Moved from here:

www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=43693

You may like to sign a petition to prohibit the use of recycled sewerage effluent for drinking purposes:

CURRENT E-PETITION

Subject:
Prohibit the use of recycled sewerage effluent for drinking purposes

Eligibility:
Queensland Citizens

Sponsoring Member:
Ray Stevens MP

Principal Petitioner:
Dahl Cummins
PO Box 763
BROADBEACH QLD 4218

Posting Date:
22/10/2008

Closing Date:
22/04/2009

>>> Go here:
www.parliament.qld.gov.au/sitecore/service/notfound.aspx?item=%2fview%2fepetitions_qld%2fcurrentepetition&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=website

Check your facts before signing. I'm sure the drought-stricken areas of Aus. (not including the many 3rd world countries) would give anything to have the infrastructure to treat effluent to a 'potable' (drinking) grade water. Personally, I think it would be safer than drinking the flouride-treated water we have now anyways.

Research shows that (when treated/processed correctly) treated effluent has less damaging bacteria than tapwater, and you might be surprised that it's already being introduced with the new 'green-energy' requirements in the building industry. (Sorry if I sound a bit nerdy, but have been studying environmental sustainability and ecosystems for the past 2 years.)

Unfortunately, the mere thought of drinking 'poo-water' leaves a bad taste in your mouth (no pun intended)....and is going to take a long time to get used to, but we'll probably have to.

Sailhack said...

Oops, sorry Evlpanda, just checked your link to the other thread, looks like you've had this discussion already.

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate....

Oh no, I'm sure we'll have a clear winner in the end

doggie said...

Whats the problem with treated water? Sorry sounds fine to me if done correctly which they will have to do if they want the public to drink it

We don't know yet. Give it 10 years.

Doesn't British tap water go through a few sets of kidneys before it gets to their taps.

Put it through an RO unit or other serious filtration set up and it will come up cleaner than the filtered bore water people buy in plastic bottles

i think its the recycling of hormones, steroids, genetic modified stuff thats undefined. Thats more than just the natural stuff. plus the crap they pay to pour into the sewer systems from industrial waste.

The WC were thinking of it for the gnangara mound. I think it was cheaper than the "third pipe", using treated sewerage for garden irrigation, etc

I used to do work for a local council in QLD in the water treatment plants. If you could see how the water is already treated with regards to chemicals etc, you wouldnt be worried about the recycled water plan.
Personally I am all for it. Australia is a dry country and we do not have the fresh water available to sustain a growing population. The filtering they use in the recycled water systems gets out hormones etc so I dont think there is a huge amount to worry about.
Breathing in secondhand smoke from inconciderate smokers is a bigger health risk.

recycling water back into the dams is not just about sustaing drinking water. it is a simple fact that dams kill rivers. the authorities balance this out by releasing water every day from the dams. having a constant supply going back into the rivers means healthier rivers and healthier world.

i think it will be a very long time before we will see buildings with sewerage water treated for drinking. it is more beneficial to process it at a central plant and pump it back into the rivers.

greywater is also another item. brisbane city council is turning away from treatment plants on inner city buildings as the sewer line needs water to flow. removing the water just clogs the lines. there is more preference for rainwater harvesting with tanks being connected to town supply and float activated taps incase they run dry.

this allows the local authority to process the grey water and sewerage and pump it back into the rivers. a better solution all round and is still recycling.

bottom line here is we would be drinking water that has been mixed with dam/river water.

there has been lots of improvements in water treatment in the last 5 years. not just recycled water but also stormwater handling. next time you drive past a local estate or public building and see a series of landscaped ponds what you are looking at is an attempt to clean up the stormwater prior to it flowing into our creeks.

There are other options, you can 'choose' to go independent and install rainwater tanks....(although I still find it hard to believe that in the city, people use this for toilet flushing, washing and gardening). Growing up on a farm, rainwater is still the purest form of water IMHO. Get with it people! If tanks are installed, there would be more catchment, and you are in charge of what you're drinking.

