For PFAS that definitely isn’t true

In the new EPA study, experts added oxidizing substances to water contaminated with PFASs and heated the liquid above its critical temperature of 374 degrees Celsius at a pressure of more than 220 bars. During this process, the water becomes what is called supercritical: it is neither a gas nor a liquid. In this state, even water-repellent substances such as PFASs dissolve much more readily, and at the same time, the state accelerates chemical reactions.

Removed by mod

The wish to overthrow those in power is probably as old as humans.

How is capitalism only 400 years old? Maybe the term, but you can’t seriously think feudalism isn’t an extreme form of capitalism:

• private property: the land and even the people on it were owned by the elite
• profit motive: they had currency and it was hoarded by the royals and their kin
• capital accumulation: see above
• wage labor: slave labor

The same thing existed in roman times, ancient greece, and even ancient Egypt which had empires and kingdoms spanning 5 thousand years where grain and other things were a currency.

Humans have been horrible to each other for their own private benefit, greed, and just pure cruelty for thousands of years.

Got an example?

Yes, but will they all be harmful?

Can the degraded chemicals withstand sustained exposure to 500C?

That made no sense at all. Do you think toxic water is 100 toxins or that when somebody is sick they become one big walking disease?

And “water can’t become irradiated” is a great take. So radioactive radiation has no effect on water whatsoever? “High energy particles don’t exist and they can’t hurt you🧠”

Based on this, 4 oz of cheese uses 450 liters of water.
https://foodprint.org/blog/dairy-water-footprint/

I always find those kinds of numbers difficult because they include rain water in that estimation.

For instance, water footprint data shows that the majority of water consumed for feed crops grown for U.S. dairy comes from rain and soil moisture (i.e., green water footprint), but as dairy and alfalfa production shift to Western states that are getting progressively drier, more irrigation is needed to grow those crops. This means a larger share of water withdrawn and consumed from streams, rivers and groundwater (i.e., blue water footprint).

What percentage of the 450 liters of water comes from those different sources? How impactful is a green water footprint vs a blue water footprint vs a gray water footprint? If the 120g of cheese were made from 100% blue water, that would definitely be problematic. But if it were 100% green water, that would most likely be less of an issue.

Next, you have to consider how the water comes into the calculation. Is it just considering the water for feed crops of the water that the cow itself consumes? And if it’s feed crops, the type is also important. Some feed is simply the byproduct of crops that are used for human consumption e.g maize only has maybe 10% of its biomass for human consumption. Would simply throwing away the other 90% be considered wasteful or useful? And how does that factor into the water calculation?

And a final point regarding feed, is what kind of feed it is and where it’s grown. Feed may not only be byproduct of human comestible crops but also crops that cannot be consumed by humans at all, and they can also grown in places where human comestible crops cannot be grown.

Now you have to compare that water for server farms. I have little knowledge thereof, but my guess is that they don’t wait for rain to cool their servers and it probably is more blue water than not. It maybe as entangled and complicated as the source of water for cheese, I don’t know.

My point is, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Water consumption doesn’t always equal water consumption. To drive the point home, would you consider the water required to raise fish in a landlocked country the same as that of a coastal country?

This, I like. The water would be radioactive though, wouldn’t it? I wonder if “exchanging” the unknown toxins for radioactivity in the dispelled water would be better or worse. But, it could maybe help decompose some of the toxic chemicals during in the process.

Please explain.

Yeah, a lot of responses forget the name of the community and go straight into debate mode about something that isn’t even asked. I don’t think it’s a surprise that people are enjoying AI so much more than engaging with humans. AI will just give you an answer (be it wrong or not) without trying to one up you or prove that “you’re stupid, shut up”.

You’re ignoring that I’m responding to the messages that say it’s wildly inefficient by saying things can change. Nowhere am I debating it’s not inefficient. You’re arguing with a strawman you built.

You’re angry and I don’t know why. Nobody’s arguing that heating things up costs energy 🤷

There might be things in the vapor that haven’t decomposed or that have decomposed, are toxic, and become airborne.

You are aware of what community you’re in, right?

And as I’ve explained again, I’m not asking if it’s feasible, nor that is be done yesterday. I’m asking about the process. You’re answering a related question, but not the one I asked.

The estimations for water required to make meat even include rainwater. As if cows are out standing in the field collecting water through their hooves or something.

“I created loud people in my head, so therefore it is true.”

You say 1000, another poster says 11, and yet another gives another number I can’t remember.

If I’m reading the graph right on page 20 of Homo Sapiens’ Energy Dependence and Use Throughout Human History and Evolution, in 1820 we needed about 20 EJ. That’s a 31 fold increase to ~530 EJ in 2010 (190 years). Looking at the chart, you can see that the rate of increase has sped up, not slowed down. In 1960 it was ~120 EJ making it a 4x increase in years.

It might take time, but it’s not impossible. And unless a great calamity happens upon us, we will not stay at our current tech level for another 200 years.

I understand the pessimism, but my question wasn’t about “is this possible within our lifetimes” or “how much energy would this need” but “Could wastewater plants simply heat up water past 500C to decompose all chemicals and output clean water?”. I just want to know if with our understanding the water will be clean after going through a procedure where it’s heated past 500C. That could be once or multiple times, it could involve adding a filter, removing deposited waste material, etc.

That’s the point @[email protected] is making: technology for energy generation will improve and provide enough energy to make incineration of water (or give it another name) possible.