Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Discover Huge Freshwater Reserves Beneath the Ocean

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have discovered huge freshwater reserves beneath the seabed on continental shelves off the coast of Australia, North America, China and South Africa. 'The volume of this water resource is a hundred times greater than the amount we've extracted from the Earth's sub-surface in the past century since 1900. Fresh water on our planet is increasingly under stress and strain so the discovery of significant new stores off the coast is very exciting. It means that more options can be considered to help reduce the impact of droughts and continental water shortages' says Dr Vincent Post of the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) and the School of the Environment at Flinders University."

273 comments

  1. Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.

      This will turn into just another way to rape the planet instead of trying to do things sustainably.

      Remember: There's no place to go once it's trashed

      (Which it will be, I have no doubt about that. So long as somebody, somewhere can make a buck doing so, they'll do it...)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by stjobe · · Score: 5, Informative

      You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.

      Indeed it could, just read up a bit about thermohaline circulation and you'll see why some people are worried not just about sea-level rise from melting polar ice.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    3. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever heard the phrase "all rivers run into the sea"?

      There are lots of ecological problems to be concerned about, freshwater contamination of the oceans is not one of them. Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near every scientific advance put forth doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

    4. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      This may be many things, but it's not a "scientific advance".

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by somersault · · Score: 2

      Good point. Better change his statement to:

      Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near everything doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

      As for saying that "there's nowhere to go" after draining these reserves.. well, it's possible to desalinate salt water by various means.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      As for saying that "there's nowhere to go" after draining these reserves.. well, it's possible to desalinate salt water by various means.

      Did I say that? I could have sworn I said "after trashing the planet".

      The point is: Why don't they use the "various means" right now instead of using up all the natural resources first (with unknown consequences)?

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!

      Imagine a spill of ocean water into the freshwater bed; causing the entire reserve to be ruined.

    8. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near everything doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

      Fail.

      My personal belief is that technology is the *only* thing that can save the planet. Trying to educate the people and/or get them to change their behavior is a complete waste of time.

      Opposing nuclear power, etc., is a very destructive behavior in the long term, I want no part of that aspect of environmentalism. I want technology *and* I want conservation. There's easily enough money circulating for us to have both of those but most of it is wasted on wars, bailouts of GM, bailouts of banks, etc.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by rmpotter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Blind faith that "future" technology will save the day is not much better than any other kind of faith.

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    10. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there. Eventually this planet will be destroyed. That doesn't mean humans should be irresponsible, but there is something to be said for harnessing resources in a responsible way with clear goals so we can get off this rock. Then we'll ony have to worry about brane collisions destroying the fabric of the univerese. And there are always going to be unknown consequences; even not taking action will result in unknown consequences, it's just the nature of life.

    11. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      Money's one thing, physical resources are another. Since all the major economies of the world are using fiat currencies that are not guaranteed by a physical resource, the value of the currency is at best determined by the strength of the governments/militaries behind it. Whether there's enough of it to go around has more to do with how those in power choose to distribute it or allow it to remain distributed. As far as resources go (including money), you are right that wery often shortages are created artificially in what are on the larger scale petty squabbles to gain power for one's own government, corporation, or self.

    12. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is current technology and it is more expensive which is why cheaper solutions are prefered. It seems that if anyone has blind faith it would be the tree huggers who think using the most expensive ways won't have negetive effects on the majority of populations. Of couse that is a stretch because most tree huggers simply don't care if their positions keeps people in poverty or deal hardships to anyone. Some would be just as happy if it contributed to the deaths of people because they think the world is over populated and man should make changes to accomodate that excess population because their utopian enviroment is more important.

      Its sad but true. We have floods killing people because dams used to controlling floods have been removed, we have wildfires killing people because timbering forests are out of the question, fire breaks had to be abandoned, and controlled burnings are restricted in order to preserve what they want to be the natural state.

    13. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      I'm 100% certain that in this circumstance, environmentalists WOULD be complaining angrily about 'destruction of saline environment' and 'harm to local species'.

      I'm not kidding at all.

      --
      -Styopa
    14. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there.

      The problem is getting to them. There's no reason to believe interstellar travel is possible.

      there is something to be said for harnessing resources in a responsible way with clear goals

      That's never happened to any resource discovered so far.

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it is current technology and it is more expensive which is why cheaper solutions are prefered.

      Meanwhile ...10% of GDP on military seems perfectly OK.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Is all related to volume. If those reserves and the spill are big enough, it could make a measurable change in ocean salinity.

      Also, the water that come from rivers, came from rain, and in the end came from the ocean, water evaporated, salt remained and later the same water returned, in global scale things keeps being more or less the same. But what if you add enough "new" fresh water to the cycle?

    17. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the most part, the rest of the world has outsourced their security to the United States. They don't necessarily pay with dollars, but they often do pay with favorable trade terms and other non-monetary incentives. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but most of the rest of the world seems to be okay with this, even if they won't admit it.

    18. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      For the most part, the rest of the world has outsourced their security to the United States.

      Citation?

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I worry about the same thing. Pumping up water from that depth has to be a bit of a challenge and use energy (though there are temperature gradients they could borrow to assist). Still, you also have the problem that after you remove a lot of fresh water -- that creates a new chamber that sea water could flood and contaminate.

      And what happens when you cause a landslide or underwater quake if you displace a LOT OF water? We've had sink-holes and land drop from removal of groundwater -- if the chamber is 100 times larger and the pressure 1000 times more, well, how bad does it get before the problem shows up?

      I'm not paranoid of the future, but our system currently is unable to change course if a profit is involved. We as a society in the USA can no longer expect that if something were to cause massive damage -- you for instance "fracking" natural gas MIGHT poison fresh water and cause small earthquakes (and well, it does in fact do that) -- but you wouldn't have the news really report it and you wouldn't have the FDA shut them down because someone would just secure a nice consulting job for when they left government service and Congress would get some campaign donations and do nothing and the media wouldn't report that because they'd get some advertising dollars featuring Deer sipping from ponds over a pump.

      Did I mention a broken system that cannot correct errors? I'm waiting for someone to pay me to blog happy things about Deer sipping from ponds over a pump -- I've seen them myself and people who don't like Frakking / Deep See fresh water are Hippie Commie tree huggers who hurt our economy!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    20. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      This will turn into just another way to utilize untapped resources instead of trying to do things like hunter-gatherers.

      FTFY

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    21. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Imagine if all that money had been spent on energy research (solve the remaining engineering problems to build working thorium reactors, develop fusion, whatever it takes...energy is a solvable problem if you have trillions of dollars to spend and enough political willpower)

      The USA would be world leader in cheap energy, and by extension industry, transportation, etc. (cheap energy opens all sort of doors, not just helping the environment). The USA could export power plants all over the world on its own terms. The US economy would be untouchable and if they were running the reactors they'd have the world by the balls, no military needed (see Asimov's "Foundation" for details).

      How is that not a plan of action that meets all American goals?

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs, and by the time you're proven right, people will have forgotten you said anything or will actually blame you for failing to convince them.

      FTFY. As far as reactionaries go, "don't fuck it up" is probably the safer of the two than "Aw, you crazy environmentalists, saying the sky is falling, IT'LL NEVER BE A PROBLEM!" which is all too prevalent.

      We're just discovering these freshwater reserves, and you appear to state for a fact that we need not be concerned about messing them up? Based on what exactly? TFA states they were made hundreds of thousands of years ago and are not being replenished, so there's no reason to believe there's a maintenance mechanism. Salinity affects temperature uptake, I've seen papers suggesting that the oceans are buffering a lot of the climate change effect. If we disturb these things and the temperature increase increases, that's pretty stupid. Salinity affects currents too. If the Great garbage patch begins to wash ashore rather than be collected in a dead zone, that's going to really fuck things up.

      I don't have any idea how realistic any of that is, but neither does anyone else. Caution should be the default, not "what can possibly go wrong?"

    23. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      However you obviously are complete clueless. I suggest you read up a bit how ocean currents work and the general 'behaviour' of water with shifting salt contants.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by cusco · · Score: 1

      Well, if Pentagon contractors don't get lots of pork where are the generals and admirals going to get their corporate board postings when they retire from "public service"? Gotta keep your priorities straight!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    25. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      Don't make generalizations about scientific matters that you know nothing about. On a scientific level, the subject IS a huge concern. Whether this particular article is one to be concerned over is another matter.

