By Jeremy
Timmy Blair is awash with excitement over finally being able to hose down his car:
Having been banned from car-washing for so long, I didn’t even know if our place had a tap somewhere out the front (it did). Nor did I know how neighbours might react to blatant car-based hosing…
Wheeling my car out for its first hose wash since 2003 involved some risk. Remember, a fellow was allegedly murdered in Sydney last year for watering his lawn. I positioned the car so I’d have a good line of sight up and down the street.
Riveting stuff. And it is drama with a message, too. If there’s a villain in this piece – and given the plaintive laments against killjoys stopping children playing in sprinklers, clearly Blair thinks there is – it’s apparently Tim Flannery, for forecasting dry dams if governments didn’t restrict water use. They did, and the dams in Sydney didn’t dry up, which apparently means he was wrong about everything and it’s time to stop letting him punish the children.
Down with “responsible” people making us take precautions to prevent us actually running out of water in this dry continent. Damn their black hearts!
I certainly hope Melbourne’s water authorities take up Timmy’s call and once again let us play fast and loose with OUR water this summer. Who cares that our dams are less than 30% full – I’m prepared to take the chance that it’ll suddenly start bucketing down before we run out. Aren’t you? Why do you hate children so much?
UPDATE 25/6: Timmeh’s comment responding to this post was gobbled by the Akismet spam filter, not moderated as he has suggested. Apologies for not monitoring the spam folder 24/7.
120 Comments
24 June, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Bolt is still going on about building dams, like we could nock one up by this summer.
He also poo poos the idea of water tanks because they are expensive.
The stupidity knows no bounds.
A water tank is cheap over its life time. Especially once water is privatised (which is coming very soon) and the cost of city water rises. A 10,000 gal tank can provide for a house through the dry times no worries at all.
And best of all, you can put one in now and have free water by this summer! The rain in the last week would have at least half filled it.
Oh but the idea is leftist or some such nonsense.
24 June, 2008 at 2:04 pm
That should be ‘knock one up’…..sorry
24 June, 2008 at 2:26 pm
If there’s a villain in this piece – and given the plaintive laments against killjoys stopping children playing in sprinklers, clearly Blair thinks there is – it’s apparently Tim Flannery, for forecasting dry dams if governments didn’t restrict water use.
What it does prove is that any prediction that flannery makes about the environment from now on cannot be take seriously.
Flannery’s hysterical screams 2 or 3 years ago about Sydney & South East Queensland running out of water within 5 years because of AGW were soooooo wrong.
Flannery is a nutcase. I’m surprised that anyone would take this freak seriously.
24 June, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Marc, can you provide a link to Flannery’s comment that Sydney will definitely run out of water within five years please?
I am curious to see his hysterical screams for myself.
24 June, 2008 at 3:25 pm
According to Blair, Flannery said “could” which is sort of nothing like “definitely”, at the time the dams were 39% full – so it would have been a possibility, certainly worth having water restrictions.
In Melbourne we’re on 29% – it’s not looking good. Before anyone jumps down my throat I’m undecided on AGW – the science is a bit deep for me (or for the time I have to spare) thus I don’t have a clue whether it’s due to humans, I’d always err on the side of caution though, not wasting is sensible sustainable behavior – only an idiot would waste any resource.
24 June, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“Flannery’s hysterical screams ”
At 36.9% I suppose you thought everything was hunky dory Marc?
Anyway give us a link (not to Blair) I want to see if Flannery was behaving hysterically.
24 June, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Bolt dramatising chores:-
Excuse the crankiness. I’ve had to spend another hour and a half in the garden on this busy morning, it being watering day and my perfectly good sprinkler system being banned. Two more expensive plants are dead, because I was too crook over the past week to do the dawn waters.
Bastards.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/water_please/
24 June, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Thanks RobJ, I will wait to see Marc’s link, but your comment shows that the hysterical screams are more likely coming from someone who is the subject of this Blog or one of their supporters.
24 June, 2008 at 3:44 pm
well i told my son that just running out onto the road is dangerous and kids can get run over doing that. just yesterday he ran across the road with the dog when the dog had seen the park.
he didn’t get run over so i must be hysterical. what is worse is that i told him off about it so i must have a religious belief in the kids being run over scam.
everyone knows that deep down i want him to be run over just so i can say i was right.
24 June, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’m not with you, are you saying that dams at 36% is a good thing, are you saying that water restrictions in this instance are a bad thing?
