Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

redratus t1_jdhk739 wrote

Thats good but why don’t they just regulate the textile industry so they don’t dump their toxic dyes in the drinking water?

And is 80% really that good?

581

YouAreGenuinelyDumb t1_jdhsmu6 wrote

80% can be good, but it’s pretty dependent on what it is. Off the top of my head, I would think that an 80% removal would be helpful if other, more effective methods have lower throughput. So you could do bulk removal through this method, followed by further purification. This would be helpful if throughput is limited by the amount of contamination vs volume of water to purify.

185

Kaeny t1_jdl5lwp wrote

Just keep doing that 80% until it is diluted enough or filtered enough. 80% of 20% is 16%, so you have 4% left, then you have 0.8% left ezpz

Idk if this works it is most likely wrong

−2

Asnyd421 t1_jdhrywg wrote

That'd take both politicians with brains and spines. Why stop a problem when you can be paid to ignore it AND paid by a company that works to solve it.

102

camisado84 t1_jdinp7d wrote

So what are you going to do about that?

−4

SoftlySpokenPromises t1_jdiom6l wrote

To do something we'd either need to be in a position of extreme influence, or be disgustingly rich. Even if they were to be a politician they'd have to content with the rest of the political forces being paid off by lobby groups.

7

camisado84 t1_jdjch3m wrote

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but that's patently not true. If you get involved in local politics you would find out how disgustingly little is done to try to influence change.

I was involved with a local campaign that came within 1 or 2% of unseating an senatorial incumbent with a 80k budget, the opposition had 1M+ in the coffers and was in the seat for nearly 3 decades.

4

alt_rhapsody t1_jdk0bq6 wrote

Hope is hard to find when you're seeing history repeat itself for the millionth time

2

Asnyd421 t1_jdtd48h wrote

You're 100% right, sorry you're on blast. We absolutely need to keep using any and all political power we have to steer elections and politicians the way we want. Whining on the internet is only a part of the solution, blasting your politicial leaders' inboxes is the other part.

1

TheLurkerSpeaks t1_jdhtitd wrote

They don't dump toxic dye into drinking water. That's already very illegal.

In the USA, these industries are regulated by their local wastewater authority. They will have some pretreatment policy regarding these dyes.

This article is detailing a breakthrough treatment technology. Once this becomes industry standard it will likely be written into those pretreatment policies.

53

CCC19 t1_jdhzx72 wrote

I'm not going to say whether they're dumping dyes into drinking water supplies because I don't know. However, legality has never stopped companies from dumping waste, toxic or otherwise. When the punishment is almost exclusively ever a fine, they can and do budget for it.

32

nopropulsion t1_jdif2l8 wrote

There is a thing called "Significant Noncompliance" trust me that an industry does not want to fall into that status.

The regulatory agency at that point can levy steep fines for each day that they remain out of compliance. Regulators in that situation can levy penalties proportional to the cost benefit of not treating. So if the regulators figure that you are saving $100,000 a day by not treating, they may be able to fine that amount if you are significantly noncompliant.

I work in this industry, I'm a consultant that gets hired by businesses to design treatment systems to stay compliant.

22

JohnnyBravoIsMyWaifu t1_jdigqhq wrote

I work as an industrial pretreatment inspector. I wish my management had the balls to put dischargers into SNC and fine them.

18

nopropulsion t1_jdihnff wrote

I think the state (or EPA if they oversee your programs) are supposed to do annual audits or review annual reports. I'm not personally familiar with how things work on the regulator's side of things, but I'm pretty sure people will be asking questions at that point if you've got serious noncompliance issues.

I will say that there are some times where fines are preferable for both parties. A parameter like BOD or TSS, which is not likely to harm a wastewater treatment plant, is where I see this. Typically that is built into the permit in which a municipality just straight up charges extra after a certain amount.

5

ba123blitz t1_jdiz0z3 wrote

Okay that’s possible but often does it actually happen? when it does happen what are the odds it was prolonged and delayed as much as possible?

1

nopropulsion t1_jdj9hwo wrote

As I mentioned above, my job is to design treatment systems to maintain compliance. So yes it does happen.

Something I didn't mention is that if you meet the requirements for significant noncompliance, the regulator/municipality is then required to provide public notice of the noncompliance. So they call out the company in the local newspaper.

4

ba123blitz t1_jdjcyk9 wrote

Are you Fr? Name and shame in the newspaper in 2023?

no wonder the planet is rapidly going down.

0

nopropulsion t1_jdjigqq wrote

It is in the local public record. This is why it is good to have local strong media. If it someone is seriously polluting, it will get picked up. Just because you don't follow your local media, doesn't mean that others don't.

Where do you suggest they post it?

5

nopropulsion t1_jdjk8eq wrote

I can't respond to your other comment, but your response to my question asking where they should post was "social media. "

Okay, which social media platform? Does an Instagram story suffice? What if you miss the story?

Do you follow your local municipality on social media? What about your water company?

You need to realize the laws were written a while ago. Despite that, public notice in a newspaper is better than a random Facebook post, because you are just as unlikely to see that as something in the paper.

