Good morning everybody. I'd like to talk about a couple of things today. The first thing is water. Now I see you've all been enjoying the water that's been provided for you here at the conference, over the past couple of days. And I'm sure you'll feel that it's from a safe source. But what if it wasn't? What if it was from a source like this? Then statistics would actually say that half of you would now be suffering with diarrhea. I talked a lot in the past about statistics, and the provision of safe drinking water for all. But they just don't seem to get through. And I think I've worked out why. It's because, using current thinking, the scale of the problem just seems too huge to contemplate solving. So we just switch off: us, governments and aid agencies. Well, today, I'd like to show you that through thinking differently, the problem has been solved. By the way, since I've been speaking, another 13,000 people around the world are suffering now with diarrhea. And four children have just died. I invented Lifesaver bottle because I got angry. I, like most of you, was sitting down, the day after Christmas in 2004, when I was watching the devastating news of the Asian tsunami as it rolled in, playing out on TV. The days and weeks that followed, people fleeing to the hills, being forced to drink contaminated water or face death. That really stuck with me. Then, a few months later, Hurricane Katrina slammed into the side of America. "Okay," I thought, "here's a First World country, let's see what they can do." Day one: nothing. Day two: nothing. Do you know it took five days to get water to the Superdome? People were shooting each other on the streets for TV sets and water. That's when I decided I had to do something. Now I spent a lot of time in my garage, over the next weeks and months, and also in my kitchen -- much to the dismay of my wife. (Laughter) However, after a few failed prototypes, I finally came up with this, the Lifesaver bottle. Okay, now for the science bit. Before Lifesaver, the best hand filters were only capable of filtering down to about 200 nanometers. The smallest bacteria is about 200 nanometers. So a 200-nanometer bacteria is going to get through a 200-nanometer hole. The smallest virus, on the other hand, is about 25 nanometers. So that's definitely going to get through those 200 nanometer holes. Lifesaver pores are 15 nanometers. So nothing is getting through. Okay, I'm going to give you a bit of a demonstration. Would you like to see that? I spent all the time setting this up, so I guess I should. We're in the fine city of Oxford. So -- someone's done that up. Fine city of Oxford, so what I've done is I've gone and got some water from the River Cherwell, and the River Thames, that flow through here. And this is the water. But I got to thinking, you know, if we were in the middle of a flood zone in Bangladesh, the water wouldn't look like this. So I've gone and got some stuff to add into it. And this is from my pond. (Sniffs) (Coughs) Have a smell of that, mister cameraman. Okay. (Laughs) Right. We're just going to pour that in there. Audience: Ugh! Michael Pritchard: Okay. We've got some runoff from a sewage plant farm. So I'm just going to put that in there. (Laughter) Put that in there. There we go. (Laughter) And some other bits and pieces, chuck that in there. And I've got a gift here from a friend of mine's rabbit. So we're just going to put that in there as well. (Laughter) Okay. (Laughter) Now. The Lifesaver bottle works really simply. You just scoop the water up. Today I'm going to use a jug just to show you all. Let's get a bit of that poo in there. That's not dirty enough. Let's just stir that up a little bit. Okay, so I'm going to take this really filthy water, and put it in here. Do you want a drink yet? (Laughter) Okay. There we go. Replace the top. Give it a few pumps. Okay? That's all that's necessary. Now as soon as I pop the teat, sterile drinking water is going to come out. I've got to be quick. Okay, ready? There we go. Mind the electrics. That is safe, sterile drinking water. (Applause) Cheers. (Applause) There you go Chris. (Applause) What's it taste of? Chris Anderson: Delicious. Michael Pritchard: Okay. Let's see Chris's program throughout the rest of the show. Okay? (Laughter) Okay. Lifesaver bottle is used by thousands of people around the world. It'll last for 6,000 liters. And when it's expired, using failsafe technology, the system will shut off, protecting the user. Pop the cartridge out. Pop a new one in. It's good for another 6,000 liters. So let's look at the applications. Traditionally, in a crisis, what do we do? We ship water. Then, after a few weeks, we set up camps. And people are forced to come into the camps to get their safe drinking water. What happens when 20,000 people congregate in a camp? Diseases spread. More resources are required. The problem just becomes self-perpetuating. But by thinking differently, and shipping these, people can stay put. They can make their own sterile drinking water, and start to get on with rebuilding their homes and their lives. Now, it doesn't require a natural disaster for this to work. Using the old thinking, of national infrastructure and pipe work, is too expensive. When you run the numbers on a calculator, you run out of noughts. So here is the "thinking different" bit. Instead of shipping water, and using man-made processes to do it, let's use Mother Nature. She's got a fantastic system. She picks the water up from there, desalinates it, for free, transports it over there, and dumps it