One Step Nearer Being A Third World Country?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322249/Would-drink-sewage-What-millions-asked-suppliers-desperately-try-beat-water-shortages.html

How many do they expect to say yes, would you?

There is certainly something wrong if there is a shortage of decent drinking water in this county, why can't they use treated sea water, it is all around us?

If we are that short of drinking water why don't they operate a two water system, since most of the water used is for toilet flushing, washing and bathing, then that could be re-cycled sewage water, with the other system used for drinking and cooking alone?

[ChuckFickens]

Ah yes, good old putting a negative spin on an article.

People are not being asked to drink sewage, they are being asked to drink water that is of drinking water standard (you do realise that every drop of water on the planet has already been sewage at some time)

And, desalination is very expensive, would you rather they went for the expensive option?

[Gromit]

Is it not a well known fact that London water has passed through 8 people before it reaches the sea. Or is that an urban myth.

Anyhow, this seems like a none story.

Privatising the water companies was supposed to lead to more investment (ie more reservoirs). But was a con.

[Gromit]

Found it...

// According to visitlondon.com “A drop of rain falling into the Thames at its source in the Cotswolds will have been drunk by 8 people before it reaches the sea.” //

[sp1814]

Gromit

Another excellent reason for sticking to beer and wine?

[FredPuli43]

Thames Water thinks that water in the capital passing 7 times through a human body is a myth [see the link]. That may be special pleading. It may not be seven times; it may not be true of the capital, but true elsewhere; it may be that the water we drink has, at some time, passed through a human body, perhaps several times in history, but not processed for the specific and sole purpose of converting water, polluted by urine, into potable water. Presumably even Thames Water does not take water and not treat it to make it safe from pollutants and potentially harmful organisms, whatever those pollutants and organisms are; water in reservoirs is hardly likely to wholly free of contaminants. And where does water from sewage treatment plants go? Simply back into a body of water somewhere and thus, eventually, it comes back to us by some means and in some form.

That Thames Water, or any other firm, ever processes water more directly from a polluted source doesn't worry me in the slightest. I have seen the manager of a sewage plant drink water which has been through the plant. It didn't affect him!

[LazyGun]

....... And most certainly not " one step nearer to being a third world country".

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// That Thames Water, or any other firm, ever processes water more directly from a polluted source doesn't worry me in the slightest. I have seen the manager of a sewage plant drink water which has been through the plant. It didn't affect him! ///

I don't want to upset some by putting a 'negative slant' on things, but I just thought this may be interesting, I have even gone to the trouble of finding a Guardian report on this, so as not to offend the over-sensitive amongst us, or of it being classed a 'non-story'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

/// although no links have yet been made with human health. "That does not mean we will not find impacts in future," said toxicologist Professor Richard Owen of Exeter University. "But do we want to wait until we see effects in humans, as we did with thalidomide and BSE, or do we act before harm is done?" ///

[FredPuli43]

That's not a non-story, aog. It reads exactly as born out by the headline and opening sentences and the science is well-known, though it may not have reached the attention of the general public. And this story about it is of some interest, and is mercifully free of emotive writing or distortions to make it seem so

[WELSHYORKIE]

I don't understand why we do not have desalination plants around the country - after all we are an island surrounded by the various seas and oceans

[ChuckFickens]

Because up until recently desalination was hugely expensive, in the last 10 years or so new techniques have been developed that bring the cost down by about half (although it's still more expensive than other methods of getting water)

The first desalination plant was opened in the UK about 3 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Water_Desalination_Plant

[jno]

there's only a finite amount of water in and around the earth; it falls as rain, swills around gardens and rivers and seas and treatment plants, evaporates and goes up into clouds, then falls again. Every drop you drink has been through god knows how many zillion kidneys. And every time you breathe you inhale a molecule of Julius Caesar's dying breath. The planet recycles a lot.

[LazyGun]

I would however like to see the water companies prioritise repairs and new infrastructure development. There is a suspicion at the moment that they do not spend as much as they could in favour of paying share dividends.

As far as EDCs are concerned ( Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals), whilst you might find them in river water it does tend to be localised. But - they have a limited life span and degrade fairly rapidly in water, and the current water treatment protocols tend to destroy them as well. There is very little danger to our health from birth control pills and certainly not to justify the spending of £30 billion....

[Zacs-Master]

Have you ever thought of applying to be a headline (or strapline) writer for a red top AOG?

[modeller]

Not according to the theists jno ,God conjured up 10 times the present volume of water in the oceans from the earth , enough to cover 6 mile high Mount Everest.

[jno]

even scientists will tell you Everest wasn't always 6 miles high, modeller.

[ChuckFickens]

^ true, but we are only walking about a couple of thousand years ago, not millions, at the current rate Mt Everest would have been about 8 meters shorter 2000 years ago.

[modeller]

It has been for millions of years and Noah was around quite recently
6-8 thousand years ago so I don't think a few feet or even a couple of miles will make much difference to the amount of water required.

[jno]

the flood a couple of thousands of years ago? A bit of telescoping there, perhaps.

[Gromit]

The universal flood is in the old testament and older than two thousand years ago. The known world of the old testament was really the Meditteranean and middle east (as we lnow them today). Everest lies outside that and would not have been part of their world. The Ark landed on the highest ground as the flood receded, Mount Ararat (17,000 feet) Everest at 13,000 feet higher would have been visible a lot earlier if only it was within their world realm (which it wasn't).

[modeller]

You don't know that Gromit . We only have the myths but Theists believe what it said in the OT and that was the whole world . They were the words of God thats why he instrcted Noah to take two of every living creature. Had it been a local flood that would not have been necessary . All it needed was to take two each of the local animals. Had it been a local flood it would not have lasted 10 months before the Ark grounded.
Floods never do, they all run away into the rivers and the ocean, quickly. If the OT story was true it would have needed a world flood to fit the OT story.
The whole story is a load of nonsense but the Theists believe it and many claim that was about 6-8 thousand years ago. and over that period Everest has risen by another 36 feet. It was first formedbetween 25 and 60 million years ago and most rapidly over the last 10 million years.
From our point of view it has been about 6 miles high for ever, so to quibble about its precise height which increases about 1-2 inches a year
is infantile.