435
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
435 points (100.0% liked)
Uplifting News
11356 readers
908 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While I think this is a perfectly valid follow-up question, even if the "solution" is to bury it (with safeguards such as not able to get into groundwater), that's better than it being in the drinking water. Short term at least.
Considering how early this research is, it's also possible they wanted to know their filter works before solving disposal. And, while not explicit, it sounds like this is meant to replace existing filters that themselves use plastic, so this could be a net gain even if disposed in the exact same manner as the original filters however that may be.