Slashdot Mirror


Just Add, Umm, Water

An anonymous reader writes "The US military has devised a way to ensure its troops in battle need never go hungry - with dried food that can be rehydrated using dirty water or urine. Bleh, but lightweight bleh." The original New Scientist story is available too.

496 comments

  1. Weird by Real+Troll+Talk · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Engineer Ed Beaudry was quoted by the New Scientist as saying that the body would not find using urine to rehydrate food toxic in the short term, but in the long term it would cause kidney damage."

    I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food".

    --

    If you liked my post,
    1. Re:Weird by medelliadegray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i love the fact that our govt expects soldiers to use military items which are known to have significant health risks in the near and long term. its one thing to put our soldiers into situations where the enemy may cause harm to the soldiers, but when our government(military) promotes (mandates) the use of items, equipment, chemicals, etc which are known to cause long term harm to the soldiers, i think we have to question the morals of those who are in charge of this country. and no i am not referring to just these potentially new rations--the military has a chronic record of exposing out troops to known dangers.

      --
      Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
    2. Re:Weird by Wog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the urine thing is over-emphasized by the press. The idea with such packages is that you can scoop up swamp water if you want. Urine could be used in an absolutely dire emergency, and if I was stranded somewhere and the only fluids I have are the last few ounces in my canteen and my urine... heck yeah, *zip.*

      Then again, if the water situation is really that desperate, wouldn't eating hinder your chances of survival, not help them?

      How much damage would there be, anyway? Any more than, say, regularly drinking whiskey?

      But the whole thing brings to mind a guy I know who sold water filters in the early 90's. He'd demonstrate their effectiveness by pouring coffee through them. Not that anyone would *want to*, but they could. Same deal here.

    3. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guess what, starvation causes long and short term health problems too.

    4. Re:Weird by PierceLabs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even in the short term I think I would have some issues asking someone to pee on my food so I could eat it.

    5. Re:Weird by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's right in the quote you used: "...in the long term it would cause kidney damage." If you're in a situation long enough that you're going to have to pee in a food pouch enough times to be considered long term and thus toxic, you're in a lot more trouble because by that time you've run out of any water source other than the kind you can make.

      Given the current situation most deployed soldiers face- roadside bombs, bullets, kidnappings with beheadings, and the other ways they can be stabbed, shot and blown up, how deadly do you think one or two or even three pissings is going to be? The company that made the membranes said not to use urine unless you have to. But to read your post, it's like that is the standing order on these things: Piss in them if you want to eat. And it's not so.

      It's all good in a hypothetical: "I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food"." Seriously? You've got the balls to steal food from some guy who's only goal is to kill you, but you can't suck it up as a LAST RESORT to piss in a pouch? Please. If it came down to being that dire of a situation, just eat the food and let it "rehydrate" in your stomach.

      Good luck surviving any kind of situation which might cause you to step outside the norm.

      --
      R(k)
    6. Re:Weird by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      in the long term it would cause kidney damage.

      Who would have thought that your kidneys couldn't handle a feedback loop.

    7. Re:Weird by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and they also try to keep them alive. Consider this:

      "The Chinese had thrown thousands of men against it, but the company held like a rock. The unit was cut off from its battalion, isolated deep in enemy territory; battered and bruised it held on, and when ammo and food ran out, the troupers lived off the land and used captured weapons. They built a barrier wall of tree branches, like the men at Valley Forge; the Chinamen came and the Chinamen went and the valient unit did not give an inch, until finally a U.S. tank force broke through and extricated it."

      That was Lt. Doug Anderson's company in Korea. He was put up for the Medal of Honor, but didn't get it. If you think the men in that battle preferred eating grass to a ration that becomes edible with muddy water or urine, you should read a little military history.

      Question the morals of those in charge, but thank every scientist who gives the grunts a way to get a meal better than "centipedes in chili sauce" when things go pear-shaped.

      (the quote was from "About Face" by Lt Col Hackworth.)

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

      Reminds me of the guy who cut his arm off with a pocket knife because he was trapped under a boulder. Cut it off or starve to death.

    9. Re:Weird by Dizzle · · Score: 2, Funny

      That reminds me of that old joke, "Dehydrated water, just add coffee."

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    10. Re:Weird by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food"

      I'd rather eat whatever isn't lilikely to be poisoned.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:Weird by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      i love the fact that our govt expects soldiers to use military items which are known to have significant health risks in the near and long term

      they train them to use vehicles and weapons to engage and kill the enemy, and also to take fire and be killed. once you're over that, eating your own piss is a walk in the park.

    12. Re:Weird by mcheu · · Score: 1

      There have been a great many portable survivalist filtration devices advertised in camping and hunting magazines in the 80s. The biggest hurdle is that the devices can't handle biologicals (so the source resevoir has to be treated with chlorine pills). They were meant to allow you to make use of local natural water sources, but many of the advertisements claimed that the filters systems could produce 99% pure water from urine. I would imagine that such a much more advanced filtration device was integrated into the pack. Otherwise, how would that be different from taking a leak into a regular MRE?

    13. Re:Weird by TheTrueGStu · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah... food is the only cure for starvation/hunger... well, that and suicide

    14. Re:Weird by Onan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I'm not really disputing that governments put their troops in danger in many ways, I think you may be misinterpreting the article a bit.

      The story is not asserting that eating pissy chicken once will cause health problems over the long term. It's saying that eating pissy chicken over the long term will cause health problems. Resorting to it a few times when it's the only alternative to starvation will not have any long term consequences.

    15. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you're in a military situation where you are so chronically short of supplies that you are in any danger of starvation, you have worse problems than starvation.

      As the US military will discover in Iraq in due time.

      The combat situations today do not devolve into long-term sieges like Massada. Starvation is not an issue.

      OTOH, it is unlikely that anybody is going to have to pee on their MRE to use it when, as the article states, dirty water is quite adequate. And as I said, nobody is going to have to worry about long-term kidney damage because they aren't going to be doing this sort of thing for more than a few days, if that, before they either get killed by the enemy or are relieved.

      LRRP, Rangers, Special Forces and SEALS are the only people likely to have to be in situations where the only access is to unclean water or no water. And again, this is unlikely to last more than a few days until their missions are accomplished or they're dead.

      Now, in Iraq, where our patriotic morons are bunkered down in bases surrounded by an entire nation of enemies, when the mass national resistance starts in the next 6-12 months, they are going to find themselves without water, food, fuel, or ammo. But again, they are going to be evacuating the country hanging from helicopter rails rather than peeing on MREs.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    16. Re:Weird by Veridium · · Score: 1

      FYI: Those products have gotten alot better. They now do biologicals including viruses. They typically go for between 40 and 50 bucks for a simple water bottle. You just fill it up with water and drink. I haven't tried it with urine yet, as the more contaminated the water, the shorter the filter life, but it has worked great with water that didn't look very appetizing.

      http://www.sportmart.com/product/index.jsp?product Id=1747445&cp=713364.1341396.1807556&parentPage=fa mily

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    17. Re:Weird by cbriscoe · · Score: 0

      This would be great for backpacking. I would not have to bring my stove with me. Just take a leak in the bag, seal it for 5 minutes and then chow down. Should even still be warm. My favorite is beef stew. Yummmm.

    18. Re:Weird by LS · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if you've ever eaten insects or other creepy crawlies, but they are actually quite tasty!

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    19. Re:Weird by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Yes, because all natives eat poisoned food ...

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    20. Re:Weird by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Yes, because all natives eat poisoned food ..."

      It's pretty obvious he meant that the food would be poisoned before they landed on soldiers' plates. Given the problems the US Army has had in Iraq, that is doubly so.

    21. Re:Weird by Horia · · Score: 1

      Seems noone observed that some people use urine as a natual cure. There is even a World Conference of Urine Therapy in Germany. Urine therapy is present in many folk medicines all around the world. Indians even have an ancient urine therapy manual called Damar Tantra.

      So now the US Army talks about using urine to hidrate MREs, so it can't be that bad as NewScientist says.

      I just think may people can't image someone drinking his own urine so they tend to find some kind of proof to reenforce their point of view to others.

    22. Re:Weird by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 1

      Didn't his great-nephew John Percival Hackworth invent those cool mediatronic chopsticks? Small world.

    23. Re:Weird by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Actually, the comparison between urine and swamp water is inappropriate. Urine is relatively sterile compared to swamp water - yes, it contains waste chemicals (nasty, smelly chemicals), but very little bacteria. The reason it causes kidney damage (urine) is because you are reintroducing the same chemicals into your body that your kidneys are filtering out, albeit at a higher concentration.

      And water is far more important than food. A soldier in the field without water will die in a matter of hours, but they can easily go for a day or more without food.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    24. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah New Scientist makes up everything it prints.

      Folk medicines must be genuine.

    25. Re:Weird by owlstead · · Score: 1

      The filter at home does just the opposite thing. I pour water through it and I get coffee. Weird indeed.

    26. Re:Weird by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're overstating it. You can go without water for a few days, you can go without food for a few weeks (provided you have water!).

      Otherwise people would be dying of dehydration in their sleep :-)

    27. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of damage that would be taken by eating three weeks worth of meals rehydrated with urine is nothing at all compared to the damage taken by being exposed to three week's worth of depleted uranium dust.

      On the list of priorities, I would think that problems such as dramatically increased rates of suicides, deaths by friendly fire, and the ongoing exposure of personnel to airborne radioactive particulate matter going on in Iraq and Afghanistan right now would rank orders of magnitude higher than finding a way to shave a few kilos off of infantry packs.

    28. Re:Weird by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1
      Now, in Iraq, where our patriotic morons are bunkered down in bases surrounded by an entire nation of enemies

      Our soldiers (other than those posing and taking pictures torturing POW's) are not the morons. They are just doing their jobs.

      If you want to call somebody names, do it to those who sent the troops over there.

    29. Re:Weird by cashcraft · · Score: 1

      True. But, there is no perfect solution. While this may sound very gross to us, it is better than starving to death. And like anything, the technology behind the filters will probably become better as time goes on.

      Also, I think the more important function of these meals-in-a -pouches are that they can be used with dirty water. Think about how much they could help people in poor parts of the world.

      The bags sound like they can be used as water filters too. While the bags were invented for the military, I think that they have many non-military uses as well.

    30. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So here is my querstion:
      can you salvage the filter and use it to filter your next piss test ?????

    31. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      If one - as I did during Vietnam - joins the military and allows one to be sent into a situation where one can get killed at somebody else's order, then one is a moron.

      That simple.

      "Only doing your job" is the excuse the Nazis gave for murdering people. The same applies to US troops who are murdering Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.

      The Geneva Conventions make every single individual soldier responsible for his actions. And so does any rational view of correct behavior.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    32. Re:Weird by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The filter at home does just the opposite thing. I pour water through it and I get coffee. Weird indeed.

      I think you got it upside down. Try turning it over.

    33. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we all thank you for your gallant service 30+ years ago when you joined the U.S. military to help defend against all of those warships sailing off the east cost. Oh sorry, my bad... I was confusing 1970 with 1812. I keep forgetting that back in your day, those Pentagon recruitment bastards told you you'd be posted to the Joint U.N. Daisy Picking Task Force and then, to your horror, you found you'd really been sent to the jungles of southeast Asia to murder all those poor, innocent, freedom-fighting, doe-eyed VC in cold blood.

      On the off chance you're really not the ~20-ish liberal college student troll that I think you are, let me just say that you should've done us all a favor and run to Canada with your fellow conscientious objector cowards. Fucking moron.

    34. Re:Weird by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think you're overstating it. You can go without water for a few days, you can go without food for a few weeks (provided you have water!).

      Otherwise people would be dying of dehydration in their sleep :-)

      When you're in battle, you're sweating. You're also exerting yourself, causing your body to produce more waste (urea) which it has to get rid of. Your breath comes faster too, and you lose moisture with every breath. Add in the fact that you're carrying not-exactly-light equipment and adrenalin is flowing in your veins. In short, your metabolism is working at a much faster rate than when you sleep, and thus you're burning through your reserves much faster too.

      When I was in the (finnish draft) army, I heard of a guy who had got kidney damage in a matter of hours: it had been a hot day and he had been made to exercise in combat gear without allowing him to drink. This had then led to the local commanders getting quite a lot of shit piled on them, which in turn led to us having to answer anonymous surveys about how we were being treated every few weeks (which lent quite a bit of credibility to the tale - our commanders (with very few exceptions) were not the kind to care about their underlings unless their own buts were in the line of fire).

      Besides, I don't know about you, but I'm always very thirsty when I wake, despite having drunk half a liter before going to bed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Weird by bolthole · · Score: 1
      If one - as I did during Vietnam - joins the military and allows one to be sent into a situation where one can get killed at somebody else's order,

      Gee, that pretty much covers every cambat solder in the US military. Congratulations, you've just insulted [some thousand] trained killing machines.

    36. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Hey, fucktard!

      If I'd been smart I WOULD have gone to Canada.

      But I was operating under the misguided notion that I might actually learn something interesting in the military.

      OTOH, I wasn't dumb enough to be drafted since I knew any moron that stupid would end up in the infantry - and I wasn't THAT stupid. So I enlisted.

      Major mistake.

      The same moronic mistake the rest of the morons in Iraq and Afghanistan have made. (And will make in North Korea.)

      And now they're gonna pay for that mistake - while I sit back and laugh.

      Have a nice day, nerd-boy, while your relatives end up dead in other countries.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    37. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you believe most of the morons in the US military are "trained killing machines", you are seriously naive. (Unless your "some thousand" is meant to reduce the numbers to something reasonable.)

      Most of these idiots have trouble murdering civilians in Iraq.

      Only the Marines and the various Special Forces units have any significant training at all.

      And they're still getting their asses kicked by the resistance in Iraq.

      And the real mass resistance hasn't even started yet. On the Shia side, Sistani has not yet issued his fatwa. On the Sunni side, a recent interview with the sheikh in charge of one of the tribes - a two-million strong tribe - stated, "This isn't a resistance. We will make Vietnam look like a picnic." Within the next 6-12 months - unless Bush pulls them out to go to North Korea (where the Pentagon estimates fifty thousand dead in the first ninety days) - the Iraqis are going to DESTROY the US military forces in Iraq. The US forces will be forced to flee the country hanging from helicopter rails a la Vietnam (unless Sistani allows them a truce to evacuate) and leave behind them billions in US equipment which I'm sure the US troops will see again, used against them.

      This will be the greatest military defeat in US history. And the results will be worse than the Vietnam defeat. It will be decades before the US military can regain its standing, just as it was twenty years and Gulf War I before the US could regain its standing after Vietnam.

      The incompetence, stupidity, brutality and poor training and doctrine that led to this massive defeat will be analyzed for decades.

      It's over for the US military.

      And I couldn't care less except to laugh my ass off. This is nature's way of eliminating the stupid.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    38. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Oh dear. Anti-US are we? In case you didn't notice, the "rebels" in Iraq are busier murdering their own people than attacking the US troops. That's because they are chicken shit terrorists who know that the US army will crush them like a steam roller over a slimy snail.

      Thanks for the nice trolling attempt though.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    39. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The Iraqi people is not attacking the US troops. In fact, the terrorists who still cause problems attack civilians, police and people who generally try to help the Iraqis.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    40. Re:Weird by evilviper · · Score: 1
      if the water situation is really that desperate, wouldn't eating hinder your chances of survival, not help them?

      Umm, no.

      First of all, if reclaiming urine will double the ammount of water you have, it's more than worth it. There are plenty of places in the world where swamp water isn't available.

      Second, we are talking about soldiers here, out there depending upon themselves for survival. If they are weak from lack of food, they are as good as dead anyhow. Sure, eating nothing, and rationing your water may allow you to sit still and live longer, but if you need to hike your way out, carrying several pounds of equipment, you need to eat food.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    41. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Oh, really?

      I just read two articles today that paint a picture of the US military position in Iraq today.

      The picture is this:
      1) The Marines - the fucking MARINES - are hunkered down in positions and are completely unable to go out on patrols because they get shot up by hundreds of insurgents. The best they can do is keep Highway 10 open for convoys by running patrols down it that get hit every time.

      2) The US Army is unable to patrol Anbar province hardly at all. The only reason dozens of US troops aren't being killed daily is that they have virtually abandoned the province and no longer run patrols they deem as too dangerous.

      Here's a quote - read between the lines since the "spin" is that it's all a "success":

      The aggressive patrols that marked the Marines' arrival this spring were met with frenzied and bloody insurgent attacks, leading to some of the heaviest U.S. losses of the Iraq conflict. Since the patrols gave way to the more modulated "outposting" strategy, however, American deaths have declined dramatically.

      Marines say the scaled-back blueprint has worked in other ways: Unlike Fallouja, Ramadi still has a U.S. military presence designed to keep open the city's main artery, back up Iraqi police who protect the heavily fortified Iraqi government center and prevent the city from falling into complete chaos or insurgent control. ======

      The reduced U.S. visibility here also coincides with the return of sovereignty to Iraq and a nationwide push to keep American troops in the background as much as possible. Still, no one doubts that Iraqi security forces would be outmatched here if not for the U.S. military presence. ========

      "We've had some success ? Highway 10 is open, and we're seeing the Iraqis take more and more charge of their own security," said Capt. Christopher Bronzi, who heads Golf Company from the frequently attacked Marine base known as the Combat Outpost, a former Iraqi army facility along Highway 10, the city's main drag. "People in Ramadi are ready for us to be less a part of their country." === Not shit, Dick Tracy!

      Before the Marines' arrival, the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., declared that Al Anbar was "on a glide path toward success" and pronounced the insurgency here in "disarray" ? far from the situation faced here today by the Marines who took over from Swannack's soldiers.

      The Marines' initial strategy of high-profile patrols was far more aggressive than the Army's limited-engagement efforts. The violent backlash demonstrated that the insurgents in Ramadi had never been vanquished, Marines say, and probably had been consolidating forces during the Army occupation. ==== In other words, anything you hear about US "success" in Iraq is bullshit.

      "It's like ghost fighters," Cpl. Hamby said. "You can get into a firefight, and afterward when you go to the exact spot you were firing at, you won't find any shell cases, bodies, nothing. They grab everything and they're gone."

      Arriving at the Islamic Law Center, where the Marines of Squad 3 were pulling a 12-hour shift the other day, is an unequivocal war zone exercise: Several Humvees block all traffic along Highway 10 and form a safety cordon with machine guns at the ready, while other Marines dismount and train their weapons on buildings, passersby and vehicles. Relieving troops sprint the final 10 yards or so to the metal front door, which is quickly opened and shut. ====== BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      The months of fighting have made it clear to these Marines that they are in an inhospitable place where much of the population would like to see them gone ? and many want them dead. A decisive military victory here is widely viewed as unlikely, Marines say.

