Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Robotic Mini-sub to Inspect NYC Water System 237

Posted by michael from the no-alligators-here dept.
jhiv writes: "The Delaware Aqueduct, one of the world's longest water tunnels, may be developing potential serious leaks, according to this article in the New York Times (free registration). One leak has already created a pond and a stream with a flow of a million gallons per day. New York city officials plan to use a robotic mini-submarine being developed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to inspect the interior of the 13 foot diameter tunnel. Previous repairs required four deep sea divers to spend almost a week at 700 feet pressure to fix a leaking valve. Ironically, if the tunnel is repaired, the wetlands created by leaks will be destroyed, causing a potential EPA violation. Additional coverage can be found here and here." NYC has been building a third major water tunnel to take the load off the first two - but it's a fifty-year project.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robotic Mini-sub to Inspect NYC Water System More

Robotic Mini-sub to Inspect NYC Water System

Comments Filter:

  • This is some VERY cool stuff! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nbvb ( 32836 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:02PM (#3153411) Journal
    It's simply amazing to me how much we take for granted our water supply....

    That said, I hope there's still water to run through the aqueduct come May.... we're having a SERIOUS drought condition here in the Northeast...

    In fact, both Jersey and New York (ever notice how Jersey is the only "New" state that can be named without the "new"? Anyway...) Anyway, both Jersey and New York are in a "Stage 3" water emergency.... and it's only early March!

    This is gonna be a bad one.... let's hope the little yellow submarine finds some secret cache of a few billion gallons :-)

    --NBVB
    • I agree completely, we do take it for granted. In northern california, sprawl is using up the water supply, but no one seems to be putting the brakes on. of course, in Cali, we were already had to deal with rolling blackouts, but at least we had water.

      ...same goes for New Jersey as you said. they have no water table left due to massive over-development.

      that's why we need legislators willing to stand up to mega-suburb developers who don't care in the slightest about resource OR public transportion concerns. just build build build ... a beige landscape.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The same problem is occuring in So. Cali as well, with the new developments going up in the Thousand Oaks area, not to mention Glendale, Marina Del Rey, San Bernadino, etc...

        The difference between the demands on the water system and the demands on the power system, is that the power system was affected by artificial scarcity (created by out-of-state power generators, Enron, PG&E's parent corp, whathaveyou), while the water scarcity is an actual shortage.

        Of course if Enron had had it's way, then they would've been selling us the *water* we drink as well. Good thing I only drink Jolt ;)
      • In northern california, sprawl is using up the water supply, [...]

        Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

        Short of California closing its borders to new residents, you're always going to have a water problem. Millions of people are contesting for water in a desert, and that is not a happy situation

        • About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

          Actually, being a resident of the sprawl, I'd say that around here there are people that probably dump as much water on their lawn as they use for all other purposes combined. Keeping a large lawn green in the middle of the summer takes quite a bit of water, particularly if its a dry year.
        • Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

          Far more scope for unnoticed leaks in a system covering 5 acres of land than with a single building. Leaks in drinking water distribution systems and not uncommon, unless they are major they may simply be left. Unlike a gas distribution system where any leak is potentially highly dangerous.
        • Really? What kind of lawn does an apartment dweller water?

          Did you even think about this for longer than 2 seconds?
        • Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl!

          Oh please, let me enlighten you.

          Apparently you've never heard of something called a WATER-TABLE. It's how water gets from the sky into reservoirs after it rains. If developers bulldoze too much land it reduces the amount of water delivered to reservoirs, ergo less water delivered by NATURAL means to the storage areas we depend on.

          A high-rise is far more friendly to the water table than a bazillion acres of track homes.

    • I belive (being born and raised in south jersey) that it's because Jersey (the original) is a little crapshoot island in the English Channel known for its cattle (hence Jersey Cow, the black spotted ones).

