Slashdot Mirror


+Pool Would Let New Yorkers Go River Swimming

cylonlover writes "Three young entrepreneurs have proposed a way of getting New Yorkers into the Hudson, East and/or Bronx Rivers. It's called the +Pool (Plus Pool) — a public swimming pool that would float in the river, allowing people to swim in filtered river water. River water would flow into the pool through permeable walls, which would be composed of three layers filtering out the river nasties."

133 comments

  1. What about stuff in the pool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want some New Yorker peeing in my pool.

    1. Re:What about stuff in the pool? by alta · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I think they should just make some full body bathing suits outta that stuff, and just let people swim in the river. It wont take long for the pool to be nastier than the river itself. Does it's filter work both ways? ;)

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  2. Three layers are not enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to filter out the New Yorkers.

    Still too nasty for me.

  3. Eh? by dtmos · · Score: 1

    The rivers smell so bad, I'd think the biggest problem would be convincing people to get near them, let alone in them. I think they'd have to be enclosed.

    Unmentioned in the article is that one also needs the conventional cleaning system to clean the water from (speaking carefully now) pollutants generated internally, too.

    What happens in winter?

    1. Re:Eh? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      What happens in winter?

      It gets cold. Not a lot of outdoor swimming pools in use in a New York winter.

    2. Re:Eh? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      To keep the inside water clean, I suppose you could just pump the water out of the pool, back into the river.

    3. Re:Eh? by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      What happens in winter?

      My wife's Scandanavian ancestors came up with an answer to that. You beat each other with birch twigs in the sauna until jumping through a hole in the ice into freezing water begins to look like an attractive proposition. Once disabused of that insane notion, you crawl out and do it again.

      I think the beating part would go over big with some elements of the New York population.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Eh? by Pope · · Score: 1

      You forgot the booze!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    5. Re:Eh? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You forgot the booze!

      Not to mention the much more sensible idea of getting in your longboat and sacking some country with a more pleasant climate. Scotland, for instance.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the makara

    7. Re:Eh? by alta · · Score: 1

      Ice skating

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    8. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the beating part would go over big with some elements of the New York population.

      I have to agree with this. A New York mayor said it best:

      Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

      -- NYC Mayor Lenny Clotch, Ghostbusters 2

    9. Re:Eh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Except this is NY. The first time someone did that, there would be a law against it to protect the children!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:Eh? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe they can locate on Fire Island.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Hudson and East Rivers don't smell much at all these days and many fish have returned. The filtering is practically unnecessary except after heavy rains. It's more or less the same water as Orchard Beach or Coney Island, which obviously have no filters and no one gets sick from those.

    12. Re:Eh? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      That's interesting because the New York City Triathlon's swim portion is right in the Hudson River. No one I've talked to has ever mentioned anything TOO bad about swimming in the Hudson. But as a lot, triathletes are generally too hard core to admit any suffering or unexplained skin growths. :)

    13. Re:Eh? by jira · · Score: 1

      It should be promoted as Swimming in Organic Water.
      That would attract thousands

    14. Re:Eh? by fifedrum · · Score: 0

      they get unexplained skin growths from crapping in their suits because they're too hard core take the time to find a port-a-potty and risk losing precious seconds on their overall.

    15. Re:Eh? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Beating with birch twigs? Give me a solid oak branch!

    16. Re:Eh? by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      ... Coney Island, which obviously have no filters and no one gets sick from those.

      But is it bullet proof? Because people do get sick from those...

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    17. Re:Eh? by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      and call it... "Whole Water".

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    18. Re:Eh? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I lived on the Hudson in lower manhaten and it never stank and was quite clean. I would go swimming in there without a problem if the currents were not so dangerous. On the other side in New Jersey you can see the sand on the bottom and see several feet down at the fish in the water. 20 years ago the water was much more polluted but industry has moved to China cleaning the river up. Near south street seaport you can see a beach too from the bridge too as the east river becomes cleaner. ... now the waters in Flushing are contaminated still with seawage and I would avoid those.

    19. Re:Eh? by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      that's not trolling, that's the truth.

  4. +pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as opposed to the normal everyday minus pool

  5. Several pools of this kind already exists by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    They're called "ocean swimming pools", and have been around for over a hundred years now. Help yourself to a google image search and enjoy the beautiful images.

    1. Re:Several pools of this kind already exists by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I feel I must recommend that people stop looking before they get to page 4...