      This shit makes Vietnam look like a cakewalk.

      When the MARINES have to hide in bunkers, you know shit ain't going well.

      And the mass national resistance hasn't even started yet. Both the main Shia and Sunni groups are holding back waiting to see how the elections go and which side gets screwed over by the US in them.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    42. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're an idiot.

      Get your news from someplace other than Fox.

      The only reason US troops aren't dying by the dozens in Iraq is because they're hunkered down in bunkers and have given up patrolling the hot spots because they were getting their asses handed to them.

      Even the MARINES are bunkered down now!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    43. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Ooh! The anger!

      You obviously can't take the success in Iraq. They're now easing back to give more and more control to the new Iraqi government. A few terrorists are of course trying to make things difficult by killing civilians, but that just goes to show that they are at war with the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis need help in getting rid of them.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    44. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Jesus, what a moron.

      I thought only Rush was left who considered Iraq a "success"...

      They're not "easing back", cretin, they're on the verge of fleeing the country with their tails between their legs.

      The fucking MARINES are hiding in bunkers, like Beirut - and sooner or later, they'll lose another 200 troops by doing so.

      The resistance is now in total control of the ground and can move and attack at will.

      It took the US ten years and the intervention of the North Vietnamese Regular Army to do what the Iraqis have done in 16 months - reduce the US military to a state of total helplessness.

      After 16 months, the military admits they STILL have no clue who their enemy is (there are at least a couple dozen resistance groups, if not many more) or how to find them. They have no reliable intelligence so they arrest anybody standing around, which is why they have resorted to torture to try to find anything out.

      80-90% of the Iraqi people want their asses out yesterday. Only the fact that Sistani is keeping his eye on the ball for equal representation of the Shia in the elections has prevented him from issuing a fatwa which would put another thirty thousand or so resistance fighters on the street (and hundreds of thousands of rioters and protesters). The senior Sunni clerics are openly calling for jihad against the occupation.

      The entire Iraqi "government" is considered a lame joke by the entire Iraqi population. Allawi is recognized as a former Saddam assassin and CIA asset, and nobody else in the government has any credibility on the Iraqi street.

      Only a moron like you would consider this "success".

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    45. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      You are a very angry man, and I guess there's nothing wrong with that, except you fail to see the facts and instead make up conspiracies and blow things out of proportions.

      The US soldiers in Iraq are kicking terrorist ass as we speak.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    46. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You're obviously just a troll. You have no facts about anything, just a mouth.

      Fuck off, moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    47. Re:Weird by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Bush? Is that you? I tell you, i have to agree with you, your troops are making things difficult by killing those civilians.

    48. Re:Weird by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Oh come on now! Where else are the corps supposed to get rid of their nuclear waste! Long live corporate america!

    49. Re:Weird by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      they are going to find themselves without water, food, fuel, or ammo

      Guess you've never heard of the Berlin Airlift?

    50. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Oh, the facts are right here in front of you. US troops are kicking terrorist ass, and Iraq has a new government which needs help to get rid of these infidels.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    51. Re:Weird by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Civilians in Iraq are mainly killed by Muslim terrorists who can't handle seeing the country slipping away from them.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    52. Re:Weird by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Works when you have airports to land at near your target. No go in Iraq. You have to transport the goods from the airport to the bases via convoys. Airdrops won't get it.

      The road from Baghdad to the main airport is too dangerous to pull that off in Iraq if there is a mass national resistance.

      You might extend your stay a few weeks or months by such an attempt, but in the end it's too costly.

      They are having supply problems as it is now just getting the stuff into Iraq. US logistics have been screwed up since the invasion.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  2. When you're hungry, you're hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fortunately, I've never been that hungry. I wonder if the phrase "I could eat my own urinated food" will catch on.

    1. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brings a whole new meaning to "Pea Soup".

    2. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by `Sean · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or who pissed in your Cheerios? ;)

    3. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by cabjf · · Score: 1

      I've always heard it as, "who peed in your wheaties?"

    4. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by scavenger87 · · Score: 1

      Don't woeey, It tastes like chicken.

    5. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Got Urine?

    6. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guys whats your problem?!? I thought my brand new cheerios were supposed to be served with urine but after finishing my bowl I discovered they were regular cheerios! Yeah it tastes better now but warm cheerios isnt my cup of milk.

    7. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      Join the US Army - pee all that you can pee!

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    8. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      In next weeks news - making flapjacks from hyena doodie.

      Vegetarians in the armed forces have a camel turd option.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    9. Re:When you're hungry, you're hungry by Patik · · Score: 2, Funny
      who pissed in your Cheerios?
      Support our troops -- piss in their cereal
  3. If I understand correctly... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... Troops in battle are going to stop, drop their weapons, and pee on their food for a quick dinner?

    --
    ResidntGeek
    1. Re:If I understand correctly... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny
      Q: What's for supper?
      A: Pea soup!

      Q: This beer tastes like warm piss.
      A: That's not beer, that's ... desert

      Q: This food tastes like shit.
      A: Sorry, we ran out of piss.

      Q: Why are you so pissy lately?
      A: You are what you eat, so ...

      Q: Get over here. We need you to help make supper.
      A: Sorry, I "gave" at the office.

      Q: Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
      A: Everyone.

    2. Re:If I understand correctly... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      Foreign Soldier 1: Sorry, I can't come to the party tonight, I've got a case of diarhea.
      Foreign Soldier 2: A whole case? Bring it over. Trust me, these guys will drink anything. You won't believe what I saw them eat for supper.

      And then there's this:

      "Hey soldier, we need some fresh coffee. You mind filling 'er up?
      ... Thanks
      Hey, the Colonel wants some cream. Here's a Penthouse. Do your duty, son...

    3. Re:If I understand correctly... by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      You whipped those up in less than 10 minutes? I don't know whether to be impressed or scared.

    4. Re:If I understand correctly... by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Just be glad it was piss, and not .... you know ... some other shitty subject with a bit more "substance" :-)

      Now let me go wash my keyboard off ...

    5. Re:If I understand correctly... by vk2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Be impressed and never question - he is our senior tomhudson (43916)

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    6. Re:If I understand correctly... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      ...or ...

      Damn, out of ketchup. Hey, who's on the rag ...?

      Tomato soup AGAIN?

      No thanks. I'll drink the grape kool-aid instead.

      I think I'll skip the "chunky soup".

      Waiter, there's 50 million flies in my soup!

      Oh well, my mom always told me I'd be sorry if I didn't keep my pants zipped, but I didn't think she meant THIS.

    7. Re:If I understand correctly... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blackadder III wore this trope out ten years ago.

    8. Re:If I understand correctly... by nbvb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What, low uid's impress you or somethin'? ... makes me wish I signed up back when I started READING slushdot, way before 32whateverthehelliam :)

    9. Re:If I understand correctly... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      why would anyone mod that up insightful?

      What do you mean by "stop"? do you think that they are in battle 100% of the time? It mentions that they can use urine to hydrate it, not that they will do it very often. They will only pee on their food when that's the only option, and when that happens it won't be during combat.

    10. Re:If I understand correctly... by empaler · · Score: 1

      "Nice work, Ralph, I got a chunky bit!"

    11. Re:If I understand correctly... by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes...

      "One thing puzzles me Baldrick; how did you manage to get so much custard out of such a small cat?"

      Classic.

    12. Re:If I understand correctly... by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do believe it was Blackadder Goes Forth. The III was when he was a butler for that nitwit who was Prince of Wales.

    13. Re:If I understand correctly... by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Mmm, it's the coffee that goes right through you! again and again..

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    14. Re:If I understand correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, nobody modded it insightful. Someone modded it itneresting, though.

    15. Re:If I understand correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was modded insightful before, then apparently somebody posted in this story and their modding went away.

    16. Re:If I understand correctly... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Oops. You're right. I forgot the Elizabethan ones when I was counting.

    17. Re:If I understand correctly... by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, in the 'Potato' episode, they nearly ended up drinking their own pee on their naval expedition.

    18. Re:If I understand correctly... by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      ?!? Interesting?

      They stop and eat MREs, don't they? They're not in armed combat constantly, you know. Peeing on something before eating it doesn't take much longer than opening up an MRE and eating it. How do you think they eat, sleep, pee, or whatever else in the first place? Would you pick the middle of a firefight to eat? If so, I'm glad you're not in the military.

      Didn't think your "clever" comment all the way through, did you? Even if you know absolutely nothing about the military, a little thought will show you how silly that is.

    19. Re:If I understand correctly... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Some of my dad's friends were in Vietnam, and this kind of thing actually did happen from time to time. In the occasional extremely long firefight, soldiers would drop down into bunkers, foxholes, or just behind cover and grab a swig from the canteen to remain hydrated or a bite of a chocolate bar to keep the energy levels above zero. Usually this was done when they knew that gunships or other air support was about to open fire and they knew they could have a minute or so of downtime -- one fewer flash on the ground was one fewer chance to be misidentified and targeted by choppers, and one fewer soldier with his head up to shoot was one fewer soldier that could be hit by a rocket fragment or odd ricochet.

      True, they didn't exactly feast, and this kind of thing didn't happen often, but sometimes they could get half a ration down when they really needed it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    20. Re:If I understand correctly... by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure that did/does happen, but my main point was that, if you have time to eat, you probably have time to pee and eat. The parent seemed to think that if soldiers eat pre-hydrated food, they have time to eat at some unspecified point, while if they eat dehydrated food, they have to stop, while being shot at, drop everything and pee on the pouches, then eat them. I'm being generous when I say that that makes no sense at all. I'm sure most field "meals" are eaten while not in active combat.

    21. Re:If I understand correctly... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Sort of reminds me of that episode in "Men Behaving Badly" where the guy uses his underwear for a coffee filter:
      Mmm, it's got an earthy taste...
      :-( Bleech!
    22. Re:If I understand correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MARIA
      Sir, I have not you by th' hand.

      SIR ANDREW
      Marry, but you shall have--and here's
      my hand.

      MARIA
      Now, sir, "thought is free": I pray you, bring
      your hand to the buttery-bar and let it drink.

      (Twelfth Night, Act 1, Scene 3)

    23. Re:If I understand correctly... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      IIRC, they actually were drinking their own urine for some time.

    24. Re:If I understand correctly... by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      That was only Captain Redbeard Rum who, according to Blackadder, actually enjoyed drinking his own urine.

  4. Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusting! by Relifram · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, just what we needed another way to make MREs more unpalatable!

  5. Great... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    I'll never ask a waiter for a glass of water again!

  6. If we're going to stoop to THAT level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are things we could feed our hard-working soldiers that they don't even need to carry... externally at least.

  7. Horrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suppose you really could say the food was piss poor.

    1. Re:Horrible. by IBX · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and too salty

    2. Re:Horrible. by falzer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Reminds me of a joke.

      A few people go camping in the bush for a while.

      No one decided on who was in charge of meals, so they drew straws to see who would cook first and they'd go from there. The person who got cooking duty said "alright, I'll cook, but if there are any complaints from anyone, that person will be in charge of cooking from then on."

      So he cooks for a few days and finds out he hates the work. He starts putting leaves, bark, and dirt in the food in the hopes that someone would complain. The rest notice, but no one complains because they don't want to cook next. This goes on and on with resin, lighter fluid, and algae. Still no complaints. After a few more meals, he's finally had it, so he sneaks a bagful of his own turds in the supper while preparing it. Finally someone speaks up: "damn, this food tastes like shit! ...but good shit!"

    3. Re:Horrible. by glitch! · · Score: 1

      The person who got cooking duty said "alright, I'll cook, but if there are any complaints from anyone, that person will be in charge of cooking from then on.

      The version I heard was "Moose turd pie" by Utah Philips. Here is a link to the MP3.

      I heard it live (yes LIVE!) on the Dr. Demeto show when he was doing it on KSAN ("Jive 95") in San Francisco on Sunday nites...

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    4. Re:Horrible. by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or "Piss, pour" food.

  8. OT: Nothing to see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondering, when i clicked the article it said 'nothing to see here, move along'. What's that for?

  9. This just lets everyone around the world know by BigKato · · Score: 1

    That we are the world's greatest military force ever. Superior minds.

    --
    So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
    1. Re:This just lets everyone around the world know by irokitt · · Score: 1

      The world's greatest military. And the world's shittiest military contracting firms and development weenies.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  10. Water by mabu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how many millions of dollars were spent on this mostly useless technology? Creating food with dirty water or urine is irrelevent. A soldier can last much longer without food than he can without water. Most people will die within five days if they don't get water. If you don't have access to clean water, you're in much worse shape. Lose 12% of your water and you're dead.

    1. Re:Water by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and by using the clean water you have for drinking instead of for rehydrating field rations, it lasts that much longer, and therefore, you do too.

    2. Re:Water by JustDisGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It isn't useless technology - an army marches on its belly. And RTFA - they don't actually piss IN their food, they piss ON the PACKAGE the food is in, and a membrane similar to that in a reverse osmosis unit extracts the water from the liquid used to re-hydrate.

      What they ought to do NOW is put the technology in the public domain, and donate a couple of million pouches to the Red Cross. I wonder how reusable the membranes are, and whether they could be used to create clean water once the ration was consumed?

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
    3. Re:Water by Soulfader · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I don't think there's anything in the current MREs that require hydrating. We have water-activated heaters which use a little (maybe 2 oz) of water, but that's it. Modern MREs aren't really that bad, speaking as someone who has lived on them recently. They get old, but most anything does after a while.

    4. Re:Water by Effugas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here, lets talk in some geek terms.

      You know how the more fuel a rocket has, the more fuel it needs, due to the additional weight of that fuel? Understand how most of the fuel is ultimately spent in complete waste, as it's just carrying itself?

      Kind of the same with water. Water is HEAVY -- seven pounds a gallon. We blow quite a bit of it just dragging it around -- and don't worry, it provides all of no calories; it's useful as a catalyst and a cooler, but not as a fuel. Almost all the water we consume is just excreted back out, pretty clean too (urine is one of the purer substances to leave the body). It's be pretty useful to be able to fully filter the stuff and reintroduce it to our food. Perfectly efficient, no, but would you rather lug around 50 pounds of water?

      --Dan

    5. Re:Water by mabu · · Score: 1

      water is water... you rehydrate your body one way or another, whether it's added to the food and consumed or consumed by itself. You still need water.

    6. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You're going to trust a membrane under field conditions? I don't think so. What if someone has a kidney infection?

    7. Re:Water by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Realize that the water in the rehydrated food will rehydrate you, assuming you then eat the food. Granted, you recycle and thus conserve water by drinking your own piss, but it's not like water used to rehydrate is wasted. If recycling waste water is really the goal, I'd think good portable filters would be a better idea.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Water by CptChipJew · · Score: 1

      You urinate >95% of the water you intake.

      So yes, that is close to perfect. This technology is neither useless nor stupid.

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    9. Re:Water by Dausha · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except, water is 8 pounds per gallon. Unless you're talking about the new lower calorie version.

      And, especially when you're a grunt in combat situations, most of your water waste is via sweat, not urine.

      Eventually, all the water we consume we excrete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need so much of it. I mean, are we capable of destroying matter in our body?

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    10. Re:Water by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, but you reduce the amount of weight you're carrying in rations, which could then be replaced with additional water equal to the lost food weight.

    11. Re:Water by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The point is, the food neutralizes much fo the bad stuff in water, thus it provides a convienient way to get yoru water without carryign a water kit.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    12. Re:Water by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Here, lets talk in some geek terms.

      You know how the more fuel a rocket has, the more fuel it needs, due to the additional weight of that fuel? Understand how most of the fuel is ultimately spent in complete waste, as it's just carrying itself?

      Kind of the same with water. Water is HEAVY -- seven pounds a gallon. We blow quite a bit of it just dragging it around -- and don't worry, it provides all of no calories; it's useful as a catalyst and a cooler, but not as a fuel. Almost all the water we consume is just excreted back out, pretty clean too (urine is one of the purer substances to leave the body). It's be pretty useful to be able to fully filter the stuff and reintroduce it to our food. Perfectly efficient, no, but would you rather lug around 50 pounds of water?


      In geek terms, I'm still waiting for my still suit.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    13. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Since you're talking fuel ... why not just condense the water out of the exhaust of the vehicles as you drive?

      After all, the byproducts include CO2 and H2O. Just look at the water that comes out your tailpipe before it warms up first thing in the morning ...

      Seems to me there's gallons of water you could get every hour from a tank or hummer. It might be piss-warm, but it wouldn't be old piss.

      And there's no chance of cross-contamination when you share rehydrated food.

      Damn, maybe I should patent this!

    14. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not get out of the office much. Try going on a easy hike of say 10 miles, with a light load of let's say 30 pounds, and you can tell me how unnessary food is for the troops. The soldier is fighting, not sitting around waiting for a rescue. An easy hike like this, up and down a few hills, and I will burn 5000 Kcal/day.

      Also if you read the article, it describes a membrane, built into the food packet that filters out all the bacteria, making the water used to hydrate the food, safe. Don't you think they are going apply that tech to drinking water also?

    15. Re:Water by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Water is HEAVY -- seven pounds a gallon."

      In Britain and other commonwealth countries, water is 10 lbs to the gallon.

      Of course in europe and the rest of the world its 1kg per litre.

    16. Re:Water by PabloJones · · Score: 2, Funny

      However... in a Dana Carvey skit a loooong time ago, he, referring to the movie Water World, said the following:

      "You can't pee into a Mr. Coffee and expect it to come out Taster's Choice."

      Or something to that effect.

    17. Re:Water by ifwm · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't normally do this, but god damn you're a moron. You don't think the tech is useful. Ok fine (you're wrong, but fine) Don't make up specious arguments to justify your position.

    18. Re:Water by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you're a shitty Marine.

    19. Re:Water by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      I mean, are we capable of destroying matter in our body?

      Of course not. I mean we only APPEAR to have an event horizon.

    20. Re:Water by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      > Granted, you recycle and thus conserve water by
      > drinking your own piss

      I wonder how many Slashdotters are retching about now... and how many Soldiers will be retching and thereby loosing more water. :P

      Bad idea using urine to hydrate food. Just plain bad. There is always a better way.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    21. Re:Water by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Time to start making Dune suits. :)

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    22. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) hummers are diesel, diesel exhaust gasses are a fair bit hotter than gasoline--that water isn't going to condense in the tailpipe. 2) I'm pretty sure they DONT have cat. converters--less H20 produced.