      York is a fairly large UK city, as is Hampshire.
    • I wish that would be enough. The city and surrounding areas pull a billion gallons a day. Maybe the little submarine will find a secret cache of a trillion gallons? ;p

  • contamination (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by oo7tushar ( 311912 )
    This is probably one of the best ideas as in some cases water could flow in. Building some sort of water testing systems or collection systems into the sub for testing would be g00d as sources of contamination from chemical factories could also be found.

  • Little Known Fact... (Score:4, Informative)

    by SexPig ( 464304 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:05PM (#3153444) Homepage
    The television show Beauty & The Beast [abouttvshows.com] with Linda Hamilton filmed in the huge hole that was in NY's Central Park 10 years ago. This hole was the drop point for large equipment to get lowered into the tunnel being digged. For those inerested it was West-South-West of Delcorte Theater. I think the new drop point is in Queens now...

  • The third water tunnel is really going well. (Score:5, Informative)

    by NickV ( 30252 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:12PM (#3153481)
    The nice thing about this capital project, is it may be the first major capital project that is on schedule. Compared to the Big Dig in Boston, the NYC water project is remarkably on schedule, and is even arguably ahead of schedule.

    In fact, 13 miles of the third tunnel is ALREADY activated [nyc.gov] and allows a little of the stress of tunnels 1 and 2 to be relieved.

    I can't even imagine what the city will do when this project will be done... they'll be a serious amount of money freed up for more capital projects. Perhaps sinking the west side highway from canal to the brooklyn/battery tunnel and creating another central park-type area? The idea's been batted around since the 80s. Hmm... Gotta say, nothing seems to keep NYC down.
  • Of all the ridiculous, stupid things... a wetlands that is artificial, when removed, is an EPA violation? JFC, things have gotten out of hand.

    You'd think that the artificial wetlands WOULD be an EPA violation, since it is not supposed to be there and has obviously changed the area dramatically.

    Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard. Suddenly, your property is a wetlands, and we all know you can't damage a wetlands. The poor tadpoles might need to go find a new home.

    And the damage to your land equity isn't even reimbursed most places.
    • If you've got a soggy spot for 14 days straight, you've got a wetland according to the EPA.

      Does this mean that my armpits are federally protected?
      • Yes, but unfortunately because they are also a serious environmental hazard, they are now under the control of the government as well, and will be removed and relocated to an approved HazMat disposal point. I recommend stockpiling lots of painkillers soon.
    • Yeah, and on top of that it looks like this is another case of a PHB ignoring the warnings of the experienced engineers. The transcript had the engineers saying it was an emergency. Hell, how fun would it be to flush a cemetary down the town's main street? Also, if the tunnel broke, what kind of large sink-hole would that cause before some PHB decided to authorize the tunnel be shut down? I'm glad I don't live there.

    • Don't believe BS about wetlands violations (Score:5, Informative)

      by waytoomuchcoffee ( 263275 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:31PM (#3153570)
      First of all, the Corps of Engineers regulates filling of wetlands (through the 404 permit process), not the EPA.

      Second of all, this is exempt from Corps fill requirements as it is a man-made water source.

      How do I know? Because I'm the one that gets Corps wetland delineations done for the water agency I work for, and man-made sources (like those created from all of our water sampling stations) are NOT regulated by the Corps.

      The guy in the article said "Those wetlands are going to dry up and that's probably against the law." Note the "probably". He obviously does not do regulatory work.

      Before anyone else on this board talks about "environmentalist whackos", get your facts straight.
      • Hmmmm, 404 permit process not found.

        please check the url and try again.

      • i thought all environmentalists were whackos?

      • Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kymermosst ( 33885 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @08:19PM (#3153840) Journal
        Doesn't matter who regulates the filling of them, the problem is WHO defines what a wetland is. There is another poster who seems to think that with the EPA, 14 days of continued "wet" area... e.g. ponds, puddles, snowmelt, whatever, makes it a wetland.

        While, I don't think that is exactly correct, the current definitions are still absurd, and still used as a way for a small number of people to stop a large number of people from using their own land.

