Slashdot Mirror


"Lifesaver Bottle" Filters Viruses Out of Water

gihan_ripper writes "British inventor Michael Pritchard has developed a small self-contained filter system that instantly cleans water, removing all particles larger than 15nm. He said that he was inspired after seeing the effects of Hurricane Katrina and the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004; people had to wait for many days to get fresh water and many died from drinking contaminated water. The filter is so effective that it can purify dirty river water and even fecal matter. His bottle will shortly be available for sale from Lifesaver Systems at an expected cost of £190 (approx. $385)."

503 comments

  1. SpaceSuits anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sounds like what was in Dune... A rehydrator from excrement (sweat, fecal matter, urine).

    If anything, along with rebreathers and this rehydrator, one could stay in horrendously inhospitable areas for a long while.

    --
    1. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Totally off-topic:

      I was thinking about Dune and stillsuits on warm day and realized that I must have missed something. How would those work in a hot environment anyway? Since we sweat to remain cool, how much heat could you give off without allowing any of that water to evaporate?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by caseydk · · Score: 1

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.

    3. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.

      Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by xXBondsXx · · Score: 1

      1) warm moist air warms the suit
      2) wind blows on outside of the suit
      3) thermodynamics
      4) and now we have warm (dry) air coming off of the suit! it's like the world was designed this way.... there it's proof. FSM exists

      --
      The voice of the next generation. "In this tower, in my mind..." Babble - Tower
    5. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      So as long as it's windy, and the wind is cooler than your body temperature, you won't die painfully? And this works on Dune?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disclaimer: I don't have the book with me, so I am going from memory.

      I believe the evaporation occured in the first layer of the suit, allowing for the cooling effect. The cooling is from the phase change from liquid to gas and not from losing "warm moist air". (That's why sweating can cool you even in environments above body temperature.) The vapor was then captured in the second layer of the suit for processing and collection.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    7. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation. Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere? The man's name is a killing word, foo! You don't think he can fuck with thermodynamics any time he feels like it?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      More to the point, what happens to all the urea, feces and all the non water parts of the sweat? Fremen presumably aren't big on bathing or dental hygiene either, since those all require water. And they don't wash the suits.

      My guess is if a sandworm eats one it would probably spit them out once it realises how fucking foul they really are.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You however don't understand thermodynamics if you think that makes any sense. The heat lost by evaporation is completely regained when the vapor condenses back into water, so you don't have any net loss of heat there. Sweating inside the stilsuit therefore, doesn't do anything for you except to help spread out the heat a little, but unless you're in a cool environment (which Dune is clearly not), that won't do anything for you.

      Not to mention that the stilsuit is designed to trap moisture in the air, which, since condensation is exothermic, makes the stilsuit hot, even in a cool environment. In other words, the stilsuit would keep you from dehydrating, but it would bake you alive.

    10. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by lubricated · · Score: 3, Informative

      "In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

      and condensation heats the air back up. You still have to get rid of the waste heat, somehow. Merely transfering it from the inner part of the suit to the outer is insufficient.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    11. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      OK, so you've got warm vapour in the second layer of the stilsuit. You've got to dump that heat somehow in order to re-condense the vapour back into water. That means that some part of the suit has to get hot as the heat is extracted from the vapour. That heat has to get expelled somehow. Maybe they waited for nightfall to condense the vapour, as it is usually quite cold in the desert at night.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The still suits were also recirculation devices so very warm areas like the groin or armpits had the heat recirculated to extremities to cool. It's likely the suit itself had a low insulation value so it would conduct heat away. Given the restriction to evaporation as well it would lead to higher over all temperatures, but it would even out the heat that is there. I assumed they would wear white fabric over top similar to what current desert dwellers do. They might have had some secondary mechanical cooling mechanism, like some sort of advanced unknown mechanism to convert heat to something else like electricity as well. who knows they don't really exist.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    13. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by joto · · Score: 3, Informative

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.
      Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere?

      Through a mechanism known as "this book is a work of fiction". Another option would be active cooling with fans and cooling ribs. I'm sure you could think of other options too.

    14. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      Nah those freaking things will eat anything.

      You're right though the fremen didn't take baths in water and they drink moisture gathered from their own poop.

    15. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Another option would be active cooling with fans and cooling ribs.

      That would only work when the air the fans were moving was cooler than the thing you're trying to cool. Since we're talking about cooling a human (without evaporation), that means it only works below an ambient temperature of 98 degrees fahrenheit.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      It would give off about as much heat as a dead, burning hot body in the desert? ;)

      But hey, allow some fantasy. Maybe the suit was actually made of nanosize solar-powered refridgeraters.

      --
      I lost my sig.
    17. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by MttJocy · · Score: 1

      The only other way would be some form of active heat pump in a pack on the back of the unit, perhaps a thermoelectric cooler or something, I have no idea what the energy requirements for such a unit would be however or weather it would be practical to produce such a device and a suitable store of electrical energy for a practical length of time whilst keeping the unit within reasonable weight limits for a person to carry it and still be able to work. Unless the energy needed would be alot less than I imagine it would be then batteries would most likely be too heavy, perhaps some method could be found to utilise the energy output of the person inside to either fully power or supplement the energy needs of the cooling device, perhaps something which generates some of the energy from movement would help, given also that heat output tends to be at its highest when the body is preforming work than when it is at rest.

    18. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by phaunt · · Score: 1

      This sounds like what was in Dune... A rehydrator from excrement (sweat, fecal matter, urine). Only sweat would be recycled directly, the fecal matter and urine were stored to be processed later.
    19. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by posterlogo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This filtration bottle will filter out anything larger than 15 nm particles. But it does not include any sort of distillation mechanism or activated-charcoal or ion-exchange column to filter out the salts, ions, and other small molecules, like toxins. It's nice that it will eliminate disease causing microorganisms, but this dude's bottle will still make your piss taste like piss.

    20. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      and condensation heats the air back up. You still have to get rid of the waste heat, somehow. Merely transfering it from the inner part of the suit to the outer is insufficient.

      I think it could be possible. If you have a thin sheet of highly reflective material between the inner and outer layers, this will help to reflect the thermal radiation outward instead of inward.

      Also, why were the suits black? Probably the same reason that Bedouins wear black or other dark colors instead of white. It helps to set up convection within the garment that actually cools the wearer down better than if you were wearing white. And the black also radiates better -- although it also absorbs sunlight better.

    21. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, solar. I mean, they are designed to be out in the sun all day, they probably had solar cells in the outer skin.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    22. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Mab_Mass · · Score: 2, Funny

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.
      Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere?
      The man's name is a killing word, foo! You don't think he can fuck with thermodynamics any time he feels like it?

      Although I hate to be the geek that gets this pedantic over a joke, I can't resist pointing out that stillsuits were a Fremen invention long before Muad'Dib arrived, so the laws of thermodynamics must still be considered.

    23. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this is how an air conditioner works, right? Evaporator on the inside and condenser outside.

      As long as there is enough thermal insulation between the inside and outside layers, you can heat up the outside layer enough for wind to do cool it down and lose heat. Add some sort of heat-sink fabric that can move a lot air through and you could do it.

      The stilsuits also were supposed to have "pumps" moved by the legs and arms of the wearer during normal walking. You could move the hot water around, or maybe pump air instead though some porous, highly thermal conducting fabric/construction (heat sink).

      Remember: air conditioners can pump more heat that the energy they consume, it's not against thermodynamics.

    24. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rebreathers aren't magic. You need a scrubber to remove the excess carbon dioxide. These have a limited lifespan. So while it's true that they make it possible to stay in otherwise oxygen-poor environments (or other environments with air you can't breathe, or no air at all) for longer than open circuit systems, there is a limit defined by the life span of the scrubber, and the amount of oxygen you have to inject into the circuit.

      Similar to this bottle.

    25. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by MttJocy · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps if the suit were not skin tight the air inside with the evaporated sweat ie H2O(g) could be drawn into a pack of some kind on the back and into the condenser unit mounted externally on the back of the suit and then the heated H2O(l) produced could be cooled perhaps through a radiator on the rear of such a backpack type device. Of course power for the condenser would be needed, but a device that produced the power for the condenser from the normal energy created by a person walking could perhaps power that. And yes, it does not defy thermodynamics to move more heat energy than the energy used by the device, because heat dissipates on its own, one only needs to expend energy to optimise the thermal gradient in some way to increase the thermal transfer while using comparatively little energy. The human body to some degrees uses a system to decrease its own requirements for heating energy, the limbs have a large radiation area and cause a fair amount of the bodies heat radiation (Generally in most climates humans evolved in we are warmer than our surroundings) the limbs however can usually survive a little more temperature changes than our core organs (especially the brain) thus the blood vessels running into the limbs run very close to those running out of the organs producing a counter current flow, warming the blood returning to the core and cooling the blood entering the limb (which I understand is the basic concept behind a heat exchanger they use is some modern eco buildings to provide an input of fresh air while minimising heat loss unless I am mistaken, and also unless I am wrong these devices consume moderate energy relative to the amount of heat energy they transfer) thus the reason why such a system evolved in so many species in biology, and got adapted to human technology, because it works and the benefits (energy saved) outweigh the costs (energy spent). Of course I may be misunderstanding the concepts especially as I admit to not being familiar with the "Dune" you refer to.

    26. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      how much heat could you give off without allowing any of that water to evaporate?

      Obviously none. However, I don't recall the "still suit" being able to supply you with water indefinitely, so perhaps it only allows a small amount of water to escape.

      Pooling the sweat, allowing convection to concentrate the heat, then releasing a small amount of the hottest water, you could remove much more heat per volume of water than normal sweating would. I'm not about to do the math to figure out how much water is needed for every calorie of cooling, but it's probably still a lot. Perhaps coupling this with a very efficient heat exchanger (powered by your movement) could make this actually practical, at least in theory.

      You could have some sort of switchable (on/of) insulation to allow the water exchange heat with the cool air at night, and insulate again when the temperature rises, to preserve that thermal mass.

      You could have a refillable pocket with chemicals that have an exothermic reaction, and can keep you relatively cool for eg. a month before needing to be replaced. ...or perhaps they have extremely powerful, yet small and lightweight batteries to power a heat-pump cooling system.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.

                      Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere?

              The man's name is a killing word, foo! You don't think he can fuck with thermodynamics any time he feels like it?

      Although I hate to be the geek that gets this pedantic over a joke, I can't resist pointing out that stillsuits were a Fremen invention long before Muad'Dib arrived, so the laws of thermodynamics must still be considered. Unless *waves hands dramatically* he can alter time as well as space!

      Kwisatz haderach, give the dog a bone, this old fremen came rolling home.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    28. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by gevantry · · Score: 1

      Frank Herbert was vague on this point, as are most science fiction conceptualists. They come up with the broader sweeps of ideas and leave the technical details to nerds and geeks like those who hang out on /. Often they link one concept with another:

      Reader Geek: Cool. A stillsuit! How do you keep the wearer from dying of heat exhaustion?
      Sci-Fi Writer: A really neat fabric that allows heat to radiate away, but not moisture.
      Reader Geek: Way cool! What's that made of?
      Sci-Fi Writer: It's classified until the 98th century AB, which doesn't begin until around the 40th century AD.

    29. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      So as long as it's windy, and the wind is cooler than your body temperature, you won't die painfully? And this works on Dune?
      Arrakis - desert planet. Having spent a number of months working in the Saudi peninsula deserts at 40deg C and hotter, there is a problem.
      The books don't go into sufficient detail ; there would have to be some active refrigeration. Which isn't (by the laws of physics) particularly implausible. They've sufficient technology to have either microscopic refrigeration coils built throughout the suit and a copmressor/ radiator unit in the back pack or belt. You'd need to make sure that the suit facing the panel is IR-reflective. Or use a directional IR emitter (which would reduce the thermal signature of the suit considerably, for camoflage). Designing more carefully, you'd need to ensure the the surface temperature of the suit sensed and maintained the temperature appropriate to incident heat in it's aspect, and use intelligent heat pumping to maintain that and skin temperature appropriately, then dump the excess heat somewhere. That would all take power (for heat pumping, sensors and computation), but there's plenty of sunlight and room for thin-form batteries.
      We've probebly trampled on 4 in-development technologies for the next generation of US soldiers in Iraq.
      Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    30. Re:SpaceSuits anyone? by Magada · · Score: 1

      Radiators (they had sufficient tech to make high-surface-area "textiles", they all wore capes (sadly absent from the movie - idiot director) and Arrakis is windy).

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  2. $385!? by Loosifur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    1. Re:$385!? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now think big, create an industrial size good-for-the-whole-town version and sell it to the government...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:$385!? by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I understand it a lot of people could have afforded to get out. However they didn't think it was going to be that bad, it's just another huricane after all, and prefered to stick it out and make sure their stuff was not looted. However once it hit, and it turned out to be bad, getting out became a problem.

    3. Re:$385!? by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I bet it is easier to get these to people after the fact that to get them as much water as it can produce.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:$385!? by usfGPM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the initial idea is to let the first responders and shelters have a few of these in storage so that they can be distributed to the areas that need them in an emergency. After the are in wider use, the price will come down and it will start to be feasible for individuals to buy them.

    5. Re:$385!? by Loosifur · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. If they could get production streamlined enough to knock the price down I could see these as a good temporary solution for natural disasters, i.e. airlifting a few crates of these suckers to disaster areas to tide people over while rescue efforts were under way.

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    6. Re:$385!? by NeoTerra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas"

      Difficult to do when there is no bus drivers, or no electricity to pump gas or run the airport. You forget the largest problem in Katrina was getting to the people, and getting the people somewhere safe, among other local government problems.

    7. Re:$385!? by doooooosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been using the First Need Deluxe water purifier for 10 years. It costs ~$100 for the whole thing, ~$40 for a replacement cartridge. It deals with virii and has been around forever. Sure, each cartridge is only good for about ~100 gallons, but I'm skeptical of the claims that this bottle can do 10 times that without changing the filter.

    8. Re:$385!? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

      Easier to hand out one bottle per person than one gallon of water per person per day. You also fail to note that there were mile-long lines at the pumps, and flights and buses were full. This is in part due to infrastructure, part due to the realities of evacuating a large city, and partly because the evacuation order was given ridiculously late.

    9. Re:$385!? by Loosifur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those were all problems after the fact, however. Prior to landfall those options were open, and even moving from New Orleans to, say, a Motel 6 in East Texas would greatly improve your situation in that scenario, moving you out of the path of the eye. Besides which, once the storm hit, it would be as difficult to buy those bottles as it would be to get transportation. Buying the bottles beforehand presumes an attitude of preparedness that I don't think was there, or else you would have seen more evacuation prior to the storm making landfall, or going back even further strengthening of the levee system.

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    10. Re:$385!? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know how you never want to be the first to acquire new technology because of the high prices? Right now, the dude is targeting the military with this product at this price. He sold out his entire 1,000 bottle stock at a military trade show. Just like GPS, night vision, and sat phones, the prices will come down as the armed forces acquire these things. Eventually, these suckers will become commodities. I hike a lot. I would love to have one of these things because right now, you have to either carry lots of water, or plan routes that go by running water sources so you can boil the water or filter/iodine it.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:$385!? by MagikGimp · · Score: 1

      That's surely just the progress of technology.

    12. Re:$385!? by Beached · · Score: 1

      Or buy a filtering water bottle that costs $40CDN and use an antiviral if you are really worried about the water. But, for the most part they work very well. They use activated charcoal filters.

      --
      ---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
    13. Re:$385!? by tylernt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that hikers and backpackers have used $60 filter bottles for years now that do pretty much the same thing. Not only that, but I already have filter straws with activated carbon in my 72-hour kits. They cost about $10. Another company makes a small battery-powered water filter with a UV light in it to sterilize pathogens.

      I'm to lazy to RTFA, but this thing sounds like a ridiculously expensive non-invention. The already existing, less-expensive technology might not get virii out, but you're generally not concerned with virii in drinking water -- it's the physical matter, bacteria, and cysts that are the main concern.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    14. Re:$385!? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They'll probably see wider use in the army, being able to easily get freshwater with an item that would fit within a soldier's personal gear and can be operated in the field without refills for a good while sounds like a good deal.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:$385!? by Wolfger · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Nobody is going to shell out $300 for something they don't expect to ever use. So it's a great invention, but it won't be saving many lives after all.

    16. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A $3.95 copy of the October 2001 copy of Scientific American should have been enough. The "Drowning New Orleans" article predicted in accurate detail exactly what was going to happen when a hurricane hit. When I read that in 2001, it was clear to me that anybody who decided to keep living there given what was bound to happen was just plain crazy. People who still live there given what's already happened are even crazier.

      The ground under New Orleans continues to sink. Sea levels continue to rise. One day the city is going to suffer an even more direct hit. The only rational thing to do is leave. Now.

    17. Re:$385!? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Now think big, create an industrial size good-for-the-whole-town version and sell it to the government... I am pretty sure they already have those.
    18. Re:$385!? by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 1

      As with most new technology, the price will come down if it's widely used.

    19. Re:$385!? by chinaguy · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't beer be cheaper?

    20. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have RTFA and I feel the same way you do.

      The filter I use sells for less than $100 and it fits inside a Camelbak water bladder. If I'm particularly paranoid I can toss in an iodine tablet and add another $1 to the cost of purifying a gallon.

    21. Re:$385!? by mschallmo · · Score: 1

      True, but I think hard/expensive part is to figure out where you're going in that plane, bus or car with a full tank of gas. It's hard/expensive to get out if you have no where to go.

    22. Re:$385!? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Not all the busses were full. Quite a lot of school busses simply sat there unused and ended up being flooded.

    23. Re:$385!? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      But this is America. We'd never let a city sink. It's not how we do things around here.

      You some kinda terr'ist?

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    24. Re:$385!? by hydesikh · · Score: 1

      You can purify 3500 gallons of water with just a gallon of household bleach like Clorox (see http://www.thefarm.org/charities/i4at/surv/bleach.htm ) Everybody's got the stuff. No need to get fancy or spend a fortune for unlikely what-ifs.

    25. Re:$385!? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      You are looking at the wrong budget.
      This is an item which civil defence, MChS or the like can stock in quantity and it is not very expensive by their standards. They cannot stock water in quantity and even if they do they cannot transport it in sufficient quantity to the disaster zone. In fact, compared to the current portable water purification equipment this is not bad value for the money.
      For example - a reverse osmosis kit capable of several 100ml per minute with prefilter, pump and generator to drive it will put you back a cool 5000-10000. If you have to throw in a in-flow UV disinfectant - add 2000+ further. It will also eat a significant amount of consumables - activated charcoal, filters, resins etc which you have to ship with it (all in all you end up with a helicopter drop per location). On top of that you have to protect the unit from the crowd stampeding over it. So add some troups and the machine gun for that. On top of that you have to stock spare parts and have people capable of maintaining the units in the field. On top of that...
      When you compare both options the filter bottle starts looking very tempting to any civil defence planner.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    26. Re:$385!? by C0rinthian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I lived in South Florida for 27 years. I'm one of the first people who says "It's just another hurricane." When I saw the predictions for Katrina, even I thought anyone sticking around was stupid.

    27. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you serious? I don't know how YOUR local news is, but mine? Whenever there is any storm, they blow it all out of proportion for ratings. You would think that every winter is going to be our last, the way they talk. How can one possible sift the bs from the truth?

    28. Re:$385!? by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've been using the First Need Deluxe water purifier for 10 years. It costs ~$100 for the whole thing, ~$40 for a replacement cartridge. It deals with virii and has been around forever. Sure, each cartridge is only good for about ~100 gallons, but I'm skeptical of the claims that this bottle can do 10 times that without changing the filter. In English, the plural of Virus is Viruses. In Latin, Virus was a mass noun, and was not used in the plural.
      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    29. Re:$385!? by CogDissident · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Knock the price down? thats 400$ for 4000 liters of water. or 10 cents per liter. Thats extremely cheap for how much water you get, and they would make an excellent thing to airlift in. Even at 1$ per liter of water, they can be small and easy to transport, and light enough to be airlifted easily.

