Have they called Bruce?
It sounds like they need to call Bruce. Where would you rather be?
Have they called Bruce?
It sounds like they need to call Bruce. Where would you rather be?
The headline
They dump it into the ocean and are surprised when it comes back to the beach.
What a thing to read as I went to take my first bite of the day.
Breakfast has been postponed.
Funny how humans put this shit into the ocean, and the ocean spits it back out. I think there's something in that for all of us.
A modern western city that dumps fucking raw sewage directly into the ocean. Embarrassing.
Yeah. We are an arrogant, fucked up species.
Unlike most cities, Sydney only does primary treatment of its sewage – straining out the solids. Elsewhere, secondary treatment uses settlement tanks and disinfection techniques before releasing the wastewater or recycling it.
Singapore, for example, treats its sewage to such a high level that it can be reused in the drinking water system.
This is highly misleading. Even if you can get drinking water out of sewage, most of it is disposed somewhere. Sidney might be doing a shit (pun intended) process, but there's no magic way too turn it all into water.
Wichita Falls, Texas actually piped their treated sewage outflow directly into their treatment plants for a short while because if a drought. Usually it gets dumped in a river after treatment but they were running out of water.
https://practical.engineering/blog/2025/6/17/how-sewage-recycling-works
This is the second interesting thing I've read about Wichita Falls (there aren't many). The other is that it's the home of the "World's littlest Skyscraper". Last I checked there was a furniture store there.
Edit: I dropped this]
Vienna, too, is known for its pure waste water. The output into the Danube river is tap water quality.
Citation needed.
I highly doubt that. There would be absolutely no reason to clean the water up to tap water quality and then discharge it into the river, instead of using it as tap water. That's just not economically feasible.
I know a part of the Danube near Vienna is a valuable nature reserve, but even then tap water quality is not necessary.
If you have a source that proves your claim, I'd be highly interested to learn why and how they do that. I have a degree in environmental engineering, and I want to know when I'm wrong about something like this.
Not my circus or my monkeys, but I can't sleep so I did some cursory searching. I did undergrad research that was heavy into wastewater treatment, so this did sound a bit unlikely.
I found the biological secondary is pretty extensive and is being well utilized for energy generation, so the resultant level of treatment makes more sense. It looks like the claim is closer to "you could drink it if you wanted to, but don't".
https://www.wte.de/en/references/wastewater-treatment-vienna-austria/
And that's partly my point.
"Safe to drink" means: you can drink this and not immediately die or get sick/poisoned from it.
"Drinking water quality" means: if you drink nothing but this water for your whole life, it won't harm you. (as far as our scientific understanding goes)
That's a bit of a gap.
Singapore
Nice that the article is trying to make it sound like such solutions are from 'other countries'
Meanwhile, we have full treatment in South Australia and the outflow water is used for watering gardens.
As a fellow South Australian, I had the same thought. This is NOT an Australian issue, this is a Sydney issue.
'Sydney is a hole' is factually accurate.
I did a sewage treatment plant tour in my high school biology class. At the end of the second stage filtration, the worker pointed at how it discharges into the ocean.
“So at this point, the water has been treated enough that it’s safe to drink”
We all scrunched our faces at that. Then he added
“But I wouldn’t”
You really should not.
Waste water treatment, in order to reach human consumption grade, undergoes several stages of treatment.
Removes solids, largely unsoluble, be it organic or inorganic
Forced oxygenization, to activate micro organism capable of digesting the organic matter present. This stage is the most crucial for the entire process.
Waters are allowed to settle, in order to separate solids, now highly rich organic mud, from the water, in large pools or tanks, that are continually fed. Entering water displaces already clarified and mostly depleted of oxygen water, which can safely be returned to nature.
Previously clarified water undergoes UV treatment and/or has added minute quantities of sodium hypochlorite, for disinfection purposes. Microfiltering can be added subsequently.
This water is safe for use in street cleaning, irrigation, industrial uses, fire fighting, etc.
Obligatory microfiltering, followed by reverse osmosis process, to remove heavy metals and trace chemicals, followed by filtering through activated charcoal filters. Mineral (sand and rock) filters are then used to give back minerals to the water, to give it an organoleptic profile.
Stabilization of pH and final clarification can be done, before being reintroduced to the supply network.
The whole world should be doing it this way simply because if fresh water sources are being used for potable water, it's likely that same source is being used to to discard the so-called treated sewage water .... which is then taken up and distributed as potable water (with disenfectants added).
Thing is if you don't use the reverse osmosis stage your community is drinking water that is contaminated with every drug (legal and illegal) that people have peed out.
Studies have shown fish in the Great Lakes - which are used both for returned treated sewage and drinking water - are being affected by some of those drugs (especially the ones that affect hormones).
Hells Bells, I knew. Hells Belle... Glad to meet you.
The issue with sanitation is that it consumes resources, and a good amount of if, in a very short time. And planning and putting it down requires specialized, skilled, work, which costs a lot of money. And maintain and operate it returns a permanent cost.
Politians are not willing to do this and are mostly uncapable of explaining why this should be done. It also does not help most people being completely ignorant or uncaring for ecological impact, unless it comes back to bite their behind.
Waste water management is crucial and it is a source of resources, water only being the first.
Muds can be harvested for digestion, in order to produce methane for generating electricity. Depending on the scale, it can be used to power the plant alone or to inject into the wide power grid.
Digested muds can be further processed by composting and then be funneled towards agriculture and forestry.
