulls them apart, giving you chlorine gas (I think).

    I don't see how it would be safe for humans, but whatever.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:You are forgetting the sodium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Dear A.P.,

      I don't know what it is, but as soon as you post, I completely lose interest in whatever discussion we're having, and remember something... else.

      Sincerely,

      15% of slashdot readers

  48. osmosis+E = AHHHHH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sounds like they turned a reverse osmosis machine into a giant frickin capacitor.

    An energy rich solution still has a quantized ammount of energy at any time.

  49. Science News had an article on this... by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reaction isn't, as some have said:

    NaCl + 2H20 + electricity -> Na + Cl + 2H2 + O2

    Rather, you get a hypochlorous acid ion, an a sodium hydroxide ion. In effect, the reverse of mixing hypochlorous acid and lye.

    However, you get it in VERY dilute quantities, nowhere near what you'd need to damage human skin. But if you are an itty bitty microbe, the oxidizing effect is deadly.

    Really, this is just a "bleach on demand" sort of thing.

    1. Re:Science News had an article on this... by Rendwich · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here, but I assure you that if you mix NaCl, H2O, and electricity, you will get H2 and O2. I've seen the bubbles rising from the ends of my wires many times. They are not bubbles of sodium hydroxide or "hypochlorous" acid. They are gasses.

      You might get the products you discussed in some trace amounts, but the overall production is gas, and there are a lot of Na and Cl ions in the water. If you don't believe me, taste it. I promise it doesn't taste like soap or metal.

    2. Re:Science News had an article on this... by wowbagger · · Score: 2

      I didn't mean to imply you won't get generation of H2 and O2 at the electrodes - of course you will.

      However, many posters assert that you will get metallic sodium and pure chlorine in the mix, and that is wrong.

      As any chemist will tell you, when you mix NaCl into H20, you will have Na+ and Cl- ions in the water - no electricity needed. However, remove the water and the NaCl will reform.

      What the electrolysis reaction does is break the H2O into H+ and OH- ions. Some of the H+ ions will combine into H2 at at the negative electrode, and some of tho OH- ions will combine into O2 and H2O at the plus electrode, releasing the commonly observed gases.

      However, some of the H+ ions will also combine with the CL- ions to yeild HCL, which will furthur react to produce hypochlorus acid (which, if you had studied anything more than basic chemistry, you would recognise as bleach).

      Additionally, some of the OH- ions will react with the Na+ ions to form NaOH.

      Now, this is NOT an equilibrium state - in the absense of the electric current the hypochlorous acid will recombine with the sodium hydroxide to reform water and salt. Hence why you have to seperate the solutions at the electrodes - yeilding a mild bleach solution and a mild lye solution.

      Y

  50. Well... by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Keep in mind that no more energy is going to be released by this thing then put into it, so the byproducts won't be all that bad.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  51. It can help by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    When you have a cold you're immune system is weaker, and antibiotics can help prevent extra infections, and kill off any opportunistic ones that happen to show up.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  52. A clear and concise explanation... by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...for the device's operation.

    No doubt the electric field applied causes small bubbles to form within the solution, and then rapidly collapse. This collapse leads to extroardinarily high temperatures and pressures, which in turn cause nuclear fusion to take place. Stray gammas generated by this fusion result in the destruction of nearby pathogens.

    Seriously, this technique sounds like a load of crap, for the most part. I can buy the electrochemical action bit, sort of. Pure molten NaCl (salt, hereafter) will electrolyze to form sodium and chlorine gas, sure enough. With a little creative engineering, it is possible to separate these to products and collect them for later use. Indeed, this is exactly what is done for commercial production of these two elements.

    On contact with water, pure Na will form a solution of (aggressively basic) sodium hydroxide plus some hydrogen gas. (This, I assume, is the catholyte we hear about.) Chlorine in water forms an acidic solution which is, to be fair, definitely germicidal.

    I see two problems. The first is technical. In a water solution, the electrolytic yields of sodium and chlorine are typically both very low, because oxygen and hydrogen gas are preferentially formed first. (There are sound thermodynamic reasons for this.) Maybe these experimenters have gotten around this somehow, perhaps using exotic catalysts or something.

    The second problem is a bit more difficult. If the two component solutions (sodium + water and chlorine + water) are kept separate, individually they would be quite toxic. Brought together, there is a very quick reaction that brings us right back to salt and water--not a particularly powerful disinfectant, and what we started with before we had a mystical black box.

    I can think of some other more creative possibilities, as well. Perhaps they're talking about generating some sort of activated state oxygen to do the dirty work (the salt just makes the water conductive)--in which case, they're definitely frauds. There just aren't any activated oxygen states that are stable long enough (in water) to get to the surface to be disinfected. Atomic oxygen might do it, but that's already been invented--and I'm pretty sure it won't last very long in solution either.

    Finally, from the article, we have the quote:

    f a letter is suspected of containing anthrax spores, it could be passed through a dry mist made from the Emerald solution and the letter would be sterilized.

    The letter wouldn't even get wet. Anyone exposed to the spores could bathe in the solution and be germ free.

    Erm. Dry mist. Sure. What's in this dry mist, exactly? Chlorine? Nope--it's way toxic. Sodium? Nope--it's a metal. Hydrogen? Um. Yeah. Oxygen--maybe, but atomic oxygen generators already exist (they're used for restoring artwork and whitening teeth). Singlet oxygen will kill things, but it only lasts a few nanoseconds in water.

    So, to conclude this lengthy post--I call bullshit!

    --
    ~Idarubicin
    1. Re:A clear and concise explanation... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      Alas, what comes of posting too quickly. To clarify my position...

      This device, through the small quantities of chlorine plus nasty (biochemically speaking) radicals generated through normal water electrolysis will probably very easily kill nearly anything that's actually in the water that passes through the device. I stand by my assertion that there is little or no residual purifying ability to the liquid that comes out, and the notion that a "dry mist" (whatever that is) from it will kill anthrax sounds like nonsense.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:A clear and concise explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're just as bad for calling it bullshit as they are for implying it's a savior for third world nations.

      Theory is theory. It can suggest, drive, and direct research studies. But until someone gets their hands on a supposed working product and then carries out actual tests with control, only the person holding the contraption knows. That's the point of scientific testing--being able to separately and independent check and try to reproduce results.

      This would be easily--plate tap water. Count the cells. Run tap water from the same source through their system and plate. Count the cells. Which is higher? How much is one reduce over the other (according to them, it should be nonexistent).

      Get some botox from your neighbor's botox party. Inject into subject's facial muscles. Observe effect. Inject botox from same source, run through machine's misting application, inject. Observe--the toxin shouldn't work according to their claims.

      Personally, their claims make theoretical sense, but I'm not sure how practical it is. To me, there seems to need a lot more energy to get the appropriate anti-microbial action they are claiming. But I can't say for sure until someone does the impartial study.

    3. Re:A clear and concise explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water + salt + electricity = two nasty liquids (acid + alkali).

      Two nasty liquids + bacteria = dead bacteria.

      Two nasty liquids mixed = salty water.

      The only way I can see this being useful is if the reaction will produce enough sodium hydroxide and chlorine to kill bacteria, with little enough salt that the water is still safe to drink after.

  53. High School Chemistry by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative


    Oh the pain! The people complaining about the state of science education in the US are RIGHT!!

    Electrolysis of salt solution produces a solution of sodium hypochlorite, similar to Clorox bleach. Nothing wrong with that, this is a GREAT disinfectant. But new technology? I DON'T THINK SO. We have been chlorinating water supplies since 1908 or so.

    Some technological historians believe that the addition of chlorine to drinking water is the primary reason for increased life expectancies in the 20th century, and claim that this one innovation has done more to prevent disease than the rest of modern medicine combined.

    Here are the reactions:

    anode: 2Cl- = Cl2(aq) + 2e-
    cathode: 2e- + 2Na+ + 2H20 = H2(g) + 2NaOH

    2NaOH + Cl2 = 2NaOCl + 2H+

    To stabilize the NaOCl it is best to add a bit extra NaOH. (See LeChatlier).

    You can use the H2 to power your laptop. (See fuel cells.)

    1. Re:High School Chemistry by RoosterT · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Egad! The state of high school chemistry today!

      While your chemistry is correct, this is not the reaction they are talking about. The production of sodium hypochlorite is not an electrochemical process. It takes place without the aid of an electrical current. This is why NaOH is commonly used as a scrubbing fluid to remove Cl2 from a gas stream.

      The reaction we are talking about is the electrolysis of salt water:
      H20 + NaCl + electricity -> NaOH + Cl2 + H2

      A mixture of chlorine gas and weak brine called the anolyte leaves the cell on one side, and the caustic soda (NaOH) and hydrogen gas mixture called the catholyte leaves on the other.

    2. Re:High School Chemistry by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      A mixture of chlorine gas and weak brine called the anolyte leaves the cell on one side, and the caustic soda (NaOH) and hydrogen gas mixture called the catholyte leaves on the other.

      That depends on the physical configuration of the electrochemical cell, If all you have is a cathode and anode stuck in a salt water solution, the chlorine and NaOH will mix after they are formed and you will end up with hypo. If you have a cell with with some means of keeping the alkali separate from the chlorine, you will get the two seperately.

