RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

These are rather dangerous to use. If the primary contaminants are biological, then the intake end and the outflow end must not be cross-contaminated.

These were fairly standard survival equipment 20 years ago and have been supplanted by a number of inegral bottle-filter combinations with the outflow covered by a secure (multi-gasket) cap.

The standard for extended use are filter pumps.

ALL benefit by the use of saturated Iodine solution pre-treatment of water sources.

Of course, these don't remove saline or heavy-metals.

# posted by Anonymous 3:29 PM

I used the integrated bottle filters when I was living in a former spy city in western Russia years ago. The filter kept rust, lead, bacterial agents and other contaminants out of the water, but it always left water tasting bitter and reminiscent of stale potatoes. Years later, European bottled water was imported and we could throw away the filters.

# posted by Jason in Oregon 4:19 PM

Stale potatoes? You sure you weren't using an old vodka bottle by accident?

# posted by Bill 5:47 PM

While the previous post about cross contamination and the lack of removal of heavy metals is true I would like to point out another short coming of a 96% removal.

First I would like to point out that a 90% removal would be a 1-log reduction where as a 99% is a 2-log reduction. In regards to a log removal, a 1-log reduction would reduce the amount, for example, of virus from 1000 to 100. Since it’s hard to tell, just by looking at water, how much virus is present and how much it takes to make you ill, it would be difficult to tell how much virus you need to remove.

“Safe” drinking water requires around a 99.99% (4-log) removal of viruses (Based on the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; I believe that this is based on US regulations but the science behind it looks sound in theory.) This % removal would have to be even higher as virus concentration increases. So in short these straws would be risky used on almost any water except already treated drinking water.
Another factor to consider is the chemical treatment also becomes more or less effective based on water pH, temperature, chemistry of the water and the lenght of the chemical treatment being uses. If used on already polluted water and a short time for the chemicals to actually work before you drink the water the effective removal might not actually even reach the 96% claimed by the manufacture.

# posted by Anonymous 8:41 PM

The sad news about the straw can be found here:
http://www.arthurdovermd.com/water.html

Personally, I preferred the bendable variety that turned regular milk into chocolate milk as you sipped.

# posted by Bill 12:10 AM

As I pointed out at the start: these were survival devices and turbidity was their métier - Iodine pre-treatment would knock out viral and bacterial contaminants. The advantage was weight in the survival kit. Today the MSR MIOX is the standard.

See: http://tinyurl.com/66j68

Now, Bill it appears that we actually agree....

# posted by Anonymous 10:44 AM

It's the law of averages. You can't be wrong all the time. ;-)

# posted by Bill 1:06 PM

I'm not getting into the argument above, just to say :

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of poor people affected by the recent Tsunami who don't have access to clean drinking water would find them useful, I hope they got a free shipment or two but I doubt it!

# posted by Anonymous 4:38 PM

Alice when you came back from Thailand you DID bring Bill a shirt that read "Alice went to Thailand and all I got was this shirt" RIGHT?

# posted by JD 6:24 PM

No, it said, "Alice went to Thailand and all I got was this shirt and a bag of elephant composte."

# posted by Bill 8:25 PM

Tood, from what I understand, they didn't get any straws. Anyone who could be reached got clean water.

# posted by Bill 8:26 PM