    26. Re: Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by GlennDellKasper · · Score: 1

      Whatever does "rape the planet" actually mean? According to you?

    27. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's not blind faith. It provides reliable predictions that, in a free society, people will invent solutions, and do so faster than problems become big problems, defined as impacting actual measurements of human longevity and average wealth.

      This precautionary principle, insofar as it interferes, apes the control of dictatorships, from central planning to kickbacks dragging things to a halt. Don't believe it? Wanna bet?

      Didn't think so.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joce640k, Your alternative is??? Let people die?

      Go hug a tree. Better not. You'll wipe your deodorant all over it, jacking up it's DNA while completely throwing the local ecosystem off balance with your human scent scaring the tiny little animals.

      Gee, I'd love to hear your political views. Not really. Probably just as whacked out as your views on humanity.

    29. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that people disagree with HOW to improve the lives of their fellow man, while taking into account short and long term consequences.

      For a car analogy, I can get to work in 5 minutes, if I drive in a straight line at 100 mph. That may have some unintended consequences if I live in a complex environment, though.

    30. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. Seems to me technology is killing this world. People living longer and using up all the resources. Imminent nuclear conflict. People being dumbed down by electronic toys. People evolving into creatures with less and less muscle density. Weapons of greater and greater mass destruction.

      No. Technology will kill us.

    31. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      If only they'd shoot ignorant fucks like you. I'm not kidding at all.

      Because I'm sure you'd see no problem with fundamentally altering the ocean's currents.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    32. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by miletus · · Score: 1

      Wait, so the cause of flooding is lack of dams? Changes in rainfall patterns and cutting down trees has nothing to do with it? Forest fires are caused by lack of timbering, not misuse of fire suppression that builds up fuel? Who knew?

    33. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Funny. Seems to me technology is killing this world. People living longer and using up all the resources. Imminent nuclear conflict. People being dumbed down by electronic toys. People evolving into creatures with less and less muscle density. Weapons of greater and greater mass destruction.

      No. Technology will kill us.

      The only problem there is "using up all the resources". Resources don't *have* to be used up, things can be done sustainably, it just costs a bit more in the short term. Population can be controlled by giving people plenty of electronic toys and making real human interaction less desirable than the fantasy worlds (some countries are already doing this, eg. Japan), leave the breeding to people with more muscle mass.

      --
      No sig today...
    34. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      unless you think diverting miltary spending to water resources has some sort of merrit. I do not.

      More proof of my original assertion: If we have to depend on education and people doing the right thing, well ... the planet is screwed.

      --
      No sig today...
    35. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by miletus · · Score: 1

      By "improve the lives of their fellow man", I assume you mean increase the wealth of shareholders in the corporation that sells the water, and let the tax payers foot the bill for whatever long-term problem arises from the techniques used, like we've done with every other natural resource out there.

    36. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't make a buck without a consumer. If you want to save the planet, stop the production of consumers, not products.

    37. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Maudib · · Score: 3, Informative

      The U.S. spends 4.7% of GDP on the military. I don't think its gone over 5% since the 60s.

    38. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Thank you for COMPLETELY validating everything I've always thought about environmentalists. Much appreciate the laugh on a Monday morning.

      --
      -Styopa
    39. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So you're ok with possibly destroying 2/3s of all life on earth just so you can have some bottled water.

      Seriously, do everyone else a favor and drink a gallon of bleach.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    40. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck cares what the % of GDP is?

      They spend ~40% of their budget being the worlds police.

    41. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could do both.

    42. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      You confuse "outsourcing" with "submission", in Arabic called "islam".

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    43. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      My personal belief is just that - a belief.

      FTFY.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    44. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meanwhile ...10% of GDP on military seems perfectly OK.

      What country does that? Certainly not the USA. Our defense budget is about 5% of GDP.

      If you want to find something that adds up to 10% of GDP, you have to look at social programs...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    45. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Still, you also have the problem that after you remove a lot of fresh water

      Simple - just replace it with Carbon Dioxide! Well - provided that you could cap it under pressure in the end.

    46. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Who knows, it could even happen, "The Day After Tomorrow". I wonder how busy Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are.

      Slightly more seriously, on the recent risk report, fresh water stopping the Gulf Stream was rated quite low-risk. (I forget the adjective.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    47. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Well, that was insightful.

      --
      No sig today...
    48. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protecting them from who exactly?
      Anyone you'd need to be worried about already has nukes and you cant defend against them so why bother wasting all the cash on a huge military of questionable use?

    49. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just buy one of your plants, copy it and make as many as I need. There goes your hopes of profits and your energy advantage. But you still had to pay for all the research.

    50. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard the phrase "all rivers run into the sea"?

      I have, but what does a flowing of fresh water into the ocean that has been occurring for thousands of years, have to do with the sudden introduction of fresh water into a part of the ocean that has never seen such an influx of fresh water in recent history?

      I'm not saying that this is a big deal, I am merely saying that your particular argument about why it cannot be a big deal holds no water (no pun intended).

    51. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Bengie · · Score: 2

      If they didn't, they would have made a military large enough to compete with ours. A single large military can bring stability. Not to say everything will be fair, but few would be willing to fight. If another military is causing stability, there is little reason to invest into your own. By lack of action, other nations have effectively outsourced to the USA.

    52. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Bengie · · Score: 1

      If people reproduce to the point of non-sustainability, then yes. Ignoring reality is not going to help anyone in the long run. The Earth has limited resources, but the universe is practically limitless. Invest into space programs and lets start expanding.

    53. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by dpilot · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong? Ask my friend Sue, Sue Nami. What else would happen when you create a "void" under the ocean floor? I know it's not really a void, but I'm equally sure that the freshwater in that porous stone is part of the strength of the stone, just like the aquifers under Florida.

      (Putting "tsunami" here in case anyone else searches for the word and doesn't see it. Credit to Larry Norman's "So Long Ago, the Garden" for Sue Nami.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    54. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Legitimate question here: does that include military spending that's not generally considered to be part of the military budget, for example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were funded separately?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    55. Re: Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am curious, corect me if I am wrong, but we have an ocean acid increase problem, fresh water is more of a base rhan salt water, is it not?

      If it is then perhapse we could decrease the acid levels of the ocean, by releasing the fresh water into the mix, which, correct me if I am wrong would also allow the oceans to increase the CO2 intake, thereby, reducing atmosopheric CO2. Is this analysis faulty? If it isn't then this might serve as a geoengineering method that actually extracts CO2 instead of masking the effects of extra CO2! B52 wanfuse123.

    56. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard the phrase "all rivers run into the sea"?

      Lol, that's like saying we shouldn't worry about flooding because it is always raining somewhere on the planet.

      Environmentalism is about not disturbing the balance. The rivers that run into the sea have been doing so for millenia and they didn't just spring up overnight either. They have estuaries with well established ecologies. Rapid and massive change is always destructive.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    57. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of course doesn't change the fact that 5% of the GDP is a HUGE number. Roughly 20% of the entire federal budget, and that doesn't include the type of "emergency spending" with which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was funded.

    58. Re: Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually my reading is a little ambiguous about the ph of salt vs fresh, fresh is 6-8.5 ph, Salt is 7.5-8.4 and salt tends to contain more calcium than fresh water which is good for marine life but it seems to vary greatly between bodies of water. I would be curious to know the exact PH and make up of these huge fresh water storage containers under the ocean.

    59. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      My bad, it was 20% of government spending, not GDP.

      --
      No sig today...
    60. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that plan's working out well for all the countries who're trying to build 1950's-tech nuclear reactors right now.

      --
      No sig today...
    61. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Joce640k, Your alternative is??? Let people die?

      You want people to live? Spend some of the USAs seemingly unlimited bullet-money on desalination plants. Even more humans!

      --
      No sig today...
    62. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a wonderful idea... natural source for... soda :-)

    63. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its only a legitimate question if you are extremely bad at math (addition and subtraction are formidable obstacles for you) or cant even ballpark the numbers (being even a trivially informed person is too much to ask from you.)

      The entire cost, which was spread out over 10 years, is significantly less than 10% of a single year of GDP.

      That is, even if we compacted the entire cost of a decade of war into a single year, and then only cared about that years military budget when comparing to the magical "10%" figure, your "legitimate question" remains in actuality "a fucking stupid question,"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    64. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't exactly count as sequestration in that case, but...nevermind that. I like the idea of cave soda.

