quote:

---

If Londoners were to jump in the eco-friendly shower, it would reduce the capital's water usage by 85 billion litres each year - the equivalent of 85,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The shower works using filters and hydro cyclones, installed behind the shower unit, to clean the recycled water and reheat it to the desired temperature.

The shower's features include a water meter showing water usage per shower and a chlorine filter.

---

It will save a great deal of water, but probably kill hundreds more each year due to tainted water.

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: scooter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
But isn't e.Coli-tainted water only dangerous if you drink it? Do a lot of people drink from their shower nozzles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
But isn't e.Coli-tainted water only dangerous if you drink it? Do a lot of people drink from their shower nozzles?

---

why such negative responses to something that can do so much good? if the shower breaks down while you're standing underneath it, you'll come out smelling. give yourself a quick rinse by splashing yourself with water from the sink, and go buy a new shower. if you smell too awful to go to work, take the day off!

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

You don't have kids now do you? Many little kids love to suck on a wash cloth. Blow bubbles, put their faces under water, etc.

---

Sorry. You're absolutely right. If I think back 20 years or so, I can remember sucking on wash cloths myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
as for people forgetting to replace the filters, so much of our society is built on taking advantage of and promoting sheer laziness in people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
...we have faster cars, green spaces cut down for larger highways, fast food, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
Accident rates go up with our faster 'safer' cars. Fast food causes health problems but saves us time.

It is called unintended consequences.

---

unintended consequences, my ass. people are too bloody used to quick and convenient luxuries, running around like mad hatters, and ignoring their own personal health. accidents can be avoided if people weren't always in such a goddamned hurry and became smarter drivers. fast food health problems can be avoided by eating less or none of it, and making the time to cook healthier meals. health problems resulting from dirty shower filters can be fixed by replacing the goddamned filter. it can't be that fuckin' hard!

quote:

---

But isn't e.Coli-tainted water only dangerous if you drink it? Do a lot of people drink from their shower nozzles?

---

The risk of infection goes way up when the water is vapourized into droplets, as in the case of the water in a shower.

Secondly, I would guess the risk of Legionella would go up as the water needs to be heated to around 160F for that to be minimized. It's the same reason that the push to lower hot water tank temperatures to 140F to prevent scalding increases the risk of other diseases.

I doubt that an instant water heater like this would be able to provide a steady shower stream of recycled 160F water.

quote:

---

To me it would seem that a system that simply recyled shower, laundry, dishwashing and bath water into a re-pressurized graywater system for use in toilet tanks, garden watering, carwashing, etc. would save just as much water, be cheaper and more maintenance-free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
unintended consequences, my ass.

---

I do like the idea of gray water usage but that disappeared with a friends renovation. The plumber mixed up the hot and cold lines to a bathroom. Heaven help us if a plumber if the safe and gray water lines were mixed up.

We used to have a big problem with people hooking up their cloth washer wrong, thus causing a mix of dirty and clean water in their home. You would like installing a washer/dryer was easy but many got it wrong with dire health problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
first buy a shower head that allows you to shut the water down to a tricle while you're soaping up...

---

quote:

---

El-niño cleans the water to the required Class 2 standard by using an hydrocyclone and filter system which removes unwanted particles and disposes of 30% of the re-circulated water. Using a heat exchanger in concert with the heater, the water is heat-treated to kill any bacteria. 30% of cold mains water is then introduced to the re-circulated water, which allows precise electronic mixer control of the temperature and prevents saturation of soap build-up.

---

If this is somehow not possible, due to laws of physics or some similar inconvenience, I'd rather not be told please. Having to consider whether something is scientifically possible in our universe before presenting it to the world as an idea just isn't me, OK?

i come across what seems to be a straightforward good news story.

then, scooter and firecaptain presume that a shower system that receives a design award in a G8 country will breed killer bacteria (i found the extra information about the design in my 2nd post in about 5 minutes of google).

now, magoo implies that it's an idea as whacky as some of Courtney's brainstorms.

we're going to have to begin water conservation programmes very soon.

quote:

---

In Canada:

- In 1999, urban Canadians used an average of 343 litres of fresh water per person per day, more than twice as much as such countries as Germany, The Netherlands, or the UK.

