Council recycled sewage promotional video ...
Who made it and how much did it cost?
In the Chronicle today, news that three Toowoomba City Councillors were excluded from the viewing of a Water Futures promotional video following the Council Committee meeting.
Councillors Beer, Barron and Shelton were asked to leave the room so that the remaining Councillors could view it.
Council did not use the opportunity yesterday to disclose how much the video cost ratepayers but it seems it will be used in the Yes campaign.
Excerpts from the article:
The three renegade Councillors opposed to the Water Futures Toowoomba project are angry that they have been excluded from the special showing of a promotional video.
They concede that because of their misgivings abut the safety issues associated with the recycled water they did not want to be involved in the production.
Their presence was deemed "inappropriate".
Cr Beer said: "we are supposed to have harmony, team spirit - all that went out the window."
The 15 minute promotional video outlines the project with comments from young people, prominent Toowoomba citizens and Councillors.
Cr Shelton said it is "inappropriate" for any sort of promotional video to be aired before the poll." "I think that would be wrongful for ratepayers' resources to be used to promote the Yes case," he said.
The video should be an interesting piece of creative fiction to watch. A bit long though. At 15 minutes, it will probably bore most people. But it's sure to include wonderful statements about how "it's so safe, I want my 5 year old to drink it".
Expect the video to talk about Singapore but not mention the desalination plant or the new dams. It probably won't draw the distinction between 1% usage in Singapore and 25-29% proposed for Toowoomba. It probably won't say that drinking recycled sewage at those rates is not done anywhere else in the world and Council's own advisers think it is "high by international standards".
It probably doesn't mention Israel as the Council hadn't thought of that wonderful example until MP Turnbull turned up. It might mention Windhoek but fail to deal with all their operational problems and law suits. And it might try to rely on some unplanned indirect potable use examples for Toowoomba to follow.
And who made the video and how much did it cost?
Well that was CH2M Hill and its subcontractors and it cost Toowoomba ratepayers $60,000.
Given that CH2M Hill has been on minimal work duties for the Council for some time, the video is from some months ago. Expect some interesting inconsistencies and glaring errors. There may even be people appearing in the video who have now changed their mind about the Water Futures project as more information has come to light.
It might even include some pictures of Disneyland ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 10:56 AM
11 Comments:
Why do they care if they were excluded from the coven. I wonder if WIN TV has a hand in it! If ratepayers funded the video then it should be highly illegal and it will just contain more bulls..t anyway!
1:46 PM, April 20, 2006
more money wasted
2:53 PM, April 20, 2006
I hope they aren't going to take this video into schools and get our children to watch it! I wouldn't put this past our council.
They then would hope the kids convince their parents it is a good thing.
4:58 PM, April 20, 2006
Please Mayor Thorley, don't scare the children anymore.
6:07 PM, April 20, 2006
what a joke
7:43 PM, April 20, 2006
Pure H20 may be dead in the water but some of the failed group haven't put their pens down.
Nor have they given up trying to mislead the public.
There's Kirsten Smolenski in a Letter to the Editor comparing apples and oranges:
"Expert testing has deemed recycled water to be safe and of a much better quality than what we drink now eg faecal coliform in raw water at Cooby dam is at a level of 120CFU/100mls yet there are non detectable levels in recycled water."
But Kirsten, we don't drink raw Cooby Dam water do we?
It goes through a treatment plant before it gets to our taps - that's why it's called "raw water".
How about we compare the faecal coliform levels of raw cooby dam water and pre-treated sewage - that's comparing like with like.
How about testing what comes out of your tap right now for faecal coliform levels?
You shouldn't try to mislead the public so much - look at the trouble the Council is in because of their conduct.
And she goes on to say "The current council has acted in an incredibly responsible manner ...".
Now, no-one really believes that.
9:11 PM, April 20, 2006
Is Kirsten really that dumb! My big toe has more brains then that!
12:17 AM, April 21, 2006
I think the point that Kristen was making is that the recycled water being put into Cooby dam is cleaner than the water in Cooby Dam. The faecal coliform levels in the recycled water after treatment would be zero CFU per 100 ml, compared to the concentration already in Cooby Dam.
Also, the faecal coliform count in the effluent water being discharged into from Wetalla into Gowrie Creek would be <100CFU/100ml, as this would be an EPA licence requirement. So even the effluent discharge from Wetalla is cleaner than the water presently in Cooby Dam.
The faecal coliform count in the sewerage entering Wetalla would be very high, as raw sewerage. The Sewerage Treatment Plant is very effective in removing these organisms prior to discharge to the environment.
8:37 AM, April 21, 2006
Kirsten was comparing different things to try to scare people into accepting Mayor Thorley's controversial project.
It is misleading to compare faecal coliform levels of raw water and recycled water.
She was trying to imply that recycled water is better than the water people are currently drinking but using pre-treated water as the example.
Perhaps we should test treated Cooby Dam water and the recycled water for the over 87,000 chemicals in existence and see which one contains residual chemicals.
10:33 AM, April 21, 2006
How about that Chronicle story. Claims a success for Thorley in convincing people. Only 8 turned up and the only person they quote says she's doesn't want to drink it and her daughter won't be drinking it. And this is a success for the Mayor?
10:37 AM, April 21, 2006
CH2M Hill's $60,000 - the reason Budget sessions are secret.
About $500,000 was approved in the 2004-2005 for CH2M Hill then carried forward as a slush fund to be drawn down.
The video won't be old, just prepaid. They will draw the money as they want to.
It's the referendum fighting fund called "Community engagement and consultation"
11:04 AM, April 21, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home