Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Climate Change or: How I Stopped Worrying and Love Rising Sea Levels

12526272931

Posts

  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    I thought that hand-washing was more efficient too, but its not even close apparently. Something like 4-5 times the water is used by hand washing.

    redxelectricitylikesmeTofystedeth
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 19
    38thDoe wrote: »
    I thought that hand-washing was more efficient too, but its not even close apparently. Something like 4-5 times the water is used by hand washing.

    I meant... washing clothes. Or... look, washing something by hand is more efficient, I just can't remember what. Maybe it's the energy usage?

    ... I don't have a dishwasher anyways :sad:

    hippofant on
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    hippofant wrote: »
    38thDoe wrote: »
    I thought that hand-washing was more efficient too, but its not even close apparently. Something like 4-5 times the water is used by hand washing.

    I meant... washing clothes. Or... look, washing something by hand is more efficient, I just can't remember what. Maybe it's the energy usage?

    ... I don't have a dishwasher anyways :sad:

    This was probably true 20 or 30 years ago, maybe even as late as 10 years ago, but modern dish and clothes washers are incredibly efficient.

    Veevee on
    steam_sig.png
    Captain Marcusemp123redxNightDragonElvenshaeMegaMekSmrtnikIncenjucarHacksawFencingsaxelectricitylikesmeGiggles_FunsworthL Ron HowardNightslyrOatsGnome-InterruptusMvrckMrVyngaardShadowenJuliusTofystedethSkeith
  • knitdanknitdan Pretty Spry For a Fat GuyRegistered User regular
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    Fallen London: Joe Cusick
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    I live in an apartment and dry my clothes on a rack because the dryers charge $1.50 to make my clothes warm and damp.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Fallen London: Clara MacIntyre Guild Wars 2: Calica.4031
    Mr Khan
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    Line drying is also not super viable in many parts of the northern hemisphere, as sunlight is an unreliable presence.

    SleepGnome-InterruptusShadowen
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    knitdan wrote: »
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    Line drying is also not super viable in many parts of the northern hemisphere, as sunlight is an unreliable presence.

    We just hang it on a rack inside. It's always dry after a day or two. Towels are like sanding paper if you line dry so those still go in the tumble dryer.

    steam_sig.png
    Julius
  • knitdanknitdan Pretty Spry For a Fat GuyRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    knitdan wrote: »
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    Line drying is also not super viable in many parts of the northern hemisphere, as sunlight is an unreliable presence.

    In Seattle you put it on the line to wash, and then bring it inside to dry

    Fallen London: Joe Cusick
    HacksawElvenshaeCaptainPeacockDirtmuncherKruiteHefflingGiggles_FunsworthIncenjucarAbsalonschussDunderThat_GuyL Ron Howard38thDoeSleepShadowfireRiusCalicakimeNightslyrGnome-InterruptusDisruptedCapitalistMvrckMegaMekBertezBertezShadowenTofystedethSkeithchocobolicious
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    It's rather disturbing when you can hang the laundry out and go back to the start and begin picking it back up as it's dry here

    A.jpg
    Calica
  • DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    Is bottled water a big problem? My family and I got one of those office coolers and buy 25l huge bottles because my city's tap water tastes horrendous.

  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    Is bottled water a big problem? My family and I got one of those office coolers and buy 25l huge bottles because my city's tap water tastes horrendous.

    I think you'd be much more eco friendly just getting yourself a Berkey and running your tap water through it instead of bottled water. I don't know about the cooler jugs, but if I had to guess, it doesn't waste the plastic nearly as much as bottles, but it burns a lot of fuel in transport that could be saved if you just filtered your local tap water.

    mrondeauGnome-Interruptus
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Veevee wrote: »
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    I believe it's 100% if we don't do anything about climate change and keep increasing g CO2 emissions.

    I've read as high as a 50/50 chance if we do enough to keep atmospheric CO2 at current levels and lower emissions.

    I've also read that it may have actually already started and we may not be able to do anything about it and are screwed. Hitting 400ppm in atmospheric CO2 may have been the literal point of no return and we are all dead already. Isn't atmospheric science fun?

    I have faith in humanity's ability to engineer our world to our needs. We are in a bad place now, and it will get worse for many many people, but I have no doubt we will be driven by self interest to eventually figure out a more permanent stabilization.