      I can say no more without risking subjecting myself to a defamation lawsuit.

    2. Re:Several pools of this kind already exists by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Turn safe search off and that defamation lawsuit risk won't show up until much later on

  6. Better Be Some Good Filters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, filtering for parasites, and particulate waste is fine, but what about chemicals?

    What was all that business about New York water showing unnatural traces of caffeine and acetaminophen?

    1. Re:Better Be Some Good Filters... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      GE Has done an excellent job at convincing the public that the EPA is trying to hurt the environment by trying to get the river cleaned up. I wouldn't worry about chemicals like PCB and stuff. GE says it is fine.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Better Be Some Good Filters... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That's a new one. Typically business has the attitude of "Environment? Is it profit? If not, then FUCK the environment."

  7. Liability nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost of insurance for a venture such as this would be outrageous!

  8. OR.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They could use these magical three layers to filter farther upstream where likely several inconsiderate companies are flushing nasties into the river and make those companies pay for it. THEN people could swim in the river like they should be able to. Letting people put nasties into the river is the problem. Duh.

    1. Re:OR.... by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      "nasties" in the river, huh?

    2. Re:OR.... by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Magic solves everyone's problems. In this case the first layer (sediment filtration) is probably the only feasible layer on any scale. If the other two would even be possible the cost would grow exponentially, leaving you a pool costing more than a space shuttle.

    3. Re:OR.... by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      They could use these magical three layers to filter farther upstream where likely several inconsiderate companies are flushing nasties into the river and make those companies pay for it. THEN people could swim in the river like they should be able to. Letting people put nasties into the river is the problem. Duh.

      Good luck with that. Most of the ecological damage to the east river (including one of the largest and longest in duration oil spills in history) was done a long time ago by companies that no longer exist. Putting something up river would be ineffective as the riverbed has been contaminated in all directions for over a century.

      Still, it's New York. If you care about whether or not something is clean, it's not where you live. The whole fucking city smells like rotting garbage and urine in the summer.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    4. Re:OR.... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I'd say just close down those companies. If they can't play nice, they don't deserve to be in business at all.

  9. Re:Cautious optimism! by Flyerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about the massive increase in subluxation diagnoses that have occurred as the a result of increased number of chiropractors?

    It has been proven that a single chiropractor can cause dozens of subluxation diagnoses!

  10. Ah, now I understand by Megahard · · Score: 4, Funny

    How those Jersey Shore people get their orange "tans".

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  11. Been done before by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    I thought US Airways already tried to do this with an old Airbus A-320 back in '09? It wasn't quite as popular back then because it was January and frigid,. . .

  12. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, are trying to out kook APK? Good start, but you'll have to work harder.

  13. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.chirowatch.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism
    http://www.ukskeptics.com/chiropractic.php

    Chiropractic was invented in 1895 by Canadian-born Daniel David Palmer; a medically unqualified layman. He had been a grocer before becoming a "magnetic healer" (transferring "healing energy" to patients by touching or waving hands over them) in Burlington, Iowa, USA.

    LOL.

  14. Another sign of societal decadence by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    ...and what exactly is the point? To separate the rich hedonists from a little more of their disposable income? I sure don't see those of us commoners being able to take "advantage" of such a ridiculous luxury.

    1. Re:Another sign of societal decadence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its going to be public

    2. Re:Another sign of societal decadence by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      By separating the rich hedonists from their money you can then employ waiters, pool cleaners, construction people, and pool designers plus hundreds of useless people in government to get the required permits.

      So yes, that is the point. To get people to spend money.

      Now of course we're both assuming that this will be a private pool and privately funded. What will really happen is that someone will make it a public project and build this instead of hiring a few more cops, repairing roads, or performing some other necessary function of government.

    3. Re:Another sign of societal decadence by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      We don't need more cops, if anything we need less. They have enough of them to bother people committing victimless crimes, or minor traffic violations.

    4. Re:Another sign of societal decadence by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Redirect the cops to solve crimes that have victims.

  15. Nice Slashvertisement by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Nice Slashvertisement.

    Maintenance costs would kill this thing quickly, as would the passage of chemicals the filters failed to catch. Cleaning the inside of a pool sucks, but cleaning BOTH sides? Lovely.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Nice Slashvertisement by alta · · Score: 1
      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    2. Re:Nice Slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maintenance costs would kill this thing quickly

      Yeah, given it's the Hudson, I doubt those filters would last very long.

