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

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...

More from the lovely boys...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1771775.htm

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.

"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.

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

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

"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).

"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

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).

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.

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

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.

"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?

"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.