24 June, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Sorry craigy – I’m pretty sure I read your post wrong.
24 June, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Marc, can you provide a link to Flannery’s comment that Sydney will definitely run out of water within five years please?
dude, where have you been for the last 5 years?!
it’s common knowlage that Flannery has been pushing the “Sydney will run out of water” line.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm
rofessor Flannery says that if Sydney’s dams dry up, the city’s ground water supply would last just 10 days.
“The worst case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years,” he said.
“In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water.
“Large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you’ve got 4 million people who need water there just for everyday survival.”
I agree with Mark, Flannery is a moonbat. The fact that he was suggesting pumping sulpha into the air to combat climate change says it all.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724410-29277,00.html
24 June, 2008 at 4:38 pm
FLANERRRRRRYYY!!!!!!
24 June, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Awesome post, Jeremy. Blair can’t be allowed to get away with this.
24 June, 2008 at 7:30 pm
yes yes yes. somebody has to be to blame for the fact that my life has been inconvenienced. for the fact that i cannot wash my car with hose running for as long as i want, when and if i choose. for the fact that my neighbours keep asking my opinion about… how do you say…rainwater tanks??? dunno, never heard of em before. that my kids can’t run naked under sprinklers the way i used to as a child. that my expensive plants are DYING because i was DUMB enough to deck out the entire garden in water-guzzling exotics in a drought-prone country.
for fuck’s sake. significant parts of the country are still in drought and city-supplying dams below 40% is no big time capacity. the concept of water has forever changed from one of infinte availability to one of finite resource of which truckloads are wasted in cities every day (storm water, lack of recycling etc). clearly these stupid pricks still think we’re living in a Gondwanaland Utopia. is australian media really so hard up for content that these clowns get a free run every day? if timbo’s move to a mainstream site has shown us anything its that anyone can get free circus tickets these days.
24 June, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“Tim Flannery … forecast[] dry dams if governments didn’t restrict water use. They did, and the dams in Sydney didn’t dry up …”
Wrong. Water restrictions were already in place by the time Flannery made his prediction.
Rain is the reason our dams aren’t dry, not restrictions.
24 June, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Awesome post, Confessions. Blair can’t be allowed to get away with this.
24 June, 2008 at 9:12 pm
thanx ac. i consider myself fortunate that i didn’t get the secretary’s reply.
24 June, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Facile post, Abu. Yeah, you’ve mastered sarcasm. Bravo.
24 June, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Incredible! We are in the middle of our largest drought, and Blair is wasting water to teach scientists a lesson.
Nice work, there.
25 June, 2008 at 1:27 am
Either way you look at it the quality of life has decreased for ordinary Australian’s while BHP and Rio Tinto make a fortune digging up WA and mailing it to China.
Just add up all of Australia’s rivers flowing into the ocean and you see that our continent produces thousands of times more fresh water than we currently harness.
Where are the major infrastructure projects that can pipe water around Australia?
Why do greenies insist everyone keep an algae ridden, mosquito breeding, malaria tank in their backyard like a third world country?
25 June, 2008 at 2:03 am
Intelligent-design has conclusively demonstrated there is no better incubator for disease than this so-called “water tank”.
In times of war, they are known to harbour terrorists. In times of peace, single-mothers take PHP in them, whilst taking the Lord’s name in vain.
It is clear these Greenoid Leftard Warmenistas are nothing less than 5th columnists.
25 June, 2008 at 8:40 am
“Why do greenies insist everyone keep an algae ridden, mosquito breeding, malaria tank in their backyard like a third world country?”
and yet country folk seem to survive just fine on tank water. or are you trying to say that farmers are walking off the land not because of unviable farms but because their household water supply is algae-ridden?
25 June, 2008 at 9:23 am
To make it clear to people like MichaelS – try reading this report:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/its-official-irrigators-take-too-much/2008/06/16/1213468331483.html
more links available to the base report if required.
in summary too much water is being diverted from rivers. Do you remember a couple of months ago there were huge floods in Queensland of which about bugger all made it to the Murray River.
25 June, 2008 at 9:25 am
Also to answer MichaelS on major infrastructure projects to pipe water around. Are you kidding? There are currently billions of dollars being invested across Australia in desal plants, recycling schemes, pipelines.
25 June, 2008 at 9:25 am
Why the fuck do people need to wash their cars.