    65. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      As far as reactionaries go, "don't fuck it up" is probably the safer of the two than "Aw, you crazy environmentalists, saying the sky is falling, IT'LL NEVER BE A PROBLEM!" which is all too prevalent.

      No, the "all too prevalent" thing are the claims of falling skies.

      The idea that "the end is near" is not a new idea.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    66. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Dude, chill the fuck out. What the fuck kind of amazing math are you doing with the single figure "4.7%"? Where the fuck did Maudib mention a 10 year term? We're not all budget wonks here, so excuse me for not being intimately familiar with your country's finances. I was just asking a fucking question. Thank you for your rant of a non-answer, you dick.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    67. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and giving away 40% of it to non productive people seems perfectly ok.

    68. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Dude, chill the fuck out. What the fuck kind of amazing math are you doing with the single figure "4.7%"?

      I never said "4.7%" -- maybe you should learn to read whats on your screen, such as where slashdot indicates who wrote what posts. Maybe looking an inch or so away from the stuff you are replying to is too hard for you.

      Where the fuck did Maudib mention a 10 year term?

      He didn't, but the wars went on for over 10 years, and the total cost of those wars at the 10 year mark was highly publicized and also highly cited here on slashdot and wall as in the mainstream media. In other words, not only isnt this a number that is hard to find, anyone with their eyes open should at least be able to ballpark the figure (within an order of 10) even if they dont know the specific value.

      Contrary to the old saying, there really ARE stupid questions, especially when the search bar that can answer simple ones without bothering anybody with your ignorance is at the top of the window.

      We're not all budget wonks here

      being able to ballpark the spending on the war as well as the GDP does not make someone a budget wonk. It makes them a normal human being that spends a little bit of time each weak reading the fucking news.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    69. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Especially if desalination of seawater by means ranging from offshore windfields to waste heat from nuclear plants turns out to be a less hazardous source of water than pumping it from under the seabed.

    70. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I never said "4.7%"

      No, you didn't. The person who I was responding to did. Maybe you should learn to stay the fuck out of other people's conversations if you have nothing useful to contribute. I notice that your name doesn't appear on any of the posts in the entire message thread.

      He didn't, but

      But fuck off. Nobody's talking to you, and if you want contribute to the discussion, it would behoove you to understand the context. The context is that nobody had mentioned anything about 10 years, or past submissions to slashdot, or a history of mainstream media reporting. The context was Maudib claimed the US military budget was 4.7% of GDP, and my followup question regarding whether or not this included discretionary spending of a military nature.

      being able to ballpark the spending on the war as well as the GDP does not make someone a budget wonk.

      Can you ballpark what percentage of France's 2011 GDP went towards military spending in Libya? No? Then eat a dick.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    71. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Did I mention a broken system that cannot correct errors? I'm waiting for someone to pay me to blog happy things about Deer sipping from ponds over a pump

      Just so you know, deer love salt.
      They will go for miles to find a salt lick (usually clay with a high concentration of salt and other minerals).
      They'll also go stand on the side of the road in the winter to lick up the salt (and get hit by passing cars).

      You can make your own salt lick and wildlife will come from all around to get a taste.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    72. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the better comedies of that year. Shame people believe it's possible.

    73. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm, yeah, I'd like one of those as well, a case could be made that the US is actually the biggest threat to security for all the other countries in the world.

    74. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you pump too much groundwater in Florida, you get a sinkhole. So if we pump out enough sub-ocean freshwater, we should get a big sinkhole in the ocean floor. Then the ocean water will fall into the sinkhole, slowing the sea-level rise. It's so crazy, it just might work!

    75. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underground soda! Now THAT would be an earth shattering belch!

    76. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It proves nothing. Clean Water is purchased from the utilities- usually at the costs to operate them at the local levels of government, the military is paid by taxes the federal government assigns to fund it.

      You are right that we are screwed if your education didn't impart that knowlege to you

    77. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that 5% include the unbudgeted war spending in the Middle East?

    78. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count the VA and many other programs such as assistance for military families as military spending instead of counting them as social programs then the totals change of course. The government classes various programs as other than military spending that obviously are military spending.

    79. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to believe interstellar travel is possible.

      There is no doubt that it is possible. At least as far as the physics is concerned. Weather we ever have the economic incentive or patients to carry out such a project is something else entirely.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    80. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I love those two highly detailed diagrams of the currents at the top of that page.

      They raise an interesting hypothetical question - what would happen if we got rid of the current that loops counter-clockwise around hawaii in the static image? You get the lack of loop demonstrated in the animated image.

      Fuck - catastrophic changes to the world's ocean currents in the space of only seconds!

      So - which of those images actually represents the truth about the currents, and which is the lie created by a some researcher trying to make a splash in a harshly competitive publish-or-perish environment? Given that one *must* be a lie, and there's no reason to believe one is more trustworthy than the other, Ockham's razor points in the direction of the conclusion that they're both lies.

      However, I'm sure one, perhaps a new third one, will magically become true as soon as Randall Munroe sticks it on xkcd.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    81. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by somersault · · Score: 1

      If they didn't, they would have made a military large enough to compete with ours.

      Most countries aren't big enough for that. And very few other countries are crazy enough for it. Saying "they don't have a big army, so they must be hoping for our 'protection'" is a massive stretch.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    82. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by somersault · · Score: 1

      He didn't say muscle mass, he said muscle density.. lots of animals have much more powerful muscles than us. It's not something that's selected for in modern societies, because your lifting/jumping/whatever power is generally irrelevant.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    83. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to pretend like wikipedia is a single source research paper?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    84. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I'm not pretending anything about wikipedia.
      I'm certainly not pretending that it's a reliable source of information.
      Are you?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    85. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should stop exhaling all that CO2 that will ruin the world for my kids.

    86. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there.

      Which is damned-all use unless we have a credible technology for getting non-trivial numbers of people there. ("Non-trivial" being on the order of hundreds, though a lot of that necessary genetic diversity could be shipped as eggs and sperm.)

      Currently, the only credible proposition (note : "credible" meaning "doesn't break any of the known laws of physics") is for "generation ships". And by the time we have that technology sufficiently proven for people to risk going out to [insert name of nearest star with potentially-habitable planets], then we'll also be able to scatter ourselves sufficiently around the solar system for instant species death to not be a consideration.

      But we're a long way from that.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    87. Re: Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      You might want to recheck your "facts." The prevailing theory is that excess fire surpression has lead to more dramatic wildfires, not a lack of "timbering." Indeed, selective harvesting of mature trees for more board-feet also leaves the forest more vulnerable to fires, since younger trees as are not as able to withstand them.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    88. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly have a whole lot of misconceptions. This water is not deep. It is at most, in 500 ft water depths, and may only be a thousand feet below the ocean floor. This is not a difficult depth for drilling or for recovery methods. Many onshore water wells are deeper. The offshore oil industry went past those depths in the 1970's and now frequently drills in mile deep water for targets one to three miles below the sea floor. Pumping water is not different from pumping oil.

      No new chambers are created. You cannot empty a chamber by creating a vacuum. If there is not a source of fluid to fill the chamber as your remove the water, then nothing will flow. This is basic physics. Yes, it will likely be sea water that replaces it, but this water is mostly brackish water anyway- if you read the article in Nature. If this water has natural pressure on it, which it likely does, then it may push itself to the surface once it is drilled into. That pressure will keep the "chamber" (that does not actually exist except as very small pores which are often matrix supported) full. It the rock is not lithified, it is possible for subsidence, but in a subsea environment this is very unlikely.

      Sinkholes take place because of a change in relative density. Rock submerged in water has some buoyancy that makes it lighter. When you remove the water and expose it to AIR the rock has higher relative density and where it is thin, it fails to support itself. This cannot happen underwater. Underwater landslides are not a risk, at least not from water removal.

    89. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!

      Nahh, the water is filled with Urine, but definitely not salted.

    90. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by romons · · Score: 1

      13% of the federal budget is defense. 4.88% GDP predicted in 2014.

      Money allocated to space research is 17 billion, like 0.1% GDP, so defense costs about 50x as much.

      I got the numbers here

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    91. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by volmtech · · Score: 1

      GDP includes government spending so the more the government spends the higher the GDP. Growth by increased spending is not real growth.

    92. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      To play devils advocate here. Why are people living on floodplains? If they don't want water to irrigate their rice fields then there are plenty of places upstream which probably aren't as well irrigated. If they do then they don't have to live there Why are people hanging around in forests during wildfires, don't we already have 1783453 global satellite networks and 347103784 terrestrial EM wave based networks (like radio, mobile phone, etc etc) that should be telling these people to GTFO?

