Lots of Pure Water Ice At Mars North Pole

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lots of Pure Water Ice At Mars North Pole

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @02:24AM from the so-what-my-freezer-has-tons-of-it dept.

brink2012 writes "Planum Boreum, Mars' north polar cap contains water ice 'of a very high degree of purity,' according to an international study. Using radar data from the SHARAD (SHAllow RADar) instrument on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), French researchers say the data point to 95 percent purity in the polar ice cap. The north polar cap is a dome of layered, icy materials, similar to the large ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, consisting of layered deposits, with mostly ice and a small amount of dust. Combined, the north and south polar ice caps are believed to hold the equivalent of two to three million cubic kilometers (0.47-0.72 million cu. miles) of ice, making it roughly 100 times more than the total volume of North America's Great Lakes, which is 22,684 cu. kms (5,439 miles). The study was done by researchers at France's National Institute of Sciences of the Universe (Insu), using the Italian built SHARAD radar sounder on the US built MRO. SHARAD looks for liquid or frozen water in the first few hundreds of feet (up to 1 kilometer) of Mars' crust by using subsurface sounding. It can detect liquid water and profile ice. Mars southern polar cap was once thought to be carbon dioxide ice, but ESA's Mars Express confirmed that it is composed of a mixture of water and carbon dioxide. The study on Mars north polar cap appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union."

131 of 176 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Atrocious Summary by CompMD · 2009-01-21 02:27 · Score: 2, Funny

This is the worst written summary I have seen in ages. With all the unit conversions, I wonder if this guy is a former engineer for an old NASA Mars probe team...
1. Re:Atrocious Summary by mysticgoat · 2009-01-21 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and we STILL don't know how many Libraries of Congress or Volkswagen Beetles...
  Is the amount of ice at the poles sufficient to account for the watermarked features of the planet? A simple 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe if' answer to THAT question would be interesting.
2. Re:Atrocious Summary by rickb928 · 2009-01-21 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  He might have worked for Lockheed.
  Or any number of contenders.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
3. Re:Atrocious Summary by DinDaddy · 2009-01-21 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  They're watermarking planets now!? Christ, like someone's going to make an unauthorized copy of Mars, and they going to lose out on their profit. Boo hoo.
  
  Who do we boycott for this one? The Planetary Society?
of course by stoolpigeon · 2009-01-21 02:29 · Score: 1

tough to skate on the canals in winter without water.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:We had pure water once... by jellomizer · 2009-01-21 02:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Yea just look what the salt industry did to our oceans, we can't even drink of the ocean anymore.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So Close by Punko · 2009-01-21 02:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Sufficient Gravity - Check

Sufficient Sunlight - Check

Friable surface (soil) - Check

Sufficient Source of water - check

Sufficient Atmosphere - ummmmm

Sufficient Magnetosphere - uh oh

Cigar - Nope.

Close, but no cigar.

--
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
1. Re:So Close by Sobrique · 2009-01-21 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Close enough I reckon. The biggest inhibitor to colonization of Mars is not the atmosphere or the magnetosphere - those are possible to solve technically, and already have been for previous space expeditions.
  What's really not easy to deal with is water and oxygen supplies - if you have to haul every single kilo of water up the gravity well, you add a massive burden to the operation.
  The fact that we have large quantities of ice to work with, means we have both water, and - by virtue of solar power if necessary, oxygen from electrolysis.
  That's really the major ingredients that are needed to consider a place 'habitable' if not exactly 'comfortable'.
2. Re:So Close by Thanshin · 2009-01-21 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  we have both water, and - by virtue of solar power if necessary, oxygen from electrolysis.
  
  With water? Forget solar power. We'll do power electrolisis with nuclear fusion.
3. Re:So Close by petermgreen · 2009-01-21 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  solar power is crappy enough here on earth and even worse on mars.
  If we ever get arround to doing anything on a large scale on mars (rather than tiny little rovers that manage less than a kilometer per week) I would strongly expect it to be nuclear powered.
  still you are correct, water is very usefull for habitation (you can make oxygen and food from CO2 and water simply by growing plants)
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
4. Re:So Close by Sobrique · 2009-01-21 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was thinking in terms that solar power is just a question of land area, and mars is basically empty. Nuclear would require the nuclear fuel for it, and I seem to recall that that kind of thing just isn't particularly available on Mars. Then again, a couple of KG of radioactive last a good long time, so ... whatever :).
  IIRC the atmosphere of mars is mostly CO2 already, which makes actually growing plants to be almost trivial. Well, once you get past the fact that the climate isn't that great for plant life.
5. Re:So Close by jschen · 2009-01-21 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Of course no cigar! There's no tobacco. Not yet, anyway.
6. Re:So Close by Punko · 2009-01-21 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  The thin atmosphere is in fact one of the largest problems to overcome. the gravity is high enough that rocket powered landings aren't an option and gliders and parachutes can generate enough lift for a heavy lander.
  
  Landing (and getting off) Mars is certainly not trivial. This is one of the major reasons why there is such a low sucess rate for landings.
  
  The lack of a Magnetosphere will limit human exposure on the surface and will also limit our ability to change the atmosphere (if we ever envisioned trying to change it).
  
