Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

+Pool Would Let New Yorkers Go River Swimming

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the now-90%-body-free dept.

Idle 133

cylonlover writes "Three young entrepreneurs have proposed a way of getting New Yorkers into the Hudson, East and/or Bronx Rivers. It's called the +Pool (Plus Pool) — a public swimming pool that would float in the river, allowing people to swim in filtered river water. River water would flow into the pool through permeable walls, which would be composed of three layers filtering out the river nasties."

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cautious optimism! (1, Funny)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555548)


If they can get away with doing this sans toxic chemicals like Chlorine and Bromine, I say GOOD FOR THEM!

Swimming pools are a toxic soup of deadly chemicals like Chlorine, Bromine, Cyanuric Acid, Sodium Bisulphate and Sodium Carbonate. Even 'saltwater' pools use these to maintain pH and limit algae growth.

Over the years there have been numerous reports of Chiropractor-diagnosed illness in which the subluxation contained extraordinarily high levels of Chlorine. Considering that many people love to swim in toxins, it's no surprise that this is the case. All those chemicals seeping in through the skin directly into your bloodstream and nervous system, especially through the thinner skin of the back: BAM! A subluxation before you're even out of the pool.

This pool may be a great thing for swimming in clean, chemical-free water, but the people will still be breathing heavily. That will get them taking in all sorts of polluted NYC air. Watch for Chiropractic offices popping up around this pool to help with swimmers' health maintainance issues!

Take care,
Bob

Re:Cautious optimism! (3, Interesting)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555722)

What about the massive increase in subluxation diagnoses that have occurred as the a result of increased number of chiropractors?

It has been proven that a single chiropractor can cause dozens of subluxation diagnoses!

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556422)

Yes, yes. Just like oncologists have "massively increase[d]" cancer diagnoses. I go to a chiropractor for certain injuries where experience tells me that I will get back to life-as-normal much faster with adjustments from the chiropractor than going to a normal doctor (whom I'm unlikely to get in to see within a week anyway) or just managing it on my own. That doesn't mean I believe half their crap, and I've never had any chiropractor use the term "subluxation" on me (I'd probably find a new chiropractor after that). All that said, that fact that a group of professionals (let's use the term loosely, for the sake of argument) arises and a corresponding rise in diagnoses made by said professionals occurs does not mean that they're snake-oil salesmen. It's entirely reasonable to deduce that these issues were on-going prior to chiropractic and we now have people trained to diagnose and treat them. Of course, the fact that it's reasonable and plausible doesn't make it true, either. My point is that correlation != causation, and you're making the same ascientific blunder that the rest of society does which is so derided on slashdot, but because it's against chiropractic, it's acceptable for some uninformed reason.

(This is not a slight against the GP - their rant is entirely parody, making fun of the chiropractic claims, and thus is actually making a similar claim against chiropractic that I'm making against the parent, but doing so through parody instead of directly.)

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556664)

Actually, Dr Bob makes these posts all the time, I doubt he's a parody.

I was making a joke though, woosh!

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557556)

Parody? Perhaps. Troll? Definitely. But, by Cthulhu's Tentacles, he is a damn fine one. Just look how many people swallow his bait hook, line and sinker in every single story. Getting his same pitch in on topic in lots of threads, mostly making FP and not even bragging about it. Dr Bob walks tall amongst trolls. He is a paragon of trolldom and a shining example for the young generation. I salute him.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557426)

My spouse is a neurologist at a Manhattan hospital, located not far from the spot photographed on the picture (pool is a neat idea, btw). She says that they constantly have new patients arriving with neck damage, which is CAUSED by chiropractors. Her advice: don't let chiropractors anywhere near your neck.

Recently, they had a chiropractor visit their hospital to give a presentation on how all of this is libel, perpetrated by the enemies of the chiropractic profession. The presentation was cut short by a heated argument between the presenter and one of the neurology chiefs: they could not agree on the main point of the presentation.

So while the correlation between doctors and diseases is rather famous, if chiropractor visits correlate with subsequent neurological issues, it is a little worrying.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555828)

Damn, are trying to out kook APK? Good start, but you'll have to work harder.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556084)

Ah, APK!

