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

Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#41

Post by moocowduckquack »

jessaustin wrote: post #39
moocowduckquack wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current nuclear industry has some serious downsides. The only reason established nuclear is presented as ecological is due to the discussion about climate impact. Without the CO2 blinkers on though, it is pretty fucking messy.

True, and it's somewhat disturbing to see "environmentalists" tie themselves in rhetorical knots trying to argue for nuclear with a straight face.

I'm not against nuclear power, per se, but the way we do it is seriously warped, mostly by its associations with the weaponry.

A uranium mine isn't just a fuel source, it is also part of a military arsenal at the highest level, so really it isn't that surprising to see so little care given to the externalities.

Personally I think that solar/storage is about to outcompete the pants off most everything else anyway, given the ever falling price of modules and the existence of companies like lightsail and gravitypower. http://www.lightsail.com/ http://www.gravitypower.net/

hot gravel edit; oh, and Isentropic - http://www.isentropic.co.uk/

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#42

Post by jessaustin »

maxerickson wrote: post #36
schiffern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…or switch away from insanely inefficient (90% evaporation) center-pivot irrigation. Not to mention our practice of shunting rainwater off fields as fast as possible. This high-speed, high-runoff condition leads to soil erosion, failure to recharge aquifers, and really gives rise to the need for irrigation. Dynamically unstable monocultures are neither sustainable nor efficient. They're not even cost-optimal or land-…

Can you point to an interpretation of the data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... that supports your 80%? Because when I interpret the data I end up at 'most acreage is owned by families, families that may have done some sort of incorporation'. I guess if you throw in some of the big forestry outfits you buy a lot of acres, but that perhaps indicates the need for a more precise phra…

I think what 'schiffern means to say is that 80% is farmed in corporate fashion, even if not literally by corporations. The families you're talking about have generally taken big loans to buy (or hire) big machinery and big fertilizer for their big farms. Some of that is the market talking, but much of it is big ag companies like Monsanto ensuring that corn and other subsidies stay in place [0], and their sharecro^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers can only farm in the manner that funnels all profits to the ag company.

(Of course there are other family farmers who aren't like that, but they farm a small fraction of the acreage.)

Apparently the Farm Bill that just passed the House is supposed to change this situation somewhat, but I'll believe that when and if I see it over the next decade or so.

[0] http://www.yale.edu/sustainablefood/S9256YSF_farm_bill_s.pdf...

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#43

Post by schiffern »

maxerickson wrote: post #36
schiffern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…or switch away from insanely inefficient (90% evaporation) center-pivot irrigation. Not to mention our practice of shunting rainwater off fields as fast as possible. This high-speed, high-runoff condition leads to soil erosion, failure to recharge aquifers, and really gives rise to the need for irrigation. Dynamically unstable monocultures are neither sustainable nor efficient. They're not even cost-optimal or land-…

Can you point to an interpretation of the data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... that supports your 80%? Because when I interpret the data I end up at 'most acreage is owned by families, families that may have done some sort of incorporation'. I guess if you throw in some of the big forestry outfits you buy a lot of acres, but that perhaps indicates the need for a more precise phra…

Nope, and since it's a minor point I just fixed my post.

The landowner is less important than the entity in control of what actually happens there, which in industrial farming is generally not the landowner but the seed, fertilizer, biocide, machinery, agricultural education, and financing institutes that they are beholden to.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#44

Post by maxerickson »

jessaustin wrote: post #42
maxerickson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to an interpretation of the data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... that supports your 80%? Because when I interpret the data I end up at 'most acreage is owned by families, families that may have done some sort of incorporation'. I guess if you throw in some of the big forestry outfits you buy a lot of acres, but that perhaps indicates the need for a more precise phra…

I think what 'schiffern means to say is that 80% is farmed in corporate fashion, even if not literally by corporations. The families you're talking about have generally taken big loans to buy (or hire) big machinery and big fertilizer for their big farms. Some of that is the market talking, but much of it is big ag companies like Monsanto ensuring that corn and other subsidies stay in place [0], and their sharecro^H^…

That's an awful lot to dig out of the word conglomerate.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#45

Post by sixothree »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28
peterwwillis wrote: post #17

For example, in eastern Wyoming, an analysis showed that it would cost half a million dollars to construct a water well into deep, but high-quality aquifer reserves. That, plus an untested assumption that all the deep layers below it could only contain poor-quality water, led regulators to allow a uranium mine to inject more than 200,000 gallons of toxic and radioactive waste every day into the underground reservoirs…

It is called "not while I am alive" policy. When someone in office does something which won't impact anything when they are alive they can score points with special interests by helping get their project approved. Mostly though this is just another attack on Fracking.

