3 ms·

> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the nu

by zbentley 11mo ago

> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.

simianwords 11mo ago
Can you frame it into more concrete terms like how much more likely it is to cause harm? And put agriculture by side.
- b3lvedere 11mo ago
  The risk from nitrates is cumulative. .1% may not seem much, but it can be well be the trigger for enormous problems. My best guess is that the limit was already very close at its max of 10 mg/L (10 ppm) and the data center tipped the scale. Maybe they're (ab)using the findings of the data centers to get better water treatment, maybe they could have done more effort themselves? But of course money and laws are far more important than healthy citizens, so why do anything about it when you don't have to? Companies kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to consume stuff, you're also out of business. Governments kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to pay the taxes, they're also out of business.
  - simianwords 11mo ago
    Lets assume that .1% is cumulative, but so is the effect from agriculture which is 99.9%. Agriculture would affect the person 1000x than the data centre (if you accept the .1% figure). This sounds ridiculous so it is necessary to put it in concrete terms.
    - b3lvedere 11mo ago
      Of course. The issue could be that the previous parties combined "successfully" could uphold the legal limit, but now that suddenly the data centers also participate it's above the limit. Who's to blame? Tricky legal question. My personal opinion is everybody involved should take their percentage of the blame, but i doubt they're willing to pay or act upon it.
      - monerozcash 11mo ago
        > Who's to blame? Tricky legal question The polluters. Datacenters didn't put the pollutants in the water. Datacenters used water, but as their process does not use the pollutants the concentration of pollutants in water increased very slightly.
gruez 11mo ago
>.1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal. So... a short flight? There's background radiation everywhere, and less radiation protection higher up.
- monerozcash 11mo ago
  The increase during the flight is nowhere close to .1%, many many orders of magnitude more.
  - gruez 11mo ago
    According to this chart, it's approximately correct? https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Background radiation is 10msv per day, so 3650 in a year. A cross country flight (6hrs according to google flights) is 40msv, so 1% of yearly background exposure. However I did mention a "short" flight, so if you scale it down for a 2 hr flight, you get 0.3%, which is admittedly higher than 0.1%, but not too far off.
    - monerozcash 11mo ago
      If we're looking at yearly exposure, as opposed to realtime exposure then sure.
monerozcash 11mo ago
>.1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal. Why would that be a big deal? It is a .1% increase.
- ASalazarMX 11mo ago
  Yearly average exposition is about 600 mrem, don't take risks with those aditional 0.6 mrems!
  - zbentley 11mo ago
    I didn't say radiation exposure, I said radioactive particulates in my body. 0.1% increase in radiation exposure is a high altitude plane flight. Nothing to be concerned about as you say. 0.1% increase in radioactive particulates in my body is a Fukishima sand grain in a clam. Or a leaky medical iodine cell. Or a speck of Chernobyl ash stirred up by passing soldiers and inhaled. That's a much bigger concern.
    - monerozcash 11mo ago
      This still doesn't make any sense. Let’s say you have a hypothetical 25 nanograms of radioactive particulates in your body. Now we add 0.1%, and you have 25.025 nanograms of radioactive particulates in your body. This is not a meaningful difference at all.
      - ASalazarMX 11mo ago
        You wouldn't be so cavalier if you had to live with 1,000 Fukishima sand grains in your body all the time. That 1,001st one could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
kingstnap 11mo ago
Typical global yearly background radiation dose according to Canadian nuclear safety commission is around 2.5 mSv per year [0]. Ignoring the major issue that the location dependent variance is orders of magnitude more significant than 0.1% we can reason that 0.1% is an extra 2.5 uSv over an entire year. Thats like a 20 minute flight... or half a dental xray, or if you planned to eat like 20 bananas this year you better cut them out. Now the fact that there are all these other obvious ways to cut down your radiation before you even begin to think about datacenters, isn't unique for this radiation dose thing. It's true for the water consumption as well. Your Chatbots are not the cause of your water usage its your diet and material goods. [0] https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-background-radiation/ https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natura...
- zbentley 11mo ago
  Not what I said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46116920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46116920

simianwords 11mo ago

Can you frame it into more concrete terms like how much more likely it is to cause harm? And put agriculture by side.