      Even at the current price, I'd say these things are a steal.

    30. Re:$385!? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Not all the busses were full. Quite a lot of school busses simply sat there unused and ended up being flooded.

      If I recall correctly, the problem there was a problem of coordination, not of lack of demand, but I'm not sure. However, there were many, many fools who assumed they'd be able to ride out any storm and be fine. Well, they were sort of right - they survived, but the town was a disaster.

    31. Re:$385!? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure sleeping in the car in Anywhere, USA is better than sitting on your roof waiting to be rescued (or wading through sewage...can you say bladder infection?).

      --

      WTF? Over?

    32. Re:$385!? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      I think one explination I heard was that the bus drivers all fled. Well, OK...how about if you can drive, take a bus and fill it up! WTF? Isn't that better than leaving them to be flooded out? How much you think those cost to replace?

      So you swing a little wider on turns...it isn't that hard to drive one...have you seen some of the people they hire?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    33. Re:$385!? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      But the government didn't tell them to. The government didn't buy them the plane ticket or the gas or drive the bus.

      You seem to forget that socialism makes everyone, no matter how old, into children and the government is their Mom. George Bush wasn't a very good Mom to the poor people of New Orleans. Bill Clinton made a much better Mom.

    34. Re:$385!? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Not $385 per person, think $385 per neighborhood. It says it'll do 4000-6000 liters. Split it among your neighbors, and the cost per family goes way down.
      Would you drop $50 for a shared neighborhood filtration system, stored away for future use? I prob would.

      oh, and I expect the cost on these will come WAY down. This is just the first iteration.

    35. Re:$385!? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That isn't really the fault of the people stuck in NO, more the fault of the government. The amazing thing is that they re-elected the mayor, even after he was quoted saying that he couldn't use those buses because they belonged to the school board - lol! Hello, emergency? Just have the cops/national guard/volunteers go get 'em! That's some leadership right there. Not to mention that there should probably have been a workable hurricane evacuation plan in place for a city that lies below sea level.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:$385!? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      I think one explination I heard was that the bus drivers all fled. Well, OK...how about if you can drive, take a bus and fill it up! WTF? Isn't that better than leaving them to be flooded out? How much you think those cost to replace?

      One in about a billion 'WTF!' moments that happened with Katrina. I wonder if the keys were left with them? Of course, finding someone to hot-wire them shouldn't have been that tough...

    37. Re:$385!? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're called water purification plants, and a centralized solution isn't so great for dealing with massive infrastructure failure.

    38. Re:$385!? by mogorman · · Score: 1

      thank you. There have been hundreds of hurricanes that have hit the gulf cost one in fifty cause a problem. No one ever thinks this is gonna be the big one, except the media, which think every hurricane is the big one.

    39. Re:$385!? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think the Europeans are ahead of us here. Venice and Amsterdam right off the top of my head.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    40. Re:$385!? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      ...or live in a country where you can actually just drink the water from lakes and rivers.

    41. Re:$385!? by kpainter · · Score: 1

      Think of how many cases of cheap beer you could buy for $385. Beer has the added advantage of making you not care as much about the dismal circumstances you find yourself in.

    42. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok time to give you the urine challenge on that method.

    43. Re:$385!? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the media thinks every hurricane is going to be the big one, or do you think it's more like they're putting in their predictions for this being the big one, so that if/when it does go big, they can say "see, you heard it here first, folks! we said it was gonna be big 6 months before it showed up on NOAA's radar..."?

    44. Re:$385!? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      I agree, there's enough WTF to go around.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    45. Re:$385!? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Informative

      $385 is a high price but not really out of line considering the expected lifetime of 4000 litres (about 1000 US Gallons). But somehow thinking this is a new product or technology is stupid. There are lots of products out there that already do this.

      http://www.rei.com/product/662937?storeId=8000&catalogId=40000008000 (Filters about the same amount of water and can filter it faster for dispensing to multiple people, but costs a bit more)

      http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/exxrwabopu.html (has to be replaced much quicker, but is convenient and it only costs $50 and would provide someone at least 30 days worth of clean water.)

      And yes, Both of these filters can handle viruses down to 25 nanometers and lower (they are rated for 20nanometers or .2 microns)

    46. Re:$385!? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I just bought one of those for camping. It works great, but after one trip I managed to drop the filter and it would not pass the blue ink test. At $40 per camping trip it's a bit expensive, but I bet that it was user error and not the fault of the machine.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    47. Re:$385!? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas. The ones with cars probably could have scrounged a tank of gas to get out of there but what next, pray that the motel owners will allow you to stay for free on their good graces? Where's a guy living paycheck to paycheck going to get the scratch for a motel room and meals for months on end, his nonexistent credit card?

      At least bottles like this would be something the government could ship in as part of disaster relief, hand them out instead of ice.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    48. Re:$385!? by Mex · · Score: 1

      And it filters germs and bacteria down to what size? Because the whole point of this article is that the new filter stops anything bigger than 15nm. I would like to think that you at least read the article.

    49. Re:$385!? by GigG · · Score: 2, Funny

      The distribution method is in place. They would have just stolen it from Walgreens.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    50. Re:$385!? by Angstroem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides, its correct plural in Latin -- if ever used -- would have been "vira" or "virus" (long u), but never virii.

    51. Re:$385!? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well at least they've learned from those mistakes. The new levee system will easily be able to perform up to the level of the existing one. Any storms with the old one would survive, the improved one will be even equally able to withstand!

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    52. Re:$385!? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I never did place the blame, but you are right. The mayor deserves part of the blame, and the governor deserves part of the blame too. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a dire emergency, then the consequences of violating red tape is much lower than the consequences of not doing so.

    53. Re:$385!? by mschallmo · · Score: 1

      "I'm pretty sure sleeping in the car in Anywhere, USA is better than sitting on your roof waiting to be rescued (or wading through sewage...can you say bladder infection?)." - fataugie True, but the combination of not knowing the severity of what's about to hit them and the fact that no one likes to sleep in cars would more likely end up with people on their roofs.

    54. Re:$385!? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah and when the machines take over, don't you think they'll dump a load of bacteria and viruses in those? THEY don't need water remember, but WE do.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    55. Re:$385!? by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Those that were too stupid to get out in time got what they deserved. Everyone knew what was coming. People act now like there were no weather predictions, and that it was going to be really bad.
      It's unfortunate that this was modded as flamebait. Even from 1000 miles away, the news coverage for a couple days before showed that this one was going to be unusually bad. And the closer it got, the more it was going right for NOLA. At some point, yup, you decided not to leave when told to? It's your fault you're stuck.
    56. Re:$385!? by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      And yes, Both of these filters can handle viruses down to 25 nanometers and lower (they are rated for 20nanometers or .2 microns)

      Are they rated for 20 nanometers, or 0.2 microns? Because they aren't the same. 1 micron is 1000 nanometers.

      20 nanometers is 0.02 microns, which is probably enough for filtering out viruses
      0.2 microns is 200 nanometers, which won't filter any viruses.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    57. Re:$385!? by Phisbut · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or live in a country where you can actually just drink the water from lakes and rivers.

      I'm sorry, I didn't get the chance to select the country in which I was born. How did you manage to do that?

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    58. Re:$385!? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Or the fact that after reading it you can buy them from here for far cheaper and does the same thing. his bottle is nothing more than a microfilter, it does not do any other removals. I can get a version of what I linked to for $190.00 Us that has a large active carbon block that will also remove arsenic and other kill you nasty chemicals that a silly micron filter will miss.

      Those of us that do camping in the wild have owned items that are better and FAR cheaper than this fellow designed and is trying to sell for a price that is insane.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    59. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those bottles are an order of magnitude worse-- .x microns is x00 nanometers.

    60. Re:$385!? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      There's no country where you can drink the water without the risk of illness. I guess you'd have to live in a world with no germs, or animals that carry germs and then pee or crap into lakes. Or organic material that rot, then fall into the river along with all the germs in it. Something like Antarctica.

      It's not pollution stopping me from drinking; it's bacteria that live everywhere in the world.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    61. Re:$385!? by Phisbut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. Nobody is going to shell out $300 for something they don't expect to ever use. So it's a great invention, but it won't be saving many lives after all.

      You know what? You're right. Why should I buy a first-aid kit when I don't expect to get hurt. Why did I pay a little more for my car so it would have airbags when I don't expect to run into a wall. Why would I buy fire insurance when I don't expect my house to burst into flames? Heck, why even get life insurance as I don't expect to die anytime soon?

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    62. Re:$385!? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was a little off there. Actually it filters down to .1 microns or about 100 nanometers.
      br? From further reading... 200 nanometers will filter "many" viruses, 100 nanometers will filter "most" viruses and 25 nanometers filters "all viruses known to man". If his thing really works and doesn't clog up after the first couple liters then maybe he has something there...

    63. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they assumed that they couldn't afford to leave? "Who is going to pay for that X month/year hotel stay?" and ended up staying at their own risk.

    64. Re:$385!? by Angelwrath · · Score: 1

      jabuzz is right. Not only did some people stay for that reason, but for many other reasons as well. Off topic, but check out this video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYM7DhNzSTM

      In one neighborhood, at least three people in this video decided to stay.

      And on the topic - it filters out everything down to 15nm, but nothing below that, so it still won't filter out elements like lead, etc.

    65. Re:$385!? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Well, a Cat5 hurricane heading straight at you might allow you to envision some of the possibilities.

      The only ones I don't hold responsible for not getting out of the way were old or disabled people. The able-bodied people wading around afterwards should have been able to put 2+2 together and flee.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    66. Re:$385!? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

      Perhaps mass production will eventually reduce the cost. Perhaps the gov will invest in a large quantity to ship as needed. Empty water bottles are easier to shit then a equivalent volume of water. Even if they were full to start with it means your not just shipping X volume of water but also the means to purify Y volume more.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    67. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

      If plane tickets aren't available, buses aren't available, or gas isn't available, then affordability is quite irrelevant, isn't it?
    68. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally think every year about this time the media start sacrificing sheep, and praying that the spirits of the wind and sea send them the big one that they can get award winning article and pictures, as long as it spares their homes from the really major damage.

      And while the person who said that it only the levees failure that caused the damage, that may have been true of New Orleans, but I noticed that the coast of Mississippi got really hammered. Since they did not have the dramatic photo of people dying on the rooftops, it did not get the same coverage as New Orleans.

    69. Re:$385!? by hansonc · · Score: 1

      so what? They're still trying to convince the Mississippi river to not go where it wants to. It wants to be in the middle of New Orleans but the levies force it elsewhere. It will end up going where it wants to again even if the new levies are equally as strong as the old ones.

    70. Re:$385!? by Wolfger · · Score: 0, Troll

      You know what? You're right. Why should I buy a first-aid kit when I don't expect to get hurt. Why did I pay a little more for my car so it would have airbags when I don't expect to run into a wall. Why would I buy fire insurance when I don't expect my house to burst into flames? Heck, why even get life insurance as I don't expect to die anytime soon?
      You know what? You're a troll.
      We buy first aid kits because we *do* expect to get hurt, sooner or later. We usually *don't* buy first aid kits until *after* we've been hurt at least once, because until it happens to us when we're unprepared, we don't worry about it. (how many college freshmen have a first aid kit in their dorm room, that wasn't given to them by their parents? In my experience: zero)
      Do you know anybody who paid more for a car to get air bags? I don't. The cars just come that way now. You can't buy a car without them.
      Insurance for your house is *required* by the bank that holds your mortgage. Same as fire and theft insurance for a car that you're still making payments on. The bank won't let you not buy that insurance.
      If you don't expect to die, you're a fool. It happens to all of us. When to buy life insurance is determined by how much extra cash you have lying around, and how soon you expect to kick off. I'm 37 and living paycheck to paycheck. I don't buy life insurance.
      Care to make any other sarcastic comments that have no merit?
    71. Re:$385!? by joto · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the media thinks every hurricane is going to be the big one, or do you think it's more like they're putting in their predictions for this being the big one, so that if/when it does go big, they can say "see, you heard it here first, folks! we said it was gonna be big 6 months before it showed up on NOAA's radar..."?

      None of the above. I believe they predict the worst, so that they can sell more newspapers (or get higher Nielsen-ratings, or whatever the media cares about these days).

    72. Re:$385!? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      They're called water purification plants, and a centralized solution isn't so great for dealing with massive infrastructure failure.

      and what makes you think that the government is collectively smart enough to realize that?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    73. Re:$385!? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "Those of us that do camping in the wild have owned items that are better and FAR cheaper than this fellow designed and is trying to sell for a price that is insane."
      --
      "The Best KZ campers, trailers and RV's in Michigan Cliffs [cliffstrailersales.com]"

      What, like your water faucet? Driving your RV to a campground where you have easy connection to water/sewer/electricity doesn't actually qualify as "camping in the wild".

    74. Re:$385!? by kcelery · · Score: 1

      That might be true if you filter tap water, but for contaminated water, it could easily clog the filters I know. Might be that's why it cost so much.

    75. Re:$385!? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Good point; i forgot about that.

    76. Re:$385!? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Or for that price they could buy quantities of 3 to 5 similar products that have been on the market for years. Will they work the same? Probably not, but they will do the job and will do so for far more people. MSR, Katadyn, Aqua, SteriPen, and plenty of other manufacturers all have models that cost less than $100. Katadyn even has one that looks almost identical to the one in the article that only costs $45.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    77. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For $385 a bottle, sounds like Red Cross will buy a limited number, put serial #'s and have to take them back when the disaster is over

    78. Re:$385!? by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      Or they could spend $0 and just loot the camping stores.

    79. Re:$385!? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Per neighborhood? You haven't ever tried to use these before have you? Maybe you could do one per family, but certainly not one per neighborhood. These types of water filters are usually quite slow to produce water, though the newer ones are far better than just a few years ago.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    80. Re:$385!? by chill · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. The filter you link to removes protozoa and bacteria (200 nm range), whereas the one in the article can also remove viruses (20 nm range). There is a significant difference.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    81. Re:$385!? by joto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are they rated for 20 nanometers, or 0.2 microns? Because they aren't the same. 1 micron is 1000 nanometers.

      While this distinction seem important, it really isn't. Most people who are getting sick from bad water, is not getting sick from viruses. Most people getting sick from water aren't even getting sick from bacteria, they get sick from parasites. Furthermore, bacteria and viruses aren't usually swimming alone in the water. Usually they cling to each other, or to other particles, forming what is known as "biofilms". Thus, even a filter with larger pores will filter out most of the harmful organisms, even if the pores are much larger then the organisms you look out for.

      A water filter that has smaller pores need more time (or pumping force) to filter the same amount of water. There is no silver bullet. Your filter is either good, or fast. You can't have both.

      And saying your filter is "good for 4000 liter" is completely useless. Does it mean 4000 liters of already-clean tap-water, 4000 liter of somewhat unsafe water, or 4000 liter of disgusting feces? Does it mean that after 4000 liter the filter is completely clogged, or does it mean that after 4000 liter the filter is only half as effective in letting water through as when it was new? Besides, what maintenance does the filter need in order to be useful for 4000 liter? Can additional maintenance prolong the life even further?

      But there's more. Chemical treatment (e.g. iodine) kills small organisms (e.g. viruses) fast, but takes a long time to kill the larger parasites. So by combining a large-pored (i.e. fast, cheap) filter with chemical treatment (2-5 drops of bleach per liter, or iodine pills if you don't like to taste bleach), you get the best of both worlds: fast and safe.

    82. Re:$385!? by dameron · · Score: 1

      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

      I expect it's much easier and much faster to get a 1 lb. bottle to hurricane victims than to airdrop tons and tons of water on pallets.

    83. Re:$385!? by bjorniac · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was in the drop down list just before you were conceived - right between sexual orientation and skin color. Sheesh, all these people complain - I bet they just clicked through without checking out the options (hint: Next time don't do "Default" configuration, go through "Advanced").

    84. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They re-elected that mofo? Jesus. What a bunch of morons.

    85. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went on a missions trip to Honduras this year with Samaratin's Purse. They have a similar filter system set up for families - of course it's not portable, but set up to process gallons of water per hour. These things can really make a difference to a family in need. They can put one in for a $100 donation:
      https://secure.samaritan.ca/donate/donation_form/default.aspx?pc=080190&sc=S075-400

    86. Re:$385!? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yeah. When you make $5.15 an hour *before* taxes, one night in a fleabag motel in the boonies costs more than a day's income. And it's not exactly like you have disposable income when you make that much.

      Never mind paying for gas, or finding someone who has a car to begin with.

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    87. Re:$385!? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it "wants" to migrate *away* from New Orleans, but the canals and dredging prevent its building up enough silt to escape.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    88. Re:$385!? by Rei · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yep. Nothing more likely to get you sick from untreated water than bad 'ol giardia.

      For me, I'm quite happy to stick with my combination of a katadyn siphon and a carbon filter. I don't even have to pump; all I need is something to hang the water bag from. One filter is good for about 10,000 liters if you use it properly, and it'll get everything down to 100nm; only $40. If I'm really worried about the water, I can throw in some flocculant, which will also help remove heavy metals.

      If I wanted "instant" water purification like this product is for, I'd just get a survival straw. The problem with reverse osmosis systems is the pressure you need; it's far higher than with larger pore size filters. Imperfections in them can not only let viruses through, but even bacteria. It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    89. Re:$385!? by imstanny · · Score: 1
      Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.

      Yeah, except let's discount this over its useful life.

      A plane ticket is 1 time use sunk cost. The bottle you'll be able to use indefinately (barring replacment of filters).

      So you'll get a couple of drinks on the plane with price included. Let's say 1 liter's worth. $385 water bottle, without filter replacement, will last for 6,000 liters of water.

      so $90/liter w/ plane ticket.
      or $0.06/liter w/ the filter bottle. And it will even be cheaper than that, assuming the filters will sell for less than the original cost of the bottle.

    90. Re:$385!? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't. But I bet you could process a lot of water in 24 hours if it's going all the time. And that's better than nothing.

    91. Re:$385!? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      True, you could definitely process a lot of water in 24 hours, but at prices like these (even though this is quite expensive as far as portable filters go) it's not difficult to provide higher numbers to accomodate families, rather than neighborhoods.

      No matter how much water these can process, it won't be as much as thirsty/hungry people will need for drinking and cooking etc. Yes, you can cook with the unprocessed water (after boiling) so that reduces the need somewhat, but not much.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    92. Re:$385!? by fltsimbuff · · Score: 1

      "The ground under New Orleans continues to sink. Sea levels continue to rise. One day the city is going to suffer an even more direct hit. The only rational thing to do is leave. Now."

      Naw, a waterproof dome over the entire city will do just fine!

    93. Re:$385!? by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      $385 water bottle. 1,000 gallons. 1 gallon per person per day (forget showers, etc. - let's just look at what is required to survive). Let's say 14 days until it wasn't an issue - either from the restoration of utilities, or from emergency assistance, or whatever.

      14 gallons per person. About 71 people could use that bottle. $5.42 per person.

      Even assuming a disaster of that scale once every 5 years, you're looking at about $1.08 per year per person. Going by the per capita income ($17,258) that comes to a tax hike of 0.006% (assuming my drunken math is correct - please correct me if I'm wrong - I likely am).

      I highly doubt the people of New Orleans, or any other city that may have issues with drinking water, would oppose paying $1 per person per year to make sure they'd be safe. And that's given the highly improbable situation where every last person would have to rely on it for two weeks every 5 years. The real number is much, much lower.

