Big Brother is Watching Your House Leak Energy

July 30, 2010

What if you could see how well your home was insulated, but it meant the government did a flyover and snapped photos of your house and then posted the data online? Would you feel comfortable with it, or hot and bothered? Check out this infrared screenshot of Antwerp from the Belgian government's online energy project.
Image courtesty of Zoom Into Your Roof.

Discovery News tech blogger Alyssa Danigelis reported on the Belgian government's "Zoom Into Your Roof" online campaign earlier this month. "A little airplane outfitted with a special infrared scanner flew over buildings throughout the country and produced images that show which homes are well-insulted and which ones (weren't)," Danigelis said.

The results were published on a public website so residents can zip around the interactive map of various neighborhoods and see how their houses fared.

When I first read this, my immediate gut reaction was "danger, danger, invasion of privacy, Will Robinson." and it's not the first instance this year that has raised questions of a right to privacy. Google has taken some heat for their Street View, which uses cameras that can zoom in far enough to see what kind of car you have in the driveway. Certainly nothing compares to the full-body-scan controversy, where you can see, um, everything. But with the infrared monitoring, it's still the government spying on your house, right? I loved Danigelis's point with the illegal roof party. A government flyover would definitely cramp your style.

All that aside, the more I thought about it, the more the infrared survey made perfect energy-saving sense to me. Really, what the Belgian government did was a home energy audit on an entire city. It gave them a sense where the greatest amount of energy usage was coming from and allowed the residents to see if they should invest in new insulation.

Knowing that your house is leaking heat or air conditioning because of poor insulation can be very valuable information to you, your community and your power company.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, about 43 percent of your utility bill goes to heating and cooling costs, and one of the most cost-effective improvements you can make to your home is properly insulating your attic. Another bonus: the less energy you consume, the less strain you put on the electrical grid and the fewer rolling blackouts you have.

Studying how good vs. bad insulation works has led to several new, energy-conserving technologies. The U.S. Army started covering their tents with spray foam to keep them cool in the intense Iraqi heat. In another example, scientists at PCM Innovations are developing insulation material for walls that will absorb or reflect heat, depending on the season.

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, action the Belgian government will take after analyzing all of the data they've collected, but this survey is worth repeating in the United States. According to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. earned second place as the world's largest energy consumer in 2009 (China just squeaked into first place).

With reports of hotter summers and colder winters, having infrared flyovers could be an enormous help in battling the energy consumption crisis. Plus, who doesn't want to save a little money these days. Sounds like a cool idea to me.

A Note to Readers: Sadly, this is my final blog entry for Hot Science News, as I've accepted a new job and will be leaving Discovery. It’s been a pleasure to write and discuss various science topics with you, and I'm so grateful to Science Channel for giving me this opportunity. Never stop asking questions!
All the best,
- Lauren

Punishing Crime

July 19, 2010

Which is worse, a bombing or shooting? Should someone who has committed murder with intent be sentenced the same way as they would for an accidental murder? An online survey is trying to decide how to rank crimes by different levels of evil.

I recently watched the 1957 film, "12 Angry Men."  It's a movie about a juror in a murder trial who eventually convinces the others that the evidence mounted against the defendant isn't as clear as it seemed in court, even though the other 11 jurors are all so sure (in the beginning) that the boy is guilty. So perhaps I'm a little biased right now, but I don't believe it's possible to make interpretations of crimes so neat and tidy, because the facts presented are not always so neat and tidy.

Discovery News' Emily Sohn reported on a project called the Depravity Scale, which seeks to "(create) societal standards for different levels of criminal activity...that would guide sentencing decisions."

The idea is to decide what the worst crimes are, in part by clarifying what it takes for a crime to be considered "heinous," "cruel," "depraved" or "evil," based solely on the evidence presented at the trial. In today's courtrooms, even cat fur can be used as evidence to put criminals behind bars.

To determine what the worst crimes are, researchers are conducting an ongoing online public survey that asks "people to rank 26 features of theoretical wrongdoings on a scale from most to least depraved," Sohn reported. Their hope is develop a formula for judges, lawyers, juries and law enforcement to distinguish between crimes and prevent "uninformed or biased decisions (that) can mean the difference between life and death," according to the depravity scale website.

