3 ms·

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doe

by eloff 4y ago

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.

dahart 4y ago
The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?
- eloff 4y ago
  Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
    - eloff 4y ago
      Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.
      - dahart 4y ago
        FWIW, I was just quoting Wikipedia. Sulfur dioxide is a “toxic gas”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
- kragen 4y ago
  presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although like acetic acid it's corrosive enough to have killed people in high concentrations the last time I inhaled a bunch of it, it was not an enjoyable experience
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved Who decides where that point is? Some people with money or the people of Mexico?
    - kragen 4y ago
      I think the difficulty in this conversation is that I believe that objective reality exists, and you believe that it does not, so questions like this are just a matter of social consensus. Given this fundamental disagreement, there is no possibility of finding common ground, so continuing the conversation would be pointless.

by eloff 4y ago

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.

dahart 4y ago

The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?

eloff 4y ago
Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
  - eloff 4y ago
    Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.
    - dahart 4y ago
      FWIW, I was just quoting Wikipedia. Sulfur dioxide is a “toxic gas”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
kragen 4y ago
presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although like acetic acid it's corrosive enough to have killed people in high concentrations the last time I inhaled a bunch of it, it was not an enjoyable experience
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved Who decides where that point is? Some people with money or the people of Mexico?
  - kragen 4y ago
    I think the difficulty in this conversation is that I believe that objective reality exists, and you believe that it does not, so questions like this are just a matter of social consensus. Given this fundamental disagreement, there is no possibility of finding common ground, so continuing the conversation would be pointless.