Same question for the biological processes you mention.
[1]: https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biochemistry/Fundamen...
On the other hand, its tough to talk about new water because under thermodynamics, all atoms of the same isotope at the same energy state are completely fungible, so it’s hard to say anything meaningful about the history of a molecule.
Most of the water from metabolism is released in your breath. Water you pee is mostly water you ingested via drinking and eating.
The water that leaves via your lungs and the water that leaves via your kidneys all had to get there via your blood. There's no distinction made based on the "source" of that water.
And the reason for that is that air is bad for heat exchange and transport, water is much better, and evaporates! While the body passively cools in air (either directly when air is colder or via sweat evaporation when air is too hot) most of the heat exchange happens actively via breathing, which is nice because it's easy and quick to adjust, just by breathing faster or slower, so as to maintain 37ish C-100ish F while the body is continuously burning molecules. Without breathing we'd not only lack comburant (oxygen), we'd overheat pretty quickly!
As you mentioned, sweat is also evaporating water, and that is a much more effective way of dumping heat.
It is possible to recycle urine into drinkable water. That’s what they do in international space station where water is very precious.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/wat...
But it's not just sewage though, it's chemicals as well, e.g. from medication, plus whatever else gets flushed.
In Singapore's case the sea is the obvious sink for treated sewage, which kicks it back to desalination. Except that I believe that Singapore's water comes across the causeway to the mainland in a pipe.
This isn't necessary for your point and detracts from it.
It also was a different person ..
They took 7th grade math, but assert that y=mx is meaningless in real life and doesn't help them understand anything they have to deal with
I think you're assigning a moral quality to certain kinds of knowledge that isn't warranted.
I am one of those persons that learned something by reading that comment.
assuming arrogance and sassyness in an otherwise neutral exposition of a true fact, to me means that, as usually happens, arrogance and sassyness are in the eye of the beholder.
arrogance and sassyness are in the eye of the beholder
the former.
I, for example, am not native English speaker, so, for example, in this case should you learn Italian to the point where you are able to successfully convey the information to me, which could be "never"?
> f I prefaced this comment with true facts about how bad your life in particular is, I doubt you'd be ready to read the rest of it :)
you can try, but be ready to fail miserably. Also: I am very well aware how bad my life is, I would say that only an arrogant can think to know it better than me to the point that I will be surprised or shocked.
This + the fact that we've seen microbes come back to life after being frozen in polar ice for millions of years always seems like the most obvious explanation for the origins of cellular life on earth to me.
In other words, what's the chance that the immense complexity of cells did evolve from a molecular soup here on earth VS the chance that it formed somewhere in the universe and found its way here (and many other places)
1. Water molecules are not indivisible, of course. Many biological processes will rip apart hydrogen and oxygen, or combine them back together, and have been doing so for billions of years. Industrial processes do the same. So there’s plenty of “new water” from oxygen in the air, etc.
2. New water/oxygen/hydrogen land on earth fairly regularly due to comets, which are usually slushy balls of ice.