- According to Environment Canada, over the last 20 years total water use has increased by 25 per cent.

- With 20 per cent of the world’s total fresh water, Canada has more fresh water than any other country. However, most of it is geographically inaccessible to major population centers, which are concentrated in the south.

- Impending climate change is likely to affect Canada’s water supply, reducing both the quantity and quality of water available through river systems.

---

quote:

---

now, magoo implies that it's an idea as whacky as some of Courtney's brainstorms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
i come across what seems to be a straightforward good news story.

then, scooter and firecaptain presume that a shower system that receives a design award in a G8 country will breed killer bacteria (i found the extra information about the design in my 2nd post in about 5 minutes of google).

---

yah, i was ticked off with that whole drama about germs and poisons killing lazy people too. i mean, i've got to wonder about those people who are so fucking lazy they would much rather shower in dirty, infected water than change a bloody filter. i imagine such people would be too lazy even to step in the shower, in which case they'll build up such a stink, their social lives will be nada.

i mean, like, these people are in such dire need of a reality check. it takes energy to clean our water. we are dirtying water faster than we clean it up. maybe canadians are just spoiled because canada has the largest resource of fresh-water in the world. though who knows how long that's going to last - our government seems so eager to sell it all off to private water companies and the states. and here's somebody who's saying he can come up with a device that uses 40% less energy and 70% less water in the shower, but still gets the job done... and my first reaction is, "wow, if somebody can really make this thing work, everybody on this planet would benefit so much from it", but then along come a couple of fucktards whining that it will poison lazy people. gimme a fuckin' break. i mean, if there is a serious defect in this product, is there something we can do fix it, instead of dismissing the whole thing?

from willowdale's link:

quote:

---

El-niño won first prize in the British Standards Institution Awards for its potential applications in countries such as Western Australia where fresh water is in short supply and tax incentives have been introduced to encourage low water use appliances and the installation of some appliances, such as dual flush toilets is mandatory.

In other parts of the world, China for example, the maximum power that can be drawn from a domestic electricity supply is 3kW (compared to 7.5-11kW in the UK) which can make electric showers unusable due to the extremely low flow rate of heated water.

---

people really need to wake up to the fact that fresh water is a scarce resource, it is a basic human need, there are many people all over the world who are dying from lack of it everyday, and it's high time those of us with more water than we need changed our water consumption habits. most canadian homes have at least 4 sources of water, there are homes in africa that don't even have one.

[ 08 September 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I don't, but by then the thread had become a parody of itself, so what-the-hey. Such is the internet.

---

quote:

---

i mean, i've got to wonder about those people who are so fucking lazy they would much rather shower in dirty, infected water than change a bloody filter. i imagine such people would be too lazy even to step in the shower, in which case they'll build up such a stink, their social lives will be nada.

---

If you actually look at the design of the shower and consider how water-bourne diseases are spread, you'd soon realize that while this may work, it certainly isn't a case of simply changing the filters on it.

It sounds, from WW post, that the water is superheated (to what, it doesn't say) then balanced using cold water. Fine. How much energy does that use. How efficient is it and how long will it keep that rate of efficency. How is that water cleaned and purified as it cycles? How long does it take to be super-heated (I can't find a figure) because I sincerely doubt that it can be picked up from a drain and heated by 90F in the time it takes to reach the top of the device. If it's not super-heated, it'll breed bacteria. Sickness and death next stop.

But hey, why don't you try it first and tell us how it works.

quote:

---

and my first reaction is, "wow, if somebody can really make this thing work, everybody on this planet would benefit so much from it", but then along come a couple of fucktards whining that it will poison lazy people. gimme a fuckin' break. i mean, if there is a serious defect in this product, is there something we can do fix it, instead of dismissing the whole thing?

---

Pretty contemptuous of the lazy and the the complaining fucktards there, eh? Shit, why would anyone care if a some moron died cause he couldn't change a filter. We're saving energy here people.

