Boiling water for drinking

[falling rain]

There's been lots of adverts on TV for 'water aid' recently. Isn't it possible to provide the money from donations for a large filter system, and then teach the folks that boiling water is very effective and kills pretty much all micro-organisms including Cholera?

Anyway I was wondering if anyone knows of a chart or graph which shows at what temperature the various nasties are killed at? I believe I read somewhere that most are killed by the time the water has reached 70 degrees C so of course when it reaches 100c and is boiling it must have killed the bacteria. Would like to learn at what temperature each different micro-organism is killed at though if anyone knows where I could get that info. - Thanks

 

[Goatboy]

I don't have tables but John Fenna may from his review of the Jompy LINK and Mr. Fenna's review LINK

 

[mrcharly]

Boiling takes a lot of energy. In areas short of fuel, that's not an insignificant issue.

In very sunny areas, putting the water in clear plastic bottles and laying them flat in the sun for a day or so does the job.

Neither boiling nor UV purification remove particles.

 

[rik_uk3]

At sea level/low altitude you don't need to boil, over 70 does the job but water boils at a lower temperature the higher the altitude you are so in the UK bring your pan to a boil to ensure your over 70c, no need to simmer.

 

[boatman]

Seeing people drinking water straight from rivers I wondered why at least they wouldn't dig a gypsy well that would at least filter the water to some extent. But they also showed people making a living from rubbish dumps which means that there is an affluent segment of society able to generate so much rubbish, how much do they pay in taxes to provide clean water to rural areas?

 

[ReamviThantos]

Seeing people drinking water straight from rivers I wondered why at least they wouldn't dig a gypsy well that would at least filter the water to some extent. But they also showed people making a living from rubbish dumps which means that there is an affluent segment of society able to generate so much rubbish, how much do they pay in taxes to provide clean water to rural areas?

A very, very good point.

 

[Goatboy]

Boiling takes a lot of energy. In areas short of fuel, that's not an insignificant issue.

In very sunny areas, putting the water in clear plastic bottles and laying them flat in the sun for a day or so does the job.

Neither boiling nor UV purification remove particles.

That's why the Jompy thingy is so good, so fuel efficient.

No connection to the company etc.

Cheers
GB.

 

[presterjohn]

I often hear people say "why don't they just boil the water". I don't know why people assume that lots of burnable things are to hand for these people to use but they do. The reality is they do not have a readily available fuel source. I suppose the answer to that is for the local governments to start planting trees in huge quantities and wait 20 years but with the desperate situations these people often find themselves in I can't see that happening any time soon.

 

[oldtimer]

Don't want to sound patronising, but Water aid and Oxfam (with whom I have to declare and interest) wil have thought of more options than you or I ever will. They have access to the finest minds in the field for dealing with the problems of supplying clean water whether in the short term, emergency setting, or for the long term including education programmes.

Our knowledge as bushcrafters about how to satisfy our own personal need cannot necessarily be extrapolated to a a scenario such as, for example, a sudden influx of refugees into a small community with limited resources.

The charities need our money to provide both short and long-term solutions. Believe me, they have mechanisms to ensure that our money is well spent.

 

[ReamviThantos]

Agreed Oldtimer, a problem of global proportions and not to be solved over night. I just wish I didn't have to keep seeing these poor children dying in such awfull circumstances for want of basic medicines etc. as well as herds of wild animals being slaughtered for trinkets. The game of life must be played to the end so all we can do is our own little bit and hope there are enough of us make any difference to the result.

 

[boatman]

Don't want to sound patronising, but Water aid and Oxfam (with whom I have to declare and interest) wil have thought of more options than you or I ever will. They have access to the finest minds in the field for dealing with the problems of supplying clean water whether in the short term, emergency setting, or for the long term including education programmes.

Our knowledge as bushcrafters about how to satisfy our own personal need cannot necessarily be extrapolated to a a scenario such as, for example, a sudden influx of refugees into a small community with limited resources.

