Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Endorses Water From Human Waste

theodp writes: GeekWire reports that Bill gates is certainly leading by example, appearing in a video in which he sips "a glass of delicious drinking water" produced from human waste processed by Janicki Bioenergy's OmniProcessor, which can take sewer sludge and turn it into clean drinking water, electricity and clean ash. So how was it? "The water tasted as good as any I've had out of a bottle," said Bill. "And having studied the engineering behind it, I would happily drink it every day. It's that safe."

245 comments

  1. A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean the guy already excelled at selling SHIT to people for years...

    1. Re:A Natural by westlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean the guy already excelled at selling SHIT to people for years...

      Cheap shot gets an instant mod-up, to "Insightful," no surprise there.

    2. Re:A Natural by Barny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And such is the fickle nature of the mods.

      On topic, people would have to note statistically, every molecule of H2O has at some time been inside a creature. So we are all drinking sewage/waste/carrion water.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:A Natural by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And it doesn't seem to be hurting the astronauts on the ISS (from the year 2000)

      The ECLSS Water Recycling System (WRS), developed at the MSFC, will reclaim waste waters from the Space Shuttle's fuel cells, from urine, from oral hygiene and hand washing, and by condensing humidity from the air. Without such careful recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth would be required to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station.

      Not even research animals are excused from the program.

      "Lab animals on the ISS breath and urinate, too, and we plan to reclaim their waste products along with the crew's. A full complement of 72 rats would equal about one human in terms of water reclamation," says Layne Carter, a water-processing specialist at the MSFC.

      It might sound disgusting, but water leaving the space station's purification machines will be cleaner than what most of us drink on Earth.

      "The water that we generate is much cleaner than anything you'll ever get out of any tap in the United States," says Carter. "We certainly do a much more aggressive treatment process (than municipal waste water treatment plants). We have practically ultra-pure water by the time our water's finished."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      -1 for irrelevant pedantry in the form of trolling.

    5. Re:A Natural by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      I know I already have a terrible karma rating, but seriously people, THIS is the post that gets marked off-topic and not the one before it?

      What the actual fuck is going through people's heads when they hand out their mod points?

    6. Re:A Natural by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Anyway, as an American, he's been used to Pepsi and other Colas from birth. So, the "delicious" in "a glass of delicious drinking water" is very relative...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to me when you manage to drink any of that water.

    8. Re:A Natural by lgw · · Score: 1

      statistically, every molecule of H2O has at some time been inside a creature. So we are all drinking sewage/waste/carrion water.

      Statistically, every glass of water has at thousands of water molecules from the Shit of Jesus (or the prophet of your choice), which makes it all holy water, right?

      Let's check the math. There are about 1.4 * 10^21 L of water in the oceans (1.4 billion km^3). There are about 5.5 moles, or 3.3 * 10^25 molecules of water in a liter. So one liter of water mixed evenly in the oceans gives about 2 * 10^4 original molecules per liter of oceans. Heck, by holistic standards, it's all hyper-turbo-super-holy water!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:A Natural by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Not every molecule. Comet based asteroids have water, and do enter Earth's ecosphere constantly. There's also slight quite slight amounts of water in ancient rock being exposed to the surface, and volcanic vents that may bore through rock that predates life. It would be quite difficult to measure and there may not be even a molecule of it in a typical glass of water, but they do exist on Earth.

      I'm afraid such is the fickle nature of using absolutes.

    10. Re:A Natural by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You should have just pointed out what plants do with water, they split it into hydrogen and oxygen and so that is the only time water is really truly actually consumed. It then requires combustion of one form or another to turn those atoms of hydrogen and oxygen back into water. So new water that has not been used by anything is being created as we speak and old water is disappearing either by being split into it's component parts or as is want to happen, being turned into new molecules by the addition of various other molecules and atoms. So comet and volcanic vents are not the biggest source of 'new' water molecules.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: let's extract water from Bill Gates.

    12. Re:A Natural by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      How many rats does it take to match the output of the US Congress?

    13. Re:A Natural by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Hmm, is that true? Granted that many of the water molecules in my body have been inside many, many living animals and passed through one way or another, surely there are (a LOT of) water molecules being made and unmade every day through ionic dissociation. It might be more accurate to say that every atom of H and O in your body has been through a creature, but not necessarily bonded into water. Then there is "new water" produced when primordial hydrogen or methane are oxidized. Finally, I haven't done the statistical mechanics of it, but the ocean (or total volume of existing water) is pretty big, turnover is pretty slow, diffusion is even slower -- I could believe that a significant fraction of "old" water molecules (or the old constituents of younger molecules) in the world haven't been through an animal yet, and of those a few are making their first pass through me. But that's difficult for me to visualize well enough even to do a Fermi estimate of the probabilities, certainly not before my coffee.

      The real problem is dissociation of water into H+ and OH-, followed by the formation of H_3O+ and OH-, followed (quite rapidly) by recombination into H_2O with (probably) different H, though. When that happens (and it happens all the time and rapidly in ordinary water) it is almost certain that the H+ that leaves a water molecule in one second is not the one that rebonds to it a moment later, so water molecules have a comparatively short half-life as a unitary identity, two specific H's and one specific O have been one specific water molecule for less than a day (models indicate order of 10 hours). So in that sense, almost none of the water in my body has been in the body of any other animal, as little of the water I drink was in another animal within ten hours of when I drink it, and even it it was, if it persists in my own body for a single day very little of it is still the same water at the molecular level that it was when I drank it.

      In the end it is as useful as noting that we are all stardust, that is to say, the excreta of a dying star. That too is more poetically true than literally true, but it sounds way cooler than saying that we are all made of shit (starshit or otherwise:-).

      And yes, we suffer from the same dissociation problem. I am not the same me (in terms of physical constituents) instant to instant as I'm a large, complex, organism and the worldlines of all of the matter that is arguably "me" for at least some brief time if "I" am defined either in terms of chemistry or some physical envelope are a whirling blur around my macroscopic worldline, constantly being spun into my envelope and then spinning out again, with every thread tied to the threads of many, many other living beings by the will of the Norns. Quite a romantic picture, even though sure, the bulk of the ins pass through my nostrils and mouth and the outs pass through many channels including anus and urethra.

      So I think I'll stick with stardust woven by the Norns, not a pile of recycled shit.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    14. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    15. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A full complement of 72 rats would equal about one human

      Time to update the convert database ... is that a metric complement or an english complement?

    16. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'ultra pure' water = bad for you...
      now, i don't know that this offhand comment of the astronaut was making THAT distinction, or they were just speaking loosely...
      you do NOT want to drink water that is 'ultra pure', it won't take long to fuck you up...

    17. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy: 535. One rat per rat.

    18. Re:A Natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. I hate going even farther, but that's really over simplified too. Water is not just water molecules. A certain portion of the water is broken down into ions. That portion is what we measure when we measure pH. There is a constant breaking and combining of water molecules in a glass of water sitting at equilibrium. You don't need plants to destroy and form water molecules. Water does it all on it's own.

    19. Re:A Natural by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think "every molecule," might be a stretch, but certainly it's safe to say that at least some portion of the water we drink has, at some point, been drank before. It's also probably safe to say that some water has been locked away for the entirety of life on our planet, and has never been drank.

    20. Re:A Natural by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You should have just pointed out what plants do with water, they split it into hydrogen and oxygen and so that is the only time water is really truly actually consumed.

