digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

$3 Gadget Produces Safe Drinking Water

msnbc.msn.com — A $3 gadget that promises to quench a user's thirst for a year without spare parts, electricity or maintenance...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -87/+5Skip the video (or at least turn your volume way down). It's basically a filtration system, good for many parasites, but not all.

    If they can produce these for under $3, great. But how often do they need to be replaced?
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -3/+53RTFA
    • HBNDonut, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54Maybe theyre already using these in the toilet water at that school.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Even if it takes out only half of parasites, that is still a large boon. The real question is can you win the PR battle to get people using it. Some people will use this and still get sick, you have to make people accept that it reduces the chances of illness rather than ends them. There are still plenty of people in the west fearful of preventative medicine because you can still get ill or die even if you take preventative steps.
    • M3RCINIAN, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23Just add water!
    • longboarder543, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Just make sure in your haste you don't grab DeathStraw, because when you suck water through it it electrolyzes the H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen and blows up in your face.
    • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -20/+8I know I'm a prick, but somebody has to say it. We are in symbiosis with the land, and when something like this allows us to cram even more people on an unhospitable piece of land, the only thing it does is make overpopulation a bigger problem. In an area already burgeoning with more mouths than it could ever hope to feed, this is the last thing we need.
    • WarpFox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23he didn't even have to RTFA, it's in the damn description "for a year"
    • ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11@spuy767 right, we don't have enough food, that's why so many Americans are so underweight...oh wait a minute! it's the opposite of that! We have way the ***** too much food! Oh, I see what you're saying, kill the ***** and take away their health care so there's more food for you? Nice try trying to elevate yourself to the level of a "prick." ***** you.
    • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4"Just a filtration system"

      Gee, I completely forgot that Africa had hundreds of these.
    • allywilson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8@spuy767

      Symbiosis with the land? Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the last 10 thousand years (no creationist jokes please...) human beings have been moving away from being at the mercy of nature. Heck, who knows, one day we might remove ourselves from adversely affecting it entirely - peace at last?
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4For the record, I actually like the idea of the straw and I did read the article (where I found the bit about it filtering most parasites, not all).

      My question wasn't well put, but I rephrased it under @vroom's comment below. I'm happy you're digging down my first question, though -- it definitely isn't clear. Please bury it.
    • illuminatiwatch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4this is good news.. but hardly new. I wonder why, in the video, the woman throws the contaminants netted in her makeshift cloth filter back into the well?? And we worry about reusing bottles of water because of bacteria...
    • webtroy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The video couldn't have been any louder.. and did anyone else notice when she was filtering the water with the rag, that she threw the gunk back in the well? .. why not throw it on the ground outside the well? ..

      *illuminatiwatch* you beat me to it!!!

      I hope tools like this will become the norm and help the people who need it. But in reality, i think education may be the first step.

    • laplacian, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1i remember when this was news 3 years ago.
    • webtroy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@laplacian

      thats funny, i dont remember you sharing the news 3 years ago with all the people who didn't hear about it? ..

      your comment is useless.
    • jcarrion1976, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7True free-market capitalism at its best.
      Nice to see that.
      We need more people like that solving world problems.
    • unfinite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Very cool, but will it allow me to drink my own urine, like in Water World?
  • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28Article on one page:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19121634/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/


    @EntropyMan

    From the article: ". . . The nine-inch-long straw filters up to 185 gallons of water--about a year's worth of use--after which it needs to be replaced."
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11We already knew that he didn't read the articles.
    • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I wonder if there's a mechanism in place to back flush the filters so that they don't become clogged.

      I'm sure the straw can filter 185 gallons of tap water, but I seriously doubt it can filter that much pond, well or river water. The particulate content is way too high and those filters would become clogged in no time.

      It's a nice idea though.
    • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6alphaeta: In that case, I'd probably pre-strain it using some fabric (a bit of cloth over a cup - heck, my shirt in a pinch, dip cup into water, drink from straw). Same kind of thing I'd do when camping before either treating or boiling the water.
    • GuitarWizard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16"The LifeStraw currently does not filter out Giardia lamblia, a common parasite (making it a bad choice for U.S. backpackers looking for a way around boiling their camp water), but Vestergaard Frandsen says the company is working on solving that problem."

      I'll be keeping my eye on this...having a straw that is safe enough to drink water while camping in the USA would be awesome!
    • rocke86, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18"I wonder if there's a mechanism in place to back flush the filters so that they don't become clogged."