        Furthermore, the Corps does NOT, as far as I can tell, regulate wetlands within incorporated areas, and NOTHING prevents other agencies from stopping you, even if the Corps would give you a permit.

        I know this because my family has 7 acres of land in Minnesota that we bought 40 years ago, with the idea of subdividing it and selling it in the future.

        Now that future is here, and when we went to do that, suddenly it is a wetlands (It is lakeshore property, of course it's fscking wet!), and nobody bothered to inform us over the 40 years that it had become one, nobody gave us an option to appeal its status, and the land is worthless to anyone. You can't even camp there.

        The land would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars we could use it the way we bought it. Right now, it is worth... Nothing.

        My point is, that this is bullshit.
        • ****Doesn't matter who regulates the filling of them, the problem is WHO defines what a wetland is. There is another poster who seems to think that with the EPA, 14 days of continued "wet" area... e.g. ponds, puddles, snowmelt, whatever, makes it a wetland.***

          The Corps personnel determines what is and is not a wetland, based on a number of criteria (soils, indicator wetland species, etc.) It is partially subjective, but in your case (next to a lake), it's pretty clear cut.

          ***Furthermore, the Corps does NOT, as far as I can tell, regulate wetlands within incorporated areas***

          Actually it does. It is just that there are seldom wetlands IN incorporated areas.

          ***and NOTHING prevents other agencies from stopping you, even if the Corps would give you a permit.***

          That is true. In California, wetlands not under jurisdiction of the Corps can be regulated by the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards. I guess the alternative is to amend the Constitution to eliminate State rights.

          ***and nobody bothered to inform us over the 40 years that it had become one***

          No one COULD inform you. Did you expect a gigantic Manhattan-project type of wetland survey that traveled across the land? Even the USGS doesn't do that level of survey for its maps. The criteria was, however, published in the Federal Register, for anyone to review that was interested. They even have a search page.

          ***and the land is worthless to anyone.**

          Actually, it is worth a lot to whoever uses the water, both people and critters.

          The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to. Under that strategy, no one would have clean water to drink (our water agency is VERY concerned about wetlands filling, as it quantifiably degrades the water quality).

          You expect it is your RIGHT to make money when you speculate on land? You have a chance to win or lose... in your case you lost.
          • Actually, it is worth a lot to whoever uses the water, both people and critters.

            The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to.

            Actually, the alternative is for the government that has taken their land from them to compensate them for the taking.

            Please don't argue that the land has not been "taken," because they still have the deed. They cannot use their for the purpose they bought it for, which was legal when they bought it, because of new regulation of that land.

            The government has taken the value away from their land, and the family is due payment for it.
          • I guess the alternative is to amend the Constitution to eliminate State rights.

            Already (mostly) happened. Ever looked at the 17th Amendment to the Constitution? All state voice in federal goverment is gone.

            The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to. Under that strategy, no one would have clean water to drink

            That is NOT what I am advocating. What I am advocating is that when you buy land, you should have the right to use it the way you could have when you bought it. If some law is enacted that changes this, you should be compensated for the value that was lost. Not being able to build a house takes away a lot of the value.

            I'm not saying to let people pollute as much as they want, or fill in as much pond as they want, just that they should be able to USE what they paid for, in a responsible way.

            We can't even put ONE house on the aforementioned 7 acres. They won't even budge 1 bit. The footprint of a house and driveway wouldn't possibly exceed 3000 square feet, which is a far cry from 304,920 square feet that is 7 acres. They won't let you fill and build on 0.09% of it.

            If we could just put one single little cabin there, we'd make it a vacation home. But we can't even do that.

            Furthermore, it is taxed as if it had the full value of land that was unrestricted. Figure that one.

            And, as far as use of the lake goes, it's 16 feet deep. There are no natural fish in it, and it isn't any human's water source. There are no natural fish because every few years the entire lake freezes and everything in the water dies, because it freezes all the way to the bottom. (Winter kill.)