On one hand, I could see how this information could be helpful for law school students who are studying how to present powerful arguments in court. But trying to standardize words that are associated with such powerful feelings or emotions can backfire in a real-life setting because in the heat of the moment, it won't matter. People will be only be convinced by people, regardless of whether they have a piece of paper explaining how to rank crimes in front of them. (Or by TV shows, of course. A recent study found that most jurors experience "The CSI Effect," which is when TV crime dramas influence their expectations for what is solid evidence, what is a moving argument, or what kind of person should be sent to jail.)

How could such a standard possibly be regulated so that everyone plays by the rules? What prosecutor is going to hold back from using the most powerful words he can muster in his closing arguments? Not many, I bet.

Let's just take the word "heinous," for example, which sounds like one of the more extreme emotional words used to describe crimes. I can imagine that the term "heinous" would be attached to a lot of crimes: murder, bombings, rape, etc. That’s a large spectrum of crimes for one word to cover, which would dilute its meaning and make it less effective.

Also, putting crimes on a scale could cause even more emotional stress for the victims. Think of a mother whose child was abducted, and imagine the district attorney telling her, "I'm sorry, but based on the evidence, we can't call this a "heinous" crime, we have to call it something else."

Too many unanswered questions and vague interpretations lead me to believe that the depravity scale wouldn't succeed.

Image: Hemera

Couldn't Technology Save Soccer?

July 07, 2010

Even though Team USA is no longer in the mix, it’s hard to tear myself away from what has been a controversial World Cup (the finals are July 11!). By the way, my money is on Spain for the win, because this "psychic" octopus predicted it.

Maybe I'm being naive about the world of futbol, but from the botched ref calls, to annoying vuvuzelas, to the absolutely faked injuries, I couldn’t help but wonder why more technology isn’t being used during the games.

I don't need to tell you that humans are not machines. We just don't have the reaction and processing capabilities that robots and computers do, and because of this, many national and international sports (hockey, tennis, baseball, etc.) use instant replay, reviews, computerized line judges and cameras. But not soccer, and cheating is rampant.

Discovery News' Ben Radford reported on the cheating controversies from this World Cup and others past, including soccer star Diego Maradona's "Hand of God" play. He points out that often players know when they’ve cheated but they’re not the ones making the calls. "I'm not the ref," French player Thierry Henry said when he had his own "Hand of God" moment in 2009 World Cup qualifiers.

A goal-line buzzer, like the one used in hockey, or a camera in the net, seem like no-brainers for soccer. Forget about the bogus off-sides calls, or how about England's disallowed goal against Germany? Instant replay showed it was clearly a goal, but FIFA has announced it won't even consider changing their stance on not having goal-line technology.

According to The Guardian, FIFA's excuse is, "the application of modern technologies can be very costly… (and) the rules need to be the same for all association football matches worldwide."

Fine then. What about just adding these "small" tech advancements to World Cup games?

Technology is already being used to help goalies predict penalty kicks more accurately. Even the best goalies guess wrong about 80 percent of the time, but Discovery News' Emily Sohn reported on new research that uses motion-sensing technology to pick up on signs from a kicker as to where he wants to put the ball.

Then again, technology has also been an annoyance in at least one instance. Have you noticed how many soccer players are overshooting their shots on goal? That’s because the new World Cup ball is flawed. The Adidas-created ball, the Jabulani, was accidentally made to knuckle differently than regular soccer balls, and it's been throwing off everyone's game.

In fairness, FIFA did announce they would CONSIDER reviewing ball concerns, but for the organization to be dragging its feet on goal-line technology just shows how unwilling they are to admit when they make a mistake -- and in fact, they already have.

Image: Richard Heathcote/Getty Images

It's Too Darn Hot

June 25, 2010

 It's summertime, but the living is not always easy. If you're a city dweller, then you're living in an environment that’s set to “extra crispy” for the next few months, and it's quickly becoming apparent that urban areas need to invest in new ways to keep cool.

Cities become incredible hot spots during the summer because they are filled with concrete, steel and asphalt that absorb and trap heat. Scientists call the phenomenon the urban island heat effect. Cities also have more people, more planes, trains and automobiles and more air-conditioning units, all of which emit heat. As if that wasn't enough, impermeable blacktop roads create grimy runoff that heads into rivers and streams, heating them up, killing off aquatic life and creating algal blooms.

Discovery News' Emily Sohn reports that many downtown areas already suffering through record-breaking heat waves are only going to get hotter. Rising global temperatures combined with more asphalt from urbanization have scientists predicting that “by [2050], nighttime temperatures in cities could rise by more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.” These stifling conditions can cause a wide range of health problems.

