Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Designer Creates a Water Bottle That You Can Eat

Posted by samzenpus on from the eating-trash dept.

Diggester (2492316) writes "Rodrigo García González has been working on the Ooho water bottle for the past few years. The bottle is made out of edible materials, looks like a jellyfish, and has the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry. Inspired by the juice-filled pearls added to bubble tea and the mad-cuisine creations of chef Ferran Adriá, who uses a technique known as sheperification (encasing liquid into edible membranes), García is on his way to revolutionizing the bottled water industry."

129 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. You say sheperification, I say spherification by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    Let's call the whole thing off.

  2. Huh? by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, the "bottle" can be eaten...but is the "bottle" placed in a sealed box or other container? Or, before use, do you have to sterilize it before use? Plus, not that it is healthy to reuse a water bottle, I see a lot of them being refilled around colleges, businesses, parks etc...

    1. Re:Huh? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      refilling plastic bottles in public places spreads diseases. our work place had 4 water coolers on each floor and they had to be regularly sanitized because people were getting ill from refilling their bottles

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:Huh? by causality · · Score: 1

      refilling plastic bottles in public places spreads diseases. our work place had 4 water coolers on each floor and they had to be regularly sanitized because people were getting ill from refilling their bottles

      Not to mention the long-term effects of BPA exposure. If you don't know about this, I'd recommend researching it.

      Besides, I think stainless steel just looks better and I know I'm not going to break it. When you have and regularly use an electric kettle anyway, you can quickly sanitize a steel container too.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Huh? by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      BPA Free water bottles are common place now.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    4. Re:Huh? by nightsky30 · · Score: 2

      BPA Free water bottles are common place now.

      Except that it appears the BPA alternatives they created as replacements can be just as bad, and sometimes worse. http://www.motherjones.com/env...

    5. Re:Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.

      Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    6. Re:Huh? by causality · · Score: 4, Informative

      BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.

      Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.

      It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

      As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.

      So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.

      Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Huh? by Megane · · Score: 2

      Years ago I would get sick a lot such that I had to throw up. I would get horrible sewer odor belches as part of the process. I think it's what people politely call "stomach flu". It took me a long time to realize it was because of the plastic cup I was using.

      But it wasn't because of "diseases", it was because of mildew growing in the damp narrow bit under the lid where it snapped onto the rest of the cup. That stuff WILL make me throw up if I ingest it. It was just too hard to keep clean. So now I normally use a cup with no lid, and make sure it's empty when I leave at the end of the day so it can dry out. And if I'm going to be lazy with the dishes, I make sure to not let them stay wet in the sink for more than a day or so. Once mildew gets in there, not only is it going to make you sick, it's also a pain in the ass to clean off.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Fact: Polycarbonate is made using bisphenol. BPS leeches much more than BPA. BPA-Free polycarbonate uses BPS, so banning BPA will expose us to greater toxins. Enjoy your toxic non-BPA baby bottles.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    9. Re:Huh? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Pray tell how in the actual fuck sanitizing the *cooler* helped with people getting sick from their *bottles*?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    10. Re:Huh? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't pass the sniff test. You are going to have to give an explination as to the vector for disease to spread into the water coolers from the bottle for this to be believable. And it has to be a vector that would not apply to any other kind of container.

      Most likely they just needed to be cleaned periodically anyway due to always being damp, and someone who didn't understand what was happening heard that refilling water bottles is unhealthy. So, they made up that the coolers needed cleaning because they were making people sick. Then office myth just spread from there.

    11. Re:Huh? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      If I had to choose between Bisphenol A ("BPA") and Bisphenol S ("BPS") based on the chemistry, I would choose BPS. Why? BPA is a synthetic organic compound with a dimethylmethylene group, whereas BPS is a regular organic compound with a sulfonyl group. 4,4'-(propane-2,2-diyl)diphenol and 4,4'-Sulfonyldiphenol respectively.

      2 C6H5OH + H2SO4 (C6H4OH)2SO2 + 2 H2O

      Why do you say BPS leeches more?

    12. Re:Huh? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      That should have read: 2 C6H5OH + H2SO4 -> (C6H4OH)2SO2 + 2 H2O

    13. Re:Huh? by causality · · Score: 1

      Fact: Polycarbonate is made using bisphenol. BPS leeches much more than BPA. BPA-Free polycarbonate uses BPS, so banning BPA will expose us to greater toxins. Enjoy your toxic non-BPA baby bottles.

      Actually as I said in another post in this same discussion, my preference is for stainless steel containers. No plastic -> no need for plastic softeners -> no exposure to BPA or any other chemical serving its purpose.

      But many people here do feel a need to show everyone how clever they are and how dumb everyone else is, even if they have to make baseless assumptions to try it, don't they?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    14. Re:Huh? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      The spout where you drink from the bottle from touches the nozzle where the water is dispensed from, the germs transfer from the cooler to the bottle as more and more people refill their bottle. i thought it was odd too but there was a rash of notices put on every cooler saying "do not use the cooler to fill your bottle"

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    15. Re:Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well there's a study somewhere that Times covered horribly which discovered that BPS can leech 20 times as much as BPA, with similar endocrine activity.

