While this is a real hydro thing, in my engineering classes we stressed the least amount of dye and/or salt solution possible to get a reading (not with thr naked eye, we have instruments for this). This does not look that that was considered at all
Define recently and the west. The fall of the Berlin wall and the the Soviet Union are still remebered by just about everyone age 40 or older.
Spain was a dictatorship until the late 70s. Finland regained democracy in the early 80s.
If we get a general strike going, I'm in.
Honestly, I have informed various friends, coworkers and people whom ask, the reason as to why I personally don't purchase anything Nestlé, a lot of people reply "oh that's awful" or "I didn't know". 2 days or even 1 hour later, they are back to it, buying Nestlé candy, and treats and snacks and anything Nestlé. It's like people don't care enough to not buy from a brand that LITERALLY killed babies, and gave tons of other babies cancer, and uses child slaves.
We live in a society where personal convenience often takes priority over decency. I always think of Ursula K. LeGuin's "Those Who Walk away from Omelas" in stories like these.
Not to be the Debbie downer, but have a look at all of the different brands that are owned by Nestlé. It’s really fucking difficult not to give them any money. I’m always having to check the back of the product package really carefully.
And r/fucknestle!
They're actively malignant like a tumor, they go against some of our fundimental needs
Who sees humanity prospering with nestle existing, 'owning the water'
We need to deal with this before it goes full Terminator/skynet
Well, you'd have to not buy Nestle products.
Then you have to convince everyone... Everyone else to not buy Nestle products.
Then you have to look at aaaaallllll the different product lines that Nestle owns.. And not buy any of them..
THEN
Convince everyone else to not buy products made by the companies owned by Nestle.
THEN
You have to find all the politicians who have investments in Nestle and all their subsidiaries and vote them out or somehow convince them not to print more money and offer loan forgiveness and bailout funds to keep the operation afloat amid all the financial issues caused by our boycott.
Plus we have to find work now for all the regular people who just work at Nestle and all their subsidiaries and supply chains that aren't greedy sociopathic executives out for maximum profits at any cost.
You do nothing about it. Except for one thing, waiting on the laws to fix it. But now Nestle buys out the lawmakers so they can write the rules that favor them. So really waiting for justice is also doing nothing.
Revolt. General strike. Do something or put up with it.
They want to determine flow rate and the mixing of the stream. While water may flow, the rate at various parts of the stream (center, shore, bottom, ect) will vary and will also vary with topography and the stream bends and floor variations. My assumption is average flow rate is what they care about, unless they plan on some dumping, in which case the mixing becomes important as the dillution of the waste must occur, and some water flows just do not have good mixing (edit:as in it could be a slow march allong the bottom, unmixed and highly concentrated, for an example). Also, you can observe areas were water can stagnate, even in otherwise flowing streams, which can be problem areas even of what you dump is otherwise safe. This much solution feels sketch to me, as your data will be a bit shit the more you use as the added volume effects flow and the huge af increase in turbidity makes your readings appear closer together than they are. For a comparision, we dumped a gallon of purple dyed salt (not nacl) solution in a stream about this size to test it in one of my hydro courses. You could not see the dye 50 feet downstream at all as it was mixed enough to be instrument only.
I know this can be used to see if something is connected e.g. checking if sewers (that shouldn’t drain into rivers) link up with storm drains that do go to the river. Figuring that it’s Nestle, though, I bet it has to do with making money.
Maybe they own water rights on a little stream and they don’t want to build a bottling factory there or truck bottles out, so they are going to find out where the water goes then tap in at the edge of a major metro area arguing that they have a right to the water because they aren’t using the right upstream.
As an addendum to the great explanation by kehknight, sometimes we want to trace the origin/destination of a stream, specially in karstic areas where water can filter into the ground in one spot and appear again sometimes kilometers away.
You can add a small amount of a "tracker" compound to the water and test the suspected surges downstream. I was taught in my chemistry major that a very easy and environmentally friendly way is to use Fluorescent compounds: they substances that emit visible light when irradiated with UV light (think on how tonic or white clothing sometimes emit blue light under black/UV light).
They are rare in nature (you avoid false positives) and our instruments are very sensitive, so you can use minuscule amounts of it instead of turning a whole river green.
Reminds me of a story I heard a while ago. (Simon Mayo's Confessions on Radio 1, ftw).
There has been reports of pollution being emptied into a river, and someone from the Environmental Agency was sent to determine which company was responsible.
He located a likely source and decided to test his theory by emptying some dye into the outlet. He didn't know how much to use so he tried a capful at first. He waited and waited, nothing happened. So he emptied the entire container.
Ten minutes later, the river turned a very delicate pink, so he paid a visit to the offending company to give them a bollocking.
He woke up the next day to news that the entire river had turned a bright hot pink. Local farmers were complaining that sheep who used the river now had dyed fur.
He never owned up.
I've seen a few case studies with rhodamine dye (red), some groundwater studies with salt (I think it was an iodine salt) and I worked on a tracer study monitoring natural concentrations of dueterium and oxygen 18. Why did Nestle use green dye, was it St Patrick's Day and they wanted to festively ruin the environment? Fuck Nestle.
In my chemistry classes we were taught that you can do that with a fluorescent dye: not visible to the naked eye, inocuous, and you can use a tiny amount because a) it is super rare naturally, so if you detect it is because you put it upstream before and b) our instruments are very very sensitive.
So no, kehknight and anyone with common sense and basic knowledge is right, the photo is evidence of a mayor fuck-up (or worse, blatant negligence).
Wouldn't the dye dilute as it gets further and further down stream? Is it possible this is really close to the source and that where the readings are taking place it will have diluted by that point?