            Buying land and later being told you can't put a house on it is like buying a computer and later being told you can't put a hard drive in it.
            • We can't even put ONE house on the aforementioned 7 acres. They won't even budge 1 bit.

              So sue them under the 5th amendment "Takings" clause of the Constitution.

              - You have their assessment - and the standard for assessed valuation vs. sale price, and comparable values from sale prices of houses in the area that have sold recently that would be similar to what yours would be if you could build it.

              - You also have comparable values for swampland with restrictions from the same area.

              So sue the agency that is blocking you for the difference.

              This has been EXTREMELY successful in the recent past, thanks to some supreme court decisions relating to a situation in California. (A church camp burned down. The zoning board blocked permits to rebuild for years while considering whether to allow rebuilding at all. The church sued for the reduction of the value to the property (value of property where you can build a camp - value of property where you can't build a camp). The Supreme Court agreed with them, establishing the doctrine of "partial taking".

              So look up that case, find a good lawyer who understands it (or the one who DID it), and start a suit.

              One of three things will happen:

              - They do an about-face and grant you your permits. (You'll have your land value back, less fees for the lawyer to send a letter and maybe start the suit.)

              - You win. (You'll have your land value back, less the lawyer's fees for running the suit - and you may be able to collect that, too.)

              - You lose and lose on appeal. (You're out the cost of the case. But you have the satisfaction of dragging the bureaucrats through the courts for a while. B-) )

              (And while you're at it, think about a civil rights suit: "Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Law.")
      • I believe it was meant as a joke, at least light-hearted. Lighten up.
      • Better send some of those engineers down to Arizona then because we're suffering the same problem here in Yuma.

        They build a multi-million dollar desalination plant to clean farm run-off before returning it to the colorado river to meet treaty requirements for fresh water with Mexico.

        While they were building the plant they made a temporary drainage ditch that dumps the run-off into the Golf of Mexico well within Mexican borders.

        Now a group called the CBD (Center For Biological Diversity) with a long history of winning this kind of lawsuit is threating to take legal action to stop the plant from becoming operational...why?

        Because a new "wetland" has formed where the temporary ditch drains into the Gulf down in Mexico. They claim that by cleaning the water and returning it to the Colorado it will put a number of species in peril of extinction.

        Of course the fact that this is happening is Mexico dosen't bother them since the actions causing these events are taking place in the US.

        And all of this thanks to our extremely poorly written Endangered Species Act that assumes humans are guilty of habitat destruction unless proven otherwise.

        They recently sued the BLM to close down over 50k acres of public land in southern california (and won with the BLM settling out of court and agreeing to the closures) to protect a plant that is listed as "threatend" (not even endangered) despite the fact that the BLM's own studies and other independent studies show the plant is thriving and does not even belong on the endangered species list in the first place.

    • Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard

      Welcome to an era when rabid anti-environmentalists base their wild accusations not on reputable sources but on the editorial comment of some anonymous slashdot story submitter.

  • This is important news (Score:4, Informative)

    by hyrdra ( 260687 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:22PM (#3153525) Homepage Journal
    What I find most interesting about all of this is the statement about repairs being too risky and to just let the thing leak itself to death, hopefully while building a new tunnel.

    I agree with the lawyer in this case -- this seems like a really serious problem, with the capability of affecting many, many people. NYC has already had it's share of disasters, hopefully a city-wide water failure won't be next.

    I was also thinking about that 1958 inspection, and the statement in the article about how draining a high pressure underground tunnel can be very dangerous to it's structure. Is it possible that a significant amount of damage occured in the '58 jeep tour, when the tunnel is drained? The sources at hand even state the sink-hole was created around this time, so possibly the ignorance of the past and an inspection is to blame for these leaks?

    All I can say is I hope they will do something preventative. How big is the risk to do repairs vs. building a new tunnel? Hopefully we will all have water in a few years! This news (including the 12-year cover up) is certainly interesting to know...and it's been going on all along under our feet!

    I wouldn't take much risk with something as fundamental as water.

