You mean you don't give a dam.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Printable View
You mean you don't give a dam.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Silent, that sounds like a good setup!
On the subject of water use and where most of it goes, I came across this article some time ago, in one of those Lefty sort of rags...admittedly published in UK (maybe there'd be too much trouble here!). Here's a quote or two:
"In 2000, Australia used 25m gigalitres of water. Just 2m of that total went to households, and nearly half of that, in turn, was used to water gardens. The vast bulk of it- 17m gigalitres, was used in farming."
"One way of measuring the efficiency of water usage is to work out how much of the resource you need for a dollar's worth of finished product. On this measure, healthcare and education use seven litres of water for each Australian dollar, banking uses nine litres, and most manufacturing comes in at less than 50 litres.
Irrigated agriculture consumes scales of magnitude more water. It takes 1,200 litres to make a dollar's-worth of sugar and 1,500 litres to make dairy products or cotton to the same value. The most thirsty crop is rice, which consumes 7,500 litres of water for every dollar of value."
Now that's scarey!:eek: But no mention of mining?! The whole article can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1346105,00.html
Has anyone read Tim Flannery's "The Future Eaters"? I reckon it should be compulsory reading for every Australian, a bit of a wake up call to our complacence.
Cheers,
COME IN SPINNER!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedhand
Now THAT was too easy!:D :D :D :D
There is no way known our local council would allow anyone to drink the water that comes out of a Super Treat or similar, even if you wanted to. In fact I'm not even certain they would approve of our little plan to use it in the toilets. There is an Australian Standard that could be referred to and I suppose that so long as our system conformed to that, they would have a hard time objecting. I bet they'd give it a shot though. I don't think it has a lot to do with what they think is going to work. I think it has more to do with bureaucracy.
They've had to buckle a bit though locally because our town sewerage system is not coping with the load now and so they have a choice of either paying to upgrade it, or allow a lot of land development to take place under a rural zoning so that people have to provide their own water and sewerage systems. We have neighbours 500 metres away on town water and sewerage (poor fools). Their rates are about $1500 per year, ours are $800. The Super Treat was about $3,000 and the tank was $9,000, so I suppose it will take a few years to pay it off - even adding in water usage charges - but pay it off we will.
I suppose they will come along one day and tell us we have to connect to the new multi-million dollar sewer that now runs past our front door. "Make me" is the phrase that springs to mind.
Andy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
From my experience, mines are not a particularly heavy water users. They primarily use water to transport tailings to tailings dams. At the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu, the main problem lay in disposing of excess contaminated water without polluting the environment. The mine did this mainly by evaporating the excess water with large sprinkler systems. However, at times when there was heavy rainfall the only feasible way of disposing of excess water was to release it into Magela Creek. This would only be done when the creek was in flood and the contaminated water would be highly diluted by the large volumes of water flowing down the creek.
Rocker
"Watch us" is the phrase that springs right back!Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
What I didn't note above was that in the project above, it was a condition of the planning permit that we connect to the power, telecommunications, water and sewer infrastructure.
I spent four months unsuccessfully negotiating a removal of those conditions, arguing everything from Trade Practices to Civil Rights, and we also paid $1.2m in local authority headworks charges, without discount for all the bits that we provided to reduce dependance on the local authority! I think you'll find that even if you don't connect, you'll still get charged for it.
I don't think householders even get the chance to argue!
Sorry.
P:(
Well, actually this very thing happened to a friend of ours who lives on the other side of town. When he built his house, he was told that he could not connect to the sewer and he was required to put in a septic tank, which he did. Then a couple of years later, the sewer line was upgraded and they told him and everyone else in his street that they had to connect. He refused, saying that he had been forced to install a septic tank at the council's bidding and they had no right to then come along and force him to decommission it. Maybe they're just pussies down here but they let him be.
My DA says that I must provide a complying onsite sewerage management system and onsite water storage, so I have met their conditions of consent. :D
hehehe. Any chance I get mate I'll unload on the lying, lazy, smelly prycks!!! ;) :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
Go Shedhand!!
I bet you must be chuffed that big business and the government never, ever lie. Completely trustworthy, with never a barrow to push...
And I can't ever remember a lazy, smelly redneck either.
Hehehe:rolleyes:
At least those liars and cheats live in the real world and are accouintable to a certain extent. The filthy mung bean eating, nit plagued vegan forest dwellers live in lala land, eat funny mushrooms and lie a lot and are totally unaccountable to anyone except Popeye Bob (Brown). :mad: :mad: :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
Bah, I'm goin down to the shed.
FWIW lazy, smelly rednecks abound down here (I'm not one of them though) but they at least have their uses. ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D
You need to grow up shedhand. I'm sure you've got some half reasonable ideas in there somewhere, but this insistence in presenting yourself as a bigot is hiding them. How about calming down and talking some sense because your behaviour on this thread and some others is akin to the worst of the greenies you detest.