      Most small disenfectant cells mix both and you get hypo. Larger scale clor-alkali production is done in one of three types of cell, mercury amalgam cathode, asbestos diaphram, or permselective membrane cell. In the mercury almalgam cell you actually get a solution of sodium metal im mercury as a result of the cathode reaction - the almalgam is then reacted with water to recover the NaOH. In a diaphram cell you have a permiable asbestos diaphram separating the cathode from the anode, and in the premselective membrane you have a fluropolyomer doped with anionic groups that allow transport of sodium ions from the anolyte to the catholyte chambers. Each type of cell has it's own economic and product quality characteristics. The permselective membrane cell is replacing the other types over time because of the toxicity issues with mercury and asbestos. In addition to these details, the materials of construction of the anode are quite important. Since the anode is in the presence of elemental chorine gas under wet conditions it must be made from a very refactory material. Usually this is titanium with a small amount of palladium to prevent stress corrosion cracking, and a catalytic coating, normally either platinum-iridium, or ruthenium oxide.

    3. Re:High School Chemistry by RoosterT · · Score: 1

      Intelligent answer. I was basing my statements on the second article, which said that the Emerald cell was a membrane cell with separate anolyte/catholyte streams. Incidentally, I have worked at all three chlor-alkali plant types.

  54. errr Publik edumacation not what it used to be by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    the chemistry behind this is basic and proven. There are numerous saftey issues inherent in the process and there is not enough doc on the site to see if this is a new and valid application of the process or a 'snake-oil' sales oppurtunity.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  55. What the fuck are viruses? by ajs · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Ok, for those of you who might make the mistake of listening to this guy, pay close attention: english is a living language. If enough people think that the correct plural spelling of virus would be potatoe, then potatoe it is! I think if I wrote viruses, more people would try to correct me than if I wrote viri (virii looks wrong to me), and if my goal is not to have a debate about spelling, I'm going to go for the one that looks right to more people. Same goes for octopi, ain't and eventually, yes, even hax0r will be a valid word in the american dialect of english (and in many other dialects and languages for that matter).

    Actually that last one intrigues me a great deal. Words like hax0r, 1337, d00d and other techno-slang are catching on like wildfire. Currently they are only used in limited sub-cultures but certainly some of these words have such a strong and unique connotation that they will leak into common usage. This is a radical shift for english as it adds new characters into to language for the first time in a very long time (mostly characters have just been removed).

    1. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by ajs · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I take back my comment about "more people would ... correct me...." According to google, there is a landslide of support on the Web for viruses over virii and viri combined. While I've always heared viri in technical conversation, I'll concede to popular usage.

      I double-checked by looking for the following strings:
      vir*
      computer vir*
      "computer vir*"
      In each case, the viruses spelling was far-and-away the winner.

      Since the importance of common usage was my whole point, I have to suggest that people use "viruses".
    2. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Groovy, man. Rad. Hip. Definitely 86. I'm sure they will. They won't be like the rest of the trends. They're too legit to quit.

      Words that catch on like wildfire ALWAYS succeed, except of course, if there are already words to describe the same thing equally well or better which are already commonly used. Forget the connotation.
      hax0r has the same connotation as hacker, d00d the same as dude, and l337 the same as elite. The only difference is who will say them.

      Eventually, the script-kiddie counter culture will get tired of using those words and get some new ones.

      Why do I limit this to script kiddies? Among my actual coder friends I have noticed a distinct trend towards good grammar, and an attempt at proper spelling. I suspect that this is a side-effect of working in necessarily stricter languages than English.

      Want an example yourself? Go to a linux-related chatroom and figure out who in the room has the most experience. Then check their grammer. More often than not they use full sentences with punctuation and correct spelling, unlike a lot of other people on IRC.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    3. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Saeger · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      You're suggesting that I should a spell a word like everyone else... just because most everyone else is doing it that way? Sounds familiar. :)

      I'd suggest that unconventional twists of language are a good thing. Gotta keep the mutation rate up d00d.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      pay close attention: english is a living language. If enough people think that the correct plural spelling of virus would be potatoe, then potatoe it is!

      I'm afraid I'm with Clippy on this one:

      Clippy: Is this the same principle of common usage that keeps sending us all the spelling mistakes, and thinks it's ok to stick an apostrophe into any word ending in 's' no matter whether it's a contraction or a plural?

      Clippy: Because if so, it can bite my skinny wire ass!

    5. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by DrPascal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Unconventional twists are good unless they are blatantly wrong, such as "definately". Every time I see someone spell "definitely" "definately" I want to scream in agony.

      Here come the onslaught of people replying to this post spelling it in a very predictable way.

      --
      DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
    6. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Salis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Try that the real plural of the word virus is virii and only idiots like you can't remember it. What's the plural of fish, NOT fishes. What's the plural of dwarf, NOT dwarfs.

      There's a reason why there's a dictionary. Go look up the word virus in the Oxford English Dictionary. You'll be happily surprised that, somewhere in the world, people actually care about words.

      And the people who refer to the plural of virus as viruses in medical journals are often foreign. I don't blame them for knowing the difference, but they're usually smart enough to look up such words in an english dictionary before proclaiming the rest of the english-speaking world idiots...like you have just done.

      What are you, 12?

      --
      Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
    7. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by steveg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's interesting that you mke such a big deal about dictionaries, yet you have obviously never consulted one. Try looking up virus in 4 or 5 different dictionaries and see if you find any that specify anything other than viruses as the plural of virus.

      You might look up dwarf and dwarfs too. Dwarfs has been the traditonal plural for centuries. Dwarves is a very recent usage, mostly due to Tolkien.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    8. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sure, sure... Eventually the language will change.

      Until then it's still fucking wrong.

      Thank you.

      P.S. I once called it "virii" too, but someone corrected me and then I stopped. I didn't try to pull this "living language" bullshit. Though in theory you're correct, which just makes it even bigger bullshit. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also apparently doesn't know that the plural of "fish" is "fish" when you're talking about multiple instances of one species, or when you're speaking of fish in bulk, but "fishes" when you're drawing a distinction between different species, e.g. "Lake Titicaca contains over 150 different fishes.

    10. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by wheany · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that unconventional twists of language are a good thing. Gotta keep the mutation rate up d00d.

      Gallerbeaure herive makes muses ions hing. Assion prectimentargull limits opierineckworshliksolity. Reploitanauting schugger, minarcul cubikiewitically quire prons, expe harrions inhipse scen.

      "Echerece retiessepandowavail athery harledinhing, dillbootected aneonessard." Composisers mae preyelyson normintellett santeers siling prevensitor nounser ted chabborision fraints squalinger boathited...

    11. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by ajs · · Score: 2

      You're suggesting that I should a spell a word like everyone else... just because most everyone else is doing it that way? Sounds familiar. :)

      Nope. I'm suggesting that if we're going to debate what's right and wrong spelling-wise, the "ayes" have it. Language is not a stagnant thing that someone can write down in a book. Every dictionary ever written was obsolete the moment it was published. If you want to say "virii", have fun. If you're writing professionally, then I suggest that you use the spelling that will have the desired effect. Sometimes that effect is to convey the simple meaning of the word. Sometimes it's not, d00d ;)

    12. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by ajs · · Score: 2

      Eventually, the script-kiddie counter culture will get tired of using those words and get some new ones.

      Those of us who've been around for a while recognize that d00d-speak is just a modern variant on an old theme. I first saw such slang on BBSes in the late 80s, but it really began to take off on USENET.

      What people miss when they say that this or that fad of slang "died" is that no element of culture truly dies. Like a pebble thrown into the ocean, fads leave their mark, but its sometimes hard to tell. "Funk" was in the language before the 70s, but it acquired new meaning. Most of the "jive" slang melted away but some words in the general vocabulary were subtly altered.

      I'm mearly suggesting that some of d00d-speak (if only the name "d00d-speak") will persist because it frames a cultural changing-of-the-guard that will be important even a few generations from now.

      Certainly emoticons are a solid presence, and those will pose an even more interesting puzzle. Are they puctuation? I guess so. Are they part of english grammar? Umm... :-/

    13. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Even Pros should be given the freedom to experiment with language when the rules aren't set in stone. I'm not saying a NYTime columnist should start spelling 'and' as 'ahnd' just to go against the grain, but when there is no defacto RIGHT WAY to spell something, a person should just go with whatever feels right to him.

      Sometimes I go to the theatre, and sometimes I go to the theater. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    14. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      You're definitely a mutant alright... but you didn't pass the fitness function, so I'm sorry, but your memes won't be passed on. :-)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    15. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by wvcxwcx · · Score: 1

      I thought it's "VIRUSES" in English, and "VIRII" in Latin :o

    16. Re:What the fuck are viruses? by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      As the link explained, anyone who uses "virii" as the plural of virus is someone who, out of ignorance, is trying to put some classical allusion in their speech when it doesn't belong there. End of story.

      Trust me on this one: when all of you guys us "virii" as the plural of virus, you sound exactly like Don King when he makes up words like "stupenditudinous", for exactly the same reason. Believe me, when you're trying to sound more impressive through your ignorance, you end up worse off.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

  56. that would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NaOH, which would remain in solution, unless the water was entirely consumed, in which case it would be a white powder.
    And no, it wouldn't be safe for humans, any of the byproduts of the reaction. H2, generally benign. Cl2,toxic. NaOH, not exactly toxic, but caustic and likely to cause chemical burns.

    1. Re:that would be by forkboy · · Score: 2

      That depends on the concentration really...I've had 0.1M sodium hydroxide on my hands before and it doesn't burn, though it exfoliates the skin quite nicely.

