|
Water restrictions and gardens
Terryc wrote:
wrote: The idea is that you don't run the water continuously while shaving or brushing your teeth. Yep, I know this. Personally, I think everyone should required to stop shaving as well. That would save an enormous amount of money. Most people I know brush while in peak traffic (Grin!) This article from the Diamond Valley Leader Newspaper A woman was fined last week for brushing her teeth - while driving a car. The Patterson Lakes woman, 23 was spotted brushing her teeth in peak hour traffic while driving north along Greensborough Highway about 9.10 am on Thursday October 5. She was seen be Banyule Police who issued a $145 fine for failing to have rpoepr control of a vehicle. Now I ask you, was she or wasnt she trying to do the right thing? The amount of water saved by domestic users is a piddle in the pond compared to commercial users.. Its commercial users that are the problem. Also if the Government was really serious about saving water they would make toilets etc comply by having dual flush compulsory, as well as water tanks.... |
Water restrictions and gardens
"gardenlen" wrote in message ... because the opposition where donkies and asses (and one of those parties even put one of the asses back into the drivers sdeet although none of them appeared impressed by his dismal performance), and the 18 year old vote because they think putting a tick on paper is a fun game and they don't know shite from clay. so he has his mandate (lesson learnt from the bespectacled gnome in can'tberra), to now feed class 2 recycled sewerage into our fresh water dams. Len, what is wrong with recycled sewerage water being used as drinking water? we have done it here for year. Treated sewerage and industrial water is pumped back in to the rivers and taken down stream as drinking water. Given that the daily flows of water dilute the sewered water, however the process of drinking stuff that has been round once (or several times) isn't that horrific. rob |
Water restrictions and gardens
Terryc wrote:
Farm1 wrote: Did you watch "Two men in a Tinnie" and then see the latest news item on Cubbie? I was amazed at how much water Cubbie had when the Tinnie show was on but bone dry in the latest news item. I can't believe that Cubbie trys to store water in what is in effect massive evaporation ponds and then trys to justify such irresponsible action in such flat country. Simply beggars belief. It beggars belief that the pollies allowed it. Goes to show what the power of a political donation can do. I was all set to talk the wife into moving to Qld (her home state) but Beattie is turning out as bad as Joh ever was. Yeah then why did he get back in!! |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message ... "Jen" wrote in message The idea is that you don't run the water continuously while shaving or brushing your teeth. You brush/shave first, then rinse. It does add up to quite a lot. I probably waste a litre or two a day brushing my teeth in the shower. Do people actually brush their teeth in the shower?? That certainly would waste a lot of water. It's a totally ridiculous thing to do. I do Why on earth would you do that?? There's no need to have any tap running while brushing your teeth, and the shower uses a lot more water than a tap in the basin does. Imagine how much water you're wasting! Even just having the tap running in the basin while your brushing is bad enough, but having the actual shower running - that is just stupid in these days of troubles with drought and water shortages!!!!! Some people just take longer in the shower because they like to wash more thoroughly, or slower, or like to rinse more. But to have it going just while brushing your teeth??!!!!!!!! Jen |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Jonno" wrote in message u... Terryc wrote: wrote: The idea is that you don't run the water continuously while shaving or brushing your teeth. Yep, I know this. Personally, I think everyone should required to stop shaving as well. That would save an enormous amount of money. Most people I know brush while in peak traffic (Grin!) This article from the Diamond Valley Leader Newspaper A woman was fined last week for brushing her teeth - while driving a car. The Patterson Lakes woman, 23 was spotted brushing her teeth in peak hour traffic while driving north along Greensborough Highway about 9.10 am on Thursday October 5. She was seen be Banyule Police who issued a $145 fine for failing to have rpoepr control of a vehicle. Now I ask you, was she or wasnt she trying to do the right thing? The amount of water saved by domestic users is a piddle in the pond compared to commercial users.. Its commercial users that are the problem. Also if the Government was really serious about saving water they would make toilets etc comply by having dual flush compulsory, as well as water tanks.... Obviously you think the Government's not too serious about saving water. So do something about it, or at least do what *you can* to lower your own use of water - don't rely on the Government or someone else. Jen |
Water restrictions and gardens
because the opposition where donkies and asses (and one of those
parties even put one of the asses back into the drivers sdeet although none of them appeared impressed by his dismal performance), and the 18 year old vote because they think putting a tick on paper is a fun game and they don't know shite from clay. so he has his mandate (lesson learnt from the bespectacled gnome in can'tberra), to now feed class 2 recycled sewerage into our fresh water dams. and it won't matter what state all premiers will be tarred with the same brush or they wouldn't be there. oh and beattie is the cheshire cat. so what are the alternatives? when apart from a few the voting public is apparently mindless. On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:25:54 +1000, Jonno wrote: snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.gardenlen.com |
Water restrictions and gardens
