Water consumption is infinite

[Did67]

it is not only in the masaïe that the breeding is a good way to use the ground ... in France also there is place where the breeding is useful!

Yes Yes...

It was just to encourage reflection on the meaning of numbers balanced like that, in the media. So the fact of taking arid zones of Kenya had, in my opinion, had to stimulate the reflection: 15 000 l of water in Masai country, that would be known!

The contradiction is in "what does the ruminant eat?" or even "is he still ruminating?" (that is to say does it valorize cellulose?).

[Janic]

The problem is not the amount of water consumed which will eventually return to the source from which it came, but the state of the water which becomes less and less a consumable product, even toxic, throughout of the chain of its use. See the works of Masaru Emoto, the sensitive crystallizations of Steiner and biodynamics, the works of LC Vincent and the memory of water too.

[MB]

The problem is not the amount of water consumed which will eventually return to the source from which it came, but the state of the water which becomes less and less a consumable product, even toxic, throughout of the chain of its use.

So the water consumption figures in thousands of liters don't mean much - we agree.

[oli 80]

Hi,
Very interesting this info.
Hopefully the readings are taken seriously .......

Message sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3

Why bother carrying water packs if the tap water is drinkable with us.
- Let's test it without moving from the house.
- TEST YOUR CITY WATER !!!
It is no longer necessary to go to the town hall to read the sign concerning the water quality of your city.

1 Click on your department and then

2 Find your municipality and you will have the result. . .

It's precise and well done

CLICK BELOW

http://www.sante-sports.gouv.fr/resulta ... table.html

At +

[plasmanu]

Here are some figures to better understand consumption: "An American consumes an average of 700 liters of water per day, a European about 200 liters per day, 600.000 farmers in South Africa consume 60% of the country's water resources for irrigation. , while 15 million citizens do not have access to drinking water. 11% of the planet's freshwater resources are found in Brazil, but 45 million Brazilians do not yet have access to drinking water ...

Link From blue gold to black gold, a rare commodity 57minutes

a beautiful trip that begins in canada with superb images

[Janic]

Mb hello

Janic wrote:
The problem is not the amount of water consumed which will eventually return to the source from which it came, but the state of the water which becomes less and less a consumable product, even toxic, throughout of the chain of its use.

So the water consumption figures in thousands of liters don't mean much - we agree.

Not completely! Water does not come by itself, it must be produced either by (approximate) reprocessing of wastewater and therefore energy-consuming in addition to being toxic and devitalized, or take it from the groundwater often polluted by intensive agriculture. So quantity and quality are linked anyway.

oli80 hello

Why bother carrying water packs if the tap water is drinkable with us.

Rather falsely potable since the water quality criteria decrease every year because the technical means do not allow to drop below a certain pollution threshold (to compare with the potability criteria of a century ago or less ) or else a certain number of distribution circuits should be eliminated (or even all!)

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

So quantity and quality are linked anyway.

These two aspects are fundamentally distinct, but in contexts (alas frequent!) Where the externalities of human activities are not taken into account (directly), they do come together.

It would be tempting to draw a parallel with energy, which does not disappear any more than water, but whose value depends on its relative usefulness, its intrinsic quality and the possible harmful consequences of its use ...

[chatelot16]

It would be tempting to draw a parallel with energy, which does not disappear any more than water, but whose value depends on its relative utility, on its intrinsic quality

no the energy disappears well!

in oil there is energy available, but once burnt there is only CO2 and water, without energy content

the same goes for hot water which contains a certain energy ... once cooled to room temperature there is no more useful energy

[Did67]

Oh, chatelot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The principle of conservation of energy says that when your hot water has cooled, the heat is dissipated. And indeed, skin "utility" becomes zero ... unless you recover it with a system such as a PAC ...

Ditto for the oil burned in your boiler or your engine. The chemical energy is transformed into thermal and / or mechanical energy, which very quickly "dispersed" and became unusable because "too diluted".

The comparison with water is therefore quite correct (except that for energy, the "dispersion" is so spectacular that one thinks that the energy has disappeared, where the "dirty" water is still visible. ..)

[Ahmed]

We look forward to seeing you! Did67, to recall the first principle of thermodynamics!
There is frequent confusion between energy and useful energy; the latter involves the energy level, from the richest in potentiality to the most degraded form.
This is why, for example, the heat pump that passes, often for the nec plus ultra efficiency and technology, at best, only recover losses from nuclear power plants, to produce a degraded form of energy from high level energy ...

The machines which transform the potential energy of fuels into useful energy * have a very low efficiency since it involves a flow from a hot pole to a cold pole, just as the water drop causes an alternator due to the passage of 'a high point to a low point.

We can risk comparing energy and money (water?), Although in the first case it is a natural phenomenon while the second arises from a human creation: the respective theoretical units of these two concepts seem easy to compare, but this is not the case in practice: the "power to act" (to use a formula dear to Spinoza) a 50 € note is not equal to another of the same value, it differs profoundly according to its holder.
Likewise, with a joule of electricity it is possible to do many things, while a joule of heat is much more limited and may be of no use, depending on the context.
The same goes for water which can have very great utility in small quantities and be in abundance without any "utility".

* Utility is used here in its physical sense and does not prejudge in any way the practical application ...