      Strictly not true. Neutral water has a concentration of approximately one part in 10^7 of hydrogen ions (and the same of hydroxyl ions), and they're constantly dissociating and re-associating. Off the top of my head, I forget what the mean lifetime of any one molecule of water is, but it's more likely to be fractions of a second than multiples of a year.

      The original story is a non-story. I remember in the playground at school nearly 40 years ago joking that the idiots moving into town from London had never tasted water that hadn't been through three people's kidneys since it was last rainfall. Our geography teacher made us work out the numbers - it was a little short fo two pairs of kidneys.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. One man's piss is another man's ... by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Water's water - given the diffusion time we're probably all drinking King Tut's piss today (not to mention plenty of other peoples/animals).

    1. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Pretty much a slam dunk. It's a popular demonstration in Stats courses -- though the subject is usually Oliver Cromwell.

    2. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe if you are talking about each individual water molecule. But if you take any given glass of water, it no doubt contains water molecules that were part of Napoleon's piss.

      There are more water molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the ocean.

    3. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by WillKemp · · Score: 0

      Water's water [......]

      That's undisputable. However, it's what's dissolved in it that's the problem. Sewage contains pharmaceuticals and hormones - none of which are removed by the treatment process. Generally, recycled water isn't even tested for them.

    4. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by niftydude · · Score: 0, Troll

      Water's water - given the diffusion time we're probably all drinking King Tut's piss today (not to mention plenty of other peoples/animals).

      While that is true, my problem with the story is this bit:

      And having studied the engineering behind it, I would happily drink it every day. It's that safe.

      Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria. If I am going to drink water recycled in this manner, I'd prefer to have the engineering studied by an independant water quality professional, say, an environmental engineer? And for the output water to be studied by health professionals and microbiologists. Some long term testing on how well the product holds up as the filters degrade would be nice too. That first glass may be clean and delicious, what about the the tenth, hundredth, or thousandth glass?

      The recommendation of the former CEO of a software corporation (no matter how successful) doesn't really give me that high a level of confidence in the product.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    5. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria. If I am going to drink water recycled in this manner, I'd prefer to have the engineering studied by an independant water quality professional, say, an environmental engineer? And for the output water to be studied by health professionals and microbiologists. Some long term testing on how well the product holds up as the filters degrade would be nice too. That first glass may be clean and delicious, what about the the tenth, hundredth, or thousandth glass?

      The recommendation of the former CEO of a software corporation (no matter how successful) doesn't really give me that high a level of confidence in the product.

      Would you rather they tested it on some poor mouse?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria.

      Poo? Yes. Piss? No.

      Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder. If bacteria ever entered your bladder, you'd routinely have bladder and/or urinary tract infections, namely because no blood flows to those regions so you have no T cells to combat it. While urine smells foul and probably tastes worse, it wouldn't kill you to drink it. (But still don't do it anyways because it contains waste materials that your kidneys removed from your blood for a very good reason.)

      That said, we also have the artificial means of doing the filtering job that kidneys do, so it wouldn't surprise me if this technique also worked on poo.

      If I am going to drink water recycled in this manner, I'd prefer to have the engineering studied by an independant water quality professional, say, an environmental engineer? And for the output water to be studied by health professionals and microbiologists.

      Bill Gates didn't invent it, and he isn't trying to sell it to you either. Chances are you'll probably never even see one unless either you're a humanitarian aide worker and/or you live in a third world country. He's trying to promote it as a means of helping people who have difficulty accessing potable water.

    7. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by niftydude · · Score: 1

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria.

      Poo? Yes. Piss? No.

      Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder...

      You should RTFA: The device is for extracting water from feces. That's poo, not piss, and in the context of the article, obviously what I was talking about.

      Bill Gates didn't invent it, and he isn't trying to sell it to you either... He's trying to promote it as a means of helping people who have difficulty accessing potable water.

      My point was that Bill Gates shouldn't be endorsing it based on the fact that he personally "studied the engineering". He simply isn't qualified to make a call like that. No point selling it to anyone if the water output becomes poisonous over time.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    8. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by niftydude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would you rather they tested it on some poor mouse?

      I see your point. The correct lab testing protocol should be CEOs, then lawyers, then lab rats, and then finally humans.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    9. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by moondo · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

      The recommendation of the former CEO of a software corporation (no matter how successful) doesn't really give me that high a level of confidence in the product.

      You think Bill Gates is the scientific mastermind behind this invention? Like you said, he's the CEO, the investor, the guy who got inspired to put his money on that project. He's not the brains behind its science. Do you think that the people around Bill Gates would let him drink that water if it wasn't safe or let him make a premature statement about the quality of the water? Most likely scenario is that this project was funded for quite some time and finally they called up Bill Gates to tell him they have a viable product. He goes and tests the product and gets some publicity out of it by drinking it himself.

      He has people doing all the work for him. You don't have to trust Bill Gates to know that that water is safe to drink.

    10. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really??? Reverse osmosis will only give you water. Hell, *salt* and sodium ions can't make it through. Fuck you.

    11. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      that's an understatement, there are more molecules of water in a glass of water ( 2 * 10 ^ 25) than there are estimated stars in the visible universe (10 ^ 24).

    12. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 for trolling inaccuracies as fact and misrepresenting facts. Recycled (usually called "reclaimed water") water is not the topic and not considered potable, which is clear by the signs saying "don't drink this".

    13. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use lawyers. They are (somewhat) similar to humans, have huge population surpluses, the lab techs don't become fond of them and no one cares if they must be dispatched.

    14. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

      I'm sure many here would be happier if a scientist claimed it was safe, but then most people would say,"Who the heck is that?"

    15. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Gates wasn't trying to convert the "water of life" into something safe to drink. He was merely a test taster.Associating his name to a device like this dovetails into the kind of programs his foundation has been funding in Africa and other countries lacking modern day access to clean water and medicines.

    16. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      King Tut must have really had to go.
      http://i.imgur.com/wQ1YVed.gif...

    17. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by disambiguated · · Score: 2

      And don't forget that there's some things that a lab rat just won't do.

    18. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder. If bacteria ever entered your bladder, you'd routinely have bladder and/or urinary tract infections,

      This is a myth, urine isn't sterile. The bladder contains bacteria (not all causing infection) from the urethra. There is a recent NIH study showing many people have bacteria counts even inside the bladder itself, and more with bacteria from inside the urethra. Not all of these are harmful, but some are.

    19. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0

      Hardly. The water is not _mixed_ evenly, so I'd expect much less of it outside of Europe.

    20. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Fuck you.

      Calm down child, you'll have a seizure if you're not careful. TFA doesn't mention reverse osmosis - which is very expensive and slow.

    21. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a common myth that piss is sterile. It's not. It just has very few bacteria. You have bacteria everywhere, even inside your bladder. It's the wrong bacteria composition which makes you sick.

    22. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Recycled (usually called "reclaimed water") water is not the topic [......]

      I don't know what you're on, but maybe it's the pharms in recycled water. How is recycled water not the topic? Are you suggesting "Water From Human Waste" isn't recycled?

    23. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mostly heard it with Napoleon and air, which is probably a better example, since it is more likely to have diffused and mixed in the mean time.

