Talk:LifeStraw

This article was nominated for deletion on December 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, 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.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Changes made[edit]

Changes made:

Company is swiss-based

Changed 185 gallons to 700 litres (the claim made on the companies website) 700 litres is not 185 gallons.

With all due respect, when I type "185 gallons in liters" into my Google search bar, the Google calculator reports that, in fact, 185 gallons = 700.301183 litres, which is significantly correct to three digits, and accurate enough for most people. Maybe there is some confusion between U.S. gallons and Imperial gallons? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many changes intended to generally improve grammar and tone. Much additional editing on this point still required, but I hope I've made a start. Lurker 14:27, gay time22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten the article and am very satisfied with my handiwork. Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the page. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this product available yet, and why does the article mention it is only for the third world? Lifestraw seems like it would be perfect for first world emergency kits.

"He says that the price is expensive to those who would need it, and that it does not alleviate other problems in third world countries.[6]" So this straw is supposed to cure cancer/hunger too? Gimme a break.

That's exactly what I thought too. The statement that it's too expensive might be a rational criticism, but the fact that it doesn't save the world too seems unencyclopedic to include.--JeramieHicks (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article says it costs $2 but this fairly recent article on MSNBC has it retailing at $3 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19121634/site/newsweek/), not a huge deal but might be worth changing... Tuffsnake, 06/13/2007

It seems impossible to purchase a Lifestraw on line. 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)xperson|xperson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.224.250 (talk)

Details To Clarify[edit]

Since I have a conflict of interest editing this article, I won't change anything on the LifeStraw page(but I'm glad it exists!) but I wanted to point out a few details, from my POV, that should be clarified:

Technically, VF doesn't have a "LifeStraw Personal" product, as that isn't trademarked. "LifeStraw Family" is trademarked, but the corporate website was recently changed to reflect talking about the personal version of the LifeStraw. References to LifeStraw Personal should be reworded to "personal version of LifeStraw" or similar. Yeah, this is this is a bit of corporate-speak, but it's fact.

The cost of the LifeStraw Family and the personal version varies widely, depending on how many are bought and who they are shipped to. A different price is quoted in different articles covering LifeStraw online, so there are no hard-and-fast rules on how much shipping a LifeStraw costs--whether it's the LifeStraw Family or the personal version makes a big difference too.

The iodine issue occurred in much earlier versions of the personal version of the LifeStraw, but doesn't happen in newer versions [1]. talk)

The term "third world" isn't one that people in development like to use as it suggests the first world (i.e. United States) is somehow superior to that place.

Additionally, I'm not sure how credible or useful the link to the LifeStraw wikispaces page is, as all of the same information is either listed on this page or on the corporate website or other links listed. Redserenade (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the hollow fibers work[edit]

From the company's FAQ (under "How is backwashing done?") it says that in backwashing, "Water passes from the clean side of the hollow-fibre membrane to the dirty side..."

So while a casual reader might assume that the filtration happens because particles can't enter the fibers, and that clean water comes out the other end of the fibers, it looks like that's wrong. It seems that the filtration happens when the water passes across the membrane that is used to make the tubes.

Can any confirm this, or find a clearer source? I'd also be curious to know what the hollow fibers are made from. --Chriswaterguy talk 10:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LifeStraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Sentence structure of this article,[edit]

This article appears to be not well written. The sentence structure is not amazing. The sentences are wordy, hard to read and decriptions of the product come across as marketing claims instead of facts.