      3)Many modern tanks are turbine powered, and suck fuel like nobody's business--and if one thinks diesel exhaust gasses are hot, then they don't know hot (gas turbine efficiency is rated by the differential of ambient (intake) and exhaust gas temperature--so the hotter the better), basically no chance to get water out of that (though it is there). In other words...They'd have better luck digging holes in the ground, putting a cup in them, covering the hole with plastic, and putting a rock over the cup--in the dead of winter.

    23. Re:Water by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      The man has a point
      a) Membrane damage in the field is likely.
      b) There is a potental for cross contamination if one soldier of the unit has a UTI, considering proper hygine is not going to be possible under field conditions, especially if water conservation is at the point that you are having to use urine for food rehydration.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    24. Re:Water by pkhuong · · Score: 1

      If it's supposed to filter bad water (say, full of cholera or [insert random bacteria/virus (much smaller -> harder to filter... :\ )]), i don't think some more bacteria will make any noticeable difference.

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    25. Re:Water by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. If you're carrying 5 units of clean water, and you have 5000 units of dirty water available, and it doesn't matter which one you use on your food, it makes much more sense to use the dirty water on the food and save the clean water for straight ingestion. The packets can filter the 1 unit of dirty water it takes to hydrate the food into clean water in the food, which gives you one "free" unit of water without you having to use any of what you're carrying.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    26. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're using geek terms, then water is surely 1 kg/liter.

    27. Re:Water by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Notice how most of the people who's said this is a good idea have mentioned that they're veterans, and the ones who're saying "eeew yuck" have not?

      News flash, people: if you haven't served, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do the rest of us a favor and STFU. If you're in combat or other life-or-death situation, you do whatever is necessary to survive, or you fucking DIE. Even us chAir Force wimps know that much :-)

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    28. Re:Water by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      When I was born I weighed ~7 pounds.

      Today, I weight 135.

      That means that, throughout my life, I've consumed 128 pounds more than I've excreted. :P

    29. Re:Water by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Bad idea using urine to hydrate food. Just plain bad. There is always a better way.

      Spoken like a man who has never been in combat or any other serious mortal peril. I have. Sometimes you do what you have to in order to survive.

      Now go back to your cushy cubicle world.

    30. Re:Water by Feztaa · · Score: 1
      That's just the net difference, though.

      If you had a tub that contained all the urine you've ever pissed, it would weigh a lot more than 128 lbs, trust me ;)

      You can try this experiment yourself! Next time you have to take a piss, piss into a jar, weigh it (make sure you weigh the jar while empty first in order to get just the weight of the urine and not urine + jar), then multiply that weight by the number of days you've been alive.

      You could also do a similar thing for:

      • all your hair
      • sweat
      • shit
      • snot
      • ear wax
      • dead skin
      • fingernails


      And then you'd have a good idea of how much mass you've lost in your life time. Add that to how much mass you currently are, and that's how much mass you've gained, in total, during your entire life time ;)
    31. Re:Water by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Somebody once told me that a petrol engine with a correct air-fuel ratio will exhaust a litre of water for every litre of petrol used.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    32. Re:Water by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      ...so what your saying is...

      we could really cut costs if somebody could just invent dehydrated water?

    33. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ick! You sound like quite the mad scientist. I bet your house smells rank!

    34. Re:Water by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Now, I haven't ever been in the military myself, but I'm a student of military history and have a ton of respect for current and ex-military men/women. Soldiers have and do survive in situations that would cause most people to give up and die.

      The point is that if you're at the point where you would need to urinate on your MNQRE (Meal Not Quite Ready to Eat--yes, I made that up) pouch, you're obviously in a dire situation and have limited water available. You're probably getting shot at and aren't able to be resupplied. Thus, the chance of getting some germs from food is probably not a super-high priority at that point. People have eaten some really disgusting stuff to survive, probably more so than food rehydrated from urine.

    35. Re:Water by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1

      People tend to read too much into the meaning of the fact that you can live days without water and weeks without food. Toward the end of either you're basically lying on the ground unable to move. Impairment starts very early and is very dependent on environmental conditions, the individual, etc.

      A soldier might be able to live for weeks without food, but will not be as effective a soldier. A soldier weakened by hunger can't perform the same physical feats. A soldier that is thinking about how it's been days since his/her last meal is more likely to make a mistake that could end very badly.

      Money spent on R&D that keeps soldiers in their best fighting form is certainly not useless in my book. Think before making knee-jerk "military spending is bad" comments.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
    36. Re:Water by diatonic · · Score: 1

      Water is 8 pounds per gallon at standard temperature and pressure. Can be 7 pounds or less per gallon at very high temperatures since it expands, and becomes less dense. Of course on the moon it is only 1.33 pounds per gallon at standard temperature and pressue. Perhaps we should do our battles on the moon.

    37. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So keep the girls away from the guys food, and you won't have to worry about the guys.

    38. Re:Water by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if you had a tub full of any of those you would be a sick fuck.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    39. Re:Water by mrjb · · Score: 1

      >> Water is HEAVY -- 7 pounds per gallon
      > Except, water is 8 pounds per gallon.

      Yay metric system! By definition, it is 1 kilogram per liter. No confusion about the how much exactly a pounds or gallons is. As a rule of the thumb though, I normally think of a pound as about half a kilo, while a gallon is about four liters.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    40. Re:Water by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Funny


      Water is HEAVY -- seven pounds a gallon. We blow quite a bit of it just dragging it around

      I always wondered why no one ever invented dehydrated water.

    41. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Hey, which would you rather do - pee on your food or condense water out of exhaust.

      A little chemistry here:

      C7H16 (heptane, the cheap stuff) + 22 * O2 = 7 * C02 + 8 * H20
      So why not condense the 8 gallons of water you create from every gallon of gas you burn? Lots of water there!

      Think of it - 1 ounce of gasoline gives you 8 ounces of water (actually, more if it's got high levels of octane - C8H18 gives 8 * C02 + 9 * H2O)

      The other advantage is that, in a cold environment, you can also use the fuel to melt snow or ice, or keep warm.

    42. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The presence or absence of a catalytic converter makes almost no difference as to the quantity of water produced.

      Same with turbines - 4 gallons per mile is pretty shitty mileage, but the basic process of combustion yields CO2 and H2O.

      You don't need to cool all of it - just tap into the exhaust stream, take out what you need, and cool that. It can be done, and the engineering isn't that big a deal. It's really low-tech stuff.

      You're not going to be doing this when the turbine is under load, anyway, but at idle, when both efficiency and temperature are lower :-)

    43. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      It's actually 8 litres per litre of fuel used:

      C7H16 + 22O2 -> 7CO2 + 8 H2O
      Now, if they bubble the CO2 through the water, they can have soda pop!
    44. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you are an idiot.

      Let's take an infantry gunner:
      M60 ... check
      Pack ... check
      Ammo ... check
      MRE ... check
      Filled Canteens .. check

      Fucking heavy-ass gallons of gas that I
      have no use for to add to the 80 lbs on
      my back and 23 on my front ... check.

    45. Re:Water by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Try the metric system. It's much easier to use. Especially if you want to measure how much a liter of water weights in kilo(gram)s.

    46. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like the membrane is fine enough to stop bacteria and maybe viruses (otherwise it would be useless, the main use is to filter contaminated water, the urine thing is just an extreme example) but urea is too small of a molecule to filter

    47. Re:Water by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      what we need are still-suits, y'know, from dune. filtering all the body's water

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    48. Re:Water by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Public domain would be nice, but releasing the technology might give an advantage to our enemies (but most of our enemies these days don't have the resources to mass produce these things). Donating some packages would be harmless though. I'd guess that the filter membranes would last until torn or clogged. Might be a cottage industry in war zones - recovering used MRE wrappers.

    49. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! What we need is still suits! Muad'dib, the Maker is calling!

    50. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      4 ounces of gasoline == 32 oz of water from a fuel cell, as well as power for your field radio, nite scope and gps.

      You need to power those things anyway - which would you rather have - power + water, or heavy batteries that can't be recharged with a half-cup of gasoline, and eating food made from your own piss?

      So, who's the moron now?

    51. Re:Water by cwis42 · · Score: 1
      I always wondered why no one ever invented dehydrated water.

      Someone did.

    52. Re:Water by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Man if you want to eat urine flavored food or drink the stuff go right ahead... I wont stand in yer way.

      I'm not against the idea of this osmosis material being used to purify water - heck I think it's a great idea; it's the urine part I find unpalatable.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    53. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You urinate >95% of the water you intake.

      Not if you're in the desert and sweating like a pig.

    54. Re:Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By definition, it is 1 kilogram per liter

      Not any longer. And I doubt that the water they'd use in Iraq is distilled and at 4 centigrade.

    55. Re:Water by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Well, that would still be you. The purpose of this invention was to

      a) allow contaminated water to be used in the field

      b) Allow soldiers to cut down on the crap they carry.

      Your idiotic "use cars for water" idea only works if you have all the equipment. What if one item is broken? What if you're out of gas? What if you're unit doesn't use vehicles?

      This is easily carried, works well enough, and is cheap. Much better than your idea.

      So, to answer your question you're still a moron. And probably always will be.

    56. Re:Water by Tassach · · Score: 1
      So why not condense the 8 gallons of water you create from every gallon of gas you burn?
      Yeah, that works really well when your vehicle is a burning pile of wreckage. It also does the infantry grunt a whole lot of good.

      News flash, moron: if a soldier has access to a vehicle and gasoline, what's the probability he's NOT going to have access to fresh water? The gas is going to run out long before the water does.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    57. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Stupid troll... but anyways, here goes:

      Use a fuel cell. 4 ounces of gasoline converts to energy to run your field radio, gps system, portaputer, AND 32 ounces of h2o.

      Beats drinking your own piss any day.

      As far as the - what if one item is broken - the same can be applied to the membrane, but you'll only find out if its' broken when you actually EAT the shit.

      The fuel cell is lighter than the batteries it replaces, can be recharged with a cup of gasoline, and gives a LOT more water, as well as energy. Or did you sleep through the Apollo program, when they had problems with too much water being generated by the fuel cells?

    58. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      If his vehicle is a pile of burning wreckage, so most likely are his MREs, so he has neither a pot nor food to piss in.

      Think for 2 seconds ... potable water (as opposed to contaminated, or bacteria-filled, or protozoan-infested water) is rare without human intervention.

    59. Re:Water by Tassach · · Score: 1
      You persist in demonstrating your total ignorance of military service, don't you?

      Soldiers are taught to break down their equipment into different categories and pack it according to how badly they need it and how bad it would hurt them to drop it. There are a lot of different systems but the one I learned is that your survival load goes in your cargo pockets, so that even if you lose the rest of your gear you still have something to eat and some basic tools. Your weapons and ammo go on your web gear where you can get to them in a hurry. Excess food and equipment beyond what's needed for immediate survival goes in your backpack, so you can drop it if necessary when the shit hits the fan -- the idea being that you can come back later to pick it up if you're still alive.

      If he followed his training, a soldier who's vehicle was destroyed would indeed have a few MREs, a weapon, and some basic survival gear.

      Here's a piece of advice: if you don't know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    60. Re:Water by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      And here's a piece of advice for you:

      The "basic gear" can change as technology permits, and stuff becomes "dual-use.".

      The MREs are the LEAST needed of the gear, as compared to a weapon and comms. You can survive for weeks w/o food, but without comms and a weapon, you're eather dead or SOL.

      You can also survive for 2-3 days w/o water, so either a way to purify water (if a source is available) or to generate it is needed.

      Fuel cells are now small enough that they're being considered as power sources for laptops where both size and weight are major considerations.

      So, fuel cell == power for comms + water to drink. What is so hard to understand about that? Water comes before food on any checklist.

      Also, ergonomic studies showed several decades ago that the cargo pants pockets are the least effective way to carry anything, in terms of energy expended for distance covered.

  11. Sure, it may sound gross by Judg3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But if it helps you to survive a few days longer, that could mean the difference between life and death - you'd be able to ration your water reserve longer and still be able to eat.

    Though I wonder why they didn't make the filter finer to filter out the urea.. Would it cost to much? Be to large?

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
  12. And to drink? by James_G · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why not try some Dehydrated water?

    1. Re:And to drink? by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

      That's like water without the water. ...

      No wait, it IS.

      *turning reality check off*

      I RTFL'ed, and this is supposed to make drinking water safer by removing the water. Kind of makes sense, because we all know that *tinfoil hat* water is poisonous and cannot be washed off of anything and that inhalation of concentrated quantites is fatal. */tinfoil hat*

      But the real question is,

      Does it have low carbs?

      *runs for his life*

    2. Re:And to drink? by benna · · Score: 1

      That's ripped off from a Steven Wright joke (funniest comedian ever btw).

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  13. Ummm.. go army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they wonder why its so hard to get new recruits these days...

  14. Finally! an MRE with Flavor!!!! by lecithin · · Score: 1

    Lets see, do I want urine or swam flavor today?

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Finally! an MRE with Flavor!!!! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Lets see, do I want urine or swam flavor today?

      What food contains, or is made of, and how it tastes are two different things.

      Just look at your average McDonald's burger for instance: most people find it tasty and juicy (well, I must say I find the taste gross, but I seem to be in a minority), yet it contains beef meat you'd puke if you saw how it's produced, reconstituted onions, genetically engineered tomatoes, and scores of flavoring and coloring chemicals. And what's more, it demonstrably makes you sick in the long term, just like the pissy MRE.

      What I'm saying is, McDonald's have been demonstrating for years that people can eat shit and enjoy it. This MRE is nothing new, it's just the continuation of the great American eating traditions, only targetted to tough army personels.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  15. But by l810c · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What if you don't have to piss? You can't drink water to make you piss, because you don't have any.

    I'm not letting someone else hydrate my food.

    1. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words:

      grow up

    2. Re:But by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      "I'm not letting someone else hydrate my food."

      You Americans are so puritanical...you need to come visit Germany sometimes.

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

      Drinking others piss is 'accepted' in Germany? Do you do Scat also?

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

      Yes but you incur an additional service charge.

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

      It clearly says urine is a LAST RESORT.

      Any survival book would reccommend small amounts of urine over unfiltered seawater as an absolute last resort.

    6. Re:But by zsau · · Score: 1

      I would've thought someone else's piss would be better for you than your own. After all, a lot of what's in your piss is there because your body decided it didn't want it. Not that I know jack about biology though...

      --
      Look out!
    7. Re:But by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1


      After all, a lot of what's in your piss is there because your body decided it didn't want it.

      Right, so your body will want someone else's piss?
      So if there are two in the company, problem solved, just loop the piss between both of them.

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

      Yep. I've seen it in some german vidoes.... The girls tend to want someone else piss real bad...

    9. Re:But by zsau · · Score: 1

      No, what I meant was that someone else's body might've left something that you can use... I think it's probably more applicable between different species though...

      --
      Look out!
  16. Hmm... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would like to outfit every coffee machine where I work with one of these filters so that I can pee in the coffee and not get in trouble (again). Satisfying for me, but still delicious for them. It's win-win!

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you forgot to post as AC.

      Have fun not coming to work on monday.

      -- Your boss.

    2. Re:Hmm... by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm working on Saturday and Sunday and I already had Monday off anyways (no joke).

  17. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would suggest that urine would probably help the taste of MREs quite a bit...

    --

    "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
  18. Cheap Clean Water? by Alphanos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just how effective is this filter at cleaning water? If it is cheap enough to be mass produced for soldiers' food, then it would be incredible for humanitarian purposes if it cleans water well. Many parts of the world cannot easily clean their own water.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by mabu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just how effective is this filter at cleaning water? If it is cheap enough to be mass produced for soldiers' food, then it would be incredible for humanitarian purposes if it cleans water well. Many parts of the world cannot easily clean their own water.

      *cough* It's being sold to the military. Who said anything about being "cheap?"

    2. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why don't we just give them food and education while we're at it? You want their lives to improve or something ya commie liberal?

    3. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by l810c · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know it doesn't really make a difference, but the more I think about it I would just rather piss in a filter and make water. Then have drinking water and water to add to food. That just has a kind of cool factor. It just seems different then sticking the wanker in an MRE and letting loose.

    4. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just seems different then sticking the wanker in an MRE and letting loose.

      Whoops that's not piss. Dammit! Now the filters clogged.

    5. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by jerde · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just how effective is this filter at cleaning water? If it is cheap enough to be mass produced for soldiers' food, then it would be incredible for humanitarian purposes if it cleans water well.

      I think it works by osmosis, so it won't work just to clean the water: the water is drawn across the membrane into the food because the salt concentration is higher on the food-side.

      If you were to remove the food, and try to use the pouch empty, nothing would happen: the water would not flow across the membrane.

      This is why reverse-osmosis filters require some sort of pump to create pressure against the membrane, to force the water through.

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    6. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As sad as it may be, there are already many resonably affordable solutions available for cleaning water, including some very creative ones that run off solar power. The problem is not the technology - its that even if you charged a fraction of a cent per filter, the parts of the world that need them the most would still be unable to afford them. Additionally, the infrastructure required to distribute them is simply not there in many places, so the cost of the actual (cheap) water purification devices ends up being dwarfed by the cost of delivery and instructing on their proper use.

    7. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by irokitt · · Score: 1

      The lives of people who die from dysentery aren't cheap either.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    8. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      Even rudimentary filters can make a huge difference to water quality in the developing world. Just 8 layers of sari cloth reduced cholera cases by HALF. And even the lowest-tech of high-tech filtration systems would improve on that. The other guy's right though, this isn't neccessarily "cheap".

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    9. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by zsau · · Score: 1

      The American government wouldn't waste taxpayers' money, surely?

      --
      Look out!
    10. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1
      The latest on making clean water for humanitarian purposes (at least from the US military perspective) seems to be MIOX units. Although they seem to be kind of flimsy for military use (3.5 ounces, seems to be thermoplastic), MIOX and MSR claim to have delivered 8,000 units to the military so far. I think it was a joint R&D between MIOX (making their municipal treatment technology smaller), MSR (for the outdoors market) and the US military. They plan on delivering them to humanitarian organizations as well.

      It works on lithium camera batteries and salt (table, rock, potassium chloride, etc). The units themselves are expensive ($129 in outdoor stores) but after that it's almost free to purify water. Plus the batteries last about 10 years in storage, and the salt indefinitely. None of it is poisonous or difficult to handle until right before you treat the water. Kills everything, even crypto but doesn't do any filtering.