      I don't think the concentration is likely to get to that range by decomposing salt water.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  57. How this works by iabervon · · Score: 2

    Salt water is essentially hydrochloric acid (stomach acid) and sodium hydroxide (lye); it's just that, when combined, they basically exactly cancel each other out.

    If you electrify the salt water, they separate. If you turn off the power, they recombine. Anything that was near one side or the other will be pretty effectively fried. Of course, you're not going to entirely separate them, so there's a middle section where it's still just salt water. This device does some fluid mechanics and such to pass anything that is in the incoming water through both regions before the water (now recombined) comes out of the device. It's actually a bit of tricky engineering to make sure that absolutely nothing can get through without going through both regions, which is what this is all about.

    The electrolysis experiment is trivial. The trick is being thorough when you've got water flowing through.

    1. Re:How this works by mrfiddlehead · · Score: 1
      Come back and explain this to us once you've finished middle school, son. In the mean time I encourage you to further your scientific studies. Until you know what you're talking about, you are best advised to keep your trap shut.

      Salt water is water (h2o) and ionized Sodium Cloride (Na+ and Cl-). The electrolysis of this solution has been discussed enough in this article so I won't go into it again. For details look to the posts that mention the production of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), aka bleach.

      --
      :wq
  58. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stopped bathing exactly for that reason...

    Washing yourself is for women, anyways. Especially washing your hands.

  59. Military use? by Tigris666 · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    For the military, the Emerald means soldiers in the field could easily sterilize drinking water.

    Typical russians, they find invent a machine with healing purposes, that can cure lots of things, then manage to think of a way to use it against other countries :)

    --
    Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer J. Simpson
    1. Re:Military use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [cant resist] ..unlike the Americans of course, whoe spend all thier money inventing things to kill people then look for other applications.
      Reapeat after me "a gun is a tool, a gun is a tool ,a gun is a tool"

  60. editors by sstory · · Score: 1

    kill this story, please. It's crap. Nothing of value there, scientifically.

  61. And? by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

    yeah? so what.. you can take water+whatever+energy
    and get distilled water. The thing is it takes a
    lot of energy, and so does this (even if you try to
    gain energy by burning the hydrogen and oxygen... even if you run
    it through a fuel cell.. first law of thermodynamics) and
    I'd drink distilled water a lot sooner than I'd drink post-electrolosys saltwater

  62. Can Convert? by Bri3D · · Score: 0

    The Instutute claims to convert salt water into the super-antibacteria. However, I have doubts for the reason that so far as I know, nobody outside this place has seen the super-antistuff work. Plus, I really dont like drinking salt water, and is it really human-consumable? Also, I wonder if it is rendered useless by digestion or if it could reach the blood? If so, this could be the miracle medicine!

    1. Re:Can Convert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a swimming pool?

      This idea is nothing more than a water chlorinator.

  63. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by blue+trane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But why help it along?
    by helping it along, you just spread ignorance.


    Personally it doesn't bother me because I understand both forms. I think the two spellings are what descriptive linguists call "in free variation".

  64. Use the old methods qjkx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop looking towards new stuff. The old ways work best. Old things like penecillin. Technology is dead and will never come back. We are as we are. OP.

  65. It's a Process, Stupid by Peahippo · · Score: 1

    The Googlecache (yes, I made it into one word; Googling is now a word and we can only expand our Googlese) showed me a reasonably good explanation of the process.

    From reading the ~100 comments here so far, Slashdotters seem to be missing out on the economics of the issue. It is obviously trying to promote an on-tap process for germicidal, industrial and water-purifying needs. It is probably easier and cheaper to handle salt as an input material than the bulkier, manufactured bleach and Sodium Hydroxide fluids.

    One fluid has Cl (becoming Cl2, etc.) in it, and that ought to be germicidal. The other has NaOH, and that has industrial use. Obviously, these two fluids can be recombined later to produce salty water and a whole bunch of dead microorganisms. You'd better use recondensation to filter all that crap out. With some concern for lost Cl2, there will probably also be excess Sodium, making recondensation even more necessary. Having said all that, why not just use recondensation in the first place to produce water for Human consumption? Scratch my claim of water purification.

    There are 2 problems with all of this proposal:

    1. It can hardly be protected as a trade secret or even a patent since the process is so obvious, and the details should be easy enough to work out in a research lab. A guy in a garage with disposable income can work this stuff out.

    2. The concentration of the output fluids is iffy. You'd have to get ahold of one of their Flow-through Electrolytic Module (FEMs) and see what it can actually produce. As usual, it probably depends heavily on seals, the quality of the permeable membrane, the quality of the anode and cathode, and finally the amount of current.

    --
    [also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
  66. Making milk fresh again? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2

    So, aside from oxidising bacteria, this thing can also undo the side effects caused by them? Gee, i always thought if you disinfected spoiled milk, you get cheese, or somehing close

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Making milk fresh again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and if you run cheese through this thing... I guess you get fresh milk.

      Russan science, the next step for the USPTO.

  67. bleach stupid by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Hello people, sodium hypochlorite (bleach) is made by electrolizing a salt solution. Sodium hypochlorite is one of the most potent biocides known. But you wont attract venture capital with a new process to make it!

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  68. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by rocjoe71 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii ... It is quite simply viruses

    I beg your pardon! The plural of virus is _not_ 'viruses'...

    ...It's Windows.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  69. Free Power? by eric2hill · · Score: 1, Funny

    If Water + Salt + Energy = Clean, then Energy = Clean - Water - Salt.

    Step 1: Find something clean.
    Step 2: Remove the water from it.
    Step 3: Remove the salt from it.
    Step 4: ???
    Step 5: Profit from FREE ENERGY!

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    LOADING...
    READY.
    RUN
  70. Monsanto is Evil... they bought it to kill it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monsanto is possibly one of the most evil companies on the planet, responsible for Agent Orange, Aspatame, Saccarine, and the genetically modified tomato. And worse, they invented one of the most horrific ideas in the food industry ever: Roundup.

    Monsanto developed a powerful defoliating agent, then identified a rare plant that had natural immunity. They got the gene from the plant, and tried to hack it into normal crop plants, potatoes, corn, rice, etc.

    What you end up is not the healthy crop plant - it's a plant that looks similar, but that actually has a different biochemisty. The modified crop plant is immune to the defoliating agent. This means that farmers can spray the defoliating agent on their "crop", and it will kill all the weeds, all the grass, everything. The only flora that will survive will be the "Roundup Ready" modified crop.

    Oh, and the crop is sterilized with radiation at the monsanto factory, so it cannot be used as seed crop. This guarantees a repeat purchase. It also means that your crop will cross-polinate with your organic neighbors crop, sterilizing it and forcing him to buy modified seed from Monsanto, or else spreading the mutant gene.

    This is an utterly unnecessary "innovation". In the West we have food surplusses, heavily subsidised by the Govt, the profits of this subsidised business then flows straight to Monstanto. When this is sold to developing 3rd world nations it's under a "Your first try of crack is free" marketing model.

    When people talk about Genetically Modified or GM crops, this is usually the culprit: Roundup.

    Now you know... it's a normal crop plant hacked to include a gene that makes it immune to a defoliating agent. Of course, you might not be.

    Search on Google for Monsanto and Evil... here's a taster:

    http://www.evilsite.org/evil/Monsanto/

  71. Water+Soap+Scrubbing=Clean!! by rco3 · · Score: 1

    In related news, Ernie and Bert reported today that kids who scrub with soap and water can clean off 99% of dirt AND grime.

    The Cookie Monster suggested that this wasn't exactly news, but Ernie and Bert were kinda desperate for content and figured, "Kids aren't very smart anyway, so what the hell?"

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  72. folks, look up the plural of "virus" by g4dget · · Score: 2
    I can't tell whether this is just some sort of Slashdot hangup or whether people actually think the plural of "virus" is "virii". Look it up in a dictionary. The plural of "virus" is "viruses"--no other form is acceptable in English.

    "Virii" isn't not a Latin plural of any known word. The most plausible latin nominative plural would be "viri", but some people don't buy that.

    1. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by netfist · · Score: 1
      errr.. latin has changed a hell of a lot over the ages, and most dictionaries are trying to keep to the words in existence at a certain era. For example, most smaller latin dictionaries you can buy are restricted to the words in existence at the era of the roman empire, since most of the potential buyers probable are highschool latin students, who will mostly face texts from this era. Medieval and modern latin have added or obsoleted a lot of words.

      You'll get stuck trying to translate the Carmina Burana using a dictionary that was meant for studying Julius Caesar (yes, victors write the history books, and that man wrote history books lol) or Plinius.

      Never assume free online dictionaries are complete as to all words existent in a language. Compare those available on dict(1) servers to, say, the Chambers Dictionary or the OED, and you'll see there's miles in between.

    2. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by g4dget · · Score: 2
      What does any of that have to do with the plural of "virus" in English? In English, the word is less than 100 years old, and its plural is "viruses".

      Never assume free online dictionaries are complete as to all words existent in a language.

      Where do you believe that I assumed that?

    3. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by chavo+valdez · · Score: 1

      The world has passed you by. Take a look around you. Nobody speaks English anymore, our language is in a state of constant evolution. At one time there were no languages, no words at all. We along with our language have evolved to our current state. A world full of languages, as different and as similar, as those who use them.
      Oh and by the way "Virii" isn't not a Latin plural" a double negative in any language is just wrong.
      marklar

    4. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double negatives are perfectly fine in Spanish:
      No se nada = (Literal translation) I do not know nothing (which becomes in English) I do not know anything

    5. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, take a look around yourself. People call viruses 'viri' so they can sound like intellectual snobs, implying that they can speak 'proper' English.

