For those that are interested in water sanitation, public health, or the environment, I wanted to share this video to see what you all think about this invention by Michael Pritchard. It's pretty cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXepkIWPhFQ
Pritchard made the LIFESAVER bottle a few years back. The water bottle allows those without clean water to have access to safe, clean water by filtering out the smallest viruses and bacteria in water. These bottles cost about $170 for a bottle that filters up to 4000L and about $250 for a bottle that filters up to 6000L. Pritchard's motive for these water bottles is to provide people with clean water when most needed but how would people in poverty afford technologies such as this water bottle? Perhaps funds donated by people in other parts of the world can help pay for bottles to go to developing countries without safe water. But is this a sustainable method of accessing clean water? After all, once the bottle reaches 4000L or 6000L or filtered water, the cartridge will have to be replaced.
In general, other technologies that are created with the intent of helping impoverished people can further complicate the situation. Can we innovate and develop technology that serves its purpose while still being accessible to every person of different social and economic statuses?
After watching Pritchard's TED talk I was definitely impressed. With all of the very insanitary things he put into the water, I was astounded to find that after just a few pumps from the Lifesaver bottle, there was clean drinking water! I do agree that this is a short term solution though, because it does not address how/why the drinking water is being contaminated or access to clean water/the infrastructure of the company. However, I do believe that in terms of cost, it is very low-- half a cent a day for a family of four which can last up to five years for a family of four and processes up to 20,000 L of water. Indeed, the use of Lifesaver has been adopted by the British military, who requires every soldier in Afghanistan to have one. Still, I think the Lifesaver bottles would be most effective in refugee camps and at events of natural disaster rather than as a long term solution.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of using the lifesaver bottle at refugee camps, because the camps are places where there is not formal governmental system.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with both of you about the financial issues involved. I think you are talking about the fact that Pritchard isn't "studying up," as Laura Nader would put it. In other words, part of the problem involves some kind of power structure that is not providing clean drinking water. And the only way to actually solve--at least, try to solve--the problem is to understand why that power structure is failing.
The actual product is pretty snazzy and amazing! But there is clearly much more work to do to make sure that more people have clean drinking water.
The lifesaver bottle seems to be an effective tool in providing safe drinking water during disasters but immediately what popped in my head during his promotion of the lifesaver for everyday use that would allow communities to remain stationary is Scharffenberger's guest lecture. I thought of his example and how in Ghana the women continued the use of the well built awhile ago rather than use the new faucet that provided water more efficiently and perhaps even cleaner all because of the social aspect of the gathering of water for the women. What Pritchard is missing from his discussion on providing safe drinking water is the incorporation of the communities opinions on the lifesaver.
ReplyDeleteI immediately thought of this article I read a while back about using billboards to capture the humidity in the air in Lima, Peru, and converting it to safe drinking water.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/water/a-billboard-that-condenses-water-from-humidity-15393050
This seems really efficient because even though it doesn't rain much in Lima, the summers there are actually really humid. At the end of the billboard, there is a faucet so you can fill up your buckets and bottles (after the water has been purified of course). Installing these billboards probably costs a lot of money, but considering they are a great form of advertisement, I'm pretty sure companies would easily pay to have their ads posted on them. The billboards might be a large investment at first by the government, but they would get paid off really quickly.
I agree with everybody else in that this does not really seem like a solution to a lack of access to safe water. While it is a really cool technology, it seems more of the type of bottle that would be good for adventure seeking (and wealthy) outdoorsy people, not in the context of the developing world in general. I don't think that a lack of technology is the reason that millions of people are without clean drinking water, as there are a host of viable methods to treat water, many of which are much more sustainable than the one presented here. The issue is far more structural, relating to the political economy and power dynamics among various other causes.
ReplyDeleteThis solution reminds me of a solution to malnutrition that was invented called Plumpy’nut, a peanut butter paste that can be given to those who are severely malnourished. Neither of these technologies gets to the root of the problem, and instead are the type of solution that would only function, as others have said, in situations such as famines or war.