this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
138 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
86419 readers
2902 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh really? I honestly never considered that possibility and always thought of concrete as a kind of inert “stone,” I find this legitimately interesting.
My understanding is that the genius of such attacks is they don't actually have to do the damage but if there's the fear of chemical damage you don't want to build the rest of a building on top of it.
This right here is the answer. The possibility that the concrete cure was all or partially disrupted can mean the concrete has to go away and be re-poured.
That would be a great reason to announce the damage as well, which they did.
Check out the Hoover Dam. It's concrete is still curing to this day!
Stone itself isn't inert either?