Space Station Crew Drinks Recycled Urine 349
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.'"
Snow Signitures not allowed? (Score:3, Funny)
You gotta be taking the piss outta me! (Score:5, Funny)
That's not Gatorade, mate!
Re: (Score:2)
I know...a Still Suit [wikipedia.org]!!
Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
> ...the crew on the Space Station did something that no other astronaut has ever done
> before -- drank recycled urine and sweat.
Everyone drinks recycled urine and sweat every day.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
For those who read/watched Dune, the fremins just do in minutes with a machine what nature dose for us in months with sunlight.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
The one that starts with a golden shower?
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't drink that stuff if it's fluoridated. Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face!
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Do you know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Laejoh. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
FYI, I first became aware of this during the physical act of love.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
> Everyone drinks recycled urine and sweat every day.
While a good point, this may not be quite as true in the case of the astronauts aboard ISS.
A large portion of the water delivered to ISS comes from the Space Shuttle as it combusts liquid hydrogen to power itself while docked. Depending on the source of the liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel (i.e. Is it generated from electrolysis of water? Condensed directly from the atmosphere? etc), it's possible a significant portion of their water supply has never been urine or sweat before.
And even if the liquid hydrogen and oxygen was water previously, do water molecules generated from hydrogen combustion really count as "recycled"?
-- CdM
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, the filtering process is more than adequate to make the water safe. The fact that astronauts tend to be scientists of at least a reasonable caliber, they'll no doubt understand the science behind it and have no trouble drinking it.
I worked with water filtration in the past and, while I might hesitate slightly on my first sip, I'd have no issue drinking it. I'd bet it's significantly cleaner than most water flowing through pipes on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it..
Everything we eat/drink is recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what he said. Life, in it's various forms, has consumed and recycled every drop of water on this earth a myriad of times. It isn't necessary for water to evaporate into the atmosphere and fall again as rain to be "purified".
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, your sewage is merely treated and released back into the environment.
And by "released back into the environment" what you actually mean is "pumped back into the river". Oh sure, it's "treated", but it's still not REALLY safe to put back in there. So what do we do? We take some water out of the river, make it safe to drink, take a shit in it, then make it kind of safe, then dump it back into the river... so that the next town can pump our shitwater out of the river, and repeat the whole process.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what inspired your nick? *lol*
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This needs slapping with a massive [citation needed]. A mere 400 years is not enough time for significant evolutionary changes. Most animals don't foul their own nests either. Ones that have fixed nests just go a distance away from them and ones that don't just move on afterwards. A toilet just allows us to move our waste away from ourselves easily, rather than moving ourselves away from our waste. It's also worth noting that proper sanitation is not available to a large chunk of the human race (who have not, therefore, had this lack of evolutionary pressure away from developing a strong immune system) and that the average lifespan of these people is around half that of people who do.
Re: (Score:2)
A change like that in a population doesn't necessarily have to be "evolutionary" yet. Just by allowing more people with "negative" traits to survive we're changing what the population as a whole looks like.
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 w
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
There's an interesting piece on the rise of cesarian section delivery [newyorker.com] written by New Yorker staff writer and active surgeon Atul Gawande, where he claims and shows evidence that c-section replaced forceps delivery because forceps delivery required experience, skill, and physical dexterity, while c-section could be taught by rote, essentially. His underlying thesis is that a mass-production system of doctoring means everyone will get basically the same level of quality of care, rather than having some superstars and some real duds. But in the meantime, it's become so routine, and so highly practiced, that it's rapidly approaching parity with natural childbirth, as regards complications to mother and child, and he thinks at some point it'll be considered the default method for childbirth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No where in your quoted section is the OP saying that 31% of US births should have been eliminated.
He said that 31% of US births WOULD NOT have happened in the past.
Big difference between saying something would not have happened in the past, and saying something should have been prevented.
The OP is right in the fact that modern science is changing our overall genetic makeup.
Your wife fell off a horse. Maybe she was taught improperly, maybe horses don't like her.
In the past when riding a horse was a primary
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a fairly tall person, and my wife
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the draft to have had an impact on the gene pool, a vast majority of the people who went to war would either have had to be killed or mutilated in a way that rendered them unable to reproduce. Even in the American Civil War, that was not the case.