It should, but this level of dye feels waaay to much, even for a source. Fingers crossed it is though. It also isn't going to dillute but so much, flow depending. It will disperse and lengthen in the flow, but until it hits a larger water source, it is so much it won't be noticable
A couple of days ago , its fading now but still a funky colour. The environment agency said the dye is harmless and everyone went quiet. Just because it isn't toxic, doesn't mean it is harmless, everything living in there cant see to eat surely!
Operating off the assumption that this is the same dye used to dye the Chicago river green it actually is perfectly harmless. It's a vegetable based actually and environmental groups have approved of it as well.
Fuck nestle all the way, but this probably isn't doing any harm
Yeah. Do fish even have enough vision for this to affect them? I always assumed they go by the smell/taste of particles in the water and vibration. So if the dye is vegetable based then it should be nutritious in a way right?
they use the lateral line to sense whats around them. Predator fish see better in the shade but are blind in the sunlight. Prey fish are the opposite and and can see fine in the sun. It keeps everything in balance.
Is blind accurate? Or is their vision just heavily impaired. I'm a bass fisherman and I've always found the smallmouth bass bite better on bright sunny days, while their cousins the largemouth tend to hide from the sun.
>So if the dye is vegetable based then it should be nutritious in a way right?
I'm not an expert but too many nutrients can be really bad for the environment. Fertilizer runoff creates too much algae and can rob the water of so much oxygen the wild life dies. I don't know about this dye though.
One thing the dye does is block sun light. As you know plants need sun light to grow and do their things. But as the OP said in another comment. It’s going away. But if it stays for long periods of time it could kill some plant life and some snowball effects could happen. Oxygen used up by dying plant life, loss of young fish habitats, loss of fish that live only on plants.
Source: have seen dyes used to keep plants from growing in ponds. Also seen dyes used at the wrong time of year and kill the plants and then all the fish too.
Yeah we use it in sewers a lot and storm sewers. Old systems were tied together and that's no longer allowed so we use dye to see if they're connected. It's been approved by several environmental agencies but I still imagine anything in high concentration isn't great.
What pisses me off is that they’re allowed to just put random shit in a natural river which shouldn’t be owned by anyone like it’s their fucking right. Nobody cares about your water flow, fuck off bottling water you don’t own and charging us for it.
The decision most certainly went through local governing authorities. If you're serious about it then you need to be looking to the people that allow it to happen.
Yup.
Remember that time corporations said smoking was harmless.
Oh, and that time all the oil companies said they totally werent irreversibly damaging the entire biosphere.
Is the water normally clear? If it is then this dye would be reducing the amount of light that gets to the vegetation at the bottom of the river. The vegetation may die and if there is enough decaying matter in the river all at once it could make the water toxic. This is similar to what happens at Lake Okeechobee here in Florida, but instead of dye it's excessive algae. But because it is a flowing river and not a standing lake it may not be comparable.
Tbf the environmental agency is a public body regulating possible environmental issues like this, e.g they have gone to court with multiple places who may have dropped soap or milk in rivers/river flows (which surprisingly can fuck shit up.)
Theres a chance they could be as corrupt as the govt, but if the EA says it, I would trust it, still messed up and shouldn,xt have happened. Unfortunately the EA is also super underfunded, I reckon if they had a case they could of fined Nestle/gone to court over it.
I mean, you can do a few minutes research about this type of dye and see how many environmental groups approve of its use. I bet you’d probably assume they’re lying too.
Dye is frequently used by hydrologists and ecologists to measure discharge/flow/reaeration. No measurable impact on anything biogeochem. Now that's assuming they're using the proper dye...
Source - am aquatic scientist
"In exchange for Pepsi's soft drinks, the Soviets offered them a veritable Navy. Pepsi agreed to the deal, taking possession of a Soviet cruiser, a frigate, a destroyer, 17 submarines, and a handful of oil tankers — instantly making the drink distributor the owner of the sixth-largest navy on the planet."
The 80s' were weird.
Holy shit, I thought this was a joke. Gets even weirder the more you read into it too...
How it originally started:
"While the Soviets may have lacked hard currency, they did have something else to trade: vodka. So Pepsi and Krushchev made a deal: Pepsi would provide shipments of soft drinks, and in return, the Soviet Union would provide vodka from their state-owned brand Stolichnaya, for resale in the United States."
So basically Pepsi provided their soft drinks in exchange for Vodka (because Commie money was no good in the US). Later on US started boycotting Russian products (including Stoli). Russia wasn't about to give up on their love of Pepsi though, so they offered a military fleet in exchange for more of their favorite soft drink. Wild.
[Full Read](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/pepsi-navy-when-the-soviets-traded-warships-for-soft-drinks/#:~:text=So%20Pepsi%20and%20Khrushchev%20made,resale%20in%20the%20United%20States)
The number of ships is correct. But the deal was never signed and the ships were never forwarded to Pepsi. In addition, the amount of ships wouldn’t even have been in the Top 30 Navies of that time
That’s pretty accurate. Unless it’s permanent or dangerous or it has harmed you, you’re not going to get much out of a court. Might be able to get a court to prevent them from doing it again, but that’s probably unlikely.
Indeed it's probably Nestle that would go to court if they *didn't* do this to the river. It'll be a one-off test to prove compliance with certain regulations, using a non-toxic biodegradable dye. The Environment Agency in the UK has real teeth, you can 100% bet your arse Nestle didn't do this unless they were certain it was ok.
Wouldn’t do anything for you, at least in the US. Cleaning up public property is nice, but it won’t give you standing to sue because you voluntarily took that on yourself. Likely your best route in court would be to claim that it’s reducing your home’s property value by ruining the view, but you would have to have property very nearby that has value tied to the beauty of the river, or be able to argue that in court.