  • Duct tape! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:22PM (#3153528)
    Why don't they just use duct tape to seal the leak?

  • Autonomous robots == good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danro ( 544913 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:24PM (#3153532) Homepage
    Previous repairs required four deep sea divers to spend almost a week at 700 feet pressure to fix a leaking valve.
    This sounds like a really horrible experience (Working underground, in streaming, high-pressure water for a week.), not to mention dangerous.(Could have been worse though, think sewer, think high-pressure sh*t!).Good thing they have a remote controlled device for it now.
    The job seems like _the_ poster-boy for why we need autonomous robots...
    • I dunno. The article seems to indicate that the robot would FIND the leak but NOT REPAIR the leak!

      So, they might send down more divers or the article mentioned something about draining it to fix it.

      My question is if they are building a new tunnel to bring water to NY, why not turn on that tunnel, shut down the questionable one and spend a year or two fixing the old one and be done with it? Otherwise, why build the second one in the first place, or at least put it to work once it is built.
  • This must be the start of a scam [enron.com] to get New York locked into higher water wholesaling prices.

    Beware of owning any exciting water wholesaling companies come next fall! :)
  • You know, like this [amazon.com].

  • About how NYC became what it is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dfuller ( 304852 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:57PM (#3153705) Homepage

    If you're interested in the history of NYC and
    particularly the powers and politics, I recommend "The Power Broker" about the life and times of Robert Moses by Robert A. Caro. Big and thick but full of insight as to how NYC became what it was, from the water system to transport, etc. Caro, in general, produces epic but highly readable and interesting works about Big Subjects.

  • don't go int there!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by wildcard023 ( 184139 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @08:16PM (#3153827) Homepage
    Are they nuts?! Just driving a harmless little robot around the sewer system. Next thing you know you'll have alligators in the street, vigilante ninja turtles and rivers of slime that lead to bill murray driving Mecha Liberty around with a 8 bit Nintendo "arcade style" joystick!

    What the hell are they thinking?!
  • Oh wait, that was a hovercraft.

    Never mind...

  • The Great Stink of London (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ajm ( 9538 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @08:40PM (#3153947)
    I suspect many geeks would also be interested in this book The Great Stink of London [amazon.com] about the Victorian engineering works that transformed London and the Thames. A fascination subject, considering the same tunnels etc. are still in use today. If any code you write lasts as long then ....

  • Infrastructure by the lowest bidder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SimJockey ( 13967 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @08:57PM (#3154016) Homepage Journal
    Roman aquaducts seem to be lasting 20 times as long as this. Silly capitalism. :)

    Seriously, crumbling infrastructure is only part of the reason that I see water getting (comparitively) real expensive in our lifetime. As source waters get more scarce and contaminated treatment costs go up. Plus the infrastructure is just wearing out. And since governments (at least in N. America) seem loathe to raise taxes, the costs are going to be passed on to the end user. Which I really don't think is a bad thing, once people realize the real costs of the resources they take for granted, conservation should go way up.

    So yeah, flame me for being a tree hugger. Some are passionate about linux, I'm passionate about water.
    • Seriously, crumbling infrastructure is only part of the reason that I see water getting (comparitively) real expensive in our lifetime.

      I hear that. The sewers (rainwater, not sewage) in my hometown in Jersey are easily a hundred years old.

      Because they're underground no one notices them. They're taken for granted. But they're clogged, crumbling and performing way beyond their design specifications. The town could spend a few million now to repair it as they go (say, when they repave the roads) but they're not going to. Why? Because if they did it'd look like they were wasting money to repair something that's still working. The term preventative maintenance don't fly in that 'burb.

      So 50 years from now when the sewers collapse and the repair bill bankrupts the town someone's going to say "Why didn't we do this earlier?"

      Makes me glad I moved into New York City. Oh, wait...

      Triv

  • Alligator (Score:2, Funny)

    by Drakula ( 222725 )
    Maybe they will find that baby alligator I flushed down the toilet back in the '80's...

  • Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    (waits for the forehead slapping and groaning)
  • So aren't they not supposed to be posting stuff like this on the internet anymore where some loony may get a hold of it and try something stupid?
  • After looking at the picture of the sub, it makes me think that is the kinda stuff Gulianni worked so hard to get out of times square.

  • dewater=collapse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2002 @03:33AM (#3155268)
    Expect this aqueduct to collapse about 5 seconds after they shut down the water flow. Given the age and status of this thing, it's guaranteed.

    Right now, the only thing keeping it together is the WATER PRESSURE pushing on the sides to get out... It's holding the whole shebang together... And leaking out around the edges... Some goes around pieces entirely, some create sinkholes, some create underground rivers, etc...

    As soon as you stop the pressure, those pieces will fall out...

    How do I know this? Because it happened right here in Chicago a few years ago... In our zeal to kill off those pesky zebra mussels, some mental giant decided to shut off the water flow, thread a line that would feed chlorine to the intake to kill the mussels, and then kick the water back on...

    Problem? Yeah. This particular tunnel was built a zillion years ago OUT OF BRICK. Ummm, the mortar was long since gone. Held together by sand, dirt, clay, some mud, and oh yeah, water pressure! Remove the water pressure, and ummm, well, the thing collapsed... Right under a part of Lake Shore Drive - which then had to be closed off, ripped out, reconstructed, filled in, repaved - all in the middle of the fucking summer... oh joy, it was lovely in traffic...

    Last I heard, the engineering firm didn't get paid, got sued, and the engineer that came up with the idea lives in a box under Lower Wacker Drive where he belongs...

    Even if the thing in NY is made of concrete - it's apparently in such wonderful shape as to be leaking and it's likely to collapse.

    I'd say that the best thing to do is to take the little remote sub through there and see what's what... Then reinforce those areas that are in poor shape somehow... Keep digging out the new tunnel, and when it's 100% up and online, take this sucker off-line and fix it right - maybe relining the whole thing... The one thing you can bet on is that it's going to be a clusterfuck of problems from all the leaking - all those spots will have to be identified and addressed before it can be brought back to life...

    Best of luck...

  • Alternative (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Afty0r ( 263037 )
    You know, it might just be because I'm from the UK, but I'm having a very hard time working out why they are building a tunnel to pump more water into New York.

    I took a look at the map of NY/NJ here : http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/wsmaps.html and the surrounding area showing the aqueducts and I noticed this big, jagged blue line running vertically down the map. At first I thought this might be a misprint, or an ink leak, but it's labelled 'Hudson River'.

    Imagine a river! A huge, great big river running right to New York city - someone had better tell the mayor quick, because apparently no-one else has noticed it yet.

    For those of you not clued up, rivers are natures viaducts, they transport huge amounts of water from place to place, always going downhill - I'm willing to bet that Hudson river has more than enough drinking water in it for the whole of New York! For those of you who are sceptical about this whole point, there's also an ocean nearby - far nearer than the reservoirs - now you don't get much more water in one place than an ocean!
    • Imagine a river! A huge, great big river running right to New York city - someone had better tell the mayor quick, because apparently no-one else has noticed it yet.

      Maybe the water from the tunnels is cleaner and requires less treatment than river water.

      For those of you not clued up, rivers are natures viaducts, they transport huge amounts of water from place to place, always going downhill - I'm willing to bet that Hudson river has more than enough drinking water in it for the whole of New York! For those of you who are sceptical about this whole point, there's also an ocean nearby - far nearer than the reservoirs - now you don't get much more water in one place than an ocean!

      Sea water isn't drinkable...
    • very easy:
      drink water from the Hudson, you die.
      drink sea water, you die.
      Maybe the sea water the surrounds your island is drinkable, but our sea water isn't.

  • All well and good (Score:3, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Wednesday March 13, 2002 @11:07AM (#3156707)
    But how is it armed? What will it do if it encounters Ch&#252ds?

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close