    The "problem" is, however, that these are lose-lose bets. I mean, okay, humanity is ingenious enough to stave off extinction if global warming causes massive global drought conditions... but we'll almost certainly have descended into WWIII and lost millions, if not billions, of lives. Great, India and the UAE were able to redesign their societies to limit death from heat stroke... except millions of people still probably died first, and, oh, they can't go outside any more.

    We're staring into the abyss with no idea how far down it goes, but we'll probably be able to engineer something to save us before hitting the bottom? We could, you know, just not go into the hole, but there's a shiny piece of candy right there!

    I agree with this also. My point is the doom and gloom attitude in here continuously ignores the solid work being done worldwide by the scientific and engineering communities. People are working, and have found, solutions. Many of those solutions are becoming more and more economically and politically fiesible each year.

    Our current politics in the US is shit on this, but it isn't permanent. While Trump and his ilk ignore climate change, DARPA, the Pentagon, and a great many federal and state agencies are working on implementing solutions here at home already.

    It's not enough yet, but compared to ten years ago when all of this was just theorycraft? Things have come really far really fast. It would absolutely be better if we went all in on funding of solutions, I agree completely. But barring that political will right now, people are taking action and things are slowing down. Not turned around yet, but we are getting there, and faster each year.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    Unlucky
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    Is bottled water a big problem? My family and I got one of those office coolers and buy 25l huge bottles because my city's tap water tastes horrendous.

    Those office cooler jugs tend to be reused almost forever so I don't see that as a problem. Our office contracts with a local company that drops off filled jugs and picks up the empties to clean and reuse. The real problem is all those single use bottles floating around. That's not to say that having a good filter wouldn't still be more environmentally friendly. I got myself off bottled water by getting a .5 micron carbon block filter system that bolts into my sick tap. The tap water where I live is clean but has a chlorinated taste that I just really can't stand. These filters do the trick and are pretty cheap. You can find an entire counter-top system for ~$50 online and each filter lasts for months. Especially if you are only filtering municipal water.

    camo_sig.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The transportation costs on bottled water, small or large bottles, is significant. It's like shipping oil by truck or via pipeline. There is a reason that all the oil companies want to build pipelines.

    Water is more dense and cheaper per unit than oil. And there is already a line directly into your house. You can almost certainly filter it cheaper at your house. (Exceptions might be if your pipes are especially bad and need to be replaced... But then again you should probably do that anyway)

    wbBv3fj.png
    [Expletive deleted]
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    The water in my house tastes terrible, and has lead in it. No thank you, I'll be drinking bottled water.

    Steam
    NNID - bejamus
    DisruptedCapitalistLovely
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    Drascin wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    Is bottled water a big problem? My family and I got one of those office coolers and buy 25l huge bottles because my city's tap water tastes horrendous.

    Those office cooler jugs tend to be reused almost forever so I don't see that as a problem. Our office contracts with a local company that drops off filled jugs and picks up the empties to clean and reuse. The real problem is all those single use bottles floating around. That's not to say that having a good filter wouldn't still be more environmentally friendly. I got myself off bottled water by getting a .5 micron carbon block filter system that bolts into my sick tap. The tap water where I live is clean but has a chlorinated taste that I just really can't stand. These filters do the trick and are pretty cheap. You can find an entire counter-top system for ~$50 online and each filter lasts for months. Especially if you are only filtering municipal water.

    Do they recycle the used filter cartridges/media? My tap water also tastes terrible.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Fallen London: Clara MacIntyre Guild Wars 2: Calica.4031
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Problem is that with tap water you are trusting your municipal supplier that they won't try to intentionally poison you like what happened In Flint. Or alternatively that a local factory is dumping like what happened In Woburn in the 80s.

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Problem is that with tap water you are trusting your municipal supplier that they won't try to intentionally poison you like what happened In Flint. Or alternatively that a local factory is dumping like what happened In Woburn in the 80s.

    You're trusting the bottling company just as much.

    mrondeauGnome-InterruptusBrainleechCalicaSurfpossumMegaMekemp123FencingsaxMrVyngaardHacksaw
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Problem is that with tap water you are trusting your municipal supplier that they won't try to intentionally poison you like what happened In Flint. Or alternatively that a local factory is dumping like what happened In Woburn in the 80s.

