I know it's not generally accepted on HN to say "please read the article before commenting on the article." But it's worth noting that the contents and effect of the "brine" as distinct from "sea water" get two full paragraphs devoted to them in the article.

Maybe let's not attack the journalist.

He should not call something "salty-ass junk" if he wants his "work" to be respected.

"While most studies focus on salinity as the primary cause of biological effects, many chemicals are used in the desalination process (e.g. antiscalants, biocides, etc.), some of which can be toxic."[1]

[1] https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/d...

This isn't absurd at all. Sea water contains lots of components, not just salt. Many are non-toxic at their current concentration; if you remove the water and pump in the rest into the ocean, you're potentially increasing the concentration enough to make it toxic. It is quite literally toxic waste. And the journalist did you the favor of linking to scientific research that says the same thing.

"at their current concentration"

So the solution is obvious. Mix 1 part brine with X parts seawater before releasing. Oceans are big, so X can be a very large number, if that is necessary.

I wonder why that never occurred to the researchers who spend their professional lives studying how to safely dispose of brine?

As the article points out, desalinization produces "37.5 billion gallons (142 billion liters) of this salty-ass junk every day." What's your plan for pumping in X times that from the oceans, diluting it, and then pumping it out?

I'm fairly confident that the plant designers and researchers know this and that journalists have messed it up.

They're already pumping in 37.5B + 37.5*2.5/1.5B gallons of it, so pumping in a multiple of that is just a problem requiring money.

But getting the money to do so requires scaring the public into giving it to them, thus the scare articles like this one in the press.

> is just a problem requiring money

Any problem of providing fresh water for human civilization is "just a problem requiring money." It's not like there is a lack of water on the Earth. So it's kind of silly to pick one single particular aspect (diluting brine) to try to hand-wave away as just a money problem.

In general, money is a significant constraint on engineering and can't be hand-waved away.

Interesting. Why do you think this article will help scare the public into giving "them" the money? According to the paper linked in the article (Jones et al. 2019), many of these desalinization plants are in the Middle East and North Africa: "Brine production in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar accounts for 55% of the total global share." Do you think that the general public in those countries reads Gizmodo and also has voting power to adjust the budgets for desalinization plants?

Also, why do you think that paper does not address the option of pumping in more ocean water and diluting it? (It's paywalled - if you'd like a PDF I can get you one.)

It's Gizmodo. These "news" outlets are largely staffed by comms majors who couldn't find jobs elsewhere. You know that kid at the back of the class that never paid attention or missed half the semester, but somehow barely managed to graduate? Those are Gizmodo/Buzzfeed/etc. writers.