    3. Re:Nice Slashvertisement by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      How long would it last in a river like this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

      Drop your pool in the water, then try to filter out the components after your pool disolves?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  16. Eh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the narrow sense, this seems like a reasonably clever, if not entirely novel solution; but in the broader sense it leaves me skeptical.

    If your river has sufficiently high levels of pathogenic viruses and bacteria that it isn't swimmable, you should seriously consider pretending to be a first-world country for 15 minutes and check out this cool "sanitation systems, so you don't have to drink and swim in your own shit!" fad that all the cool civil engineers have been nattering on about since, oh, the Roman Empire or so...

    If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

    If your swimmers just can't handle the terror of a little silt or the normal flora of a watershed ecosystem, maybe they need a psych referral, not a pool filter.

    1. Re:Eh... by russotto · · Score: 1

      If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

      NYC is at the mouth of the Hudson. Everything on the river is upstream of it Moving NYC to the source is an idea, but I don't think it's going to go over well. The Hudson is the NY/NJ border for a long ways, and pollution from NJ doesn't respect the political boundary.

    2. Re:Eh... by phayes · · Score: 2

      Even though the first world has cleaned up immensely over the past 50-70 years I have major doubts of there being a safely swimmable river flowing through ANY major city, first world or not. Being on the shore of a major lake or by the ocean doesn't count and cleanup takes multiple decades before levels of toxic chemicals fall enough to become safe again. Even with advanced sewage treatment all it takes is a rainstorm for the coastal waters to be off limits for a week or so.

      I think you need to suffer the consequences of drinking the diluted shit of a few million people a few times before hopping on your high horse.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:Eh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Oh, I've taken more than a few unprotected impromptu-post-capsize swims in the dubiously swimmable waters of a river flowing through a major city... I did try to keep my mouth shut during the process, of course...

    4. Re:Eh... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      In the narrow sense, this seems like a reasonably clever, if not entirely novel solution; but in the broader sense it leaves me skeptical.

      It's about New York City, you're supposed to be skeptical. At the very least.

      If your river has sufficiently high levels of pathogenic viruses and bacteria that it isn't swimmable, you should seriously consider pretending to be a first-world country for 15 minutes and check out this cool "sanitation systems, so you don't have to drink and swim in your own shit!" fad that all the cool civil engineers have been nattering on about since, oh, the Roman Empire or so...

      The Romans never had to deal with Wall Street. That's an enormous amount of shit.

      If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

      What russotto said. Nuking the petrochemical plant that is New Jersey would likely be a good idea. Maybe we can trade Moscow with the Russians.

      If your swimmers just can't handle the terror of a little silt or the normal flora of a watershed ecosystem, maybe they need a psych referral, not a pool filter.

      Again. We're talking about New York. The entire city IS a psych referral. Gone Bad.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of several, at least in Canada. Potable, no, sadly. Swimmable, certainly.

    6. Re:Eh... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      About 5 miles of New Jersey riverbank is due north of Manhattan. Very little of it even developed, much less into a toxic wellspring.

      And behind that is some of the best parts of Joizey, if Zillow is to be believed.

    7. Re:Eh... by bradleyjg · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually walked along the Hudson at the bottom of the Palisades? That 'hiking' trail is more like a garbage dump. Typical NJ.

    8. Re:Eh... by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      You talking abot ma famaly? You Cabage! You are CABAGE! You Hear Me?!?!

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    9. Re:Eh... by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      I give you Switzerland. Nearly all rivers there are impeccably clean, even the one going through their largest city, in which they organize a yearly swimming event (weather and flow rate permitting). See also http://www.zurika.com/2007/08/floating-through-city.html (random hit on Google).

    10. Re:Eh... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Zurich, Geneva, Toronto, Chicago or even Detroit don't make the cut as they are either directly on a lake or the river is directly fed from one. In Zurich's case it's called "Lake Zurich". Find a major city on a river that suffered heavy industrial polution during the early 20th century that has brought the river back to a consistently safe to swim state. There may be a few exceptions but either their rivers were never heavily polluted or they've done a herculean task over decades.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    11. Re:Eh... by phayes · · Score: 1

      I've been dunked in Hudson, Niagra, St Laurent, Mississippi, Ohio, Thames & Seine without a problem but I've seen also seen people develop nasty skin rashes after swimming in waters that were nominally safe.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    12. Re:Eh... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Did it smell like shit?