We, as individuals, need to realise that we're going to have to part with some of our coin if we want to make a difference.

BTW, I'm trying to do my bit - I've got a r/w tank.....have organised Photovoltaic solar panel installation for next year.....got the ute converted to gas.....have kikuyu lawn and a garden that doesn't require watering.....ummmm.....'chose' to work for a building designer who designs 6-10 star houses.....hopefully in the near future can install a grey & black water recycling system - would do it now, but not cashed up enough, and not overly impressed with the current systems, greywater - yes, but at the moment, the grey/black waste are combined under my house. All these things cost money, but it's gonna start costing more sooner or later, and not just money!

to be honest sailhack i wish more people had your conviction. i am sure if we ever sail togather we will be able to grab a beer and talk shop afterwards.

Sailhack said...

although I still find it hard to believe that in the city, people use this for toilet flushing, washing and gardening

the reason is because the council treated water is cleaner than the water from your roof.

say a sick bird or bat drops a load on your roof. guess what you are drinking after the next rain fall. other reason is airborne polution. roof catches a lot of crap and when it rains your tank fills with it.

i'm not sure about Vic but in QLD most people connect to toilets (which is compulsary on new builds) if you connect to your kitchen/bathroom etc the tank must have a 20lt initial discharge to street before discharging into the tank.

edit* i forgot to add. i recently tried to have a 400mm main stormwater line diverted through a innercity highrise i was working on. hydraulic eng almost fell of his chair. lol.

but think of the catchment potential. and we had green rooves/walls etc to water.

in the end the treatment plant needed in our building was to expensive. (way too expensive)

The problem with rainwater tanks in Sydney at least, they make very little economic sense. I too grew up on a farm and on a farm you basically have level 5 water restrictions 90% of the time. A big water tank pays off on a farm when relying on rainwater.

In the city its completely different. You pay your $125 sewerage connection fee a quarter and pay for your $5 water consumption. So basically it doesn't matter how much water you use because the price is so low. There is no incentive to conserve water due to the high sewerage charge. Every bog basically costs you 20 cents or something like that.

Sydney Water jacked up their sewerage charges earlier this year, around the same time all other household bills were going up. Thanks NSW government. NSW, the ripoff state.

Mobydisc said...

NotWal said...

doggie said...

Whats the problem with treated water? Sorry sounds fine to me if done correctly which they will have to do if they want the public to drink it

We don't know yet. Give it 10 years.

Singapore hasn't have outbreaks of kidney infections. They have been recycling water for more than 10 years. So have many other places.

We are more than kidneys.

The technology is tested and proven. Just because it hasn't been done in Queensland doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

Just because it has been tested doesn't mean its proven.
The menace of DDT wasn't discovered for how long? 25, 30 years?
We happily went on squirting CFCs into the atmosphere for how long, 40 years?
And asbestos - how old is Fibro?
These are relatively uncomplicated things. We knew exactly what they were and yet we were unable to anticipate the problems they caused.

It seems there is a perfectly good long term experiment going on in Singapore. Why do one here, on me and mine, in the face of my indignant objection?

Just because NASA recycles effluent for astronauts is no recommendation. They know what goes into it. In the larger world we don't. It seems like hubris to me to be saying "This water is safe to drink" when you don't know what's in it.

I think that there is a perception amongst proponents of effluent recycling that objectors are only objecting on unfounded aesthetic fears; that they are offended at the notion of drinking poo. I for one have absolute confidence in the ability of the system to remove bacteria and brown stains. Drinking wee wee doesn't offend me either. I'm fond of beer. However sewage is not just full of poop, its full of OTHER crap too, and only God knows what.

The boffins will remove and test for what they reasonably believe is contaminating the water. Some of the removals will be broad brush and get for example, not only harmful bacteria but possibly every individual bacterium known and unknown, but what about the pharmaceuticals, dioxins, industrial wastes of every kind, insecticides of every kind, etc, et al, ad infinitum?

What we have is a coterie of scientific experts saying that on the balance of probabilities it is extremely unlikely to be harmful. They can make no more certain claim than that. It's that sort of problem.