  Colonizing (or just even establishing a base) is rather hard when you can't land anything heavier than the existing rovers without resorting to air bags or bouncing.
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
7. Re:So Close by Rogerborg · 2009-01-21 04:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I was thinking in terms that solar power is just a question of land area,
  So presumably you're going to blow your first wish on making 400 square kilometres of solar panels magically appear? Why not just wish for a nuclear plant, or better yet, Alyson Hannigan riding a pony?
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
8. Re:So Close by Sylver+Dragon · 2009-01-21 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  How about a cigarette then?
  
  Having relatively easy access to water makes long term habitation much more possible, the two deficiencies you mention are solvable.
  
  Sufficient Atmosphere - ummmmm
  
  Breathable gases can probably be harvested from the Martian soil. The primary thing is oxygen, and that is plentiful, if a bit bound up at the moment, on Mars. At best, the soil should have iron oxides which could be harvested, at worst we would have to crack it out of the water.
  
  Sufficient Magnetosphere - uh oh
  
  Not really that big of a problem. While the solar wind would bake an exposed human like a pop-tart, the required shielding isn't that hard to make. Also, there may be parts of Mars which have small pockets of magnetic protection [1]. It won't help with the atmosphere problem, but it will keep a human from being baked.
  
  The real problem is going to be power. Solar is an option, but with the dust storms this probably won't work. Fossil fuels are a no go for the same reason local water is so important: getting it there takes way too much energy. That pretty much leaves the nuclear option. And even this has the problem of having to transport the fuel; granted with a good IFR reactor the amount of fuel needed could be significantly reduced, but that fuel would still need to be transported.
  
  So, really, the remaining hurdle is figuring out a good way to power the whole thing. Any such setup is going to consume energy like an American at a Vegas buffet, and that is going to be very difficult and costly to transport, if we can't find it locally.
  
  --
  Necessity is the mother of invention.
  Laziness is the father.
9. Re:So Close by pauljlucas · 2009-01-21 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sufficient Gravity - Check
  
  Actually, it isn't. Mars has only about 1/3rd the gravity of Earth. Humans would still experience bone loss. However, it's work-around-able by spending less than an hour a day in a centrifuge.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
10. Re:So Close by Yvanhoe · 2009-01-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or solar power from orbit micro-waved to Mars. While impractical on Earth, this solution could work well on Mars.
  
  I remember "Red Mars" suggesting to use wind power. The atmosphere may be thin there but the winds are strong. Don't forget also that solar power does not always mean solar cells : one can imagine using a Stirling engine or a regular turbine generator that would use temperature gradients.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
11. Re:So Close by moosesocks · 2009-01-21 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  we have both water, and - by virtue of solar power if necessary, oxygen from electrolysis.
  With water? Forget solar power. We'll do power electrolisis with nuclear fusion.
  How about fission? We already know how to do it.
  
  --
  -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
12. Re:So Close by Don853 · 2009-01-21 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Solar power on Mars would also have to contend with the global dust storms, which can last for weeks on end. Nuclear doesn't have that worry.
13. Re:So Close by HisOmniscience · 2009-01-21 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC the atmosphere of mars is mostly CO2 already, which makes actually growing plants to be almost trivial.
  Except that plants respire, which requires oxygen. CO2 is used to make food.
14. Re:So Close by petermgreen · 2009-01-21 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Except that plants respire, which requires oxygen
  Sure but they produce more oxygen than they use, so if you have a bit of oxygen to start the process the only ongoing supplies it requires are CO2 and water.
  You can of course recycle the CO2 and water people produce during respiration but there are bound to be some losses so having local sources to replenish them from would be very usefull (though there is the complication that most of the water on mars is at the poles whereas any marsbase would probablly want to be near the equator)
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
15. Re:So Close by Sibko · 2009-01-21 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sufficient Gravity - Check
  Err no... I don't think this is particularly sufficient. Part of the reason Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is because of its gravity. In all honesty, I don't think there'll be any actual terraforming of Mars until we can smash a couple jovian moons into it and increase its mass. [And possibly jumpstart a new magnetic dynamo.]
16. Re:So Close by abuelos84 · 2009-01-21 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  And you could do it after bathing, two birds one shot!... plus you recolect your "residual" water for later reuse...
  
  --
  -- Counting backwards since 1984!
17. Re:So Close by Nazlfrag · 2009-01-21 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  A mixture of solar when clear and wind power for the dust storms perhaps. No fuel to supply, just generators. Making chemical batteries might be another option. Like you said though, a large stable power source will be needed, and nuclear is the only short-term answer.
18. Re:So Close by s0l1dsnak3123 · 2009-01-24 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  you know what, that is exactly what went through my mind when I saw the "THERE IS LIFE ON MARS OMFG" title on the Sun a couple of weeks ago.
  
  Sensationalist Bastards...
logistics by rarel · 2009-01-21 02:35 · Score: 2, Funny

We're still looking for the way to get the Bourbon over there though.
Look at that bottled water opportunity! by tjstork · 2009-01-21 02:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Martian Water!
4 billion years old, untouched by mankind!
Unique solar system chemistry boosts your base DNA!
Live longer!
Improve your love life!
Martian Water: Now only $1,000 a liter!

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by AviLazar · 2009-01-21 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Martian Water: Now only $1,000 a liter!
  
  That would be an incredibly cheap price to pay for a sample from another planet. Considering the costs of storage, and transport yea that would be VERY cheap. The demand would be incredibly high and would not cover the shipping and handling costs.
  
