Perhaps (interstellar steam rockets excluded), but it is often effectively removed from use.
The natural replenishment rate is well below our use rate. That's why central California is sinking, we pulled so much water from the ground that it's collapsing beneath the farm belt, while also taking so much river water the fish can't survive.

Using it usually means contaminating or evaporating it. The latter will be recouped eventually by simple condensation, but the former is often a difficult process to reverse and often can be permanent.

I like carrots, and if eating a full serving a day increased my lifetime risk for one cancer from 5-6%, I would eat exactly the same amount of carrots, but if I could reduce that risk increase based on the soil I grow them in or other factors under my control I would.
...and there aren't 800 studies saying bacon CAUSES cancer, there are studies that indicate eating it regularly increases your risk slightly....but I know, that's too advanced a concept, better to just fudge it and lie by telling people it's conclusive that each slice of bacon increases your cancer risk by 18% and insult anyone who corrects you. Fuck.

I drive, that's risky. Walking is risky. I use my bathroom....risky. I weld, super risky, use power tools, risky, breath in America, that's far more risky than bacon, drink water here, risk, go outside in public, all kinds of risks. If a 1% increase in one area of risk stops you, you would be dead already. You choose your risks, you just want to choose other people's risks too, because they aren't getting scared of what you want.

Plenty could make me quit bacon. Again, you spout nonsense you know nothing about. A simple lack of curing would make me not eat it, proof the supply chain is contaminated with human parasites or certain diseases. A slightly higher risk factor for one type of cancer, fuck no, you know that's not enough to dissuade most people from things they enjoy, that's why you exaggerate.

I don't claim to know what made you that way, but you are hyper biased towards all things vegan and against all things non vegan which results in constant dishonesty. No question at all.

So, after months of issues including plastics both leaving the capture area through the entrance and just going directly under the "curtain", the device has broken catastrophically and was returned to port for repairs today, barely 3 months after deployment. Disappointing.

I'm glad they're trying something, but in reality even working perfectly this device could only clean the ocean surface like a single parking lot vacuum truck could clean and decontaminate the entire mid West. We would need hundreds of thousands of these working 24/7 to make a significant difference, and that would undoubtedly cause new insurmountable problems.

Besides, enormous amounts of plastics have degraded enough that they no longer float at the surface. These devices could never harvest that plastic, and that's the plastic entering the food web at the base, contaminating everything from phytoplankton up.

"In the summer of 1935, C.J. "Johnny" Baker and H. Muir staked the original 21 "Giant" claims for Bear Exploration Company. The claims were on Great Slave Lake's Back Bay and along what is now the historic Ingraham Trail.

By 1937, Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd. acquired Burwash's assets. From these, the subsidiary Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd was created. The company fell on hard times and by 1940, operations eventually came to a standstill. Frobisher Explorations took over the site in 1943. However, the advent of World War II halted the operation once again. Gold was not a priority in times of war, and there was a shortage of men to work the site.

Soon after the war ended, Giant Mine officially opened, and production moved into full swing. The first gold brick was poured on June 3, 1948.

From May to December 1948, the mine produced 8,152 ounces of gold from 49,985 tonnes of ore. With the nearby Con Mine also operating, Yellowknife was experiencing the rapid growth associated with a booming mining industry.

Those original claims would lead to the production of seven million ounces of gold and one of the longest continuous gold mining operations in Canadian mining history; however, they also led to a legacy of contamination."

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100027388/1100100027390

So, they start by telling you how different human meat is from pork, then end by saying just eat pork instead of long pig, they taste the same. Which is it?!
At least they didn't ignore Kuru, (CJD) but outside Papua New Guinea and Britain prions aren't common as far as we know.
I was disappointed they left out how contaminated most long pig is, humans eat crap, who wants to eat meat full of pharmaceuticals and red dyes?

Lawsuit for false advertising?

Overall, this seems rather analogous to bottled water. Penn and Teller did a brilliant "Bullshit" episode about bottled water back in the day. It got sifted, but is now dead. The entire episode (first half is about feng shui, second half about water) is available on vimeo, though:
https://vimeo.com/193125042

Long story short, most bottled water presents itself as coming from a mountain spring, or glacier, or whatever. But in reality, the vast majority is simply municipal water from whatever city the packaging plant is in, usually not going through any additional filtration or purification at all.

At least with water, it is possible to test for contaminants. Diamonds can be graded / assayed to certify some basic characteristics, but of course there is no straightforward way to track their history and know where they came from, etc. At least, not short of having a paper trail tracing it back to the place and time that it was mined, which could easily be faked.

Bottled water gets away with promoting an "image" of being sourced from mountain springs or whatever by never actually claiming that it is in a legal sense. Usually there is fine print available noting the location that the water came from / was packaged. This diamond company seems to go beyond that and to make claims about their diamonds that are impossible to actually prove. Hopefully they get nailed/shut down.

No, IMO it was his lip service to the undereducated masses and downtrodden who didn't know any better than to believe him because they never actually looked into who he is. Had they just read his book, they would know his MO is promise the moon and deliver contaminated dirt, and lie, lie, lie until the lie is as prevalent as reality, never accept responsibility for any flaw, and take credit for any success, and always remember the little guy has no power, and treat them that way. His words (paraphrased), not mine.

