Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

calvin4224 t1_j9stugf wrote

Reply to comment by Alphageds24 in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl

Heavy metals in the water may be really bad for animals, e.g. the European oysters which are nearly extinct in the copper-rich (tiny particles) north Sea. We should care about everything we do to our planet. You don't have to care about everything yourself of course. But don't dismiss it as unimportant just because you don't have the energy to care.

4

[deleted] t1_j9sziq4 wrote

[deleted]

1

veerKg_CSS_Geologist t1_j9t2o22 wrote

That doesn’t answer the question of what impact if any all the satellites will have.

3

Unlikely_Plankton_11 t1_j9t6tug wrote

It’s a relevant point to make, because we still have barely started to fix the actual massive problems and people are already bored and looking for distractions in the noise.

Of the two things, coal plants are so hilariously worse and larger in scale that satellites may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes. When you have people going “yeah yeah coal whatever, let’s look into these satellites though!” it takes up mind space, airtime, political capital, and manpower that could be used on far more impactful things.

And in this case it sure seems like the motive is “ugh corporations,” not genuine concern for the environment.

3

Alphageds24 t1_j9tidor wrote

Exactly my point, and ya totally feels like it's "ugh corporations", and targeting just starlink seems like it's an Elon attack and not at all looking at the satellite junk from many companies and governments.

1