116
The city of Lyman is now covered with thousands of kilometers of fiber optic cable from FPV drones.
(files.catbox.moe)
πHeavy footage that vividly demonstrates how war is changing. Now the intensity of combat actions can be determined not so much by destroyed buildings, but by the amount of optical fibre.
Pilots of the reconnaissance company of the 63rd Brigade showed what Lyman looks like now. The city is holding on, but is gradually being covered by this "cobweb". Every day hundreds of enemy and our "birds" fly here β and each one leaves its markπ₯Ί
π‘63rd SMBr | STEEL LIONS
It has an eerie beauty to it.
I remember seeing some photos a while back of bird nests made out of fragments of fibre optic cable, those looked pretty neat too. On the plus side, when this stuff degrades it just turns into sand. So at least there won't be a toxic waste problem on top of everything else.
Plastic is preferred for dronesbecause it doesn't break.
Glass is used for long runs. As glass fiber degrades you get thousands of fragments so it's the equivalent of fiberglass. The long term effect of fiberglass exposure is pulmonary fibrosis.
https://bou.org.uk/blog-moreland-fibreoptic-drones/#%3A%7E%3Atext=A+fine+mess%2Cmake+them+difficult+to+recycle.
Only if the glass gets into your lungs, though. If it's mixed with the soil it's just sand.
Wasn't aware they used plastic fibers. I guess that would make it lighter, too.
Fiberglass in soil is a hazard to all small animals.
https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2024/07/02/fibreglass-particles-found-in-oysters-and-mussels/
Imagine walking barefoot over thousands of tiny syringes. Or eating a seed covered in broken glass that you are unable to wash off because you are a mouse.
Yes in the very long term it will break down. But that's probably geologic timeframes because once the fiberglass gets under the topsoil it won't degrade further unless the soil is disturbed.
If it's under the topsoil then it's not going to be eaten by mice or oysters.
I really think this is one of those problems where people are looking for problems to make a big deal out of, like the massive panic about plastic straws a while back. Especially in this case where it turns out the fibers are plastic to begin with.
That takes years.
There's research about the dangers of microplastics. It's not speculation. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2746
You just seamlessly switched from plastic straws specifically to all microplastics from all sources. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. How much do plastic straws contribute to microplastics? It's utterly negligible. But it's something that a public panic can be whipped up over, and people end up thinking they're actually accomplishing something meaningful by switching to paper straws. It's outright counterproductive. If I was a Captain Planet villain then I would consider it my greatest accomplishment to get people worked up about plastic straws and thinking that they were significant.
Same here with these fibre optics. The environmental impact is trivial, be it plastic or glass. The cost of worrying about it is far greater than the cost of just going ahead and using it.
No, you threw out a concentrated localized source of microplastics by saying, "Its just straws." That village is covered in thousands of miles of fiber. Most plastic, some glass.
So if I shredded pounds of plastic and a little fiber glass and sprinkle it from the air on your house it doesn't matter because straws?
GTFO. You'd be the first person crying to the government about how your lawn is ruined.
We're talking about a village covered in fiber optics.
If that's glass fibers in that nest, the baby birds will be dead.
Are you forgetting that this is an active war zone? The whole reason those fibers are there is because flying bombs are using them for guidance. Having to sweep up some sparkly fiber is a trivial distraction from far more important issues.
Exactly as I keep pointing out.
Bullshit. You said this:
"On the plus side, when this stuff degrades it just turns into sand. So at least there won't be a toxic waste problem on top of everything else."
After I showed it is a toxic waste problem on top over everything else you moved the goal post to "straws".
I didn't say they should stop using drones. I only refuted your claim that there's nothing to clean up afterwards.
A little plastic fiber isn't toxic waste. You are applying absolutely ridiculous standards.
I already linked to a 20 year research paper that shows micro plastics are toxic. That they aren't as toxic as lead or depleted uranium found on other battlefields doesn't make it non toxic.
https://ceobs.org/plastic-pollution-from-fibre-optic-drones-may-threaten-wildlife-for-years