"gardenlen" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:34:34 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

snipped

what pollutants are they?

snipped
kylie

all those household chemicals used on a daily basis.

all the residue in peoples pee from all the prescription medicines
they take

all the medical including low grade radiation residues from hospital
waste including chemotherapy.

all the residues from light/medium industry that go into the sewer
system least of which are the heavy metals and acids.

plastisizers

and the cocktail of chemical residues mixed together make up dioxins
which are in the end product.

the hard to neutralise viruses, bird\flu, bse/cjd, hepatitis. look at
the rise in legionaires disease from people using potting mixes since
they started putting treated and composted sewerage humus in the
mixes.

hormones mainly estrogen.

and probably some we don't even know about. notice i haven't mentioned
pathogens, because yes i believe they can somewaht easily deal with
them, though we would need assurances that there is a safety valve for
when the system breaks down as it does more often than people may
realise.

and all the interviews i've seen "they" never want to talk about the
above issues.

and what are the checks and balances where communitites have allowed
this to happen? was the administrator transparent in saying that
certain things could be there? have they trialed this so they can
create some parameters so that when problems begin to occur they can
address them?

my bet is the community just swallowed the need for greed, and didn't
seek assurances from those in charge.

like i said my bet is those in charge aren't drinking it, and that
those who do have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

it's the accumlative combined effect the legacy which is going to be
for your childrens/children yet to come? and when they find that what
they did has corrupted the fresh water system then what? there won't
be an effective clean up.

i didn't say what i said to cause a debate i had hoped it may open
some eyes to at least ask the rude questions, and if you are happy
drinking it then far be it from me to convince you otherwise. and we
are going to pay money to drink "it".

there might even be a link on my page to something about sewerage
sludge.

i think you mean "sewage" sludge :-)

i'm not understanding what you say the problem is. your other post implied
that water is put into the dam _without_ being cleaned to a potable degree -
which i should think would be illegal. otoh, many places recycle water to a
degree considered well potable (in which case i'm not sure what the problem
is for them, or how the two issues are related).

for example, people who get their water from a river, rather than a dam,
have (in theory) exactly the same situation of "stuff" being in the water
(i'd love to know though how the water could be full of oestrogen!!!)
because it's been used before up-river & ultimately goes back in (as well as
from the dawn of time through precipitiation). are you saying you're against
all water recycling because in your town it's not good enough, or are you
saying no water recycling is good enough, or are you saying water recycling
in your town should be better, or what? since all water is recycled one way
or another, your objection just isn't clear to me. of course we all object
to industrial chemicals in the water system, but that's a different issue to
pre-supposing it's all still there by the time someone drinks it.
?

if there's just not enough water in an area, what's the (short or medium
term) solution beyond recycling it, anyway? if you pipe in water from a
river in another state, it's still the same - been used before by god knows
who, but is nevertheless still potable, but you've used more energy to get
it.
kylie