Jen wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message u... Terryc wrote: wrote: The idea is that you don't run the water continuously while shaving or brushing your teeth. Yep, I know this. Personally, I think everyone should required to stop shaving as well. That would save an enormous amount of money. Most people I know brush while in peak traffic (Grin!) This article from the Diamond Valley Leader Newspaper A woman was fined last week for brushing her teeth - while driving a car. The Patterson Lakes woman, 23 was spotted brushing her teeth in peak hour traffic while driving north along Greensborough Highway about 9.10 am on Thursday October 5. She was seen be Banyule Police who issued a $145 fine for failing to have rpoepr control of a vehicle. Now I ask you, was she or wasnt she trying to do the right thing? The amount of water saved by domestic users is a piddle in the pond compared to commercial users.. Its commercial users that are the problem. Also if the Government was really serious about saving water they would make toilets etc comply by having dual flush compulsory, as well as water tanks.... Obviously you think the Government's not too serious about saving water. So do something about it, or at least do what *you can* to lower your own use of water - don't rely on the Government or someone else. Jen ME Ive been saving water for years, but to come up with corporations to regulate water is completely crazy. They refuse to put in more infrastructure, and charge like wounded bulls for a resource which will become limited. Yet they say we couldnt have come this far without the Thompson dam, then say more dams wont create more water. Er run that past me again? With only 9% of all water being used by homes, we need a little more response than putting the blame on people singing in showers. We should be so happy. Lets face it, the only one with reason to sing in the showers are the parliamentarians who leave their job with tax payer funded super annuation... |
Water restrictions and gardens
|
Water restrictions and gardens
Jen wrote:
Even just having the tap running in the basin while your brushing is bad enough, but having the actual shower running - that is just stupid in these days of troubles with drought and water shortages!!!!! It is, and I am. Mea culpa. I just like to stand in the shower and gaze out at the garden. It is wasteful, but it is a little luxury that helps me get through the day. I would like to get a greywater system in place to help salve my concience. |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Jen" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message "Jen" wrote in message The idea is that you don't run the water continuously while shaving or brushing your teeth. You brush/shave first, then rinse. It does add up to quite a lot. I probably waste a litre or two a day brushing my teeth in the shower. Do people actually brush their teeth in the shower?? That certainly would waste a lot of water. It's a totally ridiculous thing to do. I do Why on earth would you do that?? Because I don't feel clean till I've done it. There's no need to have any tap running while brushing your teeth, and the shower uses a lot more water than a tap in the basin does. Imagine how much water you're wasting! I'm not wasting it. I'm rinsing the soap off my body while I am tooth cleaning. Some people just take longer in the shower because they like to wash more thoroughly, or slower, or like to rinse more. But to have it going just while brushing your teeth??!!!!!!!! That comment is totally illogical. You seem to think it's OK to take longer to wash but not OK to be a quicker washer and to also do one's teeth at the same time. And I'm not wasting any water than any other person can use. I collect my own and have never yet had to buy water. |
Water restrictions and gardens
you can have it rob,
obviously the chemical residues in the stuff along with possible viruses is of no concern. then i suppose if it is going into a river that gets flushed maybe no worries. ours is going into our dams no flushing there just years of accumulated pollutants. to me it seems like an indictment that in this modern world any community should have to drink recycled sewerage water. anyhow so long as the drinkers eyes are wide open. for me i just don't have that sort of blind faith in the administrator especially at the end of the day when it is all about profits and control. On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:04:52 +1300, "George.com" wrote: snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.gardenlen.com |
Water restrictions and gardens
yep all about profits and control, the boys do think that they own 90%
of what falls from the clouds. and they will be charging those who collect rainwater for selling in bottle, that one was on the abc years ago so all this is nothing just out of the hat it has been in the pipeline for at least a decade. the losers the little people, the winners the multi-nationals and those boys. bets are they or theirs will never have this sewerage stuff pass their lips. On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:05:25 +1000, Jonno wrote: More from the lovely boys... http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1771775.htm With peace and brightest of blessings, len -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.gardenlen.com |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Jonno" wrote in message
u... ME Ive been saving water for years, but to come up with corporations to regulate water is completely crazy. They refuse to put in more infrastructure, and charge like wounded bulls for a resource which will become limited. actually atm they don't charge enough. people would take it more seriously if it cost more. Yet they say we couldnt have come this far without the Thompson dam, then say more dams wont create more water. Er run that past me again? it's true that the presence of more dams does not create more rain :-) With only 9% of all water being used by homes, we need a little more response than putting the blame on people singing in showers. We should be so happy. Lets face it, the only one with reason to sing in the showers are the parliamentarians who leave their job with tax payer funded super annuation... i think it's two things. householders are becoming more responsible, and since they have to, that's good. businesses aren't necessarily becoming more responsible, but they need to also. just because business doesn't do it's part yet doesn't mean we shouldn't. kylie (who relies solely on rain water and dam water now). |