The charities need our money to provide both short and long-term solutions. Believe me, they have mechanisms to ensure that our money is well spent.

Come now they did not show a refugee camp but an established village that must have been in place for years. Has sanitation and water supply deteriorated over time or have they lived thus for a very long time? If the clean water is just a bit down in the ground as it must be if the installation of a pump can solve the problem why wouldn't the villagers dig a well? They did this in the the Third world village that the Wiltshire one I lived in must have been 600 years ago.

 

[falling rain]

Don't want to sound patronising, but Water aid and Oxfam (with whom I have to declare and interest) wil have thought of more options than you or I ever will. They have access to the finest minds in the field for dealing with the problems of supplying clean water whether in the short term, emergency setting, or for the long term including education programmes.

Our knowledge as bushcrafters about how to satisfy our own personal need cannot necessarily be extrapolated to a a scenario such as, for example, a sudden influx of refugees into a small community with limited resources.

The charities need our money to provide both short and long-term solutions. Believe me, they have mechanisms to ensure that our money is well spent.

Of course massive crisis like famine and refugees is a big challenge. I'm talking more about villages where we see kids walking for miles to gather water in dirty plastic bottles. Surely the people could be given a large capacity filtration system and then the water boiled to steralise it. They have fuel enough to cook their food so they could boil water too and store it in large drums with taps for when it's needed, or wells could be dug nearer the village and fuel (wood) supplied if it's scarce. A truck load of timber would last quite a while I'd imagine if it was used sensibly and carefully. All paid for with donations by well meaning people.
Oxfam isn't a favourite with me I'm afraid. They pay large salaries to managers etc and invest donations in Icelandic banks which I only found out about a few years ago when it all went wrong in Iceland banks. I'd imagine most people who give donations would expect the majority of their money to actually go to helping people,!! instead of to large salaries for upper echelon Oxfam staff or tobe invested. I undersand investment makes even more money, but that dosn't help the people who are starving and thirsty now.
Now I heard that only actually at Oxfam £1 from every £10 donated actually gets to helping people and the rest is all costs, salaries, invested. I don't know if that figure is correct but it would be interesting to know.

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

Of course massive crisis like famine and refugees is a big challenge. I'm talking more about villages where we see kids walking for miles to gather water in dirty plastic bottles. Surely the people could be given a large capacity filtration system and then the water boiled to steralise it. They have fuel enough to cook their food so they could boil water too and store it in large drums with taps for when it's needed, or wells could be dug nearer the village and fuel (wood) supplied if it's scarce. A truck load of timber would last quite a while I'd imagine if it was used sensibly and carefully. All paid for with donations by well meaning people.
Oxfam isn't a favourite with me I'm afraid. They pay large salaries to managers etc and invest donations in Icelandic banks which I only found out about a few years ago when it all went wrong in Iceland banks. I'd imagine most people who give donations would expect the majority of their money to actually go to helping people,!! instead of to large salaries for upper echelon Oxfam staff or tobe invested. I undersand investment makes even more money, but that dosn't help the people who are starving and thirsty now.
Now I heard that only actually at Oxfam £1 from every £10 donated actually gets to helping people and the rest is all costs, salaries, invested. I don't know if that figure is correct but it would be interesting to know.

Sorry but that is tosh. All charities invest money to increase interest receivable. Oxfam didnt know there was a banking crisis round the corner.

you may be interested to read this. All charities of any standing have running costs

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

 

[mrcharly]

Of course massive crisis like famine and refugees is a big challenge. I'm talking more about villages where we see kids walking for miles to gather water in dirty plastic bottles. Surely the people could be given a large capacity filtration system and then the water boiled to steralise it. ok, who gives them the filtration system? Where do they get replacement filters from? They have fuel enough to cook their food so they could boil water too That's a huge assumption. You really think they have that much spare fuel? and store it in large drums with taps uhu. The drums that are just sitting around needing to be used for when it's needed, or wells could be dug nearer the village and fuel (wood) supplied if it's scarce. A truck load of timber would last quite a while I'd imagine if it was used sensibly and carefully. I guess you've never had to chop wood for heating and cooking. I used to, as a child. For one family, a barrowload of hardwood a day. I suggest that a truck-load would last one family maybe 3 months.