I never understand the relationship people have with a machine.
25 June, 2008 at 9:27 am
LOL Deke – good post.
The perfect response when faced with idiocy of such monumental proportions.
25 June, 2008 at 9:56 am
Jeremy,
Sydney water catchments are above 65% (where Tim lives). Therefore your comment at the end about Melbourne’s catchments at 30% is not really relevant to condemning Tim’s hosing of his car?
I don’t actually see Tim calling for Melbourne to lift its water restrictions.
25 June, 2008 at 9:57 am
Shane i think this might answer your question:
http://www.prefixmag.com/forum/prefix-forum/1150/
25 June, 2008 at 9:59 am
Prefer buses myself Dam Buster….. mmmm wide load. ;)
25 June, 2008 at 10:08 am
“Therefore your comment at the end about Melbourne’s catchments at 30% is not really relevant to condemning Tim’s hosing of his car?”
I’ll let you read the post again before I respond to that comment.
25 June, 2008 at 10:11 am
And?
25 June, 2008 at 10:13 am
Interesting argument when you compare it to Bolt’s about not enough dams.
Poor Andy still feels ripped off about paying “thousands” for a sprnkler system he cannot use. He could have been using it all the time any time of the day if he had of used some of those thousands and installed a rainwater tank (This is something I pointed out to him about 3 years ago).
25 June, 2008 at 10:17 am
Nic, Timmy is complaining about the horrors Sydney has had to go through since its dams were at a similar level. Hence his go at Flannery. He’s implying that the restrictions were unnecessarily harsh.
Sarcastically applying the same logic to Melbourne’s situation is entirely relevant.
25 June, 2008 at 10:20 am
But Jeremy, Andrew B would say we will run out of water in Melbourne unless we build a new dam… Are they contradicting each other?
Funny that with the water restrictions and other measures the levels in melbourne’s storages are similar to last year.
25 June, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Any suggestion that people takeresponsibilty for their own lives by, say installing a rainwater tank, always gets the shit ripped out of it.
I really dont understand the depth of antagonism that the Boltites seem to feel towards solar hotwater, rainwater tanks and greywater irrigation. Suggest that they wouldnt have to worry about their plants dying if they had a rainwater tank and they respopnd like you asked them to drink a pint glass of piss. Its bizzare.
Its like they are ideologically opposed to any conserving of resources.
25 June, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Dead by Dawn,
Rainwater tanks are a hideously expensive means of conserving water compared with building dams. More resources are used in making and transporting them than on building a dam on a per litre basis. Think, if you will, of the carbon dioxide cost of extraction of the materials, manufacture, transport and installation.
Solar power faces similar problems. Very expensive compared to nuclear power and the manufacture and transport of them will often use up as much carbon dioxide as will be saved on use.
25 June, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Wow, Timmeh thinks he’s defeated us with the power of rhyme.
25 June, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Jeremy,
You asserted that Tim Blair was wrong in criticising Tim Flannery, he showed that he was correct. Will you concede that you were wrong and that he was right?
25 June, 2008 at 3:24 pm
How was he right in condemning Flannery for warning of a possibility that was quite plausible, just because it didn’t eventuate? His piece appears (and it’s only appears, because like most of his actual political commentary it’s a dog-whistle where his readers know what he’s saying, but the basic point is implied rather than explicitly stated) to be suggesting that Flannery, and consequently Governments, were wrong to anticipate and plan for the worst.
Hence my facetious conclusion applying that logic to Melbourne. I wasn’t “wrong”. Flannery wasn’t “wrong”. And Blair hasn’t proved anything of the sort.
(If I implied that the restrictions were solely a result of Flannery and didn’t precede the statement to which Blair referred, then I’m happy to correct that impression for the record.)
25 June, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“Rain is the reason our dams aren’t dry, not restrictions.”
Wow, Timmeh has figured out how water gets into dams, what does he think us evil leftist think? Water gets in through geia worship and Bill Henson sacraficing children to the rain god.
Rain fills dams, take that meteorologists. Its all so simple.
25 June, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Tim – If you are still reading this.. Can you please point to exactly where Tim Flannery states that the dams will dry up as you claim? Everything i see is an interpretation by a reporter, not a direct quote.
