Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#71

Post by Htsthbjig »

ethbro wrote: post #36
15charlimit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the issues with GMO foods is that we don't actually know for a fact exactly how the changes we make in them work, or what effect they may have in the human body over long periods of time. We just don't know.

As opposed to "naturally" cross-breeding strains and selecting for traits without genetic sequencing? Changes are changes, whether random or induced mutation. I feel better if there's at least one brain inspecting the changes vs throwing dice.

Cross breeding does not induce mutations. Cross breeding mixes genetic code that already exist on the original plants.

Random or induced mutation like they do in GMO has lots of unintended consequences(for example radiating it). It is like a program that has not been debugged, only that a crash could be people dying or getting ill in the thousands or millions.

Also mixing genes from species that have nothing to do with each other like creatures that live in deep ocean that emit light with those that live on the surface will also have unintended consequences.

Human beings could be cocky and arrogant. I have a river near my house. Someone had the brilliant idea of introducing an alien small fish to help native fish as food. The unintended consequence was that the new small fish ate the eggs of native fish and made them disappear completely from the river.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#72

Post by Retric »

Roodgorf wrote: post #54
15charlimit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the issues with GMO foods is that we don't actually know for a fact exactly how the changes we make in them work, or what effect they may have in the human body over long periods of time. We just don't know.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to paint with such a broad brush the level of knowledge there is about the long-term effects of GMO foods. Numerous studies have been released[0] and more published every year seem to lean towards minimal to no perceivable negative effects. EDIT: I will grant that all of these studies deal with animals rather than directly at effects on humans, but it doesn't seem there is compelling e…

Every single new modification is it's own risks independent from all others. So, no set of studies can say that this new GMO product is safe until you test that GMO product.

In 100 years people may reasonably feel that pre 2060's GMO food is fine, but that new stuff is risky. And they would be reasonable to feel that way. After all, we have recalled a lot of great new products from the market due to long term issues.

PS: This might be unreasonable, however the pro GMO argument is lower food costs which is a non issue for many people.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#73

Post by cromulent »

s_q_b wrote: post #60
rsync wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My family owns a civil engineering company that deals with wastewater management." Did you win the Putnam ?

If everyone had to win the Putnam to understand the basics of wastewater treatment, we'd be in deep... well, shit.

I think it's a reference to this from some years ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35015

  "Did you win the Putnam?"
  Yes, I did.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#74

Post by yongjik »

15charlimit wrote: post #31
jbob2000 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same effect is noticed with GMO foods. They're better in all regards, yet there are people who are afraid of them because "not natural". I don't think this has to do with the education system. My friend's father has a terminal illness, and in his attempt to understand and rationalize it, he thought that he did it to himself by leading an "unnatural" lifestyle. The man has a masters in mathematics and owned a soft…

One of the issues with GMO foods is that we don't actually know for a fact exactly how the changes we make in them work, or what effect they may have in the human body over long periods of time. We just don't know.

Well, all "unnatural" GMO food DNA are going to be broken to pieces inside my intestine anyway: I think I can trust modern science (and common sense) enough to say a different jumble of nucleic acids in my bowel won't do anything "natural" nucleic acids can't do.

I mean, if you come across a dish of quinoa, macadamia nuts, and beef, would you object to eating it because it contains DNAs that never made contact with each other for a hundred million years, and there's just no guarantee what their combined power could do once ingested?

The only credible potential danger of GMO food is what they might do to the ecosystem while they're still alive (that is, before you eat them), but somehow most GMO opponents just gloss over this important distinction.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#76

Post by justnot4me »

It is pouring with rain outside; as it often does in every part of the UK where the BBC are based. It may be that in some parts of the world people do need to start drinking each others urine; but unless the climate changes here; I think we can probably stick with the stuff that falls out of the sky.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#77

Post by logfromblammo »

ethbro wrote: post #51
logfromblammo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some drugs are not metabolized to a great extent before they exit the body. For instance, an arctic shaman would eat poisonous mushrooms, taking the hit for the dangerous toxins in the fungus, then other people would drink the shaman's urine, which still contained the active hallucinogenic chemical, and go on a much safer trip. The hallucinogen would persist in this fashion through multiple kidneys before it was no l…

I understand the principle (though upvote for the example!), but my question was after leaving a human body whether or not natural processes (e.g. UV) + microbes in the environment would break those chemicals down in a reasonable timescale or if they persist? From s_q_b, it sounds like they do get broken down, albeit with an effect on the flora and fauna.

It depends on the chemical.

Protein-based drugs, such as oxytocin or insulin, are likely to be consumed and recycled into component amino acids.

Most molecules left out in the environment will eventually be oxidized, have an important bond cleaved by UV light with enough energy, or undergo thermal decomposition.

As sunlight, dissolved oxygen concentration, and temperature can vary wildly just by moving a few meters away, and the chemicals themselves have different stability, it is very difficult to predict how long a pill that was flushed down the toilet will persist in the environment.

Generally speaking, certain drugs are only useful because they take longer to degrade inside the body. It wouldn't do you much good to get an injection of a drug if your body's proteases chop it up to uselessness in the first ten minutes, or if it zooms right to the liver and gets methylated, or whatever it is the body does to clear foreign chemicals. In those cases, microbes will also have a hard time turning them into something else.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#78

Post by maratd »

noir_lord wrote: post #41
maratd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the end result of an education system that has not prepared people for the modern world Not quite. > if we engineer a solution that produces water of a purity greater than water from a reservoir This statement hinges on our ability to accurately measure the purity. This is far from settled and I can understand the hesitation. Personally, I would take a look at the methods of purification. If they're using t…

The UK has some of the best drinking water in the world, my local water company does hundreds of thousands of tests each year of which Example report for my region http://www.ywonline.co.uk/web/WQZ.nsf/0/26AA27A47E437B1B8025...

You can have the best testing in the world and the test will still only detect substances that it was designed to detect. By definition, it can't detect anything we don't know about or are looking for.

The natural filtration process has been around since forever and we know it works well. There is no reason not to use it.

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#79

Post by theoh »

noir_lord wrote: post #6

> finding that while 49% were willing to try recycled wastewater, 13% refused, and the rest weren't sure. This is the end result of an education system that has not prepared people for the modern world, if we engineer a solution that produces water of a purity greater than water from a reservoir and and half of people are still not sure it is safe to drink then we have a massive problem. For the record: I've no issue…

Probably every drop of water you've drank contained molecules that were present in the body of Julius Caesar at the time of his death. (etc.)

Re: We need to start drinking recycled wastewater

#80

Post by ethbro »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #71
ethbro wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to "naturally" cross-breeding strains and selecting for traits without genetic sequencing? Changes are changes, whether random or induced mutation. I feel better if there's at least one brain inspecting the changes vs throwing dice.

Cross breeding does not induce mutations. Cross breeding mixes genetic code that already exist on the original plants. Random or induced mutation like they do in GMO has lots of unintended consequences(for example radiating it). It is like a program that has not been debugged, only that a crash could be people dying or getting ill in the thousands or millions. Also mixing genes from species that have nothing to do wi…

> Cross breeding does not induce mutations. Cross breeding mixes genetic code that already exist on the original plants.

And why do you think that genetic code within the same species is different in the first place...?

Post reply on HN