      Synthetic organic compounds and natural organic compounds are both either benign, helpful, or neutral. It depends what the compound is; lots of things from Nature are more toxic than chemically-adjusted synthetic counterparts made more stable and less toxic.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    16. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

      Oh really?

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    17. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Ummm, Time and leach, please. This first would be obvious, the use of the incorrect word in the second case would make the water safer.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    18. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      This doesn't pass the sniff test. You are going to have to give an explination as to the vector for disease to spread into the water coolers from the bottle for this to be believable. And it has to be a vector that would not apply to any other kind of container. Most likely they just needed to be cleaned periodically anyway due to always being damp, and someone who didn't understand what was happening heard that refilling water bottles is unhealthy. So, they made up that the coolers needed cleaning because they were making people sick. Then office myth just spread from there.

      I am going to go with Alice being sick and she refills her infected cup, which transfers to the cooler nozzle. Then healthy Bob fills HIS cup, again making contact. Wash, rinse and repeat, with the additional option of infected containers being potentially able to reinfect the faucet. And that is not factoring in things like molds and mildews.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    19. Re:Huh? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The claim that it was specifically plastic bottles that caused the problem. Your description applies to cups as much as bottles, AND also applies to faucets. You will have to try again if you want to come up with a plausable explination for barsteward's claim.

    20. Re:Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Wow. Leach is actually a chemistry term. Leech means to drain or draw off; Leach means to dissolve and carry away a chemical content by the passing of water. Didn't know that.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    21. Re:Huh? by Megane · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention one other thing. I eventually found out that I recover much quicker from that if I don't eat anything until I actually get really hungry. Often I don't even have to throw up, though I do still spend some quality time in sitting in the "reading room". Eating something before that bad stuff clears out just starts the cycle all over again.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    22. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      The claim that it was specifically plastic bottles that caused the problem. Your description applies to cups as much as bottles, AND also applies to faucets. You will have to try again if you want to come up with a plausable explination for barsteward's claim.

      Not so much, as a vast minority of people use a non-plastic reusable drink containers. By saying "No plastic cups" you pretty much default out everyone in the office.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    23. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Wow. Leach is actually a chemistry term. Leech means to drain or draw off; Leach means to dissolve and carry away a chemical content by the passing of water. Didn't know that.

      Well, the context of the misuse of leech in this case struck me as funny, thus the comment.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    24. Re:Huh? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The claim was that it was specifically plastic bottles that cause the problem. Not plastic cups. Not metal bottles. Not ceramic cups. The claim was that there was something specific to disposible plastic water bottles that was causing people not using the plastic water bottles to become sick. That is simply not a believable story, and saying that people were getting sick from plastic water bottles because plastic cups were making people sick is not an explination as to how plastic water bottles made people sick.

    25. Re:Huh? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Wow. Sorry to trip your meters there. Wouldn't have thought you would fixate so strongly on BOTTLES and forget the base idea behind what I was saying. I hope that works well for you.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    26. Re:Huh? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

      That depends on the fish.

      Leaving aside the fact that everyone attending to this conversation is a fish (to a reasonably close approximation ; out of water, but still fist, in the sense that we've got bones and ... well, that's about it) ... there are fish (of the lives-in-water/ one-lung fat-filled variety) whose life style is to be female UNLESS there are no males around. If there happen to be no males around, the largest of the female fish change sex to become male, until there are sufficient males to suppress the gender changing tendencies of the rest of the female fish.

      There are a lot more ways of organising sex in a species than you got taught about in school. Unless you did a course in fish biology.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:Huh? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The reason that I am "fixating" on BOTTLES is because we all already know that you don't drink from a Pawnee water fountain. But there are legions of people claiming that disposable bottles are posing a special risk that is not posed by any other drinking vessles. Barsteward is one of those people. He made the claim. I called him out on that claim. That is where you came in. You clearly did not read Barsteward's post, as it sounds like you agree with me that the "plastic bottles pose a special risk of infecting water dispensers" claim to be ridiculous.

  3. Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How

    can I refill it?
    how do I drink half a unit?
    how do I keep the outside clean enough to eat?

    1. Re:Pointless? by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think edible implies that it's rapidly biodegradable. You are not commanded to eat it. You can throw it away, and if some enterprising sea turtle eats it, it's not big deal.

    2. Re:Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how do I keep the outside clean enough to eat?

      Just rinse it with water.

    3. Re:Pointless? by alen · · Score: 1

      you're not supposed to refill plastic water bottles
      water breeds bacteria build up. i recycle mine. which in NYC means an old chinese lady takes it out of the garbage dump and takes it to the machine for $.05

    4. Re:Pointless? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      you're not supposed to refill plastic water bottles
      water breeds bacteria build up.