Richard
G'day,
Fair go Daddles. :)
Very lucky. My next door neighbour bought a house with an existing septic system. Found out a while later it was never approved, and apparently not to the council's standard anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Few years later, along comes the sewerage, along with a letter stating everyone will be charged $1200 to connect. He contacts council and explains about the septic. Their response was no way would they connect him as he had a non-compliant septic. He says, "but I want to do away with the septic and use your nice new sewer". Their answer "no, wont connect you - won't discuss it any further". He says "ok stuff you I'll stay on the septic". He did just that. BUT HE STILL HAD TO PAY THE $1200!!
Here we go again. Nah, on second thoughts. I don't have a beef with you Daddles. Just the lying anti-everything - tree huggers. If you want to identify with them go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
I could probably sit here and run up a 100,000 word essay based on credible science which supports the forest practices in Tasmania but I'd rather be in the shed.
BTW telling people to grow up when they express an opinion you don't like is a tad facile mate.
Bigot is defined as a person who doesn't accept an opinion different from their own. I listen to the green's opinions but i don't accept them because I know and read the science of sustainable forestry practice and know equally that their opinions are based on lies, false hysteria, emotion and here-say. One can't be accused of bigotry if an alternate view is unproven and not based on good science.
Cheers ;)
Shedhand,
Which studies do you base your credible science on? Have they been paid for by forestry interests?
I take what the green groups AND what the forestry group say on the matter with a grain of salt. Both groups push lies and propaganda.
If sustainable forestry is possible it certainly isn't being widely practiced.
My view is that there is almost nothing that is practiced in a capitalist society that is sustainable. Capitalism relies on growth. If we have a 4% growth rate that means we double our consumption in 18 years.
That means we use twice as much of everything in 18 years. The 2 decades after that we will be using 4 times what we use today. In 40 years time we will consume 8 times what we use today. We live in a finite world and we can't keep consuming for ever. Exponential growth is just not sustainable.
I don't have a beef with you either Shedhand, and don't want to start anything here (after all, its a water debate:rolleyes: ), but to shout out abuse in with large multicoloured font doesn't really do justice to your well researched opinions!
Most reasonable people- and I put myself in that category- wouldn't have any problems with "sustainable forestry" practices, but I don't think woodchipping falls under that umbrella. Well, maybe it sustains a couple of hundred jobs, a multinational company or two and the odd politician, but doesn't sustain a forest!!
Now back to our water crisis...
Cheers!
http://www.airwatermakers.com/
cop this lot! So now, presumably if you live in a humid environment, and presumably don't mind a bit of greenhouse gas generation (should this be in the lilypond thread?) you can make water from thin air!
Cheers,
P
I saw that on the news the other day. This bloke was talking about building a huge one to service Brisbane. The problem I see is that if you strip all of the moisture out of the air it won't bloody rain! I bet the wanks pushing for this project have forgotten all about that in their great wisdom.
One of the quotes on that website also sounds a bit wrong.
"Remote locations…. no delivery charges once the machine is installed."
Sounds a bit BS doesn't it. We'll charge you to deliver and install it then we won't charge you again. One would hope not.
I think they mean that once you have installed the machine, you'll never have to pay for water deliveries again.
Possibly, but as my Communication and Scholarship Professor said last year,Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
"Say exactly what you mean and there will never be confusion".
What if you are confused about what you mean?
I had an English teacher who used to say "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".
Which explains all the coffee stains on the front of my shirts I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
P
:D :D :D
Speaking of water, I had a kilometre and a half of merbau decking delivered to the site last week and unfortunately it has now been rained on for 4 days in a row. I was going to start nailing it down this weekend but I'm worried that it will shrink once it dries out again. What do you reckon?
And you didn't cover it??? :eek: :eek:
Crack city here we come. (Thats' cracks in the board not the the other sort of crack).
I don't think there's a solution. Drill and nail it by hand and hope for the best, but get a coating on it as soon as it's down!
It'll be ok if you're not going to be too heartbroken and pedantic at the end of the day.
Cheers,
P
To dam or not to dam calls to mind the more important question: why do we have to keep populating the landscape with humans so that we need to build dams and demolish nature? Please, someone tell me what we gain in having 20 billion people on the earth instead of 1 billion? Are we more able to face alien attacks?
In Oz we have around 20 million people, but we seem to be determined to build it to the USA's 250 million or whatever it is these days. Why? The more we want to populate the more we'll need to turn nature into culture. In this context the argument about dams and sustainable forestry seems spurious. It's a bit like having ten children then trying to work out how they'll fit into a two bedroom house.