    94. Re:$385!? by prator · · Score: 1

      I'm from south Louisiana, and I was visiting home a few days before Katrina hit. As some others have mentioned, the news reports definitely let you know that this was a seriously bad storm on the way. For a few days before the storm, they were letting you know that you it was going to be bad.

      We got out of there, and, luckily, only had to deal with bad traffic.

    95. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they are a red state. Look at who else they re-elected. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer...

    96. Re:$385!? by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      Through out history cities have been destroyed. Sometimes new ones get built on top of the old ones. But most of the time when cities are destroyed by floods, the city is rebuilt in an area not in a low land area suceptible to flooding. No matter how good the levee system will be, there will always be a storm to cause it to fail and then its back to square one. The only smart thing to do is move the city up the Mississippi to high/more stable ground. Mother nature can't be stopped, you can only try to contain it.

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    97. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an idiot or something? The same water bottle can be used by many people who may be thirsty, as opposed to the plane ticket or bus ride.

    98. Re:$385!? by doooooosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah... I recall now why I lurk and don't post.

      Yes. I read the article. First Need's site claims it filters to .4 microns absolute. So no, it doesn't compare to this bottle's claimed 15 nm. And while I'm sure this new filter is great and all, the First Need one has passed tests showing its ability to filter out viruses (forgive my sarcastic use of virii above). If I may, allow me to quote from the manufacturer's site:

      Three series of tests were conducted by the independent laboratory at the University of Arizona to document removal of microbiological contaminants according to current EPA Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers.

      The purifiers were operated for 100% of their rated capacity and challenged periodically with high concentrations of bacteria, cysts and virus. At the 60% and 75% test points the units were challenged with "worst case" water according to protocol. Additionally, the systems were allowed to stagnate for 48 hours after the 50%, 75% and 100% test points to demonstrate that no microbiological growth through the cartridge occurred.

      (chart)

      Conclusion: General Ecology Inc.'s Seagull IV, Nature Pure and First Need water purifiers met the EPA Guide Standard as Microbiological Purifiers by removing bacteria, cysts and virus without the use of chemical additives or multiple processing.

      http://www.generalecology.com/techmemocert.htm

      I'm by no means an expert on such matters, just trying to be helpful. I've happily used my First Need all over Asia for drinking water in an effort to cut down on the waste from buying plastic bottles, and have yet to get sick.

    99. Re:$385!? by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Correct. It would have most likely declined as Second Declension Neuter (Bacterium, Bacteria) or, less likely, Fourth Declension Masculine/Feminine (A 4th Declension Neuter doesn't work quite the same way, tho.)

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    100. Re:$385!? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      No dude, NOBODY in New Orleans ever thinks the phrase "it's just another hurricane".  People there live in petrified fear of hurricanes.

      The people that didn't go felt like they had no other choice, for one reason or another.

      Or they were too stupid to leave.  There is that.

    101. Re:$385!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Difficult to do when there is no bus drivers, or no electricity to pump gas or run the airport. You forget
      > the largest problem in Katrina was getting to the people, and getting the people somewhere safe, among other
      > local government problems.

      I didn't understand this. Don't these people have bicycles somewhere? If it had been any other
      country on earth, people would have loaded a backpack (with plenty of fresh water) and WALKED out.
        OK, unfair, the smart ones had already left. For those remaining, it seems more a welfare mentality,
      than lack of resources that stopped them leaving.

    102. Re:$385!? by mpe · · Score: 1

      But there's more. Chemical treatment (e.g. iodine) kills small organisms (e.g. viruses) fast, but takes a long time to kill the larger parasites. So by combining a large-pored (i.e. fast, cheap) filter with chemical treatment (2-5 drops of bleach per liter, or iodine pills if you don't like to taste bleach), you get the best of both worlds: fast and safe.

      Which is exactly the way regular water treatment works. Filter through a bed of sand (top layer needs periodically replacing) then used a disinfectant. The latter either chemically through halogens/ozone or by exposing the water to intense UV light.

    103. Re:$385!? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Now think big, create an industrial size good-for-the-whole-town version and sell it to the government...

      How about a version which will fit on a truck or in an aircraft for disaster relief.

    104. Re:$385!? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes it does!

      do you realize how much wildlife I have to crush under my 10 wheels to get to that campsite?

      I then have to spend 20 minutes with a spatula scraping them off the underside, that's way closer to nature than the rest of you.

      Then falling trees so I get good satellite TV reception. No, you camping pussies never touch a fricking chainsaw during your camping expeditions.

      4mpg, 8 feet wide + 4 feet of slide outs, 984 sq feet of roughing it living space.

      The family has to suffer with an old Xbox and a tiny 32 inch plasma, come on do you want us to get uncivilized?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    105. Re:$385!? by Arctech · · Score: 1

      I don't know what water through the ~$400 water filter would taste like, but in a survival situation you can get practical potable drinking water by filtering the water through sand/rock/charcoal and adding a few drops of iodine or water filtration tablets. (Or by boiling of course, but in emergency situations you may not always have a heatable container handy.)

      http://www.aircav.com/survival/asch06/asch06p05.html#s3

  3. No Shit?!? by canipeal · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "The filter is so effective that it can purify dirty river water and even fecal matter."

    1. Re:No Shit?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It removes all particles larger than 15 nm, but chemical bond lengths are typically 0.2 nm, so this bottle will not filter small molecules such as Urea.

    2. Re:No Shit?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This is Old News. Or even "copycat" news. A thing called the LifeStraw does much the same and is already on the market.

    3. Re:No Shit?!? by Pentavirate · · Score: 4, Informative

      The LifeStraw filters particles from 125 micron down to minimal 15 micron

      The Lifesaver Bottle cuts out everything larger than 15nm. 15nm = .015 microns

      So yes, this is new news.

    4. Re:No Shit?!? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's "news", but it's particularly relevant how? Since when has Slashdot covered all of the advancements in water filtration technology? Why pick just this latest one? Sounds like it's just a reverse osmosis membrane in a pump-bottle. One should note that forcing water through such small pores requires a lot more pressure, and that RO filters generally don't get everything because of minor manufacturing imperfections and leaks around seals. When you're trying to stop viruses, it doesn't take much of an imperfection for something to get past.

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    5. Re:No Shit?!? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

      It removes all particles larger than 15 nm, but chemical bond lengths are typically 0.2 nm, so this bottle will not filter small molecules such as Urea. Well, at least we know they're not taking the piss.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:No Shit?!? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I found this article recently. I wonder if it's related?

      --
      blah blah blah
  4. It even purifies fecal matter? by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny

    No shit!

    1. Re:It even purifies fecal matter? by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

      No,none.

      --
      My UID is prime... is yours?
    2. Re:It even purifies fecal matter? by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 1

      Yes. Did you understand what you just read?

    3. Re:It even purifies fecal matter? by 45mm · · Score: 1

      Wonder if it still tastes like shit ...

    4. Re:It even purifies fecal matter? by lysse · · Score: 1

      I think that's a claim someone else can test.

  5. What about LifeStraw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:What about LifeStraw? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      LifeStraw only costs $3, so the Lifesaver Bottle must obviously be 100 times better. Since LifeStraw is 99.9999% effective at filtering common bacteria, the slightly pricier version will probably start exhibiting homeopathic properties.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:What about LifeStraw? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And on that subject, jackasses like this are why it's hard to help anyone:

      However, a spokesman for UK charity WaterAid, which works to supply clean water and sanitation in 17 of the world's poorest countries, condemned the device as overly expensive, and said it was not a real solution.

      The organisation's Paul Hetherington said that while he thought the LifeStraw is an 'amazing-sounding idea,' he did not ultimately think it would help.

      "$3.50 sounds like very little to you and me - but most people in those countries earn less than one dollar a day, with which they have to feed their families," he said.

      He added that he felt the problem is that many people live very far away from their water, often walking a total of 20km or more carrying a weight of 25 kilos.

      "That's what takes it out of them - the long journey," he explained.

      "The LifeStraw isn't going to prevent that long journey, even if it does improve the water they drink.

      "They're not going to have the education, because they're not going to have the time. It's girls in particular who suffer, because it's women and girls who have to collect the water.

      "It only costs a charity like WaterAid £15 per person to provide them with water, sanitation and hygiene education, which, provided there is decent water resource management in the country, will last them a lifetime.

      "At that rate, $3.50 is expensive."

      Of course, if "there is decent water resource management in the country" in the first place, none of this would be necessary. And never mind that if I'd have to make a trek for water anyway, I'd prefer it to be clean when I got there.

      If the LifeStraw at $3.00 will actually hurt women and girls and not solve the rest of society's ills, I can only imagine what Mr. Hetherington would think about a model that cost 100x more.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:What about LifeStraw? by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      And on that subject, jackasses like this are why it's hard to help anyone:
      Why is he a jackass for pointing out the truth?

      Of course, if "there is decent water resource management in the country" in the first place, none of this would be necessary.
      No, you can have plenty of water available, but if it's inaccessible and unsanitary further measures are still required.

      And never mind that if I'd have to make a trek for water anyway, I'd prefer it to be clean when I got there.
      And Mr Hetherington would prefer that they didn't have to make the trek and it was clean.

      If the LifeStraw at $3.00 will actually hurt women and girls and not solve the rest of society's ills
      I think maybe you're reading too much into the article's phrasing where it says he "condemned" it.

      The charity doesn't have infinite resources. If you had $300 dollars to spend, would you:

      (A) Put in place a water system (which lasts for a lifetime) that would provide water directly (so no trekking 20 km), that was sanitary and have money left over to provide some hygiene education

      (B) Buy 100 LifeStraws (which last 6 months) for them instead?

      I don't think Mr Hetherington is a jackass for rejecting the latter suggestion.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    4. Re:What about LifeStraw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.lifestraw.com/en/low/faq_low.asp#3

      Q3. Who can use LifeStraw® personal?
      Since humans have the natural ability to suck, both adults and children above three years can use LifeStraw® personal.

      Great! Now I don't feel so bad about sucking. It's natural!

    5. Re:What about LifeStraw? by vkg · · Score: 1

      Those are valid criticisms of lifestraw, I'm afraid.

      Better options are things like Solar Water Pasteurization which don't require a repurchase for each family member and reduce other problems, like firewood supply.

      http://solarcooking.org/pasteurization/default.htm

      I do agree that the general issues around water supply need better "quick fix" technologies, however. We can't wait for society to change, we have to move on technology. Now.

      It just has to be the right technology.

    6. Re:What about LifeStraw? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The charity doesn't have infinite resources. If you had $300 dollars to spend, would you:

      (A) Put in place a water system (which lasts for a lifetime) that would provide water directly (so no trekking 20 km), that was sanitary and have money left over to provide some hygiene education

      (B) Buy 100 LifeStraws (which last 6 months) for them instead?

      I would likely:

      (C) Buy 16 lifestraws so that the people I'm helping don't die of dysentery before we get their new water source finished.

      I don't think Mr Hetherington is a jackass for rejecting the latter suggestion.

      Neither do I. In fact, he's clearly correct that LifeStraws wouldn't be a long-term solution. I think he's a jackass for going out on a tangent about sexual inequality in sub-Saharan Africa rather than recognizing that they could help provide short-term relief until more permanent solutions can be established.

      What most irks me is the mindset that if an idea doesn't cure every aspect of a particular ill, then it's worse than current practices (which also don't fix everything). There's often a lot to be said for incremental upgrades, particularly when they give you a new capability (such as cheap, immediate relief in this case) that you haven't had before.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:What about LifeStraw? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      OK, so you put in a good water system for these people so they'll only have to walk to the village center to get their water from a spout.

      What says they're going to be able to maintain their water system if something breaks (especially something as complex & expensive as a purification system), or if a war breaks out in the neighborhood and their supply is damaged? You'll at least want these portable filters as a backup plan.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:What about LifeStraw? by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says that they require short-term relief of this form? Maybe they can implement sanitary measures immediately once they have the money, without spending as much as 16 LifeStraws would cost. Or perhaps 16 LifeStraws per village would save a few lives in the first three villages, but leave no money left for any improvement at all to the fourth, ultimately resulting in more death and disease.

      I don't know. But I'm betting that Mr Hetherington knows better than either of us since he works in that area, so I'll take his word for it that he has more cost-effective measures at his disposal. What makes you think that this is a more cost-effective solution than ones they already have in place? Do you know something about this area you haven't told me?

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    9. Re:What about LifeStraw? by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      What says they're going to be able to maintain their water system if something breaks (especially something as complex & expensive as a purification system)That's what the education is for; they're poor not stupid.

      or if a war breaks out in the neighborhood and their supply is damaged?
      I guess they'll have to fix it, assuming they're still alive and haven't fled.

      You'll at least want these portable filters as a backup plan.
      So, given the choice between water for villages A, B and C, or water + "backup plan" for village A, and nothing for villages B and C, what are you going to choose?
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  6. Re:Pee by darkrowan · · Score: 1

    Well it's not too far off. You'd need only to filter out dissolved solids, maybe a little UV to kill anything else just in case.

    --
    AccountKiller
  7. I want my still-suit now. by expro · · Score: 1

    Just what I have been waiting for. I want my still-suit now.

  8. The best part of you ran down your dad's leg by trolltalk.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Day 5: ... I think and feel. Mommy,

    Totally physically impossible. Of course, the religious right is used to lying and manipulating, because they can't ever show proof (like where's this God dude, anyway?)

  9. Volunteer testers must have lined up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, who wouldn't want to see if this prototype REALLY got the poop smell out of water?

  10. Great! by ProteusQ · · Score: 1

    But how do you clean the filter? Clean water?

    1. Re:Great! by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably it's disposable, and considering that it's probably the bulk of the cost, the whole bottle would be disposed/recycled at the end of its usefulness...which I might add is projected at 4,000 - 6,000 liters of filtered water, according TFA.

  11. The poor people of NOLA by smagruder · · Score: 1

    I somehow have doubts that the poor people remaining in NOLA during and after Katrina would have been able to make use of these bottles, if they were available, at 385 freaking dollars!

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    1. Re:The poor people of NOLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did it become unacceptable to expect people to take care of themselves?
      Why couldn't these people save up and set aside some money to purchase one 'just in case', instead of dropping $500 on a PS3, or $800 on a flat screen TV, or leasing a NEW vehicle for $250 + insurance a month, or all of the other things the people-think-they-NEED-but-don't.
      This is well within the bounds of 'acceptable expectancy' to me.

      I think if one lives in an area that even carries a moderate risk of similar disaster (hurricane, flash flood, what have you) that it should be expected of people to have preparations.
      If people want to bitch about it, then raise city or state taxes to cover the costs of purchasing them for people who live in moderate to high risk areas.

      Saying it's wrong to expect people to drop $400 one time in order to possibly save their own damn lives down the road is exactly the type of shit that's bringing this country down to begin with.
      Why should we simply stop expecting people to accept responsibility for managing their funds and getting their damn priorities straight?

    2. Re:The poor people of NOLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't have problems picking up a "free" $4000 Plasma TV. And a $385 water bottle is much easier to steal.

  12. Expensive by eknagy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Water purifier pills are way cheaper. Still, most people don't keep a box of them "just in case" in their backpack (right next to the dry rations, water-proof matches and raincoat).

    1. Re:Expensive by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water purifier pills are way cheaper.

      I wholeheartedly agree, but they don't remove suspended solids or do much to remove odor (other than to perhaps mask it).

      Something tells me that the marketing point of view was taken to draw more attention to the product ("hey, look! this can save lives!") rather than selling it on where most of the buyers are going to be, the military and extreme outdoors recreationalist types.

    2. Re:Expensive by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I always carry them. And don't buy the "odor neutralizing" pills which clear the iodine, that is a fucking gimmick. Those pills are nothing but ascorbic acid -- Vitamin C -- which you can buy for WAY cheaper than those neutralizers sell for.

      The problem with iodine is that it takes a long time to work -- up to 45 minutes. When you're extremely thirsty, it's easy to get impatient and drink the water too soon, which negates any benefit of treating it in the first place.

  13. Sounds like a good idea by ricebowl · · Score: 1

    Especially for those entering inhospitable terrain or likely to face the risk of severe dehydration, desert or jungle environments and so forth, as well as for emergency post-disaster use. As this is Slashdot I've obviously not read the article (yet) but what's the lifespan/filtration capacity of the bottle? Presumably it's able to be used many times, but is there some way of seeing, or being made aware, of when it's no longer effectively filtering the contaminants?

    1. Re:Sounds like a good idea by ricebowl · · Score: 1

      Having read the article I'm now prompting bad karma by double-posting and replying to myself, but it's apparently good for between 4000 and 6000 litres; making the cost-per-litre between 4.75pence and 3.16 (recurring) pence per litre. Which isn't bad at all, really apart from the initial outlay.

      Though there's still the matter of when you know the filter's exhausted and needs replacing.

    2. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      4000 or 6000 litres depending on the cartridge. Water is pumped through with a hand pump which stopw working when the cartidge is used up.

    3. Re:Sounds like a good idea by syzler · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the Life Saver's site:

      As the cartridge approaches the end of its life the bottle requires a greater number of pumps to induce water to flow. When the bottle requires a significant number of pumps to induce water to flow this indicates that it is nearing the end of its life. When no more water can be induced to flow despite continuous pumping, the cartridge has expired and it is time to replace it.

  14. Re:Pee by damaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pee is not toxic. So, unless you rather wait for a good tasting liquid than survive, there is no problem.

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  15. Re:O rly? by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He can't just pull the raw materials and equipment to make these out of his butt, dipshit. Those have a non-zero cost, and for a superfine filter like he's making the cost of production must be non-trivial.

    It it sees widespread production, the cost will go down (economies of scale) and advances in materials science and manufacturing techniques could also get the price down. Eventually.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  16. Re:Pee by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    It's not immediately toxic but the body does use it as a way to get rid of toxic chemicals so if you keep drinking all your pee then those chemicals will just build up in your system.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  17. distill, or filter? by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    TFA says both. Which is it?

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:distill, or filter? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. I'd venture to guess that most distilled water is filtered before it hits the distillation process. After all, you don't want twigs, and bugs, and assorted crud clogging up your boiler.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:distill, or filter? by boardboyda · · Score: 1

      They are mutually exclusive. Distilled doesn't mean filtered, and filtered doesn't mean distilled. RO (reverse osmosis) water is not distilled water, even though people still call it distilled, UV is not distilled, it's water where the pathogens have had their reproductive organs disactivated. Anyways it supposedly uses ultra filtration, so I imagine it's a flat sheet or hollow fiber membrane, so it's filtered NOT distilled. This will leave dissolved contaminates like arsenic, lead, ... Also a comment on their feature that so called stops the system from producing water when it's life is done; I imagine they have a relatively large flux going through the membrane so it fouls/clogs fairly fast so that they can make revenue on the replacement cartridges.

    3. Re:distill, or filter? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      The simplest way to know it's not distilled is to find if it lacks a power source.

      "Distilled" means that it was evaporated, then condensed in a separate container. This bottle, lacking a heat source with which to evaporate the water, cannot distill anything. And before someone says that you could leave it in the sun and do that, remember, you don't have a second container with which to gather the condensate, either. It cannot distill.

  18. Obligatory by __aagbwg300 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there one for Windows?

    1. Re:Obligatory by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "Is there one for Windows?"

      Yes, but no matter how much Windows you put in, nothing comes out. Not sure why.

  19. makign these for 3rd world countries by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I've read, probably in Technology Review, of people making this for 3rd world countries where bad drinking water is rampant. I think they've gotton costs minimal (@$15) and reliability high. .

  20. Good idea, wrong location? by spooje · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds great, but what are the odds that the average citizens in Ache or any of the other poor areas affected by the tsunami could afford the bottle.

