OT: (QLD) Pleas sign E-Petition to stop recycled sewerage, m

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.02.21.39.51.561936@woa.com.au...

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


"Approximately 40% is used for toilet flushing and the remaining 60% is
used for irrigation and operational wash-down activities."

**And what part of that suggests that a petition is a sane idea? In any
case, you asked for a cite. I provided it. Want more? I can keep you busy
for the next decade or so, if you really want to know. Much better that
you should educate yourself, than rely on propaganda promulgated by
idiots.

Find one where it is used for drinkng water please.

**One? I'll give you more than that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27conserve.html

http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05501/0441/055010441.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources_of_Singapore

That is the whole point.

**No. The whole point is that the OP failed to examine the reality of
things. SE Qld is the fastest growing urban area in the nation. Water
resources are rapidly being depleted. Some kind of water recycling MUST be
introduced, or some of the population needs to be removed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d04650d1-9feb-4d80-87fc-4eec07d74abc@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 7:39 am, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Approximately 40% is used for toilet flushing and the remaining 60% is
used for irrigation and operational wash-down activities."

**And what part of that suggests that a petition is a sane idea? In any
case, you asked for a cite. I provided it. Want more? I can keep you
busy
for the next decade or so, if you really want to know. Much better that
you should educate yourself, than rely on propaganda promulgated by
idiots.

Find one where it is used for drinkng water please.
That is the whole point.

Don't waste your time, he will just hit back with more of his insults

to hide behind, that are of a "white trash"
level anyway.

From the posts on here, I would question the standards of his
educational system, particularly in relation to manners.

**You failed to do several things in your original post:

* You posted off topic.
* You failed to educate yourself adequately WRT state of the art water
recycling systems.
* You assume that the majority of the Australian population is as dumb as
Queenslanders. They're not. Most of the Australian population understands
that recycling will be necessary, unless serious steps are made to control
population growth and/or water usage.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:20:10 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.02.21.39.51.561936@woa.com.au...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


"Approximately 40% is used for toilet flushing and the remaining 60%
is used for irrigation and operational wash-down activities."

**And what part of that suggests that a petition is a sane idea? In any
case, you asked for a cite. I provided it. Want more? I can keep you
busy for the next decade or so, if you really want to know. Much better
that you should educate yourself, than rely on propaganda promulgated
by idiots.

Find one where it is used for drinkng water please.

**One? I'll give you more than that:

Keep trying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27conserve.html

This jst a proposal and it has one major part of the system that no-one
else has. Te drinking water component appears exceeding rare.

http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05501/0441/055010441.pdf

Nothing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources_of_Singapore

says they have recycked water. light on details.
>

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.04.13.06.49.12765@woa.com.au...

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:20:10 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:




"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.02.21.39.51.561936@woa.com.au...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


"Approximately 40% is used for toilet flushing and the remaining 60%
is used for irrigation and operational wash-down activities."

**And what part of that suggests that a petition is a sane idea? In any
case, you asked for a cite. I provided it. Want more? I can keep you
busy for the next decade or so, if you really want to know. Much better
that you should educate yourself, than rely on propaganda promulgated
by idiots.

Find one where it is used for drinkng water please.

**One? I'll give you more than that:

Keep trying.

**No need. You asked for ONE example. I provided three.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27conserve.html

This jst a proposal and it has one major part of the system that no-one
else has. Te drinking water component appears exceeding rare.

**Read the date on the article. Also, note these words:

"Orange County began purifying sewer water in 1976..."

http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05501/0441/055010441.pdf

Nothing there.

**Read the whole paper. Pay close attention to these words:

"For decades, the city of Windhoek in Namibia succeeded in stretching their
limited potable water
resources through strict water management, latterly including wastewater
reclamation and direct potable reuse."

Seems clear enough. You are a product of the Queensland education system,
right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources_of_Singapore

says they have recycked water. light on details.

**Pay close attention to the following words:

"NEWater is the brand name given to reclaimed water produced by Singapore's
public utilities. More specifically, it is treated wastewater (sewage) that
has been purified using dual-membrane (via microfiltration and reverse
osmosis) and ultraviolet technologies, in addition to conventional water
treatment processes.

There are three NEWater factories, located at the Bedok, Kranji Water
Reclamation Plants, and Seletar Water Reclamation Plant, producing about 20
million US gallons per day (0.9 mł/s). About 6% of this is used for indirect
potable use, which contributes 1 % of Singapore's potable water requirements
of 300 million US gallons per day (13 mł/s). The rest of the water is used
at wafer fabrication plants and other non-potable applications in
industries.

The fourth recycling plant, with a capacity of 32 million gallons per day
opened in Ulu Pandan on 15 March 2007. With this new capacity coming on
stream, NEWater can now meet 15 % of Singapore's water needs."

Again, clear enough to anyone with a reasonable education.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[APR]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6ph5hfF80m3vU1@mid.individual.net...

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.01.03.36.51.124458@woa.com.au...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:10:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


I also know a water treatment specialist, he has serious concerns about
the
heavy metals found in excrement, that are not able to be removed
effectively.

**Bullshit! The technology for removing heavy metals is well-known and
easy enough to implement.

err, reference please.
Can you also provide a site that actually does this?