  --
  
  I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
2. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Futile+Rhetoric · 2009-01-21 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You're right! It sounds almost too good to be true!
3. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by clickclickdrone · 2009-01-21 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Let it never be said jokes don't go whoosh on some people.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
4. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by N3Roaster · 2009-01-21 03:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The trick, of course, is to dehydrate that water before it leaves Mars. Your liter of water turns into a small packet of dust which your customers simply need to reconstitute before use.
  
  --
  Remember RFC 873!
5. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by oldspewey · 2009-01-21 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Considering it currently costs a few tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram just to launch a payload into LEO, I don't see anybody returning water from Mars at $1000/kg anytime soon.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
6. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by petermgreen · 2009-01-21 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Martian Water: Now only $1,000 a liter!
  I think you need to add a few zeros to your estimate.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by slasho81 · 2009-01-21 03:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Martian Water: Now only $1,000 a liter!
  Still cheaper than a liter of printer ink.
8. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Prof.Phreak · 2009-01-21 03:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  ...don't forget naturally carbonated!
  
  --
  "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
9. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by tjstork · 2009-01-21 03:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The trick, of course, is to dehydrate that water before it leaves Mars. Your liter of water turns into a small packet of dust which your customers simply need to reconstitute before use
  I guess you would call that Marsani?
  
  --
  This is my sig.
10. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Dr.+Smoove · 2009-01-21 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're paying that much to launch your payloads into anybody, you're doin it wrong... or you're Eliot Spitzer ZING
  
  --
  "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."
11. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Tubal-Cain · 2009-01-21 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Neither does AviLazar.
12. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by MSZ · 2009-01-21 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's already mixed with CO2 - just add HFCS and red #6!
  
  --
  The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
13. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Varun+Soundararajan · 2009-01-21 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Dint he say that was the ebay posting with a million dollar shipping and a buy it now price of 1000$.
14. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by Archimonde · 2009-01-21 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  And after Evian brand, I propose we call it:
  Drater!
  
  --
  Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
15. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by computersareevil · 2009-01-21 07:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I tried drinking that once. I prefer water.
16. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by AJWM · 2009-01-21 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Martian Water: Now only $1,000 a liter!
  Guarantee me a big enough market* and I can deliver that for only $2 a liter. Well, maybe a bit more allowing for inflation from the last time I worked it out.
  May take a few years for the first delivery, but that's just to get the pipeline started; once the tap is turned on it's a steady delivery rate. Startup costs might be a bit steep, but only a fraction of the current bailout.
  (google "Aresian well". There used to be a wikipedia page but it was deleted during the Great Purge.)
  ---
  *About six billion litres a year, less than 4% of current world sales of bottled water. Bottling charges extra.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
17. Re:Look at that bottled water opportunity! by AviLazar · 2009-01-22 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I understood the joke, it wasn't funny - not even in a dry humour kind of way. Some people just might take it as a serious comment though on the "Yea that would be cool and I would get one." Similar to the space tomato seeds given to schools in the early 90's.
  
  --
  
  I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Technical name for it by jc42 · 2009-01-21 02:35 · Score: 4, Funny

We have a name for a mixture of water and carbon dioxide. It's called "seltzer water". With added impurities, it's sold as "soft drinks".
Mmmm ... Martian dust cola. Satisfies your body's need for hundreds of trace minerals.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
1. Re:Technical name for it by Prof.Phreak · 2009-01-21 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  ...probably would taste like mineral water.
  
  --
  "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
2. Re:Technical name for it by Alastor187 · 2009-01-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  We have a name for a mixture of water and carbon dioxide. It's called "seltzer water". With added impurities, it's sold as "soft drinks".
  Mmmm ... Martian dust cola. Satisfies your body's need for hundreds of trace minerals.
  Martian Dust Cola it's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave!
A new goal for the rich and pretentious ... by oldspewey · 2009-01-21 02:35 · Score: 1

... drinking "Exotic, pure Martian water" from 30ml bottles that cost $15000 a pop.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:We had pure water once... by jep77 · 2009-01-21 02:39 · Score: 1

Right, but now we know where to get a refill...
What is the volume? by fprintf · 2009-01-21 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

[blockquote]Combined, the north and south polar ice caps are believed to hold the equivalent of two to three million cubic kilometers (0.47-0.72 million cu. miles) of ice, making it roughly 100 times more than the total volume of North America's Great Lakes, which is 22,684 cu. kms (5,439 miles). [/blockquote]
OK, so how many libraries of congress, or Niagra Falls is this? All joking aside, how does this relate to single units of glaciers or land masses, not non-continguous lakes. For example, how many Antarctica's is this? Or how many of our own polar ice caps? Hell, just tell me how many deep Greenland would be covered in ice!
I know we need things to make volumes, sizes, distances and other units seem real but let's choose something that we all can relate to, that makes sense, eh? Great Lakes just seems really a) North American centric, b) non-sensical to most U.S.ians like myself.
Sorry for the complaint. I know you do your best with these things. Perhaps it is the lack of Vitamin D and the seasonal affective disorder amongst some of us Northern Hemispherians that make me cranky.

