Talk:LifeSaver bottle

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sanitation Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

talk

definitly it is a advertisment;why can`t anyone delete it?86.121.113.169 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the external links section.

Not an advertisement

I created and wrote most of this article. I have nothing to do with the product, and I don't know the person who invented it. I just love science, that's all. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper articles fit blogs domain only;unless youre making a clean breast of things;p86.121.113.169 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that you are related to the product somehow. Still, its written like an ad for this product of this company. As I wrote in the AfD discussion, if this articles was more general about the process of purifying water in a bottle and then just named the product 'Livesaver bottle' as an example, I would feel different about it. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a bit and am surprised how little this topic is covered in Wikipedia so far. There is no article Water sanitation (only Sanitation but thats very broad). So, if there was an article about Water sanitationI think the Lifesaver bottle could be included there rather than having one wikipedia article for each product any company produces... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah there is. I must be blind: Water purification. It could be mentioned in there. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no way. i just saw this amazing thing on TED and came here for more info on it... sadly lacking. Genjix (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely room for more specific articles than Water purification - e.g. there's Water filter and Portable water purification, and articles on specific technologies like Ceramic water filter, Clay pot filter. There's no reason not to have an article on this technology. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is rather that this article is on a single product of a single company and partly reads like an advertisment. I wasn't trying to say that the topic itself isn't wikipedia material. Since 'water' is in your user name: are you familiar with the topic? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the author of this page explain why any attempt to put genuine concerns of people related to this product get deleted every time they are put ? I have some of my customers who use this product and shared with me their genuine concerns. In a neutral article which is not an advertisement, all opinions should be welcome. I request not to own an article like a dictator. Please allow others to write well know facts and criticism for the article !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.60.11 (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires you to cite a reliable source for any information that you add to articles, such as a newspaper, magazine, or scientific article. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an amazing invention. I can't think of a better humanitarian use of 20 billion dollars. Get these bottles to the billion people drinking contaminated water! If somebody leaves me contact info on my talk page, I'd be glad to get involved raising money. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the article was created - the subject is notable enough to deserve its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle2600 is overmoderating this article. It reads like an ad and should be deleted --63.117.223.254 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user got banned so eacj opinions of his fails; no,if it is interesting it doesnt make it an article86.121.113.169 (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work?

Aside from a statement, in inventor Pritchard's TED talk, that the bottle uses nanotechnology, and our unsourced statement that a "nano-filter" is used, we have no explanation of the construction or how it works, or how it differs from other designs, or why this filter is able to handle so much volume (4 to 6 kiloliters), or just what happens when the filter is used up (I assume it simply clogs, preventing further use). That would go a long ways toward making this article more encyclopedic and less promotional. Peter Chastain (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content from the article that was written like a discussion

I removed this content which fits better to the talk page than to the article page!

In October 2015, independent lab tests found the 6000uf LifeSaver bottles manufactured in October 2014 and after to not pass virus removal testing. The tests were based on NSF Protocol 231, which requires 99.999% from the U.S.A, but the 6000uf product only filtered between 99.9% and 99.995%. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, and LifeSaver announced a cessation of production of the 6000uf product's filters and recommended consumers stop using the 6000uf affected product. You can trace if you have a defective filter inside your 6000uf bottle via the specific number on the filter.

Again, this is only the 6000uf Bottle product that was released in Oct 2014 and it is the specific filter for that product that is in question. Remember that Filters such as these from any company does nothing to filter out radioactive contamination and boiling water does not remove oils and heavy minerals. If you are in a situation where the 6000uf Bottle product is all you have, it would not be advisable to drink water from a wild untreated source instead of using the only water filtering product you have. If however you have the ability to replace it, that is what the warning is about. Replace it now or have an alternative method.

At the time of this edit on this date 6th November 2015, you can go to the Official Lifesaver website and read the statement released by Lifesaver. It specifically identifies the 6000uf product and explains that it was only filtering out 99.9% to 99.995%. The difference is .004% short of meeting the NSF Guidelines. They also explain to be cautious about using any lifesaver product in areas suspected of virus contamination.

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/documents/LIFESAVER_Warning.pdf ^[1] EvMsmile (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]