We are not constrained by the mean and exacting restrictions on a NASSA space ship. I know, space ship Earth, bla bla but we have other options. We are not in danger of dying of thirst. We are are merely at the stage of being restricted in watering our gardens. If we are at a place where we see we have insufficient water for trivial uses we should make plans and preparations to provide more water in future. Recycling is a good idea. We should pursue it. But doesn't it seem sensible, in the light of the fact that it MAY be harmful, to use it for benign purposes like paper making etc even if there is a higher reticulation cost. Singapore and other places have a more pressing need for water and resort to recycled water for potable purposes. Let's see how they go. Give them some years and do some medical research on the population. That seems sensible to me. Water restrictions don't bother me much. Birth defects would.

Fair enough Notwal, no one is keen on consuming unknown chemicals in their water. On the other hand if a company or individual is releasing chemicals into the water supply that is toxic and will impact upon people then they need to be prosecuted.

Consider the case of Toowomba. If I am not mistaken its on the western side of the dividing range. If there was a company there releasing toxic materials into the sewerage system at this point of time that material would not be consumed by residents of Toowoomba. What about people downstream? Towns along the Darling River and its tributaries draw water out of the river.

So the answer is not restricting the consumption of treated effluent, the answer is to enforce laws to dispose hazardous materials appropriately. If opponents of treating effluent are not willing to accept it because of possible health risks, then they are ignoring the large number of sites around the world where they are recycling sewerage for drinking water with no apparent issues.

What choices do we have in the long term? Either build more dams, build desalination plants, recycle sewerage and storm water, capture rainwater, or conserve water.

Seems like we can't build anymore dams because too many people don't like them. Desalination plants can be built but they are incredibly expensive to build and operate, witness Sydney Water jacking up its prices. Recycling sewerage and storm water meets all sorts of opposition. Capturing rainwater works but you need big tanks to be self sufficient. We are not very serious about conserving water, even level 5 restrictions are very generous.

So in the long term unless we get decent ongoing rain, it doesn't look that good.

Sailhack, I like your obvious enthusiasm for 'doing your bit', with your tanks, solar panels etc. Just one query; how does having a Kikuyu lawn help? The way I understand it, that grass variety is often classed as a noxious weed. Sure it does not need a lot of water, but it releases toxins into the soil and in parts of australia has naturalised itself. Surely we should be using Australian grasses, not African?

Mobydisc said...

Fair enough Notwal, no one is keen on consuming unknown chemicals in their water. On the other hand if a company or individual is releasing chemicals into the water supply that is toxic and will impact upon people then they need to be prosecuted.

^ Remember this will be sewerage.

Page 5 of today's "The Australian":
"THE university at the forefront of the Bligh Government's campaign to defend the safety of southeast Queensland's recycled waste-water scheme is receiving millions of dollars in funding from the two companies behind the project."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24701883-12332,00.html

I'm looking out my window, here at UQ, at a recent $1.3m grassed area. Seriously, it is about 150m2 of grass, with a ramp and a few plants. Odd.

Yep.

www.couriermail.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes

"Ms Bligh said the decision to use recycled water as an emergency option only came after listening to people at public meetings and shopping at her local 7-11, as well as polling results."

Even though I'm against it, that is just pathetic. Total lack of commitment, shows they don't know what they were doing, or had doubts themselves (eh ) etc.

I've written this a few times, and not posted it.
I have spent a lot of time over the last few years writing software for researchers (although not my current position). They live in another world (lucky them). Some will do anything for money/funding grants or fame. To have them responsible for the quality of the system, and their works being partly funded by the companies selling or providing the system ...smells fishy.

Even the qld water site was quoting that, for example, Orange County in the U.S. has been using recycled drinking water for decades, when it hasn't (came online 2008). Fishy.

Actually I can't see how UQ got that. QUT and Griffith have a much better relationship with the QLD govt. than UQ does.

Maybe the role of Government should be turned over to private enterprise