    You're trusting the bottling company just as much.

    Also, the municipal supplier of the bottling company, and all factories local to the bottling plant.

  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    Perhaps, but I have yet to hear of massive poisoning from drinking bottled water.

  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    Because the company probably goes to great lengths to make you no one hears about them.

    A.jpg
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    Because the company probably goes to great lengths to make you no one hears about them.

    While it's true that companies want strict control over what information escapes to the public, it's also infinitely easier to make sure your water doesn't have copious amounts of lead in it when you don't have to worry about individual pipes going to hundreds of thousands of homes.

    nigh.jpg
    Mr KhanShadowfireFencingsaxLovelyShadowenTofystedeth
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    I am so glad I live in a country where my tapwater is analyzed daily and we have very strict laws governing drinking water. Lead has been banned as a carrier of drinking water we even have a law specifically for drinking water manufacturing and distribution.

    steam_sig.png
    Julius
  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    38thDoe on
    CalicaSmrtnikAtlas in Chains
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    knitdan wrote: »
    Line drying might be more efficient than using a clothes dryer, but not everyone has space for that.

    Line drying is also not super viable in many parts of the northern hemisphere, as sunlight is an unreliable presence.

    I dunno, my family managed for many years to do it in one of the least-sunny areas worst weather areas outside the arctic in NA, Newfoundland. Though the constant winds did help with the drying i suppose

    Phyphor on
    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    I get that pamphlet too, but my municipality only tests every quarter, so if some criminal decides to dump trichloroethylene into the water supply the day after it was tested we won't know until it's way too late and everyone has leukemia.

  • KleinKlein Registered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    I get that pamphlet too, but my municipality only tests every quarter, so if some criminal decides to dump trichloroethylene into the water supply the day after it was tested we won't know until it's way too late and everyone has leukemia.

    Poisoning the the water supply would be difficult, anything put in the water once would be diluted to non-harmful levels. Leaching and improper cleaning are larger problems, but still a small concern.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Klein wrote: »
    38thDoe wrote: »
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    I get that pamphlet too, but my municipality only tests every quarter, so if some criminal decides to dump trichloroethylene into the water supply the day after it was tested we won't know until it's way too late and everyone has leukemia.

    Poisoning the the water supply would be difficult, anything put in the water once would be diluted to non-harmful levels. Leaching and improper cleaning are larger problems, but still a small concern.

    You forget we're basically dealing with actual comic book supervillians here....

    Steam
    NNID - bejamus
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    Mai-Kero wrote: »
    Brainleech wrote: »
    Because the company probably goes to great lengths to make you no one hears about them.

    While it's true that companies want strict control over what information escapes to the public, it's also infinitely easier to make sure your water doesn't have copious amounts of lead in it when you don't have to worry about individual pipes going to hundreds of thousands of homes.

    Well last year? or the year before when someone dumped tons of raw sewage into Nestle's source in California I only heard about it briefly and then it dropped off the radar
    I only knew of it was true because at work we were not getting any Nestle water

    A.jpg
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    No, I'm referring to the very real case as described by the book, A Civil Action. That's why I mentioned the chemical Trichloroethylene which was dumped into the water supply of the town of Woburn, Massachusetts.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    No, I'm referring to the very real case as described by the book, A Civil Action. That's why I mentioned the chemical Trichloroethylene which was dumped into the water supply of the town of Woburn, Massachusetts.

    Do you cook and wash with bottled water as well, because if you don't your 'I don't drink it' precaution is pointless.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    mrondeau
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    My point was that you can't trust tap water, not that bottled water is superior.

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    No, I use filtered water for that. My point was that you can't trust tap water, not that bottled water is superior.

    Bottled water is tap water. Literally. They take tap water, put it in bottles and sell it to you for a nice large profit margin and a lot of wasted fuel and plastic.
    If you can't trust tap water, you can't trust bottled water.

    SmrtnikElvenshaeschussAtlas in ChainszepherinCalicaMrVyngaardLabelknitdanEdith UpwardsEtiowsaCaptain MarcusShadowenJuliusTofystedethValleoSkeithMvrckHacksaw
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    From what I've heard bottling companies still test and filter the water they use so it's still generally safe as filtered water. Though admittedly I'm on my phone right now so I can't easily find citations to back that up.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    Drascin wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    Is bottled water a big problem? My family and I got one of those office coolers and buy 25l huge bottles because my city's tap water tastes horrendous.