    24. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by shrewdsheep · · Score: 0

      Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder. If bacteria ever entered your bladder, you'd routinely have bladder and/or urinary tract infections, namely because no blood flows to those regions so you have no T cells to combat it. While urine smells foul and probably tastes worse, it wouldn't kill you to drink it. (But still don't do it anyways because it contains waste materials that your kidneys removed from your blood for a very good reason.)

      That said, we also have the artificial means of doing the filtering job that kidneys do, so it wouldn't surprise me if this technique also worked on poo.

      Kidneys extract part of the blood stream. As blood is (almost) sterile so is the *primary* urine, i.e. what enters the ureter. The urethra OTOH teems with bacteria so that bacteria do enter the bladder although in very small quantities. The bladder cavity is very much hardened due to the chemical agressiveness of urine and is regularely flushed so that this is not a problem (remember that bacteria replicate on the order of hours, only some faster, so that over night bacterial count can only increase by a factor of 256).

    25. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the people around Bill Gates would let him drink that water if it wasn't safe ?

      It would not suprise me.

    26. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a new, recently announced process. How can you possibly know that it doesn't remove pharmaceuticals and hormones? O wait, you can't.

    27. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about the layers.

      Piss in a bucket, filter it using whatever he's endorsing, and then drink it. Same thing? No. You have only one layer for filtering. If it fails even just a little bit, you'll have problems.

      In a city where water is not a problem, you piss, it gets treated, released in a stream nearby, reaches the sea, evapor ates, returns to the original location as rain after a few turns around the globe.

    28. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But My water doesn't come from the ocean... Much less any body of water any where near where Napoleon (or King tut) would have likely taken a piss...

      Unless those two frequently pissed into jars, and left the jars out to evaporate (instead of pissing on the ground where most of the water would seep into ground water sources) it seems unlikely that there is much (if any) of their piss in my water...

      Even the quantities of native american piss are likely extremely low, given the number of Native Americans, and how few of them actually even spend a full year in the area where I live, as well has how recently (compared to the amount of water on the planet) they arrived in the area.

      Also, while there may be more water molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the ocean... how many water molecules does that mean there actually are, and how does that work with the odds of drinking Napoleons piss... Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with how you use numbers to baffle and confuse people into think you are right, but a statistic comes in the form of a ratio, which is two numbers not just the one.

    29. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by climb_no_fear · · Score: 1

      If I live on the French/German Border, does this mean I'm drinking Napoleon's concentrated piss (relative to you of course)?

      Yech!

    30. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      On the up side you are also breathing the same air as Jesus Christ breathed.

    31. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Use the US House of Representatives to test reclaimed poop water.

    32. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been doing this forever. I do it at my house. I have a well head for my water and a standard holding tank and field drain based septic system for my waste.

    33. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be politicians, then CFOs, then CEOs, etc...?

    34. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite obvious that you are jealous of Bill Gates.

    35. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by plopez · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea what the Water Cycle is.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    36. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria. If I am going to drink water recycled in this manner, I'd prefer to have the engineering studied by an independant water quality professional, say, an environmental engineer? And for the output water to be studied by health professionals and microbiologists. Some long term testing on how well the product holds up as the filters degrade would be nice too. That first glass may be clean and delicious, what about the the tenth, hundredth, or thousandth glass?

      The recommendation of the former CEO of a software corporation (no matter how successful) doesn't really give me that high a level of confidence in the product.

      Would you rather they tested it on some poor mouse?

      How about Bennet Haselton?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    37. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Budweiser

    38. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    39. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Maybe they did - haven't seen a post by him all year (though the year is young).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    40. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      He's trying to promote it as a means of helping people who have difficulty accessing potable water.

      Texas, just a few years from now.

    41. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He "cheated" rich people (by definition, if you can afford a computer you're rich compared to most of the population of the planet, certainly at the times Bill Gates was heading Microsoft) and is now giving it to the poor (those who can't afford sanitized water). Basically he's Robin Hood. I know that you don't like him, and I'm sure the rich barons didn't like Robin Hood, but objectively the man's doing a lot of good. He's doing it with your money, yes, but you weren't.

    42. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Human waste contains heaps of harmful bacteria.

      Poo? Yes. Piss? No.

      False. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

      While urine smells foul and probably tastes worse, it wouldn't kill you to drink it.

      The bacteria may not, but dehydration definitely can, and that's the effect of drinking urine.

    43. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by King_of_Prussia · · Score: 1

      It does however mention distillation, which also fixes that problem.

      --

      Making the moon less necessary since 1998.

    44. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      False. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... [sciencedaily.com]

      The GP said harmful bacteria. There will be bacteria in your bladder, hell there will be bacteria on your genitals as well when it comes out, but chances are it's going to be benign in nature, much the same as bacteria commonly found on your skin. The bacteria found on your hands and in your mouth is invariably going to be far more dangerous.

      The bacteria may not, but dehydration definitely can, and that's the effect of drinking urine.

      That depends on the content of the urine. If it is super high in electrolytes (which isn't atypical,) then yeah it probably would dehydrate you. The contents vary from person to person and further depending on that person's diet at the time they took a piss.

    45. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible to be sterile and toxic. Just because it's sterile doesn't mean it is safe.

    46. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Who? And why do I care what some Hispanic kid breathed?

    47. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My point was that Bill Gates shouldn't be endorsing it based on the fact that he personally "studied the engineering". He simply isn't qualified to make a call like that.

      He actually is qualified. Sanitation and waste processing has been a major focus for his foundation for many years, and if you ever worked with the guy, you'd know he doesn't let anyone he works with get away with handwaving the engineering details.

      Gates knows his shit. Literally. There aren't that many people in the world that know more about shit, and Gates works with most of them.

    48. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm lost on what they're talking about . . . pretty much every county / municipality around here has "water treatment plants" . . . which take human waste, process it, and return it to the river supply. So yes, I'm drinking recycled waste from someone upstream . . . but lots of people downstream are drinking mine too. Maybe its that in the "lap of 1st world luxury" we don't realize the 3rd world doesn't have this filtration/reprocessing on a widespread basis.

      Just wait till he starts pushing the Soylent Green Crackers . . .

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    49. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I'm quite aware of it. But I'm also afraid that diagrams on a white board taught in grade school leave out quite a lot: the slowing of mixing when water is collected in various bodies, the uneven mixing caused by oceanic or lake thermoclines, the weather barriers caused by mountains, and even the equatorial isolation of hurricanes to northern and southern hemisphere all act to reduce the maximum mixing of water. Even over the course of centuries of mixing, I'd expect nothing in Africa or the Americas south of the equator, even with the bottling and sales of French fluids such as wine and Perrier water.

    50. Re:One man's piss is another man's ... by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Bacteria isn't going to be an issue with this, not at 1000 degrees C. Doesn't take a specialist to understand that.

  3. This is how municipal water works already... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    Ever wonder why water treatment plants smell so bad?

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with meat from the store, people don't care so long as they don't have to see/do the messy part.

    2. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      They shouldn't. Modern clean water treatment plants with effective odour control tanks and sludge processing techniques should really have much of a scent.

      Even WWTP are reasonable clean smelling these days.

    3. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sewage plants that feed into the water supply are still a novelty. Sometimes the treated water goes to non-potable uses. Mostly though treated water is just dumped.

    4. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any municipal waste water plant directly cycling back into the water supply intended for human consumption (they may be dumping it into a river and later picked up downstream). I am aware of municipalities such as in Arizona that have separate water supplies for "dirty" water uses such as toilets & irrigation. Not that water leaving plants wouldn't be safe for consumption, but rather the stigma behind it.