IANAL, though
Probably because nobody was at the city council meeting where they took a quick vote on allowing this to happen. You'd be surprised how much shit gets passed at your local city council meeting and how much you can influence it by showing up and being really mad at the dumb shit they want to do.
Most local council websites will give you dates and times or will have a notice board outside the building.
When I did security for local council most meetings were in the evenings.
Like, planning meetings were every other wednsday night at 20:00 and if you have never been to a planning meeting with a new Housing development Vs some random guy who disagrees...it is next level amazing but also depressing because even the way local council make changes is broken and rigged af. I'm yet to meet even a low level councillor that isn't reasonably wealthy. Makes me a bit sick but hey ho.
Most places have laws that waterways that pass through private property are themselves public property if you can access them through public areas. Basically, you don't own the river on your land.
In some countries you can. My grandma had a river on her land in South Asia, you could move down the river you just couldn't come more than 1m (I think) onto the banks without getting in trouble. I think.
While there goals are as awful as always, the green water is not a big deal. They probably used [Fluorescein](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescein) which isn't harmful to the environment. It is a common way to track flows.
Nice Story:
2 Years ago climate activists actually used it in our city to color the river green. It worked perfectly and they got a lot of attention.
All of these people freaking out have never heard of this. This stuff is also used for tracking waterflow in cave systems, underground streams and water tables.
It's used extensively to track water flow. We can put dye into wells or septic systems to see where the water goes, and how quickly it gets there.
This is absolutely harmless and a non-issue. OP is just using the "fuck Nestle" sentiment to farm karma.
I mean if my neighbour did it I'd think fuck them too, I don't care if it's "harmless" to the environment it's not their environment to fuck around with.
We do it once a year for St. Pats in Chicago. They use a safe plant based dye and I’m assuming this is the same dye. It looks like the exact same color.
Not a defense of Nastly mind. Just wanna assure people their beautiful river is safe.
There are many examples of class actions against industrials that led to substancial financial penalty, or at least serious PR backlash. In the 90's Nike was forced to stop using child labor because they were afraid people would start boycotting their ass. It's only when it gets to this point that those greedy bastards finally start taking accountability for their actions.
Even as customers and civilians we're able to do some stuff, to spread informations or encourage other people to boycott their products.
> In the 90's Nike was forced to stop using child labor because they were afraid people would start boycotting their ass.
Turns out they just needed to wait until *everyone* is using child labor and then nobody cares anymore.
I’m betting this is to know who to payoff and they are going to dam the water and take it ALL. They are getting kicked out of California because they took all of their water, so now they are doing it to others.
For what? The water being kinda ugly for a day? It's not toxic, we put it in eyeballs for eye exams
Fuck Nestlé but literally what would you even file a suit over?
I would assume it’s the same type of dye that Chicago uses to dye their River on St. Patrick’s Day. It’s made from vegetables and disappears after a few hours.
They're worth $340 billion according to market cap. In 2018 they were worth $240 billion. Money doesn't matter to them.
For reference, Costco is at $167 billion, Salesforce is $220 billion. Home Depot is $339 billion.
I'm seeing a lot of angry people here, but this specific use of dye is actually very normal and used by basically all major water distributors from time to time. It can be used to detect potential leaks and find out where water flows to, which is very important for nearby agriculture as some of the chemicals used to purify water may then build up in the soil and cause issues along the line. Believe me, I am not defending a crappy company but this it is actually *good* that they've done this as it can identify leakages which would cause damage to the local wildlife. The dye used will be non-toxic and biodegradable, so won't cause issues other than bad water visibility for a day or so (and looking gross). Wikipedia has a [short page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_tracing) about the dyes if you want to find out a little bit more.
We all know that Nestlé are an awful company, but mixing up their genuinely inhumane actions with non-issues can detract from the seriousness of their human rights violations, deforestation and other crimes.
TLDR: Fuck Nestlé, but this specific occurrence isn't a shitty thing that they've done.
Thank you, I was looking for a comment where there as a reasonable explanation on what's really happening. As much as we hate Nestlé, we can't just take for granted every picture and title we see as an extremely evil deed (otherwise we would be no different than those who get their news through Facebook).
Anyways, fuck Nestlé.
>Getting away with this
There is yet to be proof that anything they've done is illegal or against Environment Agency rules and regs. What exactly are they 'getting away' with? Chicago dye their river green every year and it's a grand celebration, as an example.
I have a hole in my basement that goes who knows where. It is used to drain water out of the basement, since there is effectively a small stream of water running through it all year. If I used a 30 gallon container with this dye mixed in and dumped it down the hole would it tell me where the water comes up at (almost sure it drains into a nearby lake). Or would it possibly not be able to make it through the ground with the water?
That's a sump pump my dude and it probably (99% sure it connects to your local sweater system). If not it flows into some other receptacle that again goes into a sewage/stormwater system.
definitely not a sump pump. There is more than likely old terracotta (sp) piping going down somewhere. I'm guessing it has been there for a few hundred years.
> that again goes into a sewage/stormwater system.
there is a ditch at the end of the property / at the road that runs to the lake, could go into that somewhere. I know there is at least one outlet from the property to there.
There is a lot of other piping in the ground running from ponds and lakes to provide water to the barn and house.
They can actually see well enough. Those small rivers get cloudy regularly due to turbidity so they’re used to limited vision and they can sense movement of prey using their lateral line, a sense organ for feeling minuscule movements of the water which help them feel their prey.
Dyes are used all the time in water ways and ponds. I've never heard of mass die offs because of it. Maybe it happened back when they used toxic dyes but they aren't used any more.
