Yes, but will they all be harmful?

Can the degraded chemicals withstand sustained exposure to 500C?

That made no sense at all. Do you think toxic water is 100 toxins or that when somebody is sick they become one big walking disease?

And “water can’t become irradiated” is a great take. So radioactive radiation has no effect on water whatsoever? “High energy particles don’t exist and they can’t hurt you🧠”

The way I see it, these superficial factors need to materially impact how you treat or view a person before you go from observation to objectification

You think that rating somebody by hot or not does not change your view, nor anybody else’s? Teenage girls are not subject the influence of popularity, it’s only teenage boys? Teenage girls aren’t going to gossip about the dads, share pictures, jerk off to them, dream about being in a relationship with them, worship them, non of that? Only teenage boys would do that, right?

Many things in society aren’t symmetric between men and women.

That makes it right, doesn’t it?

So you’d be in support of a the same thing but for moms?

Based on this, 4 oz of cheese uses 450 liters of water.
https://foodprint.org/blog/dairy-water-footprint/

I always find those kinds of numbers difficult because they include rain water in that estimation.

For instance, water footprint data shows that the majority of water consumed for feed crops grown for U.S. dairy comes from rain and soil moisture (i.e., green water footprint), but as dairy and alfalfa production shift to Western states that are getting progressively drier, more irrigation is needed to grow those crops. This means a larger share of water withdrawn and consumed from streams, rivers and groundwater (i.e., blue water footprint).

What percentage of the 450 liters of water comes from those different sources? How impactful is a green water footprint vs a blue water footprint vs a gray water footprint? If the 120g of cheese were made from 100% blue water, that would definitely be problematic. But if it were 100% green water, that would most likely be less of an issue.

Next, you have to consider how the water comes into the calculation. Is it just considering the water for feed crops of the water that the cow itself consumes? And if it’s feed crops, the type is also important. Some feed is simply the byproduct of crops that are used for human consumption e.g maize only has maybe 10% of its biomass for human consumption. Would simply throwing away the other 90% be considered wasteful or useful? And how does that factor into the water calculation?

And a final point regarding feed, is what kind of feed it is and where it’s grown. Feed may not only be byproduct of human comestible crops but also crops that cannot be consumed by humans at all, and they can also grown in places where human comestible crops cannot be grown.

Now you have to compare that water for server farms. I have little knowledge thereof, but my guess is that they don’t wait for rain to cool their servers and it probably is more blue water than not. It maybe as entangled and complicated as the source of water for cheese, I don’t know.

My point is, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Water consumption doesn’t always equal water consumption. To drive the point home, would you consider the water required to raise fish in a landlocked country the same as that of a coastal country?

This, I like. The water would be radioactive though, wouldn’t it? I wonder if “exchanging” the unknown toxins for radioactivity in the dispelled water would be better or worse. But, it could maybe help decompose some of the toxic chemicals during in the process.

Please explain.

You’re ignoring that I’m responding to the messages that say it’s wildly inefficient by saying things can change. Nowhere am I debating it’s not inefficient. You’re arguing with a strawman you built.

There might be things in the vapor that haven’t decomposed or that have decomposed, are toxic, and become airborne.

You are aware of what community you’re in, right?

And as I’ve explained again, I’m not asking if it’s feasible, nor that is be done yesterday. I’m asking about the process. You’re answering a related question, but not the one I asked.

The estimations for water required to make meat even include rainwater. As if cows are out standing in the field collecting water through their hooves or something.

“I created loud people in my head, so therefore it is true.”

You say 1000, another poster says 11, and yet another gives another number I can’t remember.

If I’m reading the graph right on page 20 of Homo Sapiens’ Energy Dependence and Use Throughout Human History and Evolution, in 1820 we needed about 20 EJ. That’s a 31 fold increase to ~530 EJ in 2010 (190 years). Looking at the chart, you can see that the rate of increase has sped up, not slowed down. In 1960 it was ~120 EJ making it a 4x increase in years.

It might take time, but it’s not impossible. And unless a great calamity happens upon us, we will not stay at our current tech level for another 200 years.

I understand the pessimism, but my question wasn’t about “is this possible within our lifetimes” or “how much energy would this need” but “Could wastewater plants simply heat up water past 500C to decompose all chemicals and output clean water?”. I just want to know if with our understanding the water will be clean after going through a procedure where it’s heated past 500C. That could be once or multiple times, it could involve adding a filter, removing deposited waste material, etc.

That’s the point @al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com is making: technology for energy generation will improve and provide enough energy to make incineration of water (or give it another name) possible.

Technology refers to the tech that generates the energy to heat the water.

The global AI demand may even require 4.2 – 6.6 billion cubic meters of water withdrawal in 2027, which is more than the total annual water withdrawal of 4 – 6 Denmark or half of the United Kingdom

https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/how-much-water-does-ai-consume

AI’s projected water usage could hit 6.6 billion m³ by 2027

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2024/02/25/ai-is-accelerating-the-loss-of-our-scarcest-natural-resource-water/

They use AI.

Yes, with our current energy output it would not be possible, but I’m asking about whether even theoretically it could be an easier way to clean water. Maybe in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years it’s a method worth pursuing.

Thank you for the only response that actually answers the main question and linking to a scientific paper. Much appreciated.

Regarding harmful chemicals that do not decompose beyond 500C, could it be more likely that the number of such chemicals/materials (known and unknown) is much lower than the number of chemicals/materials at the temperatures used for current clarification processes?