      There are plenty of safe flat grassy lands over the whole world that I'm pretty sure we can all live on them.

      The reals source of the problem is the same source of every other problem on this earth. Money.

    93. Re: Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freshwater "contamination" changes salinity, density, can disrupt current flows. It's one of the reasons that all of the melting glaciers and sea ice is bad. Pumping freshwater from under the sea bed probably won't greatly contribute to that.

    94. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Are you really that daft? Dams control the flooding. No one even hinted about causes. And yes, fire breaks contain fires long enough to get to them and keep them under control. Controlled burns is like having one large fire broken into segments and spread over a number of years. It is not dificult.

    95. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I cannot tell you why people are living in those places. I imagine there are lots of reasons ranging from economics to resorces to preference. I just know that we have the abilities to mitigate the risks should we want to.

    96. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      If you prefer to live on a floodplain you should stfu and live in it. Don't bitch when you want to live over a volcanic crater and one day it decides to erupt.

      If you live on a flood plain due to/for economic reasons then like was said before, money is the problem. Don't think it would take an unmanageable amount to actually fix this problem. It would take 30bn a year to end world hunger... that's 1/11th of what congress spends on defense right now per year.

    97. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Most people i knpw that live on a flood plain do so after the civil engineers and army core of engineers built the dams to control the flooding. For instance in my home town area, they built a series of five resiviors for flood control that allowed industrial lands near the river and old erie canal to be safe for residential use once the canal was closed. Over the years, two of those dams had been removed instead of replaced and urban sprawl has changed the amounts of watershed which has turned areas never considered a flood risk into a flood zone.

      It really isn't a matter of someone saying this looks nice, now build a dam and protect me with public money. If that were the case, i would completely agree with you.

    98. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      The idea that we can't do any damage isn't exactly a new idea either, see Grand Banks Fisheries, various extinct animals, acid rain, etc.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. under the sea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ocean is like a layer cake? Who'd have thunk it?

  3. The problem with all this... by beh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing? ...even if we would get at that water, it would only be a stop-gap -- right now, most seem to think that there will always be some new source of whatever resource we need to keep our "unsustainable" pace going...

    It's the same about what people say that the shale oil will give the US enough oil for 100 years -- it's _maybe_ 100 years _at the current pace of consumption. But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

    The same goes for finding huge amounts of new fresh-water - we'll just find ways to consume it even faster, instead of trying to focus on limiting the damage we do to the planet, and treating any additional resources as 'emergency rations' that we won't touch unless there is no other way.

    1. Re: The problem with all this... by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While there is a whole universe out there waiting to be colonized, it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system, let alone being able to return with the resources that we find should said resources even exist. As a reminder, we haven't sent a person beyond a Low Earth Orbit in decades.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your kidding right ?

      Look around you, we have a near endless universe and we haven't even noticeably begun to exploit it. We can either man up to the challenges ahead use the resources at our disposal and move forward to a better future, or we can stick our heads in the sand a plant a kick me sign on our collective asses.

      Uh, you are aware that space travel requires huge amounts of energy and other resources? So you are saying it's ok to burn up all our fuel reserves since when they are gone we will just travel elsewhere.

      A few billion people travelling a few dozen lightyears, after using up all natural resources.

      I assume you are planning to use intergalactical gas stations to fill up your cruiser, but I doubt they'll accept greenbacks as payment.

    3. Re: The problem with all this... by Soluzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you can figure out how to get to the rest of that universe, and survive there you're smarter than most people at NASA. The Earth is all we get, for now. Lets try to to not ruin it before we have alternatives.

    4. Re:The problem with all this... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?

      Well, there is the ground. That's where we put most of our rubbish and toxic waste. It works pretty well despite the complaints to the contrary.

      But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

      Because the cost is greater than the benefit. Sometimes it actually is worth conserving cheap energy.

      The same goes for finding huge amounts of new fresh-water - we'll just find ways to consume it even faster, instead of trying to focus on limiting the damage we do to the planet, and treating any additional resources as 'emergency rations' that we won't touch unless there is no other way.

      What's the point of this "focus"? The planet isn't that damaged. The resources in question aren't that depleted.

      But what I find fundamentally frivolous about this whole story is that apparently they've discovered a year's worth of rainfall (which is also in the neighborhood of half a million cubic kilometers). Freshwater is not a resource we're running out of. It's merely poorly distributed compared to who wants to use it.

    5. Re:The problem with all this... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The rubbish will largely degrade. The rubbish that won't degrade (plastics, etc.) will be a resource for future generations. In addition, have sharply reduced toxic waste production over the years (if we use the same definitions across time).

      But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

    6. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is, and you can graph this yourself in excel, that the 'current rate' goes up by about 3% every year.

      It's exponential.

      I'm actually more concerned about coal than oil. People will scoff, but go to wikipedia, add up all the known reserves and then average the last few years increase in consumption.

      Set a simple CellB1=CellA1+increase and drag it along.

      Then set a simple subtraction of the current consumption from the stock and drag that across.

      Then add years.

      Last I checked it was around 2052.

      I am more scared of coal depletion because without coal, there is no steel and without steel there is no 19th, 20th or 21st century technology.

    7. Re:The problem with all this... by Froboz23 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense. A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
    8. Re:The problem with all this... by memnock · · Score: 1

      Right now, we pump - oh sorry "inject"- our wastewater from fracking underground. That water contains heavy metals and radioactive components. (Nothing like just making the problem 'go away'.)

      Now that these large potential sources are revealed, what's the implications for their purity with that waste being underground also? There is no way to be sure that the wastewater won't find a channel or crack that will let it flow into those reserves.

    9. Re:The problem with all this... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where did the "radioactive components" (fucking bananas are radioactive so just saying that scary word doesn't work on people with an education) come from? Underground, perhaps? But putting them back is a problem? Yawn. I bet you'd have signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    10. Re:The problem with all this... by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

      Why not? Because it might inconvenience you? Because it is our god given privilege to pollute the planet?

      Seriously, does it hurt to be this myopic?

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    11. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plain stupid regarding the rubbish. You must live in an apartment in a large city as you have no concept of the vast areas being discussed. Why, you probably don't know what a tree looks like.

      As for the cost versus the benefit, have you done any analysis? No. But you've got the Power of Certification that you call upon, you pointy haired B.

      What's the point? Now it is clear that you have no clue that meat comes from animals, grains are grown on farms, and not everything is made in a plastic wrapper from a factory.

    12. Re:The problem with all this... by somersault · · Score: 1

      humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

      What the fuck? Are you hoping for some magical technological saviour to all of our logistical problems, or do you just really enjoy the idea of overpopulation, and people killing each other for resources?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% wrong. Humanity has always lived "sustainably", by it's very definition. In addition, what the fuck do you call every aspect of our survival? We are as a species and culturally inclined towards sustainability, you moron.

    14. Re: The problem with all this... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      There is some merit in suggesting space exploration should be ramped up a bit before we are out of terrestrial resources, but if humankind's track record is indeed the best predictor of the future, we will likely finally settle off-planet when it is profitable to exploit resources there.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    15. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am more scared of coal depletion because without coal, there is no steel and without steel there is no 19th, 20th or 21st century technology.

      I have two words for you: Transparent Aluminum. We don't need to worry about anything. All we need to do is patiently wait for Scotty to stumble into our lives.

    16. Re:The problem with all this... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

      Why not? Because it might inconvenience you? Because it is our god given privilege to pollute the planet?

      Seriously, does it hurt to be this myopic?

      "A lot of times when you have very short term goals with a high payoff, nasty things can happen. In particular, a lot of people will take the low road there. They'll become myopic. They'll crowd out the long term interests of the organization or even themselves." -Daniel H. Pink

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    17. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

      Because the cost is greater than the benefit. Sometimes it actually is worth conserving cheap energy.

      Are we talking about the same humans? Those who pick their gyms based on not having to walk more than 100 yards from the parking place? Humans who would save both time and money by just driving a bicycle to the gym and then heading right back?

    18. Re:The problem with all this... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What rockets in use can be filled up at the local shell station?

      I think we use a little different type of energy then rockets. And once in space-beyond our atmosphere, solar becomes much more productive.

    19. Re:The problem with all this... by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no logic in ensuring adequate resources for future generations. If I'm not alive to benefit, it doesn't matter what happens after I die. If you are an atheist, or otherwise do not believe in an after-life of any kind, this is even more true.