onto the mountains, rivers, and streams. And where do people live? Near water. All we've go to do is make it sterile. How do we do that? Well, we could use the Lifesaver bottle. Or we could use one of these. The same technology, in a jerry can. This will process 25,000 liters of water; that's good enough for a family of four, for three years. And how much does it cost? About half a cent a day to run. Thank you. (Applause) So, by thinking differently, and processing water at the point of use, mothers and children no longer have to walk four hours a day to collect their water. They can get it from a source nearby. So with just eight billion dollars, we can hit the millennium goal's target of halving the number of people without access to safe drinking water. To put that into context, The U.K. government spends about 12 billion pounds a year on foreign aid. But why stop there? With 20 billion dollars, everyone can have access to safe drinking water. So the three-and-a-half billion people that suffer every year as a result, and the two million kids that die every year, will live. Thank you. (Applause)
A good comment from ted.com:
Dec 11 2010: Reactions here are interesting in that few show skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, & the filter concept has flaws. - Ceramic filters aren't new. There's nothing special about Lifesaver vs other products except aggressive marketing & access to TED followers. - The humanitarian community hasn't embraced them because, among other things, they aren't cost effective. - The system isn't sustainable to users. Lifesaver's website says 1 bottle costs $90 to donate. Replacement filters are $100 ea. Using his data, a family of 5 could use 1 filter for 80 days (15 ltr/day/person per SHPERE standards). That's $400/yr just for filters--more than the avg annual income in much of the world. - Pre-existing technologies are far, far, far more cost effective & sustainable. 1 gallon of chlorine bleach costs less than $1 & rids >15,000 ltr of water of bacteria & viruses. Chlorine is already very accessible everywhere in the world. Out of space, but just scratched the surface
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_pritchard_invents_a_water_filter.html
Edit: TL;DR The technology has only one advantage: marketing.
This may be a really stupid question, but could I piss in this thing and have drinkable water as a result?
This being reddit I fear any minute some knowledgeable person comes around and does a well researched post about how that won't work at all or how Pritchard is a scammer.
Yes, my hopes have been dashed quite a few times.
That said, I hope it's bona fide and does get picked up not just by companies producing hiking equipment.
That device looks like you can get some serious cross contamination if not used carefully.
For instance, you pour the contaminated water into the device, pump it, and pour it out. Now, let's say while you were filling the unit, contaminated water spilled all along the side. If you don't clean that off it can easily mix into your clean water.
Nice device, but not idiot proof.
I am thinking about getting one of these for my home.
Commercial water filters for household use only tend to get about 40 gallons worth for pitchers, a hundred or so for counter top devices and a few hundred for under the sink models.
Even the best model, the Everpure H-1200 with its ability to purify 1000 gallons, is shy of the lifesaver bottle's longevity by around 2200 liters and it is about $500 more per unit and about $300 more expensive per replacement cartridge. Then comes the issue of portability because the water bottle is portable while the sink apparatus isn't. That said the bottle is somewhat ugly and I can't envision myself carrying one around so having a household water source is better for my uses.
If we look at the jerrycan then it is practically a no contest. With a 20000 liter conversion capacity for $400 it is cheaper than the most cost effective household model by about $300 for original unit price and has about 5.3 times more conversion capability. The replacement filters are also much cheaper, as if that even needs to be mentioned.
The price per gallon for the jerrycan is $0.075/gal compared to $0.66/gal for the best/most cost effective in home apparatus. For replacement filters the cost is $0.055/gal compared to $0.33/gal for the best in home model. To be clear we are looking at almost 9 times less the effective cost for the original unit and 6 times less for replacement filters if you use the lifesaver jerrycan instead of the best in home filtration system.
Sure the unit isn't cheap to buy upfront but as an investment it is far better than the more common alternatives.
That said I think there are cheaper water filtration systems good for long term solutions in hardship areas, such as slow sand filtration, bio-sand filtration and bank filtration. I don't think they'd let me install one of these in my apartment though.
But.....I don't know if the lifesaver bottle is better at filtering out chemicals and stuff than the in home models. Still if one is to use it for tap-water then it should be fine and cheaper in the long run.
So we take few billion from the FUCKING bank bail outs and people can have safe drinking water. Hmm so they can have safe water like all those CEO's have. Good Idea.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something here. But in the absence of chemical contamination, why don't they just boil the water?
So this affects only microorganisms? What about toxicity from chemicals?
[removed]