Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by ninkendo » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #145

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides which, that water isn't lost; in the Netherlands, it either sinks into the soil to eventually become ground water again (after which it's reused), or it ends up in the sea via canals and rivers. It's not like we have a water shortage in NL, not yet anyway. Besides ground water, there are several rivers passing through NL coming from the Alps, sometimes to the point of overflowing. Really, the only thing waste…

Scientifically-speaking, is any water "lost"? Thinking back to those pictures of plains and mountains with a big circular arrow in my seventh grade science textbook: couldn't you say that even the water used by crops, turned into coke, and consumed by humans is eventually returned the ecosystem in some form or another?

It's "lost" if it's taken from where it's needed (the water table near farm land, for instance) to where it isn't (the ocean).

In plenty of areas where water is needed, the time it would take for the big circular arrow "water cycle" to replenish it is so long, it should be considered a finite resource.

Ars Technica had a great article about this a few years back, likening "peak water" to "peak oil": http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/05/not-just-oil-us-hit-p...

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

#152

Post by logicrook » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #135

logicrook wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he is making is not reduced to that, it is that you should judge things with the same metrics. I.e. how much water is used for bottled water? For running water? How much harmful chemicals can you find in soft drink, bottled water, tap water? (because running water may be very cost-efficient, but it comes with a price, the dizzying quantity of chlorine you can find inside being one). Just giving one number o…

Despite what you might think water is not a particularly limited resource. At the municipal level 1 cent ~= 1,000+ gallons of water but this can vary greatly by location. As a customer in many ways you are paying for pipes not water. PS: California farmers often pay ~70$ on average per acre foot or 325,851 gallons. But, they also get a lot of water for far less than that it's the rare edge cases that are really expen…

I agree with you. But what if you want to drink pure/purified water? You can do for little to no cost in certain conditions, but for city people there are either bottled water or some purifying systems that can be costly and of various levels of efficiency. Then, how much water does one liter of water costs?

But then you could argue that people don't need to drink purified water, tap water is good enough, lead levels, chlorine levels (etc) are low enough. But this is another question from the previous one, that should also be discussed taking the whole picture into account.

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

#153

Post by egeozcan » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

Gargoyle wrote: post #146

smt88 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ends up in the sea via canals and rivers That water is "lost" by any practical definition. For humans to use it again, it would have to be desalinated, which is expensive.

It's desalinated by becoming rain again.

I don't think the amount of rain increases by pumping more fresh water to the oceans.

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

#154

Post by mbarrett » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

SixSigma wrote: post #128

mbarrett wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, a big-box purchased reverse osmosis home setup could have up to a 4:1 waste water ratio.

Yeah, I was amazed both when I saw how much water got wasted in home RO and how much wasn't wasted in industrial RO!

There are a few more parts you can buy for the home install to make it more efficient. I can see the manufacturers leaving it out due to install space and cost.

My system is relatively new, but this thread has my thinking of ways I can better use that 4 gallons of waste.

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

#155

Post by PepeGomez » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:54 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #120

PepeGomez wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense. It's native to the Middle East, from the Levant to Pakistan. I see no good reason why growing it should be problematic in California. They either use it as an excuse to get more water for other crops, or they're doing something very wrong, though I have no idea what it could be.

They planted large orchards in a desert. The linked article doesn't make any statements about how much water each tree is getting, so I'm not sure what you would be calling nonsense. It does state that California grows most of the world supply of almonds, perhaps the number of trees being supported by the imported water is much higher than you think?

Large orchards of desert trees. I get that the valley may be too dry even for almonds, but that won't turn them into a "relatively thirsty crop" as the article insists.

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

#156

Post by takno » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #98

evgen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This talks about a water source, and more specifically a slow-filling source that has been tapped too much. This is where you should apply your concern and effort, to the protection and wise management of easily accessible fresh water sources that are being depleted too rapidly. If someone talks about water usage (usually in a generic 'it takes X gallons to make a Y, so you should feel bad about doing/using Y' format…

It is still relevant though; because for things like soft drinks that have an extremely low price-to-weight ratio, the only production model that makes sense is a local one. Coca-Cola doesn't just have 3 or 4 factories in the US that make soda; they have one (if not more) in every major city. Some of those cities make use of vulnerable water supplies, and some don't. But ultimately it's the same conversation - any ma…

But the vast majority of the water used is in the sugar-growing stage and and creation of the packaging. Neither of these things are done even remotely locally.

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

#157

Post by tekromancr » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #102

adrusi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of comets burn up in the atmosphere. The water from that also ends up on the surface. No need to have one actually impact.

What water is that?

The massive pockets of ice that tend to form on giant space rocks. Comets contain a lot of ice.

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

#158

Post by Cerium » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

Gargoyle wrote: post #146

smt88 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ends up in the sea via canals and rivers That water is "lost" by any practical definition. For humans to use it again, it would have to be desalinated, which is expensive.

It's desalinated by becoming rain again.

We are discovering in California that that rain does not always fall back where the water was taken.

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

#159

Post by drcoopster » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #144

tim333 wrote: post #99

>340 to 620 litres I amused myself trying to find the source. The article is based from a quote from the book which is based on a study: The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Twente Water Centre http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-... I think he is for example counting the rain and irrigation water that falls on the sugar cane that it used to make the Cok…

>sweetened with beet sugar. Not in the US. Its corn syrup or an artificial sweeter. Curious to know if corn's water footprint is more or less than sugar beet. I guess there's a larger issue here on how water like this isn't truly lost or in competition for human drinking water. Its part of a natural cycle of rainwater, runoff, and back into the aquifers or evaporated. A better metric is the real cost of irrigation fo…

The parent post has numbers for HFCS too.

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

#160

Post by tekromancr » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

koralatov wrote: post #104

rwjwjuwjudf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? I don't drink coffee, but do drink tea, and I'm pretty sure that people drink them for reasons other than the raw caffeine content per ml.

Yea, but a lot of people use it simply as a drug delivery vehicle. Getting n mg caffeine into your system is the goal for some folks.