      Viri?? What a stupid term, 'viruses' is the more common, and obvious, and everyone is going to know what you mean. The only reason to go around saying 'viri' is to show off that you know the Latin term, but it's *not* the Latin term, it's a piece of bullshit perpetuated by pretentious script kiddies.

    6. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      virii is acceptible in the english languages just like the plural of hippopotomus can either be hippopotomii or hippopotomuses. gotta love interchangable suffixes, thats what english is all about ;)

    7. Re:folks, look up the plural of "virus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never assume free online dictionaries are complete as to all words existent in a language

      True, but the word virus is in on-line dictionaries and do list the plural as viruses.

      The OED lists the plural as viruses as well; bigger means bigger, not more accurate.

  73. Trivial details... by chazR · · Score: 5, Informative
    Bruce is right. This is snake oil. Flummery. Rubbish.Tosh. Garbage. Bollocks.


    Unfortunately, some of the things Bruce has stated are not entirely accurate. The general facts are correct. but some bits need modification.


    Hydrogen is reactive. It's only 'highly' reactive if you haven't played with really reactive stuff, like fluorine, chlorine and, er, oxygen. Potasium is fun too.. (I have only seen Cesium once. That's quite enough).

    Skin only catches fire if you get it very hot. An uncontrolled fire in a pure oxygen atmosphere is more likely to vaporize the skin; then the fat underneath will start to burn. Pure oxygen at reasonable (3atm) pressure will not cause spontaneous combustion of people. But if a fire starts in that environment, then you won't be able to put it out. The fire in Apollo 1 was not spontaneous. It was started by an electrical fault. The three astronauts suffocated in flame. Not nice.

    You can happily mix hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 ratio. You can pressurize the mixture to astonishing levels. If there's a lot less oxygen, you can breathe the mixture for days at a time (google for "deep hydrogen diving"). If you make a spark, then you'll understand just how reactive oxygen is. The lesson learnt will be very short, and terminally instructive.

    But hydrogen and oxygen are not hypergolic. Ask a rocket scientist. Even the Space Shuttle needs a match to get it going.

    Sodium is a disinfectant. In the same way that a raging forest fire is disinfectant. Kids! treating your grazed knees with sodium metal may sting! Also, your parent's lawyers will have to contend with a stupidity counter-claim.

    Oxidizing agents and reducing agents are defined by their ability to grab or release electrons.

    If you want to understand this stuff, find somebody who knows what "Gibb's free energy" is about. Then, get them to explain it to me...

    1. Re:Trivial details... by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      "Even the Space Shuttle needs a match to get it going."

      I would love to see some Professor Frink/Bill Nye type guy standing there sheepishly holding a few long matches ;)

      (Really they have several huge jets of sparks that get shoved under the three engines on the shuttle, to light the hydrogen/oxygen mix, but I expect you know that already :)

      Out of interest, what do they use to light the solid boosters? Anyone know?

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    2. Re:Trivial details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...actually, the Space shuttle's nozzles have essentially a spark plug up in the internals to light the fire. The sparks we see just before the were explained to me a few years ago by a NASA type to help burn off any h2 gas that might be down there to avoid a big explosion.

      The SRBs are ignited by Estes Solar Igniters, the same ones you can buy at your favorite hobby store.

      OK, they're really ignited by larger and more precise versions...

  74. Jesus process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA, GA, Sunday.
    The liquor stores are closed. Ahhhhhhhh.
    Noooooooo. Noooooooooo.
    When will there be a safe and easy way to convert that pure water produced by microorganisms into alcohol. Damn. I think jesus process would be a nice name. So, without much ado, russian scientists, rebyata pozhaluysta, make some little guys from my old food leftoever convert water into acohol. Me is waiting.

  75. We'll never see the benefits by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if the linked article proves to be true, we will never see widespread adoption of this low-cost treatment. Why? Because it directly threatens the large profit margins enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies the world over. Take silver, for instance. A well-known anti-microbial, it is cheap to process (effective colloidal solutions require only a few ppm of Ag), and has a devastating effect on many harmful microbes. So why aren't we all brewing up our own silver colloid and treating so-called "mycin-resistant" microbes? Because to do so would dig deeply in the billions of dollars pocketed by the big pharmaceuticals every year. Since the pharmaceuticals pretty much hold the pursestrings for the AMA, you won't see the AMA throwing in their support either.

    Proven medical treatments, such as silver, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc. (proven not by a few piddly years of research, but in most cases many decades or centuries of use) will never be embraced by the mainstream medical establishment as long as the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to dictate medical policy and control the way we are permitted to keep ourselves healthy.

    1. Re:We'll never see the benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who ever proved homeopathy? It's no more than a sort of placebo...
      Can you offer any links on double-blind tests of homeopathic methods?

    2. Re:We'll never see the benefits by zenyu · · Score: 2

      Even if the linked article proves to be true, we will never see widespread adoption of this low-cost treatment. Why? Because it directly threatens the large profit margins enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies the world over.

      Actually these things exist and you can buy them to clean a pool. My understanding is they either just invented a better way to move the fluids around inside the device so more of the water touches the Na+ and Cl-, or they are just trying to let more people know about this. The real reason this won't become widely used is that clorene is a chemical byproduct of creating fertilizer, which just happens to be a pretty good disinfectant. The most widespread adoption will do is decrease the cost of clorene and increase the cost of fertilizer slightly. They chemical companies that produce clorene could pay you to take it and still make a profit since fertilizer is such a boon to farmers.

      Not that I don't think chemical companies would resort to dirty tricks. They just don't need to for clorene to be produced. It's good for their profit margins if fertilizer is cheaper, but not essential for the industry to exist. The only way it would seriously hurt them is if they couldn't pay people to take it, and had to pay for dumping it. Presumably after combining it with something to make it neutral.

    3. Re:We'll never see the benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(proven not by a few piddly years of research, but in most cases many decades or centuries of use)"

      yeah, except those 'few piddly years of research' are science. you don't think the scientific process is valid? look at the modern world around you. science is the tool that brought this unimaginable technology. you live better than any pre-science king ever dreamed.

      if you're going to dis science, please go all the way and live in a mud hut and survive with your village homeopath.

      here's a better idea: you think homeopathy works? then use science to find out why. and if you do that, you'll probably break out a new generation of medical process, and other technologies, because you must have found a new scientifc truth.

      that's pretty damn important. if you think homeopathy works, i don't see how you could be sitting down. find out why.

      [tip: about two years ago a researcher in aviation fuels was getting results indicating that once fuel had water in it, on a molecular level the fuel would retain the shape it held even after the water molecules had been removed. [it's very dangerous to have water in av gas, so a lot of tech goes into this. can't have those engines cut out at altitude over greenland.]]

    4. Re:We'll never see the benefits by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Proven medical treatments, such as silver, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc. (proven not by a few piddly years of research, but in most cases many decades or centuries of use) will never be embraced by the mainstream medical establishment as long as the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to dictate medical policy and control the way we are permitted to keep ourselves healthy./i

      Welcome to the age of science, where everything that can be tested IS tested, and (sadly) processe that are prone to human error and difficult to reproduce are not always given the benefit of the doubt.

      Plus, when something's just starting out in the modern world--like actupuncutre--they tend to be take up by inventive quacks, which sets back their use quite a bit.

      But in any case, here in the USA you're "permitted you keep yourself healthy" any damn way you want. The AMA / your insurance company might not pay for it, but you can stop sending them money and just set yourself up a savings account. Doctors and hospitals do pay cash, and your local pracitioners of acupuncture and homeopathy probably do as well.

      (I pay upwards of 2,000 a year for health insurance, and I've gone for over five years with going to the doctor just a handful of times--and that $2,000 doesn't even cover the co-pays. If i wasn't paranoid, or if my insurance plan stopped covering what I use it for, I might just stop giving them money and keep it for something better.)

    5. Re:We'll never see the benefits by AYEq · · Score: 1

      I dont' really know if this is an exact rebuttal to your colloidal silver statement, but they do use gold for treatment of rhematoid arthritis. My brother was on gold treatments for only a little while and the effects are very visable. Like another post says you skin tone does begin to change and from the fact that they didin't want him on it for too long I assume the substance is pretty toxic. (he felt that, while it did seem to control the effects of his arthritis, that the cure felt worse than the original ailment) Not that gold and silver are equiv, but by the profit margin hypothosis they should want to prescribe gold either.

    6. Re:We'll never see the benefits by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      Scientific research, performed properly and without a profit motive, is a very valid means of scientific proof and discovery. But where is it writ in stone that scientific research is the only means of showing efficacy?

      For years the government denied that Gulf War vets were exposed to something that caused medical symptoms clearly out of sync with what would be statistically predicted. Yet anecdotal evidence clearly pointed to something they were exposed to, and it's only been very recently that the government has finally come to grips with what the non-scientific evidence has pointed to all along. Scientific research has its place in the world, but so does observational research.

      BTW, there is always water present in av fuel due to condensation inside the storage containers and absorption from the air. The reason why water is dangerous is because it doesn't combust well in 4-stroke engines. Checking for, and draining, water from your fuel tanks is something you do prior to every flight. (Well, the smart pilots do...)