    5. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It dawned on me that the OP doesn't know the difference.

    6. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      There is a large setup in South East Queensland.

      Waste water from the gold coast and Brisbane is fed to two Advanced Water Treatment Plants at Beenleigh and then it is piped to a larger plant at Bundamba before being put into Wivenhoe dam. Wivenhoe is the primary drinking water storage for Brisbane.

      That said it was all built in the mid 2000s when it looked like we were going to completely run out of water. They also built a large desal plant at Tugan. None of these systems are currently turned on as it then started to rain lots to the point we got seriously flooded in 2010.

    7. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Of course, there was the time the US navy connected the sewage pumps on one of their warships up to the City of Portsmouth's potable water supply but that probably doesn't count.

    8. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While recycled waste water is usually used for non-potable purposes, as you mention it has been -indirectly- used by adding treated water to a stream above a reservoir used for potable water in VA, to replenish ground water aquifers that are used as potable water sources in California, as well as possible future addition to a San Diego reservoir also directly used as potable water source.

      However, sadly a Texas community started directly using treated waste water for drinking water earlier in 2014
      Ewww
      Gross
       

    9. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The meat from the store didn't used to be cut up so secretly when I was a kid. Sure they kept the carcasses back in the freezer but they'd bring out large parts to custom carve cuts for the shoppers. So you now it's fresh that way. Not too long ago I walked into a small grocery store and you could smell the meat immediately upon walking in which told me it wasn't fresh.

    10. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why water treatment plants smell so bad?

      The chlorine?
      Or did you meant sewage treatment plants? Which, however, don't provide potable water to municipal water works already.

    11. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Like when Chicago (the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, that is) discharges its' treated sewage water to the Chicago River, which flows into the Mississippi and is eventually picked up by the Anheuser Busch plant in St Louis to be turned into the piss water they call Budweiser. (OK, for all I know they use well water now, rather than river water, but that's the old joke.)

    12. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I must be misunderstanding what VA is in your sentance, but I cannot wrap my head around potable water in Virginia being used to feed aquifers in California. That would have to cross two or three (depending where in VA) mountain ranges...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:This is how municipal water works already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also don't smell all that bad in general. Waste water goes in, solids settle out, and solids stay contained until they are treated. If you go to the plant and start poking around, I'm sure you'll find some foul smelling areas, but a waste water plant will have the same environmental concerns that any other industrial installation will. If the plant stinks, the neighbors complain.

  4. attn truckers in the Redmond area by ksheff · · Score: 0

    You can now throw all your piss jugs out at Bill's place or at MSFT HQ.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  5. Bear Grylls by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bear Grylls could not be reached for comment.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear Grylls could not be reached for comment.

      Your patience is appreciate and the hotel's telephone connection will be restored momentarily.

    2. Re:Bear Grylls by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      The sun is going down.

      Better make Bill Gates drink my piss

    3. Re:Bear Grylls by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      College drop-out nerd takes over the world of computers, becomes richest man in the world and spends billions on charities.
      Now best known for drinking his own piss!

    4. Re:Bear Grylls by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Obligatory movie clip: Bear Drinks Poo Juice http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R...
      Don't watch before/during lunch.

  6. Re:How does it feel Bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just pictured Sinofsky dropping tiles of pure gold, all over the formerly pristine surface, while Ballmer watched and chanted. "Developers, developers, developers..."

  7. The spice must flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stillsuit is the obvious application of this.

  8. Obligatory Dilbert by matthiasvegh · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:Obligatory Dilbert by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      The next day's comic is just as good.

  9. Windows 9? by tgibson · · Score: 0

    Code name: water

    1. Re:Windows 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft employees are used to "Dogfooding".

      They are not afraid of absorbing strange things.

  10. Re:How does it feel Bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He who shitteth first shitteth last.

    --

  11. I don't drink water. by msauve · · Score: 2

    Fish poop in it.

    (attr: William Claude Dukenfield)

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:I don't drink water. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also fuck in it.

    2. Re:I don't drink water. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      640 ppm ought to be enough for anybody.

  12. All water is recycled by notsoclever · · Score: 2

    Remember, that delicious tap water was once pooped in by a dinosaur.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
    1. Re:All water is recycled by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Remember, that delicious tap water was once pooped in by a dinosaur.

      Maybe. But dinosaurs didn't take pharmaceutical drugs.

    2. Re:All water is recycled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That you know of.

    3. Re:All water is recycled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good reverse osmosis system will remove most anything larger than a water molecule... that includes just about any pharmaceutical molecule you'd care to name.

    4. Re:All water is recycled by WillKemp · · Score: 2

      A good reverse osmosis system will remove most anything larger than a water molecule... that includes just about any pharmaceutical molecule you'd care to name.

      Of course it will. But RO is very expensive and complicated and requires specialised maintenance. It's also not mentioned in TFA (although it could be in the video, i don't know - reading TFA is quite uncool enough on /. - without watching TFV).

    5. Re:All water is recycled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger caveat is the brine. The brine!

  13. Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where do people think their water comes from? Dependent on your location it is either pulled from a dam / river / ocean which has shit, corpses (animal and human), bacteria and all sorts of nasties or it comes from a waste water treatment plant after the solid waste has been removed.

    The process is the same, ram the water under pressure against a membrane. Water goes through, other stuff doesn't. The biggest challenge is actually the medication that goes into the waste water system. It generally means that the solid waste that is removed by your treatment plant can't be used directly without additional treatment.

     

    1. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      People are idiots. I remember a story a year or two ago about some drunk guy getting caught peeing in the local reservoir and they had to drain it or something.

    2. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Immerman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the medication is typically never removed from the water at all - drink most any water supply and you'll get a healthy dose of estrogen, antibiotics, antidepressants, etc. Modern water purification plants simply aren't set up to remove such chemicals, and not even evaporation does the job - even fresh rainwater in remote high-mountain areas is loaded with pharmaceuticals. Actually pretty scary when you think about it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember that story. From what I remember that water was supposedly on the clean side of the treatment process. What I don't understand is how they stopped birds crapping in it (spoiler - they didn't).

    4. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That isn't quite correct. Membrane style water treatment systems do remove the vast majority of medications. Also commonly referred to as Reverse Osmosis plants the process they use is exceptional at removing everything bar the water itself.

      The problems come from where the treatment approach is purely using chlorination to sterilise the water. This obviously removes nothing.

      So it's actually the opposite way around from what you have said. Older chlorination style systems don't remove the medication but modern RO plants do. And essentially RO is the way to go if you are building a plant.

    5. Re: Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fresh rainwater is loaded with pharmaceuticals?!? That is an absurd impossibility.

    6. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Where do people think their water comes from?

      Well from God's tears of course.

    7. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plants I've seen actually do a lot more than just pumping it trough a membrane. They do everything from filtering it through sand banks, adding chemicals, removing said chemicals, UV treatment and, my favorite, creating a low pressure water vapor to quickly oxidize (rust) ions so they can be more easily seperated. Quite fascinating. Of course, said plant makes money like water and has to spend it all or lose their funding so it might very well be overkill. (especially considering they process groundwater not waste water).