--
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
1. Re:What is the volume? by MRe_nl · 2009-01-21 02:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The salty Caspian Sea is the world's largest land-locked body of water. It contains approximately 18,900 cubic miles of water (78,700 cubic kilometers).
  Lake Baikal is the world's largest freshwater lake in terms of volume. It contains about 5521 cubic miles of water (23,000 cubic kilometers), or approximately 20% of Earth's fresh surface water. This is a volume of water approximately equivalent to all five of the North American Great Lakes combined.
  
  --
  "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
2. Re:What is the volume? by AviLazar · 2009-01-21 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Considering most of us have never been to Antarctica I am sure we would still have a hard time relating to this. We would need a more common reference point - and since more people have been to the great lakes then to antarctica that is a good choice.
  
  --
  
  I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
3. Re:What is the volume? by Muad'Dave · 2009-01-21 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose that's Baikal in Irkutsk, Montana? The world's most voluminous continental lake (singular) is Baikal. The Great Lakes may cover more area, but that doesn't translate into more water.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
4. Re:What is the volume? by JustOK · 2009-01-21 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  uh, only part of them, eh?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
5. Re:What is the volume? by thedonger · 2009-01-21 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is about a tenth of Antarctica.
  
  --
  Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Yes but.... by Bai+jie · 2009-01-21 02:44 · Score: 1

where is the secret chamber of air and atmosphere?
Re:We had pure water once... by AviLazar · 2009-01-21 02:50 · Score: 1

wrong

....then someone/thing took a poop in it.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Oil by eulernet · 2009-01-21 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who cares about water ?
Just discover petroleum on another planet, and there will be a tough competition to get there !
1. Re:Oil by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 03:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Well, there is this famous moon of Saturn, where it rains methane. Close enough?
2. Re:Oil by ZOmegaZ · 2009-01-21 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, since petroleum is the remnants of life, finding it on another planet would open a whole new can of worms. Especially if it's like that stuff from the X-Files.
  
  --
  Former US House candidate, TN-5
3. Re:Oil by Rob+the+Bold · 2009-01-21 05:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Close enough?
  Call me when it rains Martinis.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
4. Re:Oil by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 05:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Saturn's moon Titan.
5. Re:Oil by zx75 · 2009-01-21 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, no there won't. I'm sorry but oil is not *that* valuable, just look at the Alberta Tarsands. Anything below $60 a barrel means that they are operating at a loss and start slowing down production. Imagine how much it would cost to get oil from mars, or heck to make the argument easier lets suppose there is oil on the moon.
  How many billions of dollars would it cost to set up drilling, refining, liftoff, descent, and recovery operations? How many trillions? You will not only need to get equipment there, you need to get hundreds of men there to perform setup. Refining needs to be done because the more volume reduction that we can do the better. Then how do you package and shield a damn tanker that will not only survive escape from the moon, but also re-entry to earth?
  When oil reaches $500 million/barrel then I will take your proposal seriously.
  
  --
  This is not a sig.
6. Re:Oil by Daimanta · 2009-01-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  No it won't. Have you any idea the amount of fuel, distance and time it takes to transport very small amounts of hydrocarbons our way? By the time we are able to extract fuels(which will cost billions upon billions) we are at least 30 years in the future(and that's a conservative estimate) and then we can ship maybe some thousands of liters back to earth taking several months and ample ampunts of fuel, making it a money sink.
  Time for the unmanned Phoenix probe to get to mars: Departure:4 August 2007 Arrival: 25 May 2008.
  As long as oil remains below $1000(one thousand) a barrel there is a snowball chance in hell that we will retrieve hydrocarbons for any reason other than research.
  
  --
  Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
7. Re:Oil by Samah · 2009-01-21 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Call me when it rains Martinis.
  I think you misspelled "Martians", in which case you should burst into song right now.
  (It's raining Martians, hallelujah...)
  
  --
  Homonyms are fun!
  You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
NASA... by Muad'Dave · 2009-01-21 02:56 · Score: 1

To paraphrase the words of Hauser/Quaid, "Get [our collective] ass[es] to Mars!"
Landers are cool, 'bots are cool, but people are better!

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
When do they start bottling it by rolfwind · 2009-01-21 03:01 · Score: 3, Funny

and sending it down to hit store shelves?
If they can have "iceberg" water, I'm sure Mars water will also have an audience:
http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/Canada/Berg.asp
Me? I'm going into the dihydrogen monoxide business.
Re:We had pure water once... by Futile+Rhetoric · 2009-01-21 03:03 · Score: 1

And it's not just around our Sun and our Moon anymore! What the hell is going on?! What is oozing out of our ground?!
Re:We had pure water once... by rolfwind · 2009-01-21 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fresh water has and is contributing to the continued salinization of our oceans. Originally as water is a solvent and streams/rivers dissolved rock on its way to the ocean and left it there with evaporation, now with all the salt on the roads in the winter plus 6 billion people urinating all over the place.
I wonder if it ever have a bad effect though, considering that we use the ocean as our toilet and food source at the same time.
H2O+CO2 by j00r0m4nc3r · 2009-01-21 03:07 · Score: 1

mixture of water and carbon dioxide

Club soda! I'll bring the cognac and lemon.
Re:We had pure water once... by JustOK · 2009-01-21 03:08 · Score: 1

garbage in, garbage out

--
rewriting history since 2109
Bunk by camperdave · 2009-01-21 03:20 · Score: 1

Maybe you could help the author out by providing some citations for your claim that pure water is undrinkable. While it's true that the human body needs minerals, there are plenty in food. They do not have to come from the water you drink.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
1. Re:Bunk by KiwiCanuck · 2009-01-21 05:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel. I couldn't remember which minerals, but I found them in the WHO report. The minerals are calcium & magnesium. See page 17, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf So people who drink pure water should takes multi-vitamins to compensate. Or drink a couple of glasses of milk a day.
2. Re:Bunk by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-21 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel.
  
