4 ms·

Sure let's concentrate all kinds of filth in our food chain. They claim they extract all heavy metals, but there are also PFAs, prions, antibiotics, microplasti

by rini17 2y ago

Sure let's concentrate all kinds of filth in our food chain. They claim they extract all heavy metals, but there are also PFAs, prions, antibiotics, microplastics, whatnot.

PaulHoule 2y ago
There's the counter-argument that's been going around for a while that we'll run out of phosphate fertilizer in 300 years if we don't cycle back most of our waste. (Though something else likely kills us before then and numbers like that 300 years have a way of turning into 3000 years) Generally cleaning up our chemistry would be a big help to sustainability. Los Angeles, for instance, gets plenty of rain but it is clumped in time so you'd need about a cubic kilometer of storage for LA to be self-sufficient in water -- and a radical reduction in the toxicity of our economy, but California is heading in that direction with Prop 65. Pharmaceuticals are a huge concern even among fluorinated chemicals since they are especially designed to have biological effects in small doses.
- rini17 2y ago
  Cleaning up or chemistry has been a losing race, you ban one chemical, they start using another two with yet unknown effects. Perhaps selectively extracting useful stuff like phosphor and burning the rest would be better.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    There is this technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification which is related to the El Dorado technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis which is the renewables equivalent of the Fast Breeder Reactor. People will say "... but we had syngas plants all over the place" and I'll say that they made so much pollution that explains a huge confused spot of nothing near the downtown where I grew up and that there are periodic scares about the old syngas plant across the street from the elementary school that serves the black community in Ithaca.
    - rini17 2y ago
      Nothing is 100% safe. Incineration is still safer and less polluting than putting lightly processed sludge into the environment.
      - PaulHoule 2y ago
        I'll argue that "cleaning up" could be more feasible than you think in the near future. There is serious rethinking about just about everything in organic chemistry synthesis lately and an understanding that the industry has to change dramatically. The PFAS crisis has made it clear that we can't keep playing whac-a-mole and there's going to be a transition to 'nanotechnology' solutions such as patterning surfaces for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating So I think 50 years from now we can have a much cleaner technology base overall.

by rini17 2y ago

Sure let's concentrate all kinds of filth in our food chain. They claim they extract all heavy metals, but there are also PFAs, prions, antibiotics, microplastics, whatnot.

PaulHoule 2y ago

There's the counter-argument that's been going around for a while that we'll run out of phosphate fertilizer in 300 years if we don't cycle back most of our waste. (Though something else likely kills us before then and numbers like that 300 years have a way of turning into 3000 years) Generally cleaning up our chemistry would be a big help to sustainability. Los Angeles, for instance, gets plenty of rain but it is clumped in time so you'd need about a cubic kilometer of storage for LA to be self-sufficient in water -- and a radical reduction in the toxicity of our economy, but California is heading in that direction with Prop 65. Pharmaceuticals are a huge concern even among fluorinated chemicals since they are especially designed to have biological effects in small doses.

rini17 2y ago
Cleaning up or chemistry has been a losing race, you ban one chemical, they start using another two with yet unknown effects. Perhaps selectively extracting useful stuff like phosphor and burning the rest would be better.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  There is this technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification which is related to the El Dorado technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis which is the renewables equivalent of the Fast Breeder Reactor. People will say "... but we had syngas plants all over the place" and I'll say that they made so much pollution that explains a huge confused spot of nothing near the downtown where I grew up and that there are periodic scares about the old syngas plant across the street from the elementary school that serves the black community in Ithaca.
  - rini17 2y ago
    Nothing is 100% safe. Incineration is still safer and less polluting than putting lightly processed sludge into the environment.
    - PaulHoule 2y ago
      I'll argue that "cleaning up" could be more feasible than you think in the near future. There is serious rethinking about just about everything in organic chemistry synthesis lately and an understanding that the industry has to change dramatically. The PFAS crisis has made it clear that we can't keep playing whac-a-mole and there's going to be a transition to 'nanotechnology' solutions such as patterning surfaces for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating So I think 50 years from now we can have a much cleaner technology base overall.