Declaring every day as “Bike to Work Day” would be a great solution, but that's not likely to happen any time soon. Still, there are plenty of other options cities can take advantage of to beat the heat. One of my favorites is vertical farming.

Discovery News' Matt Danzico reported on Columbia University's effort to turn New York City skyscrapers from ordinary office buildings into hosts for agriculture. The idea is to carve out wide balconies for growing fruits, vegetables, and perhaps even livestock. This could drastically cut down on the amount of food delivery trucks on the road. It would also reduce the amount of heat-trapping concrete around and bring a little more green into the picture. Watch Matt's full report here.

You don't have to deconstruct a skyscraper to help a city chill out, though. Just turning a building's roof into a luscious garden provides lots of benefits. Green roofs help suck carbon dioxide out of the air and absorb rainwater. The dirt and shade can also keep the roof cool in the summer and act as an insulator in the winter. Win-win! One caveat: green roofs can be costly.

If constructing a garden roof sounds too daunting, one study shows that if buildings simply painted their roofs white, it could make an incredible difference. Discovery News' Michael Reilly reported that researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded “white roofs could cut the urban heat island effect by as much as 33 percent globally, or an average of 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit.“

Let's break it down a step further and have buildings install more efficient air-conditioning systems. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed a prototype for an AC unit that uses up to 90 percent less electricity than current models.

As global temperatures continue to climb, cities need to take action now to create some relief. Instead of building a park or green space at street level, build it on the roof of a building. Community groups could apply for grants or donations for similar projects as well. City planners could also be smarter about not allowing urban sprawl to get out of control. In some states, parking lots outnumber cars. Not cool.

The Bad Side to Biofuels

June 16, 2010

When you think of green energy, what comes to mind? I’m betting most of you thought of biofuels: a wide range of fuels derived from biomass, such as algae, soy, sugar cane, even wood scraps and several others.

Biofuels are usually admired for their environmentally friendly fueling power and as an energy alternative, especially now, as we continue to live through the oil spill crisis in the Gulf. But there’s a dark side to this almost carbon dioxide-free fairy tale. With 255 million people driving cars in America alone (according to 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation estimates) do we have the biofuel supplies to be pushing for this fuel strategy, especially since we’re not the only ones?

The U.K.’s Guardian newspaper reported that the European Commission outlined a plan in a 2009 paper to help European governments strategize to power one-tenth of all EU cars, vans and trucks with biofuels by 2020.

But the biomass has to come from somewhere. There have been reports for years that hundreds of acres of tropical forests in Southeast Asia are being burned and cleared to make way for palm oil biofuel plantations. Doesn’t that seem counterintuitive when these forests do a much better job at combating climate change naturally than biofuel ever could?

Other humanities organizations have pointed out that biofuels could increase world hunger because plants like soy, wheat and sugar would be going more toward powering cars than feeding people in poorer nations. The Guardian also reported that ActionAid International released a study this year that said "people suffering from hunger could grow from 1 billion today to 1.6 billion by 2020 if the biofuel craze continues."

For now, biofuel production remains low because gas is still relatively cheap and readily available, and biofuels are difficult to produce. Not only does it take about an hour to produce a few hundred milliliters in a laboratory, but you also have to wait for the plants to grow and mature.

But we have to be so careful with our resources in all capacities and make sure that our addiction to oil doesn’t become an addiction to biofuel.

Perhaps biofuels won’t even need real plants at all someday. Is it possible that J. Craig Venter and his team’s incredible feat of creating life could also be applied to creating synthetic biofuels? If possible, it could potentially take real plants out of the equation. Problem solved!

The fact that several groups of researchers are experimenting with many different kinds of materials is promising and should continue to be explored. Ideally, if we could develop a car to run purely on our garbage instead of sending it to landfills, we could kill two green birds with one stone.

Image: AP Photo/Alan Diaz

And Then...Man Made Life

June 02, 2010

A team of scientists announced recently that they have created the first living organism made completely from man-made DNA. Without getting too political or religious, I ask this: Should we be creating life?

Discovery News' Eric Bland reported that J. Craig Venter and his team first created a synthetic chromosome "made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer," and then injected it into an emptied bacterium cell, to "reboot" it and bring it back to life. You can see the team at work in this slide show.