Water restrictions and gardens
"gardenlen" wrote in message
... you can have it rob, obviously the chemical residues in the stuff along with possible viruses is of no concern. then i suppose if it is going into a river that gets flushed maybe no worries. ours is going into our dams no flushing there just years of accumulated pollutants. what pollutants are they? to me it seems like an indictment that in this modern world any community should have to drink recycled sewerage water. anyhow so long as the drinkers eyes are wide open. you have to keep in mind that all water is part of the precipitation cycle, so all water is recycled. the water you drink tomorrow could have been peed out by elvis ;-) any "pollutants" in your area which enter the precipitation cycle (or others, elsewhere) are therefore going to be part of that as well, so it seems odd to have one set of pollutants to be concerned about which are solely associated with sewage (?) for me i just don't have that sort of blind faith in the administrator especially at the end of the day when it is all about profits and control. i don't have much faith in those types either, but recycled sewage would be the least of it. the standard way it's done, anyway. kylie |
Water restrictions and gardens
0tterbot wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message u... ME Ive been saving water for years, but to come up with corporations to regulate water is completely crazy. They refuse to put in more infrastructure, and charge like wounded bulls for a resource which will become limited. actually atm they don't charge enough. people would take it more seriously if it cost more. Yet they say we couldnt have come this far without the Thompson dam, then say more dams wont create more water. Er run that past me again? it's true that the presence of more dams does not create more rain :-) With only 9% of all water being used by homes, we need a little more response than putting the blame on people singing in showers. We should be so happy. Lets face it, the only one with reason to sing in the showers are the parliamentarians who leave their job with tax payer funded super annuation... i think it's two things. householders are becoming more responsible, and since they have to, that's good. businesses aren't necessarily becoming more responsible, but they need to also. just because business doesn't do it's part yet doesn't mean we shouldn't. kylie (who relies solely on rain water and dam water now). |
Water restrictions and gardens
0tterbot wrote:
what pollutants are they? mercury, cadium, PCB's etc you have to keep in mind that all water is part of the precipitation cycle, so all water is recycled. the water you drink tomorrow could have been peed out by elvis ;-) any "pollutants" in your area which enter the precipitation cycle (or others, elsewhere) are therefore going to be part of that as well, so it seems odd to have one set of pollutants to be concerned about which are solely associated with sewage (?) evaporation usually cleans the water, althougb PCBs have made it ti the artic by cycles of evaporation. |
Water restrictions and gardens
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. With peace and brightest of blessings, len -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.gardenlen.com |
Water restrictions and gardens
Jonno wrote:
0tterbot wrote: "Jonno" wrote in message u... ME Ive been saving water for years, but to come up with corporations to regulate water is completely crazy. They refuse to put in more infrastructure, and charge like wounded bulls for a resource which will become limited. actually atm they don't charge enough. people would take it more seriously if it cost more. Yet they say we couldnt have come this far without the Thompson dam, then say more dams wont create more water. Er run that past me again? it's true that the presence of more dams does not create more rain :-) With only 9% of all water being used by homes, we need a little more response than putting the blame on people singing in showers. We should be so happy. Lets face it, the only one with reason to sing in the showers are the parliamentarians who leave their job with tax payer funded super annuation... i think it's two things. householders are becoming more responsible, and since they have to, that's good. businesses aren't necessarily becoming more responsible, but they need to also. just because business doesn't do it's part yet doesn't mean we shouldn't. kylie (who relies solely on rain water and dam water now). Is not about making more rain silly. Its about saving the water stored and using it when it doesnt. House holders arent the problem we have to look at. We have to alos look at the big users and realise that there are people who will sell to the public all sorts of water saving gadgets as its their business. So the public feels good about that. But the BIG users will be the real problem, as well as wasteful water delivery systems. |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Jonno" wrote in message
0tterbot wrote: i think it's two things. householders are becoming more responsible, and since they have to, that's good. businesses aren't necessarily becoming more responsible, but they need to also. just because business doesn't do it's part yet doesn't mean we shouldn't. kylie (who relies solely on rain water and dam water now). Is not about making more rain silly. Huh? |
Water restrictions and gardens
"gardenlen" wrote in message
