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)."

14 of 503 comments (clear)

  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.

    --
  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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?
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.