Can you find me even one example of a war that actually affected the reproductive ability of all of the soldiers that fought in it?
Also, lets not forget that the draft only affects men. Women were excluded, and therefore any gene not on the Y chromosome would have been excluded from being affected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to remember one Asian country having an ungodly female-to-male ratio because of wars. I can't remember which one though... Anyone got a clue?
Well China has a very low female to male ratio because of the one child policy combined with the cultural value of sons. Not quite what you were going for, but it's the only thing I've heard of.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
In humans? no it's not enough time for anybig changes.
Your example involves selective breeding by an ;outside' source, us.
But in the natural environments, 400 years just isn't a long time.
We are not, or have been the decedents of the big brave people that went to battle, we are the decedents of the little shit that stayed in the cave and fucked all the women.
Your look is way to myopic. I could say all the people smart enough to avoind the draft and stayed home helped the gene pool, but that to is too myopic.
How many people where drafted? what percentage died before having off spring?
Add to the fact after WWII the ones that did survive fucked like rabbits. So the physically able went to war, and the survivors came back an had kids. Wouldn't that be an evolutionary improvement?
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zero impact, maybe not, but it only affect a very narrow range of ages, and so excluded the vast majority of healthy parents with healthy children under 18.
And you're assuming that the majority of draftees were killed, which simply isn't the case. 2.1 Million Americans fought in Vietnam, and 58,000 died. It would be hard to argue that, even if all 2.1M died, it would have affected the population at large (genetically), because most of those people had brothers, sisters, children, etc. Furthermore, the So [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Rural American here. I have a septic tank. Everything we excrete as waste goes into a tank, where bacteria break it down into nutrients again. The overflow goes right back into the ground, percolates through a gravel bed, and the trees and grass take it up. It's eventually evaporated into the atmosphere, from where it falls again as rain.
Hey, cool, I've probably pissed on EVERY CITY IN THE WORLD (indirectly)!!!
How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:2)
If it's 2 hydrogen bonded to 1 oxygen in the right form it's "real water"
Honestly, the Astronauts should be some that would not have the silly reaction to drinking treated water.
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's 2 hydrogen bonded to 1 oxygen in the right form it's "real water" Honestly, the Astronauts should be some that would not have the silly reaction to drinking treated water.
Certainly, but 2 hydrogen bonded to 1 oxygen exists in ripe form in your toilet as well, it's more a question of the additives. And if we did NOT feel an instinctive revulsion towards our own excrement, we would have been wiped out as a species a long time ago after eating our own toxic feces (that rhymes, too). So give those space monkey a break, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Additives? Whats in the toilet are additives. Water is NO additives. filtration is rather simple, the PITA is the getting rid of the nasties like http://www.water-research.net/Giardia.htm [water-research.net] those.
Honestly, Water filtration is very simple. Extracting all the water from a turd is the hard part.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um... POO comes to mind.
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Funny)
"Additives? Whats in the toilet are additives."
Um... POO comes to mind.
Only on slashdot does a comment that says "Poo is in toilets" get moderated Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
many animals, and that includes apes, eat their own feces. The only thing that makes ours toxic is after curry night. Not that I'd advocate eating feces, but it is useful for instance to cure c. difficile infections.
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:4, Funny)
A number of interesting theses
conclude, on consumption of feces:
If you go to the loo
and eat your own poo
you'll soon be wiped out as a species.
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see some evidence for that.
If you you have little kids, or have spent any time with them, you'd know that they'll happily put anything in their mouths if you don't stop them. The idea of contamination is deliberately taught to children, using words like "icky," "yucky," and "ohmigodwhatisthatinyourhand."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Funny)
If you you have little kids, or have spent any time with them, you'd know that they'll happily put anything in their mouths if you don't stop them. The idea of contamination is deliberately taught to children, using words like "icky," "yucky," and "ohmigodwhatisthatinyourhand."
Which is ironic when you consider that parents frequently have to overcome previously decided upon levels of contamination to function as a parent. To use myself as an example, during my wife's first pregnancy test, my job was to hold the filled urine cup and dip the test strip in. I didn't even have to touch the urine, but the thought of it being in a cup so close to me made me nauseous.
