Comments on: LIFESAVER: World’s First Ultra Filtration Water Bottle

By: drasticgross

drasticgross — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:02:03 +0000

As with all good/great ideas – they are usually expensive to begin with in order to recoup the cost of the R & D, which means the cost will come down the longer it’s out there. And rather than say “pity, it’s too expensive or that “someone” should start a charity to distribute it, WE all can take steps to make these things happen if WE (includes me!) take the time to look around for those options and just do it! There are children 4th graders – 10 yr olds who have heard about things like this and said – “I can do something!” and they have raised thousands of $$ to dig wells in Africa and many other things.
These people have invented something really good – if nothing else – let’s spread the word!
Check out “thehungersite.com” for simple ways we can all do something in many different areas.

By: livingwater4all

livingwater4all — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:17:52 +0000

Still some un-answered questions about the LifeSAVER water bottle:

1. Lab. test results about reduction by UF just a few liters! What about up till 4000/6000liter?
2. Reduction of heavy metals by activated carbon is NOT possible! (only chlorine and organics)

Pitty, TOO expensive for 3e world humans! Decadent?

By: McLawdog

McLawdog — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:46:25 +0000

The price is only $149 US at the moment for the 6000 liter model.

By: andie

andie — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:25:49 +0000

hey! i wanted to invent that!

By: lalalauren

lalalauren — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:29:57 +0000

this seems like a great idea, but not very useful to those who need it the most.

just wondering, is there any sort of charity that helps raise money to send these bottles or something like them to people in countries with no clean water?

if not, is there any way to get that started?

this is a great product, but useless if those who need it can’t afford it.

By: lalalauren

lalalauren — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:24:24 +0000

this seems like a great idea, but not very useful to those who need it the most.

just wondering, is there any sort of charity that can raise money to give these bottles to people in countries with no clean drinking water?

if not, is there any way to get one started?

i just think this seems like such a valuable item, but useless if it can’t be distributed.

By: avidhiker

avidhiker — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:04:53 +0000

It appears to be a little more convenient to use than the numerous “extreme” water filters available on the market for far less money, but I detect a significant design flaw. To use this, you dip the entire unit into the water, thereby getting any nasty germs, viruses, etc. all over the exterior of the container. So, if you didn’t have the lid over the drinking teat closed perfectly — or if it leaks at all — you’ve contaminated the unit. Even if the lid works perfectly (and the child or other user *always* remembers to keep it tightly covered), the entire exterior of the unit is contaminated, so the person who handles the unit will have contaminated hands.

I’ll keep using my water filter with its tubes which I can isolate in “clean water” and “dirty water” bags. It also works even if the water source is only about 1/2 inch deep, while this bottle must be dipped much deeper into the water source to obtain much water to process.

By: matt b

matt b — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:56:15 +0000

Actually twiterbee they can, this is how drinking water is treated before getting the final does of Cl2, which in thurn reduces the amount of Cl2 needed preventing the formation of trihalomethanes. It is a reliable simple process which is cost effective compared to UV or chemical treatment.

By: twiterbee

twiterbee — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:32:43 +0000

It cannot possibly remove viruses and disease. That has got to be a false/misleading statement.
They cannot be removed by filtration.

By: The Lifesaver Bottle; Saving the Lives of the Rich-- pulltheskydown.com

The Lifesaver Bottle; Saving the Lives of the Rich-- pulltheskydown.com — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:37:54 +0000

[...] may be putting the case too harshly, because as the Inhabitat blogger mentions, that price must be representative of tremendous R&D investment, and genuine progress is [...]

By: earthsaver

earthsaver — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:14:28 +0000

Actually, the 4000 L bottle is 195£; while a 6000 L bottle is 230£.

By: Androo

Androo — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:11:57 +0000

I wonder if this product could benefit from the mantra “good is good enough.” Rather than perfect, that is. While it is an impressive tour de force of engineering development, the $460 price tag must cause sticker shock to nearly everyone. Existing commercial water filter bottles, or even the LifeStraw, may not completely purify water – but you can buy 150 LifeStraws for the price of 1 Lifesaver. And even the LifeStraw is too expensive for those who truly need it.

As with uber-supercars like the Bugatti Veyron, it’s an object that has lost all relevance in its pursuit of the ultimate.

By: M2JL

M2JL — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:11:19 +0000

Smart and well done :)
@ Zyde: I think the “dirt” is carbon, as part of the filtration system. There’s a company called Aquaovo that uses something similar for the filtration of their eco friendly water distributor. (http://www.aquaovo.com/ovo_en.html)

By: Brian Lang

Brian Lang — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:49:49 +0000

I believe the “dirt” you’re seeing is the pre-filter disc as labeled in the 4th image.

By: zyde

zyde — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:40:39 +0000

wow this is amazing, it would change the world. But i dont understand the photos, how come theres dirt in it? Is that part of the filtration process?