  17. Re:Cautious optimism! by crypticedge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chiropractic practitioners are glorified scam artists. Please do us all a favor and stop using posting your lies on every article, as there is no proof that anything you have claimed on here was even partially accurate. Chiropractors cannot help with cancer, this is a known fact. Chiropractors cannot fix chemical related illnesses, this is also a known fact.

    Your entire field of study was created by a man with no medical knowledge who was attempting to make himself rich while pedaling voodooesque techniques, and anyone who buys into them has one critical problem above all else. They are damned retarded.

    Chiropractor diagnosed illnesses are one thing above all else, a lie.

  18. Re:Cautious optimism! by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Swimming pools are a toxic soup of deadly chemicals like Chlorine, Bromine, Cyanuric Acid, Sodium Bisulphate and Sodium Carbonate.

    Straight from Wikipedia:

    Sodium carbonate is a food additive (E500) used as an acidity regulator, anti-caking agent, raising agent and stabilizer. It is one of the components of kansui, a solution of alkaline salts used to give ramen noodles their characteristic flavor and texture.[5][6] Sodium carbonate is also used in the production of sherbet powder. The cooling and fizzing sensation results from the endothermic reaction between sodium carbonate and a weak acid, commonly citric acid, releasing carbon dioxide gas, which occurs when the sherbet is moistened by saliva.

    You know what? I'm not even going to bother looking up the rest of those chemical compounds.

  19. Re:Cautious optimism! by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the worst effect of a toxine is a subluxation..... well .... isn't "toxic" a bit misleading??

    "OMG he just ate arsenic - get a chiropractor - QUICK! !!"

    --
    bickerdyke
  20. Re:Cautious optimism! by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    Dr. Bob, I fear it is attitudes and chiropractors that have these kinds of "theories" that give chiropractic medicine a bad name. If you can point to journals or actual scientific studies which support these theories then I would be less inclined to dismiss. My brother is a chiropractor and so I am very familiar with what they can and can't do for you and how they can really help you. Health education and all is great and a part of it, but baseless statements with no documentation is not a way to promote the benefits of chiropractic medicine.

  21. Re:Cautious optimism! by crypticedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vaccines are a necessary item to cause herd immunity to diseases. We stop using them and things like small pox and polio and that sort return. It's your kind that is killing people and creating super diseases and you should be put on trial as the accomplice to murder that you are.

    There was another man people called great spouting nonsensical gibberish too. They made a religion from his books called Scientology. That doesn't mean he still wasn't a crackpot though (hint: they both were)

  22. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, APK!

    He was good for epic lulz before "lulz" was even coined as a term.

  23. old rehashed news by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    I've been seeing this same copy and image set for nearly two years now, here and there online. Will this just keep getting rehashed until it gets the funding/approvals that it needs?

    --
    Reply to That ||
  24. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still prefer the HOSTS file guy.

  25. Clean filters..? by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

    If the pool IS the filter, how would you go about cleaning/changing the filters so they filter properly? Change the entire pool out? I can't think of any other way to do it. It's just like my reverse-osmosis water system. The filters clog, and need replacing or cleaning. There's no way to do that here.

    --
    Bite my shiny metal ass!
  26. Re:Cautious optimism! by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    It's a "toe-may-toe" "toe-mah-toe" thing:

    Isn't that reflexology? Or am I thinking about retifism?

  27. This is a proposal for the "East River" by zenyu · · Score: 1

    The "East River" is what people outside of New York City like to call the Atlantic Ocean.

    You can already go swimming in it, but as I understand it the idea here is to let you swim in the ocean without worrying about jellyfish, the tide pulling you out to sea, or the occasional shark frightening you.

    You can also go swimming in the Hudson which is an actual river. There it is best to stay within the designated swimming areas mostly because it's relatively easy to get washed out to sea.

    1. Re:This is a proposal for the "East River" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Since when are New Yorkers worried about sharks and jellyfish? It's the other way around.

      Have you seen the tentacles on those things coming out of the buildings? Way scary.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  28. Re:Cautious optimism! by crypticedge · · Score: 1

    Do you have any peer reviewed sources that have actually withstood real scientific scrutiny? NaturalNews is far from a credible source, and Journal of Vertebral subluxation research is obviously a biased source. As for the Dr, well this disclaimer kind of sums it up at the bottom of his page * These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.