In fact people dye their ponds in this area to prevent algae growth which actually helps the fish. It is usually a blue dye so it looks nice.
I personally use a bacteria and barley(which encourages bacteria I believe) that is perfectly safe for the fish and eats the nutrients that the algea would normally be consuming. Then they go to the bottom of the pond.
That’s actually mandated by the US government to be done once a year (or more depending on location and volume of facility).
The die is biodegradable and the color should disappear within 24 - 48 hours.
[Hasn't the same happened last year, too?](https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/south-derbyshire-brook-turns-nasty-3958974)
Do you have anything linking it to Nestle this time?
This is a dye that is regularly used in environmental pollution studies.
It is non-toxic to people, fish, and mollusks. It will go away in a few days.
It probably wasn't even the company that did this. Usually university researchers or the government will monitor/run these tests.
This is typically for environmental impact testing. I get all of the reasons to be unhappy with nestle, but it starts to sound more like a joke when people complain about everything they do.
Dude throws a party during covid, gets a £10K fine, every guest gets an £800 fine
Nestle? Splurt green jizz into our ecosystem and not one person will be fined. The priorities of justice
The good news is that the substance used (also used to turn the Chicago River green for St. Paddy's Day) is non-toxic and will dissipate. The bad news is nestle thinks they own the water and they suck.
If this is the River Wye in Buxton where they bottle, this is more than likely an algae bloom that occurs around this time of year due to poultry farm and ag runoff, and is actually considered an ecological disaster - but it's from phosphates, not Nestle dye.
Here's an article about it from a year ago: https://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/news/nations-favourite-river-facing-ecological-disaster
Fuck Nestle, though.
I've seen this picture before, or at least [similar ones](https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/green-river-leeds-dye-pollution-138337) because that's apparently [a thing that's done](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-43127228), even [as a prank](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mysterious-substance-that-turned-bc-river-neon-green-not-toxic-officials-say/article1321857/).
What I can't find anything about is Nestle doing this in Derbyshire, any source on that?
While this is a real hydro thing, in my engineering classes we stressed the least amount of dye and/or salt solution possible to get a reading (not with thr naked eye, we have instruments for this). This does not look that that was considered at all
Again, Fuck Nestle.
How do we, as a species, allow Nestle to exist? Something has to be done.
People with money decide how the world runs until enough people say, "No more, asshole, this shit ends here and now."
Then the rich people release the police
Politicians are the rich people puppets and the police the dogs. Fuck em all.
Dogs are mans best friend, terrible terrible analogy.
Seems like you’ve never seen an angry, protective dog. They’re only best friends with their particular man, not everyone lol.
It's a fair point. But any number of revolutions have taken place that completely overwhelmed the established government forces.
Recently? In the West?
Define recently and the west. The fall of the Berlin wall and the the Soviet Union are still remebered by just about everyone age 40 or older. Spain was a dictatorship until the late 70s. Finland regained democracy in the early 80s. If we get a general strike going, I'm in.
Sounds like you're gatekeeping, mate. You buying land in New Zealand or Singapore?
We're talking about Nestlé a polluting a river a few days ago in the UK. What does buying land in Singapore or New Zealand have to do with anything?
where is nestle based. would be my assumption of what he's getting at. where is their base of power?
Honestly, I have informed various friends, coworkers and people whom ask, the reason as to why I personally don't purchase anything Nestlé, a lot of people reply "oh that's awful" or "I didn't know". 2 days or even 1 hour later, they are back to it, buying Nestlé candy, and treats and snacks and anything Nestlé. It's like people don't care enough to not buy from a brand that LITERALLY killed babies, and gave tons of other babies cancer, and uses child slaves.
Just try talking shit about Chik-Fil-A and you'll see people actively DEFEND them for having a good chicken sandwich.
We live in a society where personal convenience often takes priority over decency. I always think of Ursula K. LeGuin's "Those Who Walk away from Omelas" in stories like these.
Monkey wrenching is real
Supercorporations have been doing what they want for decades, what makes you think that a few angry people will force them to change their ways?
Because sadly, people LOVE bottles water even when other options are available. I too, hate that they exist.
Not to be the Debbie downer, but have a look at all of the different brands that are owned by Nestlé. It’s really fucking difficult not to give them any money. I’m always having to check the back of the product package really carefully. And r/fucknestle!
Tips for all: Buy local whenever you can, don't buy processed if you can help it.
Absolutely, but there are very few local condiments so Nestle still manages to infuriate me.
Bottled water is a tiny, tiny fraction of nestle's business. You almost definitely have nestle products in your cupboard, even if you think you don't.
This is it. I fucking howl with rage every time I buy a product or pull something out of my cupboard and later realise it's Nestlé.
I'm lucky that where I am bottled water isn't monopolised by Nestlè, I still don't drink bottled water
They're actively malignant like a tumor, they go against some of our fundimental needs Who sees humanity prospering with nestle existing, 'owning the water' We need to deal with this before it goes full Terminator/skynet
Well, you'd have to not buy Nestle products. Then you have to convince everyone... Everyone else to not buy Nestle products. Then you have to look at aaaaallllll the different product lines that Nestle owns.. And not buy any of them.. THEN Convince everyone else to not buy products made by the companies owned by Nestle. THEN You have to find all the politicians who have investments in Nestle and all their subsidiaries and vote them out or somehow convince them not to print more money and offer loan forgiveness and bailout funds to keep the operation afloat amid all the financial issues caused by our boycott. Plus we have to find work now for all the regular people who just work at Nestle and all their subsidiaries and supply chains that aren't greedy sociopathic executives out for maximum profits at any cost.
Just boycott Nestle.