He was good for epic lulz before "lulz" was even coined as a term.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556152)

I still prefer the HOSTS file guy.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556360)

Give it a rest, Tom/Barbie. Only you care about the HOSTS file guy.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556394)

I still prefer the HOSTS file guy.

isnt APK the HOSTS file guy?

Or are you saying you like the name "HOSTS file guy" better?

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556440)

Yeah, not everyone knows who APK is but everyone who saw the epic post knows that HOSTS file guy means.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555846)

http://www.chirowatch.com/ [chirowatch.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ukskeptics.com/chiropractic.php [ukskeptics.com]

Chiropractic was invented in 1895 by Canadian-born Daniel David Palmer; a medically unqualified layman. He had been a grocer before becoming a "magnetic healer" (transferring "healing energy" to patients by touching or waving hands over them) in Burlington, Iowa, USA.

LOL.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555936)


So?

Every type of medical treatment has a start date. Even Big Pharma drugs have to be invented at some point in a lab before being pushed on the population at large.

DD Palmer was a great man who discovered the problems a poorly-functioning nervous system can cause. Some of his teachings are now questioned by some in the Chiropractic community. For example, while all Chiropractors will tell you about nerve system issues, not all will call the blockages "subluxations". It's a "toe-may-toe" "toe-mah-toe" thing: they still believe.

Most Chiropractors will tell you about the dangers of vaccines, Big Pharma, chemicals and radiation, too. Would you drink a litre of radioactivity? Of course not. So why do you call us down?

Re:Cautious optimism! (4, Insightful)

crypticedge (1335931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556078)

Vaccines are a necessary item to cause herd immunity to diseases. We stop using them and things like small pox and polio and that sort return. It's your kind that is killing people and creating super diseases and you should be put on trial as the accomplice to murder that you are.

There was another man people called great spouting nonsensical gibberish too. They made a religion from his books called Scientology. That doesn't mean he still wasn't a crackpot though (hint: they both were)

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556190)

It's a "toe-may-toe" "toe-mah-toe" thing:

Isn't that reflexology? Or am I thinking about retifism?

Re:Cautious optimism! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556248)

I discovered that eating my shit will cure diseases. Should I shit straight into your mouth or do you want to raid the stall after I drop the obama kids off at the hudson river pool?

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556560)

A steaming liter bowl of radioactivity sound delicious right now!! Then I can subluxate all over the place. Then my chiropractor will touch my radioactive subluxations and he will subluxate everywhere. Soon the entire world will be a steaming pile of subluxations all because of my liter of warm zesty radioactivity. BWAHAHAHAHA

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557252)

Ok, maybe I could believe in this if they could produce a picture of a subluxation. X-Ray, MRI, even a photograph. They can't do it.

Re:Cautious optimism! (3, Insightful)

crypticedge (1335931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555968)

Chiropractic practitioners are glorified scam artists. Please do us all a favor and stop using posting your lies on every article, as there is no proof that anything you have claimed on here was even partially accurate. Chiropractors cannot help with cancer, this is a known fact. Chiropractors cannot fix chemical related illnesses, this is also a known fact.

Your entire field of study was created by a man with no medical knowledge who was attempting to make himself rich while pedaling voodooesque techniques, and anyone who buys into them has one critical problem above all else. They are damned retarded.

Chiropractor diagnosed illnesses are one thing above all else, a lie.

Re:Cautious optimism! (5, Funny)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556018)

Swimming pools are a toxic soup of deadly chemicals like Chlorine, Bromine, Cyanuric Acid, Sodium Bisulphate and Sodium Carbonate.

Straight from Wikipedia:

Sodium carbonate is a food additive (E500) used as an acidity regulator, anti-caking agent, raising agent and stabilizer. It is one of the components of kansui, a solution of alkaline salts used to give ramen noodles their characteristic flavor and texture.[5][6] Sodium carbonate is also used in the production of sherbet powder. The cooling and fizzing sensation results from the endothermic reaction between sodium carbonate and a weak acid, commonly citric acid, releasing carbon dioxide gas, which occurs when the sherbet is moistened by saliva.