  29. How about not dumping stuff in to begin with? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah, it's a radical idea. But maybe if you didn't dump so much crap in the the East River, it wouldn't be hazardous to swim in.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  30. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it a rest, Tom/Barbie. Only you care about the HOSTS file guy.

  31. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still prefer the HOSTS file guy.

    isnt APK the HOSTS file guy?

    Or are you saying you like the name "HOSTS file guy" better?

  32. Nothing wrong with Chlorine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your insinuation that Chlorine is a carcinogin is not supported by science or even anecdotal experience.

    The main problem with swimming pools & chlorine causing irritation is ironically caused by *not enough* chlorine, since the the chlorine combines with septic materials to form chloramines. which are highly irritating to people. Look it up on Wikipedia, its basically forms of ammonia.

    In fact, most swimming pools would benefit from significantly higher levels of chlorine. It would be safer and cleaner.

    Chlorine gets a bad rap from people who generally don't know what they're talking about, or have something expensive to sell you.

    And yes, I have decades of pool experience.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess that the irritation is more from the septic by-products than the chloramines - some public water supplies are treated with chloramines and it's safe to swim in the water. Unless there are very high levels of chloramines (significantly more than 2-4 ppm?)... but then, if there's not enough chlorine, most of it will be consumed by the organic materials and there won't be much left to form chloramines.

      Also, I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia article stating that chloramines were significantly irritating to people in dilute solutions such as you'd find in drinking water or the water in a swimming pool.

      And yes, I work for a public water utility which uses chloramines as the disinfection residual.

    2. Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      I think the issue with swimming pools is a combination of chloramines and poor pH balance.

      The thing is, its very easy to keep pH & chlorine balanced, but pool companies like to make it appear complex. So most homeowners think its a process akin to turning lead into gold. Its not. 30 minutes a week with a pool will keep it clean.

      A private pool should be shocked (superchlorination) once every two weeks or sooner if its extremely hot and you have a lot of people in the pool.

      Commercial Pools deal with the problem differently, since the amount of organic chloramines is much higher (see this article) http://aquamagazine.com/post/Shock-and-Gnawing-Doubts.aspx , using potassium monopersulfate instead of just superchlorination.

      The important point is, commercial pools, particularly indoor pools have a whole lot more issues to deal with, lots more people, a wider variety of sensitivities, etc that should force commercial pool operators to be a lot more careful with what they do.

      For homeowners? Most can get by with $60-100 of chemicals per season, however, the pool industry doesn't make any money selling you chlorine and baking soda, they like to sell you something significantly more expensive. So you have a cottage industry that comes up with chlorine alternatives that are less effective and significantly more costly.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    3. Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      And yes, I have decades of pool experience.

      As an experienced pool boy, do you have to bring your own music soundtracks with you or do they come with the pool?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Interesting, google search results is full of claims that chlorine kills, but most of those claims link directly to water filter sales. The most reliable of my finds says that rats and mice are immune to chlorine. Someone ought run those tests on humans! Anyways, thanks for debunking that myth.

    5. Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its likely your mom pays the guy well to come over and tend her pool if you get my drift.

      In fact, you might be the pool boy's son.

  33. Re:Cautious optimism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes. Just like oncologists have "massively increase[d]" cancer diagnoses. I go to a chiropractor for certain injuries where experience tells me that I will get back to life-as-normal much faster with adjustments from the chiropractor than going to a normal doctor (whom I'm unlikely to get in to see within a week anyway) or just managing it on my own. That doesn't mean I believe half their crap, and I've never had any chiropractor use the term "subluxation" on me (I'd probably find a new chiropractor after that). All that said, that fact that a group of professionals (let's use the term loosely, for the sake of argument) arises and a corresponding rise in diagnoses made by said professionals occurs does not mean that they're snake-oil salesmen. It's entirely reasonable to deduce that these issues were on-going prior to chiropractic and we now have people trained to diagnose and treat them. Of course, the fact that it's reasonable and plausible doesn't make it true, either. My point is that correlation != causation, and you're making the same ascientific blunder that the rest of society does which is so derided on slashdot, but because it's against chiropractic, it's acceptable for some uninformed reason.

    (This is not a slight against the GP - their rant is entirely parody, making fun of the chiropractic claims, and thus is actually making a similar claim against chiropractic that I'm making against the parent, but doing so through parody instead of directly.)

