Space Station Crew Drinks Recycled Urine

An anonymous reader writes "After the astronauts on the International Space Station finished up their communications with Space Shuttle Atlantis yesterday, the crew on the Space Station did something that no other astronaut has ever done before — drank recycled urine and sweat. The previous shuttle crew that recently returned to Earth brought back samples of the recycled water to make sure it was safe to drink, and all tests came back fine. So on Wednesday, the crew took their recycled urine and said 'cheers' together and toasted the researches and scientists that made the Urine Recycler possible. After drinking the water, they said the taste was great! They also said the water came with labels on it that said 'drink this when real water is over 200 miles away.'"

Re:How does that make it not "real water"?

[Sockatume]

I think it's still an open question as to whether disgust is innate, but once a child it, the idea of a disgusting object "contaminating" another is obtained more or less immediately. That's not something we teach kids particularly early, and it's actually a rather abstract notion. I don't have access to sociology journals from here unfortunately and it's been a while since I read much about it, so things could've moved on.

Singaporeans were the first to drink recycld waste

[Heartz]

All about New Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater [wikipedia.org] . Singaporeans have been drinking from Malaysian waste for years...

Re:Nonsense.

[Moryath]

Sigh.

Humans actually have one of the weakest immune systems out there, mostly because we've been breeding less and less for hardiness (and worse, in the past ~400 years less for intelligence as well) thanks to the "contributions" of the few bright sparks who come up with things like, say, "the crapper" and make it so that those with downright piss-poor immune systems pass them on to the next generation.

Fish don't care that they live in water in which they, and all the other fish as well as plenty of mammals and birds, have pissed and shit. There are organisms out there that take advantage of it - one animal's waste is another's food.

Greywater systems [greywater.com] actually result in better plant growth than irrigating with "cleaned" tap water, because it feeds extra nutrients into the soil that the plants can take advantage of. Proper in-home treatment systems (or even the mere dilution of "blackwater" with greywater) could easily make it possible to clean up "used" home water even further and reduce waste.

What you're talking about - the "not really safe to put back in there" - is industrial contaminants, which we do need to deal with. The rest? Compost. Fertilizer. Eventually, back around to food.

Re:Nonsense.

[berashith]

C section is a horrible example. A great many C-sections are done out of convenience. Who can have childbirth interfere with vacation or social requirements?

My wife had an emergency c-section. It turned out the a fall from a horse many years before had damaged her pelvis to a point that natural birth just didnt work. People like her should not be allowed to pass on the genetic trait of broken bones and physical trauma during teen years!

Re:Nonsense.

[Runaway1956]

400 years is plenty of time for selective breeding to make a big difference in the gene pool. Selective breeding leads to new breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle and more in much less than 400 years.

Here, in the US, I consider the draft to have been a form of selective breeding. The services excluded people with flat feet, idiots, insane, weak, etc from duty. The strongest, healthiest, smartest, and most stable were sent into battle, and very often killed, while the undesirables stayed home to breed.

How many people think that this had zero impact on the gene pool?

Just something to think about.........

Re:Nonsense.

[GodfatherofSoul]

A mere 400 years is not enough time for significant evolutionary changes.

Heck yes it is, for creatures with a faster reproductive cycle than humans. Large animals with limited food supplies will shrink. Can't recall the name, but there's a moth in England that evolved a reddish color because of all of the brick masonry in one region (the original color stood out and made those moths vulnerable to predation).

Re:Nonsense.

[timeOday]

Here, in the US, I consider the draft to have been a form of selective breeding.

In WWII 0.32% [wikipedia.org] of Americans died, as opposed to 16% in Poland, 13.7% of Soviets. So at the very least, it's much less true in the US than other places.

World War also provided soldiers an unprecedented opportunity to fling their DNA all over the globe, apparently Uncle Sam didn't make troops take a vow of celibacy.

Anyways, (tribal) warfare is nothing new, and certainly the number of strong men who die hunting has taken a big nosedive in civilized times.

Re:Nonsense.

[1u3hr]

Take caesarean sections, for example. In the US, 31% of births are by caesarian section. That right there is 31% of the future population who would not exist in more primitive times, and who carry genetics that make it at least more likely than average that they themselves will not be able to give birth without modern medical assistance. You can't tell me that doesn't change the overall makeup of a population in terms of its ability to deal with that specific problem.

I'm a fairly tall person, and my wife is rather short. And when she was pregnant, the baby was overdue by more than a week. At that point the baby was very healthy, but very large (9 lbs). After about 14 hours of labour there was no other option to get it out than Caesarean. Our daughter is extremely healthy and strong. I don't think you can make a case that the population has been weakened by assisting her birth. Now 12, she will soon be taller than her mother, and should not have any problems when and if she eventually has a family.

So I doubt your blithe assertion that 31% of the population are genetically inferior -- or even inferior in the ability to give birth -- because of this mollycoddling has any basis in reality.