      We just got one, haven't tried it out backpacking yet, just in the living room. Bit of a chlorine taste, but better than iodine.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
    11. Re:Cheap Clean Water? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      actually they usually are.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  19. Instant Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all they need is Instant Water - just add water.

  20. Transhumanism has a better answer. by Thinkit4 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Host your self on a computer, encase that computer in neutron star armor. No need for sex, water, food. Just plug in an antimatter energy pellet. That is a real army of one.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:Transhumanism has a better answer. by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

      No matter how big that antimatter pellet was, you would eventually fall prey to the second law of thermodynamics: As the eons pass by like seconds, you find that everything is slower and slower. You can't calculate things as fast as you could before. Everything is running as slowly as molasses at absolute zero. Then you check slashdot... "Duke Nukem Forever Released!" So hits the Heat Death of the Universe.

    2. Re:Transhumanism has a better answer. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Sure. Hey, Neutron Star Armor would make me *very* attractive!

      Call me when it's available. The phone number at my AntiGrav Flying City is 1-888-sar-casm.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Transhumanism has a better answer. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      What if we like sex? Oh, right...this is Slashdot.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    4. Re:Transhumanism has a better answer. by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Well, once we get to Heat Death, we should finally be safe from the terrorists, so our neutron-armored special forces sentient-quantum-reversible-computers can finally et a well deserved break.

  21. not a recruiting tool by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1
    I suspect that the Army recruiters won't be bringing up this little detail when extolling the benefits of Army life!

    "By the time we're done with you, you'll pee on your food, and you will love it, soldier!"

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  22. I give the chicken and rice 7 thumbs up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My lowest rating. The sauce is extra tangy and with the urine base, needs no extra salt. Raaman with more zing. Bam!

    1. Re:I give the chicken and rice 7 thumbs up by benna · · Score: 1

      You post just MADE me go eat raman...free will my left nut.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  23. This just proves by Billobob · · Score: 1

    That no matter how much you disagree with the US and its policies, our military is still one of the main reasons behind many technological innovations (and they damn well should be considering the budget).

    --
    If you have to ask, you'll never know.
  24. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Gudlyf · · Score: 4, Funny

    So are they going to call them MRPs (Meals Ready to Pee on)?

    --
    Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
  25. Is it really so hard.... by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    Is it really so hard to get a truck filled with water bottles or something to troops? Or even airlift water bottles in? What about morale? Of course one's morale is going to fall (understandably) when you're drinking your own urine!

    1. Re:Is it really so hard.... by Soulfader · · Score: 1

      Often, troops are operating places where airlift is just not available. This would be really useful for those guys who sit well in front of the front (when we have those) on a mountain top listening to/messing with enemy radio transmissions--a C-130 would be a little conspicuous. Trust me, the idea fills me with horror and loathing, but if it keeps you alive (and hidden), it might be worth it. Might.

    2. Re:Is it really so hard.... by l810c · · Score: 2, Informative
      Is it really so hard to get a truck filled with water bottles or something to troops?

      Yes, in fact it is really hard to get food & water ( & fuel & ammo) to troops. An army is only as fast as it's supply lines. As was evident and highly reported in the push to Bagdad last year, the troops moved much faster than the supply lines and ran short on food and water. Logistics is a Huge part of any military.

    3. Re:Is it really so hard.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yeah. The us TRANSCOM system, which manages non combat portions of supply such as water, food, gas, trucks with no guns, etc... may be the worst database I have ever seen. It is famous for delivering all the gas for a mission, and none of the food and water. They are spending tons of money to fix it.

    4. Re:Is it really so hard.... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Go rent the movie "Blackhawk Down", rethink your post, and try again.

    5. Re:Is it really so hard.... by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Repeat with Band of Brothers--the episode about Bastogne forest (I forget the number).

    6. Re:Is it really so hard.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number 4 I think.

    7. Re:Is it really so hard.... by GodOfNothing · · Score: 1

      That would be episodes 6 and 7 which concentrate on the viewpoints of 1st Sergeant Lipton in one episode and on the combat medic (Eugene something) in the other.

      To AC: Episode 4 is either Crossroads or Replacements and has no snow.

    8. Re:Is it really so hard.... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      If it were that easy, you could send them good food instead of dehydrated packs like this and MREs.

      A supply convoy is worse off than a group of soldiers; both can be attacked as easily, but the supply convoy has much less defense because it's carrying mostly food and water instead of soldiers.

    9. Re:Is it really so hard.... by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
      As was evident and highly reported in the push to Bagdad last year, the troops moved much faster than the supply lines and ran short on food and water. Logistics is a Huge part of any military.

      As a logistics specialist of the US military put it: 'Strategy is for Loosers, Logistics is for Winners'.

  26. Dirty water or urine? by bobhagopian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As disgusting as it sounds to rehydrate a meal with urine, at least it's "clean" (in the sense that you won't get sick from it).

    But dirty water? If you're in the middle of Iraq, I suspect the water may itself pose a health risk. I can't drink the water when I visit third-world countries, and I'd certainly be worried if our troops were exposing themselves to disease.

    1. Re:Dirty water or urine? by shockNZ · · Score: 1

      As disgusting as it sounds to rehydrate a meal with urine, at least it's "clean" (in the sense that you won't get sick from it).
      The filter doesn't stop the urea in urine from leaching into the food - and it goes on to say that in the long term it would cause kidney damage.

    2. Re:Dirty water or urine? by yobtah · · Score: 1

      Apparently you didn't read the article. The whole point of the thing is its ability to filter bacteria and dirt from otherwise bad water.

    3. Re:Dirty water or urine? by kasek · · Score: 1

      read the article. the pouch the food comes in filters out 99.9% of all bacteria, as well as chemicals. so only the clean water gets through.

    4. Re:Dirty water or urine? by bobhagopian · · Score: 1

      It can't possibly filter out all chemicals but water. As stated, the filter allows urea through -- logic dictates that there might be plenty of other harmful substances that make it through as well. More directly, think about something like H2S, which has very similar properties to water. H2S is very bad for you.

      Not that I think there are rivers of H2S flowing in the world. But no filter is perfect, and there is certainly some risk. The best way to clean water is still heating it up.

  27. ick. by blanks · · Score: 1

    Pissing into a ramen noodles cup is not my idea of a meal.

  28. The secret ingredient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is you!

  29. Shit! by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

    And i've been using unfiltered urin for cooking.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    1. Re:Shit! by tsaler · · Score: 1

      I can't tell what's worse: the fact that, from the title of your post, I thought you were going to suggest that soldiers eat their own shit, or the fact that an idea of that nature would come into my own head.

      If I were Ron Popeil, I'd make millions off of that theory. Get your basic latrine, add a rotisserie, advertise (repeat this step until blood erupts from ears and eyes -- both, not one or the other), profit.

  30. Better? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if you use urine, does it taste worse? Or better?

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:Better? by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

      Depends on whose urine you are drinking.

    2. Re:Better? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      Parent's .sig: "--Microsoft is to OSS as Evian is to tap water."

      Your reply to his post: "Depends on whose urine you are drinking."

      There's a joke there somewhere.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    3. Re:Better? by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

      Good catch Greywolf; right now I don't feel that compelled to work in a joke about that, but I do have some brainstorm cache left over that I'll do a memory dump on:

      -Sometimes there is open source code that is urine quality.

      -Sometiems there is Microsoft code (more often than not) that is urine quality. Just look at Halo.

      -Or, sometimes the urine-activated MREs are like open source code gone bad that, when patched into MS Word, make it at least manageable.

      -Maybe all programmers end up screwing the end user, just like how the Army development teams screw over the soldiers by even offering this option.

      -I love filtered tap water.

      -If I were in a combat zone and I was out of water, I would take an enemy's corpse, extract a huge amount of blood, run it through the filter, and drink the blood.

      -Or use the enemy corpse's urine.

      Hypothetical conversation between two soldiers:

      Soldier 1: Hey man, I'm outta water. But I'd rather go it alone, I don't wanna drink my urine.

      Soldier 2: You're right sir, I wouldn't drink your urine either.

      Only logical conclusion: It really depends on whose urine you are drinking.

    4. Re:Better? by Ravenrage · · Score: 0

      off topic +4 interesing??? wtf the rating system needs an overhaul /offtopic pissing in my food?? no thx i'll just use tap water...:P If you are reading this i must be stoned

  31. Join the army!! by B4RSK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, another awesome reason to go and sign up right now.

    Bleh. :(

    --
    Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
  32. Urea is too small by hung_himself · · Score: 2, Informative

    Urea is very small molecule only a bit bigger than water. Even if you did have a membrane that could filter it out - it would take a very long time for enough water to diffuse across into the food.

    1. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, if it can't filter out urea, it can't filter out virus particles ... hmmm?

    2. Re:Urea is too small by IBX · · Score: 1

      1. Problem with urea permeation is related to the fact that urea is a neutral molecule. Na+ and Cl- are smaller than urea.

      2. Comparing to water and urea molecules, virus particles are HUGE. Even the smallest virus particles are built from hundreds of protein subunits (with the genetic material inside the capsule) and covered with sugars on surface. Each of these proteins is about 3 orders of magnitude bigger than urea, etc.

      3. Piss contains smelly substances from the digested food and from human metabolism and those will not be removed by filtration.
      MREs tend to taste like Spam - or other canned luncheon meats. (It is the conservation process/curing, that does it). The combination of the two tastes must be like food from school cafeteria.

      I can't see why they could not supply soldiers with some non-hydrated calory-rich stuff like M&Ms instead. I would rather live on sweets or sardines in oil for few days than having to draw on my own waters.

    3. Re:Urea is too small by Dahan · · Score: 1

      Viruses are much much bigger than a urea molecule. Even one of the bases in the RNA of a virus is bigger than a urea molecule. Urea is CON2H4. The smallest RNA base, uracil, is C4N2O2H4.

    4. Re:Urea is too small by mr.mighty · · Score: 1

      Well, compared to urea and water, viruses are huge. Even the components of viruses (proteins, genetic molecules) are huge compared to urea.

    5. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Prions ...

    6. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      As I pointed out elsewhere, we're talking field conditions. Prions are nasty, as we found out with mad cow disease.

      I wouldn't want to trust my long-term health to something like that, especially mass-produced by the lowest bidder.

      It's like trusting a condom to prevent AIDS - it's NOT 100% effective. Theory and practice are unfortunately 2 different things.

    7. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, viruses sometimes have a nasty habit of getting through barriers that are supposed to stop them.

      I think if I had to do something like that, I'd quickly find some religion that bans such a practice, and "see the light" real quick.

    8. Re:Urea is too small by iroll · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Picture your house as the package, and your windows and doors were the pores: I'd be able to pass a tire through the "membrane" but not an 18 wheeler. A virus is much, much bigger than a molecule of urea. Even a prion (a single protein, e.g. mad cow disease) is a lot bigger than a molecule of water; orders of magnitude larger.

      A virus is made of proteins and DNA. A protein is made of a collection of amino acids, each of which is a dozen or more atoms. Water is tiny. Urea is roughly the size of a single amino acid. A protein sac full of DNA, with protein receptors sticking out of it like antennae (i.e. a virus), is going to be much bigger than its building blocks.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    9. Re:Urea is too small by king-manic · · Score: 1

      It's like trusting a condom to prevent AIDS - it's NOT 100% effective. Theory and practice are unfortunately 2 different things.


      Generally, condoms are 99.999 protection. I have some very very very very permiscous black friends and though they occasionally get crabs, they get nothing else. So this seems like FUD. I myself have lead a umm.. somewhat sordid life. And my trusy jimmy hats have kept me std free.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    10. Re:Urea is too small by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "I can't see why they could not supply soldiers with some non-hydrated calory-rich stuff like M&Ms instead."

      They need water more than they need calories. It takes a long time to die from lack of calories. One can die from lack of water in a few days.

    11. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Except that no membrane is going to be 100% effective in the field. Sort of like condom failures.

      I'd rather see them come up with condensing units that would extract the water from a tank's exhaust. Cheaper, easier to maintain, handle, store, and the water would be sterile to boot.

    12. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Actually, most condoms are only around 95% effective. http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band64/b64-4.htm l

      Just google for "condom failure rate".

      The worst part is if you're posting from the US. Buy a name brand. the cheap ones don't meet international standards, which is why they can't be exported (they have to meet the "water balloon test", as reported in Consumer Reports).

    13. Re:Urea is too small by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      They do. I can remember getting MRE's with M&M'S and hersheys bars.

    14. Re:Urea is too small by Dahan · · Score: 1

      Prions are proteins. Proteins are long chains of amino acids. Those aren't going to fit through the membrane either.

    15. Re:Urea is too small by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Viruses are GIGANTIC in comparison to water or urea molecules.

      You could let bacteria turn the urea into less poisonous nitrates. You could use a solar still. You could use additives to chemically neutralize or bind the urea into larger molecules and then osmose it.

      So many things you could do.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    16. Re:Urea is too small by lostmagik · · Score: 0

      What happens if you add preasure, I bet marines are strong enough. Would that work?

    17. Re:Urea is too small by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Actually, most condoms are only around 95% effective.

      For your typical slashdotter, those are betting odds. I mean seriously, how many of these guys are going to get enough partners for the virus with their name on it to come up?

    18. Re:Urea is too small by king-manic · · Score: 1

      from a mans point of view, it's a third of that value. Transmission of HIV from a woman to a man is only 33% as high as a man to a woman. Don't be a scare monger. Statistically 95% will stone aids in it's tracks, whiel abstinence just sweeps it all under the rug. I know a few girls, who have to do that for a living, their in 3rd world countries and their supporting their remaining family. One is the eldest and takes care of 4 siblings. Tell her abstinence is the way and she'll tell you to fuck off. Failure rate also accounts for messing up using condomes, not just their ineffectiveness. When used properly all condoms provide protection. Even the cheapest. the 5% failure rate all includes those who put it on backwards (and thus mess it up), those who get an infection through cuts else where in that region, and those who rip it. So don't go spreading your FUD chances are I know more about sec then you.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    19. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I'd rather carry a fuel cell and a couple ounces of gasoline, than trust a membrane that's not in a sealed environment (like the fuel cell).

      4 oz of gasoline yields power + 32 oz of water.

      Power thermal socks and gloves in cold climates, radios, gps, etc., and you drink the fuel cell's waste products.

    20. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      .... right ... give it up.

      Never said anything about abstinence being preferable - I think it's a stupid and unrealistic policy. So stop with the straw-man argument.

      Condoms are not 100% effective. Saying otherwise is a lie, also. "You pays your money, and you takes your chances."

    21. Re:Urea is too small by king-manic · · Score: 1

      .... right ... give it up.
      Never said anything about abstinence being preferable - I think it's a stupid and unrealistic policy. So stop with the straw-man argument.

      Condoms are not 100% effective. Saying otherwise is a lie, also. "You pays your money, and you takes your chances."


      Well the. I believed that was your point. However, it's not 100%. But nothing is. IT's still FUD. It's 99.999% when you use them right. and the alternative is not to put one on... So if you lead a life where you have multiple sec partners then hey why not put a jimmy hat on. those stats are ussually provided by pro-abstinence groups and they do emcompass misuse and not just material failure. So saying oooh you might gets aids even if you use them is FUD. Use them right, and generally quality is an issue but not as much. Remember then 1 HIV particle gettign through a condom, getting into a break in the skin/mucous membrane will not normally cause HIV/AIDS. There is a certain critical mass of catagion require before you get it. It numbers vary depending on the individual and it's 2-3 times harder for a guy to get it.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    22. Re:Urea is too small by hung_himself · · Score: 1

      Yes pressure would help to speed things up but really urea is too small for easy dialysis. I don't know how dialysis machines do it but if it were simple, you would figure that you wouldn't need an expensive machine to do it. As other people have said, your best bet is probably to react it with something to either precipitate it or bind it to something larger.

      The real problem and danger with this entire approach are holes in the membrane. These membranes tend to be rather fragile especially until they get wet. And marines *will* add pressure...

    23. Re:Urea is too small by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      This whole condom thing had nothing to do about sex until YOU dragged it into it - my point had been about how membranes have a failure rate in the field, and I gave condoms as an example, because when they fail, there's a chance for problems.

      Planned Parenthood and the Centers for Disease Control are not exactly pro-abstinence, and yet they acknowledge a breakage rate of 2% (this is over and above failures due to misuse, etc) http://www.ppct.org/facts/research/condomfacts.sht ml

      Most reports of condom failure are the result of inconsistent or incorrect use, not breakage (Macaluso et al., 1999). In the U.S., the actual breakage rate is a low two per 100 condoms (CDC, 1998). High failure rates in some studies occur because many people lie about contraceptive use to shift the responsibility for an unintended pregnancy to a "faulty" contraceptive. Such over-reporting artificially inflates failure rates (Trussell, 1998).
      To say that condoms are 99.999% reliable is an outright lie.

      So troll someone else. My comments have NOTHING to do with AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or anything else like that.

      Additionally, your misogynistic view is showing in your last words "it's 2-3 times harder for a guy to get it."

    24. Re:Urea is too small by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Alright, I'm sorry I miscontrued your point. However misogynistic has nothign to do with it. It's simply the nature of the disease. Male->female transmission is easier then female -> male transmission.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  33. Good Example.. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of a technology developed for combat that could be an enormous benefit to humanitarian efforts around the world. If cheap and reliable enough, this could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

    1. Re:Good Example.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of a technology developed for combat that could be an enormous benefit to humanitarian efforts around the world. If cheap and reliable enough, this could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

      Are you kidding me? Did you RTFA?

      It's a MRE with a one-time-use built in substandard water filter. There's nothing innovative about it. It would cost more than existing products more widely available. But then again, those cheaper alternatives might not be packaged in attractive olive green, so undoubtedly the humanitarian potential is limitless.

    2. Re:Good Example.. by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      That's the usual way of how things sometimes work. If it doesn't kill, maim, burn, freeze or radiate soldiers, it might just be good enough to apply to civilians. Think of computers, radar, ARPAnet, etcetera. All stuff made by the military but applied for civilian uses later on.

    3. Re:Good Example.. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't quite understand it when you RTFA. If the military adopts this, it's going to be producing them in quantity. At scales that large, the price for civilian use is likely to also go down dramatically. Virtually all of the problems plaguing 3rd world countries can be fixed with sufficient money. Reducing the costs associated with fixing those problems means more people can be helped for less. At the very least it should help those who recieve them in the form of humanitarian aid.

