Its Time To talk About Water...

onelongsong · October 2007

Mestophar wrote:

Oh and congratulations on your perfection and virtuous life you live.

success isn't getting what you want; it's wanting what you have. my life is perfect for me. it would be hell for most of the other posters. i found what i wanted; and worked to achieve it. i took what i achieved and moved it to a larger scale. once again i'm moving exactly what i have to an even larger scale. instead of going to work; i'd rather watch buffalo eat or maybe pick fresh veggies from the greenhouse. my neighbour's wife moved back to L.A. because she couldn't take the quiet. she'd much rather have a job and live in the middle of the "excitement" of the city than retire and live a simple normal life. some people can't wait to buy that new bmw model where i can't wait to see baby calves playing in the paddock.
it's all in your lifestyle; son. one mans heaven is another mans hell.

onelongsong · October 2007

polaris wrote:

i suppose if one gets offended by the statement that lawns are stupid - then yeah i can see where you are getting at ...

consider yourself fortunate to have a lawn big enuf to play football and hockey rinks - where i live - we have to walk to the park for that ... i suppose if everyone had a lawn that size - we'd need 3 times the earth ... and hopefully, you aren't spraying your lawns with toxic pesticides and then having your kids play on it cuz that would be counteracting your healthy lifestyle ...

i agree with you. someone here said their family drinks 2 gallons of water each day. next time someone is watering their lawn or a golf course; they should measure the amount of water they're using and cipher how many families they are depriving clean water to. if you want a lawn; use your greywater.

onelongsong · October 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

A bloke is a good thing right

a bloke is a dude; a mate is a good friend. and yes; it's a good thing.

tie-dye lady · October 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

We can do it and they do do it in parts of the Middle East, but it is expensive and isn't necessary in our part of the world. At least not yet, maybe one day it will be but i personally don't think so.

Santa Barbara has been running desalination plants for years.

They also put in a lot of effort to education people on reducing their personal usage including xeriscaping.

onelongsong · October 2007

tie-dye lady wrote:

Santa Barbara has been running desalination plants for years.

They also put in a lot of effort to education people on reducing their personal usage including xeriscaping.

in a few years that plant will be an island and they won't have to pipe the water so far.

surferdude · October 2007

polaris wrote:

i suppose if one gets offended by the statement that lawns are stupid - then yeah i can see where you are getting at ...

consider yourself fortunate to have a lawn big enuf to play football and hockey rinks - where i live - we have to walk to the park for that ... i suppose if everyone had a lawn that size - we'd need 3 times the earth ... and hopefully, you aren't spraying your lawns with toxic pesticides and then having your kids play on it cuz that would be counteracting your healthy lifestyle ...

I went out of my way to say my point was not directed at you. The point is there is not a cookie cutter solution. If there was I'd be raking you over the coals for not living in high density housing. After all if I can live in high density housing everyone should. And if I ride my bike to work and don't turn on the heater in January then you should do the same. I can manage to commute to work without using public transportation or cars then you should do the same. What a great solution. Toronto can get rid of public transportation and everyone can just bike to work. Think of all the greenhouse gas emissions being saved.

Cookie cutter solutions are not answers and trying to act like what's right for you is right for everyone is fanaticism. It's bullshit when coming from religious folks and equally bullshit coming from the eco folks.

surferdude · October 2007

onelongsong wrote:

i agree with you. someone here said their family drinks 2 gallons of water each day. next time someone is watering their lawn or a golf course; they should measure the amount of water they're using and cipher how many families they are depriving clean water to. if you want a lawn; use your greywater.

That's complete bs. First, water can't be shipped out of Canada in any meaningful way or even shipped around Canada in any meaningful way. Two, I live in a near coastal rainforest environment where there is generally no watershortage. Third water is not a resource that can be saved in areas where there is an adundance of it. It can be conserved but not saved. Fourth, as of now clean water is a free commodity where I live so there is absolutely no one being deprived of clean water by lawn watering where I live or where the I was using could currently be shipped to. Cookie cutter ideaology and solutions don't work and aren't answers.

Where I live our water is almost entirely from rainfall and snow run off. We are the perfect example of conservation. We save what we don't use in the spring for year round use. This conservation system actually helps the environment by lessening natural soil errosion.

Jeanie · October 2007

surferdude wrote:

That's complete bs. First, water can't be shipped out of Canada in any meaningful way or even shipped around Canada in any meaningful way. Two, I live in a near coastal rainforest environment where there is generally no watershortage. Third water is not a resource that can be saved in areas where there is an adundance of it. It can be conserved but not saved. Fourth, as of now clean water is a free commodity where I live so there is absolutely no one being deprived of clean water by lawn watering where I live or where the I was using could currently be shipped to. Cookie cutter ideaology and solutions don't work and aren't answers.