You know what? I'm not even going to bother looking up the rest of those chemical compounds.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556816)


Coming from a pool owner: most of those chemicals are all actually legit in the maintenance of a pool.
- Chlorine kills algae
- Bromine is used mostly in hot tubs and spas I think, I've never used it in our pool but see it for sale at the pool/spa/hot tub supplier.
- Cyanuric Acid is stabilizer for the chlorine. It helps prevent sunlight from neutralizing the chlorine. "Stabilized Chlorine" has the acid included in the granules or pucks.
- Sodium Bisulphate is an acid used to bring down high pH levels. Commonly called "pH down" by the manufacturers.
- Sodium Carbonate raised pH levels. Commonly called "pH up" by the manufactureres.

That all said, I don't recall reading about dangerous subluxations on the MSDS...

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557060)

Coming from a pool owner: most of those chemicals are all actually legit in the maintenance of a pool.

No doubt. I was just pointing out that not only are they not hazardous to humans in levels found in swimming pools, but the last one at least is so non-hazardous (ok, nothing is 100% non-hazardous) that it's added to our food - it's basically about as hazardous as baking soda.

(And if ramen noodles have a toxic, deadly chemical in them, I'm in a heap of trouble. Though some would claim that MSG is pretty bad, so it's not like I eat them all the time.)

Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide (5, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557228)

A pool in the hudson would be filled with a lot of dihydrogen monoxide [dhmo.org] . This might be the main hazard people will be exposed to.

        Dihydrogen monoxide:

                is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
                contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
                may cause severe burns.
                is fatal if inhaled.
                contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
                accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
                may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
                has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

        Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

                as an industrial solvent and coolant.
                in nuclear power plants.
                in the production of Styrofoam.
                as a fire retardant.
                in many forms of cruel animal research.
                in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
                as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

PS.. mod as funny ;)

Re:Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557898)

I love that it got modded insightful. It scares me that I don't know if that was intentional or the mods just think it's really interesting.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556964)

You shouldn't be bothered. You've been trolled.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557720)

I know he's a troll. Sometimes it's just amusing to pretend he's serious and take pot shots at the ridiculous crap he posts, though.

And to be honest I'm not entirely convinced that he doesn't really believe the stuff he posts.

Re:Cautious optimism! (3, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556024)

If the worst effect of a toxine is a subluxation..... well .... isn't "toxic" a bit misleading??

"OMG he just ate arsenic - get a chiropractor - QUICK! !!"

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556036)

Dr. Bob, I fear it is attitudes and chiropractors that have these kinds of "theories" that give chiropractic medicine a bad name. If you can point to journals or actual scientific studies which support these theories then I would be less inclined to dismiss. My brother is a chiropractor and so I am very familiar with what they can and can't do for you and how they can really help you. Health education and all is great and a part of it, but baseless statements with no documentation is not a way to promote the benefits of chiropractic medicine.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556246)

Not at all baseless! There is the excellent Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research [journalofs...search.com] , Dr. Mercola [mercola.com] , NaturalNews.com [naturalnews.com] to start.

Not to mentioned countless excellent Chiropractic videos on YouTube. Some have dozens of thumbs up from other Chiros: peer review in action.

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

crypticedge (1335931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556342)

Do you have any peer reviewed sources that have actually withstood real scientific scrutiny? NaturalNews is far from a credible source, and Journal of Vertebral subluxation research is obviously a biased source. As for the Dr, well this disclaimer kind of sums it up at the bottom of his page * These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556494)

Not to mentioned countless excellent Chiropractic videos on YouTube. Some have dozens of thumbs up from other Chiros: peer review in action.

That's all it takes to establish truth?

So, what you're saying is, because a bunch of teenagers have fart pipes and giant wings on their hand-me-down civic, and other teenagers give their youtube videos thumbs up, we ALL need to have 3-level wings and coffee can exhaust?

Shit man, your wisdom is boundless!

Wait, does your chiropractic office sell wings and fart pipes? I just want to make sure you're not trying to mislead me here with biased conflict-of-interest.

Nothing wrong with Chlorine (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556404)

Your insinuation that Chlorine is a carcinogin is not supported by science or even anecdotal experience.

The main problem with swimming pools & chlorine causing irritation is ironically caused by *not enough* chlorine, since the the chlorine combines with septic materials to form chloramines. which are highly irritating to people. Look it up on Wikipedia, its basically forms of ammonia.

