Users who Dugg This
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
Mark Montoya
2415 Followers
Jan in Colorado
7722 Followers
Smashing Hub
451 Followers
lounginlizard
871 Followers
badguy001Jun 12, 2011
Does this mean I can drink my own piss?
bossm4nJun 12, 2011
Is your name Bear Grylls?
badguy001Jun 12, 2011
Not yet.
xyrxJun 12, 2011
That's a good point. This device filters out particulates, but it won't filter out chemicals. In a polluted 3rd-world river, this won't filter out arsenic, pesticides, mercury, or any other chemicals... but filtering out diseases is a good start.
publikjohn9Jun 12, 2011
You may drink my piss.
max1001Jun 13, 2011
Probably considering he added sewage water into the tank.
barackalypseJun 13, 2011
You always could, its sanitary. However you shouldn't drink it more than once (every time you do it further concentrates the things your body was trying to get rid of and you'll strain your kidneys).
dirtyfriesJun 12, 2011
2009?
markmontoyaJun 12, 2011
If only it would work on politics. Seriously great news for the 3rd world and the impoverished.
darkwater37Jun 12, 2011
I think, aside from the merits of why it was invented that this would be a great item to have on camping and hiking trips
rabbitsinblackJun 12, 2011
now how can we lower the price for the people that really need this
barackalypseJun 13, 2011
This will not work, it requires $8 filter cartridges roughly every 1000 gallons.
However Sawyer makes one that can be installed in a 5 gallon bucket that can make nearly 500 gallons per day and costs about $110 shipped plus a $5 bucket. that is good for a million gallons. That is ideal for a village of several hundred people.
000shadow000Jun 13, 2011
$250 bucks come on, sick and tired of this crap, life straw is the same if you really want to save the world sell it at 10% over production cost. then we will all buy them, plastic injection molding and filters there is no way this costs $225 to make,
barackalypseJun 13, 2011
This filters particles 1000 times smaller than the Lifestraw. 0.015 microns versus 15 microns.
000shadow000Jun 14, 2011
I think u missed the point of my post, and heres a heads up I watched the clip and read the article
sloppyjoes7Jun 12, 2011
Isn't that what water filters do?
16x9Jun 12, 2011
I'm not even remotely surprised you'd find fault with this, sloppyjoes7.
Did you even watch the video? If his claims are accurate it works on a level that goes beyond a standard filter. Or are you the kind of person who upon hearing that man first set foot on the Moon would comment, "isn't that what astronauts do?"
sloppyjoes7Jun 12, 2011
If the headline was "Astronaut goes into space," "policeman arrests criminal," "meal feeds family," or "electricity powers computer," I'd still react similarly. That's what they do.
And his filter is just a filter. He doesn't appear to have invented anything. He just slapped filters in a small pressurized container, and wants to sell it. Are his purposes noble? Maybe. But I see nothing revolutionary whatsoever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhellis3Jun 12, 2011
And here is where I wonder if you actually watched the video. If you had, you should have noticed the part where he states the filter has 15 nanometer pores. This is significantly smaller than any other available filter. No it isn't just another filter. In fact, it could quite possibly be the difference between life and death.
sloppyjoes7Jun 12, 2011
"This is significantly smaller than any other available filter. "
Why do you think that's "significantly smaller" than other filters? Because that's flatly untrue. Microfiltration systems are common.
He never claimed to invent the filter. I strongly suspect he took an existing filter, an existing comment, and placed it in a small package, and is advertising it. Like hundreds of other people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhellis3Jun 12, 2011
And you would be wrong.... nothing more really needs to be said here.
sloppyjoes7Jun 12, 2011
Filters already exist. Reverse osmosis filters are commonplace. Microfiltration also exists.
What makes you insist that his filter is different?
jhellis3Jun 12, 2011
I will indulge you one more time on account of your apparent sincerity. Reverse osmosis is not practical for field use (for a variety of reasons). Micro filtration is not comparable to nano filtration. 1 micron = 1000 nanometers. 0.2 microns (which is fairly common among good microfilters) is 200 nanometers. The lifesaver's pores are 15 nanometers, more than an order of magnitude smaller.
sloppyjoes7Jun 13, 2011
Before I made my original assertion, I did a few searches to verify that <15 nm filters existed and were manufactured by multiple companies. I found many.
I apparently said "microfiltration" instead of "nanofiltration," so I apologize for the error.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhellis3Jun 13, 2011
By all means link to one that is practical for field use.
max1001Jun 13, 2011
Simple math, his filter are 15nm small, the current one are 200nm.
gkiltzJun 13, 2011
Reverse osmosis does as well. At a price.
laradanversJun 13, 2011
i can't believe he drank that
max1001Jun 13, 2011
Damn. I wanted buy one but it's $150. Kinda steep.
barackalypseJun 13, 2011
This is cheaper outright and need no replacement filters... It filters down to 0.02 microns instead of the 0.015 microns the Lifesaver one does.
http://www.sawyer.com/viral.htm
max1001Jun 13, 2011
Actually, it say .10 micron on the water bottle one.
neilconnorJun 13, 2011
I will be glad, if this filter helps somebody.
glassagateJun 13, 2011
Here's another idea:
http://www.cleardomesolar.com/solarpurewaterstill.html
Closed AccountJun 13, 2011
Good filter, bad dirt.
sirlowkeyJun 12, 2011
Chapeau, how does it compare with the LifeStraw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw
jasper45Jun 12, 2011
but can he pour milk into a rolled up newspaper?
barackalypseJun 13, 2011
Or you could save about $50 and get the Sawyer 0.02 micron filter that is rated for one million gallons and not need to spend $8 every 1000 gallons on replacement cartridges for this...
http://www.sawyer.com/viral.htmComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
triple110Jun 12, 2011
To the submitter, don't try and capitalize on the work of someone else...buried
bossm4nJun 13, 2011
WTF kind of comment is that? How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the submitter is trying to "capitalize on the work of someone else?" Making your comment even more moot is the fact that it's a Youtube video. Seeing that you've been on Digg for quite a while, how do you not understand the concept of Digg?
triple110Jun 13, 2011
Simple. TEDTalks has their own Youtube channel(yet the video creator on that video is "nexfutbol"), website and TED user account. Lastly, this video been on Digg many times with the same behavior of trying to "win popularity". Lastly, it violates the TOS to resubmit stories that have been already submitted(yes I know it happens all the time but it doesn't excuse the the OP did).
bossm4nJun 13, 2011
That's an awfully big assumption that the OP already knew the video had been on Digg. Not that I remember everything that's ever been on Digg, but I don't recall seeing this and I love the TED video. Furthermore, the Digg search function is abysmal. Even if he had tried to search for the video, I doubt it would have found anything. And you can forget about the dupe detector. That think is even worse than the search feature.
As far as being a TOS violation, that's pretty ridiculous. In other words, lighten up.