  34. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, not everyone knows who APK is but everyone who saw the epic post knows that HOSTS file guy means.

  35. Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The picture shows the view of Manhattan from Hoboken, NJ. Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture. Those are the Jerseyites that we so love to make fun of!

    1. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      We don't make fun of the people in New Jersey, we just pity them for living in a state that sucks.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Nope. All of the pictures are from Brooklyn, with one exception which is from Governors Island. There are no bridges to NJ except the GW, which isn't featured, so all the shots with bridges are from Brooklyn. There is one picture from Williamsburg (or possibly Greenpoint) without a bridge, you can tell you are viewing the city from the east as the Chrysler building is to the right of the Empire State and closer to the camera.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      There are no bridges to NJ except the GW

      Staten Island, the bastard child of NYC since '80s would like to say to you, WTF.

      Bayonne Bridge, Outerbridge Crossing and Goethals Bridge all accessible from Verrazano-Narrows to Jersey.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    4. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      I meant to NJ from "The City". To anyone not familiar with NYC, only Manhattan counts as "The City" to locals. I once rented a car from Hertz in Manhattan and handed the clerk a MD drivers license. She asked me, "Do you have an address in the city?" I figured she just wanted a local, not out-of-state address, so I gave her the address of the place I was staying in Brooklyn. She gives snorts and says, "No in 'The City'"! Evidently she was asking because Brooklyn and Manhattan have different tax rates for rental cars, but since I was new in town I didn't know the lingo.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      I bet, she watched one too many episodes of "Sex and The City". As a NYC local, please do accept my apology on behalf.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    6. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      I didn't catch this first time I read it...

      she was asking because Brooklyn and Manhattan have different tax rates for rental cars

      whaaaa??? Only tax there is MCTD tax on rental besides state and local tax. Local tax is same in every borough/county in NYC. Regardless it's in Manhattan or Brooklyn, it's same MCTD jurisdiction. However rental cars rates (not tax) do differ depending on where you rent it and return it between NYC 5 boroughs.

      Next time, please do lookup tax rate in NY http://www8.nystax.gov/STLR/stlrHome if you think you've been scammed.

      Again, for the second time, I do apologize on behalf... uggg...

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    7. Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe it was the rental rate not the tax. This was a while ago, and no one has ever asked me that question since. I still have the same MD license.

      The only time I ever felt screwed by Hertz was the time I specifically asked for a Subaru (it was snowing and I wanted the four wheel drive) and they gave me a Pontiac G6. I called them, confirmed they had it over the phone, and they promised to hold it for me. I even got there 30 minutes early. But no Subaru, instead I had to drive to Ithaca in a tiny little G6 during that terrible blizzard of 2008. I doubt that car had much of a transmission left, as I had to keep it in first the whole time and often at the red line to keep up with the bat-shit insane SUV drivers.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  36. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mentioned countless excellent Chiropractic videos on YouTube. Some have dozens of thumbs up from other Chiros: peer review in action.

    That's all it takes to establish truth?

    So, what you're saying is, because a bunch of teenagers have fart pipes and giant wings on their hand-me-down civic, and other teenagers give their youtube videos thumbs up, we ALL need to have 3-level wings and coffee can exhaust?

    Shit man, your wisdom is boundless!

    Wait, does your chiropractic office sell wings and fart pipes? I just want to make sure you're not trying to mislead me here with biased conflict-of-interest.

  37. Re:Cautious optimism! by jank1887 · · Score: 1

    "Chiropractor-diagnosed illness in which the subluxation contained extraordinarily high levels of Chlorine"

    This statement is so full of win I don't know where to start. so now subluxations are like sponges. got it. but manipulating the sponge will squeeze out the chlorine? will we see a mop bucket style squeezer at the next chiro-conference?

    Chiro's can help with musculoskeletal problems in very similar fashion to physical therapy. everything else is snake oil.

  38. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A steaming liter bowl of radioactivity sound delicious right now!! Then I can subluxate all over the place. Then my chiropractor will touch my radioactive subluxations and he will subluxate everywhere. Soon the entire world will be a steaming pile of subluxations all because of my liter of warm zesty radioactivity. BWAHAHAHAHA

  39. What about just cleaning up the river? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

    Seems like that would be an even better idea. But what do I know?

