5 ms·

We've already leached too much uranium into the groundwater for many to drink just from the mining alone.

iamnothere 3mo ago
We’ve also already depleted many aquifers past the point of recovery. We have too many people to hydrate, too many crops to water in order to feed them, and not enough water. At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.
- atmavatar 3mo ago
  We're also not even attempting to be smart about our water usage, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Growing crops in a desert that require significant amounts of water to grow is already pretty bad, then exporting the bulk of those crops overseas adds insult to injury. Of course, all that is made possible by our pants-on-head stupid water rights laws.
- parineum 3mo ago
  > Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war. I suspect what we'll actually do is what we always do. Innovate our way into a higher standard of living while simultaneously elevating the poorest people out of poverty and finding novel ways to feed, clothe and house our population. It's funny how persistent malthusians are in the face of evidence to the contrary.
  - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
    Seems more plausible given current trends. lol =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    We’ll see what that looks like in the face of demographic decline and increasingly expensive oil. It’s possible that some kind of technological miracle rescues us, but it seems more likely to me that we follow the pattern of catabolic collapse seen in the Bronze Age, Easter Island, and Europe in the Dark Ages. Civilization may rebound, sure, but humans have a history of overextension followed by decline (as do all animals).
    - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
      If pituitary driven impulse models are representative, than current trends of exploiting generations is provably unsustainable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CXj0AGuh4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CXj0AGuh4c I wouldn't worry about it, and have a wonderful day. =3
    - autoexec 3mo ago
      A very small number of people are taking (and often wasting) the majority of the worlds wealth and resources and harming everyone else in the process. We could probably stave off that decline for a lot longer if we did something about the leeches accelerating our collapse.
- tencentshill 3mo ago
  Solar energy is abundant in the places desalination is most needed. The market will balance out once that becomes apparent to constituents. They will vote to fund solar, politics are only a temporary impediment.
- autoexec 3mo ago
  > At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. We'll also need somewhere to put all that salt. It'd be best to stop the largest wastes of the clean water that we have. We have plenty of water for people and food. We just have to stop the wasteful practices of industry and force them to be more efficient and responsible even though it will eat into their profits.
- Y-bar 3mo ago
  > At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. This might be true, but desalination is not without it's own externalities (not counting energy usage). The primary one I am thinking of is the increase in salinity and heat in the local area killing sea life. These issues may be possible to avoid with limited use of desalination today, but a significant increase in volume may reach a point where things like dilution and cooling by mixing does not have the desired effect.
kurthr 3mo ago
Wait till you find out how much uranium there is in coal ash and how many tons a year are put in the air or dumped into ground water. Both the ash and uranium tailings are in the 50ppm range, but we make 100Mt per year of one of them and basically no uranium tailings in the US. Globally, the ratio is over 1Gt of coal ash and 10-20Mt of uranium tailings. One is currently a problem, the other isn't.
- Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
  I have a lower opinion of coal, more than any other energy source. From an economics perspective it also costs 4% more than solar now. There is no excuse to bring back 1800's steam technology. If you grill, use charcoal because it is short-term carbon cycle neutral. We have one of the largest global coal deposits, but it is also one of the most contaminated natural hot heavy metal sources currently known. Indeed, the natural run off has already closed many water wells for small towns in the area. =3
- anonymars 3mo ago
  Let's also not forget how much fresh water has been ruined with fracking "Nuclear fission: the worst energy source, except for almost all the other ones"
butvacuum 3mo ago
and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine
- Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
  Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people. In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3
  - modo_mario 3mo ago
    >farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. Hoes does this work and related to the arsenic and acid rain?
    - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
      Would have preferred a better source, but likely a similar process to the following: https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/wegelin-soras.pdf https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/w... Best of luck =3
  - butvacuum 3mo ago
    I think it's probably because- even with a trivially verifyable source- the 300x lethal dose for 9 billion people is a knee jerk "no way!"
- jojogeo 3mo ago
  Whoa; TIL. It's terrifying the number of future-time-bombs we keep planting for ourselves.

