4 ms·

What’s missing from this article: Any sense of proportion. It uses numbers that are large from any human perspective, but doesn’t say how they compare to the re

What’s missing from this article: Any sense of proportion. It uses numbers that are large from any human perspective, but doesn’t say how they compare to the rest of civilisation, or nature.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
This is literally the second sentence of the article (emphasis mine): > Researchers at USC noted that at peak, 1,005 U.S. tons of aluminum will fall to Earth, releasing 397 U.S. tons of aluminum oxides per year to the atmosphere, an increase of 646% over natural levels.
- panzagl 2y ago
  But it doesn't compare that to the total release in the atmosphere, say from other manmade sources. I want to be sympathetic to the arguments I think the article is trying to make, but its content is really just 'Numbers! Billionaires suck!'
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    There are almost no other man-made emissions of aluminum oxides on the high atmosphere. It's just those two.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      When WW3 starts we will all be able to enjoy the rage bait about ICBM pollution.
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        ICBMs themselves do not emit that kind of pollution (in any important amount). But nuclear explosions do.
        natch 2y ago
        Whoosh
- timschmidt 2y ago
  Does "natural levels" include the outputs of the aluminum smelting industry?
- Filligree 2y ago
  Yes, I imagine the natural level of aluminum falling into the atmosphere is pretty low. That doesn't say very much about what it'll do to the ozone layer. I'm actually amazed we get 50 tons from meteors and such already. But 400 tons of aluminum oxide, compared to the total size of the atmosphere, sounds to me like it should have effectively zero effect.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- natch 2y ago
  They neglected to put in other numbers though because the other numbers don’t fit their narrative. For instance, the total tonnage of atmospheric air which dwarfs their scare numbers by any measure. 5.15 x 10^15 tons is a way bigger number. Which if you do the math means these deorbiting satellites will be adding 0.0000000771 ppm to the atmosphere. You probably get exposed to 10,000 times more than that heating a leftover burrito in foil in the toaster oven. They also conveniently chose to share the much higher urban rate for Starlink service when conceding that it is useful in rural areas, trying to make it seem less appealing with their if you can afford it verbiage. It’s clear what’s going on here. Agenda driven “journalism” that hates on technology with a crafted narrative.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    The rest of the atmosphere isn't as important. But I mean, the ozone layer on its own is 3 billion tons...
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  That doesn't give enough sense of proportion. The mass of the ozone layer is 3 billion tons. Maybe 397 tons of aluminum could be a problem, but it's a very small number in context.

What’s missing from this article: Any sense of proportion. It uses numbers that are large from any human perspective, but doesn’t say how they compare to the rest of civilisation, or nature.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

This is literally the second sentence of the article (emphasis mine): > Researchers at USC noted that at peak, 1,005 U.S. tons of aluminum will fall to Earth, releasing 397 U.S. tons of aluminum oxides per year to the atmosphere, an increase of 646% over natural levels.

panzagl 2y ago
But it doesn't compare that to the total release in the atmosphere, say from other manmade sources. I want to be sympathetic to the arguments I think the article is trying to make, but its content is really just 'Numbers! Billionaires suck!'
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  There are almost no other man-made emissions of aluminum oxides on the high atmosphere. It's just those two.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    When WW3 starts we will all be able to enjoy the rage bait about ICBM pollution.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      ICBMs themselves do not emit that kind of pollution (in any important amount). But nuclear explosions do.
      - natch 2y ago
        Whoosh
timschmidt 2y ago
Does "natural levels" include the outputs of the aluminum smelting industry?
Filligree 2y ago
Yes, I imagine the natural level of aluminum falling into the atmosphere is pretty low. That doesn't say very much about what it'll do to the ozone layer. I'm actually amazed we get 50 tons from meteors and such already. But 400 tons of aluminum oxide, compared to the total size of the atmosphere, sounds to me like it should have effectively zero effect.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
natch 2y ago
They neglected to put in other numbers though because the other numbers don’t fit their narrative. For instance, the total tonnage of atmospheric air which dwarfs their scare numbers by any measure. 5.15 x 10^15 tons is a way bigger number. Which if you do the math means these deorbiting satellites will be adding 0.0000000771 ppm to the atmosphere. You probably get exposed to 10,000 times more than that heating a leftover burrito in foil in the toaster oven. They also conveniently chose to share the much higher urban rate for Starlink service when conceding that it is useful in rural areas, trying to make it seem less appealing with their if you can afford it verbiage. It’s clear what’s going on here. Agenda driven “journalism” that hates on technology with a crafted narrative.
- Filligree 2y ago
  The rest of the atmosphere isn't as important. But I mean, the ozone layer on its own is 3 billion tons...
lukeschlather 2y ago
That doesn't give enough sense of proportion. The mass of the ozone layer is 3 billion tons. Maybe 397 tons of aluminum could be a problem, but it's a very small number in context.