Now, after being a parent to two boys, I can eat lunch, stop to change a poop-filled diaper, and then resume eating lunch (after washing my hands of course!). The idea of changing a poop-filled diaper or wiping the bottom of a young child does not make me nauseous at all. Sometimes I'll forget the different parent-nonparent revulsion levels and tell stories that are perfectly ok by parent standards but make non-parents run to the nearest bathroom to hurl. This can be useful if your coworker brought in something that you'd like. "Hey, that's a nice pudding cup... Though it kind of reminds me of my son's diaper yesterday. I opened it up and stuff just spilled out everywhere and... what's that? You don't feel like pudding anymore? I guess I can eat it."
Just don't ask to hear my mustard story!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Likewise there's a strong innate (unlearned) notion of contamination in humans that..."
Oh, no, we learnt it, not even that long ago in the grand scheme of things. I think the British lead the way in many respects, I recall seeing a thing on tv saying how Britian went through a period of winning many battles simply by pushing out standards of cleanliness to their soldiers which meant they were no longer suffering the extremes of diarrhea as enemy soldiers were... but at this moment, I struggle to find any c
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Informative)
Coca-Cola is created from concentrate or syrup. This concentrate is shipped to bottlers who add their own sweetners and other additives, which causes local variations. Then it is combined with water from different sources, causing even more variations. Coca-Cola, even in a can or bottle, tastes differently all over the place.
Then add to that the abomination that is fountain-based Coca-Cola, which is syrup mixed with carbonated tap water. This means that the Coca-Cola from your local city-water-fed McDonald's tastes differently from the Coca-Cola served in the well-water-fed McDonald's just out of town.
You should count yourself lucky if you've ever had two servings of Coca-Cola that tasted the same.
</rant type="pet peeve">
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, you are really mistaken. The tastes of the water going into the mix is heavily controlled for taste. Even to the point where some plants have there won water treatment system on top of a cities water treatment system. /, while technically true, not practically an issue.
So like most people on
Save fountain drinks; which really to heavily on the min. wage worker remembering to check the mix.
"You should count yourself lucky if you've ever had two servings of Coca-Cola that tasted the same."
That is just stupid. even if what you said was true to a high degree of practicality, most people drink coke from the same location. It's not like every can in an 8 pack came from a different part of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does that make it not "real water"? (Score:5, Funny)
I have this... Increadible feeling of... Deja vu...
Apparently so did the mods who modded you redundant... twice...
Re: (Score:2)
3, Funny (Score:2)
...as of right now. You know, there's probably another mod point waiting for you in this same spot upstairs.
Living in a desert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Humidity must be a problem on space stations; people lose water due to respiration, let alone perspiration. Presumably there is somewhere a dehumidifier. Perhaps the atmosphere recycler does that job? Hmm, no, looks like there's purpose-built modules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Humidity must be a problem on space stations; people loose water due to respiration"
There ya go, broke that for ya
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try again...
[Citation [merriam-webster.com]
cited] [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly tangy? like lemonade
Belly up to the bar? (Score:2)
Or is that belly below the bar?
Whatever though, ur in e right place.
One step closer (Score:5, Funny)
'waterhasnotaste' tag (Score:2, Informative)
All water that isn't pure hydrogen and oxygen also has a flavor derived from the levels of various trace minerals and additives in it. Just because you can't taste something doesn't mean I can't!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so your not actually tasting the water, just the minerals
absolutely (Score:2)
we all know what water tastes like
but that taste is actually mouthfeel + the taste of various anions and cations (calcium, magnesium, chloride, etc)
steam distilled water actually doesn't taste like "water"
and high end spring water, especially the naturally carbonated variety, tastes like "soda"
another angle (Score:5, Funny)
Re:another angle (Score:5, Funny)
i was going to say no one drinks from the hudson (Score:2)
but then i remembered poughkeepsie:
http://www.pokwater.com/new/history.html [pokwater.com]
poughkeepsie is the only city on the hudson that gets its water straight from the hudson, and they have done this for generations. everyone else uses reservoirs along the hudson
they in fact have problems during droughts not because there's no water, but because the salinity increases as the salt line moves further up the river from new york city and the ocean. but otherwise, a major city getting their water from the same place munici
An old debate now renewed.... (Score:2)
Less Filling!