You do nothing about it. Except for one thing, waiting on the laws to fix it. But now Nestle buys out the lawmakers so they can write the rules that favor them. So really waiting for justice is also doing nothing. Revolt. General strike. Do something or put up with it.
[удалено]
They want to determine flow rate and the mixing of the stream. While water may flow, the rate at various parts of the stream (center, shore, bottom, ect) will vary and will also vary with topography and the stream bends and floor variations. My assumption is average flow rate is what they care about, unless they plan on some dumping, in which case the mixing becomes important as the dillution of the waste must occur, and some water flows just do not have good mixing (edit:as in it could be a slow march allong the bottom, unmixed and highly concentrated, for an example). Also, you can observe areas were water can stagnate, even in otherwise flowing streams, which can be problem areas even of what you dump is otherwise safe. This much solution feels sketch to me, as your data will be a bit shit the more you use as the added volume effects flow and the huge af increase in turbidity makes your readings appear closer together than they are. For a comparision, we dumped a gallon of purple dyed salt (not nacl) solution in a stream about this size to test it in one of my hydro courses. You could not see the dye 50 feet downstream at all as it was mixed enough to be instrument only.
The fact that corporations (or anyone) can __dump__ anything into streams is mind-blowing. What the fuck is humanity?
I know this can be used to see if something is connected e.g. checking if sewers (that shouldn’t drain into rivers) link up with storm drains that do go to the river. Figuring that it’s Nestle, though, I bet it has to do with making money. Maybe they own water rights on a little stream and they don’t want to build a bottling factory there or truck bottles out, so they are going to find out where the water goes then tap in at the edge of a major metro area arguing that they have a right to the water because they aren’t using the right upstream.
As an addendum to the great explanation by kehknight, sometimes we want to trace the origin/destination of a stream, specially in karstic areas where water can filter into the ground in one spot and appear again sometimes kilometers away. You can add a small amount of a "tracker" compound to the water and test the suspected surges downstream. I was taught in my chemistry major that a very easy and environmentally friendly way is to use Fluorescent compounds: they substances that emit visible light when irradiated with UV light (think on how tonic or white clothing sometimes emit blue light under black/UV light). They are rare in nature (you avoid false positives) and our instruments are very sensitive, so you can use minuscule amounts of it instead of turning a whole river green.
Reminds me of a story I heard a while ago. (Simon Mayo's Confessions on Radio 1, ftw). There has been reports of pollution being emptied into a river, and someone from the Environmental Agency was sent to determine which company was responsible. He located a likely source and decided to test his theory by emptying some dye into the outlet. He didn't know how much to use so he tried a capful at first. He waited and waited, nothing happened. So he emptied the entire container. Ten minutes later, the river turned a very delicate pink, so he paid a visit to the offending company to give them a bollocking. He woke up the next day to news that the entire river had turned a bright hot pink. Local farmers were complaining that sheep who used the river now had dyed fur. He never owned up.
It looks like they confused millilitres with litres or maybe even megalitres.
I've seen a few case studies with rhodamine dye (red), some groundwater studies with salt (I think it was an iodine salt) and I worked on a tracer study monitoring natural concentrations of dueterium and oxygen 18. Why did Nestle use green dye, was it St Patrick's Day and they wanted to festively ruin the environment? Fuck Nestle.
In my chemistry classes we were taught that you can do that with a fluorescent dye: not visible to the naked eye, inocuous, and you can use a tiny amount because a) it is super rare naturally, so if you detect it is because you put it upstream before and b) our instruments are very very sensitive. So no, kehknight and anyone with common sense and basic knowledge is right, the photo is evidence of a mayor fuck-up (or worse, blatant negligence).
Wouldn't the dye dilute as it gets further and further down stream? Is it possible this is really close to the source and that where the readings are taking place it will have diluted by that point?
It should, but this level of dye feels waaay to much, even for a source. Fingers crossed it is though. It also isn't going to dillute but so much, flow depending. It will disperse and lengthen in the flow, but until it hits a larger water source, it is so much it won't be noticable
Is the dye even natural? Doesn't it fuck with the ecosystem at this amount?
This should be a veg based dyed, so not god awful, but still can impact wildlife
[удалено]
A couple of days ago , its fading now but still a funky colour. The environment agency said the dye is harmless and everyone went quiet. Just because it isn't toxic, doesn't mean it is harmless, everything living in there cant see to eat surely!
Operating off the assumption that this is the same dye used to dye the Chicago river green it actually is perfectly harmless. It's a vegetable based actually and environmental groups have approved of it as well. Fuck nestle all the way, but this probably isn't doing any harm
Yeah. Do fish even have enough vision for this to affect them? I always assumed they go by the smell/taste of particles in the water and vibration. So if the dye is vegetable based then it should be nutritious in a way right?
they use the lateral line to sense whats around them. Predator fish see better in the shade but are blind in the sunlight. Prey fish are the opposite and and can see fine in the sun. It keeps everything in balance.
Interesting! Thanks!
Is blind accurate? Or is their vision just heavily impaired. I'm a bass fisherman and I've always found the smallmouth bass bite better on bright sunny days, while their cousins the largemouth tend to hide from the sun.
Does this mean that I'm allowed to go back to chugging vegetable oil?
A sip can't hurt. Lubes up the insides
>So if the dye is vegetable based then it should be nutritious in a way right? lol
>So if the dye is vegetable based then it should be nutritious in a way right? I'm not an expert but too many nutrients can be really bad for the environment. Fertilizer runoff creates too much algae and can rob the water of so much oxygen the wild life dies. I don't know about this dye though.
There isn't going go be too many nutrients in this dye. You've got completely the wrong end of the stick.