25 June, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Jeremy,
I’m a Blair supporter – let me get that out of the way first. However I do support your right to say whatever the hell you like. My problem is your insistence on calling Tim ‘Timmeh’. Is it too much to ask you to give someone their correct name instead of giving them a derisive nickname? In my humble opinion, starting out in that vein immediately undercuts any argument you have to make. After all, if you have to resort to school yard name calling then the rest of your arguments can’t have much weight.
25 June, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Blink, Timmeh gets a giggle out of calling a certain Age reporter “Traceeee” in his posts. Is it clever and witty when Timmeh does it but it is low and childish when Jeremy does it?
25 June, 2008 at 3:41 pm
He makes a good point though, cosmicjester. I shouldn’t lower myself to Tim’s level.
25 June, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“How was he right in condemning Flannery for warning of a possibility that was quite plausible, just because it didn’t eventuate?”
Interesting argument there Jeremy….
I assume you apply this logic to George W Bush and WMD’s in Iraq.
No?
Didn’t think so.
25 June, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Yes because thousands of people died and millions more were displaced because of Sydney water restrictions werent they
25 June, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Here is the key prediction from Flannery:
He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.
Clearly, if the drought had continued, our dams would have dried up. This was hardly ‘alarmism’, given that Sydney Water effectively made the same prediction (i.e. ‘if’ the drought continued).
The fact that the drought broke (in Sydney at least) and the dams have refilled proves very little other than that we had a lucky escape. Blair’s post seems to be an empty rant at the evils of water conservation, based on little more than the fact we were fortunate enough to end up getting rain.
Whether or not restrictions were in place at the time that Flannery called for further restrictions is completely irrelevant. His recommendations were clearly sound given the situation that existed when he made them.
Blair’s juvenille declaration of himelf as the winner in this stoush, based wholly on the fact that water restrictions were in place when Flannery called for further restrictions, is entirely premature.
25 June, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I assume you apply this logic to George W Bush and WMD’s in Iraq.
It’s funny Helen – I could swear that Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that they did have WMDs, not that they possibly had them. I guess you’re hoping that by re-writing history you’ll make the war seem more defensible in the harsh light of what we now know.
I tend to agree that it’s your best chance.
25 June, 2008 at 4:33 pm
You could swear Mondo but you would be wrong.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Read the Transcript of Bush outlining his reasons to the U.N. and you can see it is the “possibility” of WMD and Saddam’s lack of clarification, that lead to war.
It is you who needs to brush up on history.
25 June, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I suspect Tim Blair is one of these charming naives who believes that ABC journalism is always 100% correct, and indeed believes everything that the ABC tells him.
He endlessly quotes the ABC reporting of the interview from the 11th of June 2005, but presumably convinced by the unswerving rectitude of ABC never quotes the interview itself, on the 10th of June.
In fact Flannery said something to the effect that the plausible “worst case scenario” was that the dams would run dry in two years. To my mind this indicates a possible, plausible, but somewhat unlikely scenario. As it happened Goulburn (200 kms from Sydney, 100kms from the catchement) and the Central Coast very nearly did run out of water in the two year period. But for the rain (which luckily fell in the Sydney catchement, but not in two regions nearby) we would have run out of water. But for very severe water restrictions and trucking in water, these two regions would have run out of water.
Anyone interested in the text of his “prediction”:
“MAXINE McKEW: Well, I’m not asking you to be alarmist, but in fact, what would you say is a plausible worst-case scenario that you and, say, other scientists in the Wentworth Group have come to agree on?
TIM FLANNERY: Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water, and of course, large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you’ve got 4 million people there who need water just for everyday survival, and in the case of Sydney, there’s very few back-up reserves.”
elsewhere in the interview Flannery says:
“MAXINE McKEW: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with – if that’s right – back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
TIM FLANNERY: That’s right. That looks to be the case. We’ll know probably within two or three years, I suppose, how this is going to play out, particularly for Sydney, because its water supply is limited to that sort of scale, but it is my fear that the new weather regime is going to be a much drier one, and while we may get the odd good rainfall event, they’re going to be much less frequent than in the past, and we’ll just be in a different climatic regime.”
It seems that Tim Blair hasn’t picked up on Flannery’s prediction of the odd good rainfall event.
That said he’s correct that it was rain that saved us. He’s just incorrect to say that Flannery predicted there would be no rain, indeed he explicitly stated Sydney running out of water was a worst-case scenario, and that there would be the odd good rainfall event in the context of predominantly drier/drought conditions. Which, lo-and-behold, is what happened.