      This is only true if your outlook is basically "me me me", i.e. pathologically narcissistic and/or egocentric. It may surprise you that there a quite a few people who don't share that selfish view, atheist or otherwise.

      I don't have kids myself, but my sister does. I want these little guys to have a planet worth living on. And, for that matter, your kids too.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    20. Re:The problem with all this... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Your kidding right ?

      I understand that they've been working on how to decide which people will get to colonize new worlds, and which people will be stuck here. They've boiled it down to determining cognitive horsepower by looking at whether or not people can grasp the difference between "your" and "you're" - so, that's a shame, huh? Oh well!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For anyone looking for an example of ad hominem fallacy, please look no further than:

      you probably don't know what a tree looks like.

      This whole post has no content aside from baseless attacking claims.

    22. Re:The problem with all this... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Even hunter gatherers would pillage an area then move on. The american indian done this so well, their socity lived in housing that could easily be picked up and moved. Man has always fought for resources to plunder and rarely has been at peace unless the resorces where plentiful enough for all to share.

      Sustainability has a different definition today then in past times. It used to be regarded in the context of effort, now it is soley within the confines of fixed resources.

    23. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume that you are correct and the universe is filled with hospitable planets with plenty of natural resources. We still have to get to those planets. Since most of the universe is many lightyears away, a trip to such a planet will take a long time (especially since we cannot travel anywhere near the speed of light). A ship traveling this distance should have very efficient recycling to preserve resources. Surely someone such as yourself would support a voluntary limit on the resource consumption here on earth (even for silly, 'wrong' reasons such as limiting AGW and preserving resources here on earth), that our recycling technology is improved and we can take to the stars sooner?

    24. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'll have problems with that once you get far enough away from the sun (which is the whole point of going to other solar systems).

      also... solar what? barring solar sails, you'll still need mass to eject or you'll never move at all.

    25. Re: The problem with all this... by cusco · · Score: 1

      It would take a decade to colonize the moon. The simple spinoff technology from that relatively minor effort ( 1/2 cost of Iraq invasion) should be sufficient to revitalize science and technology on Earth. Unfortunately that doesn't generate the kind of stock market bump that creates quarterly executive bonuses, so it's likely that nothing will be done.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    26. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo.

    27. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the "radioactive components" (fucking bananas are radioactive so just saying that scary word doesn't work on people with an education) come from?

      Are "fucking bananas" the same as "eating bananas"? You know, the ones you get in the grocery store?

    28. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no logic in ensuring adequate resources for future generations. If I'm not alive to benefit, it doesn't matter what happens after I die. If you are an atheist, or otherwise do not believe in an after-life of any kind, this is even more true.

      I have found it to be the case that god fearin' 'merican christans are the ones that shit on our future. Most athiests I know are not total assholes like you. My guess is you are a religious zealot trolling.

    29. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true about coal being needed for steel. The first steel was made using charcoal from wood. In modern times it is made using electricity for the heating, which can be generated from many sources. Very likely iceland will become a major steel (and aluminum) recycling industrial hub due to their geothermal cost advantages. There is no doubt that we will have a rough ride down the other side of the Hubbard curve in the latter half of this century, but it isn't like suddenly we won't be able to make steel anymore. Instead the real cost of everything will go up slowly until the equilibrium of prices that can be sustained by alternative energy sources is reached. What that will look like is a long slow decline of real wages and lower standards of living for the majority of people. If you want to worry about something you should worry about nitrogen fertilizer not steel. We use hydrocarbon sources to synthesize fertilizer. Without it crop yields would drop significantly and food supply would contract to a fraction of what it is currently. Once the cost of the fertilizer goes above the price you can get for the increased yield people will stop using it. For every food calorie consumes several calories of hydrocarbons were expended to produce it. We are indirectly eating oil and natural gas. You can live without steel. You can't live without food. There is the potential for billions of people to starve to death over the course of several decades as food prices spike above the income of the poorest people in the world. They will be willing to pay anything for food, of course, but they won't have anything to pay with. The result will be violence. The destabilization and loss of economic output of the people who die will drag more into poverty cyclically until population undershoots the supply of resources and then exponential population growth will resume. While this is going on there will still be plenty of steel.

    30. Re:The problem with all this... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      you'll still need mass to eject or you'll never move at all.

      Well, theoretically you may be able to produce matter from large enough amounts of energy and eject that.

    31. Re:The problem with all this... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Probabilities. Calculated risks. You don't want to inconvenience yourself for your entire lifetime by using resources strictly only to have the Earth destroyed by an asteroid a short time later.

    32. Re:The problem with all this... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Being able to exercise in all weather is not exactly without merit. Walking from the car to the gym would probably be a less efficient use of time than the workout inside. Busy people who would otherwise claim to be "too busy to exercise" certainly benefit from close parking.

    33. Re:The problem with all this... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You're missing something important. As coal heads towards depletion, costs go way up. For energy, alternatives will be used. For steel production, it will just get more expensive, but would go along much farther than 2052 considering how small a portion of our coal is used for steel production.

      And don't forget that steel is highly recyclable.

    34. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You have to put a condom on it first. Watch out for the stem.

    35. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Freshwater is not a resource we're running out of."

      Yes it is, in two senses: 1) although it is renewable, once you exceed the capacity for the natural system to renew it, you may as well be mining it, because you'll keep drawing it down until there is either nothing left (e.g., harvesting trees faster than they grow back), or you'll hit a hard limit where you can't extract any more than the current rate, preventing further growth (e.g., surface and near-surface water resources and how fast they replenish). You can get situations like the Colorado River, where almost all of it is diverted. Renewable, but at or near its max; 2) quite a few groundwater resources are "fossil water". They are aquifers that are not being recharged at a significant rate. They represent water stored in the subsurface thousands of years ago when climate was wetter. Pumping that stuff out is great while it lasts, but it is *not* renewable. You're drawing down a one-time resource.

      Also (3), in some parts of the world contamination of ground or surface waters can damage a water resource to the point that it can no longer be used for certain purposes without greater investment in treatment facilities to compensate. If you don't have the finances to make those capital investments, then you've basically eliminated that resource for the time being.

      On a local basis, any of these can cause a freshwater resource to "run out", but obviously it is very location-dependent.

    36. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Atheists have children too, and altruism and concern about future generations exists independent of religion.

    37. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to standard analyses of groundwater, most groundwater contains heavy metals and radioactive compounds. How much more is there in fracking wastewater versus typical groundwater? Probably a more, but mainly because it is from much deeper and warmer levels where more dissolved solids is the norm. That doesn't mean it is particularly dangerous. The higher dissolved salt would probably do more harm to you than "heavy metals and radioactive components". The potassium, which is also naturally radioactive, might even do you some good as the salt is doing the harm. "Radioactive" and "heavy metals" is meaningless unless you quantify it because these are *always* there.

      You're basically disposing of some moderately salty water with dissolved stuff in it. And it is going to be more dilute than the ordinary formation water found at depth because you've injected a bunch of fresher surface water down there, and then gotten the flowback. The best thing to do with it is probably reinject it at similar depths. The worst you'll get in *rare* situations, is some weak earthquakes that don't cause any damage, and most of the time nothing will happen at all.

      Oh, and maybe this is a surprise, but you don't need to do fracking to have to deal with the problem of so-called "formation water" brines. Ordinary, non-fracked oil-and-gas wells produce significant amounts of briny formation water that has to be disposed of as well. Every barrel of oil typically generates some formation water that is mixed in. You separate it out from the oil, and then you sell the oil and figure out proper disposal for the water. Traditionally that "produced water" is injected into another well, back where it came from, to help push more of the oil or gas out (maintains the fluid pressure at depth). You'll still have this issue even if you ban fracking completely. It was done for many decades prior to fracking, and fracking has been done for decades too.

    38. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on being a prime example of what's wrong with the world. Fuck you

    39. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no logic in ensuring adequate resources for you. How does allowing you to use the Earth's precious resources benefit me? From your logic, it would be in humanity's best interest to cut you off and let you die, right? More resources for the rest of us. And then you wont be spreading your pathological ideologies anymore either. I'm in favor of this.

    40. Re: The problem with all this... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system

      False. At current (or even decades-old) technological levels, it would take a couple years, a few decades at most. At current political levels, yes, it would take forever.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    41. Re:The problem with all this... by c · · Score: 1

      Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?