In fact, most swimming pools would benefit from significantly higher levels of chlorine. It would be safer and cleaner.

Chlorine gets a bad rap from people who generally don't know what they're talking about, or have something expensive to sell you.

And yes, I have decades of pool experience.

Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556866)

I'd guess that the irritation is more from the septic by-products than the chloramines - some public water supplies are treated with chloramines and it's safe to swim in the water. Unless there are very high levels of chloramines (significantly more than 2-4 ppm?)... but then, if there's not enough chlorine, most of it will be consumed by the organic materials and there won't be much left to form chloramines.

Also, I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia article stating that chloramines were significantly irritating to people in dilute solutions such as you'd find in drinking water or the water in a swimming pool.

And yes, I work for a public water utility which uses chloramines as the disinfection residual.

Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557150)

I think the issue with swimming pools is a combination of chloramines and poor pH balance.

The thing is, its very easy to keep pH & chlorine balanced, but pool companies like to make it appear complex. So most homeowners think its a process akin to turning lead into gold. Its not. 30 minutes a week with a pool will keep it clean.

A private pool should be shocked (superchlorination) once every two weeks or sooner if its extremely hot and you have a lot of people in the pool.

Commercial Pools deal with the problem differently, since the amount of organic chloramines is much higher (see this article) http://aquamagazine.com/post/Shock-and-Gnawing-Doubts.aspx [aquamagazine.com] , using potassium monopersulfate instead of just superchlorination.

The important point is, commercial pools, particularly indoor pools have a whole lot more issues to deal with, lots more people, a wider variety of sensitivities, etc that should force commercial pool operators to be a lot more careful with what they do.

For homeowners? Most can get by with $60-100 of chemicals per season, however, the pool industry doesn't make any money selling you chlorine and baking soda, they like to sell you something significantly more expensive. So you have a cottage industry that comes up with chlorine alternatives that are less effective and significantly more costly.

Re:Nothing wrong with Chlorine (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557374)

And yes, I have decades of pool experience.

As an experienced pool boy, do you have to bring your own music soundtracks with you or do they come with the pool?

Re:Cautious optimism! (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556536)

"Chiropractor-diagnosed illness in which the subluxation contained extraordinarily high levels of Chlorine"

This statement is so full of win I don't know where to start. so now subluxations are like sponges. got it. but manipulating the sponge will squeeze out the chlorine? will we see a mop bucket style squeezer at the next chiro-conference?

Chiro's can help with musculoskeletal problems in very similar fashion to physical therapy. everything else is snake oil.

Re:Cautious optimism! (0)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556624)

I think someone missed the point. Methinks it should be modded +5, Funny

What about stuff in the pool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555550)

I don't want some New Yorker peeing in my pool.

Re:What about stuff in the pool? (1)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556000)

No kidding. I think they should just make some full body bathing suits outta that stuff, and just let people swim in the river. It wont take long for the pool to be nastier than the river itself. Does it's filter work both ways? ;)

Three layers are not enough... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555616)

...to filter out the New Yorkers.

Still too nasty for me.

Eh? (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555624)

The rivers smell so bad, I'd think the biggest problem would be convincing people to get near them, let alone in them. I think they'd have to be enclosed.

Unmentioned in the article is that one also needs the conventional cleaning system to clean the water from (speaking carefully now) pollutants generated internally, too.

What happens in winter?

Re:Eh? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555692)

What happens in winter?

It gets cold. Not a lot of outdoor swimming pools in use in a New York winter.

Re:Eh? (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555730)

To keep the inside water clean, I suppose you could just pump the water out of the pool, back into the river.

Re:Eh? (4, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555764)

What happens in winter?

My wife's Scandanavian ancestors came up with an answer to that. You beat each other with birch twigs in the sauna until jumping through a hole in the ice into freezing water begins to look like an attractive proposition. Once disabused of that insane notion, you crawl out and do it again.

I think the beating part would go over big with some elements of the New York population.

Re:Eh? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555834)

You forgot the booze!

Re:Eh? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555904)

You forgot the booze!

Not to mention the much more sensible idea of getting in your longboat and sacking some country with a more pleasant climate. Scotland, for instance.