One question. How ofter do people change the things around the house they need to regularly. Very infrequently? Never?

I wonder why they wouldn't go with UV sterilization? Or Ozone? These are both pretty popular with water treatment, and neither requires that anything be changed regularly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Now I'm wondering about that Brita. Will anyone here confess to maybe, once in a while, leaving the filter in longer than 3 months? I sure do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Someday I mean to test some Brita filters, just for fun. For example, what if I put coffee through one? Can it filter out the coffee and leave the water? Would it take the colour out of Kool-aid? Could it filter blood?

---

Magoo, you could have just hit on a superb money-making idea here: blood filtering. Fights the seven signs of aging! Gives your skin 73% younger appearance! Scientifically proven* to reduce cellulite! (cue images of a "laboratory" staffed by young slim women with long glossy hair, 4 inch heels, glasses [to show they're scientists] and lab coats)

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Brita filters; bottled water. Expensive idiocy. Every single reputable testing ever conducted has shown municipal water as least as safe, if not safer than these products, and better tasting. (Incidents such as Walkerton excepted, of course)

---

Bottled water may be expensive idiocy, but Brita filters aren't, necessarily.

quote:

---

Suzette, don't be silly! The glasses are to make them seem smart, the lab coats are to show that they're scientists!

---

My favourite is when they're wearing really short lab coats. And when their glasses have no glass in them. And when the bun in their hair is held with a pencil, which they remove to allow their luxurious hair to cascade over their shoulders.

quote:

---

...scienticians...

---

quote:

---

it was clear that the whole idea is based around that famous Dyson cyclone - in this instance it plays a roll in cleaning the water.

---

Yeah, but to me it would take a hell of a lot more then centrifugal force to make the water potable again and again. And that's what you need to do in a recycling shower. If you can't make it potable (in a nutshell, drinkable), then it can't be used because it's a safety hazard.

It's not so much a problem of removing dirt or grime or soap bits from the water. Its various bacteria and microbes (e-coli, legionella, giardia and cryptosporidium) that would cause problems. Is this relatively simple technology going to eliminate these by itself or do you need a system of heat, chemical, or other treatment that will work in a maxium of a few minutes? Then you need to guarantee that the system will work without a glitch for years and years.

Tall order, and if they can do it more power too them.

Why is there so much concern about bacteria? Surely the contents of the water mixture is composed of the following: water, soap, whatever was on your body, whatever was in the pipes/bath. Actually, that sounds pretty dirty, doesn't it...

quote:

---

They're scientifically proven to make you appear up to 47% smarter. Although my blonde hair brings that down by 28%.

---

But you scientifically get 34% more fun, which rises to 42% if you have natural looking highlights. Clearly, who wouldn't want to be a leggy blond scientist? We've even isolated the leggy blond scientist factor into this convenient pill form. Side effects may include bloating, cramping, loss of bladder control and dizziness. In extreme cases, violent hermit syndrom has been known to result.

quote:

---

My favourite is when they're wearing really short lab coats. And when their glasses have no glass in them. And when the bun in their hair is held with a pencil, which they remove to allow their luxurious hair to cascade over their shoulders.

Also, if they have a PhD in rocket surgery, but they're about 19. Those are the best scienticians by far.

---

That just shows how smart they are. How many scientists do YOU know that had a PhD in anything by 19, and all without the strain of breaking a sweat, or disregarding personal experience for a moment.

Besides, everybody knows that scientists only wear lab coats to look important. They don't actually serve a purpose, like keeping them from bathing in dangerous chemicals when there's a spill.

quote:

---

Why is there so much concern about bacteria?

---

Because bacteria is what makes people sick, most of the time.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Raos ]

quote:

---

Why is there so much concern about bacteria? Surely the contents of the water mixture is composed of the following: water, soap, whatever was on your body, whatever was in the pipes/bath.

---

I guess you and some others haven't read any of the postings above?