      Daiso (online, Serramonte Plaza, Japan, etc) has "PET BOTTLE WASHER" brushes which are not for pet bottles, but for PET bottles — polyethylene. They have very soft bristles. They're probably just meant for making your trash spotless and clean before recycling, but you could use them for bottle reuse. But you can reuse a drinking vessel two or three times in rapid succession without any notable biofilm buildup, anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Pointless? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're not supposed to refill plastic water bottles

      Yes, there was a Danish study of this. A repeatedly refilled water bottle has a much higher level of bacteria etc. than tap water.

      It's still cleaner than regular bottled water, though.

      Turns out, all that bottled water sitting still at room temperature for months before purchase doesn't do anything for the water quality. Being a Danish study, all of the above assumes you have clean tap water, of course. YMMV.

    6. Re:Pointless? by kruach+aum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Salt is edible but not bio-degradable.

    7. Re:Pointless? by hodet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better yet, for most of the first world, just drink local water. It's idiotic to ship water that comes from a "public source" (aka "the tap") in a city hundreds of miles away.

    8. Re:Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used to live in a "developing country" then I moved to what passes for a developed country ('Murica). I had always had a water filter at home that more or less worked, after the move people suggested the local tap water was ok to drink... for me, let's just say it wasn't. I've even taken to drinking bottled water that I run through a filter. Not taking any chances.

      And in conclusion, don't change the isotopes and pollutants in your water. Your stomach might not take it well.

    9. Re:Pointless? by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Besides, the empty skin looks like a used condom. Eeew.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    10. Re:Pointless? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to consume the water without eating the sphere?

    11. Re:Pointless? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      False. Any salt is easily reduced to its component ions by exposing it to water.

      --
      -
    12. Re:Pointless? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Nope, if I am just on my own, Ill use warm water no soap. If I have guests I will do a proper wash on them. And this answer is for both your questions.. exception is a #2 I will use soap.

      You know why so many people get sick? Because people wash their hands too often, you don't build an immune system when you get no bacteria
      I honestly don't remember the last time I was sick (besides the common cold), probably over 20 years ago. And I am probably this way because I grew up on a farm with a ton of flies and other bacteria spreading bugs, etc. 3 second rule? Forget it 3 minute rule, I don't care if my food falls in the dirt, wipe it off it's good.

      I remember we had a sandbox which our cats loved shitting in, and I would grab the cat shit with bare hands and toss em out, and then go eat dinner without washing my hands (remember I was a kid, I probably wouldn't do that now). The people I find who are the sick most often, are the ones who use antibacterial soap, wash their hands after they do anything, and use hand sanitizer after touching a door knob. Honestly, it makes you wonder how civilization lasted this long, because you can be sure as fuck they weren't using hand sanitizer 300 years ago.

    13. Re:Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the salt just disappears? NO, you now have salt water. The salt is still there, it didn't break down it was absorbed and made the water undrinkable. ------Biodegradation is the chemical dissolution of materials by bacteria or other biological means not mixing salt with water.

    14. Re:Pointless? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I have a plastic cup sitting on my desk that I haven't washed in probably close to 2 years (used only for water). Sure there is basically an 1/8 inch layer of built up calcium at the bottom of the cup but I don't care.

    15. Re:Pointless? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      it's a water condom.
      wouldn't want to eat that.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    16. Re:Pointless? by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      Homo sapiens has overcome tougher challenges that that.

    17. Re:Pointless? by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      You can just funnel the salt water to a coconut palm.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    18. Re:Pointless? by guises · · Score: 1

      No, the salt isn't there any more. Salt water doesn't have salt in it - salt water has ions in it. It's the components of the salt, the sodium mostly, that your body uses.

    19. Re:Pointless? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Do you live in fracking country? Maybe the tap water was safe at one point.

    20. Re:Pointless? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Stick a straw in it. Presumably if you can eat it, it is rather easily punctured.

    21. Re:Pointless? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And what exactly happened to you? Lose your Slashdot UID? Get allergic to sunlight?

      Did something really bad happen and you were forced to buy an iPad?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Pointless? by causality · · Score: 1

      While I use soap a bit more often than you indicate, I am right with you on the antibacterial soap.

      I am not a doctor and this is definitely not medical advice. But If I were worried about bacteria I personally (deciding only for myself) would take a probiotic. About 70% of the immune system is in the gut.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    23. Re:Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting fact, copper door knobs are anti bacterial.
      They are re-introducing copper door knobs and adding copper handles to beds in hospitals to reduce the amount of bacteria. From tests they found just a few metal surfaces that people tent to touch is extremely efficient.

    24. Re:Pointless? by gnunick · · Score: 1

      Yes, in salt water you DO have free sodium and chlorine ions floating around. That's exactly what you have. Sodium (Na+) and Chlorine (Cl-) ions, that is. They are not molecules at this point. Boil off the water and the ionic bonds reform, recreating crystalline salt (NaCl).

