5 ms·
From the article: The Guardian...reports that George's team dumped about 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean from a fishing boat 370 kilometres west of H
by stephengillie 14y ago
From the article:
The Guardian...reports that George's team dumped about 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean from a fishing boat 370 kilometres west of Haida Gwaii in July.
From Wiki:
Iron(II) sulfate (Br.E. iron(II) sulphate) or ferrous sulfate is the chemical compound with the formula FeSO4. It is used medically to treat iron deficiency, and also for industrial applications.
So it's not like they dumped a bunch of scrap iron parts or old machinery into the ocean. This is a fairly common chemical compound with many biological uses.
- atakan_gurkan 14y agoA simple product that encourages the growth of simple organisms can be harmful. Try pouring sugar to the pot of a plant. It will encourage the growth of bacteria which will compete with the plant for other nutrients in the soil and in the end harm the plant. Messing with nature like this sounds like a bad idea. _This_ experiment is not necessarily bad, but the risk is too big if you ask me.
- ceejayoz 14y ago> So it's not like they dumped a bunch of scrap iron parts or old machinery into the ocean. No, it's much worse. Chunks of scrap iron isn't going to have much of an effect on the environment when compared to finely ground particles. > This is a fairly common chemical compound with many biological uses. Water's a common chemical compound with many biological uses, but that doesn't make a tsunami non-destructive.
- stephengillie 14y agoIt's still less destructive than an equal-sized equal-energy wave of sulphuric acid.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago> This is a fairly common chemical compound with many biological uses. Your point? Eutrophication can be pretty nasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 14y agoYour point was completely moronic. If I shoot you in the leg, your response isn't going to be "gee, thanks for not shooting me in the head!" It's going to be "don't fucking shoot me, asshole!" "They could've done something worse" doesn't justify a rogue geoengineering project.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y agoI can't see the "moronic point" and can't comment on it. But I'm going to entertain heresy. Understanding geoengineering may become necessary. Not because it's a great idea. But because it may turn out to be a "cut off the leg to save the patient" kind of idea. i.e. less bad than the worst of climate change. However, doing the experiments like it was done this time seems quite wrong.
- ceejayoz 14y agoThe now-deleted argument was "at least they didn't dump <some nasty chemical>". Totally irrelevant.
- jlgreco 14y agoScrap metal is regularly, purposefully, and legally sunk. We call the results "artificial reefs", and nature seems to rather like it.