    Those office cooler jugs tend to be reused almost forever so I don't see that as a problem. Our office contracts with a local company that drops off filled jugs and picks up the empties to clean and reuse. The real problem is all those single use bottles floating around. That's not to say that having a good filter wouldn't still be more environmentally friendly. I got myself off bottled water by getting a .5 micron carbon block filter system that bolts into my sick tap. The tap water where I live is clean but has a chlorinated taste that I just really can't stand. These filters do the trick and are pretty cheap. You can find an entire counter-top system for ~$50 online and each filter lasts for months. Especially if you are only filtering municipal water.

    Do they recycle the used filter cartridges/media? My tap water also tastes terrible.

    I have a countertop unit similar to this that I picked up about 10 years back. I buy big packs of generic block filters like these. My local recycler doesn't take them. Most of the filter is biodegradable but you just have to throw the used filter away. It's really best that it goes in the landfill considering what contaminants you might be filtering out.

    camo_sig.png
    Calica
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    From what I've heard bottling companies still test and filter the water they use so it's still generally safe as filtered water. Though admittedly I'm on my phone right now so I can't easily find citations to back that up.

    Some of the drinking water we get at work is from the FT worth Municipal water
    As is

    A.jpg
    zepherin
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Bottled water in Germany is often sourced pretty closely to where it's sold, usually within the same state. The water I have standing next to me, for example, is from a source not even 30km away, and it costs 19 cents for 1.5l, with a 25 cent plastic deposit for this "discounter water"

    And then there's better local brands, but even this other bottle I have right here is from a source about 50km away.

    I feel like that's okay-ish for bottled water, but is still often drink the tap water which is very good on Germany

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    What happened in Flint - and also in Detroit where there are similar but not as serious issues - is that you have massive industrial cities relying on post-industrial tax bases and hostile conservative state legislatures. The issue is less the overall safety of the water in American cities - although there are issues - and more that collapsing civilizations cannot maintain their vital infrastructure.

    MegaMekzepherinMrVyngaardLabelDisruptedCapitalistEdith UpwardsSleepCaptain MarcusShadowenTofystedethHacksaw
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    There are a lot more controls on tap water than on bottled water in the USA. More regulated, subject to more tests, etc. I'm not sure what happened in Flint, but in general you are safer drinking tap water. Every few months my water company sends me a pamphlet detailing how our water scores on the various contaminants and what the limits are.

    What happened in Flint - and also in Detroit where there are similar but not as serious issues - is that you have massive industrial cities relying on post-industrial tax bases and hostile conservative state legislatures. The issue is less the overall safety of the water in American cities - although there are issues - and more that collapsing civilizations cannot maintain their vital infrastructure.

    Shame that the lack of maintenance has people using bottled water instead of water through the available paid for infrastructure. It's difficult​ to change public opinion.

    In other news. Researchers find that natural resources are finite.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/full/nature21359.html

    And that due to all those new green technologies we are running out of minerals faster than we can produce or recycle them in the decades to come. So board your old smartphones and laptops. It will become precious.

    steam_sig.png
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    mrondeau wrote: »
    No, I use filtered water for that. My point was that you can't trust tap water, not that bottled water is superior.

    Bottled water is tap water. Literally. They take tap water, put it in bottles and sell it to you for a nice large profit margin and a lot of wasted fuel and plastic.
    If you can't trust tap water, you can't trust bottled water.
    Coke has said that's what they do. They at least filter it first, but yeah, bottled water that's filtered with a bit of salt added. $1.25 please

    And funny not so funny story about municiple water.

    Where I lived when I was young they had a huge fire that depleted the municipal water supply completely they were having to pull water out of the river, and they didn't really have time to treat it, so they had the brilliant plan of treating the extra water with a bit of iodine to kill the bacteria, but they didn't really measure it out too well, so the water was undrinkable, tasted like a cup of iodine. taking a shower burned your ass, pecker and eyes, and you stunk worst after the shower because you smelled like iodine. It was awful for a month.

    zepherin on
Sign In or Register to comment.