"0tterbot" wrote: what pollutants are they? household chemicals prescription medicines all the medical including low grade radiation residues from hospital waste including chemotherapy. etc 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. By the time we reach adulthood most of us have already had more then our fair share of pollutants and still continue to get them every day from our food and the atmosphere without even thinking about the water. And some very nasty chemicals do have some positive side effects - fluoride being one. It's impossible to avoid any contact with chemicals in our current society and the situation will continue to get worse. Our grandchildren are already going to inherit the most appalling mess from our generation so the most we can hope for is to mitigate some of the problems. Water supply problems will get worse not better (and since the Federal Government has FINALLY begun to make noises about global warming then I strongly suspect that they have finally reached the point where they can ignore it no longer). Given that the water supply problems have now reached such a parlous state, I don't think most of Australia will be left with much choice. Water, like air, is a basis for survival and even shitty polluted water will eventually come to be be seen as better than no water at all. Just ask the communities along the Darling River or at Goulburn. I've got no sympathy with whingers who live in the city and complain about the nasties in their water or the lack of it or anything about it. They need to get off their arses and see what is happening in some of our rural communities. It's simply appalling and sucking the guts out of the country. I know you've lived in the country so you have some idea, but most people are simply clueless except for how it impacts on them as the water comes readily from their taps. I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. |
Water restrictions and gardens
"gardenlen" wrote in message
... 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 |
Water restrictions and gardens
Farm1 wrote:
By the time we reach adulthood most of us have already had more then our fair share of pollutants and still continue to get them every day from our food and the atmosphere without even thinking about the water. which is probably why lots of your contemporaries are now suffering from a myriad of weird and wonderful dieseases/conditions. And some very nasty chemicals do have some positive side effects - fluoride being one. lol, there is no scientific proof that mass feeding of flouride is beneficial. It is simply a mathematical correlation without a causitive explanation, like wearing underpants is deadly because everyone who ears underpants dies. there is also evidence that improved education has the same effect. FYI, Canadians are now starting to work against giving flouride to children because of an increase in bone cancers. It seems that like DDT, we had to wait a few decades to discover the picture. I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. Well, it must be a real drought if it is finally starting to affect the hair dressers {:-),or are they just like Qantas and working out how to use adverse conditions to improve their profit? Small rural communities have always suffered when the farms suffer. It is one of the tradeoffs of living in a rural community. |
Water restrictions and gardens
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:14:42 +0000, 0tterbot wrote:
(i'd love to know though how the water could be full of oestrogen!!!) Apparently it's there from the urine of all you women on the contraceptive pill. This one of the big dangers touted by a regular player on the "no" side of recentish debate (and referendum) in Toowoomba here in Qld. Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. Charles -- If some days are diamonds and some days are stone.... Then some days I live in a quarry!! |
Water restrictions and gardens
0tterbot wrote:
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. legal/illegal or acceptable/unacceptable may be equally decided by the dillution effect. sydney Water is allowed to deliver the spores of debilitating diseases to their customers providing the spore count is below a certain level. OPs point is that Tertiary treated water can still contains a lot of chemicals. If people want to minimise the risks, then they need to expensively trast the water themselves by triple filter systesm, etc. There would nowhere in Australia where the OPs concerns would not also apply to rainwater. Hence my poiting out about PCB migrating to the Artic. |
Water restrictions and gardens
Charles wrote:
Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. It sounds funny, but there is a serious scientific claim behind it. considering that it is commonly said that the water from the thames has already passed through seven sets of Kindeys before it reaches the sea. |
Water restrictions and gardens
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:20:23 +1000, Terryc
wrote: Charles wrote: Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. It sounds funny, but there is a serious scientific claim behind it. considering that it is commonly said that the water from the thames has already passed through seven sets of Kindeys before it reaches the sea. This made me giggle. I realise that it was probably a typo and you meant "kidneys", but as it stands it reads as if each drop of Thames water has passed through seven kindergartens before reaching the sea! Tish |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message ... Some people just take longer in the shower because they like to wash more thoroughly, or slower, or like to rinse more. But to have it going just while brushing your teeth??!!!!!!!! That comment is totally illogical. You seem to think it's OK to take longer to wash but not OK to be a quicker washer and to also do one's teeth at the same time. And I'm not wasting any water than any other person can use. I collect my own and have never yet had to buy water. It's never OK to waste water, whether it's for a longer wash or tooth brushing. But the only person you can change is yourself. And you can believe what you want to help you sleep at night. Jen |
Water restrictions and gardens