  "Regular" water will rust stainless steel. This statement is meaningless.
  
  Look at a sailboat sometime. They deliberately use no stainless below the water line, yet there are plenty of ions.
  
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
3. Re:Bunk by KiwiCanuck · 2009-01-21 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, that is incorrect. Water will not rust stainless steel, salt water will. This discussion is about drinking pure water. Hold the salt please.
4. Re:Bunk by OneSmartFellow · 2009-01-21 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually none of you are correct. Stainless steel is no different from any other metal (or alloy) in that it requires a flow of electrons to corrode (also known as rusting). Given enough time, any metal will corrode. The rate of corrosion is affected by the ability of the electrons to flow. Most people think of rust as the result of a chemical reaction of iron with oxygen. An argument could be made that 'rust' is a specialized form of corrosion where the reaction is only beteen the ferrous element of a metal and oxygen but that is foolish.
  
  Water (pure H20, doesn't conduct well), with any conductive agent (known as an electrolyte) in it will aid the reaction. But you can make a metal rust by placing it in contact with anything that has a different electrical potential. Simply placing two dissimilar metals in contact is enough because of the potential difference causes a electron flow. It just so happens that salt contains plenty of electrolytes, and so when dissolved in water, enables water to conduct better, and thus allows the electron migration. Water also contains loads of oxygen, (some of it is not even attached to hydrogen but roams freely within the water waiting to find a suitable element to react with) so, it appears to people that water 'makes metal rust' - which it does, but it's not the only thing that does.
5. Re:Bunk by KiwiCanuck · 2009-01-22 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  So rusting a metal kind of works like a battery or thermocouple. Cheers.
6. Re:Bunk by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-22 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
  
  Bullshit.
  Regular water WILL rust stainless steel, as explained by other posts.
  Haven't you ever left a nice stainless kitchen knife in the sink?
  
  Water will not rust stainless steel, salt water will. This discussion is about drinking pure water. Hold the salt please.
  
  YOU SAID EARLIER:
  
  I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel.
  
  So now you have just directly contradicted yourself.
  
  My post was simply to point out the meaninglessness or yours, and your response has been to directly contradict yourself. The point is that your post implying that deionized water is sooo bad that it will rust stainless is really not meaningful. Regular water and salt water ALSO have the potential to rust stainless.
  Thus, the statement that deionized water can rust stainless does not mean much.
  
  If you want to suggest that chemical X is bad for humans, seek out a study illustrating the effects of chemical X on humans. Misleading statements about chemical X is bad becuase it may have some effect on metal alloy Y are not a good argument.
  
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
7. Re:Bunk by Trogre · 2009-01-26 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Okay how about this:
  Acidity and alkalinity are determined by the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) (usually hydronium (H3O+)) in a sample. The more hydronium, the lower the pH, and the more acidic your sample. The less hydronium, the higher the pH and the more alkaline your sample.
  Now pure H2O cannot by definition contain any hydronium, so our only option is to assign it the highest possible pH value, 14, which puts it in the strong alkali camp. Stronger than NaOH. And would kill you pretty swiftly.
  Of course I suspect one can never attain this level of water purity so we're probably safe.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Mineral? by Muad'Dave · 2009-01-21 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a widespread urban myth that distilled water is harmful. I've heard it all my life. Look at all the discussion at these sites. Some say there are benefits, some say it'll kill you. Too bad KiwiCanuck didn't "research a little more."

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
You have to get to Mahs by Timberwolf0122 · 2009-01-21 03:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Staht Da Reactah! http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1312

--
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Earth's oceans are about 96.5 % pure water by RNLockwood · 2009-01-21 03:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

So the water is 95% "pure" - what's in the 5%? For comparison Earth's oceans are about 96.5% "pure" so the water on Mars certainly would not be drinkable without processing but that's fairly easily done, I think.

--
Nate
1. Re:Earth's oceans are about 96.5 % pure water by mbone · 2009-01-21 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Remember that salts will not generally freeze out in ice, especially ice that forms by precipitation (as is assumed for the Martian poles). I would assume that the polar caps are very pure ice, with some dust and dissolved CO2. If you melted it, the dust would drop out, and the result might very well be drinkable.
  This is one case, though, where I think "Trust, but Verify" definitely applies.
2. Re:Earth's oceans are about 96.5 % pure water by ozbird · 2009-01-21 09:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If you melted it, the dust would drop out, and the result might very well be drinkable.
  You first - I'm not drinking anything containing cryogenically frozen Martian organisms.
3. Re:Earth's oceans are about 96.5 % pure water by AtariKee · 2009-01-21 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone seems to be forgetting that Mars is bombarded by constant radiation from the Sun. It's entirely possible that there's a wee little bit more processing to do :)
  
  I say "possible" due to the fact that I haven't researched the solubility of radioactive materials in water.
  
