The EPA had strong limits on its use until the Trump administration reversed them; now the agency wants to ban it

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Its probably crazy expensive to do that. Also, my guess is the processes of removing anything not H2O and minerals would also remove the minerals. So you’d have to do full distillation removing everything, then source and add in minerals after the distillation. The energy needed would be immense.

    • girlfreddy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s probably crazy expensive to do that.

      And?

      • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What would you do with the fish?

        Assuming you’re serious; It would be nearly financially impossible to do this just from the sheer amount of water we’re talking about. Have you seen how big the lakes are in person? I’ve only been on lake Huron, but you can get to a point where the horizon is just water. These lakes can also have deadly storms, since they are massive bodies of water. You would need the find a power source that would have to nearly be infinite. You would need a cooling system that suits it. You would need a LOT of maintenance. You’d spend a lot on materials, too. That’s all assuming that it would even work. That money would have to come from somewhere, and it would probably be one of if not the most expensive machines to exist. The scale of the filter would have to be miniscule to catch those chemicals.

        We just don’t have the capacity for that yet. We would have to split things on such a small scale that it wouldn’t be a reasonable solution. It would be as difficult as trying to find a grain of sugar in a pound of sand.

        We would have done this if we were at that point, at least somewhere. Who wouldn’t want credit for solving the world’s water problems? A filter of that size would make sea water drinkable. It would have to be on a molecular scale.

        • girlfreddy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          How about the polluters pay for it instead through the massive profits they’ve managed over years of ignoring the potential issues … the same as how big oil should pay to clean up its own dormant wells, pipelines and infrastructure.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            How about the polluters pay for it

            Okay, lets play that out. Which specific company is the pollution in your glass of water from? Can you prove it? Does that company still exist?

            If you have all of those things, then you could bring a civil suit and make them pay for it.

            • girlfreddy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Gov’ts would have all the paperwork needed to go after the companies … if they really wanted to that is.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not everything is solved with regressive taxation policy (eg taxing water use). A small wealth tax and the USA could solve a lot of problems