Florida state of emergency with millions of gallons of “radioactive wastewater”

Post by darkerside » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #83

darkerside wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.

Repeating what you've already written (or outright copying it verbatim / quoting yourself) is hardly a effective strategy of making yourself better understood via the internet. You'll do better by expanding or simplifying your point of view instead.

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

samus wrote: post #86

chiefalchemist wrote: post #21

> "For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, the fertilizer industry creates 5 tons of radioactive phosphogypsum waste..." Is that correct? That sounds unsustainable, as well as unprofitable. Also, is it safe to presume that if the cost of proper disposal was reflected in the price of food, food would be significantly more expensive? Finally, are there particular foods this is used for?

In the past, people used their own manure and that of animals to fertilize fields. Manure contains lots of phosphorus as animals actually absorb only a small percentage from nutrition. Urbanization broke this cycle. Sewer systems got established and the phosphorus doesn't end up on the fields anymore. It eventually reaches the rivers and seas and passes into the sediment. What a waste (pun intended). Instead, people…

Post by dismalpedigree » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

rvense wrote: post #82

brudgers wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much that can be done with it because essentially (not basically) it is acid. Phosphate mining uses sulfuric acid to extract the phosphates. These are large scale operations and produce a lot of water with a pH of 1.5-2. There's no comparable industrial process that can consume it as input. So it sits. The gypsum stacks are the other waste byproduct. But it's less problematic because it doesn't flow, it j…

Is this the kind of mines that produce phosphate for fertilizer?

Post by ohyeshedid » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #60

cortic wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owners of Chernobyl (the government) didn't declare bankruptcy and piss off, they spent massive moneys containing the problem. So, socialize profits, socialize losses. Trying to stop catastrophes from happening needs regulation and incentives, both of these things are broken in capitalism by its nature. But its not impossible to have regulation and incentives in either capitalist or socialist projects.

The USSR government collapsed a few years after the Chernobyl disaster and didn't foot the bill of most of its costs. It now costs huge amounts of money to Belarus, which gov has nothing to do with USSR nuclear projects. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53727243 The European Union gave (and, until now, gives) huge amounts of money in order to contain the problem, for example the sarcophagus. https://time.com/525…

Post by jayjader » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #46

foxhop wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all what I said or mean. Working with nature means using natural systems to produce food with less human energy and fossil fuels, and chemicals, and cutting down forests. A quick quote from the referenced work: """ The pragmatic and practical approach to the main body of this work largely omits reference to those visions or beliefs classifiable as spiritual or mystical; not because these are not a norma…

> produce food with less human energy and fossil fuels, and chemicals, and cutting down forests It requires less input, less labor, less land --- why isn't it already trashing the market by simply being much cheaper?