There is a certain amount of bacteria and micro-organisms in drinking water. Right now, if you are drinking tap water, you are consuming bacteria, but most people can deal with a small amount. Heating it kills a majority of them as does clorination, reverse osmosis, etc. However, if it's not heated or treated enough enough, the bacteria levels can explode. That's why, if your water heater only reaches 140F, or if you live at the end of a supply line and the residual chlorine evaporates, or if you're on a well, you are at greater risk.

Now your in a shower that recycles water. There is already a bit of bacteria in the water. An additional amount is added from your hair, skin, fecal matter etc. The shower doesn't heat up or purify the water enough to kill enough bacteria to make it potable, the second, fifth, 30-ith time it's recycled. The bacteria levels in fact shoot up, because while the treatment just doesn't kill the bacteria, the heated water is a great environment for them to breed.

Can you see that this is not good?

Sure, this device probably filters out soap bits and dirt particles, but how does it deal with micro-organisms? To me, it's just an idea that won a conpetition that doesn't have much hope in reaching the market as designed.

quote:

---

Why is there so much concern about bacteria?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Germs, germs, germs!

---

If you read my last post again, properly, you'll see that I suggested an alternative use for the shower. Allow me to reiterate....

The shower operates as a normal shower until the user has rinsed. This washes a good deal of the dirt from their body - I imagine this initial phase might only take a fraction of the total showering time. At this point, the shower enters recycling mode and there is much less bacteria leaving the body into the water and into the system, thus reducing overall risk.

Now there are the following considerations - 30% fresh water entering system at all times. The maths of this tells us no significant amount of water will go round the system more than about 6 or 7 times (there is no 30th time). Not to mention filters, very limited breeding time and the possibility of superheating (if they decide to include this).

Any bacteria that we wash off is, by definition, in contact with our bodies many hours of the day, so even if some of it does go round the system, is it going to kill us? One last burst of completely fresh water would wash off any lingering germs.

quote:

---

Now there are the following considerations - 30% fresh water entering system at all times. The maths of this tells us no significant amount of water will go round the system more than about 6 or 7 times (there is no 30th time). Not to mention filters, very limited breeding time and the possibility of superheating (if they decide to include this).

---

Well, filters don't work on bacteria, the breeding time in hot water is pretty fast, and there is no mechanism available right now that will take the typical shower temperature water of any appreciable volume and heat it by 90F. And there is no plumbing or building code in Canada that would allow a device like this because of the risk of it not working as designed. If the balancing valve failed you'd be scalded. If the heating system failed you'd be inundated with bacteria. Etc. Etc.

quote:

---

Any bacteria that we wash off are, by definition, in contact with our bodies many hours of the day, so even if some of it does go round the system, is it going to kill us? One last burst of completely fresh water would wash off any lingering germs.

---

Again, you do realize that bacteria that is on our skin, or in our fecal matter, or in stagnant water is many times dangerous when it is vapourized or in droplets and we breath it in or ingest it? Sort of? Like you can go all day without wiping your ass, but you have to wash your hands after dropping the babies off at the pool so you don't get it in your eyes or mouth? Did you miss that day?

Sorry, I didn't catch this:

quote:

---

I don’t know for sure, but I think there is a solution within the original idea. What is for sure is that if people like you were the inventors of this world, we’d still be using steam engines.

---

Lol. Yeah, what's a few bodies in the course of science? We Luddites are simply holding up progress especially because you’re obviously breaking new ground, investigating befuddling stuff like "germs" and "potable water delivery".

Do you know Courtney by any chance?

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Shanks:
...Like you can go all day without wiping your ass...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Shanks:
If you actually look at the design of the shower and consider how water-bourne diseases are spread, you'd soon realize that while this may work, it certainly isn't a case of simply changing the filters on it.

