I'd be buying a rainwater tank if I was you Oldie....so when the stuff up does happen...and it will...you aren't the one drinking it

Oldie,

You did not deserve the rubbishing you, and the general concerns you raised, got from Bugsy.

The point is not that recycling is a quite technically sophisticated and well thought out process, nor even that it may contain well thought out and intended safeguards in its implementation. It is that before the elections in September 2006 a plebiscite on this issue was promised, and now that promise has been broken.

So what? Just another politician's broken promise. They're two-a-penny. What's different about this one?

The difference is it was made by the State premier. A man who doubtless aspires to go down in history as a man of public integrity. Peter Beattie well knows that if he was to hold a plebiscite, it would be expected of him that its decision would be binding upon his government. He would also know that if a decision had effectively ALREADY been taken to implement recycling of effluent into the reticulated supply storage BEFORE any plebiscite was held, whatever its outcome, his integrity could be called into question. I suggest the premier sees his government already committed to this recycling plan in order to gain enough time to implement the Burdekin pipeline contingency plan, now that SEQ is faced with running right out of reticulated water.

I suggest SEQ is faced with running right out firstly because it has entered a prolonged dry phase in a long-term climate cycle. See the link within this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#75114 . Secondly, it is faced with a run-out (yeah, stumping!) because the government DELAYED public commencement of the Burdekin contingency plan in 2005 or 2006, no doubt because this would have focussed attention before the elections upon earlier bad decisions to scrap other dam construction. To try and avoid the feared run-out, Beattie urgently needs the recycled effluent, all of it he can get, for his, and his government's, political survival.

Your, and others, justifiable health concerns just don't rate by comparison.

There may be a better way.

On the contrary, I think the rubbishing of astounding ignorance is eminently justified. The very first sentence reads "pumping treated sewerage into our existing dams" as if it still is sewerage! In fact, but the time it reaches the reverse osmosis stage it is safe enough for smaller local governments to pump it into river systems or our other environments.

There weren't any real health concerns in the original post, just comments on a technology that it most obvious that many people are ignorant of, and yet feel obliged to comment against. This is nothing more than neo-Luddism at its worst. The "you can't trust politicians" line doesn't wash with me either, they are not the guys working at the plant, they just pay the money, OUR money for OUR water. If you want Brisbane to run out of water just so you can sit back and have a good laugh at the governments expense, then by all means say so. But don't pretend it's about real health concerns, if you haven't even taken the time to review the operational plan or understand any of the technology.

Concerns about the ultimate sustainability of development in various populated regions of Australia are valid. Cartoonish caricatures of water quality engineers asleep at the wheel are not.

Take Bugsy's statement as to what is involved in treatment of effluent: "First, all the large solids are removed, then it is the organics are removed and it is microfiltered and also passed through a reverse osmosis filter which then removes salts and small molecules, the it is treated with ozonation (activated oxygen) to oxidise any organic molecules that may have gotten through (by this time they are in the PARTS PER TRILLION range if at all)" .

Compare Bugsy's with the following statements: "UK research has suggested that some male infertility problems in the London area may be linked to the drinking water supply, which contains sewage effluent and has been found to be contaminated with hormone- mimicking nonylphenols [xeno estrogens]." (This link, http://www.georgiastrait.org/xenofacts.php , is the source of the quote), and "You get a free sterilization program, from the xeno-estrogens, effective at PARTS PER TRILLION and so unfilterable except by distillation." from OLO contributor Peter Ravenscroft at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#74445 .

I do not pretend to be capable of evaluating this particular concern in the context of the effluent recycling proposal, but it would certainly seem significant concerns, as outlined by Oldie, remain unaddressed.

As a general precaution, recycled water could be kept separate from the reticulated supply storage. The problem with that is that the government cannot expect to get as much for such lower-quality water as it can charge for reticulated potable supply.

What the government does not want talked about in this whole debate is that it has to be just as committed to a form of waste water disposal different to simply that of dumping effluent into the ocean. The dumping of waste water in the ocean may well be a major factor in the exacerbation of drought conditions in SEQ and elsewhere. Making the change will cost money. The easiest way, for the government, is to simply force the recycled effluent back into the reticulated supply where they can get top price for it. That is what they are doing.

At least this question is based on some form of reality. If you have been reading about xeno-estrogens, you will note that they are not estrogen, that which comes from our own bodies and from the pill etc. It comes from degradation of plastics and pollution from leeching of landfills and overuse of pesticides. And they are active at parts per trillion in the body, not in the source.

I do not know why Peter Ravenscroft has said they are unfilterable, because it's actually quite obvious that they are, but you would be getting more of a dose of them from farmers upstream of the Wivenhoe that from a recycling plant. Even though all the water quality scientists I have talked to said they can remove any of these chemicals very effectively and they can be oxidised with ozonation.

But what is quite obvious is that if they do come out the other end, they won't be coming out in anywhere near the concentrations that they went in (ie we won't be concentrating them) and so we won't actually be increasing them in our water supply.

Whether London has effluent in their water supply is not the issue here, the proposal is not to put effluent but purified filtered water of high quality into the water supply. In England they pump it unfiltered sewage with the solids removed directly into the Thames. I guess thats why they added the extra environmental breakdown and dilution step by adding it to the top of the dam, to remove any possible residuals.

It really comes down to a "we don't trust the politicians who have received advice from qualified scientists" mentality. The politicians live here too you know and have families.

As I said, if it comes down to a "we don't trust politicians" thats fine. Just make that perfectly clear. You probably don't have time to understand the science, thats fine. But going off half-cocked with a neo-luddite attitude, on the internet of all places (how ironic is that), is not something that I like to personally entertain.

It seems I, and possibly Oldie, may have misunderstood something, Bugsy.

Did you not say, in your second post on this topic, "I think its about time that the actual plans were made obviously public and freely available and then people could comment and raise concerns about reality rather than malicious fantasy."? That is just it, the actual plans don't seem to have been public and freely available, despite the existence of the internet. If they are, surely links could be provided. Yet you reprove Oldie for not having bothered to check what you imply are available references, while accusing him/her of "astounding ignorance" and "malicious fantasy".

To me you say "But don't pretend it's about real health concerns, if you haven't even taken the time to review the operational plan or understand any of the technology." Where do I review it? You having indicated that the operational plan is not publicly available, it seems unfair, arrogant even, to state that my health concerns are pretended unless I have read it.

As for your claim of my "want[ing] Brisbane to run out of water just so [I] can sit back and have a good laugh at the governments expense", I can only suggest you research my posting history, as in, for example, these threads: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5477 , http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=256 , http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616 , or via the 'Users' facility.

The better way foreshadowed involves construction of a much shorter pipeline from the sea, via Swanbank power station, connecting to the Wivenhoe end of the Tarong power station pipeline. Waste heat from these existing coal fired power stations would be used to reduced-pressure desalinate sea water. The saturated brines would be accumulated for use in solar pondage. Multi-effect humidification could see from 20% to 100% of SEQ water requirements provided from desalination.

Recycled effluent could play its part, too, in providing working fluid for heat exchange at the power stations, and pond blanket water.

Think big!