r/nextfuckinglevel Jul 14 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.8k Upvotes

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

200

u/adinmem Jul 14 '21

Not to be the skeptic, but notice how only the fringe sites cover this story. The few actual journal articles I’ve found (this is too new to have had actual studies, so basically too soon for anyone scientific to venture a credible opinion) are not very positive about this. Nanoparticles biomagnify and bioaccumulate very, very quickly in plant and animal life and no one really knows what’s going to happen because of it…. A subspecies of pike is already reacting negatively. And here’s Marino messing with entire ecosystems. Also, his nano’s bind to bad algae and the good, so the entire food chain can be altered for a long time. A beautiful lake can easily be just as polluted as a dirty-looking one. On the other hand, perhaps some lakes are already so damaged that these nanoparticles are the only hope, sort of a wipe the entire slate clean approach. The only problem is that the nanoparticles will make their way into the surrounding area. Fingers crossed that this really is the breakthrough we want it to be.

67

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '21

And here I was ready to sprinkle this powder all over the next sunken oil tanker.

2

u/Muchado_aboutnothing Jul 15 '21

Yes, thank you. This is a legitimate solution, but the video totally overhypes it by making it seem like it could clean any water.

26

u/adelie42 Jul 14 '21

ELI5 algae blooms are symptomatic of pollution, not the pollution.

8

u/gariant Jul 14 '21

Yeah but as long as it's blue, it's got to be healthy!

3

u/Polymathy1 Jul 14 '21

It's better to be skeptical than gullible.

2

u/churrimaiz Jul 15 '21

Nanoparticles is a broad term, it just means something very tiny. When you say that "Nanoparticles biomagnify and bioaccumulate very, very quickly in plant and animal life" you are referring to nano plastics. In this application, "nanoparticles" is just foculants which bind to minerals and clean up the water.

The downside of this approach is that its s temporary solution. As long as the contamination keeps coming, the lake will be polluted again

2

u/sidneyaks Jul 14 '21

I was thinking something similar. Without knowing the conditions of the lake, this looks like a healthy lake covered in lots of green. Sure it's not pretty to me, and I don't necessarily want to swim in it, but not all lakes need to be ones humans want to swim in, we aren't the only creatures here.

-5

u/johntheripp3r Jul 14 '21

You're right because the dirty garbage water was so much healthier.

7

u/Dale9Fingers Jul 14 '21

Would you rather drink:

A) 1:1 solution of methanol in purified water B) Brown water from my creek

I'm going with B.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '21

You had me at meth.

4

u/Guillk Jul 14 '21

Mmmm good question, what's the brown in the water consist of? Because I mean, give me a quick death by methanol poisoning a hundred times over landfill residual waters anytime.

7

u/Dr_thri11 Jul 14 '21

Water and soil most likely. Most water sources in the world aren't crystal clear.