    7. Re:We'll never see the benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Scientific research, performed properly and without a profit motive,"

      well of course. i didn't think i had to point out the difference. sure there is "scientific research" that's as corrupt as the pope is to christ, but that's corruption. that doesn't invalidate the scientific method.

  76. Oh, the pain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of watching 1000 sysadmins, all pathetically trying to remember basic high school chemistry. Get back to your terminals, geek boys. - TT

  77. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by Salis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You moron, Virii is the proper plural of virus. You know, the biological virus came before the computer one. Yes, it's true. So buy a dictionary and spare us your inane babble.

    --
    Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
  78. How about a real water purifier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2/3 of the planet is water yet within a few decades, there is going to be a serious water shortage.
    Shouldn't our geniuses finally get around
    to finding a way to make ocean water drinkable?

    I've always found that dying of dehydration while
    floating in the ocean for days after a shipwreck to be the ultimate irony.

    1. Re:How about a real water purifier? by FueledByRamen · · Score: 1

      Ocean water is drinkable, and it can sustain you for the rest of your life!

      Humor aside, desalinazation (i'm sure I spelled that wrong) does work - it's just expensive. Get a copy of your local sailing magazine, and look at water purification systems. These will go for years without maintenance, and require only a 12v power source.

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
  79. Armed response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A free (pretty much) solution which up to now
    had to had be bought from pharmaceutical industry?

    I expected an armed raid by law enforcement
    agencies to shut down any practitioners.
    Similar to that experienced by Oxygen therapy clinics.

    Money talks.

    There is no growth market in selling salt instead of disinfectants.

  80. not exactly super-new technology by RoosterT · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The chemical reaction:
    H2O + NaCl + e- -> Cl2 + H2 + NaOH
    is one of the most important in chemistry and has been in industrial use for well over 110 years. To say this is "not exactly super-new technology" is a HUGE understatement, since this is the same basic technology that has been chlorinating drinking water in the U.S. since 1908.

    The new (relatively speaking) technology here appears to be the miniaturization of the electrolytic cell and membrane. While this is interesting in and of itself, I cannot see how this will be the big lifesaver they are claiming. One would think that most hospitals can and do purchase disinfectants already and would not really need to generate these hazardous chemicals onsite, even in small quantities. I mean, think of the risks: Cl2 (poisonous gas), H2 (explosive gas), and NaOH (caustic soda). If a hospital does not have the resources to buy these relatively cheap chemicals, why would they have the resources (electricity to name one) to buy and operate these little machines?

    Just my $.02

  81. Makes sense . by Criton · · Score: 1

    It's your basic High School Chemistery 2 e+H2O+(Na+) Cl- --> 2NaOH +1 Cl2 both these products kill bacteria and viruses. I'm supprise no one hasn't tried it before for cleaning but it's a very old process thats how all commercail lye is produced the clorine is a valuble byproduct in the lye making process.

  82. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I can convert beer into a water and salts solution! What do I get?

    Arrested if you do it in public....

  83. Russian water by Xavier000 · · Score: 1

    Acording to the article is uses "regular tap water". As someone who has been to Russia, let me tell you, their tap water is mostly dark brown, and probably contaminated with radiation. Maybe that explains all these unusual properties.
    If you want to see a real experiment, try this with Australian water.

    1. Re:Russian water by WetCat · · Score: 1

      Dark brown? It's just iron from old pipes.

      What about radiation - if you are somewhere in Ural, may be.
      Actually Russia has one of largest reservoirs of clear fresh water - in Baikal.
      But in most large cities water is contaminated by old pipes.

  84. umm... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2

    1. Get Water
    2. Add Salt
    3. Put in energy
    4. ?
    5. Profit!

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  85. Sorry, this is WRONG by Wdi · · Score: 1
    It must have been a long time since Bruces chemistry lessons.


    The basic principle is electrolyis of a brine solution. But this is about all which is correct in above analysis.

    The post by anon coward above is basically correct. The primary solution products are sodium hydroxide and chlorine (hydrogen bubbling out), then, in an important mixing step, NaOH and Cl2 react to form sodium hypochlorite solution (not sodium chlorate, as another clueless commenter suggested). In secondary reactions, chloroxide (ClO2) and various oxygen-containing radicals (OH, etc.) are formed.


    This process is related to the industrial synthesis of sodium hydroxide by electrolysis - only in that case the mixing is carefully avoided and the chlorina gas captured for use for vinyl chloride production, etc.


    As far as chemistry as a science is concerned, there is nothing in these papers which was not already known a hundred years ago.


    P.S. Slashdot people, please allow the tag for correct formula subscripts!

  86. WOW! Thats a terrific idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the best idea I've heard in a while. I can't believe no one thought of it earlier... ...using google's cache system on slashdot... genius!!

    -Cricket

  87. Ooh, that smarts by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    Nothing like a bleached nose to let you know you're alive...

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  88. Re:WHIP IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? Devo is NEVER "Offtopic". Mongoloids!

  89. And you get this cool gray skin color! by BCoates · · Score: 2
  90. Really? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    A relative of mine installed a reverse osmosis filter in his house. This filters out everything including chlorine: the water is so clean that it squeaks. The next time he refiilled his aquarium, the fish started dying. He had to add a little chlorine and flourine to their water to revive them. You have substantial amounts of chlorine incorporated into your own body.

    It may also interest you to know that even oxygen can be poisonous. (-:

    Perhaps you should have qualified yourself with `large concentrations of chlorine...' - even if only to reduce `period pain'.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  91. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virii is the proper plural of virus.

    No, it isn't. Look it up yourself, idiot.

    Then kill yourself.

  92. See Quackwatch about colloidal silver by texchanchan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the page on colloidal silver at Quackwatch. Apparently the stuff can turn you permanently gray anywhere you're naturally light--skin, whites of the eyes, some of your insides (lungs? fat?) etc. And, the producers are big on hype, not so interested in rigorous testing or even keeping microorganisms out of their medicine bottles. See also this FDA site. As for a conspiracy preventing effective medicines from reaching the consumer, isn't it obvious that researchers, pharmaceutical company stockholders, scientists, and doctors are all ALSO consumers? They and their families are just as likely to get cancer or heart disease as you are. Think they'll suppress something that could cure their kid of leukemia so that the company can profit? Give me a break.

    1. Re:See Quackwatch about colloidal silver by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      A little ignorance goes a long way at Quackwatch...and anyways, if you read it on the 'net, it must be true.

      Turn you "permanently gray"? Like a photographic plate? Please...do a little more research. Are your eyes gray? Mine aren't...and if you were born in the US, you got a dose of silver nitrate right after you popped out at birth.

      It's people like you, closed-minded, but otherwise intelligent, who (1) believe everything they read on the web, (2) think that the government is here to help us, and (3) believe the medical industry doesn't let profit margins get in the way of keeping people healthy.

      To quote you, give me a break.

    2. Re:See Quackwatch about colloidal silver by Treylis · · Score: 1

      It's prolonged exposure. Silver does bond with things such as sweat glands in the subcutaneous layer, which is what makes argyria visible. You can't absorb silver through the skin--rings are fine--but dental fillings, anything against mucus membranes... that's completely different.

      Look up a site about Rosemary that was mentioned earlier in the thread. She specifically makes a note on the silver nitrate drops in the FAQ on the website.

  93. Thanks guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    my highschool chemisty stank. i had no clue how to interpret the article.

    this is what i like about /. . there's people who know better than you, and when a story is broadcast, having this forum lets you hear from them.

    thank goodness for the net. keep it open.

  94. This "antimicrobial" solution... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    has already existed throughout Russian history, and it sure kills any living, carbon-based entity - it's called Vodka.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  95. Picture of lady who took colloidal silver by texchanchan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This poor woman wants to tell you about colloidal silver. She took it as a child, back when it was a standard ingredient prescribed by a regular MD. So much for it being alternative. Mainstream or alternative, it made her look permanently alien and did not cure anything or prevent her getting cancer in adulthood.

  96. I hope they suppress this technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't want the third world population to explode. This like this can really upset the natural balance that exists currently in favor of western countries. If they keep doind things like this it will surely cause a popluation explotion leading to shortages and war.

  97. *pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by SofaMan · · Score: 1

    Proven medical treatments, such as silver, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc. (proven not by a few piddly years of research, but in most cases many decades or centuries of use)

    I can't speak for silver (I've not done enough reading on this particular 'treatment'), but I can say that both acupuncture and homeopathy are NOT proven treatments, nothing even close. I challenge you to produce one paper in a reputable medical journal that demonstrates the effectiveness of these treatments.

    Just because something has been done for a long time, does not mean it works. All it has to do is make people think it works, and people are pretty easy to fool. People believed in the 4 bodily humours for centuries too, and the entirety of Western medical practice was based on this premise for a long time. Eventually though, evidence-based medicine took over and properly so.

    For more info, visit The Skeptic's Dictionary.

    --

    SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

    1. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by pongo000 · · Score: 2


      I can't speak for silver (I've not done enough reading on this particular 'treatment'), but I can say that both
      acupuncture and homeopathy are NOT proven treatments, nothing even close. I challenge you to produce
      one paper in a reputable medical journal that demonstrates the effectiveness of these treatments.


      "A reputable medical journal"? Like the AMA's journal, in which doctors subsidized by pharmaceutical firms carry on "research" in the name of objective science?