See: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389827.htm
25 June, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I should note when I say “but for the rain”, above, I refer to rains prior to May 2007.
25 June, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Rain water tanks are one of the worst possible ways to conserve water. I always crack a smile when a neighbor boasts of his 1000 liter tank that cost over a grand to instal. Spend over a grand to store $1.50 worth of water is a total waste. Even over a year it will be lucky to be filled more that 10-20 times – if that. A 4000 liter tank costs over $2000 ($6 worth of water) and will keep a small lawn watered for less than a month – after that goodbye lawn.
Rainwater tanks also breed disease. Country people have to use them so they maintain them, but here in the city after 10 years or more there will be plenty of tanks in disrepair. Look forward to dengue near you. There is a reason why cities have gradually removed them – in fact many places used to ban them – how soon we forget.
Tank advocates also seem to forget that all the water collected from their roof currently enters the storm water system – we already have a vast network designed to collect rainwater! It would be much better to treat this outflow in a large plant and recycle it.
25 June, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I think we’re all forgetting that there’s as much water on the planet as there was a million years ago…no matter how often we wash our cars…or drink.
25 June, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Peter, completely wrong I’m afraid.
Many thousands of country people run houses and gardens on rain water tanks, including myself.
My two 13,000 ltr tanks cost $1600.00 each delivered about two years back. I also have a 15,000 ltr gal tank I was given recycled from a city factory.
The maintenance on my tanks takes about 10 minutes every 3 months to clean the intake filter.
Plastic tanks need very little up-keep.
Lawns aren’t watered from my tanks, I use grey water for that.
Get your facts right mate.
25 June, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Craigy,
I can imagine the response from the City of Cockburn when I submit my application for building approval to install 2×13KL and a 15KLrainwater tank on my 500m2 suburban block.
Just for a laugh I might try.
The simple fact of the matter is that individual rainwater tanks are the most cost and resource inefficient, and most unhygienic method for supplying urban areas with water.
Within twenty years I expect the Victorian Government’s official water policy will be: “STFU swampy we’re building a dam here! And here, and probably here. Where’s your house? Yeah probably there too.”
25 June, 2008 at 7:43 pm
PETER. Like craigy I also live in the country, we use rainwater for irrigating our garden and for drinking. We use bore water for washing and irrigating the orchard, as do all my neigbours. Suprisingly none of them have dengue fever.
If you arent a complete idiot, rainwater tanks do NOT breed disease.
A 20,000 lt tank is about $2500, so i dont know where your neighbour got his tank but he got shafted. A 4000 lt tank will water a small lawn lawn for about a month, not a week(*), but in any case have you got any idea how much water can be collected off the roof of the average suburban home? (total m2 of roof x annual rainfall in mm= lt of water stored)
I totally agree with you about the treatment of storm water, but i dare you to post the idea on Bolts blog under a different name from your usual and see what happens. You will get fucking shredded by your own bretheren. Get back to us all on this experiment pete!
(* 100 sq. meter lawn, rate of 5 lt per square meter twice a week. This much water keeps dairy pastures green in summer, so im sure it would keep your lawn green*)
25 June, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Craigy, sorry but Peter does have his facts straight.
The (ascending) order of cost per unit of water is: dams, groundwater, recycling, piping long distance, rainwater tanks, and most expensive of all, desal. I think you will find that using tanks as urban water supply works out about five times higher than the cost of a centralised utility using a dam as the supply. Even worse, if you were wanting to get tank water to the same potable standard as utility water, it ends up costing almost as much as desalination. Don’t believe me, check out the PC report done a couple of years ago, or even the current SEQ draft water strategy that compares these costs for Brisbane.
http://www.qwc.qld.gov.au/SEQWS
I grew up on tank water, and it didn’t hurt me, but I also understand the benefits of centralised water purification and economies of scale.
25 June, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“Interesting argument there Jeremy….
I assume you apply this logic to George W Bush and WMD’s in Iraq.”
I believe that in 10 years from now people like ‘Helen’ will still be haunted by the fact that all their opinions closest to their heart (e.g: Climate Change doesn’t exist, The War in Iraq was for valid reasons) turn out to be complete bullshit.
After being continuously wrong about so many things, the newspapers should be embarrassed about running Bolt and Blairs columns and tell them…
“the earth isn’t flat, electricity does exist, pollution does exist, pollution does damage the environment, pollution does effect the temperature of our atmosphere. Now admit it and stop embarassing yourselves!! People are laughing at you!!!”
