5 ms·
The solution to pollution is dilution.
by ddingus 6y ago
The solution to pollution is dilution.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y agohttps://dilbert.com/strip/2003-01-03 https://dilbert.com/strip/2003-01-03
- ddingus 6y agoLolol, I chuckled
- koolba 6y agoI say this in my mind every single time I wash my hands.
- ddingus 6y agoInteresting take. Truth in action. Simple, practical.
- saagarjha 6y agoWell, another solution is to not pollute, because at some point it may not be possible to dilute.
- CamperBob2 6y agoThat's not going to happen. We're going to pollute. That's what we do. So we have to make intelligent decisions about what we emit, where we emit it, and how much we emit.
- ddingus 6y agoIt is always possible to dilute. Does not always make sense though. No free lunches here. No matter what we do, there are costs and risks. And no matter what, our nature tends to take us well down a path to a point of real pain before those costs change behavior too. If we valued things differently, we would pollute and manage things differently, but we don't. Maybe one day we will. I agree with you, but am just being real about our nature.
- arcticbull 6y agoIs there a single method of generating power that does not pollute? Solar power requires mining cadmium and tellurium, creating plastic frames, solder, connections, etc -- and then replacing said panels as they become ineffective/broken/dirty. These end up in the landfill and buried. Wind power require mining rare earth metals, manufacturing large quantities of fiberglass or carbon fiber composite bodies, and then, once they're damaged, ineffective or spent, they end up in the land fill and buried. The question is one of efficiency: which power generation method yields the lowest amount of waste and lowest health and life risks per TWh of generated electricity.
- trhway 6y ago>The solution to pollution is dilution. it has been proven times and times again that such a "solution" doesn't work. Just an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... Similar to the CO2 where the issue isn't any one particular car or plane, the issue in this case isn't the polluted water from one plant. The issue is the practice of dumping of stuff into the oceans. Allowing such practice to go forward will quickly lead to the ocean not able to "dilute" anymore to safe concentration the stuff we'd be dumping into it. And on pure economics grounds - businesses and even regular people are getting fined even for accidental releases into water and air, and why should a nuclear plant be allowed to externalize its costs (which the dumping is) instead of bearing it? The do have an insurance after all.
- ddingus 6y agoYou mean doesn't always work, right? Containment is another option we sometimes have available to us, when we cannot transform the waste otherwise. In general though, dilution is the go to. In this scenario, we will end up forced to live with dilution. Containment is crazy, and the core itself is likely to end up in the water cycle. Breakdown takes a looooong time.
- wffurr 6y agoObviously the answer is to make more atmosphere and/or ocean!
- Guvante 6y ago