People in the know about these things (professionals, activists, journalists) know to check local publications for this information.

2

ba123blitz t1_jdjly2t wrote

In my other comment I specified Facebook and twitter and yes I follow my county, my counties sheriff, the accounts for each nearby town, accounts for my county and neighboring counties emergency management accounts and the local newspaper in the counties capital on both platforms.

For the emergency alert accounts I keep all post notifications on so I know as soon as something happens. Most common are the 3 levels for winter travel, level 3 meaning 90% of people have to stay home to keep roads clear for police,fire,ems, and snowplow/medical/electrical workers

When they make a post even if I don’t see it right away I can go to their account and view it much easier afterwards than trying to find something in last weeks paper.

I do realize the laws are old. That means they need updating, everyone lives in a digital age now and the fastest way to get info to people is through their smartphones.

Do we send out amber alerts to every phone in the area or do we put them in the paper?

1

typesett t1_jdi9lvw wrote

“Has never stopped”

Is different than “companies sometimes break the law”

−1

dream_the_endless t1_jdi99gs wrote

This is not targeted for US based manufacturers. First two sentences of the article:

> Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have developed a new method that can easily purify contaminated water using a cellulose-based material. This discovery could have implications for countries with poor water treatment technologies and combat the widespread problem of toxic dye discharge from the textile industry.

4

YouAreGenuinelyDumb t1_jdiyiqk wrote

If it’s effective enough, it will be useful anywhere. The excerpt you quoted might just simply be a way of marketing it so people are interested. “This can help poor people” is an effective way to garner interest in your work.

0

dream_the_endless t1_jdj5iwp wrote

80% may not be an improvement over what currently exists in developed nations with strict pollution controls, but could be a vast improvement over places that are currently not doing anything.

I’d would be surprised if developed nations allowed as much as 20% of all pollutants from toxic dyes pass through untreated.

1

YouAreGenuinelyDumb t1_jdja0ul wrote

This would not be the whole treatment process. I don’t think any nation does it all in one step.

1

Dave5876 t1_jdi1bre wrote

They should have these laws in Michigan

3

thaddeusd t1_jdi3mpq wrote

We do. And they are enforced.

But like the previous poster implied, for CWA violations, the legal system maybe gives out damages at 10% of the calculated fines and at most a year in prison.

See US, et al.v. OIL CHEM INC.

7

BeefcaseWanker t1_jdint8r wrote

If only we had enforcement for the pollution taking place in the Huron River

1

Dave5876 t1_jdj3zx7 wrote

Isn’t that bad and needs to be changed?

1

Tchrspest t1_jdi4t50 wrote

Who is "they" in this? Is "they" to be taken as "all of the global textile industry" as a whole? Because "they" absolutely do in India and other countries. Just per the article.

3

Archmagnance1 t1_jdiq4v4 wrote

>they don't because its illegal

Duke energy paid for this comment i see

1

chameleon_circuit t1_jdhynsc wrote

A lot of times these faculties are hooked up to a municipal sewer system. They have to ‘pretreat’ their wastewater before dumping it into the system. This step could be done before it even hits the sewers.

7

withmybeerhands t1_jdi6o6e wrote

We need to internalize externalities. Close the loop so that producers are responsible for the fate of their products: plastic bottles, packaging, bags, technology. From production to end of life, all of it.

2

toothofjustice t1_jdiajqb wrote

They should be treating their waste before tendering it to a hazmat carrier for proper disposal. This will make treatment cheaper and easier, which is a good thing because lowering barriers for companies to be compliant without impacting safety means that more companies will be in compliance.

1

Chapped_Frenulum t1_jdilg43 wrote

This is definitely the ideal solution. Force them to remove their dyes form their wastewater long before it makes it to the treatment facility.

The thing that makes enforcement difficult is that wastewater treatment can be very complicated and not economically feasible for each manufacturer to do on-site. If it's prohibitively expensive, they'll bend over backwards to not comply, cut corners, or hide it. But if they have a process that's super efficient like this, they can mandate its use and expect much more compliance and less pushback or regulatory erosion from the inevitable swarm of lobbyists. This also is something that wastewater plants can do to economically remove the dyes that they receive as well.

Obviously corruption is the core issue here, but whenever there's an absence of activism to support "just doing the right thing" we need solutions like this to at least sugarcoat the right thing.

1

samuswashere t1_jdkt1cc wrote

The question of whether 80% is good is a really good one. I’m not an expert on wastewater but I have worked in stormwater treatment. In general it easier to remove a higher percentage of a pollutant if the original concentration is higher. So the average percent removal often isn’t a good indicator of how effective that method of removal will be with different starting concentrations or of what the final concentration to be.

1

Momoselfie t1_jdibiux wrote

Humans prefer colorful shirts over clean drinking water I guess.

0

ba123blitz t1_jdiyno2 wrote

Are you child? Seriously?

Yes 80% is good last I checked it’s more than 0% and if the solution was as simple as “just regulate the textile industry” our entire plant would not be one big dumping site for our industries leaders and the living organisms on it would not have crap like micro plastics or forever chemicals in their blood

−1