3 ms·
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 alread
by 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 agoLets 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 agoOf 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.