I've commented inline.

Never been to africa myself, but I think most of us rich westerners take so much for granted. Resources and knowledge, we are dripping in it.

 

[knifefan]

You can keep on "chucking" money at third world countries forever and It will not make any significant difference!! Even if you discount cultural beliefs, ignorance, low aspiration and apathy - the only way to benefit any of these countries is the removal of corruption and greed from the generally non-democratically elected governments!!! Education, basic services always come way down the list when those in charge a busy "making hay while the sun shines"!!!!!!!

 

[oldtimer]

Of course massive crisis like famine and refugees is a big challenge. I'm talking more about villages where we see kids walking for miles to gather water in dirty plastic bottles. Surely the people could be given a large capacity filtration system and then the water boiled to steralise it. They have fuel enough to cook their food so they could boil water too and store it in large drums with taps for when it's needed, or wells could be dug nearer the village and fuel (wood) supplied if it's scarce. A truck load of timber would last quite a while I'd imagine if it was used sensibly and carefully. All paid for with donations by well meaning people.
Oxfam isn't a favourite with me I'm afraid. They pay large salaries to managers etc and invest donations in Icelandic banks which I only found out about a few years ago when it all went wrong in Iceland banks. I'd imagine most people who give donations would expect the majority of their money to actually go to helping people,!! instead of to large salaries for upper echelon Oxfam staff or tobe invested. I undersand investment makes even more money, but that dosn't help the people who are starving and thirsty now.
Now I heard that only actually at Oxfam £1 from every £10 donated actually gets to helping people and the rest is all costs, salaries, invested. I don't know if that figure is correct but it would be interesting to know.

My son is Director of Strategy for Oxfam International. He does not earn a high salary. Do not believe what you read in the Daily Mail.

 

[superc0ntra]

I don't have tables but John Fenna may from his review of the Jompy LINK and Mr. Fenna's review LINK

Do you know who sells the Jompy, excellent idea.

 

[superc0ntra]

If this wasn't the British isles you could go for SODIS
http://www.sodis.ch/methode/index_EN

 

[falling rain]

Mmmmm. Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree with some of it but there you go.
Anyway what I really wanted to know is about the chart for which temperatures the various pathogens and nasties get killed at...........oh and as it happens I have a real fire place and collect my own wood.......and chop it every 3 days which a rucksack full lasts me for. It's none of my business what anyone earns but if they're on more than 30K a year that to me is a high salary. mrcharly you obviously didn't read the post carefully and seem to be forgetting that charities receive money from donations and guess what?.....that could be used to pay for things. And if we're getting told by water aid that 2'000 children a day are dying because of having to drink dirty water why is money being invested in Icelandic banks, instead of being spent urgently to bring that number down? Couldn't each family be given a filter? and spares for when it becomes clogged (from charity donations) and be visited say once a month to take more spares and fuel if necessary? Comic relief raised £75 million (that's a fair few water filters and spares) although granted not all the money goes to Africa. Add in lord knows how much all the charities receive each year.......How about supplying them with some of those jompy's

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

I think we need to draw a distinction between overseas aid provided by goverment to african governments and aid agencys distributing aid themselves directly on the ground. I agree much overseas development aid probably goes to waste lining the pockets of corrupt officials. the aid provided directly by the likes of Oxfam et al takes longer to filter down as shipments are handled by the agency directly and distributed by their staff. Another reason why its worth paying people as this ensures it actually reaches the people who need it. Charities have to invest large sums to achieve a higher return on their money. Its an established business model that works to improve the total amount available to them. The world isnt perfect but i believe oxfam and others do a great deal of good.