      Read the instructions, to flush it blow through the filter.
      http://www.lifestraw.com/en/high/instructions.asp

      Nice idea, and no electricity required. I would like to see one that matches the $100 laptop's colors. : )
    • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ah, cool... thanks rocke86!

      I guess I should have thought to read the instructions.
    • gr3yn3t, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7edit: rocke86 beat me to it. bury me
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@vrooom, thanks for answering directly.

      I actually saw the "for a year" part of the description and read the article. What I was inelegantly trying to ask was how many times can it be cleaned before replacing it? Apparently, it needs to be flushed regularly, but after the 186 gallons, you just throw it away? That's what I find odd -- even if filters need to be replaced.

      For a lot of places this would be used, $3 is quite a bit of money. And people will probably try to clean these and reuse, instructions notwithstanding. It's not a "consume and dispose" kind of world, except in the West.

      Anyway, sorry for not being clear about the question.
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Try the [reply] button next time.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Katadyn has a bottle purifier that works with a straw like mechanism...but it is 10x more expensive ($30):
      http://www.katadyn.us/brands-products/katadyn/katadyn-filters-and-purifiers/ultralight-series/katadyn-exstream.html

      Or how about some geeky UV tech? http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=39174031

      But, wouldn't a bottle of iodine or chlorine bleach work just as well? A bottle of little chlorine dioxide pills costs $6 in the USA. And plain ole household bleach is dirt cheap.

      Or...you can boil your drinking water over a fire to kill the nasties.

      If you can't be bothered to boil or chemically treat your water, what makes you think that drinking out of a straw is going to help? The problem is the failure of government to provide the infrastructure necessary to have safe drinking water...and the apathy of africans who let their leaders get away with murder.
    • philba, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@ubuwalker - actually this looks to be a very appropriate technology. all those measures work but are a hassle or require supplies. And, have you ever tasted water with those purifier tablets??? nasty.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't think it's because the filter get physically clogged, but because of the chemistry of some of the filtration elements. Of course, don't know, but that seems to be the most logical explanation.
  • Makubex, on 10/11/2007, -9/+85"You have to suck pretty hard at first to get it moist, but after that it's easy,"

    Tell that to my girlfriend.
    • d4rkarch0n, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Make a careful use of the "hard" word.
      Give her some details, might come in handy.
    • giid, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I just did last night.
    • ashmon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I think you mean "That's what she said."
    • mal1964, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20@makubex girlfriend,

      "You have to suck pretty hard at first to get it moist, but after that it's easy,"
    • MakubexsLady, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12@ mal1964

      Thanks! I was wondering what I was doing wrong!
    • scheibs14, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21@makubex

      Please tell me you didn't just create an account for your pretend girlfriend
    • mal1964, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@scheibs14

      Busted, I'm also a pretend replier
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@mal1964
      No, you're not.
  • TigerX, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4I remember playing around with this idea for an invention faire back in grade school... Couldn't ever get the water completely through the filtering mechanism.
  • gert527, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16we need more innovation like this, more humanity less profit.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8Less profit ? If they are selling it for 3$, it must cost them .50$ to make, probably less.
    • Ghost9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31Profit however is what makes innovation happen so fast. In the end, humanity benefits one way or another, might as well make it fast.
    • Light11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12just because it costs 50 cents to make, theres still research costs, admin costs, payin salaries, everything, not just the item
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3My point was to gert, that corporation don't create stuff because they are humanist, they create stuff because they can make a profit out of it.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I don't think sticking a filter in a tube had a lot of development costs.
    • Toast1185, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No, but sticking a filter in a tube that does something useful takes quite a bit of development costs.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The whole point of the article is that he's both capitalist and humanitarian. They;re not mutually exclusive. Look, FTA:

      "As a businessman, I can be proud to get a contract for 2 million bed nets and fulfill it on time," he says. "But as a person, I can be proud that over the lifetime of the nets they will prevent the deaths of 400,000 children." Thanks to the LifeStraw, they needn't go thirsty either."
  • lichme5000, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40Two things:

    A) This sounds like a terrific idea, and I hope it catches on.

    2) Why is it that the first post of every single digg story is made by a moron? Is that some kind of requirement?
    • gr3yn3t, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13http://digg.com/users/EntropyMan/news/commented

      Looks like he just lurks around the upcoming stories to get a word in edgewise..
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8@gr3yn3t and @lichme, I didn't ask my question well, but all it needed was a direct answer.

      As for commenting on posts in the queue, it's because the conversations are usually better, quieter, more informed, and it generally avoids dealing with immature assholes. By the time a story hits the front page, the average maturity of the comments drops by 15 years. Have fun expressing your inner dickishness though. Knock yourself out.