    4. Re:Good Example.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you didn't quite understand it when you RTFA. If the military adopts this, it's going to be producing them in quantity. At scales that large, the price for civilian use is likely to also go down dramatically. Virtually all of the problems plaguing 3rd world countries can be fixed with sufficient money. Reducing the costs associated with fixing those problems means more people can be helped for less. At the very least it should help those who recieve them in the form of humanitarian aid.

      Dream on. Producing something in large quantity for the military is not likely to ever reach a threshold where it would be a superior alternative to the myriad of existing alternatives that are already out there to address hunger and water problems.

      Nice astroturfing though.

    5. Re:Good Example.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the military tendency to buy thousand dollar toliet seats should disprove this theory.

      The problem with miltary spending is that it is often done in the form of exclusive contracts with single suppliers, who then have little to no incentive to lower prices. Its like saying that by using Microsoft, the government helps lower the price of software for the average American.

    6. Re:Good Example.. by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      there is a very cheap water filter already
      put your water in PET bottles and put it on your roof
      the UV (what ever you call this in english) lightwaves will kill the bacteria
      ok, you have to live in a place with sunny weather

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    7. Re:Good Example.. by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Yea, don't you watch "Tactical to Practical" damnit??!!

    8. Re:Good Example.. by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1

      UV kills bacteria? Don't think so, at least not in concentrations from the sun on the ground. Perhaps you're thinking ozone? That doesn't come for free from the sun at altitudes humans can survive at. Maybe with the heat, but I think 165F is the minimum to kill most stuff (in food). For water, boiling is the usual recommendation when using heat.

      What you end up if you put water in PET bottles on your roof in warm weather would be some pretty nasty water. Especially "wild" water. This is a problem with inline filters for hydration systems. Whatever's in there just keeps growing, but faster due to green house effects of the container.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
    9. Re:Good Example.. by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      sodis.ch
      it works and is used
      very easy ... :p

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    10. Re:Good Example.. by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1

      Ok, I stand partially corrected. Being an American who lives at 41N the sun just isn't something I'd expect to be able to do that. It's easy not to think of how much more solar radiation is incident in lower latitudes. Also as an American this just wouldn't work well enough for me since I'm so used to chlorinated, flouride-treated tap water. I just don't have the necessary resistance to junk in the water.

      There seems to be precious little US EPA-style research into how well this works. For example, they "admit" they don't know how well it works on parasites. Mostly it's other lab research pulled together and monitoring disease rates. However, every little bit helps in developing countries, and this must be better than nothing.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
  34. Nah by evronm · · Score: 3, Funny
    Would you eat food cooked in your own urine?

    Nah, that would piss me off.

    Sorry... somebody had to...

    1. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better pissed-off than -on!

  35. Retaining water by NTmatter · · Score: 1

    According to the article, a day's food supply weighs three and a half kilograms (roughly 7.5 pounds), and this dried food technology can reduce that weight to 0.4 kilograms (0.9 pounds). My question is of where soldiers are going to find a whopping 6.6 pounds of urine per day in the middle of a desert. I admittedly don't know how many pounds of urine I produce daily, but I certainly don't think that even our highly trained fighting forces can produce more than a pound each per day. These P-meals (The P stands for "pouch") don't seem to be well thought through.

    1. Re:Retaining water by jjoyce · · Score: 1

      Camels!

    2. Re:Retaining water by PaulusMagnus · · Score: 1

      It depends how much you drink but you generally produce 300ml to 400ml of urine from a full bladder, which equates to 300g to 400g. Therefore, a daily intake of 2 litres of water, the healthy amount is going to lead to around 1.5 litres (you'll lose some water as sweat but also extract water from your food). 1.5 litres of urine is about 1.5Kg or 3.3 pounds.

      The other problem that fighting forces have is carrying water, as any hiker will tell you. You will easily consume a litre or two of water hiking up and down a mountain but as each litre of water weighs 1Kg, it's a burden to lug around.

      I believe there's a NASA process going on where they're recycling urine back into drinking water as they'd need something like that for a Mars mission to get there and live on the planet. If they could get that sort of technology into a portable solution, add a few sterilising tablets and you could lessen the burden for troops and also help them to avoid the psychological issues. Would you rather eat your dinner based on warm urine or water that has been cleaned and sterilised and looks more palatable? Personally, I'd still prefer a Big Mac Meal but there's a shortage of McDonalds in Bora Bora, allegedly.

  36. Heh, dodgeball... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Patches O'Houlihan: "Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the taste."

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  37. Gass Masks by Blade80 · · Score: 0

    In WW2. The French had gas masks that used activated carbon. To use it you would have to urinate on a bag in front.

  38. i love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    only here could this get modded "informative"

  39. The liberated would say.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I, for one, welcome our new piss-drinking overlords.

  40. hostess twinkie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article,

    This is the same organisation that created the "indestructible sandwich" that will stay fresh for three years (New Scientist print edition, 10 April 2002).

    I have a 19 cent hostess twinkie left over from college. It sits on the mantle above the fireplace It still is soft and has no visible mold. Oh yeah, I graduated in 1976

  41. and how is there any net difference? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Yes, and by using the clean water you have for drinking instead of for rehydrating field rations, it lasts that much longer, and therefore, you do too.

    Would you mind explaining to me, Private Genius, how there's a net difference in water intake between those two scenarios? If you pour a cup of water to rehydrate your meal, you're also drinking it.

    I agree with other posters- this invention is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of and a colossal waste of money.

    1. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But if you reconsume the filtered water you've already consumed once...

      I'll let you do the math.

    2. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you mind explaining to me, Private Genius, how there's a net difference in water intake between those two scenarios?

      Not at all. :)

      This allows you to reclaim water that otherwise you would have disposed of. So, if you have 2 canteens' worth of potable water and a puddle, you can drink those canteens, and then reclaim however much you need to rehydrate your meal from the puddle. This gets you 2 canteens plus part of a puddle's worth of hydration. If you don't have this, you only get 2 canteens' worth.

      Alternatively you can reuse those two canteens' worth by using your urine to rehydrate your food, getting double-use out of at least some of that water.

    3. Re:and how is there any net difference? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      because the urea isn't filtered out, they will be thirstier, so more dehydrated. Sort of like drinking sea water.

      Plus, you're going to end up with everyone wanting to wash their hands and brush their teeth SO much more (basic psychology).

      Add the need for more careful hygeine (really wash those plates so there's no cross-contamination) and you end up needing MORE water, not less.

    4. Re:and how is there any net difference? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Your piss is generally not as salty as sea water, the dehydratign effect isn't as severe, it's at best a break even scenario, except your not as thirsy psychologically.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    5. Re:and how is there any net difference? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I'd rather drink water condensed from a hummer's exhaust. It hasn't been through anyone before, and is sterile to boot. Plus there'd be more of it.

    6. Re:and how is there any net difference? by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "and is sterile to boot" Urine is sterile as well.

    7. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But if you reconsume the filtered water you've already consumed once?

      The urea is not filtered out! It's still toxic!

      Rather than come up with rations with supposedly built in filtration, why not issue them extremely portable filters so they'll always have drinking water from dirty water?

    8. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      What about making solar stills to process the urine first? That way pure water can be gotten to hydrate the food.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    9. Re:and how is there any net difference? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Not after visiting one of the local village's "comfort women".

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    10. Re:and how is there any net difference? by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Apparently the parent never read Dune

    11. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      This begs the question of why this technology is being limited to rehydrating food instead of being a general water filter.

    12. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Tell you what. You go construct the solar still, and I'll stand guard over you from this foxhole.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    13. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Your piss is generally not as salty as sea water, the dehydratign effect isn't as severe, it's at best a break even scenario, except your not as thirsy psychologically.

      And how did you find this out?!?

    14. Re:and how is there any net difference? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      "and is sterile to boot" Urine is sterile as well.
      You've been watching too many "friends" episodes. http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_12.14.00/column s/lovebites.html
      "Generally, urine is sterile," says Joanne Braithwaite, who, up until her recent switch to the role of TB educator, was the Infection Control Liaison at Toronto Public Health.
      [snip]
      "Once it passes through the urethra, there are all kinds of potential bacteria in the surrounding area that can contaminate it. You can find fecal organisms in urine."
      [snip]
      Can these viruses exist independently in the urine of an unhealthy person as well? "It's all about dose," says Braithwaithe. "Take HIV. Traces can be found in saliva but not enough to infect. You'd have to drink quarts of urine to get hep A.
      "Hey this coffee tastes like shit!"
    15. Re:and how is there any net difference? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      And how did you find this out?!?


      2.5 years of genetics/biology/chemistry.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    16. Re:and how is there any net difference? by ifwm · · Score: 1

      You gave one (alarmist) example. Read your own god damned post dumbass,

      "Generally, urine is sterile," says Joanne Braithwaite

      So even your alarmist doctor agrees with me. So do all the others. Because urine IS sterile (except in rare circumstances)

      As far as Friends go, I never watched it, but that would explain why you are such a fucking moron.

      Moron.

    17. Re:and how is there any net difference? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      "Generally" is not "always". And, as the doctor points out, once it's out of the bladder, you can find "fecal material" - aka shit - in it.

      I don't think the soldiers are going to stand still for being catheterized just so they can save a few ounces of h2o.

      So, who pissed in YOUR cornflakes this morning?

    18. Re:and how is there any net difference? by ifwm · · Score: 1

      I always enjoy how imbeciles like you take an extraordinarily rare circumstance (by the way fecal coliform bacteria is on EVERYTHING, including your kitchen area, living room, and the rest of your house) and turn it into something else. Urine is almost always sterile. The rare (very rare) possibiliy that it is contaminated ( with ones own bacteria by the way) is not even on the radar as a genuine concern.

      Except to dipshits like you.

    19. Re:and how is there any net difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is patently untrue. You should -never- drink your piss in an effort to rehydrate.

  42. Ofcourse... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
    Such a lightweight foodpacket is only useful when you have water available to re-hydrate the food.

    If you're in a desert, you still have to transport that water as well, and any weight savings are lost in that case.

  43. That's the point of RO filters by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Illness is caused by bacteria, viruses, fungus, and the like. All are bigger than water molecules. So you make a filter that is fine enough to filter them out, but let the water through.

    As for how well this particular one works, I dunno, but they can be made to work amazingly well.

  44. Hmm by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

    Drinking your own urine repeatedly disturbs me in a Second Law of Thermodynamics sort of way...eventually your not breaking even and you just fall down dead.

  45. New Advertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are the new recruiting ads going to be changed to 'Army of Number One'?

  46. Doesn't bother me. by Gldm · · Score: 1

    Given the choice of the two I'd take the urine over the dirty water, I know urine's normally sterile unless there's a urinary tract infection present.

    And thanks to a recessive gene, I can't taste it anyway!

    I know someone's about to reply with "And how did you find that out?", so before you do, ask if you really want to know the answer.

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Doesn't bother me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you find that out?

      Actually i dont care why.. ive tried my own piss before (and other things, im freaky)

      i just want to know what you mean by a recessive gene.. theres a gene that allows one to not taste piss?

    2. Re:Doesn't bother me. by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1
      But does this gene mean that you can't taste your piss, or that it doesn't taste? What's called for here is a double blind test. I wonder if anybody wants to volunteer to perform the test.

      If the latter is the case, I can't help but to propose the following:
      1. Discover that your piss is flavourless
      2. Join the Army and get sent as cannonfodder in the desert
      3. Sell your piss to anybody who doesn't want their food to taste like piss (I for one would pay a handsome portion of my crappy army wage)
      4. ???
      5. Profit

    3. Re:Doesn't bother me. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      2. Join the Army and get sent as cannonfodder in the desert

      He'd be the most important guy on the squad after the medic. He'd never walk point. He'd never have to dig his own foxhole.

      His piss would be golden!

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Doesn't bother me. by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Actually we did gene testing in AP bio by normal observations (not blood tests or anything). One of the tests involved putting a piece of paper on your tounge. The teacher didn't tell us what it was beforehand, turns out it was treated with synthetic urea. To me it tasted just like paper, everyone else ran for the sink to throw up.

      I also found out by accident that it does apply to real urine too, but that was a rather long story that happened later in college.

      It really doesn't appeal to me at all as a drinkable substance (as I can still smell it and it stinks) but if I had to deal with it I'd live.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    5. Re:Doesn't bother me. by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a gene involving taste receptors on the tounge. I can still smell it just fine. And no it doens't make my urine tasteless, it just means I can't taste the urea in mine or others, it tastes just like water unless something's wrong with it.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

  47. It's not as bad as it sounds by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    ..It's still higher quality than McDonalds and Burger King combined.

    1. Re:It's not as bad as it sounds by OOO0000OO0O0 · · Score: 1

      That's because if you combine McDonalds and Burger King, they will cancel out because they are oppositely charged (one is positively tacky and the other's nutritional value is negative). Though I would take dirty water/urine over Ronald McDonald trying to "combine" with Burger King. Ick.

    2. Re:It's not as bad as it sounds by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      I'm lovin' it!

  48. Not a 100% accurate quote by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    From the movie Band of Brothers (not sure which part) :

    "You know there isn't a single soldier in Easy Company who'd double time it up and down Currahee just to pee in that guy's coffee."

    Well now you can without the double time!

    1. Re:Not a 100% accurate quote by RogueProtoKol · · Score: 1

      Most probably would be in the first couple of chaptersm referring to their training at Currahee and Captain Sobel

  49. Rehydrating food with urine... by momus_radar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think Fry has the best review of what it probably tastes like: "What's the worst thing that can happen... ewww, it's like a party in my mouth and everyone is throwing up."

  50. yummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried it with a bowl of cheerios..it's delicious

  51. Just an advertising ploy (shock sometimes works) by Centrifuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just an attention (advertising) ploy. Sure, you could use urine, but it would be stupid to do so, since the salt and urea in urine would increase dehydration. If you were that short of water, the last thing you would want to do is eat; especially if it would make you even more dehydrated. A soldier could go days (weeks even) without food, but only 2-3 days without water. Using mucky water, however, makes more sense. It sounds like the new MRE package has a filter similar to the portable water filter I carry in my backack on hiking trips. It was not cheap, though, so I am guessing that most of the research is to look into how to make the filter as inexpensive as possible, so an MRE supplied with one would not go for $100 or more. Centrifuge

  52. That title needs a question mark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just add, um, water?"

  53. New army running song ...??? by really? · · Score: 1

    "Join the army and you'll see,
    You can eat all you can pee!"

    (A friend came up with this yesterday while we were talking about the article.)

    --

    "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
  54. MREs and dirty water by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    MREs are certainly not haute cousine. But I ate a lot of MREs back in the day, and they taste pretty damned good, particularly when you actually *need* energy. Most of the time when Americans eat, it's out of habit, not because we truly need the energy. But when you've been running around doing Uncle Sam's work in the jungle, desert, frozen tundra, or wherever, an MRE hits the spot.

    MREs have gotten steadily better over the years. The first meals were pretty bad. I remember dehydrated chicken & ham loaf (I'm not kidding) with horror. But by the early 1990s they were really good, and they've continued to improve over the years.

    Just ask anyone who had to endure C-rations. They'll tell you about truly crappy combat rations.

    As for the US Army's attempt to come up with a way to use dirty water or urine, the primary goal is to allow soldiers to use dirty water. Don't get too wrapped up in weird urine scenarios. Believe it or not, much of the world drinks water that's hazardous to the health of Americans. Delivery of potable water is a major constraint on the American way of war. We put immense logistical effort into making sure our soldiers get bottled water. This contributes to our outrageously bad tooth to tail ratio, and it makes the military more beholden on civilian contractors to provide logistics support.

    Americans have shown time and time again that we prefer to win wars with logistics, and our enemies know this. Any flexibility, however small, that allows us to reduce our logistics dependency is good in my opinion.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:MREs and dirty water by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      MREs are certainly not haute cousine.

      *US* MREs are not haute cuisine. French MRE are actually incredibly tasty: they come packaged with a single-use heater kit that you assemble under the can and light up, it cooks in about 5 minutes and once it's done, it really is yummy.

      There's a good reason why US military personels were dying to trade all kinds of hardware for rations with the (few) French soldiers in Iraq during Gulf War I.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:MREs and dirty water by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
      French MRE are actually incredibly tasty

      Does anyone else but the US call their combat rations MREs? But I digress. The taste of rations is definitely a matter of opinion. I traded for a few French rations and found them too rich for my taste. BTW, the French and Belgians were anxious to trade for MREs. It seems variety is the real scourge of combat rations. Eat enough of them and you'll crave anything else that provides variety.

      The fact that you have to actually use flame to heat the Franch rations (don't know if this is still true) is a serious mitigating factor in real tactical situations. It means that you wind up eating the damned thing cold. MREs are lighter and can be stripped down more easily, heated in your cargo pocket while you're on the move, and are more practical in general for grunts.

      But then I've never been a huge fan of French food anyway, so take my comparison for what it's worth. If only I could have met some Italians and traded with them. Anyone know how their combat rations taste?

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    3. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave it to the French to put more emphisis on MRE's instead of weapons....

    4. Re:MREs and dirty water by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just ask anyone who had to endure C-rations.

      Way back when they used to include cheap cigarettes with the C-Rats. I guess that was to help you forget about the awful taste of the food.

      If you go even further back, the US Army fed troops beef that was rotten when they bought it. Some troops dies, but Hormel made tons of money off of it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early MRE's has baked beans. On the outside of the package, it sad "bean compenent, not for pre-fight use"!

      I really hated the maple-nut-loaf

    6. Re:MREs and dirty water by alen · · Score: 0

      fire is a bad thing in tactical scenarios. it can tell the enemy where you are from far away so they can kill you without you knowing it. maybe that is why the french have lost every war for the last 200 years.

    7. Re:MREs and dirty water by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      MRE's are SO much better than C or worse yet K rations that it's not even funny. Hell MRE's are better than a lot of the civilian dehydrated foods I eat while mountaineering (they have a lot less packaging so more food per ounce). If I had to I would piss in a canteen and use my Pur Scout on it to hydrate food, hell I HAVE done just that =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:MREs and dirty water by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Any MRE with eggs in it still sucks. The ham slice by itself is ok.
      Suck as they might though, MRE's are worth their weight in gold. I know people who have traded cases of MREs for Humvee and truck parts, ammo and all kinds of other equipment- without even being deployed. Missing a camonet? Case of MREs. Need a couple sets of MOP pants? MREs please. Gotta replace a set of night vision goggles? Well, there you're just hosed. Thanks for playing.