I apologise, Silent, for ignoring your woodwork related question. I don't have an answer for that either http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...cons/icon7.gif.
It's actually not a great idea to cover it either because that traps the moisture in. Best thing would've been to put it in the shed but I wasn't there when it was delivered and the crane truck couldn't pick it up, so they got lazy and dumped it out front.Quote:
And you didn't cover it
Actually, I doubt it was under cover up at Bunnies either. I've never been there (it's up the coast) but they only have a small shed and I'll bet they don't keep the decking in it. Still it was cheap.
Planning to use a Duo coil nailer with twist nails. The joists are Duragal. I don't think hand nailing is an option...
Midge,Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Green Island Resort (Cairns) has a tertiary treatment plant and uses treated water for irrigation (around buildings, near accomodation) and for flushing of toilets. Site safety induction told us it was safe to drink (but not legal) but wasn't suitable for mixing concrete as it had too high a salts content (I believe there was also some sea water in the equation somewhere). Rainwater collection isn't allowed as it's a National Park (as you'd no doubt know) so water is shipped in every day. This isn't too much of a drama as they've got a regular fleet of boats ferrying in tourists every day. Does make for very expensive water though, which explains why, after having 48 huge bathtubs custom made, and the bathrooms practically completed the whole lot was ripped out and replaced with standard tubs, Someone had crunched the numbers on the cost of a tub full of imported water, heated by electricity locally generated with imported diesel :rolleyes: .
On the whole subject of water usage, I don't think anyone who lives on a town water supply really knows the value of water. When we moved into our place the tank was near empty with the driest year on record. The bore pump was playing up so I removed it for repairs, securing the foot valve/venturi assembly with a rope. Got the pump back and found that the venturi was suctioned into the silt at the bottom of the bore. Tried real hard to pull it up until the rope came off the pipe. :eek: :( . Took me more than two weeks to get the thing free. Had to fetch a few loads of town water with the fire truck (4 x 1500L).
I don't water the garden much, just the fruit trees, the lawn can die as it will come back when the rains do. With just the two of us we can make our 26KL tank go for 3 months without any rain or having to top it up from the bore.
Maybe we need more dams, or maybe we need to harvest stormwater in urban areas and maybe we shouldn't be wasting drinking grade water on washing cars, watering lawns and industrial usage.
Mick
even Cairns is complacent again now that copperlode is full, only a couple of years ago that we were running out of water in one of the highest rainfall areas of Australia...
They're planning on taking water from the barron river to supply future needs even though another dam was planned years ago at Flaggy creek, the growth in population in the Cairns region means there will be water problems again in the future. Its only a matter of time.
Spot on!Quote:
Originally Posted by journeyman Mick
At the rental house we just left there was a small high set 1500 litre gal tank. I wouldn't have drunk the water but certainly used it to wash the car and water the garden. The yuppie neighbour thought I was strange using tank water to wash the car. "Why don't you just go down to the car wash?"Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Mind you, we are currently on level 4 water restrictions here ATM too! So anything I can do to minimise water usage I do. The kids share the bath water, I have a 4-5minute shower tops, never wash small loads of clothes and let the gardens die. They'll come back when it rains.
Womble,Quote:
Originally Posted by womble
the dam on Flaggy creek was going to flood the old Seventh Day Adventist mission at Mona Mona so they moved everyone out. Around about '84 the local Aboriginal community was given permission to start using Mona Mona again. I was there for all the speeches etc when the relevant minister and public servants came for a visit. While the majority of people living there are itinerants I seriously doubt that any government would push the project through now after more than 20 years of indigineous use of the land. Also some of the area is under the Wet tropics Authority and surrounding areas are under World Heritage listing. Dams aren't a vote catcher (but they may be, down the track if/when we start to run out of water) I did notice though, that when they were exploring avenues of supplying Cairns with more water a dam at Mona Mona wasn't on the list.:rolleyes: .
I'm thinking that a partial answer to water supplies for large urban areas would be a dual system, a large system of recycled sewerage/grey water/harvested storm water for fire fighting, industry, irrigation, toilet flushing etc etc and a parrallel system of potable quality water. Or maybe we need intensive re-education programs for city/town dwellers where they get to live for a few months on a rural property where they need to run down the the river to fire up a (hand cranked:D ) diesel pump in order to irrigate, wash cars or fill the kids wading pool and where the drinking water comes out of a rain water tank with the closest refill, if required comes from 30Km away at $150 for a truck load.
Mick
Yep you will no argument from me on this one. Some of these people live in a world of no dams and plenty of water, Which in Australia is an oxymoron.Quote:
I've lived in severe climates without reticulated water, and to me there's nothing romantic about fishing a dead animal out of the tank, or trying to strain wrigglers out of your glass of water..... but maybe I'm missing something?