25 June, 2008 at 9:06 pm
NIC you need to read what people actually write, it helps stop you responding to things that people didn’t say.
I said nothing about solar power, i was talking about ’solar hot water heating’ which is a very efficient technology, i didnt mention photovoltaic cells.
It would be foolish to replace a functioning gas or electric hws with a solar hws but if you need a new one anyway it is very competitively priced and your electricity bill savings will pay for the difference over a few years.
You will also notice if you read very carefully that i didn’t say anything about rainwater tanks being more cost effective than building a dam, my point was about the bizzare antipathy of The Boltites to ANYTHING they (you) percieve as being part of ‘the green scam’ regardless of the actual benefits.
I was also making the point that if people want to be able to water their car and driveway or grow a lush green lawn in a dry country like Oz, they should take responsibility for supplying the water themselves.
Why should mains water be supplied so cheaply for these frivilous uses?
You are right that constructing rainwater tanks takes energy and emits carbon dioxide, but you failed to mention the costs of treating and pumping mains water. It doesn’t just come out of the tap under its own steam you know, the whole system is pressurised.
Did you think to check what are the long term costs of replacing mains infastructure and pipes when they reach the end of their lifespan? Ripping up roads all over town to replace leaky pipes is sure to cost a bundle, in fact this is a problem now being faced by Newyork and London. This is to say nothing of the costs of repairing or replacing dam walls and dredging, again something now being faced all over the world as dams age, crack and silt up.
25 June, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Dead by Dawn – I said a month not a week.
To both you and Craigy – I specifically said that rainwater tanks in the country are fine because they get used all the time and people rely on them and know how to maintain them. In suburbia they will only get used occasionally and after the drought is over many will fall into disuse and be a breeding ground for disease.
A 4000 liter underground tank costs $2500 here without installation. 4000 liter above ground tanks are about $1400 without installation. Pumps, diverters, piping and installation will easily add $600 to the price. You seem to forget that in the country a tank is thought about before the house is built (piping etc.) but in suburbia it is mostly much more expensive retrofitting. This is all for $6 worth of water. Its quite insane to do this in suburbia – that is why for the last century a mark of a first world city is to expect local government to provide a proper water supply. It would appear that like many other issues they have put it into the too hard basket and now expect their citizens to fend for themselves.
Sure a roof can shed a lot of water. However when you have a small tank (like in suburbia) it will quickly fill and the rest ‘wasted’. It will just as quickly empty when you water the garden. To have an adequate supply for a normal garden you need a fair bit of excess capacity (in case it barely rains for say 2 months – remember suburban lawns are not the same as pasture, many lawns suffer very badly after even a few weeks of no water) so you are looking at more like a 10,000 liter tank.
As for disease – they are a known source of disease that has been recognised for a long time. A simple google search bring up this from the WA health department (in relation to *urban* water tanks):
“Rainwater tanks can become breeding sites for
mosquitoes that can cause severe nuisance and
carry serious diseases.In WA the most common
mosquito found to breed in poorly maintained
rainwater tanks is a proven carrier of Ross River
virus.
To prevent mosquito breeding, corrosion and metal
contamination, guttering and pipework should be
self-draining or fitted with drainage points.Water
should not be allowed to pool under the overflow
outlet or tap as these can become mosquito-
breeding sites.
The tank should be a sealed unit with the lid
preventing sunlight from reaching the water.Sunlight
encourages the growth of algae that will taint the
water.Holes and spaces will allow mosquitoes to
enter.
The inlet should incorporate a
mesh cover and a strainer to keep
leaves and to prevent the access
of mosquitoes and other insects.
The overflow should also be
covered with an insect proof cover
such as plastic insect mesh wired
around the pipe.Insect mesh
should be no coarser that 12 x 12 meshes/ 25mm2. ”
The important thing is that yes, you, and I and everyone else on this forum may do the right thing and maintain their tanks but will your next door neighbour? We have all seen over the past few months how some people don’t even care about their kids – do you think they will care about their tanks?
25 June, 2008 at 9:29 pm
A further quick look shows that a 5000L slimline tank can cost $2500 without installation. A round 5000L tank is much cheaper (1/2) but would totally dominate many gardens at 2 meters in diameter and over 2 high. Suburbia and the country are quite different ( aesthetics, space etc.).