      --
      R(k)
    9. Re:MREs and dirty water by sedrules · · Score: 1

      Yep the egg one was the worst. Hell even the hot sauce couldent help that one.

    10. Re:MREs and dirty water by gredman · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those French weapons really suck.

    11. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This contributes to our outrageously bad tooth to tail ratio, and it makes the military more beholden on civilian contractors to provide logistics support.

      If you examine WW2 closely, along with several other wars, you'll come to realize that the bad tooth to tail ratio you're complaining about is what lead us to the victories we achieved.

      The more equipment and backing the troops at the front have, the easier it is for them to carry on the fight.

      If you doubt me, go check for yourself. The Russians turned back the Germans when they started cranking out tons of equipment. The US Forces in the Pacific measured their equipment in the tons per soldier ratio, while the Japanese could where measuring it in the pounds per soldier.

      No - an army that wins is an army with a large tail. Being on an open source site, I'd think you'd realize that. Heavy duty hardware to run good, compact, open code. Or are you a windows zealot?

    12. Re:MREs and dirty water by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      My experience with MREs taught me alot of what you've mentioned. They're engineered for high-energy relief of hunger.

      I was the First Sergeant for a search and rescue squadron near the Adirondack mountains in upstate New York. It got very, very cold up there, and very quickly. 1400 or so, the MREs that came in those 'natural-esque' brown waxy-paper vacu-saks were idea for the 'warmer' parts of the day, whereas those with the little add-water-to-heater-pouch-and-slide-in-packet-of-X were a Godsend at night. They (the heater packs) were also really good for heating water rations/saline pouches for victims/patients with hypothermia.

      Sitting in cold weather, either on mission or bivouac, you get depressed. Having warm-ish food, of any kind, was a relief. Espicially when you could share it around with your team mates. Kindof made you feel better about the whole situation. They definitely helped.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    13. Re:MREs and dirty water by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      If you go even further back, the US Army fed troops beef that was rotten when they bought it. Some troops dies, but Hormel made tons of money off of it.

      It's been said that during the Spanish-American war, more soldiers died from food poisoning and disease than from the enemy. Food processing back then truly was disgusting (if you want to be disgusted, just read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair...)

      --
    14. Re:MREs and dirty water by sydres · · Score: 1

      try what they had to eat during the spanish american war you want to talk about nasty; months even years old "corned beef" with rat crap, rat poison, rusty metal, sawdust, borax. lucky america made it this far, or better yet try wormy civil war era hardtack, at least the mule was fresh though. can't say the same about the salt pork though

    15. Re:MREs and dirty water by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first half of the book was an extremely effective exposé of the meatpacking industry as it was at the time. I have my doubts about it these days as well. It was also intended to highlight the exploitation of cheap immigrant labor.

      The second half of the book is harder going. Mr. Sinclair's cure for all this would be socialism; the variety described would be lot closer to Marxism than the variety practiced by Western countries. At the time it wasn't associated with totalitarian brutality but there was suspicion of it just the same. It sounded great if you were the exploited labor. It sounded creepy if were even the slightest bit above that station. It doesn't seem like much has changed.

      Sinclair himself said: "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach,"

      The book WAS pretty much the reason for the Pure Food And Drug act.

    16. Re:MREs and dirty water by RWerp · · Score: 1

      My God, and me stupid thought that Napoleon did actually win his first wars, and that in 1918 France was on the winning side.

      But this is probably "old history" (to quote Mr Rumsfeld) and I should upgrade to "new history"...

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    17. Re:MREs and dirty water by icebattle · · Score: 1
      Variety was what we always wanted. I remember trading two days worth of field rations with some Cubans we ran into in Angola, and received a huge can of peaches in return. Not only that, but for a single pack of Camels I got close to a carton of Cuban government issue cigarillos, which were kind of pleasant.

      But putting dirty water to use is a good idea. Most soldiers develop pretty strong stomachs, but still, it can't hurt. We once came accross a pool of water with what looked like a rock sticking out about a meter from the edge. It was only after we'd drunk our fill that someone realized it was a dead cow. It was pretty bloated - one shot and it exploded!

    18. Re:MREs and dirty water by DeltaHat · · Score: 1

      As a member of the US armed forces, I can honestly say that modern MREs are quite tasty. Typically on par with anything Chief Boyardee puts out. They typically come with an entrée that is best hot but edible cold, a fruit of some kind, a few high carb sources, and either instant coffee, tea, or energy drink. The food is all hydrated, but packaged in vacuum sealed plastic so it won't go bad. The entrée fits into a plastic bag with a chemical pad that boils any water added. After about five minutes, the hot parts of the meal are hot. The MRE even comes with mini bottles of tobasco sauce and a pack of chicklets. More info

    19. Re:MREs and dirty water by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1, Funny

      The small fire cannister from the French rat package helps illuminate the serviette at night, when using it as a white flag.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    20. Re:MREs and dirty water by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Most of the time when Americans eat, it's out of habit, not because we truly need the energy.

      Hey, don't speak for me. I eat when I start to have difficulty standing. Just because I'm that fucking lazy.

    21. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave it to a "stupid American" to point this out, but Napolean wasn't French, he was Corsican. Gotta work harder to find a victorious French leader in the last, what, 250 years??

    22. Re:MREs and dirty water by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Trust me, spaghetti alla bolognese are very, very nice even when cold. Some say they taste even better cold.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    23. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, while I was doing my military service a few years ago (when France still had obligatory military service), I was glad to be able to eat these MRE, since they were so much better than what we usually had at the ordinary.
      But it also meant that afterward I had to endure a night in a hole in the ground under a couple of branches, which wasn't the most confortable place to sleep in (even if we weren't supposed to sleep at all).

    24. Re:MREs and dirty water by greenrd · · Score: 1
      I'm like that once in a blue moon (i.e. on a coding binge or something) - but really, all the time? You're probably doing serious damage to your health.

    25. Re:MREs and dirty water by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Yes. I probably am.

    26. Re:MREs and dirty water by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      US rations have a heater included. Unlike the French, which requires an open flame, ours use a chemical heater. You open the heater, add the MRE pouch, and add a little water. 90 seconds later, piping hot MRE.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    27. Re:MREs and dirty water by seafortn · · Score: 1

      I second that - everyone told me that the Canadian meals were "so much better" than the MREs, so after I eventually scrounged a box, I was sorely disappointed - no heater, too many little packets of stuff labeled in both French and English, and a spoon that was too flimsy (although the extra couple of inches made it a lot easier to get into the pouches...) - the only one that really was better was the salmon - but that only comes along once in every 20 meals...

    28. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the French Military Industrial Complex only has to produce rations for it's entire army of, oh, about 100 soldiers - I'm sure they can focus a lot of time/energy on it tasting well.

      Try scaling that up to the size of our armed forces and obviously it would be a boondoggle. And, all things considered, today's MREs are pretty darn good - better than the C-rats of the "good old days"!.

    29. Re:MREs and dirty water by enkidu · · Score: 1

      Totally incorrect. The "tons of equipment" turned out by the Russians was their tooth not their tail. (One of) the reasons that the U.S. was able to win WWII was not because the U.S. had a bigger tail than the Germans or Japans, the U.S. had the ability to vastly outproduce Germand and Japan in equipment that comprised the tooth. The enemy isn't damaged by the length and size of your supply train; to him, the bigger your "tail" is, the better target it makes for him. You defeat the enemy by destroying the ability of the tooth to operate by either attacking the tooth or the tail with your tooth not your tail. Having a bigger tail just makes attacking your enemy more difficult.

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
    30. Re:MREs and dirty water by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      "Any flexibility, however small, that allows us to reduce our logistics dependency is good in my opinion."

      It worked for Napoleon, didn't it? A major component of his success was due to technology take-up. His soldiers had canned food, which seriously broke the rules his opponents played under. The British Navy came close, with their barrels of salt beef.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    31. Re:MREs and dirty water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot, I would get sick of eating the same ten choices of food week after week too. Waita sec....are we talking about cafeteria food at the hospital or military food? Is there a difference? Does this explain why the bedpans come with a mint these days?

    32. Re:MREs and dirty water by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Living with former military persons as my major caregivers, one of which still worked at Fort Jackson teaching map-reading, I got the chance to eat C-Rations, and I loved them. Loved them more than anything.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    33. Re:MREs and dirty water by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Just ask anyone who had to endure C-rations. They'll tell you about truly crappy combat rations.

      Except for the franks and beans... I have yet to find anyone who didn't like them.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    34. Re:MREs and dirty water by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      They are talking about going from 3.5 kg to 0.4 kg by being able to carry dehydrated food. That's 6.82 pounds saved. For less than one pound, they could carry a backpacker's water filtration system that could filter GALLONS of water much dirtier than a wimpy little cellulose membrane could handle. Maybe not urea, but then again, maybe urea too with the right chemicals added to the filter... Plus they could use the same thing for drinking water, and not have to carry as much of that around if they knew there'd be some muddy puddles along the way.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

  55. All right by Flower · · Score: 1
    Currently the membrane is too course to filter out the urea so prolonged use results in kidney damage.

    But it does make me start to wonder how long it will take until we have stillsuits.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
  56. Begin the Frank Herbert references now... by MacBorg · · Score: 1

    Why am I thinking stillsuits?

    1. Re:Begin the Frank Herbert references now... by Chatmag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frank Herbert figured out what needed to be done, but didn't have the technology to actually make one. (Dune was first published in 1963) The Army can't do still suits due to weight and the sheer size, remember that they were in essence body suits.

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    2. Re:Begin the Frank Herbert references now... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      It's still near future tech. The basics are there just miniturization and refinement. A body motion power pump, exstremly good micro filters, and various polymer materials that which liquid away fromt he skin... and int he book they still describe it as tasting really really bad.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:Begin the Frank Herbert references now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "...Frank Herbert figured out what needed to be done, but didn't have the technology to actually make one..."

      Frank Herbert figured out nothing. The "still suit" is portrayed as a garment used in arid climes, but where the feck is your body's cooling coming from if you interrupt the evaporation of sweat from the surface of the skin?

  57. haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    flask of ripe urine
    pressed to dead bsd lips
    bsd drink up

  58. urine is worse than no water? by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    I once heard that if you are thirsty and you have a chance to drink your own urine don't drink it. Supposedly urine is worse than no water at all. Can anyone corroborate this or prove it false? I didn't read the article, that's assumed, but other posters said that it is really a filter that can change urine or dirty water into fresh. So it looks like this who story is only a about a "cloth" that works as a good filter. No one is really drinking urine. It does remind me of Dune, the movie, not the book, about the suit where it extracted urine and sweat to allow 100% water output to become drinkable. This is kind of like that.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    1. Re:urine is worse than no water? by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      The human body isn't 100% efficient. We breathe out most of the oxygen we breathe in. Same with water and urine. There is some water in urine and after filtering the water is what goes into the food (hopefully).
      If you've ever noticed, the more water you drink the lighter your pee is. Dark smelly pee is a sign that you're not drinking enough.
      The problem I see is in the desert its hard to drink enough, so pee won't have as much water as it would if you were in say a jungle or colder area.

    2. Re:urine is worse than no water? by capsteve · · Score: 1

      i don't remember where, but i recall hearing the isreali mosad have trained their operatives in extreme survival, which included utilizing one's own urine to prevent deydration from causing other physical problems. the high sodium content in urine would end up causing your tongue to swell(aside from making you more thirsty), but it could be used in extreme conditions to "wet your whistle". so, no, don't drink it, just gargle with it.

      --
      three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
    3. Re:urine is worse than no water? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Supposedly urine is worse than no water at all. Can anyone corroborate this or prove it false?

      No, that is false. Unfortunately, lots of old wives tales like this become so popular, that people in positions of authority spread it, and it almost gains the status of a fact.

      I've heard the same stories as well... Professors talking about people who were locked in the trunk of a car, or out in the wilderness, who would have been saved in short order, if not for drinking their own urine.

      The fact is, drinking urine has a very, very small chance of resulting in toxicity in the short term. In the long-term, however (several weeks) urine certainly can kill, mainly causing kidney failure.

      I don't have any sources to offer up. However, I'm sure you can search the web a find many stories from reputable news sites about survival stories of people who drank urine to stay alive. It's certainly not recomended, but it won't kill you for a long time.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  59. Is there a difference? by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So now MREs taste like piss instead of tasting like shit? I'm not sure which is preferrable to be honest.

    1. Re:Is there a difference? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      So now MREs taste like piss instead of tasting like shit?

      I've eaten plenty of MREs, and although they won't win any contests, they certainly don't taste too bad. I think the complaints come from soldiers who have had to eat nothing but them for weeks/months on end. For that long of a period of time, it doesn't matter how good the food is if you have a small variety. You are going to get tired of filet minon if you eat it for every meal, every day, for a month.

      With that said, I do wonder about MREs. First of all, everything is in a cheap, light, disposible packaging, except for the Tobasco, which is in the trademarked glass bottle, although tiny. One has to wonder how much weight that wastes, gives soldiers no variety in sauces, and gives tobasco great advertising. How much did they have to pay, and to whom, to get that privlidge?

      Also, I wondered why normal canned food isn't packaged into MRE bags, and distributed, since 99% of canned-food tastes better than MREs. However, I think I know at least the partial reason behind that. First, it's because standard canned-food isn't fortified with vitamins and minerals like iron, salt, etc. If those were added to even the best canned food, it would probably taste just as bad. Also, MREs are tested to maintain their nutritional value for almost 15 years. Canned food won't every spoil, but that's not to say it won't loose nutritional value.

      Anyhow, my point is that they could make MREs taste better, but it would take a huge ammount of work, given their status as highly nutritional food, at low weights.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  60. Camels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Camels are not referred to as 'ships of the desert' for nothing.

  61. let's get our priorities straight by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Funny

    The important question is, "Is it low carb?"

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    1. Re:let's get our priorities straight by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The important question is, "Is it low carb?"

      Well, not if you're a diabetic, I guess.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  62. Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Dausha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, here's a reason why the US Army would like to reduce the amount of water consumed by soldiers. It seems people are under the impression that soldiers haul all their own gear and consumables. Not quite.

    We use vehicles to accomplish the logistical feat of transporting soldiers, equipment and water. The US Army calculates that the average soldier consumes something like five gallons of water daily. No, not just for drinking--hygiene, cooking (i.e., field mess facilities), etc. This figure increases for desert operations, for obvious reasons. Considering that five gallons of water is 40 pounds, and considering that a division comprises something like 10,000+ soldiers, then we are looking for something on the order of tons of water required daily. What's more, most of that water will need to be purified. So, the goal here is to reduce the burden on the military's logistical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. Sure, it's probably an expensive experiment that will be met with failure.

    What's interesting is this is not the first time there's been a *big* experiment. In the '40s, when we were fighting another crazy ideology or two (fascism, national shintoism), some nut thought that we could train our soldiers to consume less than the required amount of water--especially for desert operations. The idea there was to reduce the burden to the military's logisitical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. What's disappointing is this: the human body requires a minimum amount of water to operate. The Army learned that lesson by watching dozens (I've heard as many as hundreds or thousands, but that seems a tad high) of soldiers died disproving the experiment. I think the loss of human life was more expensive than the loss of a few tax dollars. Besides, I think the government wastes money in several other areas that should be reined in first.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by gotpaint32 · · Score: 1

      Only one problem with your statement, that is that MRE's are not for daily consumption, they are a last resort when you are unable to return to your base for food, water, etc. So for instance your black hawk goes down in the middle of god knows where, you will have the military mandated 3 days of rations strapped on your pack. So until some rangers pull you out of there, those 3 days of rations are most certainly your problem. Now throw in a few mountains you might need to climb and a few hundred kilometers, and you just might see how much difference a few pounds would make.

      --
      Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
    2. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's awful. They probably should have stopped at the point where the soldiers were no longer in any sort of fighting condition, which I'd guess would happen long before death.

    3. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      There is a simple rule of water consumption I learned as a kid in the New Mexico desert: If you don't have to pee, your not drinking enough!
      This applies to anyone working outside in heat, anywhere. If what your doing causes a large amount of sweat, drink enough to make sure you still have to pee regularly. Then you will not dehydrate. It works, it's simple.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    4. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Robotdog · · Score: 0

      "Okay, here's a reason why the US Army would like to reduce the amount of water consumed by soldiers." For a second there, I thought this was going to be one of the pseudo-serious first posts, discussing the horrors of chlorinated (!!!) water. Calm down General Ripper!

    5. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

      Never in my statement do I recall saying that MREs are the only thing eaten in the field. So, you are taking issue with something I did not say. However, I'd like to address the issue you raise.

      When I was in the Army for nine years and in the field, I ate MREs practically every day, although not for every meal. Typically, we ate at least one MRE/day and hot rations twice daily. My basic understanding was that was the only way for us to rotate the stock, since MREs do have a limited shelf life (if you call ~5 years limited when it comes to food). However, when I was in MTC for 21 days, I only had hot rations a couple of days and ate MREs the other 20-odd days. So, I ate upward of 60 MREs.

      As for Rangers, I don't know if they'd be coming to my rescue. Although I see your reference to Black Hawk Down. But, if I were behind enemy lines and had 9 kgs of food, I don't think I'd eat them all in three days. I'd "field strip" them to make them less weight, then milk them as long as I could. I also probably wouldn't be hiking up and down mountains. In all likelihood, I'd hike down a mountain, sneak along a bit, and finally get caught, beaten and watch the "bad guys" eat the rest of my MREs. In that case, it would feel nice to have pre-hydrated them with a little urine.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    6. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

      I should say that in my comment I'm not trying to rip on the Army. I served for nine years. However, ever since I heard this I couldn't stop thinking how idiotic people can sometimes get when they're trying to reduce someting. I've seen this tendency in more than just the Army, so it is not unique in this regard.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    7. Re:Water, Water, Everywhere . . . by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is this is not the first time there's been a *big* experiment. In the '40s, when we were fighting another crazy ideology or two (fascism, national shintoism), some nut thought that we could train our soldiers to consume less than the required amount of water--especially for desert operations. The idea there was to reduce the burden to the military's logisitical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. What's disappointing is this: the human body requires a minimum amount of water to operate

      This isn't as crazy as you would think: navies (who are surrounded by water but can only drink the water already on the ship) did this (successfully) for centuries. Half rations or even quarter rations were horrible for morale and the health of the men, but it kept everyone from dying of thirst weeks before land was sighted.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  63. Movie title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the part about the "indestructable sandwich". Sounds like a good title for a bad movie.