    On the other hand, it sounds great for places like in Tokyo where you'll need a water cleaning kit for the big one. People will still have plenty of access to water in the form of Tokyo Bay and the rivers, but nothing clean enough to normally drink. It would have to be better than the current stratergy of leaving filled bottles of water outside houses and in local parks.

    --
    Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
    1. Re:Good idea, wrong location? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're going to want to drink the water in Tokyo bay with this thing. It filters out viruses, not dissolved molecules of toxic chemicals.

  21. Re:Pee by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not to mention urine is usually sterile until it exits the body. The real question is whether the filter will remove any/enough of the waste products that the body is trying to rid itself of to make such a recycling loop acceptable for more than a couple of passes.

  22. Re:Pee by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, but a simple evaporator made from a piece of plastic sheeting, a container of some kind and a stone can.

  23. 385?? by JamesP · · Score: 1

    There are good (and cheap) ways of decontaminating water. Something as simple as "boiling". Some substances (like bleach and potassium permanganate) also do the trick.

    This may be a good idea for someone that has to drink water from whatever. But not for Katrina type of stuff.

    And even then, fish still fuck on it...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:385?? by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      There are good (and cheap) ways of decontaminating water. Something as simple as "boiling". Some substances (like bleach and potassium permanganate) also do the trick.

      Do some microbiology and try again - regular boiling won't kill anything that can exist as a spore (which is a surprising number of microbes). Heck, even chlorination etc won't kill something like Cryptosporidium. While cryptosporidiosis isn't a big problem in the first world, a pathogen that causes diarrhoea in places where water is already scarce (like, say... an area hit by a natural disaster) is a very Bad Thing.

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    2. Re:385?? by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      There are good (and cheap) ways of decontaminating water. Something as simple as "boiling".
      Boiled cow manure is still cow manure.
    3. Re:385?? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You can stay and filter the cow shit. I'm going to go find the water trough or the creek.

  24. The government would buy it! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Ok, $385 a bottle for a person is a lot to swing, but $385M for the US Government to stockpile a million of these things is chump change. I guarantee shipping a little purifier bottle into a disaster zone would be a lot cheaper than trying to ship in millions of pounds of bottled water or other methods, so it would be cheaper for the gov't.

    I think we need to have these, what if the terrorists take out the water. Really, as much as people see the war on terror as a total waste, if rich people are actually willing to fork over taxes and spend gov't bucks on total preparation, I think we'd all do well to invent things like this!

    --
    This is my sig.
  25. Re:Pee by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    <Tyler Durden>
    Urine is sterile. You can drink it.
    </Tyler Durden>
    I know this, because Tyler knows this.
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  26. LifeStraw by mutende · · Score: 5, Informative

    More than one year ago, BBC mentioned the LifeStraw that filters water as you drink. It's able to filter 700 litres of water and was at that time priced at less than two quid (probably the wholesale price). See also the inventor Torben Vestergaard Frandsen's website.

    --
    Unselfish actions pay back better
    1. Re:LifeStraw by Hercynium · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up... The LifeStraw is brilliant in it's simplicity and economy, and I think it deserves all the media attention we can give it. However, it's clearly made for a different purpose than the Lifesaver Bottle. The LifeStraw is not designed to filter out viruses, since it's filter matrix is only effective to 15 microns, as opposed to the Lifesaver bottle's 15 nanometers. (15 microns == 15,000 nanometers)

      --
      I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
  27. Nice Price! by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    His bottle will shortly be available for sale from Lifesaver Systems at an expected cost of £190 (approx. $385). At one hundredth of that cost, this could actually become a life saver to hundreds of millions of people and not just wealthy people who are lost in the woods for days.

    Nevertheless, the idea is great and hopefully it can be sold for $10 in the future after a few refinements.
  28. This is not new.. can get one for less than $50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone who has ever been camping in the back country knows that there's been several products on the market like this for quite a while now... such as this http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=37101015&memberId=12500226 one.

    1. Re:This is not new.. can get one for less than $50 by Dolmangar · · Score: 1

      The livesaver bottle seems to provide 1000+ gallons for water for the price. This $50 bottle provides 26 gallons.

      "LIFESAVER cartridges
      LIFESAVER bottle is fitted with either a 4000UF or 6000UF replaceable cartridge. The 4000UF has a service rating of up to 4000 litres of water and the 6000UF up to 6000 litres. The cartridge will remove bacteria, viruses, cysts, parasites, fungi and all other microbiological water-borne pathogens from your water (see performance data)."

  29. 4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This makes economic sense under some conditions: Instead of cases of bottled water, you have one bottle and filter as needed.

    If this can deliver 4,000 liters at under $1 a liter, and is shipped empty, it's cheaper than shipping pallets of bottled water for military and aid organizations. And when mass production hits, I can see this becoming popular with campers, tourists, business travellers and others.

    1. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by deander2 · · Score: 1

      $400 / 4000 liters = $.10/liter, not $1/liter.

    2. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Funny
      $400 / 4000 liters = $.10/liter, not $1/liter

      Damned metric system!

    3. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by Splab · · Score: 1

      Well he did say under $1/l. so technically he is sort of still correct since $.10/l is less than $1/l (unless you work with verizon).

    4. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4000 liters for $385 is a lot cheaper than bottled water at wally world.

      Guess who would hate that new kind of bottle?

      Exactly...

    5. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      I think most of the $350+ price is in technology that makes the device unusable
      after a certain amount of water has been filtered. While touted as a safety feature, it really isn't. In a survival situation, if my water filter decides it has done enough and quits, I am S.O.L. and drinking water anyways. I suspect this filter is designed to shut off, well before it stops being effective.

      There are already lots of filtration options for campers and backpackers, but they are generally much cheaper than this one. I'm not sure what this brings to the table, other, than it monitors its usage and stops functioning after a volume of liquid has been filtered.

      For dissaster response, A charcoal filter removes chlorine taste, and chlorine kills viruses and bacteria. If time is not an issue, a spoon full of bleach, a five gallon bucket, and some 0.4um charcoal filters are much cheaper and easier.

      $385 sounds about right for the military though, not surprised they jumped at the bargain and bought them all.

    6. Re:4000 liters for $385? Not outrageous! by kcelery · · Score: 1

      If you don't expect some thing bad to happen, you would not like to shell out $385 for a device that might sit on the shelf for years. If you do expect the outage of water supply, there are lots of cheaper alternatives.

  30. Nothing new here by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Micron size water filters have been around for a long time, ask any outdoorsman or backpacker. They've always been rather expensive, though not usually as much as this one. Also, all those particles that are filtered out of your water are left behind in the filter, which rather quickly clogs up those micron sized pores, requiring the cartridges to be replaced. The throughput also isn't very great, unless you have a pump to force the water through filter.
    How is this anything more then a press release for something that's not very new at all??

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Nothing new here by merlinokos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reading the article indicates a 4000-6000 liter capacity before swapping filters.
      How does that compare to the existing products? And how does it fit in with your reflexive scorn of anything new?

    2. Re:Nothing new here by Animats · · Score: 1

      Micron size water filters have been around for a long time, ask any outdoorsman or backpacker

      Yes. I have one in my emergency supplies. Here's some basic info on small water purifiers. These things tend to be slow, low-throughput devices, since they work by forcing water through a 200nm or so absolute filter. Prices are in the US$100 - US$300 range, depending on throughput. Is this new thing faster, or easier to clean, or cheaper, or something?

    3. Re:Nothing new here by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      This is certainly nothing new at all.

      Here is MEC's selection:

      Water Purifiers At MEC

      There is a vast array of products available that have been available for years.

      My filter: (on the 2nd page, $68 these days, .2 micron, 1.25l per minute, 750+ litres per filter) Been using that one for...sheesh, almost 10 years.

      Spend more, get more throughput and more filter life. The Katadyne filter on the first page is used throughout the world by many many agencies. Expensive, but for it's abilities, it's right in line with the price of the device in the article. (Almost 100k litres per filter!!!)

      Note that almost all the filters on the MEC site offer the same level of protection...the differences are in the throughput and filter lifetime. That is what you pay for.

      This is just a company trying to get a big government contract and make a pile of cash, they have nothing new to bring to the table whatsoever. Now if they could provide filters for $20 per household...then they'd be on to something.

      --
      No Comment.
    4. Re:Nothing new here by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that 15nm is .015 microns, right?

      This isn't a micron filter. A micron filter has pores a few orders of magnitude too large to filter out viruses.

      This one, however, does filter viruses.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by bsundhei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod this guy down, just another one of the "This already exists" posts that occur on every thread. Try reading the article before posting... 1) This filter's out virus' as well as bacteria, all of those outdoorsman's filters only filter bacteria. Huge difference there. 2) How quickly it does clog up, only takes 4k-6k liters before you have to change the filter...

    6. Re:Nothing new here by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      .2 micron != .015 micron.

      While nothing new, this filter represents a vast improvement in the ability of cheap, hand-held filters to remove viral particles. Of course, most water-borne illnesses are bacterial, but not all.

      Might help if you read TFA, or even TFS. My first thought on reading the summary was very similar to yours... until I bothered finding out why this is different than the products in the link you provided.

      Reading comprehension is a useful skill.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article again. The main difference is that this can filter particles smaller than a tenth the size of what your filters can handle.

    8. Re:Nothing new here by robbityca · · Score: 1
      There's a big difference between the 200 nm filter used by MSR/Katadyne/etc products and the 15 nm filter of the "Lifesaver Bottle".

      FTFA:

      Conventional filters can cut out bacteria measuring more than 200 nanometres but not viruses, which typically are 25 nanometres long.

      And yet I use a Katadyne when I go canoe-camping (50,000L through a 200 nm filter). I simply don't need anything better.

    9. Re:Nothing new here by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to comment on that specifically (As 3 of you have now corrected me on that point).

      That is not a bad improvement for that price point indeed. But it isn't really necessary. Anti-Viral drops are the norm for everything under .2 micron, and they are very cheap. Most of those filters listed come with them for just this purpose. The filter gets all particles out, and the drops kill any virals left behind.

      The net effect is essentially the same.

      My real point being, you can already get the same level of protection out of a sub $70 device that has been around for over a decade. I think this tech would really have to come in much cheaper than ~$200 to really become a commodity emergency item that could easily and quickly get into the hands of those that need it in a time of crisis.

      --
      No Comment.
    10. Re:Nothing new here by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Ah, and on a side note, I know you don't like me, but there's really no need to be an arrogant prick over something like this. Maybe it'll help if I just concede now that you're a much smarter and better person than me ;)

      --
      No Comment.
    11. Re:Nothing new here by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      From reading the info on the Lifesaver Bottle website, it doesn't look to be anything new except that its got finer filtration. Oh and you can pressurize the bottle to spray water into wounds or squirt the guy in front of you. They've got some sort of membrane to protect the main filter from sand and gravel and turds, but I don't see anything truly innovative here.

      And further, based on my experience with water filters in the field, they *NEVER* come close to their stated capacity and in order to clean the things, you need to have clean water (to backflush the filter) thereby requiring you push more water through a rapidly clogging filter. The problem has always been that once you've clogged the thing, you're screwed until you can get access to clean water. I ditched all my filters years ago and went to iodine. They're way smaller and lighter too. If you really object to the taste, bring some kool-aid mix.

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    12. Re:Nothing new here by kcelery · · Score: 1

      There is little detail in the article of how the filter was made. I have the feeling that it is made by carbon nanotube. The nanotube filter has a nice feature of allowing the fluid flow through in a streamline flow, thus a much faster filter than the conventional one. I just wonder if it is possible to make a DIY carbon nanotube filter by gluing a bundle of nanotube together with epoxy. Then insert into a plastic straw of 1cm diameter. This filter has a small effective area which tend to clog easily. Just cut off the lower part of the nanotube, clogged tube could be used again.

    13. Re:Nothing new here by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      It's not that I don't like you. It's that I don't like the way you often respond to posts in an extremly arrogant matter (all-caps comes to mind) -- you like to tear people a new one when responding to their posts.

      So, speaking of arrogant pricks, I think it takes one to know one.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:Nothing new here by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Then carry out your fights in context and don't carry over a grudge to a thread where there is no context for a previous discussion.

      It's one thing to carry on a pissing match...but to start one anew for no reason, well, it's childish and really doesn't help resolve things, it just drags things out for no reason.

      Different day, different topic...could have reasonably been a good point to start fresh.

      --
      No Comment.
    15. Re:Nothing new here by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      At least we're discussing the issue.

      My original post in this thread had nothing to do with any grudge or anything. It had to do with what I saw as factually incorrect information... particularly since you made some pretty wild statements in that post ("This is just a company...") that were way off base.

      It's one thing to hold a false assumption -- it's another thing to disparage others based on an incorrect assumption. This is why I have previously marked you as a foe, since you had on several occasions done the same to posts of mine.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:Nothing new here by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 1

      You do realize that 15nm is .015 microns, right?

      Not necessarily. Maybe he works at Verizon.

      --
      The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
  31. Kill kill kill kill kill the poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His bottle will shortly be available for sale from Lifesaver Systems at an expected cost of £190 (approx. $385).

    Number of people who died from drinking contaminated water during Katrina, the tsunami and other disasters that can afford such a bottle?

    0

    1. Re:Kill kill kill kill kill the poor by halivar · · Score: 1

      Number of people who died from drinking contaminated water during Katrina, period.

      0

    2. Re:Kill kill kill kill kill the poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of them died from drinking contaminated water - the problem is that it "went down the wrong way".

      Glub glub!

  32. Re:Pee by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it filters everything down to a virus exactly what is left for the UV to kill?

    This wouldn't filter out toxins like hydrocarbons and other nasty stuff that is in flood waters.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  33. real or just an ad? by kurthr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been possible to buy similar "virus level" filters for hiking since at least the 80s. The typical problems are cleaning, and clogging. See Katadyn or your local REI for a variety of samples. Then there's the "$2" (really about $7) LifeStraw, that was advertised on gizmodo 2 years ago... is this just a running theme?

    If the filter is small enough to block viruses, then it is so small that even very small 1u particles will clog it. The whole filter system has to be optimized... and they still clog. They claim 1000 liters, but I'm not really buying it. If it really has something to do with distilling, then I'd be more positive, but that's usually pretty darn complex.

    Perhaps he's using a teflon reverse osmosis filter? At the price, it's certainly possible. Those take significant pressure, but they would take out viruses. The water has to start pretty clean too or they develop a film which clogs them too. People have tried iodine on them as well... it works for a while. Whithout knowing what this thing is (and the website's no help), I don't think we can really talk coherently about it.

    If it is just a filter you can reverse flush and clean and do a variety of other things, but if your filter clogs after a few liters you'll be _very_ unhappy. This is made more difficult by the fact that you're trying to clean out biologicals, which will happily grow in the filter so it clogs up even quicker, and the cleaning is even more important and difficult to do completely. That's why people make throw aways or just add a halogen (chlorene/iodine) to a tub of relatively filtered water (so things can diffuse) and wait an hour.

    Most hikers (who bother) use a more coarse filter (for bacteria only). Often these are treated with iodine as well, and perhaps charcoal to remove bad tastes. These keep clogging problems down, and make cleaning somewhat more easy. That's what the LifeStraw is based on.

    I hope this is really an advancement, but it has the smell of an ad.

    1. Re:real or just an ad? by markbt73 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "Buy Now" button as the first thing you see on the website doesn't bode well.

      It appears you still have to provide your own filter for snake-oil.

      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    2. Re:real or just an ad? by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      Whithout knowing what this thing is (and the website's no help), I don't think we can really talk coherently about it.

      Friend, you must be new here... being able to talk coherently about something has nothing to do with slashdot

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
  34. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for telling me what to do with my body!

    Your advice reminded me why I don't take religion seriously. You are all full of shit but you speak as though you are conveying objective facts.

    I hope you don't support the war in Iraq. That is the mass murder / oil theft that we all directly fund with our taxes. George W Bush is the real mass murderer, not some doctor that lets women choose whether or not they want to give birth to a child.

  35. Yes, but... by freyyr890 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it remove Dihydrogen Monoxide from the water?

    1. Re:yes, but... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're using your judgment too.

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The health effects of Dihydrogen Monoxide (or Hydrogen Hydroxide, as it should be called) are overblown. Read more about it from this advocacy group. I fully support the Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide, and you should too!

  36. Re:Save a life today by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Day 1 Mommy, I am only 8 inches long,


    Bzzzt! Wrong. Day 1 is nothing but a bunch of cells called a zygote which cannot be seen by the human eye.

    At 5 weeks, the embryo is only 10mm (.3937007874 inches) in length.

    It's not until the 18th week that the fetus approaches eight inches in length.

    Done lying yet? Or does your God allow that?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  37. Details? by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about how this works. We've had filters that were capable of filtering out viruses for a long time, so it's not anything new. The problem is that they clog very quickly when you try to filter anything that has large amounts of solids in it (like feces). If it's some kind of multi-stage filter that uses increasingly smaller pore size filters at each stage, how often do you need to change the filter?

  38. Price gouging by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Someone could stock up on these at $385 each. Buy 1000 of them. Then go and sell them for, say $500 when the next major disaster hits.

    People would get safe water that way.

    But it would be price gouging, so it's illegal. Better people die from drinking polluted water than someone make a few dollars helping them. That's the rule of price-gouging laws.

    1. Re:Price gouging by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      It may be a side effect that stops improbable schemes like yours, but lets be honest, nobody 'stocks up' on stuff like that, the day the disaster hits they go and buy out the store so no one else can get one, THEN they sell them for $500 each. thats why those sort of laws are in place,

    2. Re:Price gouging by Kohath · · Score: 1

      What keeps people from buying a truckload of them in, say, St. Louis and trucking them down to the affected area after the storm?

      Sounds like a great opportunity to help some people and make some good money. But you'd get put in jail if you made enough money for it to be worthwhile. So no one does this.

    3. Re:Price gouging by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Unless they have some humanity.

    4. Re:Price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have some humanity"? Ummm...shows how much you understand about economics. Letting the price of a needed commodity rise during a crisis somewhere is the best way to cause everyone outside the crisis area to get humping and get those items there. If the price is controlled by anti price gouging laws, businesses outside that area are less motivated to get the goods in there. Anti price gouging laws are another example of feel good legislation that has the opposite effect of that which is desired.

    5. Re:Price gouging by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Unless they have some humanity.

      Do you want people to have clean water or not?

      Why should someone take all his stored-up vacation days off, buy inventory, rent a truck, drive it to a disaster area, and sell supplies? You won't let him make any money at it. He'll stay home and donate $50 to a relief fund.

      Are you going to provide the water filters for the people in the disaster area? Why not? Don't you have any humanity?

      So the people in the disaster area will go without the things they need. How is that "humanity"?

      And how is it "humanity" to jail someone trucking in relief supplies? He's helping. When you need it, clean water is worth paying for.

      Have fun patting yourself on the back for jailing the guy who was helping people not die from tainted water. What a paragon of moral and ethical rectitude you are. I guess it's easy when you don't care about consequences.

    6. Re:Price gouging by Boronx · · Score: 1

      In case you were wondering, I was taking issue with this statement.

      "So no one does this."

      People do do it without price gouging, and you are allowed to make a profit, just not a ridiculous one.

      I'm not saying that price gouging should be outlawed (I happen to think legalizing gouging would reduce distribution, not increase it in extraordinary market conditions.)

    7. Re:Price gouging by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Ok, fine. I withdraw the extremely sarcastic bits from my post above.

      People do do it without price gouging, and you are allowed to make a profit, just not a ridiculous one.

      But if you make any profit, you stand the chance of being accused of price-gouging. Then you have to defend yourself from the accusation. You have to justify your profit as not ridiculous. And there's no standard, so it's all guesswork. It's an additional risk. And God help you if you try to increase your prices to compensate you for that additional risk.

