Coffee and Tea shouldn't require potable water


IanS

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, IanS said:

Since bringing water to a boil is part of the process for tea or coffee, they should not require potable water. This hasn't been a big issue for me in the game, but just for the sake of realism...

Are you thinking in the interest of saving time you would otherwise spend melting the snow? (and welcome to the forums, Ian!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain Obvious said:

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that with coffee you just need to heat it up to boiling, whereas to make water safe to drink you need to keep it at boiling point for a certain length of time?

Probably this. Also maybe in the future there could be places where snow is not available for melting, but where you can still make coffee/tea. In that case you will need water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2017 at 0:31 AM, Captain Obvious said:

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that with coffee you just need to heat it up to boiling, whereas to make water safe to drink you need to keep it at boiling point for a certain length of time?

It is a common misconception that you need to boil water for an extended period. I heard that too, as a kid. The truth is, water only needs to boil for a minute max. (maybe a couple minutes at high altitudes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2017 at 5:11 AM, Hotzn said:

Probably this. Also maybe in the future there could be places where snow is not available for melting, but where you can still make coffee/tea. In that case you will need water. 

There is zero doubt that you need water to make coffee or tea. The question is whether you need to boil it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the game is unrealistic in this respect anyway. Fresh snow melt is generally considered safe to drink, so the compulsory second step of boiling it is overkill in the first place. Obviously, snow falls from the sky, so it does not have the same contamination risks as surface water. You would definitely not want to cut chunks from a frozen river or lake, but you have to have some extraordinary bad luck to get sick from snow melt. I have personally eaten handfuls of snow, bowls of snow "ice cream", and drank snow melt at least 100 times without getting sick. The chance of getting sick from snow melt that is visibly clean to the eye is so small as to be unworthy of consideration, and I think the requirement to boil snow melt should be dropped from the game entirely. However, once seasons are added and snow is no longer the main water source, that will change, so boiling water should still be a component of the game. Just not for snow melt, and not as a prerequisite for making tea or coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Wouldn't eating/drinking snow be kinda on par with drinking rainwater? I've never boiled rainwater before drinkin it in my life....

Yes, it's basically the same. That's why I made the above comment about it being an unrealistic requirement in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Wouldn't eating/drinking snow be kinda on par with drinking rainwater? I've never boiled rainwater before drinkin it in my life....

Not so good in urban environments it seems where even fresh fallen snow apparently rapidly acts as a sink for toxic organic compounds from car exhausts.

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2016/EM/C5EM00616C?_escaped_fragment_=divAbstract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Northern Canada hardly seems like an urban environment tho.

No, the rustic TLD environment after the apocalypse certainly doesn't qualify as urban. The comment was merely a reference to the comparison between the different forms of precipitation and the perception that clean fresh snow could not possibly be harmful as the experiment seems to show that snow is acted upon in ways that the water in our rainwater tanks is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems like it would be the effects of exhaust fumes in the air mixing with the snow as it falls - thats pretty much the same as the acidic rain that we already have in cities (look at old stone buildings in major cities - they deteriorate faster then ones in the country).

Unless you are suggesting that there is some kind of natural pathogen in the air that contaminates everything as it falls, I dont see the comparison.  Obviously you wouldn't be going out onto an animal trail and picking up the dirty brown water, but it wouldn't be hard to go out and gather fresh fallen snow, or even make something to collect snow as it falls to guarantee its cleanliness.

I mean realistically you would just pack your water bottle with fresh snow and keep it inside your clothing layer so your body warmth melts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

That seems like it would be the effects of exhaust fumes in the air mixing with the snow as it falls - thats pretty much the same as the acidic rain that we already have in cities

No, if you look at the methodology of the experiment in the paper (try clicking on the "rich html" button in the abstract linked to) they are examining contamination of the snow after it has fallen. Within an hour the snow has the capacity to absorb appreciable quantities of some nasty things.

 

3 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Unless you are suggesting that there is some kind of natural pathogen in the air that contaminates everything as it falls

Interestingly, in the absence of a nucleator (or particle), ice requires very cold temperatures to form in clouds. Some things are better nucleators than others and the better they are the warmer it can be when the ice forms. Supposedly the best nucleators are proteins provided by airborne bacteria but fortunately these are apparently usually plant pathogens (eg Pseudomonas syringae). The same proteins cause water to freeze in plants at higher than normal temperatures damaging the plant in the process. So while the snow may not be contaminated as it falls, the condensation nucleus can be a pathogen.

Quote

I mean realistically you would just pack your water bottle with fresh snow and keep it inside your clothing layer so your body warmth melts it.

Probably yes. However it seems that a problem with fresh snow is the air content. A video I dug up for another thread talks of nine litres of snow being required to produce one litre of water. A couple of others i watched suggested digging deeper for hard packed snow to help overcome this problem.

