0
0

[–] bill.lee ago 

For me, the most disconcerting part is simply the length of time that these aquifers can take to replenish. When it comes to resource depletion, I tend to advocate a better safe than sorry approach. In this sense, desalination attempts are of great interest to me.

1
0

[–] Koah 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We send astronauts and water into space, and the astronauts pee in space. The pee gets ejected into space--BOOM! Less water on Earth.

Oh great, a misleading title. The title does not match the article. "Aquifers are being used faster than they replenish water," seems more accurate.

0
0

[–] bill.lee ago 

Eh, I'm more loathe to see the focus of discussion turn to glib commentary on title accuracy. Not that I'm necessarily advocating you can't express the gripe but moreso the dripping with sarcasm approach...it just leads the other party to engage and conversation devolves. I would have gone with "Hey, @spooz, just so you know you are allowed to change titles on the articles". However, as it stands I found the title pretty accurate. The aquifers are depleting and water loss is occurring. So, there's multiple interpretations.

1
0

[–] spooz [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

So the massive aquifers that millions rely on for their drinking water being depleted doesn't qualify as running out of water in your semantics book? Gotcha.

1
1

[–] Koah 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

the world isn't running out of water. People in those areas are running out of water in their aquifers. Gotcha.