      I challenge you to show me where it says the only effective demonstration of a medical treatment is to be found in medical journals. I've had friends die of cancer, horrible and lingering suffering, after being treated with cancer drugs declared "proven" by "reputable medical journals"...evidence-based medicine isn't all that it's cracked up to be. You've obviously been duped into believing anything the for-profit medical industry has to say about medicine.

    2. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by SofaMan · · Score: 1

      "A reputable medical journal"? Like the AMA's journal, in which doctors subsidized by pharmaceutical firms carry on "research" in the name of objective science?

      Of course, no-one who gets paid to do something can possibly be honest.

      Besides, that's why research is published; so it can be assessed and tested by others in the field, your methodology challenged, your experiments questioned. If you've been rigorous, you'll be validated. If you've been bodgy, and fudged the results for profit, odds are pretty good you'll be found out fairly sharpish. I've yet to see any rigorous testing from homeopaths and the like that hasn't been shot down in flames in very short order...

      I challenge you to show me where it says the only effective demonstration of a medical treatment is to be found in medical journals.

      The accepted method of providing evidence for your proposals is to publish them in a widely-read journal, so as many people as possible can assess your results, and possibly repeat your experients. Only then can the effectiveness of a treatment be rigorously tested. As I pointed out in my earleir post; just because something has been done for a long time does not mean it works. This is argumentum ad antiquitatem, and is a logical fallacy.

      I notice that you still didn't provide me with any studies (from a medical journal, or other scientific journal) proving your point.

      I've had friends die of cancer, horrible and lingering suffering, after being treated with cancer drugs declared "proven" by "reputable medical journals"...evidence-based medicine isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

      News Flash - people sometimes die, even when mainstream medicine has done all it can. I think this is actually one of the strengths of mainstream medicine; if it's done all it can do, it will usually tell you so. Many people don't like this of course; they'd rather have false hope, and consequently fall for quack treatments in a desperate hope to stave off the inevitable. And I don't see a lot of homeopaths working for free...

      You've obviously been duped into believing anything the for-profit medical industry has to say about medicine.

      *sigh* Those black helicopters must be flying pretty low thesedays. This is a such a textbook, paranoid-conspiracy-theory response: "If you don't agree with me, then you've clearly been brainwashed by The Man". If you want to make an argument, then make one, but spare me the X-Files rhetoric...

      I'm very willing to accept that 'alternative' therapies work, but advocates need to do the work, and prove their case. If they worked as well as you claim you do, then shouldn't they be mainstream therapies by now anyway?

      --

      SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

    3. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2
      I challenge you to produce one paper in a reputable medical journal that demonstrates the effectiveness of these treatments.


      Effective for what? Acupuncture has been tested and found effective for controlling pain;

      Ulett GA. Acupuncture update 1984. Southern Medical Journal 78:233234, 1985.

      Or do you think that's not "mainstream" enough to count?

      IIRC, The skeptical inquirer did some research on it,
      and also found that it was more effective than a placebo at pain control.
      But that differing placement of the needles has no effect on pain reduction.
      (Traditional acupunture claims that the placement of the needles matters.)
      Alas, S.I.'s trial size was too small to be statistically significant.

      -- this is not a .sig
    4. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by SofaMan · · Score: 1

      I've read reviews of this study, and acknowledge that there has been shown that acupuncture has some very limited and short term effect on pain relief, for a limited number of people. Probably for the same reason that people often feel great when they come out of a tattoo parlour; the pain causess the body to flush with endorphins. Hardly warrants calling it a mainstream way of treating pain, especially when there are so many more effective methods.

      To my mind though, showing that acupuncture has a very limited effect on pain relief does not demonstrate it's efficacy as a treatment for disease, and it is disingenuous to claim it does. There is no evidence to support the claim that acupuncture has any special effect on healing.

      --

      SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

    5. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by pongo000 · · Score: 2


      I notice that you still didn't provide me with any studies (from a medical journal, or other scientific journal) proving your point.


      I don't know of any scientific double-blind studies, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to be found. Again, this whole issue hinges on whether or not anecdotal evidence in and of itself is proof that something works. You claim it isn't; I claim it is. It's a circular argument neither of us will win.


      I'm very willing to accept that 'alternative' therapies work, but advocates need to do the work, and prove their case. If they worked as well as you claim you do, then shouldn't they be mainstream therapies by now anyway?


      I don't claim anything I suggested works "well"; I simply brought up the point that there exist many alternatives to accepted medical practices which may work based upon other than scientific evidence. Personally, I don't use silver, because I don't know how much it would take to start exhibiting symptoms of arygria (skin discoloration). But the anti-microbial effects are well-known (it was commonly used as an antibiotic in the early 20th century), and if there are people out there who claim to have cured themselves with silver, who am I or anyone else to disagree with them?

      As far as being mainstream: What pharmaceutical company is going to spend millions to conduct double-blind research into a substance like silver that will bring them no royalties, no patent fees, and very little profit?

    6. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by SofaMan · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any scientific double-blind studies, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to be found. Again, this whole issue hinges on whether or not anecdotal evidence in and of itself is proof that something works. You claim it isn't; I claim it is. It's a circular argument neither of us will win.

      I don't know about that. Plenty of people believe wholeheartedly that praying to their God of choice has cured them of disease, and will testify to that fact, even when those people come from different and mutually incompatible faiths. Since they cannot all be right, it does throw some doubt on the validity of their own interpretations of their personal experiences. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is very very common, and since most people don't know what it is, can't check themselves for when they're doing it.

      This is why science accepts anecdotal evidence only as giving a potential direction to look in for conducting proper research, but is otherwise given very little weight.

      --

      SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

    7. Re:*pffpf* Proven treatments indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah.
      All those studies relly showed how dangerous phen-phen was and preventedit from coming to market.

  98. and you believe this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from a country famous for a collapsed economy, lost nuclear weapons (and all kinds of other radioactive crap that became "misplaced") and child porn. Uggh.

    At least they make good vodka.

  99. That scares the hell out of me by UberQwerty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Using electricity, it splits table salt (NaCl) into Na+ and Cl- ions, and you get chlorinated, swimming pool water. And the Na+ is recycled by recombining with Cl- and all you ever add is salt

    A while ago I read Neal Stephenson's Zodiac, which mentions chlorene. This post rang a bell, so I dug it up and pawed through it to find what it had to say. The book only tells you about the situation in bits and pieces, so this really took some searching:

    Ionic chlorene's easy to get. It's in seawater. If you want to manufacture a whole catalog of industrial chemicals, you have to convert ionic chlorine into the covalent variety. You do that by subtracting an electron.
    And it's just about that simple. You take a tank of seawater and you put a couple of bare wires into it. You hook up a source of electrical power up between the wires, and current - a stream of electrons - flows through the water. The molecules get rearranged. The ionic chlorine turns into the covalent kind, which is what you want. The sodium joins up with fractured water molecules to form sodium hydroxide. Or lye and alkali, depending on how educated you are. ...

    If you're an engineer, and you're not very bright, it's easy to love polychlorinated biphenyls. They are cheap, stable, and easy to make and they take heat very well. That's why they end up in heat exchangers and electrical transformers. It's how they got into that machine in Japan and, when the pipes started to leak, it's how they got into a lot of rice oil.
    Unfortunately, rice oil is for human consumption, and as soon as humans enter the equation, PCBs no longer look very good. The problem with humans is that they have a lot of fat in their bodies, and PCBs have this vicious affinity for fat. They dissolve themselves in human fat cells and they never leave. They are studded with loose chlorine atoms that know how to break up chromosomes. So when that heat exchanger started leaking, the city of Kusho, Japan started to look like the site of a Biblical plague. Newborn babies came out undersized and dark brown. People started to waste away. They developed a fairly disgusting skin rash called chloracne and felt very sick. ...

    A benzene ring is a six-pack of carbon atoms. The six-pack is held together. It's stable. It's strong. It takes some effort to pull one of the atoms off. There are a couple different kinds. If you put two six-packs together, you have a twelve-pack. THe six-packs are phenyls, a twelve-pack is a biphenyl. If the six-packs are benzenes, it's a dibenzodioxin, because the connection between the six-packs is made by using a couple of oxygen atoms. But the toxic part of polychlorinated dibenzodioxin (PCDDs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is the chlorine.
    The biphenyl or dibenzodioxin structure dissolves easily in fat. Once it gets into your body fat, it never leaves.
    The second bad thing is, the chlorine there is in covalent form; it's got the normal number of electrons, whereas the chlorine in (safe) table salt is in ionic form. It's got an extra electron. The difference is that covalent chlorine is more reactive; it has these big electron clouds that can f*** up your chromosomes. And it slips right through your cell membranes. Ionic chlorine ddoesn't - the cell membranes are made to stop it.


    In Stephenson's book, this guy Sangamon Taylor runs around trying to take down corporations that electrocute seawater to create PCBs, use the PCBs as coolant, then dump them into Boston harbor. Stephenson makes it seem like the root of all evil is zapping salt water, because it produces organic chlorine. So I would be very, very careful about intentionally electrocuting salt water and then swimming in it.

    It seems like there must be something more to this if, as you said, "This Old House" recommended the process. Maybe it works differently with plain salt water as opposed to sea water. Or something. Scares the crap out of me, though. Maybe someone smarter can tell me what I'm talking about?

    --


    PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
  100. Re: Homeopathic Meds by FFFish · · Score: 2

    For those who truly believe in homeopathic medicines, I strongly recommend a homeopathic dose of oxygen, for about five minutes. It'll permanently cure you of everything that could ail you for the rest of your (short) life.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  101. It works for a simple reason... by borgheron · · Score: 1

    Lysis. The cells of bacteria are filled with mostly water (as are our cells). When put into a solution which is highly saline the cells burst since the water inside the cells has a lower content of saline, so the cells expand and pop.