      I happen to think legalizing gouging would reduce distribution, not increase it in extraordinary market conditions.

      Ok. Economics and history teach us the opposite, but if you genuinely believe that then there's not much else to be said.

  39. Re:O rly? by leadghost · · Score: 1

    Uncle Sam is gonna butter this guys bread big time. And as we all know, price is no object!

  40. ... about LifeStraw? by Lionheart_DK · · Score: 1

    "...homeopathic properties." lool!

    -the worst part about this, is that lifestraw(a DANISH invention)
    (g00gle it, if you don't believe me)
    was invented to help people in third-world countries (hence the low cost),
    as well as people in catastrophe-hit areas, and then a greedy swine comes along.
    I seriously hope he chokes on it, the bastard.
    (no; I wish for every being to have long, good lives, but this is just evil)

    --
    You live and you learn; some just choose not to...
    1. Re:... about LifeStraw? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      the worst part about this, is that lifestraw was invented to help people in third-world countries (hence the low cost), as well as people in catastrophe-hit areas, and then a greedy swine comes along.

      Before you get worked up, wait and see how the market reacts. I predict that a few people with more money than common sense will buy these ridiculously expensive filters, but not enough to cover costs. The rest of us will make due with bleach, iodine pills, and el-cheapo LifeStraw-like filters. It'd be like making a $2,000 pup tent. Sure, a few people would buy them because they equate cost with suitability, but it probably wouldn't catch on with us regular folk.

      (a DANISH invention) (g00gle it, if you don't believe me)

      We believe you, no need to get defensive. :-)

      I seriously hope he chokes on it

      Sweet, sweet irony.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  41. virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    virii
    that makes me cry
  42. Re:Pee by 808140 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This actually takes quite a while; for most people, urine is upwards of 98% water. Sure, if you drink nothing but urine for months you may develop problems -- but if you're stuck somewhere and water is in short supply, you should definitely drink your urine. It only takes the average human 3 or 4 days to die of thirst, and if you don't know when help will arrive, don't risk it.

  43. One of 4 things by ishmalius · · Score: 1

    During Hurricane Rita, there seemed to be 4 things that were important to get to the affected people: water, electricity, ice, and chainsaws (yes, chainsaws). If there were some simple, cheap source of electricity, (like the OLPC?) it would be fantastic.

    1. Re:One of 4 things by fataugie · · Score: 1

      The chain saws were for the death matches, of course.
      Or perhaps, someone was expecting Zombies!

      It's just a little joke pople, nothing to see here....

      --

      WTF? Over?

  44. Also Obligatory by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    Only on Vista. The DRM is brutal and if it finds an arbitrary problem, it flavours the water like Pepsi Blue.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  45. I 'll stick with the Biosandfilter, Thanks by deweycheetham · · Score: 0

    1st. Nice marketing gimmick, but the same technology can be used with common everyday objects like Sand and Gravity. (Add a little charcoal from you fire and your really High-Tech.)

    2nd. Does anyone study history anymore, because: John Gibbs did this in 1804 when he built the means of water treatment and sold it to the public in Paisley Scotland.

    3rd. try a do it yourself job at http://www.biosandfilter.org/ or get a more field expedient version at http://www.therangerdigest.com/Tips___Tricks/Filter_and_Purifying_Water/body_filter_and_purifying_water.htm

    1. Re:I 'll stick with the Biosandfilter, Thanks by kcelery · · Score: 1

      My friend sells porcelain filters, so I know a little bit about these things. I would say the Biosandfilter cannot filter out virus as the device in TFA. Filter of pores down to 1 micron is quite slow. To get rid of the virus, you need 20 times smaller. Someone can design a filter with pores that blocks the virus. But it will drip very slowly. Not very practical.

    2. Re:I 'll stick with the Biosandfilter, Thanks by deweycheetham · · Score: 0

      >"My friend sells porcelain filters, so I know a little bit about these things."

      Good for your friend the salesman, and I am glad you know a little.

      >"I would say the Biosandfilter cannot filter out virus as the device in TFA. Filter of pores down to 1 micron is quite slow. To get rid of the virus, you need 20 times smaller. Someone can design a filter with pores that blocks the virus. But it will drip very slowly. Not very practical."

      Unfortune the United Nations Heath Care for Refugee's disagree with your assessment. Please see http://postconflict.unep.ch/liberia/displacement/documents/UNHCR_Water_Manual_Refugee_Situations.pdf . They seem to think otherwise. The costs, distribution of material in a crises, and uses the use of common material must have biased their view point. Also, boiling water seems to kill viruses (of 1 micro) quite nicely and is cheap.

      Also, Biosandfilters (or their equivalent) are the basis of public water works for 200 years in the western world. So I can see your concern over being practical.

    3. Re:I 'll stick with the Biosandfilter, Thanks by kcelery · · Score: 1
      >Good for your friend the salesman, and I am glad you know a little.

      Yes, he is a salesman, but he will not put a label there saying it can filter out virus as discussed in the parent.

      Sand filter has been used over a century, it is a proven technique to filter out bacteria, cyst etc. Which makes a very clean water, in most case drinkable. Does it contain virus, the answer is still yes.

      One commercial water filter goes down to 1 micron level, filtration process is quite slow, I still cannot find any manufacturer who would want to make a water filter with a smaller pore size because the flow rate is too slow, so slow that most user would regard it as clogged. AT 1 micron level, still leaves a lot of room for virus to pass through.

      As stated in the Biosandfilter instruction, making the sand filter requires clean sand and it has to be flushed until filtered water is clear. Post-Katrina victims might not find this water filter helpful.

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

    Until it can turn my pee into vodka, I agree.

  47. Eureka! by oktokie · · Score: 0

    Can it be used to filter out and purify cheap vodka into expensive one?

    I've read some guy experimented with brita filter just doing this.

    1. Re:Eureka! by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      This was done on MythBusters. Sorry can't recall if it was busted or not.

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
  48. This is nothing new. by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    There has been gear like this for years - outfitter stores provide these capabilities - including solar stills, reverse osmosis filtration and the tried and true Iodine tables for a lot less than $350!

    Sounds like someone is trying to make a buck at the expense of ignorant people. Of course, the site is /.'d so I can't verify his claims.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  49. Re:Pee by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not sure you understand the purpose of peeing.

    --
    -Dave
  50. $ 93 "First Need" Filter by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    His bottle will shortly be available for sale from Lifesaver Systems [CC] at an expected cost of £190 (approx. $385)."

    Simple, portable, anti-viral filters are not new. The First Need Deluxe Water Filter/Purifier is $93 at Amazon. First Need is one filter that claims to meet EPA virus-removal standards by filtration alone -- a nice change from the yucky taste (and for some, the health risks) of iodine. Most antiviral filters involve an iodine element; when its job is done, a carbon element rids your water of any face-scrunching aftertaste. How To Buy a Water Filter

    1. Re:$ 93 "First Need" Filter by Mex · · Score: 1

      It's obvious you didn't even read the article.

    2. Re:$ 93 "First Need" Filter by westlake · · Score: 1
      It's obvious you didn't even read the article.

      So, having read the fine article, you can tell how me how this thing works and why it costs $385

  51. Better Use by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So there is a 15nm filter that can get even viruses and bacteria out of water?

    How about using it for home use, recycling "Grey water waste" and rainwater into drinking water. £400 a pop seems more impressive when considered that way. Assuming the filters can be made economically enough there is a huge potential market there.

    I like the idea of anything that reduces our dependence on piped convenience.

  52. Too much filtration... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    I can see the usefulness for survival-type purposes, but are we going to see some people from overprotective germ-scared parents to not-quite hypochondriacs start overusing some of these things, such that their immune systems fail to become hardened enough to disease? Isn't there a point where catching a freakin' cold or flu may actually be GOOD for you down the road?

    1. Re:Too much filtration... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about cold and flu. We're talking about giardia, tapeworm, hantavirus, and a whole bunch of other incredibly bad diseases which you do NOT want to be exposed to EVER in your life. You can't develop an immunity if you are DEAD.

      I drink untreated water from mountain streams but only in certain circumstances. I imagine that at some point in the future, I will fuck up and get very, very sick. I'm sure that I would never drink untreated water again, if that happened.

      Les Stroud -- the Survivorman guy -- got an amoebic infection of his mucous membranes which caused him great pain for almost a year. He finally decided to take some very strong antibiotic, which cured it.

      I agree that we are way too paranoid about run-of-the-mill germs and viruses. The idea that we can somehow eliminate them all is crazy. But deliberately exposing yourself to extremely dangerous pathogens is STUPID.

  53. That's over a week full time at minimum wage! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    His bottle will shortly be available for sale from Lifesaver Systems at an expected cost of £190 (approx. one week's pay or half one month's rent for those that would have actually needed this during Katrina.)

  54. From the website by RealErmine · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the lifesaver systems "unique features" page:

    LIFESAVER bottle is fitted with a chew-proof non-tasting replaceable teat.

    Finally. I hate when my teat gets all chewed up. It's also pretty creepy that my previous teat can taste me whenever I use it.

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  55. Pretty much, but not quite... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Informative
    tylernt said:

    Not to mention the fact that hikers and backpackers have used $60 filter bottles for years now that do pretty much the same thing.
    Based on the summary, not quite the same thing. I have a Katadyn Pocket filter which is generally regarded as one of the BEST consumer water filter systems (I've been told that it is basically a scaled down version of what the UN uses for refugee missions). It is rugged, not too heavy (though much lighter ones exists), pumps about 1 liter per minute, and a single filter cartridge is good for 50,000 liters.

    HOWEVER, it can only filter particles down to 200nm, which is good enough to get just about all bacteria and some viruses. But, this new one filters down to 15nm which covers just about everything. Slap a charcoal filter on it to absorb toxins, and it sounds like a hell of a water system.

    Still, you can have my Pocket filter when you pry it from my cold, dead, dysenteric fingers. ;)

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I use my judgment to filter my water. It works pretty good. And my immune system takes care of anything that gets through.

    2. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by toppavak · · Score: 2, Informative

      HOWEVER, it can only filter particles down to 200nm
      No need to go down to 15nm. Use an iodized resin core filter and no more viruses. All this from a ~$100 hiking filter from REI. This one (http://www.rei.com/product/618208) is certified to kill/remove bacteria protozoans and viruses and can output 1.34 L/minute. The only disadvantage is that each filter cartridge can only clean ~473 gallons of water. For the average person this translates into roughly 250 days worth of water. Not (relatively) bad for a ~$100 unit. With larger-scale centralized and subsidized manufacturing this could be significantly reduced.
    3. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, with such a fine porosity, I wonder how well the filter actually works in practice. Having had a lot of experience doing field maintenance on an MSR filter (I've hiked roughly 4000 miles with this one so far), I can say that even around 200nm, the filter needs regular cleaning. Cleaning becomes harder and is required more regularly as your filter gets finer (often referred to as the "tightness" of the filter).

      My BuonVino wine filter, which I once [idiotically] ran beer through, clogged in a matter of seconds, thus drenching me and my kitchen in about a quart of beer before I could turn it off. See, wine yeast tends to be highly flocculant-- it clumps together and drops out-- which means that there isn't a whole lot of filtering to be done to make it "bright". Beer, on the other hand, contains yeast of a lower flocculence, and so my filter clogged immediately. And filters that fine can't be reused-- you have to throw them away. This is why big beer manufacturers (like Budweiser) tend to invest a far amount of money in making sure that they have a lot of filter material available (they often use diatomaceous earth).

    5. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Based on the summary, not quite the same thing. I have a Katadyn Pocket filter which is generally regarded as one of the BEST consumer water filter systems (I've been told that it is basically a scaled down version of what the UN uses for refugee missions). It is rugged, not too heavy (though much lighter ones exists), pumps about 1 liter per minute, and a single filter cartridge is good for 50,000 liters.

      Viruses become a concern when you know for sure other human beings are int he water with you and are likely in poor health and defecating into the water. Hep A, Hep B, Hep c all become concerns and are fairly common ailments. A chemical treatment can likely deal with that but in a emergency with a heterogeneous user base it might be better over all to have a single device do it all. If you hand out boxes with a filter bottle and a bottle of drops odds are among 1000 people a fair number will use it wrong. A simpler 1 piece device would be a better idea. Perhaps that is the market for this device, water filtration for people who can't follow or read instructions.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    6. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by bevoblake · · Score: 2, Informative

      Time out. FirstNeed already produces a filter that can filter viruses, for 97 bucks. Check out REI.

      Plus, you can purchase chlorine drops from any reputable outdoor gear retailer, which kills viruses. Combined with a 30 dollar filter, this is a much cheaper solution. Worried about chlorine? Municipal water supplies use it; so you're probably drinking it anyway.

      This article is total marketing fluff. It just provides the backstory for a new product in a market with plenty of pre-existing, cheaper alternatives.

    7. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by g0at · · Score: 1

      This is why big beer manufacturers (like Budweiser) tend to invest a far amount of money in making sure that they have a lot of filter material available

      Now, if they'd invest as much money in making decent beer, they might be on to something!

      -b

    8. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Now, if they'd invest as much money in making decent beer, they might be on to something!

      True, although to be entirely fair, a lot of quality and taste is lost due to poor handling.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if they'd invest as much money in making decent beer, they might be on to something!

      True dat!
      I owe you a modpoint. I will mod-up your next post (even if you post "The quick brown fox...")

    10. Re:Pretty much, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... You're saying that Budweiser uses the primary ingredient in CAT LITTER to filter their beer? Greaaaaaat....

  56. Cheap Water Filtration by grassy_knoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    You need 2 buckets, a cotton t-shirt, propane camp stove ( or a heat source to boil water of some kind ) and bleach.

    Cover the mouth of the empty bucket with the cotton t-shit.

    Fill the other bucket with suspect water.

    Pour the water from the full bucket into the empty bucket through the t-shirt. This filters out the larger baddies.

    Presuming at least one of the buckets is metal, you can boil water in that. If not, a pot of some sort is required. The idea is to boil the water to a rolling boil for at least one minute.

    Allow the water to cool for at least 30 minutes. Once cool, add 16 drops of bleach per gallon ( or 8 drops per 2 liter bottle ). If the water smells faintly of chlorine, it's safe to drink. If not, repeat adding the bleach.

    Thanks to the Red Cross for directions.

    A $400 water filtration system is nice, and can be cost effective in some cases ( as others pointed out, shipping and distributing small empty bottles is easier that shipping and distributing water ), but not having one doesn't mean you have no options.

    1. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by bogd · · Score: 1

      Cover the mouth of the empty bucket with the cotton t-shit.
      Sorry, but I just couldn't help noticing! Especially in the context... :P
    2. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Hehehee... nice catch. As usual, all spelling errors are for the amusement of the reader.

    3. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However that is not the same as filtering everything out down to 15nm.

      Bleach and boiling doesn't kill everything. It will not kill certain spores, prions, some viruses. Many of which are larger than 15nm.

      Even 15 nm will pass some rare spores and prions though. There is no perfect solution.

    4. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by Kozz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, shouldn't most of the microorganisms be killed by the boil itself? Granted, the boil doesn't filter chemicals, but if you're simply trying to kill giardia, e. coli and cryptosporidium, you probably only need to bring the water to a boil and that's it.
      http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/how-long-do-you-need-to-boil-water/
      If you disagree, I would like to know more about which points the URL above got wrong -- I'm always open to learning.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    5. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by khallow · · Score: 1

      It will not kill certain spores, prions, some viruses. Many of which are larger than 15nm.

      In theory. In practice, anything which infects humans wouldn't survive the process.
    6. Re:Cheap Water Filtration by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a metal/ceramic container to boil your water in, another method suggested involves heating stones in the fire, then placing them in the water. Repeat until water boils (long enough). It's supposedly even possible to boil water held in platic bags this way.

      Disclaimer: Or so I've heard. Never tried it myself.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  57. ultraviolet light is also good purification method by SethJohnson · · Score: 2, Informative



    Another method of killing bacteria in drinking water is to expose it to excessive ultraviolet light. You can do this by putting it in clear plastic bottles, then set the bottles on a mirror in the sun. A reflective tin roof will also work. After an hour or so, this method kills 98% of harmful bacteria. Bacteria has a tolerance of normal amounts of UV light, but the mirror doubles the exposure, which they are unable to survive.

    I don't know if fecal matter in water would be cleaned by this method.

    Water purification methods.

    Seth

  58. Stilsuits by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yup, they were called stilsuits in the dune universe.

    1. Re:Stilsuits by PeelBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      And they weren't bottles ;)

      They covered your entire body and even had breathing apparatus and nose fittings to catch the moister while you breath.

      When you slept at night you slept in a stilltent.

  59. Re:Save a life today by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's true abortion is such a waste. A few more months and I could have cooked and ate that baby.

  60. OT: Why the Swiss Flag by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I looked at the Katadyn device and I always wonder why people slap on the Swiss flag. Is that supposed to mean Swiss use it? Heck I am sitting here in Switzerland and have hiked quite a bit through the mountains. Never seen the device. Want to know what people do? They drink the water fresh from the creek, or from one of the fountains that you find scattered throughout the mountains.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by ghqman · · Score: 1

      Katadyn is a Swiss company, and the Swiss are known for quality products.

    2. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, it's made in Switzerland!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      It's because you can attach it to a knife

    4. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Katadyn is a Swiss company, and the Swiss are known for quality products. That's true, but unfortunately those products are milk chocolate and cuckoo clocks.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what city are you in? I'm considering a move to switzerland...

    6. Re:OT: Why the Swiss Flag by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      >> Katadyn is a Swiss company, and the Swiss are known for quality products.
      > That's true, but unfortunately those products are milk chocolate and cuckoo clocks.

      They also make very good air purifiers:
      http://www.iqair.us/

      I run a HealthPro Plus in my bedroom every night. This air purifier works better than anything I have tried from Honeywell or Whirlpool.
      http://www.iqair.us/residential/roomairpurifiers/healthproplus.php

  61. Re:Pee by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Urine is sterile. You can drink it.

    Urine is sterile, and you *can* drink it. You can drink Hydrogen Cyanide solution too, but you'll die in in minutes. Urine isn't that bad, but it's hardly nourishing or even inert - the stuff in it is called "waste products" for a reason.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  62. Is it safe? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    During something like Katrina, there is a lot more crap in the water than just bacteria.

    What does this thing do with gasoline, pesticides, and other chemicals coming out of drowned cars, stores, homes, and factories? If it isn't removing these chemicals, then you can't be sure the processed water is safe to drink. You will probably see a lot of sick people who relied on this product, and got poisoned because of the false sense oc security.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Is it safe? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      What does this thing do with gasoline, pesticides, and other chemicals

      I recall reading about nanotube filters which would filter out non-water molecules. See, carbon (the main component of hydrocarbons) is much larger than oxygen and hydrogen. It's very probable that hydrocarbons can't pass through this filter, either. But we'd have to test.

    2. Re:Is it safe? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No. Something that can filter molecules and atoms isn't going to be put into a water bottle anytime soon. It requires a lot of pressure to force water through the filter and you can't just throw water with particulates in it at the filter because it will clog pretty much instantly.

  63. Re:Pee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, you should start drinking your own urine, so you get used to the taste, just in case the water suddenly runs out. I know I have!

  64. Oh good... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    Now my tap water won't taste like it came from a poorly-maintained public swimming pool any more...

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  65. Re:Pee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's something to do during the commercials. Maybe TiVo will make peeing obsolete.

  66. For the last time....the problem was not katrina by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't the hurricane that was the problem. It was the levies. Had the levees not broken, we would not be talking about Katrina today.

    Obviously, they are related because the levees would not have broken without the hurricane. But the point here is that the Hurricane did remarkably little damage on it's own. The levees, on the other hand, were responsible for almost all of the issues you read about today.