**A "site"? Lemme see. Oh yeah, I can do it in my kitchen. It'll take me 5
minutes to set up two different methods. OTOH, here is another place:

http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/education_and_learning/environment/water/wrams

Is that the kind of "site" you mean? Or do you mean 'cite'? If so, I can
provide you with enough cites to keep you busy for the next few decades.
For the record: Heavy metals are pretty much the easiest stuff to remove
from water. As usual, Queenlanders, rather than finding out the truth,
have sucked up some complete bollocks from scare-mongers and are
promulgating it as fact. No wonder they kept voting for Joh.

Are you a Queenslander too?



**I accept that you don't like your govenment. None of which matters.

It matters a great deal. It is so easy to cut costs be scimping on
maintenance and oh woops, raw sewerage gets dumped in the drinking water.

**It is easy enough to arrange it so this cannot occur. Rampant paranoia,
amongst Queenslanders, notwithstanding. In any case, it is likely that any
recycled water system will not be fed into the drinking water system. It
would be used for other purposes. Drinking water comprises a miniscule
proportion of water consumption.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor, I have viewed the link you brought up, and went to other pages of
the site. I don't think I have the courage/stupidity to state I trust the
authorities to make pottable water from raw sewage. The majority of
instances of water purification using Continuous Micro Filtration use feed
that is only lightly contaminated, not sewage, contaminated with dissolved
chemicals/drugs that cannot be filtered out. Also, please see the following
excerpt from the site you provided the link to:
"The use of recycled water for drinking purposes was not condoned for health
and cost reasons. It was concluded that the greater risk associated with the
reuse of effluent for drinking would necessitate an extremely stringent
monitoring program. This would need to include monitoring for viruses and
parasites for which methods to detect the viability of organisms are still
being developed and refined. The additional monitoring was considered to be
a significant ongoing cost with little or no benefit."

http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/education_and_learning/environment/water/safety_of_recycled_water



APR

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:Rcm_k.158$cu.65@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6ph5hfF80m3vU1@mid.individual.net...



"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.01.03.36.51.124458@woa.com.au...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:10:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


I also know a water treatment specialist, he has serious concerns about
the
heavy metals found in excrement, that are not able to be removed
effectively.

**Bullshit! The technology for removing heavy metals is well-known and
easy enough to implement.

err, reference please.
Can you also provide a site that actually does this?

**A "site"? Lemme see. Oh yeah, I can do it in my kitchen. It'll take me
5 minutes to set up two different methods. OTOH, here is another place:

http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/education_and_learning/environment/water/wrams

Is that the kind of "site" you mean? Or do you mean 'cite'? If so, I can
provide you with enough cites to keep you busy for the next few decades.
For the record: Heavy metals are pretty much the easiest stuff to remove
from water. As usual, Queenlanders, rather than finding out the truth,
have sucked up some complete bollocks from scare-mongers and are
promulgating it as fact. No wonder they kept voting for Joh.

Are you a Queenslander too?



**I accept that you don't like your govenment. None of which matters.

It matters a great deal. It is so easy to cut costs be scimping on
maintenance and oh woops, raw sewerage gets dumped in the drinking
water.

**It is easy enough to arrange it so this cannot occur. Rampant paranoia,
amongst Queenslanders, notwithstanding. In any case, it is likely that
any recycled water system will not be fed into the drinking water system.
It would be used for other purposes. Drinking water comprises a miniscule
proportion of water consumption.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Trevor, I have viewed the link you brought up, and went to other pages of
the site. I don't think I have the courage/stupidity to state I trust the
authorities to make pottable water from raw sewage.

**That would be your choice. Do not visit Singapore then. In Singapore, you
don't have a choice. At some point, we all trust the authorities to look
after certain aspects of our lives. For my part, I place more faith in
government bodies than in corporations. It is important various checks and
balances be put in place, before water recylcing can occur. Provided those
checks and balances are done by an independent entity, then there is less of
a problem.

Fundamentally, none of this matters. Recycling water WILL be a fact of life
in SE Qld. Like it or not. Silly petitions and arguments will merely delay
the inevitable.

The majority of

instances of water purification using Continuous Micro Filtration use feed
that is only lightly contaminated, not sewage, contaminated with dissolved
chemicals/drugs that cannot be filtered out. Also, please see the
following excerpt from the site you provided the link to:
"The use of recycled water for drinking purposes was not condoned for
health and cost reasons. It was concluded that the greater risk associated
with the reuse of effluent for drinking would necessitate an extremely
stringent monitoring program. This would need to include monitoring for
viruses and parasites for which methods to detect the viability of
organisms are still being developed and refined. The additional monitoring
was considered to be a significant ongoing cost with little or no
benefit."

http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/education_and_learning/environment/water/safety_of_recycled_water

**I suggest you read the whole thread.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David Segall]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Fundamentally, none of this matters. Recycling water WILL be a fact of life
in SE Qld. Like it or not. Silly petitions and arguments will merely delay
the inevitable.
Recycling water is a choice. Australia has one of the highest Internal

Renewable Water Resources per capita in the world
<http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/wat2_2005.pdf>. It
is about ten times that of great Britain and over two times that of
the United States. Moving the water to South Eastern Queensland or
anywhere else in Australia only depends on what consumers are prepared
to pay. In addition, there is no limit to the amount of water that can
be distilled from sea water if consumers are prepared to pay the
direct and environmental costs.

I would probably choose recycled water if it was cheaper but it is
certainly not "inevitable".