4 ms·

SpaceX Responds: CNBC’s story on Starship’s launch operations in South Texas is factually inaccurate. ... We only use potable (drinking) water in the system’s

SpaceX Responds: CNBC’s story on Starship’s launch operations in South Texas is factually inaccurate. ... We only use potable (drinking) water in the system’s operation. ... We send samples of the soil, air, and water around the pad to an independent, accredited laboratory after every use of the deluge system, which have consistently shown negligible traces of any contaminants. Importantly, while CNBC's story claims there are “very large exceedances of the mercury” as part of the wastewater discharged at the site, all samples to-date have in fact shown either no detectable levels of mercury whatsoever or found in very few cases levels significantly below the limit the EPA maintains for drinking water. ... https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862

qsdf38100 2y ago
SpaceX saying that SpaceX did nothing wrong is a start, but it would be nice to get the same kind of refutation from more independent sources.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aeternum 2y ago
  You are hereby accused of being a scallywag! You must now stop whatever you're doing and find independent sources to refute the claim. If only we still believed in burden of proof.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    Is SpaceX's own permit application not enough for you? It's linked in the article.
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      Considering Texas doesn’t give a shit about the environment…
foobarqux 2y ago
This is the comment I made in the other thread [1]: It's nonsense, for example there is no "I used pure water in the input to the process" exemption; why would there be, the output is what matters. And I believe even unprocessed potable water can be illegal to dump due to the presence of chlorine/fluorine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100
- mlindner 2y ago
  Whether it has chlorine or not depends on the treatment system used. The document states only 0.2 micrograms of chlorine per liter of water.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    I didn't claim that there was chlorine in the dumped water, I said it was no defense to claim use of "potable water" in itself. But this is missing the point entirely which is that you must demonstrate to the EPA that you are not going to dump toxins into the water before you start a process that might do so. Not doing that is reckless disregard for the most basic public health concerns (not risking having your food and water poisoned). You are addressing a different question which is have they already illegally dumped toxins into the water. I don't know but as I said in a different comment, given his history I would take anything he says with a high-degree of skepticism.

qsdf38100 2y ago

SpaceX saying that SpaceX did nothing wrong is a start, but it would be nice to get the same kind of refutation from more independent sources.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aeternum 2y ago
You are hereby accused of being a scallywag! You must now stop whatever you're doing and find independent sources to refute the claim. If only we still believed in burden of proof.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  Is SpaceX's own permit application not enough for you? It's linked in the article.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Considering Texas doesn’t give a shit about the environment…

foobarqux 2y ago

This is the comment I made in the other thread [1]: It's nonsense, for example there is no "I used pure water in the input to the process" exemption; why would there be, the output is what matters. And I believe even unprocessed potable water can be illegal to dump due to the presence of chlorine/fluorine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100

mlindner 2y ago
Whether it has chlorine or not depends on the treatment system used. The document states only 0.2 micrograms of chlorine per liter of water.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  I didn't claim that there was chlorine in the dumped water, I said it was no defense to claim use of "potable water" in itself. But this is missing the point entirely which is that you must demonstrate to the EPA that you are not going to dump toxins into the water before you start a process that might do so. Not doing that is reckless disregard for the most basic public health concerns (not risking having your food and water poisoned). You are addressing a different question which is have they already illegally dumped toxins into the water. I don't know but as I said in a different comment, given his history I would take anything he says with a high-degree of skepticism.