      BTW, I also think the straw is great. My question was actually about something else (see above), though I know it wasn't clear.
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6A) This is a list
      2)I label each step differently
      iii) I am a fool.
  • heavystone, on 10/11/2007, -22/+1Funny how Canada is looked down apon, when in reality they are very dependant on them...typical American ignorance.
  • shadowspawn, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Don't they have this in a pump form already?

    And what about this part of the article: "The LifeStraw currently does not filter out Giardia lamblia, a common parasite".

    So basically an article about something that will cost $3 now, but won't really provide safe water from common areas.

    Giardia lamblia: "It feeds on mucus inside the digestive tract and causes the host to have epigastric pain, excessive gas, and diarrhea with fat and mucus but no blood. This can last from 2 - 4 weeks but for a lactose intolerant individual, it can last up to six months."

    Maybe when it's producing "safe" water for everyone, it'll be marketed at a more expensive price.

    (I gotta add that it probably is geared to areas where the bacteria doesn't exist, but it still sounds like a damn odd wrap-up of an article, don'tchya think)
    • Chebyshev, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5More people might know Giardiasis by the more common name of Beaver Fever. It is definitely not pleasant.
    • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Giardia isn't a bacterium... it's a protist.

      Here's a cool fact sheet: http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This is a moderately priced, large incremental improvement developed on a cost-benefit basis relative to what people can afford.

      If you've gone camping in North America, there's a reasonable chance you've had Giardia and not thought it severe enough to seek medical attention. There exist many nastier parasites in Africa that truly debilitate, and the lifestraw provides an effective preventative measure against them. Learn about guinea worm and schistosomiasis to see what severe water-born parasites can do.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Yes there are hand pumps you can buy for making any water safe, including from "beaver fever" but they cost a lot more than $3. This is meant to be a cheap solution for a global problem. I first read about this a year ago. It's a great start.
    • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4shadowspawn: That's still 99% safer than the ***** water they're forced to drink now - that's called progress. If we had to wait until something was 100% bulletproof before we ever considered using it, we'd probably still be cavemen. This is progress, but there's more to be done.
    • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I had a bout with Giardiasis about 10 years ago and it is not something you want to get. I was told it was from Racoon feces in the water.

      It took the doctors a month to diagnose the problem, as the parasite (or whatever it is) can be hard to detect.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It doesn;t yet filter giardia, but it filters many other, worse parasites cheaply and easily, and that makes a difference.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Aww *****, I've had "Beaver Fever" ever since I hit puberty...

      *zing!*
  • techsmack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Wired mag had something about this, like a year or two ago. Seems like quite an invention. I believe it was something that the red cross was hoping to adapt in the event of another Tsunami or of course New Orleans... Definitely a must have for a trip to Mexico
  • Nutmegan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This would help solve a major world issue if they can get it right—far bigger than global warming.
  • mackidbrendan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5where can i get one?
  • RAiNsTorm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm into ultralight backpacking/camping and I use a Frontier "straw" which filters and purifies up to 200 gallons of water and costs about $6-7 retail and is readily available. I'm stil cool with this just for the cost factor, but those Frontiers could easily be sold for $3-4 to these nations.
  • bightchee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12It's inventions like these that bring a tear to my eye for how beautiful it is that science can better the world in this way.
  • mackidbrendan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18sorry for spam

    heres there website
    http://www.lifestraw.com/en/high/maincont2.asp
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12That's not spam, you're being helpful.
  • Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5When they make a device this size that'll desalinate water, that'll be another huge breakthrough.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Q14. What is the impact of saline water on the lifetime of LifeStraw®?

      It is expected that continuously drinking saline water through the LifeStraw® would reduce effective life to 350 litres.

      From the FAQ, so it does desalinate?
    • Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@bemenaker

      Interesting! Maybe I'll pick one or two up.
  • Caluen, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4So let me get this stright, for 50 quid i can either give a laptop (or well they went up to 100..) or 33 of these, isnt that an easy choise?
  • munkyxtc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This is a great step in the right direction. When these go into mass production even if they cost $10 each you could still purchase 100k of these which I definately think has a better cost to benefit factor than most of the items currently being purchased for aiding 3rd world countries.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Why would you think it has good cost benefit? $3 for 185 gallons is rather poor performance. Biggest is better when it comes to water treatment. I pay 66 cents for that same amount to the city.
    • Xemus83, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1^^^ This is not a product for civilized nations with advanced water purification systems.... What city will the people go to in the middle of Africa to get their water purified?
    • Coded1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@error...