And I find it pretty absurd that I (as a banana bender) am talking about snow at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we need any further discussion on the fine points of precipitation, since it is already well established that clean snow in unpolluted environments is generally safe to eat and drink. There is no point in discussing what car exhaust in urban environments does to snow, or how it differs from rain, because the Long Dark is not set in such an environment. I do want to respond to the one comment in the last rapid fire exchange that is actually on topic, which is the one about melting snow in a bottle. I don't see that being a good practice, because it is more efficient to simply eat snow. Either way, you body heat is going to melt it. Both are poor choices because you will lose so much body heat, but since weighing risks is a big part of the game, that doesn't mean the option to do so shouldn't be in the game. I would prefer an option to combat thirst by eating snow, at the expense of warmth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎25 at 4:06 AM, IanS said:

It is a common misconception that you need to boil water for an extended period. I heard that too, as a kid. The truth is, water only needs to boil for a minute max. (maybe a couple minutes at high altitudes).

That's not 100% accurate. By boiling the water you're denaturing the proteins of any pathogens that may be present. Some pathogens are more heat tolerant and it will take a longer time to ensure that they are all killed. Hence why public health agencies always recommend extended boiling periods.  

Think of it like boiling an egg. The whites denature really quickly but the yokes - which are different proteins - take considerably longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IanS said:

I don't see that being a good practice, because it is more efficient to simply eat snow. Either way, you body heat is going to melt it. Both are poor choices because you will lose so much body heat, but since weighing risks is a big part of the game, that doesn't mean the option to do so shouldn't be in the game. I would prefer an option to combat thirst by eating snow, at the expense of warmth.

Eating snow is a bad option. It lowers your core temperature. Its bad for your mouth. It can actually hasten dehydration. Your trying to stay warm and you are putting cold stuff inside you. Basically its generally all around a bad idea. You are SO much better melting it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cekivi said:

That's not 100% accurate. By boiling the water you're denaturing the proteins of any pathogens that may be present. Some pathogens are more heat tolerant and it will take a longer time to ensure that they are all killed. Hence why public health agencies always recommend extended boiling periods.  

Think of it like boiling an egg. The whites denature really quickly but the yokes - which are different proteins - take considerably longer.

Sorry, that is wrong. Including the comment about public health agencies advising extended boiling. The idea that you should boil water for 10 or 20 minutes is common, but it is based on people's intuitive opinions and not on science. Examples would be the American EPA and Health Canada. And the truth is, even those are overestimates just to play it safe. The truth is that when water reaches boiling point, everything that is going to die is dead. Boiling for 20 minutes will not make your water safer, it will only waste time and firewood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Eating snow is a bad option. It lowers your core temperature. Its bad for your mouth. It can actually hasten dehydration. Your trying to stay warm and you are putting cold stuff inside you. Basically its generally all around a bad idea. You are SO much better melting it first.

That's exactly what I said, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IanS said:

Sorry, that is wrong. Including the comment about public health agencies advising extended boiling. The idea that you should boil water for 10 or 20 minutes is common, but it is based on people's intuitive opinions and not on science. Examples would be the American EPA and Health Canada. And the truth is, even those are overestimates just to play it safe. The truth is that when water reaches boiling point, everything that is going to die is dead. Boiling for 20 minutes will not make your water safer, it will only waste time and firewood.

I'll concede the point. After doing some of my own research the amended boil water standards are to only boil for 1 min (Health Canada - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2014/boil_water-eau_ebullition/consult-eng.php#pa5). I was thinking of extremophiles... which are very unlikely to be in normal water sources. O.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mikhail_Reign said:

Eating snow is a bad option. It lowers your core temperature. Its bad for your mouth. It can actually hasten dehydration. Your trying to stay warm and you are putting cold stuff inside you. Basically its generally all around a bad idea. You are SO much better melting it first.

You are partially correct.  But, eating snow is not ALWAYS a bad option--this is a bit of a myth. 

If you are moving and generating excess heat (which happens a lot when traveling through snow with a lot of gear), there is no problem eating snow as long as you careful not to cause injury to your mouth. E.g. you just make a small, smooth snow ball to slowly melt and avoid rough edges that might cut or chafe the inside of your mouth.  Not only that, it can be beneficial in this situation to reduce sweating by lowering your temp a bit-- conserves water AND prevents your clothes from getting damp, which can be a killer.

When you are stationary and trying to conserve heat, your statement is true-- you will lower your core temperature which is bad.

You don't even have to take my word for it.  Survivorman Les Stroud advocates this approach... and he knows a thing or two about it.  (there's a you tube link somewhere that I posted before, but I don't feel like chasing it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, toebar said:

You are partially correct.  But, eating snow is not ALWAYS a bad option--this is a bit of a myth. 

If you are moving and generating excess heat (which happens a lot when traveling through snow with a lot of gear), there is no problem eating snow as long as you careful not to cause injury to your mouth. E.g. you just make a small, smooth snow ball to slowly melt and avoid rough edges that might cut or chafe the inside of your mouth.  Not only that, it can be beneficial in this situation to reduce sweating by lowering your temp a bit-- conserves water AND prevents your clothes from getting damp, which can be a killer.

When you are stationary and trying to conserve heat, your statement is true-- you will lower your core temperature which is bad.

You don't even have to take my word for it.  Survivorman Les Stroud advocates this approach... and he knows a thing or two about it.  (there's a you tube link somewhere that I posted before, but I don't feel like chasing it).

Excellent points!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.