      China?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    42. Re:The problem with all this... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      And im sure you could generate that energy through nuclear reactions! Easy!

      Wait...

    43. Re:The problem with all this... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      ...or do you just really enjoy the idea of overpopulation, and people killing each other for resources?

      I get the impression that it is the same kind of "enjoyment" that Polynesians get from eating poi. That is, it's not really enjoyment at all, but rather something they are simply so accustomed to that there is comfort in "normalcy".

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    44. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no logic in ensuring adequate resources for future generations. If I'm not alive to benefit, it doesn't matter what happens after I die. If you are an atheist, or otherwise do not believe in an after-life of any kind, this is even more true.

      You little dipshit psychopath; not all humans are like you. Most care about other people, regardless whether they're religious or atheist.

    45. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been on this planet for thousands of years now, and there is one simple truth of sustainability.

      We are still here.

    46. Re:The problem with all this... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Are you hoping for some magical technological saviour to all of our logistical problems

      I'm not "hoping", that's how homo sapiens has prospered since the beginning. It's why we have big brains. You don't need big brains for living sustainably.

      Living unsustainably is what drove us out of Africa, caused us to settle, caused us to start agriculture, to build cities, to explore the planet, and the green revolution. Societies that try to live sustainably die out, because sooner or later, they get conquered or their environment changes catastrophically anyway.

      do you just really enjoy the idea of overpopulation, and people killing each other for resources

      Both overpopulation and resource related conflicts are less of a problem today than ever before, precisely because we bet on science and technology, instead of sustainability.

    47. Re:The problem with all this... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I want these little guys to have a planet worth living on.

      Yes, I want these little guys to have a planet worth living on, and that is exactly why we should not engage in self-destructive attempts to achieve sustainability. The best outcome that would ever give us is a stagnant and dismal existence. More likely, it would simply result in either global totalitarianism or anarchy as groups try to evade sustainability controls.

      The reason we have big brains is to adapt to changing environments. For us to pursue sustainability makes just about as much sense as for lions to go vegetarian.

    48. Re:The problem with all this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      although it is renewable, once you exceed the capacity for the natural system to renew it, you may as well be mining it

      I already noted we're not exceeding the capacity of rain. We're not even within a few orders of magnitude of doing so. And why "mine" it when you still need to transport the water to where it'll be used? It's just as hard a transport problem for most of the world as would be transporting fresh rainwater from where it falls to where it is needed.

    49. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that most rain falls on the oceans then the distribution problem is a farce and indeed there is a shortage of fresh water. Amazingly enough resources are being depleted. Your dismissal is not even casual. It is more a vigorously false thing. Surely the presence of oceans over the majority of the world's surface did not escape your mind when you typed your ridiculous assertions? Look up the area of arable land per person today and contemplate population growth.

    50. Re:The problem with all this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Look up the area of arable land per person today and contemplate population growth.

      You might want to do that as well. It's worth noting that a lot of rain actually does fall on land (the whole "most of the Earth is water" argument is a huge non sequitur), arable land is relative, and population growth is already controlled in the developed world.

    51. Re:The problem with all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. "Rubbish and toxic waste" are things that fit your anthropogenic definition of rubbish and toxic waste. From the point of view of the planet there is no such thing as rubbish and toxic waste. It was all here before we came along and it will all be here after we leave. This entire concept of "limited resources" is nonsense because the resources cannot be lost, only rearranged. I really have no worries about your fallacious concerns based on poorly thought out anthropomorphic, almost religious concepts that somehow "man" is in charge of this planet. Microbes have us vastly outnumbered even by mass (and they like our rubbish and toxic waste). Think about it.

    52. Re: The problem with all this... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system

      False. At current (or even decades-old) technological levels, it would take a couple years, a few decades at most. At current political levels, yes, it would take forever.

      (emphasis mine) I really hate it when people either lie or fail to read their own links... The "Momentum Limited" Orion would have been 133 years on-way to Alpha Centauri.

      Care to share a real plan for faster-than-light travel?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  4. Re:This is excellent water by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  5. Re:This is excellent water by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.

    You've never cleaned a naval vessel toilet before, I take it? (neither have I, I just thought I'd ask).

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  6. Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by advid.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm afraid that pumping this water will lead to the same phenomenon in Libya :

    As they pump the fossil water of deep aquifers in the desert, the dwells all around get dry or have now a much lower water level.

    See the GMMR project: huge pipe to provide fresh water to the coastal cities, pumped from deep fossil aquifers of the desert that may not get resplenish any time soon. This is maybe not as simple as communicating vessels, but the people think the dwells dry out are link to this project.

    1. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by FunkDup · · Score: 2

      the dwells all around get dry

      Not that I read TFA or anything, but since thuse aquifers are under the ocean, I'm pretty sure they've got nothing to do with the water table in Lybia.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's "dwells" preciousss?..

    3. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ignorant fool! It's a complex system beyond your comprehension, of course they're interrelated.

    4. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by advid.net · · Score: 2

      According to TFA, some offshore aquifers can be reached by drilling in mainland.

    5. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct spelling is Libya.

    6. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Consider Land Subsidence

      We've seen in the past that pumping this water out lowers the ground level. No big surprise there (not now, at least). Try and work out what will happen if coastal/off-shore aquifers are pumped instead. One could suppose that some type of "ocean subsidence" might occur, so the ground level of the ocean floor will lower.

      This might be a convenience when it comes rising sea levels, but you might also want to consider how the relationship between coastal and off-shore aquifers might change. With a lower ocean floor from subsidence, will coastal aquifers simply start "flowing downhill" to fill in off-shore aquifers, causing additional land subsidence? Will there be saline contamination between the two?

      At one time, I'd wager someone penned the words, "I haven't read the paper discussing this, but since Antarctica is way at the bottom, I'm pretty sure it's melting ice has got nothing to do with the Gulf Stream way at the top."

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  7. Pumping more efficient than desalination? by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 2

    At the moment Australia is looking at desalination to support the growing population and as a backup for when floods and droughts cause problems with our existing dams. Desalination tends to take up a lot of energy so you have to wonder if pumping this fresh water is a better solution. We already run some large pipelines so what's a few more?

    1. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by FunkDup · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Firstly, most of those desalination plants are already built, and second, I really doubt that getting to this water is simply a matter of "a few more pipes". Deep water oil rigs can cost Billions, plus you have to buy the rest of the infrastructure. The Sydney desalination plant "only" cost $1.08 Billion.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      Fun fact! It's actually cheaper to produce oil off shore (lifting cost of $10/barrel vs $12.75/barrel) at least in the USA. It is much harder to find the oil though (2.5x the cost of onshore oil). Since the water reservoirs are already found and we can use the same tech as oil drilling there is a real potential there for comparatively cheap water.

      Source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6 The numbers are about 5 years old so it may have changed.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    3. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      According to Wikipedia, desalination costs about $1 to $5 per m^3, or about $0.11 to $0.55 per barrel. So $10/barrel doesn't seem "comparatively cheap".

    4. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since all of this water is along the continental shelf and is fresh water only because it used to be above sea level, deep water rigs are obviously not involved.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by clovis · · Score: 3, Informative

      The water mentioned in the article is not fresh water - it is low salinity water and it still has to go through desalinization plant.
      However, it would, maybe, be cheaper to desalinize than ocean water.

    6. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Recall this water isn't really fresh - it has too much salt to drink or use in household supplies. It has to be desalinated - not to the extent of free ocean water, but it will require significant infrastructure ($$) to use.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      TFA doesn't actually state the salt content, but the energy required for desalinization is proportional to the salt concentration. So brackish water is, energetically (and economically) a much better deal than regular ocean water.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his cost was for oil, not water

    9. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Deep water oil rigs can cost Billions"

      Nope. Read the article. This is not deep water. This is the continental shelf, by definition shallower than 500 ft water depths. These don't even need offshore drilling platforms. Exxon has now drilled several lateral wells that are 6 miles long. It did not cost billions either (they were drilled in California offshore Santa Barbara).

  8. Not a problem by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    It would take trillions of years to colonize the known universe.

    I'm not even very interested in the universe. Let's just take the damned moon, and Mars. Hell, the moon can become the new Australia. "Welcome to New Australia Penal Colony, Convict 4,107,239."

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Not a problem by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I totally know people that would kill their wives to go to an off world colony, prison or not.