    Just another example of the edges starting to fray with respect to our national infrastructure. Without the levee issues, Katrina isn't special. Powerful? yes. Scary? yes. Destructive? Not really, when compared to something like Andrew or Hugo.

    ...and don't even get me started on the emergency response.

  67. Useless in K-Ville by camperdave · · Score: 1

    This would have been relatively useless in Katrina-ville. Although filtering out the bacteria and viruses will make the water a lot more drinkable, this device will do nothing to eliminate the salt (it was the gulf waters that flooded New Orleans, remember), or any of the toxic chemicals (ie gasoline, antifreeze, etc from submerged cars). Activated carbon will only go so far. According to the Wiki "Activated carbon does not bind well to certain chemicals, including alcohols, glycols, ammonia, strong acids and bases, metals and most inorganics, such as lithium, sodium, iron, lead, arsenic, fluorine, and boric acid.". I'd expect to see much of these things in post hurricane industrial floodwaters.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Useless in K-Ville by kcelery · · Score: 1

      In Katrina-ville there is lots of water during the storm, just sell the poor guy a big drum and a plastic sheet to collect rain water.

  68. Salt Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 15nm, would salt particles be filtered out from salt water? I'm not sure about the size of salt particles dissolved in water. If it is, then this water bottle has a lot more potential.

    1. Re:Salt Water? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      A sodium ion has a radius of around 100 PICOmeters. So no, you can't filter it with this.

      There are membranes which can remove ions, but that is typically referred to as "reverse osmosis," not filtration.

  69. moeny maker by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    At that price he had better start making them disposable and then go public.

  70. Re:Pee by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'll develop problems much faster than that if you drink your own urine.

    98% sounds much, but it isn't. It means that the salinity can be up to 2% - not far from sea water. If you drink it, it will make you dry out faster than not drinking at all. See, that's how the (healthy) kidneys work: the stuff you pee out can never have a lower salinity than the rest of your body.

  71. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

  72. Re:Pee by icepick72 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey MacGyver is that you!?! This is Pete Thornton. Call into home base will ya buddy... it's been a while.

  73. Re:Pee by Sunburnt · · Score: 1

    Until it can turn my pee into vodka, I agree.
    There must be equipment for doing so. They've been making this stuff for some time.
    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  74. Re:Day 5 by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Funny

    firstly, I just picked a scabby bit of a off my toe, it has 23 pairs of chromosomes, is it a human being? should I put it in petri dish and feed it, and keep it alive. I think I will call this little human Toby, Toby the toe wart.

    Secondly, can I buy some pot from you?

  75. Re:Save a life today by name*censored* · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    To play devil's advocate (it's scary how appropriate "devil" is here) for a moment, GP might have meant "day 1 of diary entries.

    Having said that, it's just ridiculous (and incredibly dubious/propaganda-erific) to try and ascribe self-awareness qualities to something that couldn't possibly be self aware. Also, it seems to me that the amount of effort/money/etc going into anti-abortion advertising could be better spent curing diseases, and you'd likely break even (depending on what disease you solve)... OOPS, LOOKS LIKE YOU ANTI-ABORTION NUTCASES CARE MORE ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE THAN SAVING LIVES!
    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  76. drinking pee is harder than you think by tacokill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Drinking pee is harder than you think. I speak from personal experience.

    I was lost in the Ozark mountains for 2 days without any supplies. The temperature was over 100F and I had almost no water. The little water I did have was exhausted quickly and the next best alternative was my own pee. I became thirsty enough that drinking my own pee was not even a question - it was a necessity (or so I thought).

    I removed my flashlight batteries and peed in my flashlight because it was the only thing I had that could hold liquid.

    Guess what happens to your pee when you are dehydrated? It's get much more concentrated. So much so, that I think you'll have a hard time drinking it unless you are, literally, getting close to death. Mine was so strong, I couldn't even stomach the smell much less, drink it. I have never been as thirsty in my life as that day and I have never since, been in a situation as dire as that one. Yet, I couldn't drink it.

    While it may be an option early on, as dehydration starts setting in, drinking your own pee becomes less of an option as each hour passes by.

    1. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhh, how could you not find water in the Ozarks? It isn't like there aren't any creeks or rivers. It isn't the Sahara for Pete's sake!

    2. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having a father who was a POW in Vietnam, a survivalist, and a firm believer in everything that came out of Soldier of Fortune, I've learned a few things.

      Sure, I learned to build shelters and fires. And I learned how to set deadfalls and snares, improvise weapons to hunt or ways to fish, places to scavenge for insects to eat (I'm a vegan, actually - but I'll be damned if I'm going to deny myself a meal if I'm starving), and all of the other survival techniques.

      One of the other things I learned is that as long as you're healthy, fresh urine is sterile and can be used to clean wounds in the field if no source of potable water is available. And if you're in a position where you think there's a chance you'll be going more than a few days without finding water, it's best to start drinking your urine early - before you're dehydrated and it becomes so concentrated it's unbearable. Even if you have water available, if you're well hydrated drinking your urine will help prolong your supply. In the process it also helps replenish electrolytes that you may not be getting if you're struggling to find food (speaking as someone who's experienced it, hyponatremia is really not fun.)

    3. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by tacokill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did you read my post? It was 100F outside.

      What I did not mention was the heat index was 114F and it was during a period of serious drought. All creeks were dried up and there was not a pool of water that I could find. Believe me....it was not my choice. I gladly would have taken ANY water at that point but your assertion that water is plentiful is a bit naive. Even in the Ozarks. Grab a topo map and you'll see. It's not just nice, pretty creeks and lakes back in those hills. There are vast expanses of land between them.

      Water is not as easy to find as you think. Especially when you are on foot, tired, and dehydrated. Already, your mind is playing games with you and it feels like each step is your last. Of course...it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. :)
      (and I do that a lot to myself over this experience)

    4. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by xSauronx · · Score: 3, Funny
      What I did not mention was the heat index was 114F and it was during a period of serious drought. All creeks were dried up and there was not a pool of water that I could find

      you forgot to add "and i *liked* it!" if youre going to be hardcore. sound hardcore ;)

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    5. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are in the Ozarks. The mountains are well-tree'd and so it's hard to see very far, plus it was /hot/. Having been in a mountainous, treeful area (Great Smoky Mountains National Park) when it was hot, I can tell you that finding water isn't necessarily easy.

      Check Google Maps for the Ozarks (south-central Missouri and north-central Arkansas); you'll see there are areas without significant rivers or lakes.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Simple solution to that is to pee through a shirt or something, removing some of the particulates. Let the rest sit for a while and then cyphon the liquid off the top, because most of the particulates will have settled to the bottom. Sure, it still smells bad, but the majority of the bad things are not in the liquid you do get. It's not a great solution, but it helps.

      Another thing to consider is you don't really need that much water to survive, and in the ozarks, there are plenty of other ways of getting water. A solar still is the simplest, but there are other ways.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    7. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by geobeck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Survival tip:

      Whenever you go hiking or exploring, take a deck of cards with you. If you get hopelessly lost, sit down and start playing solitaire. Within five minutes, someone will be standing over your shoulder, telling you which card to move next.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    8. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Palpitations · · Score: 5, Informative

      As an aside, carrying condoms in your wallet is generally a bad idea if you plan on using them for their intended goal - but since this is /. after all, I doubt anyone here has much of a use for one. An unlubricated condom in your wallet is a great way to collect urine, or transport water back to your fire. For anyone who spends time in the wild, a simple unlubricated condom or two in your survival kit is a great, and often overlooked, thing.

    9. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod the parent up... i'm peeing myself laughing

    10. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      Maybe that guy should take the time to watch a few episodes of survivor man or one of the other shows like it.

      Finding water is always his biggest hurdle.

    11. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But if you're using it for that, why a condom? You might as well just get a normal balloon instead.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've seen a survival book say you should drink much of your water and keep it in you, but it doesn't make much sense to me - AFAIK a healthy body tries to keep its electrolytic balance so it'll excrete the excess water ASAP into your bladders (and you get fairly colourless urine) and if it's not able to excrete the excess water in time you end up like that poor woman who died trying to win a Wii (I believe the DJs actually were aware of the dangers and the radio station let her go home by herself and die when she was visibly sick).

      Many people/survival guides say: "When you become thirsty is too late to start drinking", but unless I see any scientific studies I'm going to assume that's bullshit. Your thirst mechanisms should be good enough to keep you alive unless you're old or have something wrong with you. Otherwise humans would have died out a long time ago.

      I believe you would be healthier in the long term if you drank enough water so your pee is fairly clear (less chance of kidney stones etc).

      BUT for survival stuff, I'd rather not drink pee if possible, so I'd keep the water in the bottle and drink just enough to keep a tolerable electrolytic balance, and I'm going to assume that "thirst" is going to be a good enough guide. I hope I'd have a solar still somewhere to help make pee drinkable if I get desperate.

      I don't think the lifesaver bottle filters out salts same goes for other portable filters, so they're not going to be that useful for filtering urine from dehydrated people.

      --
    13. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      Alternatively, bring a length of optical cable. In case of emergency, bury it. A backhoe will be along shortly to dig it up.

    14. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      mod the parent up... i'm peeing myself laughing Quick! Drink it!!
    15. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Palpitations · · Score: 3, Informative

      For one thing, condoms definitely make the collection of urine easier, for obvious reasons. They are also thinner and have a wider opening, which makes it easier to collect water from a river (larger opening and less resistance to filling up and stretching to max capacity). Not only that, they come in a protective foil package which helps resist punctures while being stored, and they're sterile.

    16. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by geobeck · · Score: 1

      To keep the stereotypical examples going...

      If you're a man, just say something. A woman will be there immediately to tell you you're wrong.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    17. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Baldrick: Should we drink each other's or stick to our own?

      Edmund: Is Captain Rum joining us for this bring-a-sample party,
                      or is he going to sit this one out?

      Percy: Oh no, he's been swigging his for ages. He says he likes it.
                      Actually, come to think of it, he started before the water
                      ran out.

    18. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hate to say it, but your father is just plain wrong about drinking urine.

      So says the US Army Field Manual. So says the SAS Survival Handbook (no link, but page 494). So says Dr. William Elfarr, former head of the Texas Urological Society. So says Master Sergeant Gary L. Benton, survival instructor to B-52 crews. So says Tom Brown Jr., survivor school founder and instructor. So says Equipped.com, a survival site. So says Adventure Sports Online in its 5 basic survival tips. And on, and on, and on.

      Your body is getting rid of urine for a reason. Urea is toxic, and the saline component of urine means that it dehydrates instead of hydrating.

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    19. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Rei · · Score: 1

      Doesn't cut it. Even a filter (apart from a reverse osmosis filter designed specifically for desalinisation) won't work. It's not particulates that are the problem, but dissolved solutes.

      You can purify urine in the field through a solar still, but solar stills aren't always that advisable. Ever dug a deep pit without tools in the heat when you're already dehydrated? You'll lose a lot of water to get yourself a slow trickle in return. Even with a shovel, you generally would need to be in the same location for a long time to pay off the lost water.

      Another thing to consider is you don't really need that much water to survive

      You've never been backpacking, have you? Depending on how hot it is, you need to drink 2 to 8 liters per day. That's not a trivial amount of water.

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    20. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      You laugh, but the general advice for if you get lost *is* to stop moving. If a deck of cards will help with that, then by all means! The natural instinct when lost is to panic and run off -- doesn't matter which way. This is the worst thing you can do. Some people even ditch their packs to try and save time, thus losing the gear that they needed to keep themselves alive.

      The simple facts are that if you're lost and you don't move about, rescue has a very good chance of finding you. If you do move about, rescue has very little chance of finding you. You move much faster than search and rescue teams, and the more you move, the further from where they'll start looking for you you'll likely end up. Stop, assess your situation, meet your needs (most importantly, water and shelter), and signal for rescue. With just water and whatever shelter the terrain requires, you can live for a month without even any food. Being lost doesn't kill you. Doing something stupid while lost does.

      Only head off if you *know* that the given direction will bring you to civilization (i.e., if you're not really lost).

      --
      Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
    21. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by b00fhead · · Score: 1

      Stop taking the piss.

    22. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Trogre · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Or take a small length of fibre optic cable. If you get lost, bury it in the dirt, stand back for a couple of minutes. You can then ask the backhoe driver for directions.

      (seen on /.)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Guess what happens to your pee when you are dehydrated? It's get much more concentrated.

      It's not just if you're dehydrated. The longer you hold your pee in, more concentrated, and the lower the water level. When low on water, I strongly recommend refraining from urinating as long as you reasonably can so that your body has the chance to extract as much usable water from as it can before exiting your body.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
    25. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by damaki · · Score: 1

      You are on slashdot, dude. We always carry desperately condoms, just in case... a case that never happens.

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    26. Re:drinking pee is harder than you think by Magada · · Score: 1

      Using some sort of cloth bag to hold it and protect it (somewhat) from slashes and punctures after filling it up with water is always a good idea.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  77. Re:Save a life today by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    oh but if they die of disease, they were killed by god, which is OK, god is allowed to be a baby killer.

  78. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Damn folks still thinking that Katrina only affected New Orleans. Katrina
    wiped out entire cities on the Mississippi Gulf coast. Infrastructure
    was destroyed for at least 100 miles inland. The military had to **cut**
    their way down HWY 49 to reach the coast.

    So, to correct your statement, A large percentage of New Orleans problems
    were caused, post hurricane, by the failure of the levees. A large percentage
    of the problems caused by directly Katrina were actually in Mississippi.

  79. Katrina?!? you gotta be kidding by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

    As mentioned above, a $400 dollar (please include tax and shipping damn it) would have done little to ease the self made suffering in N'Orleans. The people who remained, the ones that couldn't leave the city in the hours/days prior to the event, would have been confused by these bottles, even if they were given out for free. They would have simply complained that, while they had this filtration system, the evil G-Dub sealed them in plastic to prevent their use. To further exasperate the problem, G-Dub maniacally had the plastic encased bottles torturously hidden inside of a box.

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  80. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Day 1

    Mommy, I am only 8 inches long, but I have all my organs. I love the sound of your voice. Every time I hear it, I wave my arms and legs. Wait a minute mommy, you must suck at biology! If this is day one I am a divided egg swimming in a sea of sailor jizz. Oh god please let it stop it smells like a rotten mushroom farm in here.

    Day 2

    Mommy, I tried to stick my thumb in my mouth today but a meat stick the shape of a German Solider helmet kept poking me in the mouth and the soft spot on my head. Good by college. Also I am growing in here, what is will all the rotten cum still dropping in to visit

    Day 3

    You know what Mommy, I'm a girl!! I hope that makes you happy. Well I was going to be a boy but now, like, you I have had just way to many dicks in me to go back. All the cum in here stings my eyes, i think I have fetal pirate eye!

    Day 4

    Mommy, my hair is starting to grow. Also please lay off the spicy foods, that curry chicken you had last night ran right through me and I think I squirted a little diarhea in here, Do you ever change the fucking water? IT smells like a 6 year old ham sandwich stored in sealed Tupperware in the Sahara!

    Day 5

    You went to the doctor today. He told you I was damaged due to all the cum and getting poked by cocks. It reeks so bad in here I just want out. I found specks of shit floating around in here today. SHIT! stop the ass to cunt sex mom, your killing me!

    Day 6

    I can hear that doctor again. Is he drunk? finally this murky jizz bath is being drained. My suffering has ended. Wait oh shit my heart has been ripped out by a coat hanger and now beats in front of me. That is ok, I was long dead before this happend.

    Day 7

    Mommy, I am okay. I am chilling with Jay man hittin up some bitches and downing 40's, Holla!!! THank God I am out of that cum dumpster you call a womb! I can never eat a mushroom pizza again you bitch!

    REPOST THIS IF U HATE ABORTION POSTS

  81. Re:Pee by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    You can get a UV light that screws into a water bottle now. You turn on the light for, I think, about twenty minutes and it kills everything living in the water.

    Plus, you can use it to touch up your tan...

  82. Re:Pee by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    That is what I thought.

    There was an episode of "Man Versus Wild" where he was drinking pee. I wondered how his kidneys would handle it.

    In another episode, he was drinking the liquid squeezed from fresh elephant dung. Tasty!

  83. Who hasn't drunk thier own urine? by Lanboy · · Score: 1

    I mean right?.... Anyone... Okay I havent either. Thats gross.

    Air force survival guidelines imply that urine can only be safely "recycled" 7 times. But since we sweat and spit and such, the amount of water goes down every time as well.

    But Katrina and after the tsunami, these are not pee drinking situations. Last night, that was a pee drinking situation. Just kidding... maybe.

    I imagine the parent was joking, but diarrhea caused by contaminated drinking water is one of the biggest killers of children in the world, and an effective cheap water purifier would save many, many lives.

  84. Re:Save a life today by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I can understand this being rated "offtopic", but "flamebait"? Are you mods basically saying that if you CAN'T afford to feed children that you SHOULD have children?

    That, to me, is more flamebait than my OP...

  85. Doesn't add up. by guidryp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am a hiker, I use an MSR pump filter.

    The MSR pump allows you to exert a fair bit of force and you will get tired pumping a single liter.
    The MSR has a coarser (more open filter).
    The MSR will start to clog withing tens of liters of what looks like fairly clean water. You then need to clean the filter.

    The MSR is actually one of the better filters on the market.

    Now how can a filter that is supposedly much tighter, be easier to pump (squeeze bottle) and last for thousands of liters of brackish water with no cleaning requirements mentioned.

    I also noticed no technical info when I clicked it on the web page.

    Personally I would stay far away until there was independent lab reviews and field testing, because this really doesn't add up.

    1. Re:Doesn't add up. by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The MSR pump allows you to exert a fair bit of force and you will get tired pumping a single liter.
      The MSR has a coarser (more open filter).
      The MSR will start to clog withing tens of liters of what looks like fairly clean water. You then need to clean the filter.

      You forgot: The MSR tube has a tendency to kink where it meets the filter barrel, causing reduced flow and pissing you off eternally :-)

      It's possible to make a water bladder out of leather or plastic and hook it up to such a filter for gravity-feed. You fill the bladder, hang the whole contraption from a tree, and an hour later you've got a gallon of filtered water.

      Water filters can be a pain but they give you so much freedom in the outdoors.

  86. yes, but... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1
    so saith Kohath:

    I use my judgment to filter my water. It works pretty good. And my immune system takes care of anything that gets through.
    That's good and all, but have fun dying of thirst or disease while I pull safe water from a cesspool in an emergency situation. Judgement + lifesaving equipment can make you live a LOT longer in adverse conditions than on either one alone.
    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  87. 20 nm Virus Filtration is a Tough Problem by mkcheme · · Score: 2
    Being a bit of a nerd in the area of virus filtration, I thought I'd pipe up.

    This is a very bold claim. Commercial virus filters that are in the ~20 nm pore size rating tend to have capacities measured in the hundreds of liters per square meter (1 m^2 = 10 ft^2)--even with very clean feed streams seen in the biotech industry--and cost anywhere from $3000 to $6000 for the same amount of area. They are also difficult to clean and difficult to protect with pre-filters because the crap that plugs them can be much smaller than the pore size of the filters (material can deposit on the inside of the pore walls).

    Throughput can be improved by operating in a tangential flow mode (flow sweeping past the membrane surface to avoid junk build-up), but this isn't a straightforward way to operate a filter bottle.

    I have significant doubts about these claims. The more so because this page is completely blank. They don't even give reduction values for the particles they claim to remove. 90% would be very poor performance...99.99% is wher eit ought to be. How do they validate the pore size of the membrane (integrity test)? Many questions, 0 answers.

  88. The myth of safe water from lakes and rivers by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...or live in a country where you can actually just drink the water from lakes and rivers.