    As for virii, I'm sure it doesn't work for viruses. Some virii are fragile, however.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    1. Re:It works for a simple reason... by Electric+Monk · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't osmosis work the other way? ie. High salt content water outside draws water out of the cell causing it to shrivel. Maybe the high salt concentration would cause salt to diffuse into the cell. Giving rise to a salty bacterium... maybe you could combine this with quorn to produce a salty snack. Or is that a fungus? Biltong for vegetarians...

    2. Re:It works for a simple reason... by borgheron · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Yes. Burst or shrivel, however, the result is the same. Death of the bacteria.

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  102. This is NOT true! by PlatinumMac · · Score: 2, Informative

    When you have a cold, you should NOT take antibiotics to help your immune system fight off oppurtunistic bacteria. Unnecessary antibiotics will just kill off your symbiotic bacteria (the ones which are HELPing your immune system by competing with other germs) and increase the numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your system (endangering you and all the people around you).

  103. Antiseptics != antibiotics by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

    I've heard this argument dozens of times from "experts" in the media, and it makes no sense. No bacteria becomes resistant to antiseptics. Ever. There is no such thing as a bacteria that is resistant to chlorine. Antibiotics interfere with the metabolism of bacteria, sometimes a specific system controlled by a single gene. Organisms lacking the gene are resistant and survive. Antiseptics and disinfectants are totally different. They use brute force techniques like oxidation or affecting membrane permeability. There is no such thing as resistance to antiseptics.

    1. Re:Antiseptics != antibiotics by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, but the post mentioned products advertised as antibacterial, ie, not antiseptics (chlorine, isopropanol, etc.) but antibacterials (chlorhexidine, triclosan, etc.) People generally don't wash their hands with alcohol.

      This looks like a good article on the subject: http://www.healthsci.tufts.edu/apua/Pubs/Articles/ EID6_01.pdf

      And they can develop some resistance even to antiseptics, by pumping the substance out or degrading it. Oxygen would make a good antiseptic if it weren't for the fact that aerobic organisms (ie, most organisms) have enzymes to break down reactive forms of it.

    2. Re:Antiseptics != antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there is such thing as resistance to antiseptics. A regular bactaria could be killed by X molecules of ozone, while a resistant strain of same bactaria might require 2X molecules to die, for example.

      Actually I believe it's an actual probelm in hospitals, to be able to completely clean rooms etc so that no bacteria survive, because a bacteria spore inside a dust grain for example is pretty well protected from everything, and to even get to it, let alone kill it off requires some pretty strong stuff.

    3. Re:Antiseptics != antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.

      Water-born pathogens such as girardia are not bacteria. According to what I learned on my google search, girardia is a protozoan which forms cysts that are tolerant of adverse environmental conditions. Bleach in water will not destroy the cysts, and that is why you can get sick from girardia when drinking stream water. I read somewhere that iodine does destroy the cysts. Of course, iodine tastes awful, and may not be good for you to drink too much of.

      I have a friend who went to India and came back with "amoebic dysentery," whatever that is. Apparently, amoebas are very hard to kill off as well. Anything that kills the amoeba is likely to make you quite sick in the process.

      AC
      --

  104. Re:Yep: scarydildos.com by matrix29 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    scarydidos

    Yes, you too can hawk your crap on Slashdot. For only no money down your wares can be placed before the eyes of millions of people. Don't have a worthwhile product to offer? Then just shill your crap on Slashdot.

    MODERATE THE PARENT POST AS "TROLL"!

    --
    "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
  105. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by wheany · · Score: 1
  106. Safe and effective by Animats · · Score: 2
    The FDA requires that drugs be "safe and effective". "Effective" means "in a double-blind test, where neither doctor nor patient knows who got the placebo, significantly more people on the drug being tested got better". The "alternative medicine" community has fought being subjected to the "effective" test every step of the way.

    In fact, most new drugs don't pass the "effective" test. Most are rejects. This is good; progress comes from surviving testing. Once something has been demonstrated to work at all, there's the possibility of figuring how to make it work better. Without testing, nothing gets beyond the "sort of works, maybe" stage.

    The FDA tolerates homeopathic drugs for "self-limiting conditions", i.e. things on the threshold of hypochondria, but not for anything serious. It's worth noting that all the "alternative therapies" for AIDS proposed by various activists, none are still taken seriously.

    There has been, famously, at least one major attempt by the drug industry to stop a new treatment that threatened profits. This was the discovery that ulcers are a bacterial disease that can be cured with antibiotics. Drug companies were making billions selling people Tagamet and such for years, when a two-week course of antibiotics usually knocks the disease out permanently. This was discovered in 1982, but it took a decade to convince people. The Center for Disease Control made a major effort to get the word out to doctors, too many of whom get their drug info from drug company sales reps. This worked, and finally, Tagamet has been relegated to an over-the-counter medication for indigestion. That's an unusual case, but it's real.

  107. Don't any of you own a boat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This process is used in swimming pools and boats. It has been for years and is nothing new.

    http://www.raritaneng.com/Products/WasteTreatmen t/ LectraSanMC/lectrasanmc.html

  108. Not difficult, you can do this it home! by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2


    Run a couple of volts through salt water, the
    Na+ ions go to the cathode, the Cl- ions go the
    anode and discharged to Cl which disolves to
    form Sodium Hypochlorite this is the main
    component of household bleach.

    2Na+ + 2H20 + 2e- -> 2NaOH + H2
    2Cl- -> Cl2 + 2e-

    Cl2 + H20 = HCl + HCl0
    HClO + NaOH -> NaClO + H20

    Similar reaction will happen with any other
    disolved salts in the water.

  109. factory farming Re:Killing bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have major problems in the medical world, because anti-biotics have been regularly prescribed for common colds since antibiotics have existed.

    that's the smaller part of it. the larger part of it is all the antibiotics used in animal culture (factory farming). all you meat eaters are directly responsible for the resistant strains!!!

  110. fairy tail land by austad · · Score: 2

    Why do all the bullshit stories always come out of russia? Wasn't there some crazy story about a desktop supercomputer also that was developed in russia?

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  111. Better headline... by kentyman · · Score: 0

    Water + Salt = Clean Energy

    --
    You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
  112. livestock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To compound the problem in the western world we think its perfectly ok to feed our livestock constant doses of antibiotics

    you hit the nail on the head here!!! can't overemphasize this point.

    dunno who thinks it is a good idea, probably the antibiotic manufacturers certainly. yet another example of how our food is being poisoned by big business.

  113. Criticising and debunking by smoondog · · Score: 2

    Skeptics should read CSICOP's guide to critising before commenting. Being rude, and casually passing off claims as foolish does not make a good argument.

    -Sean

  114. Some math... by CreatorOfSmallTruths · · Score: 1

    This might sound foolish, but if:
    Water + Salt + Energy = Clean

    can we also say that :
    Clean - Water - Salt = Energy

    Any math+chemist persons(I am not either) care to comment ?

  115. perhaps a bit too strong by g4dget · · Score: 2
    Colloidal silver won't cure AIDS or a lot of other diseases, and I wouldn't want to endorse the mail order trade in it. But it's important to remember that silver and silver compounds were, and still are, used for treating or preventing some infections and except for occasional skin discoloration seem quite safe. Conceivably, they might have some other uses if someone invested the money to do the research.

    The real reason people don't look at such medicines is not a conspiracy but lack of economic incentive: unpatentable medicines are of little economic interest to drug companies. That's why we get dozens of useless cold treatments and no drugs for many other diseases.

  116. Salt water a good curative, film at eleven by dacarr · · Score: 1
    Look, people, don't you remember when your mom told you to gargle salt water for that sore throat? That, and sea water is known to expedite healing of cuts you get on the surface. (To wit, you will find that exposure to this when you get, say, a coral scrape will make the problem worse.)

    Point: salt water is a curative your mom used to give you. It's not new. Get with it.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  117. Will this work on the long term? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

    Bacteria can mutate, and so can viruses. Some bacteria have already developed immunity to antibiotic. If we use this solution on a large scale, won't bateria and viruses develop immunity after a while?

  118. Next week on Slashdot by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    Researchers at the University of Moscow released a surprising new study Friday afternoon indicating that simple tap water and sugar could be converted into a microbial growth solution. "Works for anything. Virii, bacteria, cysts." says the head of Russian Advanced Science.

  119. Spelling police by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

    It's "bear" with me, not "bare". I'd rather not take my clothes off with you...

    --
    And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
  120. please keep my water include virii !! by Quazion · · Score: 2

    It makes me more resistant..

  121. Wait, wait ... you're mixing stuff up by Apogee · · Score: 1

    Okay, as much as I like Stephenson's books, I guess it's always at least a little dangerous to gleam scientific knowledge from fiction books.

    Actually, you are quoting things from Stephenson that are about two very different processes. The first one is the electrolysis of salt water, by which you can gain elementary (non-ionic) chlorine. That is certainly true.

    The next part then discusses certain applications of this clorine gas, and one of them for sure is the generation of halogenated aromatic compounds, as for instance PCB. However, while this compound really is a mean bitch, toxic and gets stored in your fat tissues, per se it has not a lot to do with clorine, only that this is one of the basic chemicals needed to make it.