      Yes, at least one person around here definitely needs to review their chemistry notes. :)

      --
      I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
    25. Re:Pointless? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I envisioned them as being rather like large tapioca pearls filled with water, and that they way you would "drink" them would be to pop a handful into your mouth and chew.

      OTOH, "looks rather like a jellyfish" is subject to numerous interpretations. It could be just a floppy thing that come in pint and liter sizes.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Pointless? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Yes, there was a Danish study of this. A repeatedly refilled water bottle has a much higher level of bacteria etc. than tap water.

      That bacteria comes from your own mouth though (transferred as you drink from the bottle). While they'll grow to the point where you can smell them if left long enough, it's hardly a rationale for not refilling your own bottle. Unless you're in the habit of injecting a sugar or nutrient solution into your water bottle, I can guarantee you your mouth has higher levels of bacteria than your refilled water bottle. (You could argue against sharing refilled water bottles, since someone else may have different bacteria than you do.)

  4. Almost there by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for someone to invent a reusable water bottle. Then the bottled water industry will really be finished.

    1. Re:Almost there by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I really don't understand how the bottled water industry has become so big. Obviously there is a need for stores to sell bottled water, as we can't always have water on us, but I think it's gotten a little out of hand. When I'm going out for the day, or doing some kind of exercise, I almost always bring a reusable water bottle with me. If I'm not exercising and only going out for a few hours, I can get by without drinking anything until I return home. My main reason for all this is simply the price difference. I can't believe that people would rather spend $1 on a bottle of water then fill it up from their own tap for less than a penny.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Almost there by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to clean it, no one's going to steal it, and if you forget it or lose it, you're only out a dollar. People are paying for convenience, as they always do.

    3. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that people would rather spend $1 on a bottle of water then fill it up from their own tap for less than a penny.

      Well first, most tap water is fucking horrible and most people aren't qualified to install a water filter, because they are useless lames whose only skill involves filing cabinets, or selling people shit they don't need, or one of many skills which have only been developed to support someone else's greed and are based on inefficiency and waste in our society. And second, you don't have access to your tap while you're not home, HTH HAND.

      I personally have installed an RO filter (any monkey with a crescent wrench should be able to do the same) and we have a crapload of klean kanteen-style stainless bottles, so I agree with what you're saying, but most people would rather complain about the price of bottled water than figure out how to install a water filter. But is it their fault they're useless? Or is that a conscious decision based on cognitive dissonance? They convinced themselves that they're not useless based on the idea that only laborers know how to do that stuff anyway, and they're better than that. Amusingly, it would cost them more per hour to have the work done than they actually make, but that doesn't stop them from believing that actual work is below them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know if you take the position that people who can't do what you can must therefore be useless and lame, then that means the only things that you can do just barely require mediocrity.

      The thing is, anyone who can read and follow instructions can install an under-sink water filter. It's not fucking rocket surgery. The only people who can't do it are people who have been convinced that they can't do it, or people with no arms. Even some of them could probably manage it, but I'll go ahead and accept that they are probably in the minority.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Almost there by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      I personally have installed an RO filter (any monkey with a crescent wrench should be able to do the same) and we have a crapload of klean kanteen-style stainless bottles...

      Stainless steel is a filthy metal unless you're using the newer silver-coated stuff.

      Seems a shame to use water from an expensive reverse osmosis filter in an inherently disease-friendly container - why not use a nice glass bottle, or a silver or copper one if you're worried about breakage?

    6. Re:Almost there by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I would love to see something to backup this claim.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    7. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seems a shame to use water from an expensive reverse osmosis filter in an inherently disease-friendly container - why not use a nice glass bottle, or a silver or copper one if you're worried about breakage?

      Besides being expensive, silver and copper are shitty materials for water bottles due to their malleability, as is glass when you're out of the house. I drink from glass at home. For $3 I bought two brushes from Daiso which have a spinning handle so that you just sort of twirl them around and they spin inside the bottle. I line a half-dozen bottles up on the counter and wash them all in series.

      Glass builds up biofilm too, in practice only about twice as slow as stainless. The klean kanteen wasn't designed to automatically be clean, but to be eminently cleanable. Every possible material for a drinking vessel has its own problems, but in terms of being on the go, stainless has the least problems.

      Also, a complete RO system is available under two hundred bucks these days. My personal RO system was originally over a grand, but I didn't pay it. It was a gift from someone who bought it and then never installed it, moving out instead. And it no longer has the expensive faucet, which was too much of a PITA to rebuild when it stopped functioning properly and which I replaced with a ten dollar POS which comes apart easily and has simple O-Ring seals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's true, but only for systems with a post-RO carbon filter. THAT particular filter will all too commonly go unchanged. The same is true of fridge filters.