We’ve also already depleted many aquifers past the point of recovery. We have too many people to hydrate, too many crops to water in order to feed them, and not enough water. At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.

atmavatar 3mo ago
We're also not even attempting to be smart about our water usage, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Growing crops in a desert that require significant amounts of water to grow is already pretty bad, then exporting the bulk of those crops overseas adds insult to injury. Of course, all that is made possible by our pants-on-head stupid water rights laws.
parineum 3mo ago
> Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war. I suspect what we'll actually do is what we always do. Innovate our way into a higher standard of living while simultaneously elevating the poorest people out of poverty and finding novel ways to feed, clothe and house our population. It's funny how persistent malthusians are in the face of evidence to the contrary.
- Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
  Seems more plausible given current trends. lol =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  We’ll see what that looks like in the face of demographic decline and increasingly expensive oil. It’s possible that some kind of technological miracle rescues us, but it seems more likely to me that we follow the pattern of catabolic collapse seen in the Bronze Age, Easter Island, and Europe in the Dark Ages. Civilization may rebound, sure, but humans have a history of overextension followed by decline (as do all animals).
  - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
    If pituitary driven impulse models are representative, than current trends of exploiting generations is provably unsustainable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CXj0AGuh4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CXj0AGuh4c I wouldn't worry about it, and have a wonderful day. =3
  - autoexec 3mo ago
    A very small number of people are taking (and often wasting) the majority of the worlds wealth and resources and harming everyone else in the process. We could probably stave off that decline for a lot longer if we did something about the leeches accelerating our collapse.
tencentshill 3mo ago
Solar energy is abundant in the places desalination is most needed. The market will balance out once that becomes apparent to constituents. They will vote to fund solar, politics are only a temporary impediment.
autoexec 3mo ago
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. We'll also need somewhere to put all that salt. It'd be best to stop the largest wastes of the clean water that we have. We have plenty of water for people and food. We just have to stop the wasteful practices of industry and force them to be more efficient and responsible even though it will eat into their profits.
Y-bar 3mo ago
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy. This might be true, but desalination is not without it's own externalities (not counting energy usage). The primary one I am thinking of is the increase in salinity and heat in the local area killing sea life. These issues may be possible to avoid with limited use of desalination today, but a significant increase in volume may reach a point where things like dilution and cooling by mixing does not have the desired effect.

kurthr 3mo ago

Wait till you find out how much uranium there is in coal ash and how many tons a year are put in the air or dumped into ground water. Both the ash and uranium tailings are in the 50ppm range, but we make 100Mt per year of one of them and basically no uranium tailings in the US. Globally, the ratio is over 1Gt of coal ash and 10-20Mt of uranium tailings. One is currently a problem, the other isn't.

Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
I have a lower opinion of coal, more than any other energy source. From an economics perspective it also costs 4% more than solar now. There is no excuse to bring back 1800's steam technology. If you grill, use charcoal because it is short-term carbon cycle neutral. We have one of the largest global coal deposits, but it is also one of the most contaminated natural hot heavy metal sources currently known. Indeed, the natural run off has already closed many water wells for small towns in the area. =3
anonymars 3mo ago
Let's also not forget how much fresh water has been ruined with fracking "Nuclear fission: the worst energy source, except for almost all the other ones"

butvacuum 3mo ago

and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine

Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people. In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3
- modo_mario 3mo ago
  >farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. Hoes does this work and related to the arsenic and acid rain?
  - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
    Would have preferred a better source, but likely a similar process to the following: https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/wegelin-soras.pdf https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/w... Best of luck =3
- butvacuum 3mo ago
  I think it's probably because- even with a trivially verifyable source- the 300x lethal dose for 9 billion people is a knee jerk "no way!"
jojogeo 3mo ago
Whoa; TIL. It's terrifying the number of future-time-bombs we keep planting for ourselves.