    I hope that clarified that point.

    IANAChemist, really, anyhow...

  122. OT etymology by j3z_ · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, the Latin-second-declension-singular-sounding word, virus , is in fact (probably) second declension neuter, and what's more has no [authentic Latin] plural... the correct word is viruses!

    Amazing how those memes spread...

    1. Re:OT etymology by PigleT · · Score: 1

      Latin doesn't come into it. We're speaking English here, so the plural is "viruses".

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  123. NAOH + lard = by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Soap.

    You could have a bubble bath/pool.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  124. Re:Trivial details... (Rockets!) by Oggust · · Score: 1
    Actually the sparks under the engines are just there to burn off excess hydrogen that exits the cone before ignition (the engines have a fuel lead, to prevent hard starts). The engines have their own ignition systems built in, and those are effectivley spark plugs.

    Now, it's super important that the SRBs (solid boosters) are lit up at the same time. They're far away from the center, and and being solid, they can't be throttled. If just one of them were to light, that would be another shuttle lost, right there.

    The SRBs are ignited by a smaller (though still pretty big) solid motor in the top of the SRB that sends a flame down the grains to ignite the whole burning surface at once. That smaller motor gets lit by what's essentially an e-match with BKNO on it.

    /August.

    --
    "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
  125. Re:Trivial details... (Rockets!) by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

    Bastards, they never mentioned about the internal ignition systems when I took the Kennedy tour! ;)

    Interesting about the SRB lighting from the top down - I was trying to work out how it could light from the bottom and provide a constant flow rate. I guess NASA thought about it a lot more than I have ;)

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
  126. I learned this one from my Grandmother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure she did not invent the idea. Rather, I expect it goes back to antiquity.

  127. 1 L of stomach acid by Conspir8or · · Score: 1
    (they know how long it takes your body to make 1 liter of stomach acid...I don't)

    About half the length of any given work meeting.

  128. Nasty side effects. by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

    Any disinfectant that kills all bacteria it encounters is probably not safe for human consumption, because of all of those wonderful digestive bacteria that live in the intestines and provide their host with indispensible aid in digesting food. I don't remember exactly what happens if they're killed, but suffice it to say, it's bad.

    --

    The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  129. NaCL +H20 +electricity= antimicrobial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many old solution for killing microbes
    with salt and water

    salted salmon etc,
    salt for lettces for killing parasites etc.
    clorine comes from salt and water

    also sodium hidroxide used long time ago

    aslo superheated water nowdays with salt or hidroxide are standar procedures.

    Being a researcher in need of an articles , can makes a very ugly and useless highly credted scientific articles.

  130. Re:Trivial details... (Rockets!) by Zarquon · · Score: 2
    Now, it's super important that the SRBs (solid boosters) are lit up at the same time. They're far away from the center, and and being solid, they can't be throttled. If just one of them were to light, that would be another shuttle lost, right there.


    Of course.. and everyone knows that an annoying NASA robot can start just one to force a launch.
    --
    "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
  131. It was a joke, moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really that stupid? Can you really read three paragraphs of gibberish about knives/wolverines/cannibalism, and mistake it for a sincere attempt to sell dildos? Holy mother of God! I haven't seen a brain that small in years, shithead.

    By the way, your cock's an inch long. Get a fucking dildo already.

    Idiot...

  132. Mod parent up by UberQwerty · · Score: 1

    At the time of this post, I have score:3 interesting for asking a question, and he has score:1 for answering it.

    --


    PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
  133. A few facts and a request by texchanchan · · Score: 2

    1. You turn gray from getting it into your system, not applying it to the outside, as in the case of newborns or Civil War spies. How much it takes to turn YOU gray will be different from others. See Ms. Jacobs's story. This picture is particularly telling--as is the fact that Ms. Jacobs developed breast cancer despite being visibly loaded with silver.

    2. The self-promoting, profit-oriented pages trying to sell this dangerous heavy metal as a "supplement" far outnumber the objective pages describing its actual effects. Therefore, if I believed everything I read on the web, I would agree with you on this subject. Use some logic.

    3. QW says medicines can be divided into two categories only: works and doesn't work. "Alternative", "mainstream," "profitable", "non-patentable" are all side issues.

    4. The QW writer points out that there's a huge trade in such things as Vitamin C despite their not being patentable. So much for that issue.

    5. QW's skepticism sometimes goes overboard. Although I wish they would be a bit more moderate, in general a model of reality will be more accurate if you practice skepticism rather than gullibility.

    6. Show me fully-documented, double-blind, replicated studies that unambiguously support your claims, and I will accept your claims.

    Please post the URL of the studies here so that we all can learn about them.

    7. Do the sellers of colloidal silver have your welfare in mind any more than other pharmaceutical companies? Why should they? They're in business. The profit motive is a powerful corrupter on every level. Alternative medicine companies have no better a record, and often worse, than the mainstream producers.

  134. would like to see more on this... by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

    It does look too good to be true. That's precisely why I look forward to more coverage of this, and other scientists duplicating the process to see where it leads. I believe contaminated drinking water is one of the top three human health problems on the planet.

  135. Boaters have been using this technology for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raritan has an onboard waste treatment system which uses very similar technology called LectraSan. It turns waste liquid from a holding tank into beniegn sludge. LectraSan has been around for years

  136. Re:What the fuck is 'virii' ? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

    The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why: http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

    That paper makes a good case, and is correct, but don't forget that language is a dynamic thing, and changes over the years. Compare Old English and Middle English to Modern English. Compare American, British and Australian Englishes, as well.

    Virii (which I prefer based on visual aesthetics, though it isn't consistent with fungi) or viri is in common use now, and I suspect the etymologists will pick that up fairly soon.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  137. Bathtub chemistry set by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Used to take the carbon rods out of old batteries and run a rectified power supply through them.

    Salt water gave a good sinus-stimulating snort of chlorine on one electrode -- it probably gave NaOH on the other electrode.

    I believe that using bicarb as an electrolyte gave you H2 and O2. I tried to get enough H2 into a balloon to make an explosion (the whole reason for bathtub chemistry was making something that burned or some kind of firework, subject to the restrictions of what we could use. Never worked -- H2 is probably too diffusive a gas to collect that way. The standard way to generate H2 quickly enough to have enough to burn was to dump zinc into sulferic acid, but sulferic acid was not among the things we were allowed to have.

    I wanted to get pure Na by electrolysis -- closest I came was I was going to fuse NaCl on an outdoor charcoal fire, but never got very far with that.

  138. Gallon of Clorox for a buck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can go to the supermarket and buy a gallon of 5% sodium hypochlorite solution (a bottle of Clorix) for about a dollar. Seems much more convenient than going thru all that hassle and machinery to get the same end result.

  139. Easier way to do this... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen Peroxide (H2 O2)

    Use oxygen bleach instead of chlorine, cheaper than some complex electrolosis. Just put it on the owie.

    Get's rid of bacteria in your mouth (tastes bad though), cleans out cuts and abrasions, disolves warts (multiple applications needed consistently over time.) and also cures hoof and mouth disease for cattle.

    http://www.all-organic-food.com/beef3.htm

    Oxygen cleaning and treatment (from what I have heard) has been used in Europe for some time now...

    -v

  140. What the fuck is a "coller"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it maybe something you wrap around a moron's neck to strangle him with? Sounds good to me...

  141. ** SWIMMING POOL SALT CHLORINATORS ** by hopscotch · · Score: 2, Informative
    Yes, it *really* works to sanitize water and is in use today for swimming pools.

    The solution was pioneered for swimming pools during the 60's in Australia.

    I learned about saline chlorine generators when researching pool chemistry to find a solution for our daughter's special needs. See Therapy Pools links.

    An excellent overview of alternate water purification systems is 'Alternate Systems' by Neil Lowery.

    Modern controls and polarity reversing/self cleaning have improved the chlorinators since the 60's. The convenience of computer automated electronic chemistry ORP/pH control is nice. :-)

    I now believe that every pool owner should seriously consider saline chlorine generator for their pool. Most people cannot taste any salt at 2800-3500PPM. For more consumer info, follow the product links below:

    Autopilot Pool Pilot Systems

    Clear Tech Automation AutoClear

    Clormatic

    Goldline Controls AquaRite

    Monarch Pool Systems {various brands}

    Poolpower

    TMI Salt Pure {excellent information, solution oriented}

    Zodiac Clearwater
    There is likely more info here than anyone asked for... but our daughters needs motived some serious research.

    It's amazing what one can learn by surfing. --Beachcomber

  142. antibacterial agents for AIDS & purifying wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical Discoveries (otc:MLSC) uses this technology to destroy fungi, bacteria and viruses

    RSCECAT is a technology transfer company, with US marketing rights to similar Russian technology. www.rscecat.com on the Way Back Machine

  143. Scientific Verification by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

    I have verified the results of this report. I added 1 US Gallon of H2O with 1 cup NaCl, and poured it into the case of my computer while running MS Outlook Express. Within 3 seconds, I stopped receiving the Klez virus. I've been told I now need a solution to put the magic smoke back into the various components of my motherboard and power supply that caught on fire, probably as a result of their contamination with computer viruses.

  144. Commie plot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

    I can't believe no one else saw through this thinly disguised Commie plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

  145. Commie plot! by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

    It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
    I can't believe no one else saw through this thinly disguised plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

  146. Biogard Pool systems uses this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biogard has a new system for keeping pools disenfected that does this same thing.