    8. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to overly complicate the description. In a modern RO plant the membrane is the primary filtration system. Prior to that they will remove the larger matter using screens, sedimentation tanks and other physical filtration systems. Also the plant you are describing is obviously an older design and if they were to start again they would cut most of those processes out with a modern system.

      After the water has passed the membrane, note depending on the contaminant level this may be as low as 60% of the water, the water is essentially pure. From here chlorine is added and depending on your region so is fluoride.

      As a side note the chlorine isn't added to the water to keep the water drinkable it is done to protect the pipe system.

    9. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safe drinking water is all in the percentages. As long as the ppm of toxins are below certain thresholds, it is safe. So a bird crapping in a large body of water is no big deal.

    10. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      As long as the bird isn't a vector for a parasite such as giardia.

    11. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Most of the non-RO plants are adding ozonation to the treatment, which does a pretty good job of oxidizing pharmaceutical waste if used properly. I used to work in a system that processed a lot of secondhand water, so it was a particular concern of ours.

    12. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by HBI · · Score: 1

      Ever tasted ozonated water? Spent a year of my life in the Middle East drinking that awful stuff. No thanks.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    13. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why am I still depressed?

      and why am I not fondling my chest right now?

    14. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So what? Giardia is already in what, 70, 80% of US streams? And presumably 100% of rivers. The odds that the bird would add much to a reservoir not already there are pretty slim. And it's not like giardia is *that* terrible - you spend a week or four within sprinting distance of a toilet and then you can stop worrying about it until you drink only processed water for a prolonged period again.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      But I believe the reservoir is on the treated side of the system, not the untreated.

      You are right that I don't care that Giardia is in the streams and rivers. I do care if it is in my tap water.

    16. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Where do people think their water comes from?

      They probably think it falls out of the sky or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      A modern still can be used to get quite pure water. If it boils below 212F or only boils above 212F. then it is routed away from the end product. So how many chemicals can match that exact boiling point? Further, how many harmful chemicals will pass that boiling point? If somehow a bacteria or virus gets through a distillation process it would tend to be eliminated by UV light or by chlorine.

    18. Re: Welcome to water treatment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about frogs?

    19. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? That seems like a really stupid way to do things. Store the water dirty, then clean it as you need it. Otherwise you're cleaning it only to leave it lying around outside where you *know* it will get dirty again and much of it will evaporate, wasting the cleaning effort. Certainly my local water treatment plant is downstream from the reservoirs.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I agree - but quick google shows it is on the treated side and goes straight into the mains from there.

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    21. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      It's ozone-treated, the ozone dissociates within a half-hour at most. You don't drink it while the ozone is still in it, that would be stupid.

    22. Re:Welcome to water treatment.... by HBI · · Score: 1

      Apparently they bottled it with ozone in it. It stank.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  14. Money Maker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could make more money than Microsoft. How many people on the planet would gladly pay $20 to get to piss and crap in a box and have Bill drink it. Sign me up.

  15. Waste smaste.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why whinge? We've been sipping his human software waste for nearly 30 years! Where's this different?

  16. I feel I missed a key point.. by NuttyBee · · Score: 2

    Yes, it creates electricity, water, and activated sludge... What heats the sludge? Do they start an oil based fire, and then use off-gassing from the sludge to continue the reaction?

     

    1. Re:I feel I missed a key point.. by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Activated sludge isn't mentioned in either article. Ash is. Presumably they have filters such that they get a relatively dry sludge, which they can then indeed burn to ash and produce power.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  17. Phrasing by jbarone · · Score: 2

    This is a great development in a field that will likely save billions of lives. But do they really need to portray it as "produced from human waste", rather than "filtered out of sewage"? The former makes me imagine some sort of artificial process that involves bleaching poop until it's transparent then bottling it.

    1. Re:Phrasing by itzly · · Score: 1

      This is a great development in a field that will likely save billions of lives

      Why ? Water treatment plants have existed for many years. The fact that they aren't used in some places of the world can't be fixed by making yet another water treatment plant.

    2. Re:Phrasing by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Of course it can -- make them where they don't exist yet.

      But then, what HAS to be fixed first is corrupt governments that take the money for themselves instead of building necessary infrastructure.

  18. A pretty low bar by Immerman · · Score: 2

    "The water tasted as good as any I've had out of a bottle,"

    That's a pretty low bar, as anyone accustomed to drinking fresh mountain spring water can tell you. I suppose it frequently tastes a better than metropolitan city water though...

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:A pretty low bar by Livius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose it frequently tastes a better than metropolitan city water though...

      Unlikely, since it frequently is metropolitan city water.

    2. Re:A pretty low bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is "mountain spring water"? Have you put one moment's thought into that phrase?

    3. Re:A pretty low bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely, since it frequently is metropolitan city water.

      That's the thought I had. We already do this. So WTF?

    4. Re:A pretty low bar by slinches · · Score: 2

      I may be mistaken but I think it's probably water that's from a spring on a mountain. You see ... snow runoff will seep into the sides of mountains, travel a ways through the porous rock and then spring out of the ground at a lower elevation. I know it seems unbelievable, but it's true.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    5. Re:A pretty low bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is arguably more polluted than any artificially cleaned water.

    6. Re:A pretty low bar by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not by human waste, especially not if you're drinking from headwaters 30+ miles upriver from the nearest human community. It's rich in minerals, and occasionally contaminated with disease (though not so much as you'd think - water flows through far finer cracks in the rock that even microbes can manage), but there are virtually none of the artificial chemicals that make me feel like I'm drinking diesel locomotive piss, as is so commonly the case in major cities. And none of the chemical perfume flavors characteristic of bottled water. Just cold, sweet, mineral rich ambrosia.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:A pretty low bar by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is "mountain spring water"?

      Ask the those bottled water companies that sell the stuff labelled as such.

    8. Re:A pretty low bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your Uranium isotopes!

    9. Re:A pretty low bar by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      That fresh mountain water tastes good due to the impurities it carries. Things like desolved iron or a small hint of beaver poop are items to consider.

    10. Re:A pretty low bar by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Mountains do have springs. Mountains also contain items like rivers, lakes and ponds. I recall one mountain spring in Virginia that sort of acts like a water fountain. Old hobo camps used to be next to that spring as the men could get clean drinking water as well as rob people who stopped to see the spring.

    11. Re:A pretty low bar by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Better yet, don't. *Maybe* it was actually pulled from a mountain spring originally (but probably not - that would have to be a *huge* spring to handle even a fraction of commercial production), but after being processed, perfumed, and stuck in a plastic bottle for months it tastes nothing like the real thing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:A pretty low bar by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So what if it does? We've got a half-billion years of evolution shaping us to drink exactly that, though the first few weeks are likely to be a little unomfortable if your immune system is acclimated to drinking sterilized water.

      Also note that biological contaminants are *much* less likely in a (clean) spring than in a stream - spring water has probably flown through miles of rock and sand before it bubbles to the surface - that makes for one hell of a filter.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:A pretty low bar by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Depends. Some portion is runoff (never seeps into the ground) and stays above ground in streams, rivers, and lakes. The rest is absorbed through infiltration, and may make it back to the surface through seepage directly into a body of fresh water, or through a spring, or not at all. If you live in a plains state, your water probably comes from aquifers. If you live along the coast, as most people do, it probably comes from runoff. I can't find exact figures, but most "fresh" (not recycled) drinking water seems to come from surface runoff vs aquifers. This probably varies by geography, with plains states sourcing aquifers and coastal states (where most people live) sourcing runoff.