Re:Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555916)

and the makara

Re:Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556270)

I think the beating part would go over big with some elements of the New York population.

I have to agree with this. A New York mayor said it best:

Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

-- NYC Mayor Lenny Clotch, Ghostbusters 2

Re:Eh? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556786)

Except this is NY. The first time someone did that, there would be a law against it to protect the children!

Re:Eh? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557064)

Well, maybe they can locate on Fire Island.

Re:Eh? (1)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556016)

Ice skating

Re:Eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557628)

The Hudson and East Rivers don't smell much at all these days and many fish have returned. The filtering is practically unnecessary except after heavy rains. It's more or less the same water as Orchard Beach or Coney Island, which obviously have no filters and no one gets sick from those.

Re:Eh? (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36558040)

That's interesting because the New York City Triathlon's swim portion is right in the Hudson River. No one I've talked to has ever mentioned anything TOO bad about swimming in the Hudson. But as a lot, triathletes are generally too hard core to admit any suffering or unexplained skin growths. :)

+pool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555630)

as opposed to the normal everyday minus pool

Several pools of this kind already exists (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555638)

They're called "ocean swimming pools", and have been around for over a hundred years now. Help yourself to a google image search and enjoy the beautiful images.

Re:Several pools of this kind already exists (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555902)

I feel I must recommend that people stop looking before they get to page 4...

I can say no more without risking subjecting myself to a defamation lawsuit.

Re:Several pools of this kind already exists (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556030)

Turn safe search off and that defamation lawsuit risk won't show up until much later on

Better Be Some Good Filters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555674)

Sure, filtering for parasites, and particulate waste is fine, but what about chemicals?

What was all that business about New York water showing unnatural traces of caffeine and acetaminophen?

Re:Better Be Some Good Filters... (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557148)

GE Has done an excellent job at convincing the public that the EPA is trying to hurt the environment by trying to get the river cleaned up. I wouldn't worry about chemicals like PCB and stuff. GE says it is fine.

Liability nightmare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555702)

The cost of insurance for a venture such as this would be outrageous!

OR.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555718)

They could use these magical three layers to filter farther upstream where likely several inconsiderate companies are flushing nasties into the river and make those companies pay for it. THEN people could swim in the river like they should be able to. Letting people put nasties into the river is the problem. Duh.

Re:OR.... (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555840)

"nasties" in the river, huh?

Re:OR.... (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556832)

Magic solves everyone's problems. In this case the first layer (sediment filtration) is probably the only feasible layer on any scale. If the other two would even be possible the cost would grow exponentially, leaving you a pool costing more than a space shuttle.

Re:OR.... (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557484)

They could use these magical three layers to filter farther upstream where likely several inconsiderate companies are flushing nasties into the river and make those companies pay for it. THEN people could swim in the river like they should be able to. Letting people put nasties into the river is the problem. Duh.

Good luck with that. Most of the ecological damage to the east river (including one of the largest and longest in duration oil spills in history) was done a long time ago by companies that no longer exist. Putting something up river would be ineffective as the riverbed has been contaminated in all directions for over a century.

Still, it's New York. If you care about whether or not something is clean, it's not where you live. The whole fucking city smells like rotting garbage and urine in the summer.

Ah, now I understand (4, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555780)

How those Jersey Shore people get their orange "tans".

Another sign of societal decadence (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555860)

...and what exactly is the point? To separate the rich hedonists from a little more of their disposable income? I sure don't see those of us commoners being able to take "advantage" of such a ridiculous luxury.

Re:Another sign of societal decadence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36555898)

I think its going to be public

Re:Another sign of societal decadence (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555944)

By separating the rich hedonists from their money you can then employ waiters, pool cleaners, construction people, and pool designers plus hundreds of useless people in government to get the required permits.

So yes, that is the point. To get people to spend money.

Now of course we're both assuming that this will be a private pool and privately funded. What will really happen is that someone will make it a public project and build this instead of hiring a few more cops, repairing roads, or performing some other necessary function of government.

Re:Another sign of societal decadence (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556326)

We don't need more cops, if anything we need less. They have enough of them to bother people committing victimless crimes, or minor traffic violations.

Re:Another sign of societal decadence (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556790)

Agreed. Redirect the cops to solve crimes that have victims.

