Why do we seek to process drinking water at a distance in a country where it rains so often?

The same question with a twist for areas of poverty and disaster....why do we ship in water when there is water nearby? What happens as thousands of people try and live in a refugee camp that does not have clean water? The answer to the first question is that the water may be polluted, or rather is almost certainly polluted. And to the second question the answer is disease and possibly conflict.

The real answer for Michael Pritchard, inventor of the Lifesaver water purifier is to make any water sterile on the spot , without chemicals. Interesting change of perspective.

See his pitch on TED Global at:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/lifesaver-water-purifier-makes-ted-audience-say-eeeeew.php

The company
http://www.lifesaversystems.com/index.html

ESD aspects: could be interesting to contrast the costs of different approaches and the fallout of different advantages and disadvantages. Given the widespread failure of centralised systems to create a suitable infrastructure or adequate response to disasters like flooding in the conventional way over the last 50 years, it looks more effective to give the people that need it the tools for the job. The Lifesaver bottle is not cheap at £114 but neither is disease or death, or aid infrastructures. In any case, larger production runs would cut costs by at least a third...
Perhaps it is like devolved or distributed energy -the time has come for devolved/local clean water..... Water (Lifesaver), energy (renewables), and information access (cell phones) at the really local level, the family and the individual? Next – local money, local food surpluses? An interesting discussion with learners could follow.

Photo: Michael Pritchard with Lifesaver at TED Conference 2009