Plan it to be combined with waste water treatment or other cooling water from power plants to dilute it, or disperse it over a larger area. It goes into the ocean currently.
Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Looking at 2005 they had 14bn, 22.5bn in today’s money. Last years budget was 18.5bn.
I am sure there is waste and opportunities for improvement but… that ignores the significant increase in flights, new planes etc. that has ballooned much faster than the crude time value of money calc above. Criticising them for doing less with, umm, less seems a bit rich. Especially as others (not necessarily you in this comment) then use that a reason for more cuts to agencies.
> Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget.
Certainly wasn’t my intention! I don’t _think_ I said anything in there that was assigning blame to the FAA, merely pointing out that in practice they are no longer actively preventing issues.
I know their overall budget has been decreased and there are sources implying that’s the cause of the failures, but I couldn’t (on my phone, to be fair) find any good source comparing the portion of their budget that went to these programs specifically over time. So I chose to stick to what I could source and mostly let people draw their own conclusions.
For instance, while I have Thoughts(TM) I left it to the reader to take a wild fuckin’ guess which political party controlled the presidency, house, and senate in the years we decided outsourced the regulatory role of the FAA to those they regulate.
We should separate two propositions: 1) whether or not the operations of the agency are too weighted toward ex post facto investigations and therefore, and 2) whether or not the people involved are competent and doing they best they can
It’s perfectly possible that the FAA has correctly optimized for the constraints they are under and the FAA is not sufficiently effective at delivering its charter.
The outsourcing of some routine operations to manufacturers was a presidential mandate during Bush Jr. administration, to make aviation business more "agile" or something /s
In Canada they last 8-16 years… polymer notes are unequivocally better. Corruption and inertia is the only reason they are not everywhere. As to plastic pollution, banknotes are already a closed, circular loop and hence you get the miracle properties of plastic without the downside.
I think the concern was with the plastic money shedding micro plastics or threads as it slowly degrades over time, like we're finding other plastic does like our clothing. Not saying enough to take out of circulation, but does it shed any particles during its life?
Does it shed particles? In a world of absolutism yes they would.
I don’t know if there are actually any studies but fyi cotton notes will also have plastic features and a synthetic, uv cured varnish to try and get some extra life (although far less than polymer) so also ’shed’. Banknotes are regularly inspected and worn or damaged notes are pulled - they really are the perfect product for plastic.
By weight though, it's a lot less plastic being put out there. Is it worse than clothing? Maybe not, but I'd continue to be skeptical about it until some studies have been done.
But the solid piece of plastic isn’t shedding, it’s encased in ink and will be removed with set levels of ink wear. The synthetic varnishes, features etc are the same with paper so you’re putting out 4x the amount of ‘at risk’ shedding material due to the longer life of polymer.
Plastic = bad is a disaster for co2 emissions and ironically microplastics since the alternatives are heavier and don’t last as long. Meaning more transport, distribution etc and tires are one of the biggest sources of microplastics.
This doesn't show anyone concerned about polymer money shedding microplastics and it doesn't show any numbers about how much polymer money sheds microplastics.
Not a euphemism. They're made out of polymer. This is pretty direct.
you don't have to accept if you find polymer cups ridiculous
I don't and I don't know why anyone would be upset over that.
You said they aren't called polymer notes, I showed you they are called polymer notes by linking evidence. What else is there? Are you still saying they aren't called that or does it just upset you for some reason? You can hate it but it's still true.
Because there is zero evidence of what you're saying. How much plastic are people surrounded by and how much of that weight is bank notes? How much do they shed? Show some numbers or just use some common sense that this doesn't matter.
If you have 10 bank notes in your wallet, you have 162,285 times as much plastic in your house.
I think most people would have had used some basic common sense that even their trash bags are many times more plastic than the polymer bank notes they use.
Why did you possibly think that anyone should be focused on microplastics from bank notes?
At what point do you go from "just asking questions" to "maybe this is a bizarre thing to focus on" ?
There is not an issue with the safety of banks. There was an issue with the amount of physical cash in the right place - during the pandemic (like any panic, recession etc) lots of people rush to cash and there isn’t enough of it. May mean the same thing when you can’t get the cash but it’s an important distinction. Ultimately very few people use cash so why have massive stocks everywhere, use it or lose it people…