    2. Re:Not a problem by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Could take thousands of years to get to the next star system at the speed we manage to reach now, and we can face problems that could not be solved for very long trips in space for humans. Odds are pretty high that of the known universe, the only solar system that we will ever be is this one. If we not manage to preserve this planet, we won't be around for long, in no other alternative we would survive to technological failures.

    3. Re:Not a problem by Bengie · · Score: 1

      In a trillion years, we won't see most of the Universe, at our current rate of expansion.

  9. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that we know those freshwater reserves exist polluting them will be our topmost priority.

  10. You know what to do... by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) Find a new natural resource, a crown jewel of mother nature
    2) Start immediately raping this resource and pumping it dry
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

    1. Re:You know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      3) Pass the costs on to the consumer

    2. Re:You know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Get bored at work and hit slashdot for the 5th time this morning
      2) Use your coal powered global network and your Chinese made hardware to damn anything bigger than a hobby farm
      3) ???
      4) Collect Karma!

    3. Re:You know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, no step 3 here. Straight to profit. That's why it will happen. You'd have to come up with real arguments, and "crown jewel of mother nature" does not count as an argument here. That's a subjective argument. Now, subjective arguments are real, but mindshare matters. Most people will agree that a forest is more beautiful than this water reservoir. And for subjective arguments, opinions count.

    4. Re:You know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Find a new natural resource, a crown jewel of mother nature

      Some muddy lake deep under the ocean is the crown jewel of mother nature?

      2) Start immediately raping this resource and pumping it dry

      Oh, it's a sex metaphor. We're dry humping mother nature? I don't get your point.

      3) ??? 4) Profit!

      Oh, you're trying to be funny? Don't just copy an overused meme next time. There's nothing funny about that.

    5. Re:You know what to do... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Damn...I surely got some nasty AC replies. :-O

  11. Stop stimulus for producing waste by h00manist · · Score: 1

    has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?.

    A huge amount of products and processes are just waste.

    Economics, politics, etc try to stimulate, encourage, reward the production of more. More of whatever. Generally, more waste. In my view, we need to address this waste-stimulation.

    As it is, generating waste is directly linked to generating product, profit, jobs, and taxes. That link needs to stop.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste by nightsky30 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Whatever is produced at the expense of our resources, and then is not used or under used is a huge waste when you add up every human being that does so. Our disposable society needs to change. I love technology, but I try to make use of something until it is no longer repairable or usable.

      I have a desktop I built back in 2004 which I still use for development. It runs Linux just fine. I've replaced a dead PSU, a dead HDD, and had to reapply thermal paste to the CPU/Heatsink. It's still running.

      My other box, I built back in 2009. It's a Core2Duo I still use as my main system. Does it play all the latest games, no. But it plays all the games I care for, plays Bluray, etc. I don't NEED a new box, and all the marketing we drown in everyday that says otherwise is not going to change my mind.

      I'm not going to be one of those people who drool over the latest gadget, and immediately throw away last years model like it's nothing. We should value what we have.

    2. Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      We need to address waste stimulation, but government can't do that.

      People need to take personal responsibility for themselves and own this problem. My wife and I take a trash can to the dump once every 3 or 4 weeks. We have really worked hard to cut down our trash profile by reusing, recycling, composting, reducing, and conserving (for example we use empty dog food bags as trash bags).

      Government can't successfully make people do this. They can tax noncompliance to kingdom come but it won't accomplish anything except to give government more money to spend on pork and take more money from hard-working Americans.

      The solution to most of society's ills starts right at home, and requires desire and action at the individual level.

      The root problem is that government has trained people from a very young age to be people who proclaim "Someone needs to do something!" rather than "What can I do!?" when a problem comes up. Government in its own thirst for power and control has raised a society of helpless dependents, and it really has zero interest in solving problems, because the problems are the source of their power.

    3. Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's better if people try to be independent and do things rather than complain about the government, corporations, and whatever else there is to complain of. Everyone can form a group of people to generate their own power, setup their own internet local subnet, produce some of their own things, run their own small shared transportation, etc.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    4. Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste by volmtech · · Score: 1

      The Government can do many things. It eliminated slavery. 2% of the US population died but that was a small price to pay. Your idea of sustainability could be enforced the same way Stalin enforced his new economy.

  12. Fast forward to about 1:20 by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Almost a minute and a half of nonsense before the first frame of the "explosion".

    It's hard to judge the scale, but all that's there, is a ruptured pipeline, shooting water maybe 75 feet into the air. Need more context - how and why is it characterized as an "explosion"?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  13. Re:This is excellent water by philip.paradis · · Score: 3

    I served (as an enlisted man) aboard the USS Nebraska.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  14. Fast forward by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1
    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  15. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just about to join up. My recruiter said only officers and above have to clean toilets. Is that true?

  16. David Byrne explains by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:David Byrne explains by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "There is water. . .at the bottom of the ocean. . ."

      Probably the same way that Spongebob and friends could go to the beach... underwater.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  17. Whew! by Spit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a minute there I thought we'd have to stop washing our shit away with drinking water.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
    1. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should be using Brawndo to flush our terlits. It's got electrolytes.

  18. Prophesy!! by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was this not foretold by the Prophet David Byrne?

    Water dissolving and water removing
    There is water at the bottom of the ocean
    Remove the water, carry the water
    Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean
    Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
    Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
    Into the blue again, after the money's gone
    Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
    Into the blue again, into silent water
    Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
    Letting the days go by, into silent water
    Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:Prophesy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as it ever was!

    2. Re:Prophesy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, he was talking about a job/life holding you down. Not actual water.

      Also, I can still hear the echos on "RemoveRemoveRemove"

    3. Re:Prophesy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to enact the Cult of David Byrne. Byrnetologists will be unstoppable, unless a pack of super best friends can be found.

    4. Re:Prophesy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point!

  19. Scientists should stop discovering resources... by Emmi59 · · Score: 2

    Scientists should stop discovering resources. Every newly discovered resource reduces the pressure to apply more reason to the usage of existing/known resources...

    1. Re:Scientists should stop discovering resources... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      They must satisfy their thirst for knowledge. You would think this one would help.

    2. Re:Scientists should stop discovering resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-scientists should stop denying resources. Every newly denied resource increases the pressure to apply less reason to the usage of existing/known resources...

  20. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Then you would know it's called a head not a latrine.

  21. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he used language everyone would understand instead of being a pretentious asshole.

  22. Re:This is excellent water by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    LOL!

    Don't worry though, it's not the only lie the recruiter told you...

    --
    No sig today...
  23. Osmotic energy by Kevin+Newman · · Score: 1

    I think there was a recent article on Slashdot about osmotic energy... the interface between the fresh water and the salty water could be used to generate the electricity to do the pumping. http://mahb.stanford.edu/whats-happening/osmotic-energy/

  24. They think it's fresh water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what they haven't yet realized is that it contains the viruses that originally led to the extinction of dinosaurs.

    1. Re:They think it's fresh water by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. that is a bit humorous but likely true to some degree. Even if it isn't something that killed off the dinos, there could be life in it that has evolved completely in isolation to the rest of the world and that could create issues on a similar scale if it isn't purified safely.

      But hey, at least we have a weapon in reserve should the dinos become a problem again.

  25. Low salinity water by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

    Scientists have discovered huge freshwater reserves beneath the seabed on continental shelves off the coast of Australia, North America...

    Low salinity water: good. But near North America they better check for radioactivity as well... nobody knows how deep are the Fukushima [1,3] cores..

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  26. they do realize by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    That since 1900 is greater than a century right?

  27. Re:This is excellent water by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Why was this comment modded down? Almost all the developed countries feed exactly the same water to the kitchen faucets and the flush tanks for toilets. We are literally, not figuratively, pooping in excellent fresh potable water.

    Installing gray water systems to catch the water from laundry machines and using them to flush toilets is not a bad idea. The day is not far off, the fresh water price goes up so high, people voluntarily install such systems to cut their water bills down.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  28. Re:This is excellent water by fisted · · Score: 1

    I don't speak English you insensitive clod!

  29. Re:great artical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice spam, bro. If we knew what you are talking about.

  30. Re:This is excellent water by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Sea water is a lot more damaging to pipes, and piping sea water in as well as freshwater would require two sets of incoming pipes to residences. So I assume you're talking about a very limited context.

  31. Don't let BP & Haliburton at it. by neBelcnU · · Score: 1

    They'll start fracking now, to get every last drop.