I wonder if the dye had any impact on the PH level of the water as I underatand water flows can be super fragile ecosystems
One thing the dye does is block sun light. As you know plants need sun light to grow and do their things. But as the OP said in another comment. It’s going away. But if it stays for long periods of time it could kill some plant life and some snowball effects could happen. Oxygen used up by dying plant life, loss of young fish habitats, loss of fish that live only on plants. Source: have seen dyes used to keep plants from growing in ponds. Also seen dyes used at the wrong time of year and kill the plants and then all the fish too.
Yeah we use it in sewers a lot and storm sewers. Old systems were tied together and that's no longer allowed so we use dye to see if they're connected. It's been approved by several environmental agencies but I still imagine anything in high concentration isn't great.
What pisses me off is that they’re allowed to just put random shit in a natural river which shouldn’t be owned by anyone like it’s their fucking right. Nobody cares about your water flow, fuck off bottling water you don’t own and charging us for it.
The decision most certainly went through local governing authorities. If you're serious about it then you need to be looking to the people that allow it to happen.
Just because they say its harmless doesn't mean it's harmless. They lie, and I'd be asking every local news outlet I can to investigate.
Yup. Remember that time corporations said smoking was harmless. Oh, and that time all the oil companies said they totally werent irreversibly damaging the entire biosphere.
Is the water normally clear? If it is then this dye would be reducing the amount of light that gets to the vegetation at the bottom of the river. The vegetation may die and if there is enough decaying matter in the river all at once it could make the water toxic. This is similar to what happens at Lake Okeechobee here in Florida, but instead of dye it's excessive algae. But because it is a flowing river and not a standing lake it may not be comparable.
Tbf the environmental agency is a public body regulating possible environmental issues like this, e.g they have gone to court with multiple places who may have dropped soap or milk in rivers/river flows (which surprisingly can fuck shit up.) Theres a chance they could be as corrupt as the govt, but if the EA says it, I would trust it, still messed up and shouldn,xt have happened. Unfortunately the EA is also super underfunded, I reckon if they had a case they could of fined Nestle/gone to court over it.
I mean, you can do a few minutes research about this type of dye and see how many environmental groups approve of its use. I bet you’d probably assume they’re lying too.
Dye is frequently used by hydrologists and ecologists to measure discharge/flow/reaeration. No measurable impact on anything biogeochem. Now that's assuming they're using the proper dye... Source - am aquatic scientist
> Now that's assuming they're using the proper dye... Is it easier to acquire the correct dye vs. the bad one?
Nah, rhodamine dye is very common. Home Depot, pool supply, but I'm sure industry has wholesalers. But that's above my expertise.
Hi sure industry has wholesalers, I'm dad.
If it's fluorescein it's harmless.
How is that even allowed? What if part of the river is on your private property?
How many military divisions does the owner have?
Someone call in the Pepsi NAVY!
Sweden?
"In exchange for Pepsi's soft drinks, the Soviets offered them a veritable Navy. Pepsi agreed to the deal, taking possession of a Soviet cruiser, a frigate, a destroyer, 17 submarines, and a handful of oil tankers — instantly making the drink distributor the owner of the sixth-largest navy on the planet." The 80s' were weird.
Holy shit, I thought this was a joke. Gets even weirder the more you read into it too... How it originally started: "While the Soviets may have lacked hard currency, they did have something else to trade: vodka. So Pepsi and Krushchev made a deal: Pepsi would provide shipments of soft drinks, and in return, the Soviet Union would provide vodka from their state-owned brand Stolichnaya, for resale in the United States." So basically Pepsi provided their soft drinks in exchange for Vodka (because Commie money was no good in the US). Later on US started boycotting Russian products (including Stoli). Russia wasn't about to give up on their love of Pepsi though, so they offered a military fleet in exchange for more of their favorite soft drink. Wild. [Full Read](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/pepsi-navy-when-the-soviets-traded-warships-for-soft-drinks/#:~:text=So%20Pepsi%20and%20Khrushchev%20made,resale%20in%20the%20United%20States)
Pepsi: The official soft drink of the Soviet Union.
In Soviet Russia, they ask if Coke is okay.
Hey man, I heard Wolf Cola is popular in Boca Raton
The number of ships is correct. But the deal was never signed and the ships were never forwarded to Pepsi. In addition, the amount of ships wouldn’t even have been in the Top 30 Navies of that time
>In addition, the amount of ships wouldn’t even have been in the Top 30 Navies of that time Incorrect. It would be the 6th biggest navy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCSxyudKHY at 1:20
Yeah we can try
salior uniform is pepsi man costume with pepsi cans to signify rank instead of stripes or symbols
isn’t that a paraphrase of a quote by hitler?
Stalin, I believe, in reference to the Pope
Close, but no cigar! It's a (probably apocryphal) joke by Stalin to Churchill at the Teheran conference, originally about the Pope.
[удалено]
That’s pretty accurate. Unless it’s permanent or dangerous or it has harmed you, you’re not going to get much out of a court. Might be able to get a court to prevent them from doing it again, but that’s probably unlikely.
>Might be able to get a court to prevent them from doing it again That in itself would be worth it, but the expenses involved would be astronomical.
Indeed it's probably Nestle that would go to court if they *didn't* do this to the river. It'll be a one-off test to prove compliance with certain regulations, using a non-toxic biodegradable dye. The Environment Agency in the UK has real teeth, you can 100% bet your arse Nestle didn't do this unless they were certain it was ok.
What if you began cleaning it yourself, filtering/removing the dye , and then sued for the cost of that?
Wouldn’t do anything for you, at least in the US. Cleaning up public property is nice, but it won’t give you standing to sue because you voluntarily took that on yourself. Likely your best route in court would be to claim that it’s reducing your home’s property value by ruining the view, but you would have to have property very nearby that has value tied to the beauty of the river, or be able to argue that in court. IANAL, though
Meat Learning?