    14. Re:A pretty low bar by danomac · · Score: 1

      Evian is a bottled water brand here. Read the word backwards, I don't think that's a coincidence...

    15. Re:A pretty low bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... I wasn't suppose to pee in to the spring?

  19. Hydrologic cycle by Livius · · Score: 1

    This has been going on for billions of years.

  20. Vaguely satisfying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I've often wanted to tell Bill to eat shit. So, there's something vaguely satisfying in seeing him drink it.

  21. Bill Gates' opinion... by JThundley · · Score: 1

    Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Inventor of steaming shit is ok with drinking piss!

  22. kW or kWh? by Framboise · · Score: 2

    From BG blog one can conclude that the author belongs to the category of people unclear about the difference between a quantity of energy and a rate of energy production. To his excuse the common poor choice of kWh instead of the SI J (Joule J, 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ) as energy unit is just making energy discussions more confusing.

     

    1. Re:kW or kWh? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I see this so much these days. I wish all software guys also took some basic course in electronics.

    2. Re:kW or kWh? by flippet · · Score: 1

      From BG blog one can conclude that the author belongs to the category of people unclear about the difference between a quantity of energy and a rate of energy production.

      If you're reading the same bit I am, are you sure?

      ...will handle waste from 100,000 people, producing up to 86,000 liters of potable water a day and a net 250 kw of electricity.

      The "waste from 100,000 people" is a rate of input, and "86,000 liters a day" and "250kw of electricity" are rates of output. This is entirely consistent and correct.

      --
      "Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
    3. Re:kW or kWh? by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with kWh? For industrial processes that's a common energy unit.

      It may confuse you but it doesn't confuse other people. In fact it makes more sense to most people since they have some frame of reference for how much energy a kWh but they don't have an intuitive frame of reference for Joules.

  23. RTFA. by westlake · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have grown more than a little weary of the geek's lame attempts at humor at Gate's expense.

    Why would anyone want to turn waste into drinking water and electricity?

    Because a shocking number of people, at least 2 billion, use latrines that aren't properly drained. Others simply defecate out in the open. The waste contaminates drinking water for millions of people, with horrific consequences: Diseases caused by poor sanitation kill some 700,000 children every year, and they prevent many more from fully developing mentally and physically.

    If we can develop safe, affordable ways to get rid of human waste, we can prevent many of those deaths and help more children grow up healthy.

    Western toilets aren't the answer, because they require a massive infrastructure of sewer lines and treatment plants that just isn't feasible in many poor countries.

    One idea is to reinvent the toilet, which I've written about before.

    Another idea is to reinvent the sewage treatment plant.

    Today, in many places without modern sewage systems, truckers take the waste from latrines and dump it into the nearest river or the ocean --- or at a treatment facility that doesn't actually treat the sewage. Either way, it often ends up in the water supply. If they took it to the Omniprocessor instead, it would be burned safely. The machine runs at such a high temperature (1000 degrees Celsius) that there's no nasty smell; in fact it meets all the emissions standards set by the U.S. government.

    Before we even started the tour, I had a question: Don't modern sewage plants already incinerate waste? I learned that some just turn the waste into solids that are stored in the desert. Others burn it using diesel or some other fuel that they buy. That means they use a lot of energy, which makes them impractical in most poor countries.

    The Omniprocessor solves that problem. Through the ingenious use of a steam engine, it produces more than enough energy to burn the next batch of waste. In other words, it powers itself, with electricity to spare. The next-generation processor, more advanced than the one I saw, will handle waste from 100,000 people, producing up to 86,000 liters of potable water a day and a net 250 kw of electricity.

    From Poop To Potable: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water

    1. Re:RTFA. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because a shocking number of people, at least 2 billion, use latrines that aren't properly drained. Others simply defecate out in the open. The waste contaminates drinking water for millions of people, with horrific consequences: Diseases caused by poor sanitation kill some 700,000 children every year, and they prevent many more from fully developing mentally and physically.

      And the ancient Romans figured this out, and solved it.

      It does not require the massive infrastructure that starts with Western toilets to solve this problem. It can be done with wood and stone and gravity, assembled using nothing more than muscle power. The fact that 2 billion people (with far more muscle power at their disposal than the ancient Romans ever had) haven't speaks volumes about the 2 billion people.

    2. Re:RTFA. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Informative

      And the ancient Romans figured this out, and solved it.

      How did all that lead in the plumbing work out for them again?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:RTFA. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And the ancient Romans figured this out, and solved it.

      Not really. Water supply was a major problem throughout the Roman period and a major limit on the growth of cities.
       

      It does not require the massive infrastructure that starts with Western toilets to solve this problem. It can be done with wood and stone and gravity, assembled using nothing more than muscle power.

      Presuming you have mountain springs or other sources of water at a higher altitude than your city - many places don't. A steady supply of slaves helps too.
       

      The fact that 2 billion people (with far more muscle power at their disposal than the ancient Romans ever had) haven't speaks volumes about the 2 billion people.

      No, it's that you completely fail to grasp the limited circumstances under which the aqueduct system work and the very real limits on their capacity.

    4. Re:RTFA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...speaks volumes about the 2 billion people.

      Or perhaps about the human condition, generally.

      There are huge problems in the world that desperately need solving and there are huge numbers of people in the world that desperately need good meaningful jobs. But how to connect the two - particularly when the people at the top who control most of the world's economy and resources would rather have frivolous luxury goods than solve the world's problems?

      Let's assume that sanitation could be solved with only wood and stone and manual labor, well, what happens when someone else owns the wood and the stone and would rather use it to build a luxury vacation villa? Are you proposing some sort of socialist solution where the community taxes away some of the wood and the stone and uses it to improve the community's sanitation? Or perhaps you believe in the free market - that all that's needed is the enlightened self-interest of a bold 1%-er to create lots and lots of manual labor jobs building sewers and selling them at a tidy profit?

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there isn't a solution. In fact, much of the developing world has seen substantial reductions in extreme poverty in the last few decades. But understanding the causes of world poverty requires careful reasoning and factual observation - not just some simple-minded assumption that people who are poor are simply choosing to be poor.

    5. Re:RTFA. by westlake · · Score: 1

      It does not require the massive infrastructure that starts with Western toilets to solve this problem. It can be done with wood and stone and gravity, assembled using nothing more than muscle power.

      The essential requirement was a constant flow of fresh water in roughly the same volume as consumed daily by a modern European city.

      There were eleven aqueducts supplying water to Rome that --- after serving drinking, bathing, sanitation and other needs --- was flushed through the sewers.

      Over time, the Romans expanded the network of sewers that ran through the city and linked most of them, including some drains, to the Cloaca Maxima, which emptied into the Tiber River. Sanitation in ancient Rome

      Is it necessary to add that flooding the Tiber with raw sewage is not the same as sewage treatment?

    6. Re:RTFA. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      How did all that lead in the plumbing work out for them again?

      Vastly better than dying of cholera, that's for sure. Anyway the Romans knew that lead pipes had problems even if they didn't fully understand why and clay pipes were often preferred.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:RTFA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked great. First the lead pipe in itself doesn't leak much metal into water and secondly it will soon be encapsulated (by carbonates IIRC) making that contamination vector almost eliminated.

      The use of lead salts as sweetener was a much bigger problem health wise.