      You're forgetting they have no piping, no home plumbing, no streets, ...
      Paying $0.66 multiplied by the number of people in your city, lets say 30,000 people .66x30000 = $19,800 per payment cycle for *you* to get clean water. These people cannot afford even that, these straws are likely to be subsidized by health organizations. Don't forget as well much of your water is also paid at a federal level coming out of taxes that are not specifically for water but for maintenance and R & D. In many of these poor countries building such an infrastructure, even with enough money is difficult because of government inabilities and corruption.

      This way each person gets control, control over their own water supply. Being portable it makes every body of water a drinking fountain, so really they are getting a much better deal, how many times away from home do you have to pay or go out of your way for water? In Canada the average bottle of water is $1CDN for 500ml, outside of my house in most cases this is the only option as most places would rather put up a drink machine rather than a water fountain.

      So as an initial asking price it is still a very good price and product, you should even look into getting one ;)
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Error
      That's like saying it would be better to have one central power station and power infrastructure as opposed to many small generators. It's true, but the places where generators are needed don't have the electrical infrastructure necessary. So the best thing we can do is sell cheap, effective generators. It's the same thing with water purification and the Lifestraw.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Replacing the whole thing after so many uses isn't exactly "no maintenance". It could be handy for an emergency filter but throw-away usually means poor cost performance.
  • cheekybastard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Very nice. Karma and a profit.
  • shnazzay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is such a huge improvement for people in other areas of the world where it's hard to find good drinking water. Who cares if it doesn't protect against one protist in America? People in America can go to a public building and find a drinking fountain or a sink.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1$3 is still a lot of money in those countries that are too poor to build a sanitary water system.
    • Skye16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+43$ for a year. 3$ for substantially less time being sick or dying. 3$ for however-much in doctor's fees. 3$ for more time spent amassing more food or better living conditions, instead of ***** out your intestines or just laying around, making others take care of you.

      3$ a year is not so very bad.

      it's at least a step in the right direction, and may eventually help provide a tipping point for people struggling for survival to start struggling for prosperity. with prosperity comes infrastructure and with infrastructure comes centralized sanitary water systems and with centralized sanitary water systems (and sewage systems) comes an awful lot of benefits.

      This may not be the end-all be-all of clean water, but it's a hell of a lot better than drinking untouched rancid feces from a local river.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's a huge step in the right direction. But I'd be surprised if there isn't Giardia or something as small and harmful in Asia. It's just much harder to filter those, and people may be more used to living with them.
    • tomatogirl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Giardia is not just in America -- it's a problem worldwide.

      Still, this looks like an excellent product and hopefully it will continue to improve.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4$3 a year is not bad...if you have $3.
    • Skye16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3keep in mind that the chances of individuals buying this is probably relatively low. however, international aid organizations may be positively giddy at the opportunity to buy these and provide them. one cannot stress enough the importance of clean drinking water in the development of civilization.
  • TylerLavite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3who made that video? and who did the commentary the audio levels where maxed out and at the end when he said the question is "is clean water safe water" you could barley here him.. but its a good idea
  • Solkre, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think this is a much better idea to help developing countries than the OLPC project. I wouldn't mind donating $30 to see this help 10 people for a year.
  • futureisours, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1How is the US bottled water industry supposed to expand their markets into third world countries when a product like this is developed. This is hurting US industry. NO DIGG. DIGG DOWN.
  • tracker5kx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0you learn in basic econ, someone can invent a device that prevents car pollution and GIVE it away, no one is going to use it unless the government intervenes. i still dont want "safe" drinking water because my aquafina and dasani taste better. ill use $3 on 3 liters of aquafina @ circle k
  • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They sell these at cabelas: http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0013055515228a.shtml
  • lazn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3these have been out for ages by many different MFG's. Though the going price seems to be $9.99 so reducing that to $3 is a good thing.
  • capeguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1less than a penny a day to provide clean water to a human being.... and how much does Paris Hiltons dog water cost??
  • Kevin108, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I want one but the only ones I can find are on eBay for $14...not $3!
  • N256, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Now they just need $3 food for a year.
  • cellphoneguider, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0international aid organizations and the red cross society should buy them and supply them to the place where such produces are very useful.
  • Cowfrommars, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Water isn't safe to drink?
  • oana77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0We spend a lot of money for unnecessary things.We want to be safe for drinking water.
    Oana,
    http://benvarim.blogspot.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.