"gardenlen" wrote in message ... you can have it rob, obviously the chemical residues in the stuff along with possible viruses is of no concern. then i suppose if it is going into a river that gets flushed maybe no worries. ours is going into our dams no flushing there just years of accumulated pollutants. to me it seems like an indictment that in this modern world any community should have to drink recycled sewerage water. our problem, at least in Hamilton, is not the availability of water but the cost of getting hold of it and disposing of it. We have a nice big river that flows right through town. Increasing city population places pressure on the existing facilites which have to be enlarged to keep pace. That costs $$. If we decreased our consumption by 20% that would save the city a mint. The quality of water in the river has actually improved in recent times I believe. rob |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Terryc" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote: By the time we reach adulthood most of us have already had more then our fair share of pollutants and still continue to get them every day from our food and the atmosphere without even thinking about the water. which is probably why lots of your contemporaries are now suffering from a myriad of weird and wonderful dieseases/conditions. That no doubt, plus lifestyle choices, like drinking, smoking, poor food choices. And some very nasty chemicals do have some positive side effects - fluoride being one. lol, there is no scientific proof that mass feeding of flouride is beneficial. I think there is enough. FYI, Canadians are now starting to work against giving flouride to children because of an increase in bone cancers. Which could also be related to the fact that the children are wearing underwear........ I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. Well, it must be a real drought if it is finally starting to affect the hair dressers {:-),or are they just like Qantas and working out how to use adverse conditions to improve their profit? Of course it's a real drought. Where have you been for the last 6 years? |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Jen" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message Some people just take longer in the shower because they like to wash more thoroughly, or slower, or like to rinse more. But to have it going just while brushing your teeth??!!!!!!!! That comment is totally illogical. You seem to think it's OK to take longer to wash but not OK to be a quicker washer and to also do one's teeth at the same time. And I'm not wasting any water than any other person can use. I collect my own and have never yet had to buy water. It's never OK to waste water, whether it's for a longer wash or tooth brushing. But the only person you can change is yourself. And you can believe what you want to help you sleep at night. I sleep very well thank you. |
Water restrictions and gardens
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:20:23 +1000, Terryc wrote:
Charles wrote: Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. It sounds funny, but there is a serious scientific claim behind it. What? A serious scientific claim behind the link between oestrogen in recycled water and male breasts? Where pray tell? considering that it is commonly said that the water from the thames has already passed through seven sets of Kidneys before it reaches the sea. If this is true, and most likely it is, then the lack of London males growing unexplained breasts surely puts the lie to that particular scaremongering pseudo-factoid (that oestrogen in urine could lead to male breast growing). The concept of water passing through several kidneys before reaching the sea makes sense to me in any long standing area. In an city/town i, say, Europe that stands on a river, they are/have been drinking the treated effluent of the town upstream for centuries. And the nay-sayers claim there are no long-term studies...maybe not, but I think the sheer weight of anecdotal evidence has to tip the balance. Charles -- If some days are diamonds and some days are stone.... Then some days I live in a quarry!! |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Charles" wrote in message
... On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:14:42 +0000, 0tterbot wrote: (i'd love to know though how the water could be full of oestrogen!!!) Apparently it's there from the urine of all you women on the contraceptive pill. well you're clearly overestimating 1: the number of women who take the pill at all, and 2: the amount of oestrogen which is in the pill anyway (both progestogen and oestrogen in the modern pill are mere fractions of the amounts which used to be in the older varieties - and yet no men were claiming to be growing breasts from stuff in the water in the 1970s when the pill was greatly more popular than it is now, were they?). in short, if you're actually serious with that statement, you might need to just talk yourself down, i think... This one of the big dangers touted by a regular player on the "no" side of recentish debate (and referendum) in Toowoomba here in Qld. the naysayers in toowoomba didn't acheive anything beyond making everyone in toowoomba look like a barking ninny, and they still haven't solved their water problem. perhaps they are unrepresentative? Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. yeah? what happens to us from drinking man-wee? do we grow beards and chest hair? kylie |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
... I've got no sympathy with whingers who live in the city and complain about the nasties in their water or the lack of it or anything about it. They need to get off their arses and see what is happening in some of our rural communities. It's simply appalling and sucking the guts out of the country. I know you've lived in the country so you have some idea, but most people are simply clueless except for how it impacts on them as the water comes readily from their taps. since i got here (the country) i've really noticed what a gap there is between city people & country people. sadly, it's the majority (city people) who just haven't got the first idea about anything! but the onus is on country people to stop whingeing & educate them. the two lots are entirely interdependent, but you wouldn't know that from observing them. I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. i agree, but equally, now is the time for rural peeps to be rethinking how they do things. i realise they ARE rethinking how to do things, of course, but frankly they can't rethink soon enough. they need to have rethought 5 years ago, because implementing change takes time. but 5 years ago they thought they were a protected species & change hasn't been fast enough. climate change & global warming were known phenomena 5 years ago; i find it sad things need to become critical before people rethink some of their methodology, but there you have it, it's the way it's always been. i think this post sounds like i'm really down on farmers & of course i'm not. the whole country needs a reality check while they're sitting with their air-conditioning on worrying about climate change. it defies belief, really. i blame the government g kylie |