  64. Sweat and tears by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't sweat and tears work if there was enough to rehydrate the pouch? They're both made of salt water. What about saliva?

    1. Re:Sweat and tears by lostmagik · · Score: 0

      spit an ounce soldier!....per meal

    2. Re:Sweat and tears by Sirch · · Score: 1

      Think how long it would take to spit enough to rehydrate one MRE. Or collect the sweat to do it.

      Theoretically, though, sweat would work as well as urine, but with the same risks to your kidneys - I'm not sure what urea content sweat has versus urine, but it does have some.

  65. Our glorious scientists by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    Our knowledge is so powerful that it can now make food of urine.

    The pride is too much for me, I fear my chest shall burst.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  66. Sounds Familliar by FauxReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Engineer Ed Beaudry was quoted by the New Scientist as saying that the body would not find using urine to rehydrate food toxic in the short term, but in the long term it would cause kidney damage.

    Well that finally explains my highschool's cafeteria food...

  67. Humor Aside . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

    You know, the current MREs come with a handy little water-activated heat pack. One of the more humorous steps in the use of these packets is to lean the concoction against a rock or something. Now, I wasn't always near a rock, and I always left the something back in garrison.

    However, the system needed about a half cup of water. Why not piss in that?

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Humor Aside . . . by Monthenor · · Score: 1
      --
      Co-founder of GerbilMechs
    2. Re:Humor Aside . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that bottom icon mean "Do not eat packaging"?

      I hope that instruction is not for the soldiers. If they can be trusted with guns, they should know not to eat plastic packaging.

      Or does eating MREs affect the sense of what is food and what isn't?

      Nice picture, thanks. :)

    3. Re:Humor Aside . . . by IBX · · Score: 1

      1.the self-heating MREs packs contain chemicals which add quite a bit of weight. (So the special operation commandos tend to carry the non-heated meals).
      2.Sure you can pee into the heating unit.
      But the article is about the re-hydrating the pouch content, not the heating unit

    4. Re:Humor Aside . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a warning not to eat the heat pouch and have it combine with water in your stomach and cook you inside out.

  68. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Also known as R. Kelly's Choice!

  69. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Funny

    There was already a reason they are called Meals Refused by Ethiopians...

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  70. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmmmm salty.

  71. One menu item was rejected in field tests... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Asparagus

  72. DUPE dupe DUPE dupe DUPE dupe DUPE dupe by nusratt · · Score: 1
  73. Next by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

    time somebody pisses on your "wheaties", you can thank them!

    --
    Sig it.
  74. Note to self by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1

    If ever asked to join military service, immediately shoot self in head.

  75. Ah ha! by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered what was with the name "Golden Stream". Must've been how the military tested it an unsuspecting public!

    http://www.goldenstream.com/

  76. +5 Sick bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I still laughed

  77. still not good enough by glsunder · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's still not good enough to make coors taste good.

  78. what? by iroll · · Score: 1

    So, you've pointed out a "problem," and then suggested a "solution" that is absolutely irrelevent. "Heating it up" is only "best" if by "heating it up" you mean "distilling it," which would be rediculous to suggest for field use (time consuming, too much equipment). "Heating it up" might be good for preventing cholera (by killing it), but won't do anything to prevent you from drinking poisons. Just cause it's boiled, doesn't mean its pure--you're still drinking dead bacteria and all of the other chemicals that have higher boiling temps than water (which is a lot).

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    1. Re:what? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      > "distilling it," which would be rediculous to
      > suggest for field use

      Depends on which field yer talking about. If yer in the jungle or a temperate zone, use filtration; if yer in an arid or desert zone, then using the sun to heat dirty water or urine and recapture the evaporated pure water is (in my opinion) better.

      Look at it. You got these big trucks moving bottled water all over the place right? Just make a big truck that takes waste water (not solids) and uses the heat of the exaust and the sun to evaporate the water - condense it and serve.

      I'll bet it could be done.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    2. Re:what? by iroll · · Score: 1

      Building a dedicated water purifying truck & crew might be a good way to decrease your need on a supply line, but that's not what we're worried about here.

      I think the field we're talking about is the one where the big trucks CAN'T bring water; like special forces patrols in Afghanistan, that kind of thing. Carrying a useful still around your pocket isn't feasible (obviously you can make a cheapo still out of plastic and a coffee can, but it wouldn't do as good a job of keeping out volitile chemicals as this membrane would).

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  79. Obligatory by Boyceterous · · Score: 4, Funny

    Urine the army now!

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pee all you can pee, in the Army!

    2. Re:Obligatory by kir · · Score: 1

      That's an old song.

      You're in the Army now
      You're not behind a plow
      You'll never get rich (or You're diggin a ditch)
      You son of a bitch
      You're in the Army now.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
  80. old news by SparkyTWP · · Score: 1

    The military has been using water to aid them for a long time.

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/hydro-ordnance.htm

    I'm looking forward to the tank personally.

  81. Why are they.. by Klowner · · Score: 1

    ..acting like this is a huge breakthough, I've been doing this for years

    Man, this oatmeal is salty.

  82. So what! greengo wont even see this anyways! by urbieta · · Score: 1

    I just dont get why you worry so much since you already know that those lazy crybabies that call themselves americans will never see this "Technology" in their back packs because there are plenty of stupid inmigrants taking all those unwanted jobs to win any war and get killed in the process.

    There goes your patriotism! :P

    WTF will you do with the north american nationality after death? gees!

  83. Why Every Packet? by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 1

    The article mentions that the filter will be on every pack of the chicken/rice ration. This seems like a waste of weight and supply. If the filter can be reused, carry a filter. If it can't, carry just five or so to use when in dire need, that would be a simple way to limit the use and prevent urea poisoning (and misuse due to pranks, torture, or mistraining).

    To me when I put on my "market speak earphones" I interpret this to be a "dirty water flavor packet" that is attempting to seek a wider market than just its emergency uses in zero water situations.

    Troops will already drink their own urine in dire life or death situations. Making a "Urine Kool Aid Flavor Packet" is an ideal way to add calories and conserve water while making the situation not have to be quite so dire. Of course since urine will come out at 98.6 degrees it makes more sense to have a chicken soup flavor rather than grape or cherry (easily stronger flavors). The materials in this packet sound so heavily processed that it could have started as anything (pork, vegan kudzu, SCO brain).

    The money to be made isn't on the food, but on the packet and filter. A military supplier will want to increase sales by making sure everyone has these rations even if their utility will only be for a select few in dire circumstances when trading off poison water becomes a positve thing.

    The innovation is the urine filter packet that increases water conservation. The horror and waste seems to be in making sure that these "urine kool-aid packs" become widely used in non-emergency circumstances.

  84. I can't believe no one has mentioned stillsuits by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Come on people, don't you read Frank Herbert any more? Is it just me, or is everyone else also wondering when this technology will simply be integrated into the soldier's outfit? Pumps at the backs of the knees can drive the system and technology currently used to seal punctured tires could possibly be adapted to seal off any severed lines. Fluidic valves can provide a troubleproof means of making sure the fluid goes in the right direction. Having pumps in the system means you can use a reverse osmosis filter, and you will be able to filter out urea. The only thing you need to do to make water drinkable in such a system is employ a primary ceramic/iodine system to do initial filtration of particulate matter and kill off bacteria. Alternately, if you have some ready source of electricity, you could use UV light.

    Provided you can keep the system from having adverse effects on body temperature, this will allow you to reclaim moisture from sweat and urine, and essentially lose water only during respiration. In the desert, it might make sense to wear masks as well, to remove that source of loss.

    Reverse osmosis water filtration systems are readily available, albeit on a larger scale. I have one sitting around here that I just haven't got around to setting up yet, which has two stages of particulate filtration, a charcoal stage for removing chlorine, and the reverse osmosis filter. It requires a water pressure of 40 to 100 psi. People regularly purchase them for processing water for drinking or for fish tanks. They require no electricity, need only simple maintenance (replacing parts, and minimal cleaning) and produce very little waste water.

    I don't know how small they're making reverse osmosis water filtration systems these days but I imagine that it would be pretty easy to mock up a prototype urine processing system, which should be enough to get some grant money or an investment out of someone to scale it up into the whole deal.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I can't believe no one has mentioned stillsuits by jvv62 · · Score: 1
      Provided you can keep the system from having adverse effects on body temperature

      I suspect that this is the killer issue. You would need to add a chiller into the suit, and that means more weight, and another thing that would need power.

      Although I suppose solar might be possible...

      --
      -John Van Voorhis
    2. Re:I can't believe no one has mentioned stillsuits by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not actually sure that cooling equipment is necessary. If it is, a simple fan-driven cooler, basically a cross between a water block and a heat sink with a fan on it, should adequately cool the low-volume water flow in the suit. You can certainly generate the power for that from solar or from temperature differential using a peltier junction.

      As long as it is thin and worn under the normal uniform (where you want it to be anyway - beneath the body armor) and the water is not being held directly against the flesh, but instead is separated by insulation, I suspect that it would not cause significant overheating. After all, the whole point is that one is allowed to sweat as normal, and since we are wanting to collect the body's water we will be getting that heated water away from the body as soon as possible so that it can be processed.

      Aside from the issue of holding in sweat, it's amazing how fast heat will pass through a thin plastic layer. A person wrapped up in pallet wrap (basically giant saran wrap) will still be cold in a cold room unless they are, uh, active. Trust me :D

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  85. Isn't not having water more important than food? by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something, but if you run out of water, aren't you in far more danger of death by dehydration than lack of food?

  86. the new Army slogan... by joehill48 · · Score: 0

    Pee all that you can pee
    in the Aaaaaaahrmy

  87. General Jack D. Ripper warned us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a commie conspiracy to make us use up all our precious bodily fluids.

    General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.

    General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I 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.

  88. Hope the army has creative marketing by Ignatius_VI · · Score: 1

    This is without a doubt a good idea (in case of that absolute emergency)...

    MRE's aren't that bad, at least the pre-piss ones.

    I only wonder about the different meals they'll have. What else is in the Jumbalaya? Spaghetti and Meatballs is now just Spaghetti and balls? The army needs to pounce on this to make as many double meanings as they can out of every word associated with MRE's.

  89. Filtration is pretty effective by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Peter's posting is the first technically interesting comment I've seen here, because it differentiates these filters from the more common type.

    Basic filtration is a fairly well-solved technology - campers can buy yuppie-priced water-filters that can turn pond scum into nice clear safe drinking water as long as the problems are bacteria, giardia, dirt, etc. rather than soluble chemicals, and they help on some of the chemicals as well. They won't fix overdoses of salt, or heavy metals, and most of them won't help much with nasty organics like pesticides, but they can solve most of the world's basic safe drinking water needs in places that have dirty fresh water. The issue is making them in appropriate quantities and price ranges.

    Y2K paranoia was a great excuse to go buy camping gear :-) Water filters, propane stove, etc.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  90. Re:Isn't not having water more important than food by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
    2 minutes w/o air
    2 days w/o water
    2 weeks w/o food

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  91. There's a problem with that... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

    Your solution, while it helps mechanized units, doesn't really help the foot soldiers stuck out there with nothing but their gear.

    --
    Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    1. Re:There's a problem with that... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      1 ounce of cheap gasoline (heptane) yields 8 ounces of water when condensed (or used in a fuel cell). Remember the problems they had with water pooling around the membranes in the Apollo missions?

      They could use the fuel cell for power, and drink the water at the same time. Obviates the need for batteries that need to be recharged as well. Dual use - probably lighter as well.

  92. What's the big deal? by djeaux · · Score: 1
    Soldiers have been saying "piss on it" about their rations since time out of mind.

    Now they really can "piss on it"...

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  93. New slogan by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1

    Pee all that you can pee, in the army!

  94. sounds like by alizard · · Score: 1

    They should upgrade the membranes in the MREs so they can use urine properly for long-term use. That would make it a lot easier for our men and women in uniform to go to war self-contained.

  95. Inelegant by danharan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It seems there is a different filter for each ration. And it's not a great filter, either:
    Hydration Technology of Albany, Oregon, which makes the membrane, says soldiers should only use urine in an absolute emergency because the membrane is too coarse to filter out urea.

    The body will not find this toxic over the short term, says Ed Beaudry, an engineer with HTI, but rehydrating food this way in the long term would cause kidney damage.


    So... why not give every soldier a really good filter that both filters out urea and can be reused?

    Of course, the army is not necessarily known for trying to find low-cost solutions...
    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    1. Re:Inelegant by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Because none exists. Urea is a pretty small molecule, not much bigger than H2O. Filtering out a virus particle billions of atoms large is easy, filtering out individual molecules not much bigger than H2O is a very different story.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    2. Re:Inelegant by danharan · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I did a quick research, and it seems you are correct. Not only that, whoever figures out how to solve that issue would probably be guaranteed a few million... :)

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  96. Not superior minds *inside* the military... by empaler · · Score: 1

    I mean, Danish privates are better trained than most American sergeants and lieutenants...

    Note, that I am a conscientious objecter, but still...

    1. Re:Not superior minds *inside* the military... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your statement is based on what facts? And the Danish military consists of how many people compared to that of the U.S. military?

      There's factors of scale (and other variables) to consider before making such a rash statement. It's easier to set the bar (whether it be training, finances, etc.) with 10 people than with 100, 100 than 1000, etc.

      Get a clue...

  97. Tooth to tail? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    I've never served in the military. Could you explain this "tooth to tail ratio"?

    1. Re:Tooth to tail? by dukeisgod · · Score: 1

      I think that's more of a reference to a snake or some such critter. If you have a very long supply train compared to your actual fighting forces, you have a low tooth-to-tail ratio.

    2. Re:Tooth to tail? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      My guess: it refers to the ratio of combat forces (tooth) to support and logistics (tail). It's unsurprising that the US military has a terrible ratio there, because they are such a high-tech military. That has its costs.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    3. Re:Tooth to tail? by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could you explain this "tooth to tail ratio"?

      Sure. The tooth is the part that bites, and the tail is the part that drags behind. The tooth of a military force is the combat force, the actual fighting soldiers and their equipment. They're the people who actually push the enemy around and force the conclusion of the conflict. The logistical tail is the rest of the force, which exists to support the tooth and make sure it has everything it needs to fight effectively. Modern, mechanized military forces require incredible amounts of support. Ammunition, fuel, food, spare parts, intelligence, mail, etc., it takes a lot to keep them fully supplied, but they're also very fast and very hard-hitting when they're well-supplied.

      However, while the tail is so crucial to the effectiveness of the tooth, it's also a liability itself. If the tooth is concentrated on taking the fight to the enemy, it can't focus on protecting the tail, which may leave the tail vulnerable to attack. Successful attacks on the supply lines leave the combat soldiers without supplies, dramatically reducing their effectiveness. The longer the tail, the easier it is to cut. Also, while well-supplied modern forces are highly mobile, the logistics chain is not, and the larger the tail, the more sluggishly it moves. This leads to situations where the combat forces can easily outrun their own supplies, effectively cutting themselves off. Last, all of the people and equipment who make up the tail cost just about as much money as the combat forces, but don't directly contribute to shoving the enemy around. The tail appears to offer no "bang" but costs a lot of bucks so for a given budget, a combat force that requires a smaller logistical tail is a larger, more powerful force.

      The tooth to tail ratio, then, is a measure of how much of the force is dedicated to fighting vs support.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  98. Next on Food Network! by ajservo · · Score: 1

    dried food that can be rehydrated using dirty water or urine.

  99. Re:I doubt it by Bastian · · Score: 1

    Considering the main point of this system is to remove pathogens from the water, it'd probably be cheaper and more reliable to use fire or even funny square shaped tinfoil hats.

  100. Gives a whole new meaning to PeOns... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    So,

    Does this mean that battlefield grunts/soldiers are just "peons" of their disrespective governments?

    Gives a whole new meaning to PEONS.
    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  101. Stolen!! by Veramocor · · Score: 1

    Man that joke was stolen from Space Quest 1: The Saerien Encounter

    Dehydrated water in the survivial pack, just add air.

    Plus it was a good alternative way for killing that pesky Orat, if you couldnt drop the boulder on the bridge on him. Just through the dehydrated water canister at him, he would eat it then explode.

    Best adventure game ever.

    --
    Veramocor
  102. Re:Isn't not having water more important than food by Anonymous+Daredevil · · Score: 1

    That's precisely the point. This invention prevents you from carrying water in your food and in your canteen. Just carry the water in your canteen and the food is dried and ultralight. Then you can carry more water at the same weight.

    The only reason to use urine would be if you were running out of your last reserves of water and you know you can't waste the water on food for the same reasons you mention.

  103. These pretzels are making me thirsty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, nobody wants to urinate on their food, but did you know that urea is used to brown pretzels and other baked goods? No more pretzels for me!

  104. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also known as R. Kelly's Choice!

    You, sir, are a god among men!

  105. Isn't Urine Sterile? by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 1

    Isn't urine sterile? Combined with the fact that you pee onto the package membrane and not into the food itself, I don't really see what the problem is. In fact, I'd probably perfer urine over dirty water for hydrating MREs. Remember that even those "clear" puddles of water on the ground often contain nasty parasites and other irritating-to-deadly toxins. The alternative to urine could be much worse!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    1. Re:Isn't Urine Sterile? by greening · · Score: 1

      Urine is composed of pretty much the same thing as sweat. There was a story about a family trapped in their basement after an earthquake in California. A husband, wife and child. The husband told his family to drink their urine but, the wife refused. The man and child survived...

      I used to work in a chemical lab, and I was friends with the person who would run hexavalent chromiums. We would occasionally bet on the results of the samples that came in. There was one, it was crystal clear, didn't have any smell, etc. The result was drastically high (and almost went out of her curve with only 10 mLs of sample). And, if I recall correctly, Erin Brockovich was about the water's Cr(-6).. So, I wouldn't trust water that hadn't atleast been boiled before use.

      --
      Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
  106. Why? Water filters are readily available by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    There even been /. stories on them. Really cleaning non-chemical polluted water is relativly easy. There are plenty of setups available that can be transported that will turn dirty (biological waste polluted water) into the ready to bottle water.