      The problem arises when you use a carbon filter with water which is not chlorinated. The chlorine coming into the filter kills the bacteria that love to live in the carbon filter. It's not the RO filter itself, which is made of very smooth plastic and which is constantly backflushed when operating correctly.

      An intelligently-designed system, if it includes such a filter at all, will have it located as the last element before the tap. On the pressure tank outlet, you'll install a john guest connector with an integrated ball valve, they cost a couple of bucks. The filter itself, you'll either buy with 3/8 NPT and then install plastic john guest connectors on both ends, or you'll buy them with the connectors integrated which usually costs little more. Then 1/4" tubing runs between these connectors, and on to the tap. In this setup, as long as the lines are left long enough, you can bypass the filter if it tastes funky while waiting for a replacement which you should have had on hand :)

      You used to have to run carbon before your RO, because chlorine would ruin the RO filter. I run a carbon filter before my RO in spite of not being on municipal water, because I assume that my water is under surface influence (you can tell the difference in flavor of the unfiltered water between the serious drought and non-drought times, so it seems a reasonable assumption) and I live in the middle of an agricultural area, so I'm concerned about things like organophosphate runoff. ROs are not known to handle VOCs well, either. They're good on particulates, including microorganisms. But by the system's nature, you typically need a carbon filter before the RO, so the carbon filter has ample opportunity to be colonized.

      tl;dr: it's a real problem but easily avoidable

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Almost there by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I don't have a reverse-osmosis system. Besides the 95% water waste, it removes all the good stuff from the water. Horrible stuff.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:Almost there by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      I don't get it either and really pissed me off as such a waste since you know most poeple are throwing it in the trash instead of putting in recycling. Now I don't use tap water for my regular drinking water as I don't particularly like the taste, so I instead have a water cooler which costs about 26 cents a litre however it is spring water so it tastes really good. So while it is still expensive I don't feel quite as bad since it doesn't cost near as much as bottled water and they reuse them. I just can't stand city water, used to live in the country and our well water was awesome...
      But I don't get people who buy Dasani. Nestle, etc since most of htem just get it from municipal water anyways.. it is glorified tap water...

    11. Re:Almost there by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about a real reverse osmosis (RO) system, then they are anything but simple. I have one on my sailboat (actually two of them). They are entertaining collections of hoses and wires and little computer gizmos and switches. Hours of geeky entertainment, but hardly plug and play. And contamination is an issue for any collection of hoses and pipes. I pull the filters out of the system and chlorine flush them twice a year. They have little tiny UV lights to zap the water.

      If I had paying passengers, I would have to have the system certified and inspected by the state. Hardly assembly programming but you have to have a number of physical and intellectual skills to keep them running.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about a real reverse osmosis (RO) system, then they are anything but simple.

      I don't know anything about how marine systems differ, but typical terrestrial systems are dead simple, and don't require any electricity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I don't have a reverse-osmosis system. Besides the 95% water waste, it removes all the good stuff from the water. Horrible stuff.

      I am so glad I don't have treated water. Besides the energy waste, it removes all the good stuff that might harm me from the water. Horrible stuff. I love amoeba. Wait, is that what you just said? There must be an echo in here.

      My water comes out of a well and the water waste goes into a septic system whose leachfield is in my front yard. The deer come by periodically and eat the grass that grows over it. I maintain the water system. I also manage to get plenty of salts in my diet via food, to which I apply the fancy pink himalayan ancient pre-nukes sea salt. It's not particularly expensive if you buy it in bulk. I don't notice any particular taste difference, the grind is much more of a factor.

      If you are drinking water under surface influence, you're an idiot if you don't use an RO filter, or at least some other filter which is basically going to take all the "good stuff" out anyway. You could also chlorinate, but you'd just want to take the chlorine out anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Almost there by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand how the bottled water industry has become so big.

      Well, first thing they did was spend a great deal of money convincing everyone that tap water tasted bad.

      Once you've got people convinced that the tap water tastes bad, it's not hard convincing them that YOUR water tastes good (even if it's Dasani - tap water run through a filter).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Almost there by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      since you know most poeple are throwing it in the trash instead of putting in recycling.

      Many years ago, recycling came to the area I live.

      So, they started with the "we want you to recycle, since it'll reduce the cost of waste disposal".

      Then they gave out the free recycle bins, to help make it easier for them to do the recycling.

      Alright, reasonable enough, we began recycling.

      Then they tacked a recycling fee onto our waste disposal fee. So rather than reduce the cost of waste disposal, recycling INCREASED the cost of waste disposal.

      So, we stopped using the recycling bin (I keep some camping gear in it - camp stove, lantern, that sort of thing), and went back to tossing everything into the garbage bin. Not like I'm going to pay extra for the privilege of separating my garbage....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Almost there by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Carbon filter and UV FTW. I like calcium and magnesium carbonate in my water. What gives Bass Pale Ale its unique flavor is a ridiculously high carbonate content in Sheffield water (which they now truck in; they used to brew right next to the spring).