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:What about just cleaning up the river? by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      It is a better idea, only so much containment and junk has settled down into the sludge at the bottom of the rivers that the only way to get it out would be dredging the river (they've been dredging the Hudson for years). Problem is that dredging churns up so much of the contaminants that they are trying to remove, it almost isn't worth it.

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  40. Re:Cautious optimism! by tibit · · Score: 0

    I think someone missed the point. Methinks it should be modded +5, Funny

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  41. Re:Cautious optimism! by Flyerman · · Score: 1

    Actually, Dr Bob makes these posts all the time, I doubt he's a parody.

    I was making a joke though, woosh!

  42. Safe to assume... by MoldySpore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it filters out hypodermic needles?

    On a more serious note, last time I docked my boat at a marina in NYC (on my way to the long island sound), not only was the water disgustingly dirty, but the smell was overbearing. The rest of my family stayed in a hotel the rest of the night while I roughed it out on the boat to keep an eye on things. In the morning, a garbage truck showed up to empty some of the large garbage bins out. When they lifted it up with the truck, the liquid sludge in the bottom of the bin started to leak out the bottom. They then drove it over to the edge, and let it empty into the river. I have never smelled a worse smell in my entire life.

    I love NYC and NY in general. But swimming in the water down there? No thanks.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:Safe to assume... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Film it next time, that sounds actionable.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  43. Re:Cautious optimism! by grub · · Score: 1


    Coming from a pool owner: most of those chemicals are all actually legit in the maintenance of a pool.
    - Chlorine kills algae
    - Bromine is used mostly in hot tubs and spas I think, I've never used it in our pool but see it for sale at the pool/spa/hot tub supplier.
    - Cyanuric Acid is stabilizer for the chlorine. It helps prevent sunlight from neutralizing the chlorine. "Stabilized Chlorine" has the acid included in the granules or pucks.
    - Sodium Bisulphate is an acid used to bring down high pH levels. Commonly called "pH down" by the manufacturers.
    - Sodium Carbonate raised pH levels. Commonly called "pH up" by the manufactureres.

    That all said, I don't recall reading about dangerous subluxations on the MSDS...

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  44. Re:old rehashed news : RTFA & stop injest the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earliest story was about the desgin idea ......the recent news is that they are in stage three ie material & prototype testing and have a kickstarter campaign running until July 15th.

    Stage two funding was self funded by a few groups with the in-house expertise.

    So given the timeline I think they are advancing this project at a decent pace and that an update on the project is warranted.

  45. Re:Cautious optimism! by uofitorn · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't be bothered. You've been trolled.

    --
    "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
    "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
  46. Cleaning the used water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Yorkers in general have dirty mouths. How are they planning to clean ~that water? Ok, I'm kidding. Hey, don't make me do this.. Fuhgettaboutit!

  47. Re:Cautious optimism! by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    Coming from a pool owner: most of those chemicals are all actually legit in the maintenance of a pool.

    No doubt. I was just pointing out that not only are they not hazardous to humans in levels found in swimming pools, but the last one at least is so non-hazardous (ok, nothing is 100% non-hazardous) that it's added to our food - it's basically about as hazardous as baking soda.

    (And if ramen noodles have a toxic, deadly chemical in them, I'm in a heap of trouble. Though some would claim that MSG is pretty bad, so it's not like I eat them all the time.)

  48. Re:old rehashed news : RTFA & stop injest the by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    Thanks

    --
    Reply to That ||
  49. Why? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is a dumb question, but what about something like the pool plus, except not in the river? I mean the swimming pool is an old idea, what the point of putting it in a river? Why not put it next to the river, treat the water river water with chlorine, put it in the pool, and dump the old water back into the river or just down the sewer?

    1. Re:Why? by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the limited land space and cost of land vs being able to use an "un-used" section of the river

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lack of space I suppose?

    3. Re:Why? by aug24 · · Score: 1
      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  50. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    KRAMER: Well my swimming pool problems are solved. I just found myself miles and miles of open lanes.

    JERRY: What is that smell?

    KRAMER: That's East River.

    JERRY: You're swimming in the East River? The most heavily trafficked overly contaminated waterway on the eastern seaboard?

    KRAMER: Technically Norfolk has more gross tonnage.

    JERRY: How could you swim in that water?

    KRAMER: I saw a couple of other guys out there.

    JERRY: Swimming?

    KRAMER: Floating, they weren't moving much. But they were out there.

  51. Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide by leuk_he · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A pool in the hudson would be filled with a lot of dihydrogen monoxide. This might be the main hazard people will be exposed to.