      Anonymous because of moderation...

    8. Re:RTFA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    9. Re:RTFA. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      No, it's that you completely fail to grasp the limited circumstances under which the aqueduct system work and the very real limits on their capacity.

      There's a book by David Macaulay called City, about ancient Roman cities and their water systems. You should read it. Mountain springs are not required. A river will do. The upper limit on capacity as designed by Romans was typically about 50,000. Actual city populations were undoubtedly higher than that, but that was their planned capacity. Yes, it takes repeating the Roman cookie cutter method quite a few times to accommodate all 2 billion, but the ancient Romans were already in the habit of duplicating their method repeatedly, because it worked so well. It's quite well adapted to being repeated over and over again.

      And those 2 billion people have nothing more important to be doing than securing a clean water supply. You don't need slaves when you have 2 billion with exactly one first priority.

    10. Re:RTFA. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      There were eleven aqueducts supplying water to Rome...

      Rome was an outlier, in all ways. The typical Roman planned city was much smaller, and required only one aqueduct. No, they didn't treat their sewage, but they had clean drinking water.

      I'll repeat my suggestion to DerekLyons: read David MacCauley's book City.

    11. Re:RTFA. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There's a book by David Macaulay called City, about ancient Roman cities and their water systems. You should read it.

      Yes, I read that kid's book - thirty years ago. Since then, I've read actual history books and actual engineering books.
       

      Mountain springs are not required. A river will do.

      Learn to read jackass - I wrote " mountain springs or other sources of water". (But I really shouldn't expect much more from somebody who uses a kids book as a reference.)
       

      The upper limit on capacity as designed by Romans was typically about 50,000.

      That's no much as by design as it is the natural limit of what an unpressurized, gravity flow system can provide. The same system would provide for much fewer people nowadays, as our sanitation standards are considerably higher. (Among other things, the Romans didn't shower or bathe as we do today.)

      Get back to me when you've at least graduated middle school.

    12. Re:RTFA. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That's no much as by design as it is the natural limit of what an unpressurized, gravity flow system can provide. The same system would provide for much fewer people nowadays, as our sanitation standards are considerably higher.

      The subject is not developed countries. The subject is countries where 700,000 children die of cholera. And yeah, Roman standards of sanitation are a BIG step up.

      Dipshit.

  24. Are you taking the piss out of me ?? by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    We drink filtered rain water from our tank, beautiful.
    After drinking some really bad water from various water treatment plants in cities and towns around Australia, can't go past rain water.
    There are a few water recycling plants in SE Queensland, but generally for non-drinking purposes.
    All my life I've known water is the most important ingredient for life.
    I thought Bill was a straight, never picked him for watersports (urophilia)

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:Are you taking the piss out of me ?? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Until your local carpet python gets in there and dies like happened to me. Never noticed a difference in the taste but god did I gag when I found its rotting body....

      The main plants in SEQ never got turned on. One of the things that makes me angry. If those plants had been turned on then we could have lowered the level in wivenhoe to 50% and we would never have had the 2010 floods.

      Same as the Toowoomba plant. They built a full recycling system there and the politicians chickened out and put turning it on to a referendum. Stupid Stupid Stupid. So that system is now a total loss as well.

  25. Re:Human Growth Hormone and Blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very convincing. I may never go to Adrica again.

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Why is this shocking to anyone? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did anyone really think Bill Gates would have the opinion "We can never drink water molecules that used to have poop next to them. That's just gross."

    People can be skeptical whether a particular water purification process is adequate, but anyone who thinks water can't be purified is just an idiot and probably also homophobic (i.e. the category of people who are compelled to irrationality regarding things that seem gross to them).

    Say what you want about Bill Gates, but he doesn't seem like the type to be idiotically irrational.

    1. Re:Why is this shocking to anyone? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Just remember, don't drink those water molecules that have been next to poop molecules.

  28. precedence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We normally use the natural biology of streams to do this. One town dumps their sewage plant output (clean enough it won't kill you, but not healthy) into a stream. The next town picks up this same water and pulls it into a water plant. In between is the missing step, biology at work.

    In the 50's, a severe drought caused a small town in Kansas to pipe their sewage plant into their water plant. I do not know what happened, but it did not last long. But, it is now in the engineering textbooks. I thought there were desert towns in the US already doing this?

    1. Re:precedence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought there were desert towns in the US already doing this?

      Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station buys waste water from nearby cities, treats it and uses it for cooling. This is in the Arizona desert.

  29. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If he is investing in this tech, does that mean he just put his mouth where his money is? ;)

    (captcha: maggots.)

  30. Pollutants by Rashdot · · Score: 0

    640 pollutants ought to be enough for anybody.

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
  31. Re:olib by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

    There was a guy on ./ years ago with the sig "re-eat your corn".

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  32. Re:There's an urban legend by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    That says Tommy Lee can do this in some sort of perpetual circle. Whatever that means.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  33. Fodder and Mudder by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    With that, Gates opened himself up for Windows jokes wider than goatse

  34. So this . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is Windows9?

  35. Economics? by smaddox · · Score: 1

    Who cares if you can distill clean drinking water from human excrement? What matters is, is it economical?

  36. Many big cities have been doing this for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many, big cities have been recycling sewage for decades. It started in the 1970s. Why is this news?

  37. Be that as it may by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The oceans are still 90% fish pee.

    1. Re: Be that as it may by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all P and no H...

  38. Um, Yeah by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    He would endorse that. In the movie Water World, Bill Gates pees into what appears to be a Mr. Coffee, gets what appears to be water out of it and drinks it.

    :-P

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  39. Maybe not enough by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates Endorses Water From Human Waste
    --

    Bill endorsing it is a start. If perhaps the pope could also bless it, that might make it potable.

    --
    -Dave
  40. Re:There's one significant difference by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Urine is not shit water ;-)

  41. Re:There's one significant difference by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    It was made from sewage, not just urine. It's literally water derived from shit.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  42. Dissipointed in the quality of the comments I see. by Koatdus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess I expect more intellegence from slashdot readers, it used to be that way any way.

    Comments about "Gates selling shit" and "its faked" do nothing except show that you are ignorant and childish. What comes out of that unit is both distilled and then filtered (probably some sort of reverse osmosis filter that could do an ok job of cleaning the water on its own.) Since it is distilled there is no bacteria in it unless it it has been recontaminated further down the line.

    The whole point of this is that there are plenty of places in the world with not much in the line of clean drinkable water. People live in those places. Poor people living in poor countries that can't afford (or chose not to) provide clean drinking water to thier people. Those peoples health and well being would be greatly improved by having safe clean water available. Their lifestyle and economic well being would be greatly improved if that water was available somewhere close to where they live.

    Here is a solution that will take something that is found in abundance everywhere humans and their animals live and turn it in to something that is needed and desired enough that a person may be able to make a living running the thing. It is a solution that a small company (or village) could afford, as opposed to something costing tens of millions of dollars.

    Here is a link to the web site of a small town in the US that just spent $21 million on a treatment plant plus another 30 million on sewage lines:

    https://www.gocolumbiamo.com/P...

    How many little third world villages do you suppose can raise $51 million?

    Way to go Mr Gates!

    --
    Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
  43. This is not good for homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are water's most recent memories the most strong?

  44. Re:There's one significant difference by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    As necessary about the water filter ration system on the ISS, it turns yesterday's coffee into tomorrow's coffee. Seriously though I am in LA and they're such focus on water efficiency of the people are seriously thinking of this.

