Live data from Hacker News

Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

nature.com

51–60 of 218 posts

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#51
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes energy, not time. It takes a long time if you passively wait for random environmental processes to slowly replace the water, and a very short amount of time if you actively apply energy to the problem.

That actually highlights the problem perfectly. Energy is the metric that matters. With current knowledge and level of technology humanity has, we can make almost anything by applying energy to shuffling dirt. Need gasoline? We can synthesize it. Need gold? We can recycle it out of stuff. Need drinking water? We can make it out of almost anything. All that's needed is energy, which is something we don't have much of…

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuclear energy is cheap, and modern reactor designs are safe.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#52
post #23
post #5

You keep using this word "used", I do not think it means what you think it means... Fresh water is one of those strange things, where consumption is not necessarily destruction. You 'used' a glass of water that you drank this morning, then excreted it over the rest of the day as urine and water vapor where it became an input for another part of the cycle. The water did not go away when you consumed it, and in this ca…

You can't destroy water, but you can most definitely destroy fresh water. Or else you could have the same argument for just about anything ("I didn't really break your cup, all the pieces are still lying on the floor.")

Our planet is getting hot, so we will have lot of vapor -> rains -> fresh water. Just collect it instead of dumping it into river or ocean.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#53
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it would be more illuminating to see how much energy was used to create the soft drink.

You keep using this word "used", I do not think it means what you think it means... Energy is one of those strange things, where consumption is not necessarily destruction. You 'used' a joule of energy when you heated up your coffee this morning, then dumped the waste heat to the rest of your kitchen, where it became an input for another part of the cycle. The energy did not go away when you consumed it, and in this…

Good point!

The trouble is just that many popular sources of energy has lot of negative effects ;-)

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#54
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it would be more illuminating to see how much energy was used to create the soft drink.

You keep using this word "used", I do not think it means what you think it means... Energy is one of those strange things, where consumption is not necessarily destruction. You 'used' a joule of energy when you heated up your coffee this morning, then dumped the waste heat to the rest of your kitchen, where it became an input for another part of the cycle. The energy did not go away when you consumed it, and in this…

Energy is about the only resource where this doesn't hold true.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually highlights the problem perfectly. Energy is the metric that matters. With current knowledge and level of technology humanity has, we can make almost anything by applying energy to shuffling dirt. Need gasoline? We can synthesize it. Need gold? We can recycle it out of stuff. Need drinking water? We can make it out of almost anything. All that's needed is energy, which is something we don't have much of…

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuclear energy is cheap, and modern reactor designs are safe.

Yes, I agree. I might have not worded my comment clearly enough. What I meant is: I don't see the world being full of nuclear powerplants right now, so we don't have a sustainable energy surplus to stupidly waste.

EDIT: Fixed wording in the original comment; I hope it's clearer now.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually highlights the problem perfectly. Energy is the metric that matters. With current knowledge and level of technology humanity has, we can make almost anything by applying energy to shuffling dirt. Need gasoline? We can synthesize it. Need gold? We can recycle it out of stuff. Need drinking water? We can make it out of almost anything. All that's needed is energy, which is something we don't have much of…

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuclear energy is cheap, and modern reactor designs are safe.

It's never cheap. It's plagued by construction cost overruns. We're having this problem with Hinkley Point C at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-ex...

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#57
post #25

My browser shows me a 2 page article with numbers pulled out of thin air. Btw 620 and 340 is very far apart. One drink uses 68 l of water for packaging and the other 124 l? I am skeptical.

Softdrinks are only one tiny part of number of products which uses water heavily. Add almonds, microchips, mining, recycling and I frankly don't understand what exactly it is you are skeptical about.

Almonds? Almonds are probably the most drought resistant plant grown for human consumption, it can grow almost anywhere without irrigation. In fact, too much moisture kills its roots.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#58
post #19
post #3

Is that a lot or...? Without a frame of reference I don't know if it's more than a litre of coffee or a litre of asparagus water from Whole Foods.

Per volume of the end product, coffee is worse, black tea is better. Coffee: ~1100 liters of water per liter of coffee. Black tea: ~270 liters of water per liter of tea. Source: The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands , http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/ChapagainHoekstra2...

The higher mg caffeine / mL of coffee mitigates that a bit, probably so it's 2x as bad instead of 4x as bad.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#59

I'm fairly anecdotally sure there would be a market for much less sweet fizzy drinks. I know I'm a weird outlier, because I dilute fruit juice with water to make it more palatable, but I think I'd really like sugary soft drinks if they had the same flavour but heroically less sweetness. My favourite soft drink is two parts orange juice from concentrate, to one part carbonated water; perhaps that's not sweet enough fo…

I thought the same thing about yogurt. The flavored ones have a lot of sugar and people I know say they want a less sweet version.

Then last week I met a man in the supermarket. We were both staring at various yogurts. I was comparison shopping; he was "spying" on the competition and the store. You see, he worked for a yogurt maker.

He asked me what I considered important and I asked him about reduced sugar variants. He said this topic came up over and over in market research. Customers demand reduced sugar. But when they do taste testing, most of those customers choose a product with mainstream sweetness. They want the idea of less sugar. But their tastebuds are not prepared for it.

Post reply on HN