            Dihydrogen monoxide:

                    is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
                    contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
                    may cause severe burns.
                    is fatal if inhaled.
                    contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
                    accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
                    may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
                    has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

            Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

                    as an industrial solvent and coolant.
                    in nuclear power plants.
                    in the production of Styrofoam.
                    as a fire retardant.
                    in many forms of cruel animal research.
                    in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
                    as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

    PS.. mod as funny ;)

    1. Re:Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love that it got modded insightful. It scares me that I don't know if that was intentional or the mods just think it's really interesting.

  52. Re:Cautious optimism! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Ok, maybe I could believe in this if they could produce a picture of a subluxation. X-Ray, MRI, even a photograph. They can't do it.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  53. Re:Cautious optimism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My spouse is a neurologist at a Manhattan hospital, located not far from the spot photographed on the picture (pool is a neat idea, btw). She says that they constantly have new patients arriving with neck damage, which is CAUSED by chiropractors. Her advice: don't let chiropractors anywhere near your neck.

    Recently, they had a chiropractor visit their hospital to give a presentation on how all of this is libel, perpetrated by the enemies of the chiropractic profession. The presentation was cut short by a heated argument between the presenter and one of the neurology chiefs: they could not agree on the main point of the presentation.

    So while the correlation between doctors and diseases is rather famous, if chiropractor visits correlate with subsequent neurological issues, it is a little worrying.

  54. Re:Cautious optimism! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    Parody? Perhaps. Troll? Definitely. But, by Cthulhu's Tentacles, he is a damn fine one. Just look how many people swallow his bait hook, line and sinker in every single story. Getting his same pitch in on topic in lots of threads, mostly making FP and not even bragging about it. Dr Bob walks tall amongst trolls. He is a paragon of trolldom and a shining example for the young generation. I salute him.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  55. Re:Cautious optimism! by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    I know he's a troll. Sometimes it's just amusing to pretend he's serious and take pot shots at the ridiculous crap he posts, though.

    And to be honest I'm not entirely convinced that he doesn't really believe the stuff he posts.

  56. Or they could just swim in the river... by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

    Or they could just swim in the river like normal people. People swim in the hudson all the time, and it is a busy river for recreational boating. Absolutely nothing wrong with that water. City folk and other yuppie snobs like those who can afford or would want to live in the city see anything but clear water as dirty. News flash: Most rivers are murky and do not have great clarity, especially tidal rivers that are dredged for big shipping traffic.

    1. Re:Or they could just swim in the river... by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      Actually, the parts of the Hudson above NYC are fine. That water is clean when compared to the water that sits in the small bays and accumulates around the mouth to the long island sound. I grew up swimming in the Hudson up by Poughkeepsie and Kingston. It is fine up there. But down in the East River and that area? You would never get in that water. And if you do, I wouldn't want to be near you after you did ;)

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  57. Not feasible by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    It would never work. You can take the river water out of New York, but you just can't get the New York out of the river.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  58. This is honestly... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    ...one of the most sad an pathetic stories I've read this week. The idea is genius, but the need for it is an indictment.

    --
    I8-D
  59. How clean is the water? by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    I find the idea moderately interesting. But, the article says that the water would be filtered by the permeable membrains. I don't know if the laws are different in NY, but here in FL, any non-residential swimming pool has to have a pump and filter running 24x7, so I'm guessing this is also true here. The membranes keep the big junk out and the traditional pumps and filters keep the water somewhat clean.

    If this actually came about, it would probably be a fad that people found interesting for a year or so and then interest would probably die off. I'd be interested to know how many times the water is changed per hour/day/week, etc. If the membranes only change 10% of the water a day, I don't know that I'd want to swim in it. If they don't chlorinate the water and 20 people take a leak in it, I don't want to be swimming in there.

  60. That's what I was wondering by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    I was in New York a few years ago and the river water didn't seem all that bad.

  61. All the 1337 kids by sean.peters · · Score: 2

    ... are using Pool++

  62. Dr. Bob's Greatest Hits! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Would you drink a litre of radioactivity?

    Radioactivity is energy. You cannot measure it in volume. You could say something like a liter of radioactive waste, but of course that doesn't tell you how much radioactivity is involved, as you could have a very small amount of radioactive material in a liter of otherwise uninteresting water.

    You didn't actually study physics in college, did you?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.