You think? (Score:2)
Be real. This happens all the time.
kulakovich
Big deal! we all do (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly this story has all the self conscious immaturity you'd expect from a 12 year-old, sniggering because it's about pee. Whatever happened to the grown-ups section of Slashdot?
we also fertilize our food with shit (Score:3, Insightful)
but i think you'd have a problem if someone gave you a shit pancake to eat, saying it was ok, it was chemically treated to be nutritious and delicious
there is meaning in the massive amount of time and the massive natural filtration that goes into the process you describe, and the artificial tiny distance described in the article between what comes out your ass or your dick, and what winds up in your cup and on your plate
when that distance is reduced via technology, the squeamishness you haughtily assume to
Water World (Score:2, Funny)
Natural water (Score:5, Funny)
I refuse to drink nature's water... Fish fuck in it.
its worse than that (Score:5, Funny)
fish don't fuck
the females just crap all their eggs in your water
then the males come along and just jizz all over the eggs, in your water
you're not drinking fish fucked water
you're drinking fish circlejerked water
Re:its worse than that (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm, actually you are wrong, some fish (poecilidae like guppys or swordtails) do fuck.
not sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Singaporeans were the first to drink recycld waste (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Singaporeans were the first to drink recycld wa (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically every city that gets its water from a river drinks the recycled urine etc. from the folks upstream.
And, that is most cities located on rivers.
Nothing new (Score:2)
I've been doing that on this planet for years !
So was it distilled/purified or "drinking" water? (Score:2)
I would think providing simple pure water would be easier than trying to stock extra supplies to re-mineralize it and, frankly, I prefer the taste of distilled or purified water myself. So-called "drinking" water tastes rather flat and unappealing to me.
I hear Heston (Score:4, Funny)
It's pee. Soylent Yellow is made out of pee. They're making our drink out of pee. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for poo. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
How to make it "taste" better? (Score:5, Funny)
Put it in a can labeled 'Coors'
Most people wouldn't be able to taste the difference anyway.
No need to recycle, astronauts! (Score:2)
The Japanese have been packing htem the right way for YEARS http://images.google.co.jp/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Pocari_Sweat_(Otsuka_Pharmaceutical).jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pocari_Sweat_(Otsuka_Pharmaceutical).jpg&usg=__tTIn0ZxNc7-9bECAc9-XC4pzBT8=&h=1200&w=714&sz=174&hl=ja&start=3&tbnid=fUcXtwDhbp0FjM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=89&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPocari%2Bsweat%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Dja%26sa%3DG [google.co.jp]
Possibly a Side Benefit? (Score:2)
Just a thought; their teeth may become more whiter [wikipedia.org] for it?
Asparagus (Score:2)
It's in the water! (Score:2)
It's faux! (Score:2)
That's not real Jarate!
FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
"Recycled sweat & urine" is basically FUD.
Sweat is just water with salt, some oils and trace amounts of other chemicals. Urine is just water with urea, salt, and trace amounts of other chemicals.
If you thoroughly remove these other ingredients it's not really appropriate to call it "recycled urine/sweat" because it no longer contains the chemicals that make it those things. It would be like taking some kool-aid, boiling it, extracting the steam and calling it recycled kool-aid or de-kool-aided-water.
Real men.... (Score:2)
drink unrecycled urine.
Oblig. Quote (Score:4, Funny)
"Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway, because it's sterile and I like the taste."
THAT'S NOT TANG!! (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a video chad carter did on the development of this system Chads a trained physicist and a improv actor here in LA... brilliant. I laugh every time.
That's Not Tang: The NASA Urine Recycler took 10 years to develop. Watch the testing videos.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e7286d6d84/thats-not-tang-from-fod-team [funnyordie.com]
When asked about how they felt about the new tech. (Score:3, Funny)
As the astronauts had their first drink of recycled urine, the guys on the ground asked them how they felt about the new toilet's ability to reclaim pure, fresh water from crewmembers' urine:
"Wait, is that what you guys just sent up here? We haven't installed it yet..."
When I grow up... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear Grylls fakes his shit. If the camera cut, there's no reason to believe he actually drank his own urine. Drinking your own urine in a survival situation is a bad idea anyway. If you're dehydrated, your urine will be hyperosmotic and do more harm than good.
To be fair though, Bear did eat a live fish on camera, which is one of the coolest things I've seen on TV. Too bad the rest is fake.