Even though this has been deemed an enormous scientific breakthrough, not everyone is celebrating, or even supporting the idea of messing with life at all.

Synthetic biology is a scientific offshoot of genetic engineering, but instead of altering an existing gene or DNA sequence, synthetic biologists study how to build artificial biological systems. There is even an international synthetic biology competition for undergraduate university students to develop such systems.

But the idea of creating living, breathing life out of nothing has many raising big, red ethical flags.

Let’s set aside all creepy feelings we get after seeing the trailer for the movie "Splice" and ask a bioethics expert what he thinks. Dr. Arthur Caplin, director of the Center for Bioethics at University of Pennsylvania, explained in an op-ed to Discovery News that the notion of "playing God" makes some people very uncomfortable.

"Some fear that when the creation of life at human hands happens, this will knock down a key theological tenet that only God can create life from non-life. Others worry that in creating new forms of life, we will create something that we can neither contain nor control." Caplin said. "(Still) others fear that the techniques for life creation in the wrong hands would spell horrific trouble for humanity."

While there is something to be said for leaving nature, or -- dare I say it? -- God’s creations alone, the reality is that we have been manipulating nature for decades. Medicine, selective breeding, alcohol, fuel, pesticides, genetically-modified crops, climate change...the list seems endless.

Venter’s team believes this breakthrough could solve a bunch of global problems, by offering solutions including: generating new food sources, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, cleaning up pollution, creating new energy sources, and producing clean water.

I say it’s certainly worth exploring, but also worth regulating. Several questions need to be answered, such as: Who should have the right to create life? Who should monitor synthetic biology? Should synthetic biologists be forced to publically declare their experiments? I hope we can find the wisdom to not let it get out of control.

Image: Hemera

Watch "Creating Synthetic Life," premiering Thursday, June 3, 2010, at 8PM ET/PT on the Science Channel to find out how Venter and his team faced the scientific challenges. The show will be followed by an expert discussion of the moral, ethical, philosophical and religious implications of this work.

Space Spring Cleaning

May 25, 2010

Space: the final frontier...for trash, and we are in desperate need of a cosmic waste management program.

Discovery News space producer Ian O’Neill reported earlier this month that “zombie” communications satellite was aimlessly floating above us after an intense solar storm literally fried its brain. I didn’t give it too much thought until he mentioned that this zombie was on a path of destruction toward other communication satellites and could knock out cable signals during the series finale of ABC’s "LOST." 

As a die-hard fan of the show, my first reaction was: NOOOO! My second reaction was: How fitting would it be for Dharma to “mess with our TV signals.” My third reaction: Great, even more space junk.

Thank goodness that didn’t happen and we were all able to have "LOST" blow us away uninterrupted, but the issue still lingers. It’s not enough that we trash our planet, we’ve also been junking up space for years -- and I’m shocked there haven’t been more efforts to clean it up. Shocked! After all, space junk is a huge threat.

According to NASA, space junk is a growing collection of man-made objects orbiting the Earth that no longer serve a useful purpose. That could mean a satellite that's outdated or dead, too old to function properly, or no longer needed for its original purpose. When this happens, and if it's not properly disposed of (for example, by commanding it to fall into our atmosphere to burn up), the satellite is left behind.

Old rocket boosters that have come loose or other pieces of spacecraft can also be space junk. One of the astronauts on Gemini 4 lost a glove that floated away -- a pretty creepy piece of space junk if you ask me, but still space junk.

But satellites are the most common variety. And a dead satellite is an uncontrollable one, capable of crashing into and destroying other, working, satellites that talk to our GPS systems, radar, cell phones, Internet cables, television sets, and even control or monitor military functions. Although collisions are extremely rare, they will happen with increasing frequency as the amount of debris increases. In extreme cases, a crash could send us into a communications blackout.

In 2009, NASA estimated that over 19,000 man-made objects were orbiting Earth and in 2007, they estimated that over 6,000 of those pieces were space junk. While the number of launches vary from year to year, nine countries launch satellites annually. How can we possibly keep track of everyone?

When two satellites crash, it’s not a friendly bump; it’s a debris explosion. You might recall when a U.S. communications satellite collided with a non-functioning Russian satellite in February 2008. The debris field from the crash was so massive and dangerous it placed the International Space Station in jeopardy. Then, Russian Mission Control announced that the junk could linger in space for up to 10,000 years.

In 2009, the European Space Agency announced a space junk clean-up program with a heavy emphasis on raising awareness about the dangers of trashing space.