Water restrictions and gardens
I could be taking the wrong end of the stick here, but you do know that I
was being sarcastic in my original post don't you? I think the man in question in Toowoomba was/is a fool. Perhaps I was too subtle for you? On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:20:23 +0000, 0tterbot wrote: "Charles" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:14:42 +0000, 0tterbot wrote: (i'd love to know though how the water could be full of oestrogen!!!) Apparently it's there from the urine of all you women on the contraceptive pill. well you're clearly overestimating 1: the number of women who take the pill at all, and 2: the amount of oestrogen which is in the pill anyway (both progestogen and oestrogen in the modern pill are mere fractions of the amounts which used to be in the older varieties - and yet no men were claiming to be growing breasts from stuff in the water in the 1970s when the pill was greatly more popular than it is now, were they?). I am not overestimating anything, I was relaying to you who asked the original q re how did the oestrogen get in the water, the reason given by those who make this claim. in short, if you're actually serious with that statement, you might need to just talk yourself down, i think... Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was *not* serious in that statement, but was merely telling you the statement being made by some who, unfortunately, are serious. Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in it. Now y'see I figured that this was probably the big give away, the use of "poor fellow" to me just screams sarcasm, but as I said above, I must be too subtle, laconic and dry (no pun intended given the discussion re water! :-) )for my own good. I think Toowoomba residents missed a good opportunity, but one must not discount the role both the local media (by refusal to use neutral and noninflammatory terminology in its reporting) *and* the Federal Govt (by demanding that a referendum had to be held and won in order to get Fed funding for the project) had in the defeat of the referendum. Charles -- If some days are diamonds and some days are stone.... Then some days I live in a quarry!! |
Water restrictions and gardens
"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message I've got no sympathy with whingers who live in the city and complain about the nasties in their water or the lack of it or anything about it. They need to get off their arses and see what is happening in some of our rural communities. It's simply appalling and sucking the guts out of the country. I know you've lived in the country so you have some idea, but most people are simply clueless except for how it impacts on them as the water comes readily from their taps. since i got here (the country) i've really noticed what a gap there is between city people & country people. sadly, it's the majority (city people) who just haven't got the first idea about anything! but the onus is on country people to stop whingeing & educate them. the two lots are entirely interdependent, but you wouldn't know that from observing them. Having lived in the country for the majority of my life, I strongly think that country people have more idea of the interdependance and the realities of life than city people do. We've been in drought for 6 whole years but it is only now that the major metro papers seem to have woken up about it and only then because the cost of food is really going to bite the city residents. Lord knows where they thought (if they did think at all) of where their food came from. Water and how much of it is available has really been much lower down the agenda because in comparison to the country, our major cities are relativeley well supplied and taking it from miles and miles away into the cities.. I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. i agree, but equally, now is the time for rural peeps to be rethinking how they do things. i realise they ARE rethinking how to do things, of course, but frankly they can't rethink soon enough. they need to have rethought 5 years ago, because implementing change takes time. but 5 years ago they thought they were a protected species & change hasn't been fast enough. climate change & global warming were known phenomena 5 years ago; i find it sad things need to become critical before people rethink some of their methodology, but there you have it, it's the way it's always been. They've been doing soemthing about it for many more than 5 years with a few exceptions (like Cubbie). Farmers were talking about Global warming and climate change long before the bulk of the population. Only the real lunatic city fringe were talking about those things when I knew of dead boring and very conservative farmers who'd noticed the impact on their land. They had not only started talking about it but were also doing something about it. It all started with dry land salinity problems anfdGod knows farmers have been working on that problem for at least the last 15-20 years.. i think this post sounds like i'm really down on farmers & of course i'm not. the whole country needs a reality check while they're sitting with their air-conditioning on worrying about climate change. it defies belief, really. i blame the government g :-)) Well don't we all. But it is a long and not well publicised battle. If people don't buy or read the rural newspapers or follow rural issues then they certainly don't see or know of what is happening. Farmers are **** poor at getting their issues across to the wider population and I'm not sure if that is because farmers are such a conservative bunch or because the rest of the population would rather watch idiot shows on TV to finding out what could come around and bite them on the arse or what it is. |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Charles" wrote in message