  --
  "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
  "Thank you, Master Control"
  -Sark and the MCP
Re:Mineral? by OneSmartFellow · 2009-01-21 03:28 · Score: 1

Let me be the third to cry BOLLOCKS ! And besides, how hard would it be to add a pinch of martian soil to each cup you drink.
Re:Mineral? by petermgreen · 2009-01-21 03:28 · Score: 1

Two points
1: they say this water is 90% pure, that is FAR from what most people would consider pure water. The "natural mineral water" you buy in the shop is more than 99.9% pure water.
2: a local supply of water that has to be treated (either by adding stuff or more likely removing stuff) to be drinkable is still far preferable to carting water all the way from earth.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Mineral? by Luyseyal · 2009-01-21 03:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's funny because western Travis County regularly prescribes boiling your water before using it because the wells dry up and the water supply is not reliable.
I figure the myth came about because pure water doesn't have any nutritive benefit apart from being water (unlike your regular complement of minerals in the tap).
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:We had pure water once... by numbsafari · 2009-01-21 03:34 · Score: 4, Funny

What's even crazy is the FISH.
Get this: the fish breathe the water, they poop AND pee in the water, they drink the water and they eat other things that also live in the water.
I mean, they basically live their entire lives in the water they crap in.
Yeast are like that, too.
Anyhow, I'm gonna go grab me a tall, frosty mug of yeast shit infested water.... I mean beer...
Re:Mineral? by solkimera · 2009-01-21 03:36 · Score: 1

It's not undrikable, but yes, but the human body does use minerals in water. Which is why your not suposed to go about drinking the distiled water.
kick start by blackfrancis75 · 2009-01-21 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, we somehow melt (some of) the ice, it evaporates to form oceans and clouds, which kick-starts a water-rich atmospheric cycle. Can someone more knowledgeable than I in these matters please explain whether there's any possibility of this working, or have I just seen too many sci-fi movies?
1. Re:kick start by Red+Flayer · 2009-01-21 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, for starters...
  
  So, we somehow melt (some of) the ice, it evaporates to form oceans
  
  I'm not sure that if you evaporate liqud H2O you get oceans as a result, you might want to check a phase diagram or something :)
  
  Also the amount of ice is much too little for what you are proposing.
  
  I think we'd have a higher chance of success if instead we tried to bombard Mars with captured comets... in other words, not much chance at all.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
2. Re:kick start by Quietust · 2009-01-21 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Liquid water cannot exist on Mars at any temperature, since the atmospheric pressure is too low (Google for "triple point" for an explanation).
  
  --
  * Q
  P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
3. Re:kick start by mbone · 2009-01-21 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite true - the low lying areas on Mars are above the triple point (in pressure - i.e., below it in elevation) now. For example, the Phoenix polar lander was above the triple point for the entire time it sent back meteorological data. (Of course, there it is consistently too cold for liquid water.) The Viking Lander 2 was above the triple point at times, below it other times (there is a large annual variation in Mars surface pressure, and VL2 was close to the edge).
  The bottom of the Hellas basin is another area consistently above the triple point, and there it does get warm enough that you might actually see liquid water on the surface.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-01-21 03:52 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you insist... by geobeck · 2009-01-21 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

How about comparing apples to apples?

Okay, the volume is approximately equal to 25,000,000,000,000 apples.

--
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
1. Re:If you insist... by Gilmoure · 2009-01-21 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, the volume is approximately equal to 25,000,000,000,000 apples.
  Apple LC 'Pizza Box' computers, Cube, or the current aluminum tower Macs?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
2. Re:If you insist... by geobeck · 2009-01-21 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Organically-grown Washington Gala variety.
  
  --
  Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
3. Re:If you insist... by Gilmoure · 2009-01-21 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh, those are good!
  Darn it! Will have to stop on way home now.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:We had pure water once... by rogeroger · 2009-01-21 04:00 · Score: 1

as W.C. Fields said, "Water? No thanky you....fish FUNCtion in it!"
Ocean Equivalent by mbone · 2009-01-21 04:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Since Mars's Surface Area = 144 million km^2, this implies (for 2.5 million km^3 of ice) that ice caps are enough to supply a water layer 17 meters deep over the entire surface, or maybe 50 meters deep in Hellas and the Northern lowlands, if it was all melted. (If the polar caps entirely melted, that alone would raise the surface pressure above the triple point of water, so liquid water would be possible. The Hellas Basin is deep enough that the pressure is above the triple point now, and it definitely could have liquid water in it if the climate warmed some.)
Note that the polar caps show very clear signs of layering, presumably caused by the long period obliquity oscillations, and are in general very young geologically, so it is not beyond belief that, say, the Hellas basin fills up with water on a regular basis, every 500,000 years or so.
1. Re:Ocean Equivalent by shadowbearer · 2009-01-21 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Even if those figures are off by an order of magnitude, we now know where all the water that carved the Martian surface went.
  That doesn't even include any other subsurface glaciers we haven't found yet.
  While it doesn't make Mars terraformable with current technology, it does lower the bar a bit. Large orbital mirrors aren't likely to work, and comet impacts will be redundant. Clean fusion devices might do the job.
  SB
  
  --
  It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Re:We had pure water once... by Genesys1 · 2009-01-21 04:06 · Score: 1

Heh, you crap in your medium too (air). Its just not as viscous as the fishes.
So we're less atypical than we think? by Kupfernigk · 2009-01-21 04:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