That’s a start, I suppose, but if we’re going to really clean up Earth’s orbiting mine field, we need projects like CubeSail. Designed by scientists at the University of Surrey and funded by the European space company Astrium, CubeSail is a modified solar sail made to "drag" defunct satellites from orbit. Trials are scheduled for 2011.

There should be hundreds of space garbage trucks like CubeSail patrolling Earth’s orbit for wayward satellites, and it needs to be a global “bring out your dead!” effort. Without it, we will continue to squabble over room in space, and that’s not good for anyone’s protection or productivity.

Image: NASA

I Am Iron Man

May 17, 2010

What if we fought future wars with Iron Men? Imagine our soldiers dressed head to toe in superhuman combat gear, shooting alongside robot drones . Should we be using this technology in battle? Will war become a fight over who has built the better robot?

If you haven’t seen the comic-book-turned-movie-sequel "Iron Man 2," relax. I’m not going to give away anything that you haven’t already seen in the trailer.

In the first movie, weapons technology guru and super-wealthy industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is forced to create a metal-armored suit to save his life. After perfecting the technology, the metal “super suit” is born, giving him superpowers when he wears it -- incredible strength, ability to shoot lasers, fly -- which he then uses to fight crime.

For “Iron Man 2,” Tony Stark reveals that he and the suit are one and tells the U.S. government it can't have it. So other engineering goons try to replicate his masterpiece for good or for evil.

While it may seem like just another action thriller, these two movies have much more to them than just some really amazing explosions. The idea of developing a superhuman suit for warfare is very real: and it’s been done.

Several defense technology corporations from around the world have been developing “super suits” in the form of robotic exoskeletons. Sarcos, an American robotics firm, has designed the closest thing to a real-life Iron Man suit for soldiers in combat. Their XOS Exoskeleton robotic suits allows soldiers who wear them to carry heavy gear over long distances without getting tired. Not only that; the suits protect them in rescue missions, and let them singlehandedly wield a two-person weapon. Talk about a battle cruiser!

CYBERDYNE Inc. in Japan has a similar model, although judging by their Web site, it looks like their exoskeleton can also make you do sweet kung-fu moves. Several other robotics labs, such as Honda and MIT, have focused on just developing lower-limb robotic suits for leg strength.

Want a more peaceful example? Entire arms, hands and legs made out of robotic parts can be hard-wired into a person’s nervous system. This technology has revolutionized prosthetics and how we treat amputees. The patient might not be able to “feel” their lost limbs ever again, but at least this way they can regain some functionality.

I’m all for exploring and developing this technology further. We should be outfitting our men and women in uniform with the best protection we can produce. Plus, if we’re not going to use this technology to protect our soldiers, someone else certainly will for their superhuman armies.

Photo: Associated Press

Burning the Midnight Oil

May 11, 2010

When the first signs of oil bubbled to the surface in the Gulf of Mexico after an oil rig exploded and sank in mid-April, it became clear that this was no longer a minor situation. This was now a huge environmental crisis.

Several weeks later, the Deep Horizon accident remains a horrible threat to the entire Gulf area and possibly the East Coast. Despite the efforts of sending down robots to weld together leaks in the sunken rig, or lowering a containment box to cap the oil well leak, thick blobs of crude oil are beginning to wash up on beaches. At last count, the well was spewing at least 200,000 gallons of oil a day.

To give some perspective, one barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons. So we’re talking almost 5,000 barrels of oil spilled each day in a delicate environment. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States used about 20.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2008. Even though it may seem like a small percentage, it makes a huge difference.

One of the early tactics for clean up was to set the oil in the water on fire. But did this really help the situation? The short answer: For the most part, yes, but it had its complications.

Crude oil from a spill can take on two forms when it hits water: the light stuff that leaves a rainbow sheen on the water’s surface, and the heavy stuff that turns into a thick, tar-like soup. It’s the heavy stuff that washes ashore and is hardest to clean up. The rainbow-looking stuff, which can also evaporate in direct sunlight, is what the controlled burns can take care of.

Long before the containment box arrived on site, special oil spill task forces were using huge, wide-floating booms to corral the oil into smaller, controlled spaces, and set the area on fire with hand-held flares. Wow, talk about turning up the heat! Can you imagine the adrenaline rush from throwing flares at a sea of oil? Phew!