      I would totally move somewhere with a well and an exceedingly high content of carbonate in the ground water.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    17. Re:Almost there by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      RO filters are horribly wasteful. In large parts of the country, they should just be outright banned

    18. Re:Almost there by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Your system requires one hell of a lot more knowledge to install and maintain than a simple set of instructions for installing under the sink. I was with you when you called out people on being intentionally helpless, but RO systems are extreamly wastefull. Your recycling system to prevent that waste is simply not accessable to everyone, and a lot more than just the parts under the sink.

    19. Re:Almost there by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is amazing. People buying what usually turns out to be charcoal filtered tap water for more than gas costs. For a month's worth, they could buy a good water filter.

    20. Re:Almost there by sjames · · Score: 1

      Surely even a complete idiot can manage one of those pitchers with the water filter in it. Or a filter that replaces the aerator on the sink.

    21. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but people could just install a simple cartridge filter under their sink that would remove 99.99% (and then some more nines, probably) of everything including heavy metals, VOCs, and chlorine. I just happen to have a more complicated filter, and it's still simple enough for a monkey to install, if that monkey knows how to turn a wrench.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Almost there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      RO filters are horribly wasteful. In large parts of the country, they should just be outright banned

      In my part of the country, the water comes out of a well and goes into a septic system. I am offered neither municipal water nor sewer. I'm glad, because they tend to be very bad at municipal water around here.

      In other parts of the country, the water could be shipped out to the yard to water plants. How much water do you actually drink a day, anyway? Even at a 10:1 ratio you can still reasonably use that water for other purposes.

      But sure, Los Angeles should ban RO. And most of California, perhaps, for people on municipal water.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. But why... by MasseKid · · Score: 1

    But why would I ever want to eat the bottle?

    1. Re:But why... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      no waste if you eat the bottle.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:But why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But why would I ever want to eat the bottle?

      Because it's Pina Colada flavored!!

    3. Re:But why... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Yes there is, it just delays having to deal with that waste by a few hours.

    4. Re:But why... by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Or a few minutes, depending on just how edible the thing is...

    5. Re:But why... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      The container that the edible bottle came in will still count as waste. Unless you plan on having a filthy bag that all the kids have been fondling on the grocery store shelves be the actual thing you are going to eat.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  6. Contamination by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, for the bottle to be edible, it's going to have a removable, non-edible outer wrapping to protect it from contamination during the shipping, handling, and sales process. That means you've just moved the problem one layer out. You're still going to be generating waste.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:Contamination by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      If we decide to not eat it at all (and skip the extra wrapping), I guess it could make for a quickly-decomposing water bottle. Not sure how we prevent it from self-destructing itself while still on the shelf, though...

    2. Re:Contamination by number17 · · Score: 1

      If we decide to not eat it at all (and skip the extra wrapping)

      As mentioned, the extra packaging would be necessary for shipping as these things are as fragile, if not more, than an egg. Ive found that the shipping process isn't as bad as how people handle product in stores. I don't think the average person could handle putting a water balloon in their cart without crushing it.

    3. Re:Contamination by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 4, Informative

      From TFA the technique is already in use with some yogurt. You buy a box of yogurt "balls" that are edible, flavored, and filled with yogurt. When you pack your lunch for school or work you simply grab a ball of yogurt out of the box instead of a yogurt in an individual plastic container. Presumably the box is easier to recycle then the plastic containers.

      This is interesting in the sense that it generates LESS waste and the waste it generates is biodegradable. The "container" is something from brown algae so I guess you could just compost the thing, much like an eggshell...

    4. Re:Contamination by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is interesting in the sense that it generates LESS waste and the waste it generates is biodegradable. The "container" is something from brown algae

      ...and nobody wants to drink from it except kids who don't care if they wind up wearing the contents. We already have compostable plastic bottles made from algae. This "solves" a problem which has already been solved in a superior fashion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Contamination by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You made a bad assumption. Specifically that humans will eat the bottle. Merely having an edible bottle - and allowing dogs, birds, rats, cockroaches, etc. to eat the bottle - would solve a lot of the problem - the landspace and pollution that disposing of said bottle takes.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Contamination by Threni · · Score: 1

      What, like fruit and vegetables?

    7. Re:Contamination by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      This "solves" a problem which has already been solved in a superior fashion.

      I'll bet the first solution wasn't patentable and the newer one is.

      Progress!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Contamination by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of waste involved with the sale of fruits and vegetables, that might not be a good example.

    9. Re:Contamination by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Which is why we'd have to change from "garbage" collection to "compost heap collection"

      Composting requires things like exposure to air, sun, and turning. Output is soil.

    10. Re:Contamination by Threni · · Score: 1

      Waste due to the exterior becoming unwashably dirty, you mean?

  7. Not worried about the water bottle companies by will_die · · Score: 1

    They will just go and convert their product to be disposible water spherification carriers.