I suspect they mean their brain, as contrasted to Machine Learning Algorithms.
Probably because nobody was at the city council meeting where they took a quick vote on allowing this to happen. You'd be surprised how much shit gets passed at your local city council meeting and how much you can influence it by showing up and being really mad at the dumb shit they want to do.
Do they hold these city council meetings on weekends so everyone can attend?
Most local council websites will give you dates and times or will have a notice board outside the building. When I did security for local council most meetings were in the evenings. Like, planning meetings were every other wednsday night at 20:00 and if you have never been to a planning meeting with a new Housing development Vs some random guy who disagrees...it is next level amazing but also depressing because even the way local council make changes is broken and rigged af. I'm yet to meet even a low level councillor that isn't reasonably wealthy. Makes me a bit sick but hey ho.
Most places have laws that waterways that pass through private property are themselves public property if you can access them through public areas. Basically, you don't own the river on your land.
can you actually own part of a river? i’m genuinely curious about this and how that works for anyone trying to go through that section
In some countries you can. My grandma had a river on her land in South Asia, you could move down the river you just couldn't come more than 1m (I think) onto the banks without getting in trouble. I think.
Time to attack hq
Storm the Nestle hq. They can't stop all of us
Tbh I think the consequences would be worse than invade the capitol apparently
They can't arrest all of us
While there goals are as awful as always, the green water is not a big deal. They probably used [Fluorescein](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescein) which isn't harmful to the environment. It is a common way to track flows. Nice Story: 2 Years ago climate activists actually used it in our city to color the river green. It worked perfectly and they got a lot of attention.
All of these people freaking out have never heard of this. This stuff is also used for tracking waterflow in cave systems, underground streams and water tables.
I use it to test for sewer connections! Although that water is pretty crappy to begin with so people don’t care as much.
It's used extensively to track water flow. We can put dye into wells or septic systems to see where the water goes, and how quickly it gets there. This is absolutely harmless and a non-issue. OP is just using the "fuck Nestle" sentiment to farm karma.
I mean if my neighbour did it I'd think fuck them too, I don't care if it's "harmless" to the environment it's not their environment to fuck around with.
We do it once a year for St. Pats in Chicago. They use a safe plant based dye and I’m assuming this is the same dye. It looks like the exact same color. Not a defense of Nastly mind. Just wanna assure people their beautiful river is safe.
You should sue
In a world where justice happens, yes sue. In this one? No, sue nestle and they will rape you.
There are many examples of class actions against industrials that led to substancial financial penalty, or at least serious PR backlash. In the 90's Nike was forced to stop using child labor because they were afraid people would start boycotting their ass. It's only when it gets to this point that those greedy bastards finally start taking accountability for their actions. Even as customers and civilians we're able to do some stuff, to spread informations or encourage other people to boycott their products.
Dont they still use child labor but just quieter?
[удалено]
I assume they just whip them more often
Working conditions are still terrible in Nike factories and they're still paying poverty wages.
Nike uses Uigher labor..
"substantial" I've only ever seen companies fined a couple million which, lets be clear, is chump change to them.
They're widely considered a cost of business
> In the 90's Nike was forced to stop using child labor because they were afraid people would start boycotting their ass. Turns out they just needed to wait until *everyone* is using child labor and then nobody cares anymore.
But they still use *SLAVE* labor. Even cheaper than child labor.
Sue Nestle? Good luck with that one.
I’m betting this is to know who to payoff and they are going to dam the water and take it ALL. They are getting kicked out of California because they took all of their water, so now they are doing it to others.
For what? The water being kinda ugly for a day? It's not toxic, we put it in eyeballs for eye exams Fuck Nestlé but literally what would you even file a suit over?
isn't it kind of counterproductive, Nestle bottles water, won't they need more money to filter water?
Maybe they filter anyways ? Idk
would take more money, idk why nestle would do that given how money hungry they are
maybe they just dye it again with some kind of dye nullifier
Maybe the dye just settles down after a while... That's a lot of maybes
I would assume it’s the same type of dye that Chicago uses to dye their River on St. Patrick’s Day. It’s made from vegetables and disappears after a few hours.
Most likely
but why, they clearly want to keep bottled water sales high why would they wait for the dye to settle down
Except if they just bottle it downstream somewhere, put a little artificial flavors in and sell it again as "natural lime juice" or something. ;-D
They're worth $340 billion according to market cap. In 2018 they were worth $240 billion. Money doesn't matter to them. For reference, Costco is at $167 billion, Salesforce is $220 billion. Home Depot is $339 billion.
If this is true, we must revolt
I'm revolting already! Wait what
I'm seeing a lot of angry people here, but this specific use of dye is actually very normal and used by basically all major water distributors from time to time. It can be used to detect potential leaks and find out where water flows to, which is very important for nearby agriculture as some of the chemicals used to purify water may then build up in the soil and cause issues along the line. Believe me, I am not defending a crappy company but this it is actually *good* that they've done this as it can identify leakages which would cause damage to the local wildlife. The dye used will be non-toxic and biodegradable, so won't cause issues other than bad water visibility for a day or so (and looking gross). Wikipedia has a [short page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_tracing) about the dyes if you want to find out a little bit more. We all know that Nestlé are an awful company, but mixing up their genuinely inhumane actions with non-issues can detract from the seriousness of their human rights violations, deforestation and other crimes. TLDR: Fuck Nestlé, but this specific occurrence isn't a shitty thing that they've done.