Your suggestion then? Just shut up and wait 4 years, and in the mean time ignore his many disqualifying flaws, illegal actions, and completely thorough hypocrisy?
No thanks.
Let him prove he can read at an adult level...with the long form reading and comprehension test. Until then, he deserves to be labeled illiterate just like he labeled Obama an immigrant. Turn about is fair play. Once he proves that, we can move on to the next insulting accusations, like incest or urine fetishes. Trump himself created this game, now he has to play it.

i dunno...

i have a 100gl saltwater reef tank and a 50gl fresh water tank.

this woman just looks like a customer who has little knowledge or know-how in regards to fish.

i suspect this video starts near the end of the argument,because it is common practice for pet stores to request a water sample.though her putting the dead fish IN the water sample is contamination and will result in a false reading.

i also suspect that this customer has been back with multiple dead fish,and has little understanding the basic tenants of good husbandry,and the owner is just at the end of his rope having to deal with woman over and over again.

sadly many people who decide to start a fish tank do not do their due diligence,because owning a successful fish tank takes a LOT of time,research and dedication.

meh...i am making a ton of assumptions here because the video does not make the actual conflict clear.

the woman should just get a betta,or a goldfish.those bad boys can live through anything.

Not all. Some of us DO see humans as potential protein sources, but that protein is highly contaminated in most cases. I have no problem contemplating smoking and eating (or better, using as livestock feed) some wild caught, free range, pure organic long pig...or soylent green once the purification process is perfected. ;-)

I looked, and the mapping shown is incredibly idealize/generalized estimates, not actual mapping in detail that would give useful information. The only thing actually mapped is surface springs.

But this isn't radon. It's particulate contamination suspended in water. I'm pretty sure it doesn't act as you suggest, or the pond would not retain radioactivity, it would quickly release it to the environment. Since the pond was not 'capped', I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's fairly stable, otherwise they would be contaminating the area with radioactive air constantly...which would never be allowed today.

To answer your question in the description, the waste water contains phosphogypsum which is a radioactive byproduct from the production of phosphate (sulphuric acid is reacted with phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid used for fertilizer production).

The radioactivity comes from naturally occurring uranium and radium in the phosphate ore. Central Florida phosphogypsum averages 26 pCi/g radium, and the EPA prohibites its use, but further north in Florida the phosphogypsum has an average concentration of less than 10 pCi/g radium which can be used as an agricultural amendment, but for no other use.

Also, the European news that I saw reported 980 million litres of contaminated water which is only slightly higher than the 225 million u.s. gallons reported elsewhere.

Only if it spreads evenly to the entire Florida aquifer instantly.
Local users will see a far less diluted effect than those, say, 300 miles away.
Because there's absolutely no method available to test the water until it's pumped to the surface for use, prudence demands you assume maximum contamination level until proven otherwise.
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped. That means it could (not will) stay in the local area and not be diluted much at all, or could go directly into the main body and be diluted 1000 times per day. There's no way to know until they test the aquifer itself, something they have no way to do at this point, they can only test what they draw off at individual wells, with no knowledge of how they're connected underground.

Also, let's be clear, the 250000000 number comes from the polluter, not some independent measurement. If history is a guide, we can expect that number to rise to > 10 times that amount when independent investigators look into it. (Think BP).

Even in the best case scenario, it's exposing the already short supply of fresh water to more toxins. Just because it might be below the level that would condem your home if found there doesn't make it 'safe' by any means. Radiation exposure is cumulative, low levels over a long time can be as dangerous as high levels over a short time.
IMO, your contention is comparative to me saying 'no problem that I'm putting arsenic in your water, I put in only 1/10 the lethal dose...and arsenic is found in nature, so no harm no foul'. You would still get sick, might die, and would likely have problems and stress the rest of your life. I could still be convicted of attempted murder, and rightly so. I get that this wasn't intentional, but it was foreseeable, so more like manslaughter I suppose....of >an entire county.

EDIT: And you didn't address the orange problem. An orange uses 53 liters of water, and it takes 13-15 oranges to make a liter of juice, for a cumulative dose of 742 times the contaminants if you drink a liter of OJ (based on the assumption that an orange will trap the contaminants, a reasonable assumption). Now, at 742 times the diluted dose, are you going to continue to drink Florida OJ? I'm not....and that sucks, I like OJ. Now I'm going to have to try to grow oranges here on the N coast of Cali if I want them....an impossibility. (although I did grow a pineapple here, another impossibility, so we'll see).

So, 1 liter is a "fair bit"? I tend to drink more than that per day...not to mention cooking, cleaning, showers, watering, etc. Just watering plants with it may condense it, too, as they absorb and retain the particles. How many liters of water go into an orange? Answer...53. So, assuming if all that is retained by that orange, each one is like 53 days living exclusively in dangerous levels of radon...but condensed into 5 minutes. That's just one source of indirect contamination, and doesn't include bathing in it, drinking it directly, or breathing it.

Agreed, the levels matter....that said, 10 m^2 is quite a lot, while 1kg of water is 1 liter. Multiply by 3.785, then again by over 250000000...that's what they've admitted was dumped into the drinking water. Let's say for discussions sake that it's diluted to 1/10 that strength...so every 10 liters of water you drink is equivalent to breathing 10 m^2 with unsafe levels of radon....now think about how many liters an orange tree uses per day. They're going to have to do continuous independent testing with believable results to make me feel safe eating or drinking anything from Florida from now on. It could take years for the contamination to surface...aquifers are convoluted.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837