The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba > Comments

Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 31/7/2006

The 'Big Question' is: why did John Howard insist Toowoomba vote on the issue of waste water recycling?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. 25
  13. All
Ah! The bitter realisation will dawn (most likely too late) - drinking treated effluent is better than drinking nothing. It seems that the only way for Toowoomba to get their recycling programme is to completely run out of water.... although it's a bit late to worry then.
Posted by cootha, Monday, 31 July 2006 4:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen -

Toowoomba is 140km distant and 600 metres above the seawater. It takes a lot of energy and money to pump it up the hill. Toowomba's wastewater has to be treated before it goes in the river or to the irrigators, so you can't compare raw sewage and seawater, you have to compare treated sewage and seawater. Treated sewage is a lot easier and cheaper to clean up than sea water, so it is cheaper even in a city like Sydney which is right next to the seawater.

Dr. Marohasy says that about 7000 MegaLitres per year are needed immediately and 12,500 Mega Litres per year are needed in the long term. If the price increases by $3 per kilolitre due to the vote, that will be about $20 million per year in the short term and $60 million per year in the long term, out of the Toowoomba economy. They will most likely also have permanent water restrictions.

Maybe it is worth it to them.
Posted by ericc, Monday, 31 July 2006 4:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Water" actually recycled urine!

The World Health Organisation (WHO) today issued an unprecedented global alert for the entire world’s population to avoid drinking water which, it has found, is actually recycled urine.

The Director-General of WHO, Lee Jong-wook, was visibly shaken as he read out a statement. "It is my solemn duty to inform the people of the world that WHO scientists, operating independently in over 80 countries, have confirmed our worst fears. They have reached consensus that the water we drink, whether it is comes from a tap, a sealed bottle, or straight from a well or river, is actually recycled urine."

The urine-water link has been blamed on the so-called hydrosphere effect, a radical hypothesis in which water from your toilet is flows out into the ocean and evapourates into the sky; from where scientists believe it falls as rain upon mountaintops, and make its way via rivers directly back into your household tap.

Said Mr Lee, "the hydrosphere effect is so far out of control there seems little chance of turning back the tide. We took samples from thousands of patients and found their bodies were riddled with water, in some cases as high as 75%. It’s too late for us, but maybe not for our children."

The finding has set public health officials scrambling for alternatives. But AMA Secretary Dr. Robyn Mason said that water is in everything we drink. "We tested fruit juice, milk and even beer, and found water content as high as 96%," she said. According to the AMA, safer alternatives include cask-strength whisky (29% water, 1% barley, 70% alcohol) and cat's milk, which has far less water than dairy varieties.

Some have expressed hope of obtaining super-pure water from deep aquifers or Antarctic ice. But Mr Lee has poured water on these plans, stating that even the deepest groundwater sources are comprised of ancient number ones from prehistoric fish.

"There’s no escape. And don’t even think of swimming in the ocean – there’s a reason it’s salty you know. I’d rather take my chances in a pool full of primary school kids."
Posted by Mercurius, Monday, 31 July 2006 9:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Safe water yields in Toowoomba were exceeded in 1998 and the population has kept growing”.

The demand kept exceeding the safe supply rate and hence reducing the drought safety margin at a steady rate. And nothing was done about it until…lo and behold… a drought!!

Talk about the ultimate bad management – failing to secure the supply of one of the most fundamental resources and thus condemning the entire community to water restrictions, stress, disillusionment, in-fighting, etc, etc, with the onset of the first dry period after the safe supply rate had been violated. How hopeless is that?!

And who was mayor while this was happening? Could it have been Clive Berghofer by any chance??
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:34:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John howard would have insisted on a referendum on sewerage drinking (there are numerous methods of sewerage recycling) for the same reason councils all over Australia and, indeed, much of the world, held referendums on the addition of flouride to drinking water.

That is, democratic precedent. So rather than whipping up a neat little political conspiracy, we should be asking why Goulburn didn't hold a referendum when every other council in the country has held referendums on an issue of immediate concern to voters and their water?

And did it ever occur to our little nest of metrocentrics here that the reason National Party MPs etc opposed this over priced and underconsidered scheme is that they, and their primarily rural constituency have been doing just fine on tank water for the past century?

And lets not kid ourselves here by assuming that the quoted $68 million for the plant was a firm number. For if the record of other champions of big ticket infrastructure is any guide, this number is likely to have been $200 million by the time it was actually started.

Remember the Brisbane Lord Moron's initial quote of $1 billion for his tunnel? As soon as the contract was approved the cost then blew out to $2 billion and finally came in at $3 billion on the signed contract. And all in the space of two years. And each time he was exposed he simply said that he would just have to eat humble pie on this one.

So what would Thorley have said to the voters of Toowoomba when the cost of her memorial pyramid blew out? Probably something on the lines of, "OK I will eat humble pie but you get the $hit sandwich".
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:13:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article Jennifer. Seems to me that an opportunity was missed to ask a supplementary question in the referendum. Now that the people of Toowooba has banned the use of recycled water they need to revisit the water supply issue and given the chance to look into the core question of di-hydrogen oxide.

Dangerous Properties of Di-Hydrogen Oxide

1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. its accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.
8. its solid form can cause severe accidents due slipping

The people of Toowoomba would surely be in favour of strict control or total elimination of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide if they knew all the facts.
Posted by sten, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:03:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. 25
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy