Boiling Water in a Plastic Bottle

After viewing a web video showing the boiling of water in a plastic bottle in a fire without melting the bottle, I decided to try it. Of course it's a variation of the same trick, performed with a paper cup in which the cup won't completely burn until the water is gone via evaporation.

What interested me about this is the survival implications. "Boiling water" has long been part of standard survival advice and fire-making a key survival skill. Most survival kits include firemaking equipment so you could boil water - if they also included a container.

Per the directions in the video, I began by trying to completely fill a 20 oz. Poland Springs bottle after removing the label (I speculated that the label might catch fire). I was unable to get it filled without an air bubble but this might actually be easier in a survival situation. If taking water from a stream, one could submerge the bottle and squeeze it to force out any air bubbles and then cap the bottle before removing it from the stream.

I then placed my bottle in the side of a hot fire pit with a lot of coals but only a few flames. After a number of minutes, the water inside the bottle began to boil. The bottle itself was doing ok with the exception of the cap which began to melt from the outside when licked by a tall flame on one side. Note that this was the location of the small air bubble. Finally, the bottle began to bulge and I removed it from the fire chopstick style using two pieces of wood. After cooling, the water tasted flat as boiled water should.

Later, I reenacted the famed high school physics experiment and boiled water in a paper cup. Since that campout, I've repeated the experiment using an unopened bottle of water with similar results although this time I did not remove the label. The fire burned it off. The water boiled. The cap, the interface between the air bubble and the flame, melted.

But what about disinfection and chemical safety?

Disinfection: What temperature was the water inside? I'm assuming that it reached 212 F (100 C) because it boiled. It should be noted that when allowed to cool, the water inside remained much hotter than the plastic outside for quite some time. While older recommendations were to boil water for 20-30 minutes for disinfection, more up to date recommendations are to bring the water to a boil. Once it reaches boiling temperature it is disinfected. So my water would have been disinfected and safe to drink from that standpoint.

Chemical Safety: Was the plastic evaporated into the water? I'm not sure but don't think so. Frankly though, in a survival situation I would accept what might be a minor increase in long term cancer risk to avoid the risk of debilitating sickness due to microorganisms.

Tips For Enhancing The Process

• Allow no air in the bottle. No air bubble means no melting.
  
• Do it in hot coals or very low flames to further avoid chance of melting.
  
• Remove bottle if it begins to bulge.
  
• Use tongs made from green wood or two long sticks as "chopsticks" to remove the bottle.
  
• Allow the water inside to cool.
  
• Although the paper cup trick shows that you could use an open container, the advantage of a lid is that you won't spill your precious disinfected water.
  

There is plenty of room for further experimentation. For example, how would a ziploc bag fare? A turkey bag? A Nalgene bottle?

Survivorman vs. "Wild" Man

Two series each put a man into a survival situation over a multiple day period and then show us what happens: Survivorman and Man vs. Wild.

Survivorman stars Les Stroud. Les is a Canadian survival expert and film-maker. Evidently, he and his wife spent a year in the woods only using Stone Age technology. He's still here to do this series so he must know a thing or two about survival. In each show, Les is left in the wild with only a few meager items and "50 lbs. of camera gear". He films the adventure himself so, in addition to actually surviving, he must spend a large part of his time filming (including warming the batteries, checking the equipment, setting up shots, retrieving his camera after he filmed himself walking away, etc.)

Man vs. Wild stars Bear Grylls. Bear is a former British special forces soldier and Mt. Everest climber. He also probably knows a thing or two about survival in addition to his proficiency at parachuting and rappelling (abseiling as he calls it). A production crew of unknown size accompanies Bear throughout the adventure so all he has to do is survive.

Ratings

Survivorman

• Realism (4 campfires): There is little doubt that Les Stroud is out there, in the wilderness, by himself. Granted, his 50 lbs. of camera gear could hide 5 lbs. of energy bars and we wouldn't know but the show feels authentic. It feels like he's playing it straight. Furthermore, this show tries to put the survival situation in the context of a real scenario, i.e. a small plane crash, a dirt bike breakdown in the Sonora, etc.
• Survival Techniques (3.5 campfires): Les comes across as an authentic survival expert. He tries to demonstrate various survival techniques tied to his scenario, i.e. starting a fire with the battery from his crashed small plane. The most important thing is that his judgment and survival decision-making is on display and could provide guidance to someone in a similar situation. If stuck in asimilar situation, if you asked yourself, what would Les do, it could increas your survival chances
• Entertainment (2 campfires): I enjoy the series and it seems to be a hit for the Discovery Channel networks. That said, it's enjoyability is subtle - mostly derived from watching someone who seems to be truly an expert - survive.

Man vs. Wild

• Realism (3 campfires): On the other hand, it is clear that Bear Grylls is not alone. From the almost hidden safety rope attached while he uses a cable to traverse an alpine crevice to the life vest that is clearly stuffed under his shirt as he floats down a river. There are no contextual scenarios in this show. Bear gets into the wilderness by showcasing the parachuting and rappelling skills he presumably picked up in the British Army. While we might lose our kayak while vacationing on the coast of Costa Rica, we probably aren't going to "tree jump" into the jungle by parachute. The entry only adds to the unreality of the show.
• Survival Techniques (1 campfire): Bear also displays a range of survival techniques. He seems to have done his research and is proficient in the techniques. If it stopped there the show would probably get 3 campfires but if it doesn't. Throughout the show, Bear does a lot of stunts that would most likely get you killed. He's willing to free climb cliffs (no ropes), dunk himself in rivers in cold environments (where'd that life vest under his shirt come from?), leave a perfectly good island to set out across the Pacific in a home-made raft, and risk being trapped below the surface of dammed canyon water. Do not try these in the wilderness. People with fewer skills, less athletic ability, and without a production crew of unknown size and capability would be likely to die if following Bear to the letter.
• Entertainment (3 campfires): The stunts that hurt Bear's Survival Techniques rating definitely make the show entertaining whether he's free-climbing a cliff just to get a look around (how did the camera crew make it up there?), trying to dive under a debris dam in a canyon in the Moab (if there was a way out under the water then why doesn't the water drain?), or setting off into the Pacific in a raft that barely floats with only 5 days of water in the hopes of signalling a container ship (keep in mind that Steve Callahan crossed the entire Atlantic and spent 76 days afloat, signalling ships with flares and was never spotted - it helps if you have a production crew with a radio along - see the book Adrift in the books section). Bear also plays into the gross-out factor that has made shows like Fear Factor and the contests on Survivor so endearing. He truly seems to relish eating disgusting things. (and drinking liquid squeezed from fresh elephant dung). These might be useful to show the broad range of things that could provide nourishment but would probably just induce vomiting in most of us. They do enhance the entertainment value.

In conclusion, both shows are enjoyable and contain some sound survival advice. That said, Survivorman really is more focused on survival whereas Man vs. Wild is more focused on entertainment. I enjoy watching both but, if I were in a survival situation, I'd want to be like Les more than Bear.

Good luck (luck favors the prepared)!

When Survival Kits Cannot Help You

There are two clear cases when a Survival Kit cannot help you:

1. When you don't have it with you. Emergencies happen when you don't expect them - that is why they are emergencies. The way to make sure that your kit is available in an emergency is to have it with you at all times. On one of the shows in the TV series, I Shouldn't Be Alive: Trapped Under The Ice, a father and adult son were rafting in Alaska. They got caught in the current and got sucked under a frozen section of the river. Fortunately they made it out on the other side of the ice and got to shore. The thing that probably saved their lives was their ability to make fire with a lighter the son had carried in his pocket. All of their other gear was lost. They only had what they carried on their persons. The margin between life and death was the fire lit by that lighter. That is why the Curiously Useful Survival Kit is designed for pocket carry.
   
   
2. When you don't know how to use them. If you have a hard time starting a fire in your fireplace with a lighter, newspaper and dry wood, you will probably have a difficult time lighting a "minute match" (see the Curiously Useful Survival Kit below) with your flint and steel on a cold winter night in the wilderness and converting that small flame into a fire with the materials at hand. Likewise, signalling with a mirror or any other survival skill. "Death ground"' - when your very existence is at stake - is not the time to practice your skills.