  8. I can tell if this is sad or hilarious by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    and has the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry.

  9. Yeah, right. by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    Look out bottle industry. People have been wanting to eat those plastic things that slide down your dirty aluminum rollers and get touched by every customer.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  10. Re:Why? by PPH · · Score: 1

    They'll sell them in blister packs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Not merely 'not completely perfect'. by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

    The current concept is extremely far from being even slightly practical..

    -It's uselessly tiny
    -They can't make a video where someone manages to drink from it without spilling it all over the place.
    -It's so fragile that it can't reasonably be used on its own.
    -It costs 33% the cost of a gigantic bottle to produce, but contains far less than 33% of the volume of water. Cost per unit of water is way high before ignoring how a plastic bottle can be re-used.

    Basically the only thing it has going for it is that it will break down nearly instantly in trash. The problem is we already have materials from which we *can* make a water bottle from that in fact would probably work better than this concept that already can be friendly enough to the environment. The problem is they still aren't practical and can't be used because they lack the durability.

    This concept is a warm fuzzy with zero value over the current possibilities. It doesn't merely have 'kinks' to work out before it can be used, it's just fundamentally flawed as a concept.

    Bottled drinks are a problem, but this is not going to provide a solution.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Not merely 'not completely perfect'. by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Also, the process only works if the water is frozen. That takes about 120 Watt-hours per liter of water. If the entire bottled water industry were converted to this process, that's about 3.6 billion kilowatt-hours used to produce bottles, or about 5% of the total world electricity usage.

      I'd say this process needs some improvement before it will make the world a better place.

  12. Re:No free lunches though...... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    maybe they are using solar or renewable energy to run their electrics

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  13. Similar Appearance by me01chanl · · Score: 1

    I don't think the fact that the "packaging" looks quite a lot like a used condom is going to help the appeal for a large portion of the potential customer base.

  14. except all the flaws by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Impossible to transport, can't eat it if someone touched it on the shelf which means it needs plastic packaging (lol), and Willy Wonka has prior art and likely a patent.

  15. Re:Needs edible cofee cups by pjt33 · · Score: 2

    It's supposed to say sherparification: it's based on the same principle as getting a Nepalese guide to carry your water.

  16. Perpetual consumption machine. by NMBob · · Score: 1

    Once I drink all of the contents and eat the bottle I have to get another bottle to wash down the first one, then after I drink all of that one and eat the bottle I have to get another one to wash that bottle down with, then...

  17. Not the first go at this by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Decades ago there was a "liquid candy" marketed to children that came in small (less than 2 oz. I think) mostly(?)-wax "bottles" that were technically edible.

    I'm using "edible" as a euphemism for "non-toxic, but no real taste and other than to gross out your parents or show off to your friends there was no good reason to eat it rather than throwing it away."

    Was this practical as a "water bottle"? Not really. Is it "prior art" on any related patents? Possibly, especially against any "broad" claims.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Not the first go at this by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt they'd base a patent on any broad claim, when they clearly have a working prototype that isn't made of wax.

  18. Wrong application of the technology by McGruber · · Score: 1

    The bottle is made out of edible materials

    They could make a lot more money if they used the edible materials to make bongs.

  19. How much did they pay you, Slashdot? by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Is Slashdot now a shilling-for-hire website?
    This is not going to kill the bottled water industry, it's not going to do anything, it's some sort of joke at best and rediculous at worst. You'd have to package the damned thing in order to ship them to stores and the packaging would cancel out the lack of a plastic bottle. Instead of zero-calorie water you're drinking, now there's some weird substance containing it that you're supposed to eat? Who the hell would want that, people who buy bottled water want water, not some weird 'alginate' snack! What about this 'alignate'? Since it's edible, won't it also have a shelf life? Won't it go bad long before the water it's containing and have to be discarded? Isn't that also kind of stupid in and of itself? So far as 'solutions looking for a problem' this scores pretty high, even if I personally think that bottled water is a scam and people should just get their own refillable bottle instead.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:How much did they pay you, Slashdot? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      You have misunderstood the real advantage of the bottle. You don't package it, you let it collect bacteria and garbage.

      People don't eat the bottle. Dogs, birds, bugs, rats, squirrels, etc. eat the bottle.

      It's not about feeding people, it's about preventing a ton of non-degradable plastic from filling up our land fills.,

      As for shelf life, you keep it in the refrigerator at a convenience store. There may be a small shelf life problem, but it greatly solves the garbage dump life problem.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:How much did they pay you, Slashdot? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      As I said, people should just get a refillable bottle and use that instead, voila, no more non-degradable plastic waste problem. If you still want to argue that even those are going to create plastic waste, then get a nice insulated aluminum or stainless steel water bottle instead. Either way one-time expense and will last for years and years, probably bloody well forever if you take care of them.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  20. Re:Now to invent a brain that isn't disposable by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    When will people learn that the water they get from the water tap is the same that is bottled...