Where I live our water is almost entirely from rainfall and snow run off. We are the perfect example of conservation. We save what we don't use in the spring for year round use. This conservation system actually helps the environment by lessening natural soil errosion.

Do you physically water your lawn? Coz it sounds to me like the rainwater is doing it for you. OLS objection to lawns and golf courses would be the same as mine. Where they exist and people have them, clean drinking water should not be used to water them. Particularly in areas where there are water shortages.

Scubascott · October 2007

Jeanie wrote:

We can play this reverse osmosis bullshit at a later date and as I said to scott, let's use that water for all the other possible uses before we get to drinking it. AND no need to be pumping it into the natural supply. Sort those things and I'll consider it. Find a way for me to reverse osmosis my own effluent and I'll consider it further. Otherwise I'm against it.

I still don't understand your objection Jeanie. Just for a moment leave all the politics of it aside. What exactly do you have against drinking recycled water?

Jeanie · October 2007

Scubascott wrote:

I still don't understand your objection Jeanie. Just for a moment leave all the politics of it aside. What exactly do you have against drinking recycled water?

It's like most things scott.

It relies heavily on the process and we can't measure the outcome or haven't as yet. I mean that in terms of health and disease control. Surely as a kid you were brought up to be careful what you ingested? Well I'd say I was that way too. If it comes down to us having to drink recycled effluent, then I guess it does, but I'd prefer we explored and implemented a whole lot more alternatives first. I'm never going to be happy about them mixing it with the "natural" water supply. I really can't seperate it out from the politics. It requires me to "trust" in the powers that be and I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen.

If my efforts at water conservation aren't yielding good enough results then I still believe we have a lot more avenues open to us BEFORE EVERYONE is forced to DRINK water that has been recycled from a huge reservoir of COMBINED effluent. Is that making any sense?

I wonder why you are so readily for it. I mean why you are so behind this particular solution as opposed to trying other options first?

Yoyoyo · October 2007

Effluent and grey water are different things I believe. Effluent, generally, has human waste in it and is very concentrated. Grey water does not have human waste in it and what pollutants it has are not very concentrated. I'm not sure what type of water your referring to with "recycled" but I doubt they want to simply purify effluent and serve it up to drink, it has to be diluted a ton first.

Jeanie · October 2007

Mestophar wrote:

Effluent and grey water are different things I believe. Effluent, generally, has human waste in it and is very concentrated. Grey water does not have human waste in it and what pollutants it has are not very concentrated. I'm not sure what type of water your referring to with "recycled" but I doubt they want to simply purify effluent and serve it up to drink, it has to be diluted a ton first.

I know the difference.

(Think I may have mentioned that earlier in the thread.)

And that's my problem, they are planning on recycling effluent with reverse osmosis here and adding it to the drinking water.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1700516.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1699774.htm

Scubascott · October 2007

Jeanie wrote:

It's like most things scott. It relies heavily on the process and we can't measure the outcome or haven't as yet. I mean that in terms of health and disease control. Surely as a kid you were brought up to be careful what you ingested? Well I'd say I was that way too. If it comes down to us having to drink recycled effluent, then I guess it does, but I'd prefer we explored and implemented a whole lot more alternatives first. I'm never going to be happy about them mixing it with the "natural" water supply. I really can't seperate it out from the politics. It requires me to "trust" in the powers that be and I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen.

If my efforts at water conservation aren't yielding good enough results then I still believe we have a lot more avenues open to us BEFORE EVERYONE is forced to DRINK water that has been recycled from a huge reservoir of COMBINED effluent. Is that making any sense?

I wonder why you are so readily for it. I mean why you are so behind this particular solution as opposed to trying other options first?

I'm behind most of the options, except probably desalinisation, which seems to me to be a ridiculously expensive and wasteful one. Unless it could be done using solar energy it just sounds like a bad option that should be a last resort only.

Recycling just makes sense. In the capital cities most of that waste water is currently going out to sea in a treated form so clean that its essentially drinkable already. That is incredibly wasteful. You already 'trust in the powers that be' everytime you drink tap water anyway. Its not as if its come directly from some pure mountain stream straight to your house. Its already highly processed and treated to make it safe to drink. The technology is available to recycle waste water, and its already done successfully in many other countries, so why not do it? I've travelled in places where all the water you drink from the tap is recycled, and I'm still alive. I have never heard a good argument against recycled water on health grounds. If you know of one I'd be glad to read about it.