The last few hundred years of human history have seen people gradually being forced to abandon our exceptionalism. From the belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe to identifying it as a small planet going round an only slightly above average star has taken about 500 years. The belief that human beings, despite having the same biological mechanisms as the other mammals, are essentially different in some magical way is in retreat. Palaeontologists are now assigning more and more anthropoid remains to the genus homo - Neanderthals are now considered merely a different race. But a lot of people are still kicking and screaming to believe that the Earth is somehow magically a uniquely habitable planet. This is perhaps why there was such resistance, first to the idea of water on Mars, then to admitting that there is a lot. The story of recent Mars exploration so far is that it is more like the Earth than expected. This is despite its size and distance from the sun - which raises the possible number of habitable planets out there.
The last time I posted on this - pointing out that so far 100% of the actual planets we've explored have been inhabited - someone replied repeatedly emphasising the words "on Earth" - whereas my entire point was that this view is "Earth exceptionalism". Other than a few vague words in a book written over 2000 years ago by one small Middle Eastern tribe, we have no written statement on the subject (while most Indians religions support a plurality of worlds.)
Mars may not be inhabited by life, it may never have been - but we are now seeing a lot more water than previously believed, and evidence of methane generation. The probability must be assessed as non-zero.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:So we're less atypical than we think? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  >> why there was such resistance, first to the idea of water on Mars
  Really? I never heard of anyone resisting the idea of water on Mars. The most common element in the universe is Hydrogen. We're two-thirds of the way to water right from the get-go. Id be more surprised if there was absolutely *no* water on any other planet.
  >> Other than a few vague words in a book written over 2000 years ago by one small Middle Eastern tribe
  Are you referring to the Christian bible? Please point out which passage states that the Earth is the only habitable planet? I must have missed that verse. Or maybe im just not taking it out of context the right way. I understand if you have a beef with Christians, but please try not to make up things to justify it.
  >> while most Indians religions support a plurality of worlds
  Dont forget the Mormons and Scientologists. Hate to leave them out of your deep theological musings.
2. Re:So we're less atypical than we think? by phosphorylate+this · 2009-01-21 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The earth IS amazingly exceptional, we just don't know how unique it is.
  Frozen ice on Mars is great, and may make the Herculian job of colonising it or starting outposts later a bit easier. It still looks like its a sterile rock, raising self-sustaining colonies on antarctica and in the seas will be far easier in the short term (100 years).
  In contrast earth is a full ecology with macroscopic life so large it is visible from space. There may be 1 or even 10^6 equivalent biospheres in the galaxy (we don't know) this still means terran planets are unlikely to be common or close together. This is one of the reasons we should be developing science but also conserving the uniqueness that is our biological heritage.
Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religion by geoffrobinson · 2009-01-21 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

A cow could die upstream and wipe out a village.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Re:Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religio by eln · 2009-01-21 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny

A cow could die upstream and wipe out a village.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Also, if you drink enough of it, you stop caring about all the cow corpses lying around!
Re:Mineral? by Gilmoure · 2009-01-21 04:46 · Score: 1

Like that lady trying to win a Wii for her kids by drinking water?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
95% pure by SnarfQuest · 2009-01-21 04:47 · Score: 1

It may be 95% pure, but it's that other 5% that turns you into mutant zombies.
Brains!

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Frozen ice and carbon dioxide by tzot · 2009-01-21 04:54 · Score: 1

I can see a Perrier sponsored Mars exploration mission.

--
I speak England very best
Re:Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religio by H0p313ss · 2009-01-21 05:36 · Score: 1

Also, if you drink enough of it, you stop caring about all the cow corpses lying around!
I was wondering what that smell was...

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religio by Schemat1c · 2009-01-21 05:38 · Score: 1

Also, if you drink enough of it, you stop caring about all the cow corpses lying around!
Then you wake up the next morning and realize they are all dead because you went on a drunken cow tipping binge.

--

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
They should get Brita to sponsor next Mars trip by pergamon · 2009-01-21 05:43 · Score: 1

Surely they could do better than just 95% pure!
Now, this is the plan. Get your ass to Mars. by More_Cowbell · 2009-01-21 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I came here for the Total Recall jokes; I can't believe I'm leaving disappointed.
Oh, /., what has become of you?

--
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
1. Re:Now, this is the plan. Get your ass to Mars. by LingNoi · 2009-01-21 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Impossible! Once the reaction starts, it'll spread to all the users on slashdot. Slashdot will go into global meltdown. That's why the aliens never turned it on.
Re:liek wot? by KenAndCorey · 2009-01-21 05:55 · Score: 1

I didn't even read the rest of the summary. I couldn't get back "Mar's".
Re:Mineral? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 06:01 · Score: 1, Informative

