Several years ago, a company called Vestergaard Frandsen created a device called a LifeStraw. The device looks exactly like a very large straw and it can theoretically be used to drink water out of nearly any water source and the straw itself, stuffed with different filters and disinfectants, will remove bacteria and parasites. Problems began to arise with the LifeStaw soon after its creation. As of now, the LifeStraw costs about $3.50 a piece to produce and would last for about six months or more. The device has drawn various criticisms from being too slow to actually provide enough water to not changing the root cause of the clean water shortage problem. The biggest debate about this seems to be whether or not that amount of money is feasible for the countries in which such a product would be most necessary. Would that money be better spent on solving a root problem such as education?
More recently, a company named Hydration Technology Innovations has come up with a similar, though possibly more feasible idea, this time directed toward disaster relief. Their device is called the HTI HydroPack and it is referred to in the article as a “Capri Sun pouch for disaster relief.” The idea is that once the pouch, containing powdered nutrients while empty, spends about half a day in a water source will be filled with potable, nutrient-fortified water. The HydroPack seems to have some advantages over the LifeStraw, particularly in disaster or temporary relief situations. First of all, while the pack does take a considerable amount of time to fill, it does not require the direct activity of a person such as the LifeStraws do. Secondly, the addition of nutrients into the pack would be an excellent way to improve nutritional health in a way that requires no additional effort from the users beyond getting the water. The pack seems easier to distribute in a hurry which, as the article mentions, is probably better than the current method of distributing bottled water since the weight and volume of the actual water is not a factor in transportation. A big question right now seems to be the production costs of the pack.
Although both of these devices seem more like a Band-Aid than a true solution to the world’s aggravated water problems, they seem to be a step toward more efficient and effective disaster relief and temporary water-shortage relief. I’ll be interested to see what becomes of these two products and if either of them makes its way into mainstream use.
Some of the most innovative and interesting technological developments in public health seem to have been in the field of water sanitation and access. Both these products are certainly intriguing but draw questions as to their feasibility and applicability. I think the HydroPak sounds like a good temporary solution in disaster relief situations. However, this article does make me wonder if it might be better to address prevention of the disaster in the first place with better infrastructure and warning systems. Granted some disasters are practically unavoidable i.e. the tsunami and earthquake in Japan, but on the flip side looking at the nuclear crisis it's easy to look back in hindsight and discuss how the plants should have been more prepared for this possibility and could have potentially averted the problem. With short-term water sanitation, water access products, I think it would be more effective to look at how to avoid those situations in the first place versus looking at band-aid fixes. However, until we find those preventative measures I think the innovation we continue to see in this field is a sign of good things to come.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a good sign that so many companies are exploring ways to get better water to people, but I agree in the assessment that both of these are more "Band Aid" solutions than something to actually solve the world's water problems. The main issue that I have with the Life Straw is that I see it as being very hard to get people to actually utilize, as it would require them changing their entire drinking habits. Also, it seems to be targeting behavior at a more individual level than is typical of effective public health work. That, plus the relatively high cost for just six months of treatment make it an interesting idea, but not a practical long-term solution. One question that I have with the Hydro Pouch is how long its effects last. It seems like it could be dangerous to place the Hydro Pouch in a water source and get people accustomed to having that water be safe, only to have no one replace it in however many months it takes to run out, at which point people would continue drinking water they thought was safe, but which was not.
ReplyDelete