... I could be taking the wrong end of the stick here, but you do know that I was being sarcastic in my original post don't you? I think the man in question in Toowoomba was/is a fool. Perhaps I was too subtle for you? perhaps g. sarcasm is not the best method of communication. however, you can consider the statements still stand (if not directed to you) as some people evidently believe these things! I think Toowoomba residents missed a good opportunity, but one must not discount the role both the local media (by refusal to use neutral and noninflammatory terminology in its reporting) *and* the Federal Govt (by demanding that a referendum had to be held and won in order to get Fed funding for the project) had in the defeat of the referendum. well of course. (anyone who wants to blame the govt for anything at all is fine by me g) what of the responsibility of individuals though, to not be total morons & to take some responsibility towards saving themselves (e.g. the good burghers of toowoomba)? it's all very well to blame the tabloids - why does nobody question what kind of person reads them & believes that stuff, because without their audience they clearly would have no influence..?! (just a general question!!) same with govts in general - they've all got form as fibbers - why would they be believable in one instance but not another? (etc). kylie |
Water restrictions and gardens
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
... who just haven't got the first idea about anything! but the onus is on country people to stop whingeing & educate them. the two lots are entirely interdependent, but you wouldn't know that from observing them. Having lived in the country for the majority of my life, I strongly think that country people have more idea of the interdependance and the realities of life than city people do. We've been in drought for 6 whole years but it is only now that the major metro papers seem to have woken up about it and only then because the cost of food is really going to bite the city residents. as a regular reader of city papers (and ex-city dweller), that's not really so, actually. it's probably fair to say that all individuals have now woken up to the problem all of a sudden. as an issue, it's just _exploded_ recently, and equally for everyone. i mean, sydney people (and those in other places) have been experiencing the reality of water shortages for 5 years, haven't they? the fact that most of them don't grow primary produce only means that for them the situation isn't _dire_ in terms of livelihood in the short term; but they have been well aware of it for quite some time. city peeps are generally better-educated and have a much broader view of the world, their world is just bigger than ours is. i believe it's equally impossible for most country people to have any idea of what's really going on in the rest of the country. certainly the media is more accessible, but it seems to matter less when it's a long way away - it seems a problem removed, but it's not (as we all live here together). Lord knows where they thought (if they did think at all) of where their food came from. again speaking for sydney - most fresh food there is grown in the sydney basin - it's local :-) (for now, anyway). again, it seems to take a crisis (farmland possibly being taken away for development) for people to realise what might be lost. argh! Water and how much of it is available has really been much lower down the agenda because in comparison to the country, our major cities are relativeley well supplied and taking it from miles and miles away into the cities.. a critical mass of people gives benefits, that's true. many services iin the country are crap - it's not just a water thing. (sigh). we don't exist, you know ;-) They've been doing soemthing about it for many more than 5 years with a few exceptions (like Cubbie). Farmers were talking about Global warming and climate change long before the bulk of the population. Only the real lunatic city fringe were talking about those things when I knew of dead boring and very conservative farmers who'd noticed the impact on their land. that's a good point you make unintentionally - one problem that both farmers (as a group, not individually - i'm being very general) and "greenies" have is seeing the other side as the enemy, when _really_ they're obviously on the same side. but farmers will NOT accept something a greenie said - the farmer's association has to say it, & _then_ it's true. anyone can be undone by their own limited world-view, both farmers & ecologists are no exception. and yet, "green" farmers are fully accepted (by all parties) on their results, and so many ecological issues are now entirely mainstream anyway, so why is there not more cooperation and dialogue? it's not green groups refusing to speak to farmers, that's for sure! it's just both sides not thinking about who their allies really are. and again, you've kind of pointed out unwittingly how the national party have let their constituents down about this sort of thing. at this time, the nats barely deserve for anyone to vote for them - so why are farmers & nats in a cosy little voting arrangement that doesn't benefit anyone in the long term? (that's rhetorical - i don't expect an answer there ;-) They had not only started talking about it but were also doing something about it. It all started with dry land salinity problems anfdGod knows farmers have been working on that problem for at least the last 15-20 years.. they have - my point is that it's so bad now it's entirely mainstream (which is kind of good because frankly nothing can