Dallas,
thanks for that but I wasn't talking about advertised spring water that's often BS. I was refering to the actual water that comes out of the ground as in a real live spring but you're right anyway good to see some one has some handle on actual science rather than the oooh yuk principal.

rstuart says:

".... if you have been using water from the Wivenhoe and surrounding dams you have been drinking poo for most of your life. The towns upstream from Wivenhoe have got to put their sewage somewhere. Where do [you] think it goes? They don't have a pipeline running to the sea, do they? So there is really on[ly] one place it can go - back into the rivers it came from."

It is now many years since I have been in the catchment area of the Wivenhoe dam. My memory of the area was not one of dense human settlement. If you look at the Google map for the area to the north and west of the dam, you will see the only 'towns' appear to be those of Esk and Toogoolawah. See: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&q=Wivenhoe%20dam&cr=countryAU&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

I would be surprised if there was any reticulated sewerage system in either place. I would expect septic tanks to be the usual method of disposal, with the associated absorption trenches kicking off the natural filtration of any water catchment with a vengeance. Plants, both algal and of higher orders, would process and transpire the lot. I doubt any effluent would reach a watercourse anywhere.

The faeces of other animal species are decomposed and naturally recycled in much the same way as septic tank effluent, unless there are intense concentrations of animals (as in feedlots) where there may be a localised problem. The major point is that the micro-organisms that may debilitate the host species mostly don't pose a problem to other species. Human sewage effluent from concentrations of human settlement that has NOT been through nature's 'filter', returned to a reservoir intended for human consumption, can pose a risk not otherwise run.

Why did this topic get a run when, 'Sewage into drinking water?' was approved only the day before? The links in this post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2583#58034 may prove helpful here.

examinator, Crystal Creek, Cape Tribulation and Fraser Island spring ground waters are the sweetest, I have tasted.

And yes,business,including government, marketing "pure" need to be drawn and quartered. Public servants and their marketing arms should be responsible for these deliberate errors considering their role as regulators.

Forrest Gumpp: "I would be surprised if there was any reticulated sewerage system in either place."

I have a surprise for you:

http://www.vetiver.org/AUS_sewage.htm

And what a pleasant surprise it was, rstuart!

What a relevant link. It explains an en-macro achievement at Toogoolawah of what, en-micro, I have achieved in my rural residential septic tank overflow absorption area: an engineered wetland for sewage effluent disposal, a compost farm.

I see from the link that it was in 1970 that the pre-existing Toogoolawah sewage treatment plant was first commissioned. It was 1969 when I was last in that area, so that fact was unknown to me. In any case a minor detail. The linked-to paper explains "... the treatment plant was constructed as a primary sedimentation (Imhoff Tank) followed by three sewerage ponds. The effluent from the ponds was designed to flow down into a swamp area before it entered into the local creek. The plant construction was based on a very simple design but it is effective. With the recent changes to license conditions imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the plant no longer complies with the license and so an upgrade of the plant was required."

What a seemingly excellent solution by the Esk Shire Council! The paper concludes "the Vetiver Wetland System is treating the effluent to a better standard. Also the system is very easy to implement and is a very low cost method for treating effluent and leachate in both domestic and industrial scenarios.". Why do I get the feeling that this was not the solution anticipated as a response to the recent EPA changes to the Toogoolawah sewage treatment plant license conditions?

As the page the subject of rstuart's link does not permit navigation of 'The Vetiver Network International' website, I give that here: http://www.vetiver.org/

"The Vetiver Network International (TVNI) promotes the Vetiver System (VS), a concept integrating simple scientific principals of hydrology, soil mechanics, and similar natural processes to manage soil and water on a landscape scale. The concept excels best when implemented using clones of a remarkable domesticated plant – vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioides), a non fertile, noninvasive Indian clump grass cultivated for centuries ...."

What do we say?

'Esk, Esk, Esk'?

The thread has moved a bit from its purported subject as touched upon in the opening post.

The post content relevant to the stated topic appeared to be Waterfresh, with the claim that the town of 1770 (in far north Queensland) had been "field testing Waterfesh water for the past four to five years". Unfortunately melody only posted a link relating to 'clean coal'. So here is the link to the Waterfresh website: http://www.waterfreshgroup.com/

Clicking on the 'about Waterfresh' tab, here: http://www.waterfreshgroup.com/page.aspx?catId=2a7c46f3-ebad-4b02-9d8b-bf75db7e0b04 reveals that "WaterFresh is an Australian water treatment technology company. .... WaterFresh designs plants for its clients and licenses its technology. Waterfresh ....... provide[s] clients the assurance of; .... the plant receiving the appropriate operating certification".

I was unable to answer, from a perusal of the website, my own query as to the capability of the system to remove toxins, as distinct from "kill[ing] pathogens", that may be present in the untreated water source. Neither is it clear what the untreated water source is at 1770 upon which the field tests are being performed. The implication appears to be that it is sewage effluent, but is that really so?

What also perplexes me is the statement, in the opening post, that "Despite what Hasbeen says, desalination is not a solution." Neither Hasbeen, nor anyone else, had yet posted in this thread. It is thus difficult to know the context of Hasbeen's claimed statement. A link to what presumably is a post in some other thread could help give that context.

I guess the real significance of the Waterfresh technology is that it is proprietary, and that to overcome water supply shortages that are a consequence of governmental neglect to invest in infrastructure, against a backdrop of migration-driven population increase, Australian individuals and communities should now pay through the nose for what has historically been their right for much lower taxation-based contributions.

Interesting technology, nonetheless.