ABC's Catalyst rehashes the Yuk factor ...
Last night, the ABC's Catalyst program dredged up old footage from the referendum to discuss the so-called Yuck (or Yuk) factor.
See - Catalyst - from the toilet to the tap.
Dr Greg Leslie made a reappearance to conduct a test on a couple of common contaminants.
Someone drank some recycled water.
And Mayor Thorley proved her oratory skills once again: "You can’t hide it any more. It’s out there and proud, sort of thing, you know."
Ho hum ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 6:55 AM
8 Comments:
Catalyst failed to ask the main question - with so many other uses for recycled sewage, why is it necessary to make people drink it?
11:13 PM, November 09, 2006
I liked the comment made by Mr Manners "The community does not need to know anything about the science!" showing once and for all that the "No" campign was run on the basis of keeping the community ignorant and scared.
Such a comment and position is despicable. How dare an attitude which denies the community the truth in order to manipulate an outcome. And now the community is stuck with this man in council, with an undoubted target for mayor.
But the No campaign drive has been revealed with one statement: "The community does not need to know anything about the science!" Keep them stupid and scared and the mob will do anything you want. Undoubltably Mr Manners' mantra.
11:33 PM, November 09, 2006
Rubbish.
The Yes campaign was carefully crafted to let the community have only limited information. The blogs interfered with that process.
Why did the Council never mention that Singapore was adopting desalination and that they only used 1% recycled water rather than 25%?
Why did the Council never mention the problems of the Namibia plant?
Why did the Council never mention that Virginia in the US wanted to move away from unplanned indirect potable reuse?
And who can forget the Disneyland fiasco?
Why is it that the Council had to be dragged kicking and screaming to release the NWC funding application under FOI procedures?
Why did the Council refuse to admit that 30 mgs/l of TDS got through the membranes until the FOI release of the NWC application?
Why did the Council tell the community that there were NO other options?
Why did the Council tell the community that the water would run out?
Why did the Council go into the schools to terrorise the children about water running out?
It is true that the community did not need to know about the science from the Council. Because their view was carefully scripted to be one-sided. So it was necessary for the community to educate itself.
There was only one team which wanted the community 'scared and stupid' and that was the Thorley Yes team. And the results on 29 July showed that the community did not believe their lies.
The problem with the former Yes campaigners is that they are the sorest of sore losers. They backed a team that perpetuated a raft of lies on its community and can't live with the result.
12:00 AM, November 10, 2006
I think that some people should move to were they put recycled effluent in there drinking water (slums of Singapore perhaps) and then they can happily drink as much as they bloody like! Ohh! but hang on that is only around 1% to 2% isn't it? Didn't Di Thorley want to do 25% here and where are our slums? There is a big difference between being scared and being downright lied to. Science or no science, facts are facts and there are no facts that prove what Water Futures planned was going to be safe! There still isn't and I doubt there ever will be and I no longer consider myself a guinea pig - hate the little blitters! WTF is the use of telling us about the science when the science has not beeen proven at the level of what Di Thorley wanted to manipulate it to! Luckily more then 60% of this city voters have wisdom which is more then I can say for some fanatics!
1:26 AM, November 10, 2006
This was a exercise to "EDUCATE" the Brisbane people and prove that the No case people of Toowoomba were too stupid to find out for them self.
To infer that we were persuaded by Mr Berghofer's money is inexcusable and it not the case as the No team spent a small amount of money while the 6 pack on Council gave them self $480,000 of rate payers funds and lost!
The recycling of sewage water can and should be used in industry and agriculture and the community would support that 100%.This would free up the drinking water.
Toowoomba has other options and Brisbane has desalination .
What we are looking at is a lack of planning on behalf of the Beattie government to supply water to us.
One should ask them self " Who is benefiting from the sale of membrane technology?"
Dr. Greg Lesley must still have his connection to CH2M Hill and they need desperately to gain a market in Australia as they have already spent a lot of money and Thorley/ Flanagan team made a train wreck of it in Toowoomba.
I have faith in "people" and a group will soon form in any city that tries to impose the drinking of recycled sewage water on it citizens and bring the TRUTH to them.
7:06 AM, November 10, 2006
I don't see the likes of Jeff and Kirstie demanding that TCC deliver recycled water to their houses for them to drink.
You can imagine the outrage if the TCC said that, to save water, the main Yes campaigners would have recycled water delivered for them to drink.
10:32 AM, November 10, 2006
The Catalyst program was really of no benefit to anyone. Rather than using old footage, it would have been preferable to use the opportunity to look at the other options now that drinking recycled water is off the table.
That would have been worth watching.
The program could have focused on Dalby harnessing coal seam gas water for its town water supply, ensuring that a valuable water supply does not just evaporate.
The program could have focused on the Norwin irrigator proposal, particularly given the Federal government's stance on water trading.
Dredging up old footage and trying to blame the NO vote on the Yuk factor does no-one any good.
The vote is in - the community voted NO - and it is time to get on with the other options which existed all along.
Mayor Thorley and her clutch of followers will have to answer to the voters in 2008 - there is nothing that can stop this.
In the meantime, regardless of any inaction or interference by Thorley et al., we need to get on with the other options.
10:55 AM, November 10, 2006
While we are talking about Council staff, I would like to know how much they were paid to promote the Yes Case?
These were the people we saw swanning around the shopping centres, at the parks and going to schools to frighten the children about that the water would stop running if their parents did not vote yes.
What work was NOT getting done during this time?
We also know that the 6 pack of Singapore Sewer Sippers never had to work so hard during that time as theirs is not a full time job.
3:51 PM, November 10, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home