  32. From the lion's mouth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think exploiting deep freshwater reserves is cool, just ask the venetians. In the early 1900s, the northern italian industrial city of Mestre-Marghera was built on the mainland edge of the venetian lagoon and a large number of 900 meter deep wells were bored to provide sweetwater for various factories and oil refinery plants. As the deep reserves dimished, the lagoon basement sunk and now the medieval aquatic city of Venice sits deeper in the water, the pavement and the base floors of historic buildings are almost constantly flooded from late autumn to spring. They are building a 10 billion euro MOSE dam system to keep the high sea tides out of the lagoon, so it cannot flood the subsided city. It is a race between the builders finishing the dam and the 400-600 year old houses starting to collapse. Problem is, that 10 billion euros funding is not flowing smoothly. Better pray to the Virgin Mary of Health, that's what locals did this Nov. 21 and have done every year since 1630.

  33. I think this was first discovered by Spongebob by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    I always saw him and Squidward finding some river or something below the ocean.

  34. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corrosion and greater mineral build up would be the reason why this is not dumb.

    The reason ships do it is because saving fresh water is important when you have to make it yourself on the ship using RO filters.

  35. We need to start preparing the Ark now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_(Baxter_novel)

  36. Great, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one more non-renewable resource we can drain to help spread the plague of hairless apes!

    1. Re:Great, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look, David Attenborough.

      Log in man. Collect your group-think kudos. Misanthropes have nothing to fear on Slashdot.

  37. You may say to yourself, my god, what have I done? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    There is water at the bottom of the ocean Remove the water, carry the water Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down Letting the days go by, water flowing underground Into the blue again, after the money's gone Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground Into the blue again, into silent water Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  38. Fresh Water Lost to Space by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Yes, all our fresh water, once drunk, is lost forever to space. Some say water you pee into the toilet or behind a tree runs to the sea, evaporates into clouds, falls to the ground as rain, and flows as rivers and springs back to the great intake pipes that lead to your faucet in the great hydrological cycle, but I call that junk science. Mumbo-jumbo about conservation of mass and energy aside, once you've used something. IT. IS. GONE. FOREVER.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  39. Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they are going to drill into it? Since seawater is denser, it will simply spill into it, and the fresh water will come out. In fact, with all the earthquakes over the centuries, it had to have happened a number of times already, so why is there still fresh water?

    Is there life in the fresh water? What kind? It needs studied.

  40. resources for future generations... by beh · · Score: 1

    The rubbish will largely degrade. The rubbish that won't degrade (plastics, etc.) will be a resource for future generations.

    Interesting take - I envy future generations, which will have amazing resources like, say, debts the level we can't even dream of yet.

    You think they might be able to just climb up to the moon on the pile of IOUs from the US, Japan and other western democracies?

    Another valuable resource, no doubt will be the dead oceans - from overfishing and animals killed from plastic rubbish; if only they could find something else to eat.

    1. Re:resources for future generations... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      IOUs, the new witches! Really, how superstitious and uninformed can your economic beliefs be?

  41. Re:This is excellent water by omnichad · · Score: 1

    potable water

    According to the article, this is "portable" water.

  42. can't buy me love, either by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.

    [citation needed]

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:can't buy me love, either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have the manpower to do any of these things.

      We do have the manpower to farm trees, farm fish, and desalinate water wholesale, though.

    2. Re:can't buy me love, either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, you've never heard of Bitecoin.

  43. Small Question About the Fresh Water? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    How does one propose transport the fresh water? In Tankers?

    1. Re:Small Question About the Fresh Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might use pipes.

    2. Re:Small Question About the Fresh Water? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      And how far out a sea is this fresh water?

  44. Once in a Lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking Heads prophecy comes true 30 years later:

    There is water at the bottom of the ocean
    Remove the water, carry the water
    Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean

  45. Toilet-water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick, someone find a way to get poison down there!

  46. one thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    drill, baby, drill?

  47. Well, OK then... frack away with our acquifers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I guess there's no need to worry about the easily obtained fresh water that we used for drinking and, you know, survival. Let's use all that for fracking and when it's polluted beyond use, some corporation will drill for the sub-seafloor fresh water and make a huge profit selling it to us.

    Call me skeptical about this fresh water. It seems every time some alternative to carbon-based energy production begins to gain a foothold in the market, some oil reserve is miraculously ``found'' thereby making investment in the alternatives ``unnecessary''. Something tells me this is the same situation.

  48. Re:This is excellent water by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    people voluntarily install such systems to cut their water bills down.

    Which is illegal in most of the US (building codes)

  49. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or use composting toilets.

  50. No it doesn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it makes them look like what they are.

    Followers of a cult-type religion...

  51. desalination by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Military guys in control room: "Who is this guy, what does he want"

    Dennis Quaid: "I'm a paleo-climatologist...."

    **dramatic pause**

    Quaid: "I believe we've reached a critical de-salination point"

    **gasps**

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  52. Power source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there an article recently about using membrane pressure to extract energy from fresh/salt water mixing?

    New energy source with no (intrinsic) carbon footprint/no waste issues/no dead birds = win :)

    Tho the Luddites will scream no matter what I suppose...

  53. Corporate Control of "our" Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means nothing...

    All it will lead to is Government/Corporate (same thing today) Control of "our" Water, seeing that only corporations will be able to afford to "mine" the water and sell it to us, then they can control access to surface water supplies and humanity is fucked.

    This is bad, just bad.

    Oh yeah, fuck those assholes in the NSA!

  54. Re:This is excellent water by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    That is true. Gray water systems are illegal in almost all the building codes. But if it saves money people would push for code changes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  55. Can we use salt water in some way? by Agares · · Score: 1

    Isn't there any way we could just filter salt water and drink that? Or is something like that to expensive or even possible? Just curious, I would think that we could just filter the salt out of salt water along with everything else so that we can drink it.

  56. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like you typed out a coherent English sentence to me...

  57. Mars by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Is that likely to give us an insight of were Mars' water has gone?

    1. Re:Mars by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      No.

      Next question?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  58. Re:This is excellent water by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    Latrines, or toilets if you prefer, are found in the head. You might want to see a doctor about getting that foot removed from your mouth, shipmate.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  59. False advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we finally arrest the idiots who say we have a limited supply of fresh water for false advertising?

    * Fresh water falls as rain (and sleet and snow) every day.
    * Fresh water can be obtained by desalination (and 2/3rds of the surface of our planet is salt water.)
    * Fresh water has now been found below the sea floor.

    So...why are alarmist enviro-wackos exempt from false advertising laws?

  60. That's all we need.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...another big excuse to do nothing to stop wasteful lifestyles and explosive population growth.

  61. bp will accept this challenge, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then launch a pr campaign about it

  62. Missing informatoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One important fact the article doesn't mention is how this water was identified -- much less how its enormous volume was estimated. Supposedly, it's stored in vast pools under the seabed. Not a trivial observation

    1. Re:Missing informatoin by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      One important fact the article doesn't mention is how this water was identified

      The actual article does mention that - in some detail as you'd expect. But it's pay-walled and the summary and press releases that are linked to don't have the details. I had to go down to the library to photocopy the original to read.

      Unsurprisingly, a lot of different techniques were used in different areas (the original article is a review, not a report of original research itself). Some are direct observation - submarine fresh water springs have been reported since time immemorial. Some are the results of petrophysical logging of oil wells - the resistivity of pore fluids can be measured by propagation of radio waves. Some are the result of actually coring the sediments and extracting the pore fluids - if you're planning on setting concrete pilings into the seabed to support a construction for example, the freshness or otherwise of the pore fluids can have a large effect on the setting time of your cement grout.

      Volumetrics are mostly from seismic. Which is entirely routine. From the seismic reflection profile you can invert a velocity profile ; the speed of sound in a rock is closely related to it's porosity, so if you know the lithology (from coring ; from onshore comparison and correlation), then from the seismic you can estimate the porosity. Then by calculating up the volume of your rock body from dozens to thousands of seismic lines and your porosities, you can get an estimate of the pore fluid volume. We've been doing this in the oilfield (and accepting 50% uncertainty on the results) for decades - it's application to hydrogeology isn't even new, as use of shallow wells for disposal of undesired fluids (e.g. produced water) has been routine for decades too.

      It's an interesting review article - if you're into hydrogeology, which I'm not. But not as spectacular as the press releases are puffing it up to be.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  63. New Resource? EXPLOIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have learned my lesson, finally, I think. I missed out on fracking. This might be my last chance. Fuck Earth!