"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

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!!

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.

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

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!!

"Charles" wrote in message
news
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

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
news
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!!

"Charles" wrote in message
news
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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:01:36 +0000, 0tterbot wrote:

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!

Perhaps so. I agree that your statements are sound, people *do* believe
that piffle I repeated, but then the general public usually does, by
necessity fall to the lowest common denominator. One only had to look at
the people on the SBS discussion program (Insight, I think) who were on
with Di Thorley (Toowoomba mayor), gingerly sniffing the bottled water
from Singapore that was offered for tasting, and being genuinely
incredulous that it *didn't* smell like faeces, to see how stupid "people"
are.

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)

Ahh, well I am not a govt basher per se, even though I didn't vote for
them, I do believe that a society (as a whole) gets the govt it deserves. :-)

I blame the Govt (federal) because they forced the Toowoomba council to
hold a referendum on what is essentially an infrastructure issue. I can't
recall when any level of govt in Oz was forced to go to the electorate on
such an issue. (Forgetting the importance of this issue just for a moment)
Governments of all levels are elected to make decisions on what
infrastructure needs to be built at whatever level it operates, so that
the needs of its constituents (both present and future) are met as well as
possible.

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..?!

Too true! One only has to look at the issue of so called- reality TV,
*someone* must be watching these bores!

However on the issue of responsibility. Well given my feelings on the
general public, I would say that the average dude and dudette were really
behind the 8-ball. If they knew they were not in possession of the facts,
where were they to turn? To the media, of course...reporting on issues is
their job after all..in this case though, the media (all of it, including
ABC and SBS as well as the Toowoomba Chronicle) let down the uninformed
average citizen badly. So badly that as a single example, the very day
after the referendum, the same outlets that had been exclusively using
such terminology as "Recycled sewage" suddenly discovered that the term
"Recycled water" was a valid description.

sigh

Charles
--
If some days are diamonds and some days are stone....
Then some days I live in a quarry!!

"Charles" wrote in message
news
Ahh, well I am not a govt basher per se, even though I didn't vote for
them, I do believe that a society (as a whole) gets the govt it deserves.
:-)

ah, you are a _people_ basher ;-)

however, i must say i find your stance on that awfully unfair to people who
_didn't_ vote for govt of the day but get them anyway. (i feel sorry for
myself quite frankly).

I blame the Govt (federal) because they forced the Toowoomba council to
hold a referendum on what is essentially an infrastructure issue.

one of the things that irks me about them is they always find ways to get
their own way. let's not get started g.
kyile

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!!

"0tterbot" writes:
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?

Nah, the effect is more subtle. Haven't you noticed that increasing numbers
of females are driving red sports cars ...... drinking beer ...... mowing
their lawns on Sunday ...... taking over the cooking at BBQs ...... given
to road rage ......
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

"John Savage" wrote in message
om...
"0tterbot" writes:
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?

Nah, the effect is more subtle. Haven't you noticed that increasing
numbers
of females are driving red sports cars ...... drinking beer

oops!

....... mowing
their lawns on Sunday ...... taking over the cooking at BBQs ...... given
to road rage ......

on the bright side, when we take over the cooking at bbqs, we don't have to
wear an apron with rubber breasts on it - we can just wear our own!
kylie

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.