b3lvedere 11mo ago
The risk from nitrates is cumulative. .1% may not seem much, but it can be well be the trigger for enormous problems. My best guess is that the limit was already very close at its max of 10 mg/L (10 ppm) and the data center tipped the scale. Maybe they're (ab)using the findings of the data centers to get better water treatment, maybe they could have done more effort themselves? But of course money and laws are far more important than healthy citizens, so why do anything about it when you don't have to? Companies kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to consume stuff, you're also out of business. Governments kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to pay the taxes, they're also out of business.
- simianwords 11mo ago
  Lets assume that .1% is cumulative, but so is the effect from agriculture which is 99.9%. Agriculture would affect the person 1000x than the data centre (if you accept the .1% figure). This sounds ridiculous so it is necessary to put it in concrete terms.
  - b3lvedere 11mo ago
    Of course. The issue could be that the previous parties combined "successfully" could uphold the legal limit, but now that suddenly the data centers also participate it's above the limit. Who's to blame? Tricky legal question. My personal opinion is everybody involved should take their percentage of the blame, but i doubt they're willing to pay or act upon it.
    - monerozcash 11mo ago
      > Who's to blame? Tricky legal question The polluters. Datacenters didn't put the pollutants in the water. Datacenters used water, but as their process does not use the pollutants the concentration of pollutants in water increased very slightly.

gruez 11mo ago

>.1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal. So... a short flight? There's background radiation everywhere, and less radiation protection higher up.

monerozcash 11mo ago
The increase during the flight is nowhere close to .1%, many many orders of magnitude more.
- gruez 11mo ago
  According to this chart, it's approximately correct? https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Background radiation is 10msv per day, so 3650 in a year. A cross country flight (6hrs according to google flights) is 40msv, so 1% of yearly background exposure. However I did mention a "short" flight, so if you scale it down for a 2 hr flight, you get 0.3%, which is admittedly higher than 0.1%, but not too far off.
  - monerozcash 11mo ago
    If we're looking at yearly exposure, as opposed to realtime exposure then sure.

monerozcash 11mo ago

>.1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal. Why would that be a big deal? It is a .1% increase.

ASalazarMX 11mo ago
Yearly average exposition is about 600 mrem, don't take risks with those aditional 0.6 mrems!
- zbentley 11mo ago
  I didn't say radiation exposure, I said radioactive particulates in my body. 0.1% increase in radiation exposure is a high altitude plane flight. Nothing to be concerned about as you say. 0.1% increase in radioactive particulates in my body is a Fukishima sand grain in a clam. Or a leaky medical iodine cell. Or a speck of Chernobyl ash stirred up by passing soldiers and inhaled. That's a much bigger concern.
  - monerozcash 11mo ago
    This still doesn't make any sense. Let’s say you have a hypothetical 25 nanograms of radioactive particulates in your body. Now we add 0.1%, and you have 25.025 nanograms of radioactive particulates in your body. This is not a meaningful difference at all.
    - ASalazarMX 11mo ago
      You wouldn't be so cavalier if you had to live with 1,000 Fukishima sand grains in your body all the time. That 1,001st one could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

kingstnap 11mo ago

Typical global yearly background radiation dose according to Canadian nuclear safety commission is around 2.5 mSv per year [0]. Ignoring the major issue that the location dependent variance is orders of magnitude more significant than 0.1% we can reason that 0.1% is an extra 2.5 uSv over an entire year. Thats like a 20 minute flight... or half a dental xray, or if you planned to eat like 20 bananas this year you better cut them out. Now the fact that there are all these other obvious ways to cut down your radiation before you even begin to think about datacenters, isn't unique for this radiation dose thing. It's true for the water consumption as well. Your Chatbots are not the cause of your water usage its your diet and material goods. [0] https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-background-radiation/ https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natura...

zbentley 11mo ago
Not what I said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46116920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46116920