Nice Slashvertisement (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555862)

Nice Slashvertisement.

Maintenance costs would kill this thing quickly, as would the passage of chemicals the filters failed to catch. Cleaning the inside of a pool sucks, but cleaning BOTH sides? Lovely.

Re:Nice Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557594)

Maintenance costs would kill this thing quickly

Yeah, given it's the Hudson, I doubt those filters would last very long.

Re:Nice Slashvertisement (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557856)

How long would it last in a river like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

Drop your pool in the water, then try to filter out the components after your pool disolves?

Eh... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36555876)

In the narrow sense, this seems like a reasonably clever, if not entirely novel solution; but in the broader sense it leaves me skeptical.

If your river has sufficiently high levels of pathogenic viruses and bacteria that it isn't swimmable, you should seriously consider pretending to be a first-world country for 15 minutes and check out this cool "sanitation systems, so you don't have to drink and swim in your own shit!" fad that all the cool civil engineers have been nattering on about since, oh, the Roman Empire or so...

If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

If your swimmers just can't handle the terror of a little silt or the normal flora of a watershed ecosystem, maybe they need a psych referral, not a pool filter.

Re:Eh... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556116)

If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

NYC is at the mouth of the Hudson. Everything on the river is upstream of it Moving NYC to the source is an idea, but I don't think it's going to go over well. The Hudson is the NY/NJ border for a long ways, and pollution from NJ doesn't respect the political boundary.

Re:Eh... (2)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556458)

Even though the first world has cleaned up immensely over the past 50-70 years I have major doubts of there being a safely swimmable river flowing through ANY major city, first world or not. Being on the shore of a major lake or by the ocean doesn't count and cleanup takes multiple decades before levels of toxic chemicals fall enough to become safe again. Even with advanced sewage treatment all it takes is a rainstorm for the coastal waters to be off limits for a week or so.

I think you need to suffer the consequences of drinking the diluted shit of a few million people a few times before hopping on your high horse.

Re:Eh... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556618)

Oh, I've taken more than a few unprotected impromptu-post-capsize swims in the dubiously swimmable waters of a river flowing through a major city... I did try to keep my mouth shut during the process, of course...

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557916)

I can think of several, at least in Canada. Potable, no, sadly. Swimmable, certainly.

Re:Eh... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557528)

In the narrow sense, this seems like a reasonably clever, if not entirely novel solution; but in the broader sense it leaves me skeptical.

It's about New York City, you're supposed to be skeptical. At the very least.

If your river has sufficiently high levels of pathogenic viruses and bacteria that it isn't swimmable, you should seriously consider pretending to be a first-world country for 15 minutes and check out this cool "sanitation systems, so you don't have to drink and swim in your own shit!" fad that all the cool civil engineers have been nattering on about since, oh, the Roman Empire or so...

The Romans never had to deal with Wall Street. That's an enormous amount of shit.

If your river has sufficiently high levels of chemical nasties and heavy metals that it isn't swimmable, trusting a pool filter to remove them probably isn't the best idea, and maybe you should be doing something about the 'chemical plants upstream of major population centers' problem. Isn't that stuff supposed to be in New Jersey, anyway?

What russotto said. Nuking the petrochemical plant that is New Jersey would likely be a good idea. Maybe we can trade Moscow with the Russians.

If your swimmers just can't handle the terror of a little silt or the normal flora of a watershed ecosystem, maybe they need a psych referral, not a pool filter.

Again. We're talking about New York. The entire city IS a psych referral. Gone Bad.

old rehashed news (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556104)

I've been seeing this same copy and image set for nearly two years now, here and there online. Will this just keep getting rehashed until it gets the funding/approvals that it needs?

Re:old rehashed news : RTFA & stop injest the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556904)

The earliest story was about the desgin idea ......the recent news is that they are in stage three ie material & prototype testing and have a kickstarter campaign running until July 15th.

Stage two funding was self funded by a few groups with the in-house expertise.

So given the timeline I think they are advancing this project at a decent pace and that an update on the project is warranted.

Re:old rehashed news : RTFA & stop injest the (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557074)

Thanks

Clean filters..? (1)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556158)

If the pool IS the filter, how would you go about cleaning/changing the filters so they filter properly? Change the entire pool out? I can't think of any other way to do it. It's just like my reverse-osmosis water system. The filters clog, and need replacing or cleaning. There's no way to do that here.