The Associated Press reported, “when the flames go out … the material that is left resembles a hardened ball of tar that can be removed from the water with nets or skimmers.”

Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator for the gulf effort, told The New York Times that wildlife are more capable of handling the risk of a fire than the risk of being covered in oil slick. Hmm, it still doesn’t sound good to me though.

I talked with Discovery News earth producer and environmental expert Michael Reilly about whether burning the oil was worth it.

"(The burn) only works in places where the oil is concentrated, so they round it up like livestock," Reilly said, explaining that about 50 to 90 percent of what is corralled can be burned off this way, but "when you're talking about a 40,000-square-mile area, that's really big and you simply can't get all of it."

So, it seems like we’re dealing with the lesser of two evils here. Although these controlled burns can make a dent in clean-up efforts, burning the oil releases tons of thick, black, carbon dioxide plumes into the air. Plus, the slick is too big for the burns to get to all of it.

By the way, not to worry, Reilly explained that NOAA determined that "no one would be hurt by this because the amount (of oil being burned) is small, and not enough to increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

You should know that the fumes from the burns are extremely toxic to breathe if you’re up close, though. Actually, the oil in the water and what washes ashore are both very harmful as well, Reilly and other experts are urging everyone to leave clean up to the professionals.

Image: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Are Water Filters Necessary?

May 04, 2010

When it comes to water, we've got it pretty good here in the United States. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and a whole host of other regulations, rarely do we have to worry about disease, bacteria or dangerous chemical contamination in our drinking water. So is it a good idea to spend all this money on filtration systems, water purifiers and filter replacements for our individual homes?

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Web site, safety standards are set for 90 contaminants in drinking water. "For each of these contaminants, EPA sets a legal limit, called a maximum contaminant level, or requires a certain treatment. Water suppliers may not provide water that doesn't meet these standards," the site says.

The chemical levels in your water have to be tested on a regular basis as required by law, and if there is an issue, officials have to notify the public immediately. Using a filter does draw out greater amounts of these chemicals, but environmental regulations keep those chemicals at such low levels that they wouldn't harm you if you drank them anyway.

So with filtered water, the biggest difference you notice is that your water tastes better.

Discovery News writer Cristen Conger talked with Rick Andrew, operations manager for the drinking water treatment program at NSF International, which tests product claims and develops industry safety standards. “Surveys have shown that most consumers purchase point-of-use water filters to improve the aesthetic quality of their water -- the taste, odor and appearance -- as opposed to addressing potential health risks,” Andrew said.

Still feel like filtered water is the way to go, but agree that you don't want to waste money on a purification system or extra replacement filters? The STER UV might be your answer. This small, UV-light stick can zap away harmful bacteria in drinking with just a couple of stirs. It's sort like a light saber for your kitchen. Discovery News' Clark Boyd reported that this tool was developed by industrial designer Olivia Blechschmidt after a horrific e.coli contamination incident in 2000 in Ontario, Canada.

It's also important to note that I'm generalizing here. As Conger points out, some homes with private wells are receiving water not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act. According to the EPA's Web site, they suggest that private wells should be filtered and tested annually for bacteria. Also, if you have a highly compromised immune system, then filtered water is always your safest bet.

Other countries are not so lucky; many can't choose how clean the drinking water is.

Water purifying technology has become one of the most vital scientific inventions in history, and has saved a countless number of lives here and around the world, especially in poor nations that can't afford to pump, filtrate and distribute clean water for every village. One of the biggest issues is the spread of disease through the drinking water and then being able to build the infrastructure to handle cleaning the water. Many researchers have spent years perfecting and developing new ways to solve both problems and make water safe to drink with small, portable devices.

Discovery News' Eric Bland reported that scientists at MIT designed a computer chip-sized water purifier that uses magnetic fields to separate out harmful contaminants and produce clean water. Researchers believe it has the potential to reduce the amount of water-borne infections.

A trip to El Salvador inspired one husband and wife team to build low-cost water purification units in their garage, and now their non-profit organization, Clean Water for the World, has put 59 units into operation in Nicaragua, Kenya and Haiti.

Here in the United States, we have many more options. Adding an extra level of safety with a filter is comforting, but is it worth spending the money on them when our infrastructure is sufficient enough to produce clean drinking water? Probably not. You don't have to have a filter on your tap in order to have safe drinking water. Safe being the keyword here. But then again, who doesn't want better-tasting water?

Image: Michael Blann/Photodisc