---

WW's initial link was brief and didn't go into detail regarding the design of the shower. it does not give us any idea how the water is recirculated or reheated. all we knew from the bbc link is that this design uses a chlorine filter, could save londoners (who could very well be facing water shortages in the near future) billions of liters of water, and it won an award. any criticism or praise for the design, given the limited amount of information, would be based on pure speculation. but along come firecaptain and scooter who, presumably with only the limited info, write it off as quickly as you can blink your eyes for what i consider a very lame excuse (sheer laziness) for something that could potentially do a lot of good. i mean, we could list quite a few smarter, more rational reasons why this shower shouldn't be used - maybe absent-minded people will forget to replace the filter, or the excellent points that you raised about vaporized water droplets and legionella. to me, those are good reasons why people should think twice before supporting the release of this design on the market. i am not exactly super excited about this shower - i can't be - cause i don't know how it works, and what its drawbacks are. we can have a discussion about the shower, perhaps talk about seeing if there is any way to protect the lazy and the forgetful - maybe an alarm can be attached to it to remind people to change their filter. i don't know. i'm no science expert. but this absolutely negative, pessimistic, irrational attitude - that's what brought on my angry rant, and i'm sorry you missed what my annoyance was directed at.

quote:

---

posted by tommy shanks:
One question. How ofter do people change the things around the house they need to regularly. Very infrequently? Never?

---

should we pull all these items off the market just because some people don't take hygiene seriously? should we stop selling contact lenses and tampons and water filters for this reason?

quote:

---

You also realize that there are thousands of engineers and professional in the water treatment and delivery business who work on this every day. But a breakthough comes from a student at the Royal College of Art?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
...fussbudget...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
I am curious about the germs in hot water. I am a bath man as I cannot stand being hit by a blast of water anytime of the day. I think it is only by writing on babble that mayakovsky who considers himself low maitenance realizes what a fussbudget he really is. I don't take long baths but still the water gets quite murky. My question to those who might know is a bath more germ laden?

---

i was wondering about that too. my bath water gets so murky, i leave rings around the tub after i drain out the water! it's true.

quote:

---

should we pull all these items off the market just because some people don't take hygiene seriously? should we stop selling contact lenses and tampons and water filters for this reason?

---

Well, the fundemental difference is that people shouldn't have to have a personal stake or responsibilty to ensure they have safe drinking water. They also have the right to presume that water they bathe in won't kill them. Water out of a tap should be safe. Full stop. There shouldn't be anything extra you need to do to ensure the stuff you consume is safe.

quote:

---

I don't take long baths but still the water gets quite murky. My question to those who might know is a bath more germ laden?

---

Again, the difference is that, once most people have sat in a bath for a while, you're not typically adding lots more hot water to it regularly which breeds bacteria. You're not (or shouldn't be, as we warn kids) drinking the bathwater. You're not submerging your head in it or rubbing your eyes with it. It's not overly vapourized and you're breathing in the steam.

I'm not being a fear-monger, and taking a bath, by and large, isn't a concern. But the main issue here is the shower not killing but encouraging the naturally occuring bacteria in potable water to grow. As I said above, I'm not aware of any device that will sterilize the water effectively in the time it takes this shower to recycle. As such I'd be concerned.

quote:

---

hey man, don't dismiss what a student can achieve. don't even go there. students, even with their lack of experience, can come up with brainwaves that nobody else has

---

In general I would agree. However, in this specific case, this idea perhaps should be put back on the shelf. And I think that a lot of people in the water industry would agree.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

example: water can't boil at 36000 feet, so whenever you've had coffee and tea on a plane, it's been made from water that's a mass of festering bacteria.

Actually, it boils just fine outside of it as well, but at significantly lower temperatures.

It's not the "height" that makes water boil at lower and lower temps, it's the lower pressure. Fix the pressure, and water boils at a higher temperature again.

Another altitude problem: boiling an egg. Making the proteins in the egg deform, and thus cause the egg to harden, requires a certain temperature. At high altitudes, water will begin to boil below that temperature, and thus won't ever reach the temperature needed. Answer: a pressure cooker. This device allows the boiling water to create its own pressure, thereby allowing the temperature to increase. You can use it in Aspen to bring your boiling water closer to 100C/212F, or you can use it at sea level to allow you to heat water past 100C/212F, as in an autoclave.

**** ring, ring ****