This is a proposal for the "East River" (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556194)

The "East River" is what people outside of New York City like to call the Atlantic Ocean.

You can already go swimming in it, but as I understand it the idea here is to let you swim in the ocean without worrying about jellyfish, the tide pulling you out to sea, or the occasional shark frightening you.

You can also go swimming in the Hudson which is an actual river. There it is best to stay within the designated swimming areas mostly because it's relatively easy to get washed out to sea.

Re:This is a proposal for the "East River" (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557566)

Since when are New Yorkers worried about sharks and jellyfish? It's the other way around.

Have you seen the tentacles on those things coming out of the buildings? Way scary.

How about not dumping stuff in to begin with? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556344)

Yeah yeah, it's a radical idea. But maybe if you didn't dump so much crap in the the East River, it wouldn't be hazardous to swim in.

Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36556448)

The picture shows the view of Manhattan from Hoboken, NJ. Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture. Those are the Jerseyites that we so love to make fun of!

Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557190)

We don't make fun of the people in New Jersey, we just pity them for living in a state that sucks.

Re:Those aren't New Yorkers in the picture! (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557726)

Nope. All of the pictures are from Brooklyn, with one exception which is from Governors Island. There are no bridges to NJ except the GW, which isn't featured, so all the shots with bridges are from Brooklyn. There is one picture from Williamsburg (or possibly Greenpoint) without a bridge, you can tell you are viewing the city from the east as the Chrysler building is to the right of the Empire State and closer to the camera.

What about just cleaning up the river? (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556582)

Seems like that would be an even better idea. But what do I know?

Re:What about just cleaning up the river? (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556822)

It is a better idea, only so much containment and junk has settled down into the sludge at the bottom of the rivers that the only way to get it out would be dredging the river (they've been dredging the Hudson for years). Problem is that dredging churns up so much of the contaminants that they are trying to remove, it almost isn't worth it.

Safe to assume... (4, Insightful)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36556692)

...it filters out hypodermic needles?

On a more serious note, last time I docked my boat at a marina in NYC (on my way to the long island sound), not only was the water disgustingly dirty, but the smell was overbearing. The rest of my family stayed in a hotel the rest of the night while I roughed it out on the boat to keep an eye on things. In the morning, a garbage truck showed up to empty some of the large garbage bins out. When they lifted it up with the truck, the liquid sludge in the bottom of the bin started to leak out the bottom. They then drove it over to the edge, and let it empty into the river. I have never smelled a worse smell in my entire life.

I love NYC and NY in general. But swimming in the water down there? No thanks.

Cleaning the used water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557036)

New Yorkers in general have dirty mouths. How are they planning to clean ~that water? Ok, I'm kidding. Hey, don't make me do this.. Fuhgettaboutit!

Why? (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557096)

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what about something like the pool plus, except not in the river? I mean the swimming pool is an old idea, what the point of putting it in a river? Why not put it next to the river, treat the water river water with chlorine, put it in the pool, and dump the old water back into the river or just down the sewer?

Obligatory... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36557186)

KRAMER: Well my swimming pool problems are solved. I just found myself miles and miles of open lanes.

JERRY: What is that smell?

KRAMER: That's East River.

JERRY: You're swimming in the East River? The most heavily trafficked overly contaminated waterway on the eastern seaboard?

KRAMER: Technically Norfolk has more gross tonnage.

JERRY: How could you swim in that water?

KRAMER: I saw a couple of other guys out there.

JERRY: Swimming?

KRAMER: Floating, they weren't moving much. But they were out there.

Or they could just swim in the river... (1)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36557972)

Or they could just swim in the river like normal people. People swim in the hudson all the time, and it is a busy river for recreational boating. Absolutely nothing wrong with that water. City folk and other yuppie snobs like those who can afford or would want to live in the city see anything but clear water as dirty. News flash: Most rivers are murky and do not have great clarity, especially tidal rivers that are dredged for big shipping traffic.

Not feasible (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36558012)

It would never work. You can take the river water out of New York, but you just can't get the New York out of the river.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>