    There is no such country, and there never was. That the pastoral stories you read never mentioned water-born parasites and illnesses (except for the one Slavic fable, where a boy turns into a goat after drinking from a puddle agaisnt his older sister's cautioning), does not mean it never happened.

    It is not so much due to the much maligned modern pollution, it is due to the many organisms, whose existence predates man's. Stomach worms are just one — and fairly benign — example.

    And if must drink such unfiltered and unboiled water, don't drink from a lake or other standing water. Try to find the fastest running stream you can — you'll have a better chance...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:The myth of safe water from lakes and rivers by djp928 · · Score: 1

      I drank from rivers and streams constantly when I was young, and never got sick. Never from standing water, as I'm not *that* dumb, but I must have drank from the river outside our house hundreds of times growing up and never recall getting sick. Did I just get lucky then?

    2. Re:The myth of safe water from lakes and rivers by mi · · Score: 1

      Did I just get lucky then?

      Yes.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  89. Re:Pee by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Nooo... urine is sterile. You don't need to kill anything in it. There aren't too many undissolved solids either, so you don't really need to filter it. What you DO need to do is remove the dissolved impurities, which you can't really do with a filter. Ions are a lot smaller than 15nm. So no pee filtering.

  90. Chicken Pox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any good parent knows to expose your child to chicken pox at an early age to build up that immunity. Catching it as an adult can be fatal...

  91. Re:Pee by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    The first couple of cycles will be okay, unless you start out dehydrated. Your kidneys like to keep a good margin for error. But after that you've got to stop.

  92. You missed the obvious by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

    Poor people? No
    Poor looters? Hell yeah!

  93. Re:Pee by Booshi · · Score: 1

    Urine is sterile while it's on the inside. On the way out, it's not.

  94. $395 buys a lot of water by aevans · · Score: 0

    At that price, I think I'll just buy water that's already been purified.

  95. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    It wasn't the hurricane that was the problem. It was the levies A right. because building below sea level is a great idea.

    --
    Deleted
  96. Re:Pee by Palpitations · · Score: 3, Informative

    It may sound funny, but it's actually a really valid, and incredibly easy way to make a solar still.

    You place stones in a container to weigh it down, place that in a larger container filled with water, and cover it in plastic. A stone placed on top of the plastic sheet, directly over the inner container, allows the condensate that forms on the plastic to run down and drip into the inner container. Simple, effective way to get water that is safe to drink.

    Saying you need a few containers is complicating things though. I have built and tested the idea using aluminum foil, plastic wrap, twigs (for support), and some river rocks. It worked perfectly - and I carry enough foil and plastic wrap in my wallet to produce it any time I need to. You may not get a lot of water out of it - and it's generally better to build a fire and use the foil to boil water to sterilize it, but if that isn't available it's great. Folded up, it takes up about as much space as 2-3 credit cards, well worth the space in my wallet if you ask me.

  97. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, good point. I stand corrected and you are absolutely right that Katrina did quite a lot of damage to the Mississippi/Louisiana coast.

  98. Yeah, offtopic, but I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not going to spend karma on this one but...

    At least in the church I grew up in...

    Before a baby is baptized, they don't have the stain of original sin washed away, and so they don't go to Heaven or Hell or anywhere else. So without the baptism, the little foetus isn't a person in the spiritual sense.

    I would much rather see a foetus aborted than to be born, unloved and miserable and have to struggle through a hostile life. It probably would have been better for everyone involved if my sister and I had been aborted.

    1. Re:Yeah, offtopic, but I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More off topic, but 'original sin' is not a scriptural concept. Neither is baptizing a baby. Perhaps you should read the bible just a tiny bit (focus on the new testament) rather than spit out what your church told you.

    2. Re:Yeah, offtopic, but I'll bite by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Unless you are implying that the entire Bible was written by God himself, I fail to see how its contents are any more or less valid than the dogma of religious institutions. It's all the "word of man," anyway.

    3. Re:Yeah, offtopic, but I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. It's the Word of God. Written by God Himself, through a bunch of regular guys.

      There you have it.

    4. Re:Yeah, offtopic, but I'll bite by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Says who? God? What's his voice sound like?

      "No, no. God told me. Seriously. Take my word for it. Just don't believe that other book called "Koran" which also claims to be the word of God. Nope. Absolutely not."

  99. Looks nice, if a little pricey by Deagol · · Score: 1
    My family has had a Big Berkey filter for several years. It's in the $300 price range. At 2 gallons, it's not something you'd toss into a day pack, but we've used it to filter water pooled on the ground after a rain, as well as some nasty water from an old shallow well settling tank. Still using the original 4 filters.

    Not sure how it stacks up to the competition now, but when I bought it, it looked like it was one of the better models available. Ceramic (or diatomacious earth -- forget which, exactly) gravity-fed filter with activated charcoal core. When the filters are in good shape (new, or recently cleaned and boiled), some of the best water I've ever tasted. Being all stainless steel, it imparts no plastic flavors into the water.

  100. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Epilogue Day 7581 Mommy, I'm a stupid crackhead negro from the ghetto. I play with guns and drugs! I killed an innocent person with a stray bullet during a gang war. Now the taxpayers will provide me with free food and housing for the rest of my life. Thanks for not aborting me, mom.

  101. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by plover · · Score: 1
    Hardly. The problem wasn't the levees or Katrina or the pumps or the response. The problem is the idea that you can keep a historic city below sea level and nothing bad will ever happen.

    Levees will fail. Pumps will fail. FEMA will fail to respond. The solution is much simpler: prohibit building anything (except a boat ramp) below the waterline, or be prepared to change the name from New Orleans to New Venice.

    --
    John
  102. Nothing new - and overpriced by nontrad · · Score: 1

    http://www.lifestraw.com/en/high/maincont2.asp Ths company is producing water filtration straws for $3 each for people in third world countries. E.

  103. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Funny

    The problem is the idea that you can keep a historic city below sea level and nothing bad will ever happen.

    You seem to have forgotten about a little place called Atlantis. Thousands of years below sea-level and I've never heard any bad stories. In fact, their Chupacabra production levels are at an all-time high. I've heard that famous celebrities like Elvis Presley and Bigfoot own real-estate there...

  104. Re:Pee by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Unless you've got a raging urinary tract infection or you've been dipping your willy in something nasty it's not going to kill you. Probably not even then. The only place for it to pick up bacteria and viruses is off your own skin.

  105. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It wasn't the hurricane that was the problem. It was the levies.

    I think the actual problem was that they built a city below sea level. And now, instead of concluding "hey, maybe that wasn't such a good idea afterall," they're building it again.

  106. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up, please.

  107. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Glad you're saying that for the "last time", because it's completely ignorant!

    Or, maybe I'm missing the connection between the levees in New Orleans and the trail of destruction that Katrina left along a hundred mile stretch of the gulf coast.

  108. Re:Pee by Booshi · · Score: 1

    I don't recall saying it would kill you. I *did* say on the way out, it's not (sterile). If someone's gonna make the statement, qualify it correctly.

  109. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by JDevers · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, New Orleans wasn't "built" below sea level, it just sank to that point... When it was constructed the land was chosen BECAUSE it was the highest land near the mouth of the Mississippi. The problem is the weight of the city has caused the land to sink over time, resulting in it actually being BELOW sea level currently.

  110. Re:Pee by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    But if you are resorting to drinking pee you are probablly already dehydrated.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  111. Well the Danes invented Lifestraw in 2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A straw costing 3 US$ - Purifies minimum 700 litres of water - Kills and removes 99.999% of all waterborne bacteria - Kills and removes 98.7% of all waterborne viruses - Removes particles down to 15 microns -Requires no electrical power or spare parts for the life time of the straw.

    Same technology I suppose but the brit has made it with the twist of making it with a carrying container at the same time.

    I would howewer think that the 3 US$ straw in combination with hoses and existing containers (if cleaned before) would do the trick for a fraction of the price and be more practical/flexible.

    Though Kudos for trying to think about the impending water crisis.

    1. Re:Well the Danes invented Lifestraw in 2005 by pclminion · · Score: 1

      A straw costing 3 US$ - Purifies minimum 700 litres of water - Kills and removes 99.999% of all waterborne bacteria - Kills and removes 98.7% of all waterborne viruses

      The 1.3% of viruses that make it through will cause you to hate life. 98.7% is better than nothing but not good enough. If I suspect viral contamination of a water source I always boil it. Even iodine is not guaranteed to kill it all. It only takes one viral particle to infect you.

      That product is exceedingly cool, though. A great alternative to a traditional filter.

  112. Re:Pee by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    No... you've just got to plan ahead. As soon as you figure out you're in trouble, pee in a bottle. Then when you're good and thirsty you'll have some nice high water content Tang... I mean pee to drink. It'll keep you going for a while... probably close to double the time you'd have without.

  113. Re:Save a life today by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Too funny, mod parent up!

  114. Nothing new by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Damn near every major outdoor manufacturer that produces camp cook sets and the like have some form of water filter. This isn't particularly new, or special except the amount of time the filter lasts. If (and I stress if) it works as well as it says it's a good thing because it's easier to use than most other modern filter systems too, but at that price I don't see it getting much commercial use. It's simply too expensive.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  115. Re:Pee by kcelery · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most of the area facing water problem also facing power outage problem.

  116. Re:Pee by BugAttack · · Score: 4, Funny

    aww man why did you have to post as an AC? I wanna be your friend!

    --
    My, slashdot, this field I'm typing into has the perfect dimensions!
  117. Yes, Fecal Matter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the article summary:

    The filter is so effective that it can purify dirty river water and even fecal matter

    You read it, guys. This bottle can even purify fecal matter!
  118. Yes, but it lets the viruses right through! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  119. Re:Pee by pclminion · · Score: 1

    That isn't "MacGyver," it's a well-known technique that EVERYBODY who goes out in the wild should know. It's called a "solar still."

  120. question by XenonCJ · · Score: 1

    Can you run holy water though it to make it safe for vampires?

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

      Are angels smaller than 15 microns? (And if so, how many can fit on the head of a pin?)

  121. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 1

    RO filters are imperfect due to manufacturing defects and seals.

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  122. Re:Pee by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

    Until it can turn my pee into vodka, I agree. I can turn vodka into pee -- will that do?
    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  123. Re:Dying of dehydration? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    i'm not entirely sure if this is a troll or not. it sounds reasonable on the surface though.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  124. Dumb @ss by TheRealCodeRed · · Score: 1

    If they can afford a $400 purifier. Then they would just move from the affected area or buy bottled water.

  125. This one is two orders of magnitude cheaper: by XNormal · · Score: 1

    Ceramic Water Filter

    Produced using traditional pottery techniques using local resources (except for the tiny amount of colloidal silver as antibacterial agent impregnated into the ceramic filter).

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  126. Re:Pee by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Here's what I don't understand: why couldn't your body accomplish exactly the same thing, except both more efficiently and less unpleasantly, by simply not peeing in the first place?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  127. Re:Pee by bberens · · Score: 1

    These people must not watch Survivor Man on the Discovery Channel. Dig a little hole (you could use a spare cooking pot if you wanted), pee into the hole, put a cup in the center of the whole and cover the hole with plastic. Place a small pebble so that the evaporated water drips down into the cup, add some sunlight and poof clean water. Also works with other 'foul' water. It may not be 'perfect' as I would assume other chemicals besides the water can evaporate and condense into the cup but it's just as good as almost any commercial filter.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  128. Glacial flour? by pclminion · · Score: 1

    I'm excited because this is the first filter I've heard of than can get the viruses. But I wonder if that makes it even MORE susceptible to clogging by glacial "flour," the super-fine particulate which is found in glacial runoff.

    I've drank glacial runoff that looked exactly like MILK before. It was close to the source, so I didn't purify it. But I would never run such water through a filter because you are guaranteed to destroy it. You have to at least let it settle for a good 24 hours in a container before filtration, and even then I'd be hesitant to do it.

  129. Mod Parent Up [nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  130. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    You know that show is fake, right?

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  131. Mod Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I lolled in my pants, roffle.

  132. Re: Nouns by Flwyd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mass nouns can be pluralized to indicate multiple types of mass. For instance, "I ate lots of meat" and "I ate several lunch meats."

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  133. Re:Save a life today by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    "the amount of effort/money/etc going into anti-abortion advertising could be better spent curing diseases"

    That's kind of like saying "well, very few murders are carried out, so instead of trying to prevent it, we should focus on automotive safety, which would save more lives". The point is that abortion is unjust and immoral.

    "to try and ascribe self-awareness qualities to something that couldn't possibly be self aware"

    How could you possibly know whether or not something else is self-aware? If a newborn baby is self-aware, how come a fetus that is about to be born is not self-aware? If a newborn baby is not self-aware, is it okay to carry out a post-birth termination? I think you're made a lot of assumptions here with out really thinking them through. The anti-abortion crowd is not as unreasonable as you make them out to be.

  134. Re:Day 5 by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Day 5 after conception I doubt that you can think or feel at that point, but you are certainly a human being at that point by definition because you now have the full 23 pairs of chromosomes in your DNA "/i>

    Pardonez-moi, but that line of thinking is totally f$cked up. You shed skin every day that has the foll 23 pairs of chromosomes. Is it a "human being"? No, its dead skin. What about when you bleed, or accidently chop off a finger - is that a human being? the finger has a full complement of human dna, and pain receptors, etc. Its NOT a human being.

    Its not a person. There is NO brain, hence nobody home (similar situation with most bible thumpers). If you want to consider 5 days as a human, then God is the world's biggest abortionist - 20% of all pregnancies self-terminate before the woman is even aware she's pregnant.

  135. Re:Save a life today by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    ...or at least drank its pee...

  136. Slow news day by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

    I've had a small, self-contained filter like this for years and years. I wouldn't want to put the input straight into thick raw sewage but it's fine for contaminated river water.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  137. Re:ultraviolet light is also good purification met by kcelery · · Score: 1

    You don't see much of the sun light when you feet caught in 3 feet of water. As a life-saving device, I would say no.

  138. Re:Day 5 by smaddox · · Score: 1

    I feel sorry for the poor schmucks who actually believe stories like this. They are the type of people who believe in holy magicians and ghosts, and all that BS.

  139. SUREEEEE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For sure everyone can afford a 400$ bottle freely available everywhere a your local corner store, OH wait true, my corner store was pulverized by a tsunami.

  140. Re:Pee by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    What keeps the pee from being absorbed into the ground when I pee into that freshly dug hole? Do I need to coat the inside of the hole with some marine epoxy before peeing. Please answer quickly, I can't hold it in much longer.

  141. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Destructive? Not really, when compared to something like Andrew or Hugo

    You want destruction? Try a tornado! The one the linked wiki article is about is one (ok, two that came through at the same time) that hit my town last year. The photos don't come close to doing justice to reality.

    The building pictured in the article was a very short walk from the apartment I lived in. Its massive steel girders were bent like pladough. The tree with the three foot diameter trunk behind the apartment looked like a weed someone had stepped on (Godzilla?). There were mobile homes torn in half, cinderblock buildings with half the building gone and thousands of five inch long wood splinters embedded in the concrete. There were trees with five foot diameter trunks and larger uprooted. Utility poles with the middle of the pole snapped out and the top hanginhg by the wires (I was without power for a week). It was a sea of yellow and red building insulation, trash, and debris.

    If Osama Bin Laden had walked through my neighborhood he'd have said "holy fucking shit! We can't hurt these people, we might as well give up!"

    My neighborhood looked like a war zone. And it was "only" an F-2. I can't possibly imagine what an F-5 would be like (flatness, I guess).

    here are some pictures, which as I say, don't do justice to reality at all.

    -mcgrew... oh wait, that was about teh terroristz. here is one where the tornado sirens went off, but no tornado. I never blogged about the actual tornado, because my computer won't work without the electricity I was out of for a week, nor can I get on the internet without the cable connection that was down for an entire month.

  142. Re:Pee by BigRedFed · · Score: 1

    Because Bill Gates is God.

  143. An F5 tornado by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Yep, F5's produce flatness, indeed.

    I remember that Tornado because I was living in Austin at the time. Incredible. Even more incredible that more people did not die. Funny...I seem to remember ALL of the bad tornadoes that were close. :)

  144. Local laws are the real problem! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Sure the levees broke, but why the hell were people living below sea level?

    The real problem is that city/state legislators kept on adding new housing etc in areas that were below sea level. The motivation to do this is purely financial: driven by tax takes etc.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  145. Re:Save a life today by illumin8 · · Score: 1

    How could you possibly know whether or not something else is self-aware? If a newborn baby is self-aware, how come a fetus that is about to be born is not self-aware? If a newborn baby is not self-aware, is it okay to carry out a post-birth termination? I think you're made a lot of assumptions here with out really thinking them through. The anti-abortion crowd is not as unreasonable as you make them out to be.
    I masturbated earlier today. Did I just commit infanticide by killing millions of sperm that could potentially become babies? Who's to say that sperm are not self-aware? They are able to somehow swim on their own and propel themselves towards an egg. They can survive (for a short time) outside of my body.

    The point I'm getting is that all of you pro-life wackos want to drive us towards a Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" world and ordinary people see through your lies and bullshit.
    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  146. Re:Day 5 by denzacar · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey! Don't you badmouth Harry Potter!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  147. Re:Pee by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Funny

    In fact, pee into a bottle now and store it in your hiking/camping kit for emergencies.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  148. Sniff my feces, moderators! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is not flamebait. By the way, KDAWSON is gay!
     
      To wasting another precious modpoint!

  149. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by celle · · Score: 1

    andrew and hugo weren't that bad either. Both areas were under a land boom and much of the damage was poorly constructed houses and/or building in vulnerable areas . Many houses built with real wood and nails in less vulnerable areas made it through when the stapled ones didn't.

  150. Black Magic?! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    The problems in Katrina were caused by BLACKS. Quite frankly, if you're implying that BLACKS have the ability to summon devasting hurricanes and flood New Orleans, I suggest it would be a *very* good idea to show them a little more respect.
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  151. Re:Pee by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    You mean everybody doesn't?

  152. Good by Dragonfire00 · · Score: 1

    sounds like a worth while development.

  153. Re:Pee by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    Pee is not toxic
    False. Pee is sterile when it leaves the healthy human body. However, it is toxic when ingested in quantities sufficient to keep a person hydrated. The salts present in urine have a diuretic effect that will further dehydrate the person drinking their own urine. This effect is magnified, since as they become more dehydrated, their urine becomes even saltier. Drinking urine to survive can work in the short term, but will not work in the long run (it might extend survival a day or two at most in warm climes).

    Note also that normal urine, while sterile when leaving the body, provides an excellent medium for bacterial growth, so one should drink it as soon as it leaves the body. I would not suggest drinking it directly from the tap, however, as then you might have to deal with a host of other issues.

    So, unless you rather wait for a good tasting liquid than survive, there is no problem.
    So, what you are saying is to have someone else drink contaminated water, and then you can drink their urine?

    Pure genius, but you shouldn't forget that you'll need to feed your biological filtering mechanism, so cost per liter might become ineffective compared to a filter bottle.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  154. Re:Pee by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    This actually takes quite a while; for most people, urine is upwards of 98% water.

    With all due respect, seawater is 96.5% water but drinking it will kill you painfully. It's that tiny but oh-so-important few percent that will get you.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  155. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if fetal pirate eye is exactly informative, but it sure is funny as shit!!

  156. Re:Day 5 by End+Program · · Score: 1

    Later as a child, I described everything I remembered to our doctor (this was in a small southern city in the late 1960s when there were no fancy big city hospital with teams of specialists, we had one and only one family doctor who took care of all our medical needs, and a very small and modestly equipped small town hospital) and the old doctor was flabberghasted that I recalled the details of what I remembered during my birth, the color of the delivery room, the unusual light fixture on the ceiling, seeing him for the first time, his two nurse assistants and the gowns they were wearing, and my crying uncontrollably until I couldn't catch my breath anymore when the nurse came at me with large scissors to cut the umbilical cord and then I stopped breathing and remember seeing the doctor and his nurses go into a panic just before I blacked out.