    So why ain't they being used? Well they are. The real problem in the areas that still don't have clean water is war and corruption. A rich country can send a hundred of such devices but if they all end up in the houses of the rich instead of hooked up to the village water supply then it don't mean shit. Worse that aid is even anti-aid as it is reinforcing the problems that caused the shortage in the first place. Africa grows enough food to feed the continent AND export. Problem is that it doesn't get to the right place in time. Water is even simpler, thousands if years of life have made sure people live near water supplys. Those that didn't didn't have kid. Social evolution or something. But war moves people where nature doesn't supply for them. Off fertile watered land and into the desert.

    This particulair solution is of no use. Why? It is a throw away filter attached to the ration. Wastefull (it would make them totally dependent on a constant supply of MRE from the west). To truly solve the drinking problem you need something that can supply a village for years, not a single person with 1 meal. As said the tech exists to supply the village. Problem is getting it in the right place and keeping it up and running, not so much a tech problem but a human problem. If the funds for spare parts are stolen or the parts never arrive or the fuel is used in cars to drive around the local rich etc etc etc. War is a nice one too. Everytime aid has solved a crisis and it looks like a country in africa is getting back on its feet war breaks out.

    The tech solved the clean water problem. Now the politicians need to solve the war problem. Personally I am not holding my breath. Still next time you get a little note in the mailbox that the water supply is going to be cut for a few hours for maintenance don't curse eh, others have it far worse.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Why? Water filters are readily available by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1
      But war moves people where nature doesn't supply for them. Off fertile watered land and into the desert.

      Besides which, intensive farming and firewood gathering can quickly turn fertile watered land into desert.

  107. "We support our troops" my ass by Secret+Chimp · · Score: 1

    I'm hoping they accidentally made it seem like they have no regard for the mental aspect of this thing when they suggested that you can piss on your food and eat it.

  108. Just add water? by seitentaisei · · Score: 0

    And coming to a military near you...dehydrated water! Just add water!

  109. I was gonna eat...... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

    then I thought "piss on it"

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  110. hmmm by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    looks like they are trying to cover all bases....so ppl can't have an excuse for not eating those military rations.

    And u thought MRE's tasted bad.

  111. Marines... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    always claimed to be full of piss and vinegar... now they can prove it...

    MRE??? Allegedly according to the troops it stood for "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians"; now stands for "Meals Rejected by Everybody"...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  112. Re:Just an advertising ploy (shock sometimes works by adolf · · Score: 1

    It's not stupid - it's what you gotta do to stay alive.

    Weeks without food? Yeah, sure - you'll live, as long as you're in a vacuum. But will you be strong enough to keep up in a fight and stay alive? Fighting takes a lot of energy. Travelling on foot (to find clean water, perhaps) with a shit-ton of gear strapped to your body takes a lot of energy.

    If you want to stay alive and keep going, you must replace this energy. Hence, eating food made from piss. It's Better This Way, and plainly a last resort.

    Of course, the filter is not quite good enough to get rid of urea, but TFA (did you read it?) states that it's not immediately toxic.

    According to this other article, the device is readily able to process seawater into a usable form. I've not been able to find any references, but I do suspect that seawater is saltier than piss.

    At any rate, a couple of paragraphs from the above-linked article should clear up the whole salt issue:

    One drawback to the bags is that they don't work without the electrolyte powder, which has to be added fresh every time the bag is used. That means the liquid they produce can't be used for cooking, or to rehydrate freeze-dried rations, Darsch said.

    The good news is that the sugars in the electrolyte solution can provide energy, while the salts can replace essential salts lost to sweating and dehydration, Darsch said.


    At this point, the salt-intake thing should be obvious:

    The forward-osmosis filter provides salt, as a matter of course. The body requires salt to function properly. Normally, the body gets most of its required salt from everyday food.

    So, you just remove salt from the food, before packaging, to balance the amount of salt added in filtration.

    In the end, you end up with a meal which will help you get from wherever you desolate place you're in to somewhere that has better water, or which will at least increase your energy, alertness, and comfort to help keep you from getting killed before your job is finished.

  113. Dodgeball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is this entirely necessary?"
    "Is drinking my own urine necessary? No, but I do it anyway, because it's sterile, and I like the taste!"

  114. Just curious by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, but what material is the bubble that you live in made from? And what measures are you taking to filter your air and water? I really need to know because I've become very concerned about my Precious Bodily Fluids.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  115. heh.. by katanan · · Score: 1

    why not just eat lembas?

  116. The spice must flow! by ansonyumo · · Score: 1

    Methinks Muad'Dib would approve.

  117. You want me to shit in a jar? by losvedir · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking kidding?

    --
    "True dat with a wiffle ball bat." -- kabrakan
    1. Re:You want me to shit in a jar? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      I leave it up to you to decide which question I was answering with that statement ;)

  118. are you so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moron. did u drop out of high school?

    loser.

  119. Comment Analysis by jgardn · · Score: 1, Insightful
    There are two kinds of comments in this thread, and I'd say pretty much anywhere.

    Knee-jerk reaction:

    Yuck! Eating pee is bad! I wouldn't do it! Why does the government do this to their poor soldiers? I bet there is some real corruption here somewhere.

    Logical:

    If you are a soldier, and you are in a situation that warrants using pee to hydrate the food, I imagine that the situation is pretty dire. I'd say they are much more likely to die from lead poisoning than their own urea in this situation.

    If you prefer to listen to logic, you really have to dig deep to find the kernel of truth.

    A good way to do this is to apply the following criteria:

    (1) Filter on dirty language. People who use dirty language can't express themselves anyway so trying to understand what they say is mostly hopeless. Usually, their thought process doesn't go beyond "eat - drink - sleep" anyway, so they have nothing to say.

    (2) Filter on namecalling or conspiracy theories without evidence. These people are still stuck in the 2nd grade, and have nothing interesting to say, although their conspiracy theories are quite funny at times.


    BUSH: Hey Dickie-poo! Look at this! We can get the soldiers to pee on their food and eat it!

    CHENEY: HAHAHA! That's hilarious! I'll just stuff this wad of cash I stole from hardworkin' Americans in the Halliburton bank account.

    BUSH: Hey, let's go invade another country next week. I pick -- this one! It's got a really funny name... Let me see... Mass... a... what's that letter?

    CHENY: Hey! That's Boston, the DNC is having their convention! Let's nuke it and blame it on terrorists!

    BUSH: AWESOME! Tell Condie to bring me some more water, and Collin to get my jacket and polish my shoes!


    After you apply those two criteria, you should get a pretty good reading here at Slashdot, or any mailing list or public forum.
    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Comment Analysis by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      (2) Filter on namecalling or conspiracy theories without evidence.

      You mean like...oh I don't know...the 9-11 Commission Report?

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    2. Re:Comment Analysis by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Filter on dirty language. People who use dirty language can't express themselves anyway so trying to understand what they say is mostly hopeless.

      You could also filter on illogical nonsense like that. Just because your ability to parse different types of communication is lacking doesn't mean other people have a problem.

      In fact, let's filter on people who have strong religious beliefs. Those people can't think for themselves anyway, so listening to anything they have to say is mostly hopeless.

      Oh... wait... you mean that INDIVIDIUALS are more important than groupings in point to point communication, so throwing blanket statements over entire chunks of society based on the rotten eggs in the group is a mark of stupidity? Gee... learn something new everyday...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  120. It's fairly simple, AC by empaler · · Score: 1

    It is correct that our military is smaller, but there are only ~5 million of us. We spay way less per capita than the US on our army. The US spends nearly 4%* of their GNP on the military (and I suspect that figure does not include R&D, Homeland Security, CIA, etc.), whereas Denmark uses roughly 1½%*.

    The reason that our basic training is set to a higher bar is, logically, that we have a smaller army. The US army works thru the principle of redundancy; otherwise flak jackets (or better) would be standard issue to your troops in Iraq (and elsewhere). Having so small a military as we do simply means that we have to make sure that all parts can function at least somewhat autonomously, and that the least possible number of troops are lost or disabled in combat.
    I don't care how the President and Congress say they feel about military losses, they don't take proper care of their troops.

    STFU, mister AC, or get proper arguments. At least have the decency to step up to the plate with a name if you wish to tell me to get a clue.

  121. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by pdp0x14 · · Score: 1

    Do you think they'll call them P-rations?

  122. Re:Just an advertising ploy (shock sometimes works by weiyuent · · Score: 1

    This is just an attention (advertising) ploy. Sure, you could use urine, but it would be stupid to do so, since the salt and urea in urine would increase dehydration.

    To the chem geeks out there, a question for you: Is there some chemical we can add to our urine to take out the urea and salt? There must be something that would cause it to turn into a precipitate or something, no?

  123. Re: Heater Kit by Commander+Trollco · · Score: 2, Informative
    Just so you know, US MREs come with a flameless heater. The heater you describe in French MREs sounds like it has to be lit, which is very bad in a combat environment.
    The US heaters are a pouch about the size of the entree pouch, but with less volume. A small amount of water initiates an exothermic reaction that gives off Hydrogen Gas as a byproduct.

    By inserting the open end of the heater pouch into a properly-sized carton (the entree pouch comes in one), the gas has no escape, and voila! Heater bomb. Fun stuff.

    --
    http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
  124. Short term effects too by serutan · · Score: 1

    In the short term, feeding the troops their own urine causes desertion.

  125. Hey genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to question your methodology, but, uh... wouldn't it be far easier to measure the mass COMING INTO the body on an average day rather than going out?

  126. I've patented the follow on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An additive you sprinkle on your own, or your buddies, shit. You piss on it to make it edible and delicious. Works even if you have Diarrhea.
    Now you can carry your rations in your guts.
    Dont knock it: if its good enough for a billion flies its good enough for the US army.

  127. Metric troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's 1Kg per 1dm (aka 1 liter)

  128. weight by goon · · Score: 1
    One day's food supply of three meals, weighs 3.5 kilograms but that can be reduced to about 0.4 kilograms with the dehydrated pouches

    did everyone catch that "... 3 meals could be reduced from 3.5 Kg to 400g... "! The difference can be made up with a lot of kit which is a pretty significant consideration where bullets are more useful than food.

    --
    peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
    1. Re:weight by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      You still need 3.1 Kg of water to re-hydrate it though. In many situations, that's still going to mean carrying it.

    2. Re:weight by goon · · Score: 1

      History shows us that such inventions have their place. Water may be a problem if your operating in desert or desert like conditions. What about Alpine?

      real heroes of telemark

      I'm watching a bbc series on abc tv called the real heros of telemark (by ray mear) ~ which follows the story of WWII british trained and equiped, norwegian commandoes conducting raids on a Norsk heavy water plant in norway. Hitler had captured this plant to help in the production of nuclear weapons.

      where weight matters, extra food gets left behind

      The problems they had with carrying their kit, traversing cold climatic conditions where you could expend upwards of 5000/6000 calaries per day this type of food would have gone a long way to solve their problems in surviving.

      --
      peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
  129. beh by Alyks · · Score: 1

    Im waiting for instant star-trek food

  130. Filtration by Trailwalker · · Score: 2, Informative

    As every backpacker knows, lightweight, portable water filters have long been available.

    Here is selection .

    Whether these could be used under combat conditions is another question.

  131. Babs says... by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 1

    MREs
    Like the corners of my mind
    Misty water-colored MREs
    Of the way we were...

  132. Catch Pockets by sPaKr · · Score: 1

    Sweat is caught in catch pockets from which you can drink, and NOW eat!...mm romen.

  133. Re: Heater Kit by kman · · Score: 1

    Here's a picture of the heater included in the French rations: French Ration Heater. It looks like a hexamine-based heater similar to what the British use: British Ration Heater.

    The hexamine tabs are just little blocks of burnable stuff, simliar to the trioxane the US Military uses. You put a tab of it on your cooker, light it, and put a canteen cup full of water on the cooker, insert the entre pouch in the water, and wait until it heats up.

    It works ok but not near as quick and simple as using one of the Flameless Ration Heaters in the MREs.

  134. Re:Hey, yet another way to make MREs more disgusti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Wow, just what we needed another way to make MREs more unpalatable!

    OTOH, it goes great with Navy ship bologna!

  135. No urine? by metamatic · · Score: 1

    If you don't have any urine available, you can use American beer.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  136. Bacteria. OK, How about viri? by LineGrunt · · Score: 1

    Bacteria aren't the only bad things that can be in surface water in the field.

    How about heavy metals?
    How about viri?

    The portable water filters available to backpackers have the microfiltration to stop bacteria and cysts, but need some other method to stop viri. (boil, chlorine, iodine)

    How does this technology cope with a water source contaminated with Hep-A, B, C, AIDS,etc viri???

  137. Who wants Pee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do! I do!

    4 out of 5 uroglaniacs agree...

  138. Re: Heater Kit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, try taking the magnesium "brick" out of the MRE heater, crushing it to a fine powder, and putting 1.5 heaters in a 20oz soda bottle. Fill the bottle half full with warm/hot water, screw the top on and shake. Put it on the ground, step back abou 15 feet, and watch the bottle expand and explode! It sounds somewhere between a .22 and a .270 shot.

    You can get the heaters for $5/12 pack at many Army Surplus stores.

    We did this many times in college... Our Campus Safety was NOT pleased!

  139. Risk of contamination? by sprocketbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing that comes to mind is what happens if/when the membrane breaks. If someone is using dirty swamp water you get giardia stew. It wouldn't even take a large hole, it could be something small enough that folks wouldn't notice it.

    So, what're the membranes made of and what kind of damage can they face?

  140. now... by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

    now the food really can be piss-pot poor

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  141. Fremen! by Tancred · · Score: 2, Funny

    Only a matter of time before soldiers are issued stillsuits. :)

  142. A logical survival choice by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1

    I agree with you and to maybe emphasizes your idea I see the urine option in a situation where the person have zero access to water and where if he did not have the option the reabsorb is body fluids he would certainly die. Maybe in a desert like situation. Reabsorbing some of the water is body fluids could maybe give him a couple of extra days of survival, just enough to find real water or to be found by is troops. In extreme situations if you want to survive, sometimes the only solution is not perfect.

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  143. "Thats not how we piss in our food in this Army" by divot2001 · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just piss in each other's food. I'm sure living in confined quarters would cause a lot of resentment that could be relieved through cooking!

  144. Re:Just an advertising ploy (shock sometimes works by Centrifuge · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but your post is wrong on several points.

    First, just to restate the logic: if you are so low on water to have to use urine (which will further dehydrate you) then you are better off not eating for a while. Drink your water. A well-hydrated but hungry soldier is much more useful than one who is dehydrated but well-fed. I did not say the you could not use urine; I said in essence that it would not be a bright idea. Even the header article stated that it should only be done in emergencies.

    Second, the product discussed in the header article is not the same as the one you cite in your link. The New Scientist article describes an MRE (a meal) with an integrated filter; the product in your link is a water bag for filtering drinking water only. You cannot use it for cooking , rehydrating an MRE, or for processing urine. Read what you post.

    Third, neither the integrated filter/MRE in the header article nor the water filter bag you cite filters salt (sea) or brackish water. Your article mentions that Natick is working on a filter that can process sea water, but neither of these two products can.

    Finally, the cost. The filter bag cited in your article (which is only good for drinking water) cost $40-$50 each, and can only process about 30 liters. My backpack filter (a Guardian Sweetwater) cost about $90, will process at least 90 gallons, and will produce clean water good enough for cooking and drinking. For another $10, you can add a silt filter, good enough for very dirty water. Do the math. This is just another example of a "$500 hammer."

    Centrifuge

  145. Osmotic potential by DarkMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem with a separate water filter is that you need some means to force the water through the filter. (The stuff you don't want is too big to get through).

    A typical standalone filter uses gravity, and it very, very slow. (note that the typical crappy 'water filters' desinged for tap water don't cut it for swamp water).

    Practical reverse osmosis filters use pumps to generate a pressure difference to make the thing work in sensible time. That's a power requirement, and more weight.

    The trick that's being used here is to use something that's dessicant to pull the water through. Normally, not that useful, but when you eat the dessicant afterwords, that's a net gain of water.

    In other words, it's the dried food that pulls the water through. This is a robust, lightweight and fast solution.

    The other clever part is to ensure that once the re-hydrated food is eaten, it's going to be water neutral, or better. Some foods require more water than other to digest, and that should be a design plan. Still, even if not, if it doubles the length of time a canteen lasts, that's a huge bonus.

  146. Army food by makbot · · Score: 1

    I remember meeting a mechanic from the army when I was younger, he supplied me with powdered creamer or some such nonsense and told me to take a match to it. It caught fire.

    --
    Please stop voting, you're just encouraging them.
  147. Re:Water (is life) by tobozo · · Score: 1

    > Most people will die within five days if they don't get water

    Yeah ! that's exactly why they need a stillsuit

  148. Tyler Durden Sez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Urine is sterile! You can drink it!

  149. blame everything on the bad, bad man from Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on, Komrade! I mean, it's not like anyone in the active military or reserve ever expects to be doing much more than shooting paper targets, mincing around in formation a la Python, and going to the barbershop once a week. After all, isn't proper grooming (and the glorious U.N.) all it takes to keep the world safe?

    The vast majority of the military (including the reservists on whose behalf you're getting your little knickers in a twist) are overwhelmingly supportive of Bush & Blair and the Coalition's involvement in Iraq. How dare you project your puerile leftist views onto them, you little asshat... Call us when you're no longer suckling at mommy & daddy's teat and figure out that life in the real world isn't quite as easy as parrotting what your lib profs & Michael Moore tell you.

  150. Americans have special needs by solferino · · Score: 1
    Believe it or not, much of the world drinks water that's hazardous to the health of Americans.
    Just highlighting this sentence is sufficient comment I think.
  151. Re: Heater Kit by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    MRE heaters work similarly to hand warmers. Hand warmers are just iron filings with vermiculite, and charcoal powder which hold moisture with a bit of salt. The charcoal and vermiculite keep things fluffy enough to let oxygen in, the salt and moisture speed the reaction. The heat is generated by the iron filings rusting.

    Hand warmers work by the rusting of iron. MRE heaters have iron, and magnesium which both 'rust' producing enough heat to heat food.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  152. Re: Heater Kit by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

    The heater you describe in French MREs sounds like it has to be lit, which is very bad in a combat environment.

    I don't think French MREs have ever been in a combat environment...

  153. Actually.. by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    We don't know if he has a mouth. You only need fingers to post on slashdot. Okay, that's not entirely true either; there's machines that can read your eye movement for data too.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:Actually.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Actually the primary thing you need to post on /. is just a brain.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  154. kidney damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no thanx. Keep me out of anything doing that. It's called waste for a reason. Goes to show yeah how much they care about the soldiers out on the field after all.