From your posts it sounds like you'd rather see the water that currently goes out to sea used for irrigation or industry, rather than domestic water supply. Ok, but how do you keep it separate? You'd have to build massive amounts of new infrastructure if you wanted to have two separate water supply systems (one for domestic water and one for industry). I can't imagine that using it for irrigation would be a very efficient option either, as the major irrigation areas are so far away from the capital cities. Again, you would need to build huge amounts of new infrastructure to shift that water from the cities to agricultural areas. Keeping it in the city just makes sense.

Jeanie · October 2007

Scott I'll be back to answer this ^. Gotta take the dog to the vet.

polaris · October 2007

surferdude wrote:

I went out of my way to say my point was not directed at you. The point is there is not a cookie cutter solution. If there was I'd be raking you over the coals for not living in high density housing. After all if I can live in high density housing everyone should. And if I ride my bike to work and don't turn on the heater in January then you should do the same. I can manage to commute to work without using public transportation or cars then you should do the same. What a great solution. Toronto can get rid of public transportation and everyone can just bike to work. Think of all the greenhouse gas emissions being saved.

Cookie cutter solutions are not answers and trying to act like what's right for you is right for everyone is fanaticism. It's bullshit when coming from religious folks and equally bullshit coming from the eco folks.

dude ... why take it personally ... whoever your comment was intended for is irrelevant - i'm responding to it regardless ...

why take such a defensive position?? ... i don't see how i am proposing a "cookie cutter" solution ... i simply believe lawns are stupid - the balance between pros and cons definitely leans heavy towards cons ... you can have your lawn - a lot of people do ... just don't take it so personally when someone thinks they are a waste ...

sweetpotato · October 2007

funny, i started a thread a few weeks ago about our dangerously disappearing clean water supply, and all the political/foreign policy implications, and i was basically ignored b/c the article was published on AlterNet. i was told they just like to scare people. unlike the assholes in the bush administration, i assume.

best to pretend we have no water supply problem, i guess.

good plan.

for anyone interested, here's the article:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=260676

sweetpotato · October 2007

here's a plan: we all (except for the naysayers, like jlew) start conserving water and begin living as if we get it, that yes, there is a crisis on the horizon. then when the crisis hits and jlew's throat is parched and his body stinks for lack of passably clean water to bathe in, we can enjoy our lemonade on ice as they watch us from the sidelines.

tho they'll prolly get one or two softies to give them a drink, since people who are aware of the threat will most likely also be openhearted and generous. i think the assholes depend on that generosity, so they assume they don't need to worry about the problem themselves.

surferdude · October 2007

sweetpotato wrote:

funny, i started a thread a few weeks ago about our dangerously disappearing clean water supply, and all the political/foreign policy implications, and i was basically ignored b/c the article was published on AlterNet. i was told they just like to scare people. unlike the assholes in the bush administration, i assume.

best to pretend we have no water supply problem, i guess.

good plan.

for anyone interested, here's the article:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=260676

Under our current water distribution laws and infrastructue the availability of clean water is a local issue. We in North America cannot help Australia. Where I live we generally have an abundance of clean water. This does not help those who live 2,000 miles away.

The water issue may be of national concern but has to be addressed locally.

sweetpotato · October 2007

surferdude wrote:

Under our current water distribution laws and infrastructue the availability of clean water is a local issue. We in North America cannot help Australia. Where I live we generally have an abundance of clean water. This does not help those who live 2,000 miles away.

The water issue may be of national concern but has to be addressed locally.

it won't stay that way for long, because eventually, whoever has it will be the ones holding all the power on the world stage. much like oil is now, only worse, because we CAN live with very little- or NO- oil, but we can't live w/o water.

surferdude · October 2007

sweetpotato wrote:

here's a plan: we all (except for the naysayers, like jlew) start conserving water and begin living as if we get it, that yes, there is a crisis on the horizon. then when the crisis hits and jlew's throat is parched and his body stinks for lack of passably clean water to bathe in, we can enjoy our lemonade on ice as they watch us from the sidelines.

tho they'll prolly get one or two softies to give them a drink, since people who are aware of the threat will most likely also be openhearted and generous. i think the assholes depend on that generosity, so they assume they don't need to worry about the problem themselves.

Water unlike oil is a renewable natural resource. You act like what you conserve today is going to be there for yuo 50 years down the road. Water generally doesn't work that way and good luck drinking your 50 year old water.

Conserving water is key up to the point where the use of water does not exceed nature's ability to renew the water source. What this level of water conservancy is depends entirely on where you live. So please no cookie cutter solutions.

Its Time To talk About Water...

Comments

Categories