    I started laughing when I began reading your post, but those statements are 100% pure grade A bullshit.

    You Sir, are a liar.

    At birth, babies are almost blind as bats:

    What Can a Baby See?
    The newborn's visual acuity (sharpness of vision) is approximately 20/400. This is equivalent to seeing only the big letter "E" on an eye chart. Vision slowly improves to 20/20 by age 2 years.
    http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeFacts/BabyEyes.shtml

    So even if it was possible to have memories of your birth, it was NOT possible for you to see it.

    Your ramblings are obnoxious and ignorant. Please stop wasting out time.

    PS - I also find it funny how you so called "pro-lifers" are big on protecting the "unborn", but are fucking hypocrites when it come to the death penalty. I guess some "lives" aren't worth saving, huh?
  157. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 1

    This actually takes quite a while; for most people, urine is upwards of 98% water.

    A 2% plutonium nitrate solution is 98% water, too. Care to drink some?

    You're free to disagree with the US Army Field Manual and the former president of the Texas Urological Society (and almost every survival guide) on this subject if you like, but please don't encourage behavior that will tend to get people killed in others. Why do you think your body is getting rid of it in the first place? You think we evolved a method to dehydrate ourselves to take ourselves out of the gene pool, and you're cleverly circumventing this bit of anti-evolution?

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  158. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 1

    It's actually better than commercial filters -- it's distilled water, not filtered water :)

    The problem, however, is how much water you lose in setting it up. It's usually only justified, in a survival situation, if there's a pit already there. Digging is hard work, and you sweat a lot. Especially if you don't have a shovel. Solar stills only provide a slow trickle of water -- if they work at all.

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  159. Re:Pee by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    Damn! I'm always the last to know about these things.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  160. Re:Pee by k31bang · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure you understand the purpose of peeing.


    To write messages in the snow?
    --
    -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  161. $385!? by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 1

    The people who died from contaminated water couldn't afford $3.85. Nice technology but crappy accessibility.

  162. Re: Nouns by PakProtector · · Score: 1

    Yes, they can. However, in Latin, Virus is not pluralised. Please go here.

    Or learn the language.

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

  163. Re-inventing the wheel? by mysterious_mark · · Score: 1

    Seems like there is a wide variety of portable water purifucation system alrady available for back packers etc, most of these are much less expensive. The people who really need this technology don't have ~$400 to spend, especially when you can get a device that will do the same thing (Katydin pumps etc) for around $50. Also you can boil water for even less, or you can use iodine tablets, or household bleach, doesn't taste great, but works. Seems like this device expensively solves a problem that doesn't exist.

  164. Re:Pee by bodan · · Score: 1

    It's biologically sterile, but doesn't that urea and other toxins get re-absorbed in your body? If you only drink urine you're essentially in the same condition you'd be without kidneys. Sure, in the very short term dehydration can be the bigger problem, but if you only drink urine you'll die of renal insufficiency (or an equivalent of it) within a few days. (BTW, your kidneys will get overloaded by the toxins, so this is not only short-term.)

    --
    "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
  165. Mass Disaster Recovery by NeoTerra · · Score: 1

    "But you don't understand. This is where I grew up. This is where my kids will grow up. I want to rebuild right here, exactly how it was."

    This is the typical response you will get. But you can't just rebuild easily. So you look at the options.

    They don't exactly have the money or the infrastructure to transplant roughly 1 million people to a different location. And you can't exactly do that overnight, either. So moving them to a different part of the city in a few months is out.

    I don't think there's any city that could move that many people and infrastructure that quickly, either. So transplanting them in another city is out.

    I have said this before, FEMA wasn't designed to fix a problem this big. Not that they managed their resources all that well, anyway. FEMA is actually fairly good about fixing localized problems, along with local and state help. This problem was across at least 2 states, and was 1 of 4 major hurricanes (another which had 2 separate landfalls). You can't just fix something that large overnight.

    1. Re:Mass Disaster Recovery by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying it way easy. Do you think it was easy for any of the other cities?

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    2. Re:Mass Disaster Recovery by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They don't exactly have the money or the infrastructure to transplant roughly 1 million people to a different location.
      I was under the impression that the current problem is convincing people to move *back.*

      The infrastructure required to move 1 million people is drastically lower when contaminated water has made all of their stuff toxic.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  166. Re:Pee by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    No, but I had a pretty good idea. It is kind of entertaining, though (which is the purpose, I think).

    "Survivor Man" seems to really crap. But again, it is kinda watchable.

  167. Re:Pee by 808140 · · Score: 1

    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the US army field manual you linked to only says that urine "contains harmful body wastes [and] is about 2% salt." The rest of the manual (which is very interesting, by the way, thank you for linking to it) has a lot of good ideas for getting water, but many of these assume you'll have materials that you might not on your person in an emergency, etc. There's also quite a bit of information devoted to the purification of sea water, which by the manual's own admission has higher salinity than urine (4%). Presumably these same techniques could be used to purify urine as well? At any rate, the intent of my original post was not "drink urine no matter what", but rather "drinking urine is better than drinking nothing." Also, comparing urine to plutonium nitrate is sort of silly, don't you think?

    I'd love to comment on your other link, but it doesn't seem to work. Do you have one that does?

    Regarding your "anti-evolution" comment: I realize it was meant to be a sort of ironic joke, but actually, we humans have a waste removal system that is relatively unoptimized for low-water environments. Many other animals (birds, in particular, but also a number of other creatures native to desert environments) do not urinate at all, instead vacating nitrogenous wastes in the form of water insoluble uric acid, usually with their feces. Metabolically this is relatively costly, but it is not as wasteful in a dry environment as systems like our own that use water soluble ammonia and urea to accomplish the same task.

  168. Re:Save a life today by couchslug · · Score: 1

    'It's true abortion is such a waste. A few more months and I could have cooked and ate that baby."

    Why wait? It's just like a cocktail shrimp with arms and legs.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  169. Re:Day 5 by fdrebin · · Score: 1
    He's not the only one who remembers things like that. It's rare, but it does happen.
    Just because YOU don't remember doesn't mean no one else does.

    And why be so abusive about it? Do you actually know anyone who has spoken to you more than once by choice?

    --
    Stupidity... has a habit of getting its way.
  170. The Chinese do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 million Chinese already drink their urine for 'health benefits'

  171. Re:Day 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Day 5

    You went to the dermatologist today. Daddy, he lied to you. He said that I'm not a baby. I am a baby Daddy, your baby. I think and feel. Daddy, what's cryosurgery?

  172. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 1

    'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the US army field manual you linked to only says that urine "contains harmful body wastes [and] is about 2% salt.

    Head up the page. In big, bold print, surrounded by a box, centered on the page: "CAUTION: Do not substitute the fluids listed in Figure 6-2 for water."

    I'd love to comment on your other link, but it doesn't seem to work. Do you have one that does?

    Here's a google cache.

    There are lots more linked from here if you'd like, and I can get even more than that.

    but it is not as wasteful in a dry environment as systems like our own that use water soluble ammonia and urea to accomplish the same task.

    That doesn't change the fact that our inefficient system is what we have. Our kidneys don't use any more water than they have to in order to get rid of urea and salts. Drinking it back in only serves to increase the salt concentration in your blood (as well as encourage urea poisoning). Increasing the salt concentration in your blood draws water *out* of your cells.

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  173. Ummm??? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    My sweetwater filter pump goes way smaller than 15,000 microns and was $80...

    http://www.msrcorp.com/filters/sweet_system.asp

    1. Re:Ummm??? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Of course 15nm is 0.015 microns, not 15,000. And according to the site you refer to, they make no claim of stopping viruses with the filter - to do that you need to add a chlorine solution to the water. I don't know about you, but I don't exactly enjoy the taste of chlorine.

  174. Very outrageous without data to back it up. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    You are just assuming it lives up to it's exceptional claims.

    The tighter a filter is, the harder it is put water through it. The easier it clogs and the sooner needs cleaning.

    If you have used a a much more coarse Hiking filter you realize that this device is making claims that seem to require not just new technology but new physics.

    This strikes me more likely a scam.

  175. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by protolith · · Score: 1

    You sort of supported the point about the Levees.

    Had the levees not failed after the hurricane, there would be more national awareness of the more significant damage to the east of New Orleans.

    The fact that people outside of the damaged area still talk about Katrina is really due to an Engineering/Maintenence failure.

    If it were not for the levees, Katrina would have dropped from public discussion just like Cindy, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma (The other Hurricanes that made US Landfall in the 2005 Season).

  176. Beware of Leaks by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    The problem with this approach is that it's only effective if you can prevent contamination of the exterior of the bottle, which would require either sanitizing it after filling (which could be tough to do) or very careful filling, along with a foolproof (ha!) seal at the cap. Maybe a good solution would be to include alcohol wipes, since hands would potentially get contaminated as well. Still, it seems like an overall net gain. Personally I plan to get a reverse osmosis setup anyway, since the water here is so bad that even a single drop leaves visible mineral deposits (at least I hope they're minerals), and boiling results in a disgusting film forming on the top. Not that it would work without water pressure, (or if my house was washed away, for that matter) but a much more common problem is that the tap water is non-potable for weeks after a storm due to contamination of the water supply.

    And call me crazy, but when there's a storm approaching, we always stock up on a few weeks worth of water and nonperishable food. We're not exactly in the 19th century where you just wake up one day and there's a hurricane outside. Proper preparation blah blah..

  177. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    They didn't build it below sea level, dumbass. They built it above sea level at a good location for a sea port, and it sank over the next few centuries. The French who started the city in 1718 didn't know it would sink, just like the founders of Helike, Greece didn't expect their city to sink overnight in 373 BC.

  178. Re:Pee by 808140 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link. It seems that drinking urine if you are already dehydrated is a bad idea, which doesn't surprise me much, truth be told. It is not, however, anywhere near as bad as drinking sea water or (say) plutonium nitrate. Hopefully we can agree on that.

    Regarding the "CAUTION" box in the manual: Yes, I had seen that. However, as much of the guide involves purifying sea water, another element on the list of things not to drink, it occurs to me that urine might benefit from similar treatment. But then again, perhaps not -- no amount of purification of alcohol or blood would render it drinkable, for example. But the high water content of urine might suggest otherwise... I'm thinking evaporation, here, for example.

    Anyway, don't misunderstand me: you've successfully corrected me and in the future, if I find myself in an environment without water, I'll no longer consider drinking my own urine (unless, of course, I have some means to purify it, and no other source of water).

    For the record, I'm not able to access your site, either: http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/. Perhaps it's a problem on my side? I've looked at it before, though, as I typically enjoy reading your posts, spirited though they may sometimes be.

  179. Re:Save a life today by Runefox · · Score: 1

    How was that a troll? Seriously.

    --
    Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  180. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by o2sd · · Score: 1

    A right. because building below sea level is a great idea.

    Worked for Venice.

    --
    - Nothing to see hear.
  181. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A major portion of Mississippi's coastal cities were wiped out by direct action of Katrina. New Orleans was not the only place destroyed by Katrina. Levees had nothing to do with the destruction in Mississippi and the more inland portions of Louisiana. You and whoever is modding you up are ignorant about what happened during and after Katrina.

  182. Re:Save a life today by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Only on /. could shit like this be regarded Insightful...

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  183. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's telling anyone what to do with their bodies? A baby inside you isn't a part of your body, it's just dependent on it. Your two-year-old child is dependent on you too. Is it okay to kill them if keeping them around suddenly becomes inconvenient?

  184. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like you. You say stupid things apparently without thinking.

    Unless you jizzed over a bunch of human eggs then there weren't any humans made were there? Would you like me to draw you a diagram?

  185. Re:Save a life today by Trogre · · Score: 1

    The point I'm getting is that all of you pro-life wackos want to drive us towards a Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" world and ordinary people see through your lies and bullshit.

    Strawman.

    That just isn't true. Some catholic sects do hold the whole "sexual activity is solely for procreation" mantra based on a dodgy interpretation of one scripture, but I don't know anyone (and I know a lot of pro-lifers) who has claimed that sperm should be classed as human. Did you miss part of your biology classes, perhaps? A zygote is a different story, and is subject to more debate (all the genetic material is there, but there's no brain to speak of, but does a brain determine intrinsic value, etc).

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  186. Katrina flood was mostly salt water by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

    Remember most of the Katrina water was salt water so this device would have been worthless.

  187. £190 = a LOT of water by JonTurner · · Score: 1, Insightful

    an expected cost of £190 (approx. $385)

    I'm thinking that, for £190 one could buy many hundred liters of bottled water. Considering a person requires about 2 liters daily for drinking, cooking, and toilet use this is about a month's worth for a family.

    Besides, if you're without clean water for longer than a month, it might be a clue that it's time to take your family and leave.
  188. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having said that, it's just ridiculous (and incredibly dubious/propaganda-erific) to try and ascribe self-awareness qualities to something that couldn't possibly be self aware.

    How do you know that a 20-week foetus can't be self-aware? Significant brain activity is measurable many weeks before that, you know.

  189. Re:Save a life today by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I don't know. Perhaps they're saying that not being able to afford to feed a dependent is not sufficient justification for murdering them.

    If your circumstances change and you find yourself no longer able to afford sufficient food for yourself, are you obliged to commit suicide?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  190. Mod parent up. by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. Store your pee immediately after the first sign of trouble, which is when the water portion of your pee is still high enough. If you store your pee by the time you're dehydrating, the water portion of your pee will be very low.

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  191. Old news. by adolf · · Score: 1

    I used a First Need filter 15 years ago as a primary water source for a 2-week hike on the Appalachian Trial. In that environment, there is a natural desire to carry as little water as possible to keep weight down, which obviously creates a need to gather water with some frequency.

    I used it to filter everything from puddled water from recent rain, to water straight from the Potomac, to old, stinky water found inside of a hollow tree stump.

    In all cases, the filter removed all coloration, taste, and noticeable odor, along with the nastiest of pathogens. During that two weeks, the filter never clogged or even appreciably slowed, though we were always careful to go easy on the thing by not stirring up any particulate matter during the filtration process.

    Highly recommended to any sane person who wants to make sure that they've always got clean drinking water available but thinks that $385 is a bit expensive.

  192. Re:Pee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Urine is 98% water. You're saying water isn't nourishing?

  193. Re:Save a life today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we should gloss over facts and important details, build a strawman, and then defeat it?

    Congratulations! This post contains the most logical fallicies per sentance of anything I read on slashdot in the last 3 days.

    Seriously, let logical fallicies run wild in your own mind but keep them away from my body. Thanks!

  194. EXCUSE ME by soccer_Dude88888 · · Score: 0

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/14/fema.audit/index.html

    victims, predominantly dark-skin monkeys who bring nothing but crime, get $2000 debit cards and reportedly spent on lap-dance, Lous Vuitton bags, jewelry and HDTVs. They can afford everything, let alone their profit from drug selling. Wherever these nigger goes there will be a surge in crime rate. We must isolated these animals from the normal people in order to bring our country to the right path again!

  195. Re:Pee by Rei · · Score: 1

    Strange. Perhaps it was down briefly? I just tried connecting from a remote site, and it worked fine.

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  196. Kinks by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    You can stop the kinks in MSR filters by leaving a loop of tube before wrapping and stowing it. The tube will only kink at the junction if it's already been stresses. Resolving a stressed tube on an MSR is easy. Just remove the tube and cut off 2cm the reattach.

  197. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by evalhalla · · Score: 1

    Venice is built ON the sea, not below. It is also built on an inner sea, with little tide and mostly pleasant weather, not on an hurricane-prone ocean coast.

  198. The haves and the dead by cavebison · · Score: 1

    We're missing something important here.

    We have the LifeStraw, LifeSaver Bottle, and other consumer filtering devices.

    So why are children in 3rd world countries still dying every day from drinking dirty water?

    Chalk up another one for us lucky consumers, with piles of shit we don't need to stuff into landfills while kids die who simply would rather have clean water than the latest plastic toy.

  199. This is /.? by FoamingToad · · Score: 1

    For a minute I though I'd wandered into /b/.

  200. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They didn't build it below sea level

    What about the rebuilding part? Are you saying that they still don't realize it's below sea level?

  201. Re:Pee by UseTheSource · · Score: 1

    I know this, because Tyler knows this.

    <Tyler Durden>
    You can swallow a pint of urine before you get sick.
    </Tyler Durden>

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  202. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I wasn't addressing that part, only the assertion that the city was originally built below sea level. Any idiot knows the land wasn't below sea level back in the 1700s.

    Yes, the wisdom of rebuilding it when it's now under sea level is questionable. There are arguments for it, however; after all, a very large part of the Netherlands is below sea level, and they seem to get along just fine that way, and have a lot more land than they would otherwise. The City of NO has a lot of valuable history, since it is after all one of the oldest cities in North America which isn't in ruins. I would argue that the French Quarter is definitely so valuable that it should be preserved. However, as the recent flooding showed, the FQ wasn't all that vulnerable anyway, the lower 9th Ward was, which is a ghetto. The FQ escaped with only minor damage. Other arguments about rebuilding NO revolve around its status as a busy seaport because of its proximity to the mouth of the Mississippi river; all the port workers, as well as all the workers for all the support industries, have to have someplace to live that's convenient to that port.

    But this is all another question which I'm not attempting to answer here since I don't actually have all the answers. My main point before was to call out and insult someone who spouted the often-repeated and completely idiotic idea that New Orleans was built below sea level.

  203. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And of course in order you to call him a retard you had to ignore half of what he wrote, as if it were somehow common knowledge that it was previously above sea level, and completely "retarded" to think that since it is clearly below it now that it wasn't that way before.

  204. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Don't be such an idiot. I didn't ignore half of what he wrote, but it wasn't relevant anyway since the first half of what he wrote was so ridiculously stupid.

    And it should be common knowledge that it was previously above sea level; you don't even have to know anything about the city other than its age to realize that, most likely, it wasn't like that before. Then, a quick Google search will confirm it. Instead, morons like that go around spreading lies, and then try to claim ignorance. If you don't know, don't make an ass of yourself by lying.

  205. Re:For the last time....the problem was not katrin by dave1g · · Score: 1

    Typically low lying areas (with no useful economic purpose) are used as cheap dumps for construction waste( torn up sidewalk, old brick from a building, just plain dirt that needed to be moved, and probably regular trash that shouldn't be there) Why haven't the sinking areas been gradually filled with such waste? Eventually these lands are worth more since they are flat and can be built on more easily.

    A simple ordinance that states any new structure or any significant repair to a structure must be raised above above sea level such that at current sinking rates, the building will remain above sea level until the end of its expected lifespan.

    Would look funny with all the houses sitting on top of miniature hills but eventually the whole area would be filled in. (well all the structures would be above sea level, at some point the infrastructure connecting the structures would be raised by the same method. With he appropriate ramps built in the mean time.

  206. the safe water comes from SPRINGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rivers and lakes have fish living/crapping in them non stop :)
    the safe water comes from springs, and not just any spring,
    but springs that rise up from deep sand or deep rock (read GIANT FILTER)
    and also springs that boil like the dickens (HOT water)

  207. Re:Pee by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Come on. 98% water with 2% lead wouldn't be nourishing, it would be toxic. Neither is urine with 2% wastes.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  208. Re:Pee by meiao · · Score: 1

    You know that there are ways to sidtill pee using your a cup, a hole in the ground and a plastic canvas or something like that.

    1)Dig a hole
    2)Pee in hole
    3)Place cup on middle of hole
    4)cover the hole with plastic, leave a small stone (or whatever trinket you find lying around) in the middle of the plastic
    5)wait to water to evaporate
    6)???
    7)Water (Profit?)