happen until people act together, part of which is letting others know WHAT they are doing, what they expect, & how it will help. farmers don't do that. city people have to hunt down information on what's going on - it's mainly the very small &/or organic/free range farmers who do all the educating of the broader public. i think with things like the explosion in farmer's markets & general food awareness really helps - but equally your typical wheat 'n' sheep farmer has NO dialogue with anyone beyond his own contacts. :-)) Well don't we all. But it is a long and not well publicised battle. If people don't buy or read the rural newspapers or follow rural issues then they certainly don't see or know of what is happening. Farmers are **** poor at getting their issues across to the wider population and I'm not sure if that is because farmers are such a conservative bunch or because the rest of the population would rather watch idiot shows on TV to finding out what could come around and bite them on the arse or what it is. probably both. but we all know that farmers can (and do) whinge for australia, but when it comes to advertising their successes, bringing their experience to other people, & whatnot, they're just not there like they should be (although i do realise they're busy ;-) - you have to watch slightly obscure shows on the abc to even realise :-). and so they partly perpetuate their own p.r. problems & are seen to be taking "handouts" for "non-viable" properties & whatnot, & all this sort of silly stuff. (and again, the nats are in a position to do good p.r., but they're too caught up with which association is mad at them, and trying to appease the libs, & all this sort of thing.) perhaps you're right & innate conservatism for one's own worldview is really the only problem. yet clearly they're not cut & dried just plain conservative - ime country peeps are very open-minded & do try not to judge. it must be some sort of "with us or against us" mindset that's just not helpful. i'm not sure. kylie |
Water restrictions and gardens
0tterbot wrote:
again speaking for sydney - most fresh food there is grown in the sydney basin - it's local :-) (for now, anyway). I think you have just supported his argument very well. Can I suggest having a look at the labels on boxen that your grocer gets his produce from. You could even think about the Coles fresh food add and how all those scenes are taken all so clearly in the Sydney Basin. Even my cousin the farmer was alarmed to find that Australia imports more food stuff ($125b pa) than it exports (82b pa), but he quickly started looking to see what he could grow of the imports. |
Water restrictions and gardens
I think Toowoomba residents missed a good opportunity, but one must not discount the role both the local media (by refusal to use neutral and noninflammatory terminology in its reporting) *and* the Federal Govt (by demanding that a referendum had to be held and won in order to get Fed funding for the project) had in the defeat of the referendum. Charles Toowoomba, and indeed most southern downs media, seldom has content that is not inflammatory, overemotional, biased etc. And neutrality was flushed down the toilet, along with the water, a looong time ago. Don't expect reason from that end of things. The idiot majority outnumbers the normals waaay too much. -- If some days are diamonds and some days are stone.... Then some days I live in a quarry!! |
Water restrictions and gardens
"0tterbot" wrote in message ... "Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message ... I've got no sympathy with whingers who live in the city and complain about the nasties in their water or the lack of it or anything about it. They need to get off their arses and see what is happening in some of our rural communities. It's simply appalling and sucking the guts out of the country. I know you've lived in the country so you have some idea, but most people are simply clueless except for how it impacts on them as the water comes readily from their taps. since i got here (the country) i've really noticed what a gap there is between city people & country people. sadly, it's the majority (city people) who just haven't got the first idea about anything! but the onus is on country people to stop whingeing & educate them. the two lots are entirely interdependent, but you wouldn't know that from observing them. I can't stomach whinging about no water for lawns when I know of one community where the hairdressers are saying to clients that they can't wash their hair so come to the appointment with washed hair. And the hairdressers are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in that community is hurting and going broke. We'll leave this drought with devastated rural communities. i agree, but equally, now is the time for rural peeps to be rethinking how they do things. i realise they ARE rethinking how to do things, of course, but frankly they can't rethink soon enough. they need to have rethought 5 years ago, because implementing change takes time. but 5 years ago they thought they were a protected species & change hasn't been fast enough. climate change & global warming were known phenomena 5 years ago; i find it sad things need to become critical before people rethink some of their methodology, but there you have it, it's the way it's always been. i think this post sounds like i'm really down on farmers & of course i'm not. the whole country needs a reality check while they're sitting with their air-conditioning on worrying about climate change. it defies belief, really. i blame the government g kylie Having lived in SE Qld all my life until last year, opinions don't change very quickly. In fact they hardly change at all. Farmer's there are still farming, refusing to obey the new logging regulations, refusing to obey the new dam limitations, refusing to conserve water at all, etc etc and I don't see my generation changing the way things have been done ever since their grandfather's first started farming australia european style. Maajor education is needed in queensland's farming communities. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter