> Also, nuclear reactors don't deplete water for cooling so the premise of this article doesn't make sense. It goes from water to steam, to rain, back to water.
The premise of the article is pretty clear: It's a statistic about how much raw material was extracted by the industry. Nothing more, nothing less.
There's also the number for agricultural consumption. But somehow we don't need a huge disclaimer about the water cycle to prevent hurting people who like agriculture.
The premise of the article is pretty clear: It's a statistic about how much raw material was extracted by the industry. Nothing more, nothing less.
There's also the number for agricultural consumption. But somehow we don't need a huge disclaimer about the water cycle to prevent hurting people who like agriculture.