4 ms·

Based on coursework I did years ago. I could've given you more information back then but it's been a while. You would definitely need to look into the lead com

Based on coursework I did years ago. I could've given you more information back then but it's been a while. You would definitely need to look into the lead coming out the chimney; if it does, you just dry the material and accept less concentration. (Or use a more complex technology like a molten salt reactor to keep it from escaping the chimney, but if it's eg concentrating in the leaves, drying it out is probably almost as effective as burning it.) You only need to kick people out of their homes if the soil is so dangerous they can't live there anyway. You're not disturbing the soil more than gardening would. There would definitely be huge challenges, my main point is that it's a naive assumption that you necessarily have to relocate people to remediate the soil. It doesn't necessarily have to work quickly as much as steadily. If you can do it in 10 years by relocating people and 100 years without, it probably makes sense to go the slow route and the soil will get less and less dangerous all the time. If you're curious, you might look up bioremediation and biomining.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> only need to kick people out of their homes if the soil is so dangerous they can't live there anyway The article is specifically about unsafe lead levels. > If you can do it in 10 years by relocating people and 100 years without, it probably makes sense to go the slow route and the soil will get less and less dangerous all the time Versus just covering it up? What kind of cost-benefit analysis does that pass? All kinds of toxic substances exist below the top soil. I agree it would be nice if we could poof away the problem. But given its scale, that’s not a real option. (For context, if we can do this we can solve the housing crisis.)
- maxbond 2y ago
  The context is that someone suggested that covering it up is only temporary, right? That would depend on local conditions, but presumably in some places it's true (due to eg how the topsoil is eroding in that area). You suggested that the cost would be basically infinite because of how many people it displaces. I'm pointing out that your assumptions may have been too conservative, and that it's probably merely hundreds of billions spread over decades. Is that a good use of resources? I don't have the data to form that opinion, and I'm not going to gather it for a casual Internet conversation, so I just don't know.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> only need to kick people out of their homes if the soil is so dangerous they can't live there anyway The article is specifically about unsafe lead levels. > If you can do it in 10 years by relocating people and 100 years without, it probably makes sense to go the slow route and the soil will get less and less dangerous all the time Versus just covering it up? What kind of cost-benefit analysis does that pass? All kinds of toxic substances exist below the top soil. I agree it would be nice if we could poof away the problem. But given its scale, that’s not a real option. (For context, if we can do this we can solve the housing crisis.)

maxbond 2y ago
The context is that someone suggested that covering it up is only temporary, right? That would depend on local conditions, but presumably in some places it's true (due to eg how the topsoil is eroding in that area). You suggested that the cost would be basically infinite because of how many people it displaces. I'm pointing out that your assumptions may have been too conservative, and that it's probably merely hundreds of billions spread over decades. Is that a good use of resources? I don't have the data to form that opinion, and I'm not going to gather it for a casual Internet conversation, so I just don't know.