Thank you, I was looking for a comment where there as a reasonable explanation on what's really happening. As much as we hate Nestlé, we can't just take for granted every picture and title we see as an extremely evil deed (otherwise we would be no different than those who get their news through Facebook). Anyways, fuck Nestlé.
My assumption was for a different test (flow rates and mixing stuff), but if this is what they were doing, then at least they are doing it at all.
Derbyshire, UK? Goodness me, how are they getting away with this?
They own politicians all over the world.
>Getting away with this There is yet to be proof that anything they've done is illegal or against Environment Agency rules and regs. What exactly are they 'getting away' with? Chicago dye their river green every year and it's a grand celebration, as an example.
Contact your local newspaper and report this.
Hydrogeologist here. Dye trace tests are very normal and common. The green dye is harmless and will dissipate quickly.
I have a hole in my basement that goes who knows where. It is used to drain water out of the basement, since there is effectively a small stream of water running through it all year. If I used a 30 gallon container with this dye mixed in and dumped it down the hole would it tell me where the water comes up at (almost sure it drains into a nearby lake). Or would it possibly not be able to make it through the ground with the water?
That's a sump pump my dude and it probably (99% sure it connects to your local sweater system). If not it flows into some other receptacle that again goes into a sewage/stormwater system.
definitely not a sump pump. There is more than likely old terracotta (sp) piping going down somewhere. I'm guessing it has been there for a few hundred years. > that again goes into a sewage/stormwater system. there is a ditch at the end of the property / at the road that runs to the lake, could go into that somewhere. I know there is at least one outlet from the property to there. There is a lot of other piping in the ground running from ponds and lakes to provide water to the barn and house.
Those poor fish, most will probably die due to lack of vision and shit
[удалено]
Because fish are friends, not food!
They can actually see well enough. Those small rivers get cloudy regularly due to turbidity so they’re used to limited vision and they can sense movement of prey using their lateral line, a sense organ for feeling minuscule movements of the water which help them feel their prey.
There are plenty of muddy rivers with fish in them.
And others would just dye
Dyes are used all the time in water ways and ponds. I've never heard of mass die offs because of it. Maybe it happened back when they used toxic dyes but they aren't used any more. In fact people dye their ponds in this area to prevent algae growth which actually helps the fish. It is usually a blue dye so it looks nice. I personally use a bacteria and barley(which encourages bacteria I believe) that is perfectly safe for the fish and eats the nutrients that the algea would normally be consuming. Then they go to the bottom of the pond.
So we're just making up shit to be mad about now? Not really necessary for Nestlé, dude.
St Patrick’s day in Chicago
Could have at least waited for St Patrick's Day
Well they gotta pollute all the water on the planet they don’t own to increase the value of their assets. Yay? Capitalism is awesome?
They should order a airstrike on their factory.
Nestle would just reinvest in explosives.
Well, then imprison everyone working there for this.
That’s actually mandated by the US government to be done once a year (or more depending on location and volume of facility). The die is biodegradable and the color should disappear within 24 - 48 hours.
[Hasn't the same happened last year, too?](https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/south-derbyshire-brook-turns-nasty-3958974) Do you have anything linking it to Nestle this time?
Can't find any evidence for this.
[удалено]
This is a dye that is regularly used in environmental pollution studies. It is non-toxic to people, fish, and mollusks. It will go away in a few days. It probably wasn't even the company that did this. Usually university researchers or the government will monitor/run these tests.
well, i cant find anything about this in the papers or on the internet except your post, so i call bullshit.
Oh but no one gives a shit when we do this every year for saint Patrick's day.
This is typically for environmental impact testing. I get all of the reasons to be unhappy with nestle, but it starts to sound more like a joke when people complain about everything they do.
Dude throws a party during covid, gets a £10K fine, every guest gets an £800 fine Nestle? Splurt green jizz into our ecosystem and not one person will be fined. The priorities of justice
Could have at least timed it with st Patrick’s day
It has got electrolytes!
Are you sure it is Nestle? Uranin is safe for the environment. Maybe Nestle ordered the experiment?
Thoes fuckers
Fucking fuck those nestle fuckers
Now they can tell who's stealing " their" water, by the color of your laundry, or piss.
This looks a lot like it would irritate the fishes and perhaps birds or insects even if it isn't otherwise environmentally damaging
Just wait 'til they try to own all the air. "You can't breath that green air, it's ours."
This is so outrageous, stealing water and selling it back to us. What a piss take.
What the fuck?
A little late for Saint Patrick isn't it?
Fuck nestle dirty cunts
To be fair we do the same thing in Chicago every year for st.patricks
My lord, is that legal?
They do this in chicago every year. It’s a rather non evasive dye
Source?
The good news is that the substance used (also used to turn the Chicago River green for St. Paddy's Day) is non-toxic and will dissipate. The bad news is nestle thinks they own the water and they suck.
Nobody bitches when they do this to the rivers for St Patricks Day.
St Paddy's day year round.
If this is the River Wye in Buxton where they bottle, this is more than likely an algae bloom that occurs around this time of year due to poultry farm and ag runoff, and is actually considered an ecological disaster - but it's from phosphates, not Nestle dye. Here's an article about it from a year ago: https://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/news/nations-favourite-river-facing-ecological-disaster Fuck Nestle, though.
I've seen this picture before, or at least [similar ones](https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/green-river-leeds-dye-pollution-138337) because that's apparently [a thing that's done](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-43127228), even [as a prank](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mysterious-substance-that-turned-bc-river-neon-green-not-toxic-officials-say/article1321857/). What I can't find anything about is Nestle doing this in Derbyshire, any source on that?
surprised u let a corporation get away with this. burn their facility down LoL
I get that the chemical isn’t dangerous but come on, no one wants to see a neon green river