    When will you learn to stop making stupid statements? Granted, any thing labeled as "spring water", probably is similar to tap, and in some cases is. But purified water certainly is not.

    I installed a RO/DI water filter a couple of decades ago for my saltwater aquarium hobby. It keeps the total dissolved solids (TDS) levels of the output water between 0-5 ppm. After drinking water from that I realized just how nasty tasting tap water was.Since I can't take my water filter with me when I travel, I've tested the water from many bottled water brands. I'm not going to shill for any of them, but the ones I will buy (when necessary) have a maximum TDS of 25 ppm. I've tested my tap water as high as 600 and it has never been below 250 ppm. I've also tested for various metallic and other specific contaminants. But TDS is a quick easy test and gives a good indication as to how bad water will taste. Through talking with others in the saltwater hobby, I've found that most areas have similarly high levels in municipal water. Well water can be even worse.

    Saying that tap water is the same as bottled water is akin to saying that you should put light sweet crude oil in your car instead of gasoline.

  21. I'm sure bottled water are quaking in their boots by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    as the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry

    ORLY?

    How strong is it? How easily gripped is it while running or cycling? Can you refill it? Can you reseal it? Can you drink it without dribbling all over the table?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Sold!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  22. This not supposed to be eaten by humans by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    A bunch of you foolishly think humans are supposed to eat this. So you foolishly think it needs an outer layer.

    The point of making it edible is not so that humans can eat it, but instead so that after we finish drinking from it we can throw it on the ground and let birds, dogs, bus, etc eat it. No outer layer needed.

    That said, this concept still needs a lot more work before it goes into production

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:This not supposed to be eaten by humans by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Should have been bugs. Spelling simstake :D

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  23. Re:people were getting ill by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    How do you know they weren't getting ill by touching hand railings and doors or breathing contaminated air?

  24. Re:people were getting ill by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Statistical comparison of many samples and normalization for confounding factors.

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  25. Re:huh by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    I would have linked to their website, but it's a fucking Flash-only blob.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  26. Re:people were getting ill by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Ah, economics then.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  27. Re: Needs edible cofee cups by Badblackdog · · Score: 1

    Edible coffee cups made out of donuts. Hell yeah!

  28. say what? by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    In an ideal world, Ooho would replace the 50 billion plastic bottles that Americans consume each year.

    Sorry, but I've never consumed a plastic bottle.

  29. Re:huh by spazdor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because apparently everyone thinks the only useful feature of a bottle is "lets you hold liquids in your hand."

    The whole "resealing" thing is kind of useful, if you can't or don't want to finish your water in one sip.

    There's also the thing where you can handle them with dirty hands and the inside stays sanitary.

    But as long as you don't care about any of the pertinent features of bottles, sure, this is a "bottle."

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  30. Re:Good reasons by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Ozarka is very good. I can't buy it around here. I actually buy my water from Aldi and pay just over 10 cents per half liter bottle. I just can't stand tap water. I can't even stand the taste of water out of a re-usable bottle (plastic or stainless steel), because it picks up bad flavors.

  31. Yeah, but do you really WANT to eat the bottle? by jerel · · Score: 1

    Why? Another poster says it's not for humans to eat, but the article states that they don't taste like much but that the texture "is not something we're used to yet." Even if we can figure out a way to sterilize the bottle on the fly (because of course you would have to do that or else you end up with yet another container you have to dispose of somehow) would you really want to eat this thing? I mean, really, can they make it so delicious that you WANT to eat it? I seriously doubt it.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
  32. It's not out of the realm of possiblity.. by slew · · Score: 1

    I mean, really, can they make it so delicious that you WANT to eat it? I seriously doubt it.

    I used to eat this type of candy when I was a kid. The wrapper was not so delicious, but it was mildly sweet and added a slight "gummy" candy experience when you got saliva over it, so most kids actually WANTED to eat it (not that it was the most sanitary thing to do).

    FWIW, it was not unlike the edible rice paper that many folks use to keep macaroons from sticking to a baking sheet or that cake decorators use in conjunction with printers for edible paper...

    Of course rice paper isn't remotely water proof, but now days industrial food chemistry technology is much more advanced and capable of simulating many tasty treats, so at least the taste aspect is certainly within the realm of possibility...

  33. How durable is the Edible Water Condom? by frank.gallow · · Score: 1

    Could these be shipped en mass to starving children in Africa? I actually really love this idea; or at least that it exists. There is doubtlessly some problem out there for which this will make a perfect solution, albeit an unlikely replacement for the ever-trustworthy bottle.

  34. I use brass water bottles. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Nice to hear that reverse osmosis has become affordable. Most water sanitizing tech isn't significantly better than just letting it sit around in a brass jug for a day, but RO sure is! Brass only kills pathogens; it won't remove all the other contaminants RO can.