I can't even count the times I've actually heard this argument from my right wing family members.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#46

Post by efuquen »

peterwwillis wrote: post #17

For example, in eastern Wyoming, an analysis showed that it would cost half a million dollars to construct a water well into deep, but high-quality aquifer reserves. That, plus an untested assumption that all the deep layers below it could only contain poor-quality water, led regulators to allow a uranium mine to inject more than 200,000 gallons of toxic and radioactive waste every day into the underground reservoirs…

yah, seriously. Half a million dollars, that's the standard to destroy large supplies of water? That's not a lot of money to tap that source if it was ever really needed, but let's just completely destroy it instead.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#47

Post by [deleted] »

pilom wrote: post #40
gizmo686 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of that 80% of water used for irrigation is lost to evaporation and such. As the water is essentially 'free' to the farmers, they have little incentive to use it efficiently, so it would probably be cheaper to use sprinklers than more water efficient methods like drip irrigation. Also, is the problem really that the government subsidizes water. As I understand it, there is a naturally occurring aquifer that…

I guess you're right in the cases of the aquifer's. There are 2 possible solutions. 1. Tax water pumped out of aquifers so that demand levels off at the aquifer fill rate, or 2. Wait until all the the aquifers are depleted to lower levels and force people to re-drill their wells and build new more expensive pumps. Eventually the cost of pumping out the aquifers will reduce demand to the aquifer fill rate.

[deleted]

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#48

Post by schiffern »

pilom wrote: post #40
gizmo686 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of that 80% of water used for irrigation is lost to evaporation and such. As the water is essentially 'free' to the farmers, they have little incentive to use it efficiently, so it would probably be cheaper to use sprinklers than more water efficient methods like drip irrigation. Also, is the problem really that the government subsidizes water. As I understand it, there is a naturally occurring aquifer that…

I guess you're right in the cases of the aquifer's. There are 2 possible solutions. 1. Tax water pumped out of aquifers so that demand levels off at the aquifer fill rate, or 2. Wait until all the the aquifers are depleted to lower levels and force people to re-drill their wells and build new more expensive pumps. Eventually the cost of pumping out the aquifers will reduce demand to the aquifer fill rate.

>Eventually the cost of pumping out the aquifers will reduce demand to the aquifer fill rate.

What actually happens is groundwater salting which starts at the coast and works inland, killing pretty much all plant life as it goes.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#49

Post by schiffern »

jessaustin wrote: post #42
maxerickson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to an interpretation of the data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... that supports your 80%? Because when I interpret the data I end up at 'most acreage is owned by families, families that may have done some sort of incorporation'. I guess if you throw in some of the big forestry outfits you buy a lot of acres, but that perhaps indicates the need for a more precise phra…

I think what 'schiffern means to say is that 80% is farmed in corporate fashion, even if not literally by corporations. The families you're talking about have generally taken big loans to buy (or hire) big machinery and big fertilizer for their big farms. Some of that is the market talking, but much of it is big ag companies like Monsanto ensuring that corn and other subsidies stay in place [0], and their sharecro^H^…

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for explaining it better than I could. ;)

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#50

Post by GFischer »

crusso wrote: post #38
schiffern wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this better than local rainwater collection? Rainwater is desalination, you just cheated and let nature do the expensive part. Heck, lots of rainwater is already collected in gutters/roof drains, but is contaminated when it falls on the ground instead of into a tank. For irrigation all that is necessary is to soak the rainwater in as soon as possible to prevent evaporation and runoff, since potability is not a…

nowadays most people don't even know what a swale is crusso raises his hand then goes off to google.

Me too, you always learn something new :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swale_(landform)

Post reply on HN