Go explore the great wikipedia further and look up "homeostasis" and "buffering" (of the homeostatic type, you'll have to use a disambiguation link, I'm guessing... or start with a term like osmoregulation). Then look up "diffusion" and "active transport".
A few things about "mineral water": the reason you have to pee after you drink a lot of it is that the water diffuses into your body, triggering a homeostatic reaction that excretes the excess water. Water diffuses in living cells on this planet, and diffusion means it moves from a volume where the ion (salt) content is high through semipermeable membranes into volumes where the ion concentration is relatively low. There is no active transport of H2O molecules in terrestrial cellular life. Isotonic water -- which will taste quite salty to you -- will just stay in your intestines, rather than diffusing out of them. You may find yourself with very wet poo if you drink a lot of it, but otherwise it won't provoke urinary urgency or thirst. Hypertonic water -- really mineralized water -- will cause water to diffuse out of your body into your digestive tract, and you will feel thirsty.
The ions in solution in the water do not cross terrestrial life's semipermeable membranes by diffusion; they are actively transported. Mineralized water at most slows the passive diffusion of water by having a slightly lower osmotic difference between the mineral water and the rest of the body. The minerals would have to be actively transported out of the water.
Note that there are plenty of ions in whatever food you eat, and the concentration of them is much higher than in any water that you would be able to drink without gagging or vomiting. Active transport in your intestines moves them across the semipermeable membranes quite well.
Once the salts and other useful ions are moved into your circulatory system they are either concentrated into long term storage (mainly in bones) or float about in solution mediated by hormones that control thirst, urinary urgency, (probably but not definitively) salt cravings, and (more speculatively) pica.
Mineral water is usually 250-500 ppm (0.025%-0.05%) of dissolved ions. In vertebrates (including humans) the intracellular and extracellular fluids are usually carrying several percent (2-7%) dissolved solids.
From an osmosis perspective, the dissolved solids in mineral water, compared to tap water, is inconsequential. Bottled mineral water will still cause water toxicity taken in large quantities all at once, and the difference between death by bottled water and death by maximally pure distilled water will in a standard human amount to a couple of millilitres. Sports drinks are usually 6% sugar and ~0.5-2% dissolved ions and are isotonic, so you can drink an awful lot of it all at once without risk. (For a standard human, 10 litres of distilled, tap or bottled mineral water taken all at once will kill by water toxicity; sports drinks are more likely to kill by mechanical damage from forced expansion of the digestive tract, or by metabolic crisis from trying to process tens of thousands of kilocalories worth of sugars all at once -- maybe a hundred litres might do it, if you could figure out how to avoid massive explosive diarrhea and vomiting reflexes from defeating your attempt to find the upper limit.)
Finally, wrt water toxicity, the problem is mainly that the kidney can only filter out a few litres of urine an hour, and taking in water faster than that -- whether that water is in the form of wet food, or from the tap, or from alcoholic drinks, or from a water distillation apparatus --will overwhelm buffering responses by organs other than the kidney (osteoclasts, vacuole-stored ions), as well force its way through semipermeable membranes in the brain, causing tissue-damaging swelling. That cerebral oedema is the usual cause of death in water toxicity; it would be very strange if it was electrolyte imbalance involving other organs that did an otherwise hea
Re:We had pure water once... by SBrach · 2009-01-21 06:01 · Score: 1

Won't the desalination from the ice caps melting make this a wash?
Re:The Moon by ChrisA90278 · 2009-01-21 06:05 · Score: 1

Mars has polar caps big enough that they can be seen from backyard telescopes. Yes you can see the ice with a telescope that will fit inside a small pickup truck. The mood even being much closer has no visible ice.
How can the Earth "run out of energy". Not until the sun burns out. It may run out of cheap energy. No matter how little energy there is on Earth, there is less of it on the moon.
Re:Mineral? by Yetihehe · 2009-01-21 06:17 · Score: 1

Two liters of distilled water won't make you seek. If you drink JUST distilled water AND don't eat anything, then yes, after several days you will have some problems.

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Re:We had pure water once... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 07:28 · Score: 1, Informative

> a tall, frosty mug of yeast piss infested water.... I mean beer...
There, fixed that for you
Re:We had pure water once... by samriel · 2009-01-21 07:55 · Score: 1

No, because there's more salt water in the ocean than fresh water in the glaciers. Think it through.
acronyms by moniker127 · 2009-01-21 08:10 · Score: 1

Shards? come on! start using real acronyms, science. MRO is better.
Fermented Mars Juice by Jettra · 2009-01-21 08:18 · Score: 1

That ice will make clean smooth vodka.
Re:No, oil didn't necessarily come from plants. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 08:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

HAHAHAHAHF UCKING LUNIE BIN CREATIONSISTS!!!

Does food from Anons taste worse? How about if it's particularly low quality?
Re:Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religio by Fluffeh · 2009-01-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Yeah, that's the reason folks drank booze. It very clearly had nothing to do with getting a buzz out of it, getting "biblical" with the town wenches or because it made your "village blond" wife appear smarter.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Overpriced bottled Martian water... by Wonderkid · 2009-01-21 10:55 · Score: 1

http://www.marshydro.com/
You never know, people have been known to pay for the extraordinary.

--
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Mediterranean - 3.7 million cubic kilometers by jriskin · 2009-01-21 15:31 · Score: 1

Best comparison I came up with was the Mediterranean which is a bit bigger, but not much.
Re:Yes, the Fall into Sin of Environmental Religio by dotancohen · 2009-01-21 20:00 · Score: 1

A cow could die upstream and wipe out a village.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Just as today, drinking water in some places (Mexico) is unsafe and everyone drinks cola or juice.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:We had pure water once... by hab136 · 2009-01-21 22:50 · Score: 1

...then the industrial revolution happened.
If by "pure", you mean swimming with parasites, fungi, and bacteria, sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases
There's a reason we chlorinate water.