  45. Re:HEY BILL GATES !!! by amalcolm · · Score: 1

    Take a chill pill!

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  46. Donate MY "water" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I donate My "water" for Bill Gates drinking supply? I would be happy to keep him well hydrated.

  47. Human waste by maestroX · · Score: 1

    I expected bodies hurled in a mechanical squeezer the soylent green way.

  48. Most Likely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

  49. Re:There's one significant difference by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Really? Wake me up when they stop watering their lawns and start wearing stillsuits.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  50. Re:Dissipointed in the quality of the comments I s by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    There are several problems which have caused what you refer to as childish comments.

    1) Gates is involved. Gates is a proven corporate rogue who, while a significant section of the World's population admire him (generally those more ignorant of his history, some even thinking he invented computers), he only generates dislike and cynicism among those concerned about his history of cheating and extortion. They see his "green" and "humanitarian" activities merely as an attempt to repair his bad reputation.

    2) Technology for recycling sewerage has existed for years. Gates is posing as if he were involved in a new inverntion.

    3) There are some simple low-tech solutions to these problems. Water shortages tend to occur where settlements have sprung up in areas in past times where water was adequate (they would not have been settled otherwise) but it has since ceased to be, or because a past irrigation/water supply system has broken down through neglect.. A better solution might be for the people to give it up and move to a location nearer a river from which water can easily be piped (using wind pumps) and filtered much more easily than sewerage can. In fact they may already be near enough.

    Plastic piping is really quite cheap, wind pumps are low-tech, and the rivers of the world currently dump vast quantities of fresh water into the sea every day. I understand that there are stacks of plastic pipes in some African villages, put there by humanitarians for making water supplies, that no-one has actually bothered to assemble. What is needed is some organisation and effort, perhaps by the villagers themselves. So what chance of maintaining Gates' apparatus?

    I am probably one of those you consider unintelligent, childish etc as I have made some critical comments earlier, but keep it going because I feel very secure against that. Just to make sure here it is again :- :

    Gates talks shit, sells shit, and is a shit.

  51. Re:There's one significant difference by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    In "Dune", to spit onto the ground was considered to be a way of showing ultimate approval. Water being so scarce on the desert planet, you just didn't waste water unless you meant to prove your point by a small spit on the ground. Future generations may look back on us and wonder how we could just waste water so easily.

  52. Yes, the elite are crazy degenerates! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As clear as it gets!

    Some people were seriously admiring his forced mosquito laser non-solution for solving things that DDT effectively solves.
    But no, we must think of the children or whatever crap instead of using proven solutions.

  53. Less people please! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I endorse population control so I don't have to drink someone's PISS

  54. Re: olib by orangesquid · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised 2girls1cup has yet to be mentioned. How about meme recycling?; )

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  55. nature does it too by McFly777 · · Score: 1

    Growing up in SE lower Michigan, most of the municipal water was provided by the Detroit metro water supply, which for years was considered one of the best (quality) water systems in the country. (perhaps not so anymore, based on some recent news articles) The water is collected from the middle of Lake Huron, north of Port Huron. There are thousands of cottages along the lakeshore, with many of them having septic systems which empty into the lake. However, sunlight is good at sterilizing water (eventually), and there is a LOT of water in the Great Lakes (~20% of the world's fresh water), so what goes into the pipe is pretty good, even before the filtering and chlorination process.

      I still wouldn't drink the lake water unprocessed, but I never had any concern about swimming/skiing in it. Which inevitably means I swallowed some, as I am not a very good water skier.

    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  56. I think the problem is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    like most things once it's a large scale business somebody is going to look to cut corners. You don't do it directly. You just cut everybody's budgets until it happens "out of sight, out of mind". Heck, you don't even need to cut their budgets, just don't _raise_ them and wait for inflation to do it for you. At 2-5% every year that's a nice profit margin increase.

    So you don't check/change the filtration equipment as much anymore. Your guys are working 16 hour shifts for 20% less than minimum wage 5 years ago thanks to inflation and driving them to work more hours. Suddenly stuff gets into the water that shouldn't. Maybe a few people get sick, maybe a few over 50 die....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  57. Re:There's one significant difference by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Municipal water works already do this. they filter river water

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  58. karaoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny how the American voices the video and we're given no help understanding his nasty accent, but for the couple of sentences from the African man (who is perfectly clear) we get huge karaoke text taking up half the screen.

    #whydotheyhateus

  59. Re:Dissipointed in the quality of the comments I s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am probably one of those you consider unintelligent, childish etc

    Yep, and nothing you have said has changed that opinion.

  60. Toilet to Tap by tquasar · · Score: 1

    The City of San Diego operated a pilot plant in Mission Valley near Jack Murphy Stadium to process wastewater into drinking water. It worked. I was a Water Plant Operator and know the process is safe when waste plant operators follow the proper procedures. The water produced was just returned to a sewer line 'cause it wasn't allowed to be used for drinking. A local news guy did a feature about the plant and took a drink from a gallon jug of recycled water. All hell broke loose. The State officials went crazy! Another pilot plant used chlorine and UV to disinfect water. That worked, the water lab sampled and tested three times/day.

  61. Re:There's one significant difference by TWX · · Score: 1

    Future generations will have probably implemented technology that allows for the use of saltwater without expensive or complicated desalinzation and will have implemented systems that recycle blackwater into usable water, so I doubt they'll wonder how we could just waste water so easily.

    After all, we don't look at ancient Rome's always-on fountains fed by aqueducts in that light, even though they had no off-valve.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  62. In other news by davydagger · · Score: 1

    In other news:

    Windows 10 gets released this week.

  63. Re:There's one significant difference by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Future generations may look back on us and wonder how we could just waste water so easily.

    Because this isn't Arrakis, and most of the Earth's surface is covered in water, which will still be there for future generations as long as we don't find a way to effeciently fuse normal hydrogen for energy.

  64. Re:There's one significant difference by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    They also filter the waste water to similar standards, at least in the US, though I know some central american countries do not.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  65. Oblig XKCD by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 1

    Well not really an XKCD but a What-If.

  66. All water has been mixed with feces and urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As certain as the changing of the tides is the utter putrescence of what lies beneath them. Caked with filth, brimming with urine and home to some of the world's most vile creatures, tidal zones are nature's symbiotic waste dumps."
    - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwz37vF-BI4

  67. Haven't seen you face the music here either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

  68. Re:There's one significant difference by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

    In most of the world, clean fresh water simply isn't a rare resource. Globally, the stuff is so abundant that humanity really couldn't "waste" it if we actively tried.

    The problem is that moving water is expensive, and in some specific places water is *locally* rare. In those places water conservation makes sense, because the alternatives are really expensive. But that doesn't mean anyone should be worrying about water supplies in, say, the eastern US.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  69. deployed and underway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't know definitively if this is true or not, I did spend some time deployed out in a desert and it was most fascinating that the water bottling facility was on one side of a brick wall and the sewer treatment facility was located on the other side of the wall. ... I don't think that was by accident.

  70. yay by evensteven6 · · Score: 1

    that means I can be my own recirculating system

  71. Bill Gates Endorses...Human Waste by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

    Yes, this has been going on for a long time now. How is this new?

    --
    I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  72. kiss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't kiss him - that's for sure