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

51–60 of 217 posts

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

#51

Post by refurb »

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…

If you think it's an issue, go talk to the EPA, they approve all the of the deep injection wells used for waste containment.

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/

Edit: Actually, something doesn't make sense, the type of well described has been banned in the US[1]

[1]Inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above USDWs. These wells are banned unless authorized under a federal or state ground water remediation project.

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

#52

Post by ars »

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.

Nuclear isn't perfect.

It's simply better.

Go see just how much toxic and radioactive waste coal mining produces. WAY WAY more than nuclear power.

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

#53

Post by Zancarius »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #37
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…

How is this better than local rainwater collection? It works when there is no rain without needing a tank big enough to last a several year long drought. The architecture of the greenhouse acts as a solar desalinator that in testing creates more water than is needed to irrigate the plants, so it not only grows plants, but also can provide clean water in the desert.

I find it curious that on HN of all places, there are some who seem appalled that technology could be used to offset much of what we've done, largely as a fault of technological advancement.

That's not to say I'm against conservation. I think conservation is a necessity that few appreciate (having lived in a desert all my life, I have a certain appreciation for scarce resources), but comments like the one you replied to are exactly the kind we don't need. That is, dismissal of alternate solutions isn't going to help the problem get any better.

Out here, there's a large, untapped reservoir of brine that would be ample water to supply the neighboring communities for decades or more. The local government continues to humor bonds to build a desalinization plant every 10 years with conditions that the money will be redirected after 3 years if the plant isn't built, and unsurprisingly, the plant is never built. These greenhouses, if they work, would be a worthwhile experiment and probably substantially cheaper considering the wider variety of crops that could be grown and sold. Not to mention local growers could continue growing their crops without ruining the freshwater wells of their neighbors by running them dry. I just doubt it'll happen until the cost of pumping fresh water becomes too expensive or the wells are run completely dry.

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

#54

Post by humanrebar »

monkeyspaw wrote: post #35
philwelch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Much of the inland West is populated by people who culturally value high reproduction. 2. People immigrate to developed countries.

I was curious, so I looked at US fertility rates by state. Fortunately, wikipedia has a nice chart. The birth rates do appear to be higher in Western states than in the east. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territo...

It may be cultural, but it may just be economics.

I'd like to see that list controlled for cost of living. States away from the East and West Coasts tend to be much more affordable, which makes having extra kids more feasible.

http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/ind...

EDIT: Scroll about halfway down for a ranked list similar to the one on Wikipedia.

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

#56

Post by schiffern »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #37
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…

How is this better than local rainwater collection? It works when there is no rain without needing a tank big enough to last a several year long drought. The architecture of the greenhouse acts as a solar desalinator that in testing creates more water than is needed to irrigate the plants, so it not only grows plants, but also can provide clean water in the desert.

> big enough to last a several year long drought

You're way overestimating the size needed. Even in drought years there is substantial precipitation, but generally it happens at the wrong time of year.

Often you'll have flooding in the same year as drought! See this recent example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130913-color...

That flooding is made worse by hardware (meaning roofs, concrete, etc) that prevents infiltration and overwhelms surrounding areas.

It's often cheaper to oversize your catchment area and direct tank overflow to a nearby garden. Generally the available roof area isn't the limiting factor, but I encourage you to verify this by looking up annual rainfall numbers for areas you're interested in. Do you know how much rain falls on your roof each year?

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

#57

Post by cjensen »

It seems to me that if you need to dig a well that deep you have utterly failed to address the real problem: you are using MUCH more than falls on the ground. Wait a few more years and you'll just have to dig an even deeper well. It's just postponing the inevitable. [1]

With that principle in mind, I'm not sure I care if deep resources are polluted for a few hundred thousand years.

[1] Mexico is rapidly improving economically; it may make sense for them to postpone the real solution until such time as they can afford to desalinate and ship water long distance.

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

#58

Post by humanrebar »

rbanffy wrote: post #25
[deleted] wrote: post #14

[deleted]

Considering the popularity of traditional anti-birth-control ideas, the hypothesis has some merit.

In both American political parties, hardly anyone is anti-birth-control. Even if you poll only Catholics, anti-birth-control people are a tiny minority. The war on birth control is about as real as the War on Christmas.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-cathol...

Some people want to defend others' rights to conscientiously object to birth control (such as opting out of certain health insurance coverage), but that's more in the vein of Voltaire's famous sentiment. More like, "I do not agree with your morality but I'll defend to the death your right to have it."

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

#59

Post by schiffern »

Zancarius wrote: post #53
moocowduckquack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this better than local rainwater collection? It works when there is no rain without needing a tank big enough to last a several year long drought. The architecture of the greenhouse acts as a solar desalinator that in testing creates more water than is needed to irrigate the plants, so it not only grows plants, but also can provide clean water in the desert.

I find it curious that on HN of all places, there are some who seem appalled that technology could be used to offset much of what we've done, largely as a fault of technological advancement. That's not to say I'm against conservation. I think conservation is a necessity that few appreciate (having lived in a desert all my life, I have a certain appreciation for scarce resources), but comments like the one you replied…

>comments like the one you replied to are exactly the kind we don't need.

GP here. :)

I'm 100% in favor of using technology "to offset much of what we've done, largely as a fault of technological advancement." After all, rainwater collection is technology! But desalination isn't that kind of technology — it's the destructive kind.

My question was genuine. What advantage does plastic greenhouse desalination have over rooftop rainwater harvesting? It uses less land. It costs less. It produces less pollution. No piped distribution to tear up the streets for every 50 years. No energy needed to pump water long distances.

The only advantage I can see is that under desalination, someone gets to control your access to water. Advantageous for them I mean.

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

#60

Post by narrator »

Arjuna wrote: post #33
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…

I'm reminded of this quote, attributed to the Cree Native Americans: "Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

Kurzweil would probably respond that nanobots and the singularity will fix everything.
Post reply on HN