Fats can be harvested, purified and transformed into soaps, creams and industrial lubricants. Extremely well purified fats can even be converted to fuel or even added to feeds.
Going green is necessary and extremely profitable.
If enough ambition is put in place, fully organic treatments can be put in place and wild life can be made part, by default, of treating waste waters and fish, water fowls and even plants with secondary uses can be introduced to create another value chain.
However, to kickstart all of this, it is necessary to make people aware that water, regardless carrying waste, is still water and, as such, is precious.
How do you know so much about waste water treatment and why are you so optimistic about what could be done?
I've got a relevant university degree, and I'm way less optimistic about most of these topics.
For example:
Muds can be harvested for digestion, in order to produce methane for generating electricity. Depending on the scale, it can be used to power the plant alone or to inject into the wide power grid.
This is usually not a net gain. Wastewater treatment plans consume more energy than can be harvested from the wastewater. The only WWTP I know that claims to produce more than they require for operation can only do so, because they accept additional organic material from a nearby slaughterhouse into their sludge fermentation stage, which is a bit of a cheat.
The same plant is btw also burning their treated sludge because it contains too many pollutants to be used in agriculture.
I work in the field and some units can in fact produce enough gas to self sustain operation. It is about choosing the right process and the adequate machinery.
Newer systems, with SBRs, do tend to produce a lot less muds. Older systems, like the one I spend more time on, produces a great deal more of muds.
A midsize city around where I live is currently undergoing viability studies to implement a digestor. They are trucking off-site 30 metric tons of dehydrated muds for composting every two or three days. If the muds could be digested first, they could cut back a good deal on the energy bill.
Other places are installing solar panel arrays and considering batteries next.
Do you mind sharing which part of the world you're in?
I made my degree in Germany (and Switzerland for a small part) and there are a few assumptions that come with that. We mostly have combined sewers here (i.e. wastewater and rainwater runoff through the same pipe) and local regulations of course.
Maybe you have different circumstances where you live?
Also on a side note: I consider solar panels as a kind of a cheat as well, because they are not in any way reliant on the water treatment process and could be installed regardless and fed into the grid. Though the dual usage of the area is much appreciated and using their energy at the source is a good idea.
Hello from Portugal!
We also suffer from combination of rain and waste waters here. And most cities just wave it off, even when solving the problem could be done with very little inconvenience.
But I digress.
What type of installation are you more familiar with?
Most instalations around here are two stage processes, fully biological. Exceptions with terciary processing are very few and with fourth stage processing I have heard about a single one, that once supplied water to a brewery for a proof-of-concept experiment with crafting beer with processed waste water.
I respect your remark. The solar panels are not technically a part of the process but we can agree the use of otherwise vacant space is smart.
What about skinny dung beetles?
FatbergBirthingPooBalls is actually a fantastic username.
You would think so, wouldn't you.
I literally just said so.
did...did you pick your name from any article that we can...uh...read? Nvm...
How can you design a system and think that not allowing any maintenance of this section is a good idea?!
I'm certain a lot of people raised the same question during construction, and the answer was definately "it'll be too expensive".
As long as capital is the foremost concern, sensibility, sustainability and common good will never be. Can never be.
Everything needs to change before that becomes an option. A revolution has to happen, on a large enough scale to change that.
Funny story there (well, not "haha" funny). I recently finished my bachelors in Architectual Technologies and Construction Management in Denmark. The exam for this bachelors is defending a project you've worked on for 4-ish months. It's a construction project, where you alone have to design a building of a decent size while making sure you don't break a bunch of laws or building codes. My exam was a catastrophe. Part of what made it so incredibly bad, was that I insisted on making a building that was good for the end-user. Unfortunately, part of our building codes here in Denmark is that we have to build a building that is good for the customer, not the end-user. This meant that I went directly against code, by e.g. soundproofing the building better than the nationally agreed minimum soundproofing, because that would be more expensive for the customer, or by insulating the building more than legally required, because we live in fucking Denmark, and heating of a building is a big environmental factor.
According to our codes (apparently), you have to only ever do the absolutely legal minimum when designing a construction project, unless the customer has expressly stated otherwise, because if not, you're not securing your customer's interest. So in other words, the quality of the building isn't important, only the cost of it.
Do you not interact with your customer? As a software engineer, it’s part of my job to sell the project manager or customer on details they haven’t thought of or may not fully understand
In a real life scenario, I interact with customers on a daily basis, but I'm further along the chain in the construction process, and don't deal with design in any way. However, the exam was a completely fictional scenario with a fictional construction project, so no customer to talk to. The examiners decided they didn't care much for sound proofing, and didn't care for my reasoning.
That’s rage inducing!

Fixing the problem would require shutting down the outfall – which reaches 2.3km offshore – for maintenance and diverting sewage to “cliff face discharge”, which would close Sydney’s beaches “for months”
"Cleaning up the massive rancid fat lump on the beach would be too much work, so we're just not gonna. It would inconvenience beach goers."
That's not quite it. The wastewater treatment plant is located high up on the cliffs above the ocean. It has a big pipe that they tunneled through bedrock so it discharges at the bottom of the ocean 2.3km from shore. The fatberg is in the junction between the plant and the pipe. To clean it out, they'd have to stop using the big drain pipe, and y'know, just dump sewage off the edge of the cliff into the ocean, pretty much right onto the beach.
Oh, I got the impression it was just... Floating there right out in the ocean.
How the fuck is this not an engineering problem they must have foreseen? I mean now what, the pipes just stay clogged? What a literal shitfest.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/