25 June, 2008 at 9:32 pm
dead by dawn:
“I was also making the point that if people want to be able to water their car and driveway or grow a lush green lawn in a dry country like Oz, they should take responsibility for supplying the water themselves.
Why should mains water be supplied so cheaply for these frivilous uses?”
Rubbish. Enough said.
26 June, 2008 at 12:43 am
I must confess to a reflex animosity to anything espoused by any organisation claiming a conservation mandate because such organisations and truth are such strangers. eg PETA, WWF, Greenpeace, etc.
I do not discount the fact that truth and the green cause may occasionally collide. On the evidence to date that risk is negligible.
I too spent part of my childhood living on tank (rain) water, and my parents still have one on their property. Frankly, my recollections were not fond. The taste was always a bit “off”. Despite the regular maintenance.
And this is the 21st Century. I suggest we have a right to expect plentiful, virtually free, scheme water in urban areas.
26 June, 2008 at 1:20 am
“Yes because thousands of people died and millions more were displaced because of Sydney water restrictions werent they”
Then how about another example of “hey, it COULD happen” envirolarmism? Google “DDT Africa malaria.” I’ll see that thousands of deaths and raise you millions.
The notion that Flummery should not be held to account because his overwrought Cassandrism COULD have happened is ridiculous. Just about anything COULD happen. To base public policy on every factually-tenuous apocalyptic fantasy du jour is illogical, and to evade responsibility for these Chicken Little bleatings with a shrug and a “hey, it COULD have happened” is adolescent.
26 June, 2008 at 1:46 am
Y’know Dave, if you Google ““DDT Africa malaria” you’ll find…well, you’ll find evidence of I dunno what, but it isn’t the fiction I suspect you’re after. In order to find the sort of results you’re after, I’d recommend Googling:
“DDT Africa malaria millions of deaths” – lots of astro-turf there.
I’m in total agreement with your final sentence however -I’d like to be able to take liquid on a plane again.
26 June, 2008 at 2:59 am
Let me give you the bullet points, Deke:
1) Rachel Carson figured she couldn’t hear the birdies sing because of DDT.
2) No more DDT, and malaria kills millions of Africans.
Of course, now the enviros claim the “DDT ban” is just a myth. Apparently Third Worlders read her book, voluntarily gave up DDT, and happily died.
26 June, 2008 at 3:37 am
Jeez, that bitch caused millions of African deaths coz she couldn’t hear the birdies?
Malaria is a killer: not in dispute, I hope.
DDT isn’t a magic bullet: not in dispute, I hope.
After that we can examine your sarcastic premise, “Apparently Third Worlders read her book,voluntarily gave up DDT, and happily died”.
26 June, 2008 at 8:34 am
Sad. This blog, I mean.
26 June, 2008 at 9:03 am
Peter.
‘Rubbish, enough said’
No it isnt.
Firstly, several of you are arguing a point that nobody made! Im not 100% sure, but i dont think anyone has suggested that rw tanks are a magic bullet, or that they are more cost effective than centralised water supply.
However, you have failed to address the huge costs involved in replacing ageing water, gas and sewage infrastructure from underneath roads, houses etc that is now being faced in many old cities. I suspect the cost of ripping up half the streets in NY would be a bit prohibitive. Thats the problem with centralising anything. Once it breaks down its harder ($$) to fix than a decentralised system. Cambridge Systematics have estmated the cost of repairing and replacing the US’ aging gas, sewer and water infrastructure at over $660 billion US dollars.
I agree that as tax payers in a first world country we have the right to expect a supply of clean, safe water for drinking and washing, but why should i pay the ’save the murray’ tax so that you can use perfectly good water to hose leaves off your driveway? The obligation of the government is NOT to supply a valuable resource in infinite quantities for you to waste. I am staggered by the bloated sense of entitlement exhibited by the Right on this and most other issues.
Many irrigators have zero water allocation along the murray and some are literally walking off the land, the lower lakes and coorong are nearly dead.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23882898-2862,00.html
Why? So that clowns like Bolt can water their pretty little flowers, and so rice and cotton growers can piss away other peoples water on totally inappropriate crops.
The real answer is to start making people pay a lot more for any water they use, over an agreed level.
Then people who want to conserve water have a financial motivation to do so, and wasteful people can pay for the choices they make. Once again peter, market forces and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! (Christ, i sound like a conservative!)
If people paid more for their excessive use of water, rainwater tanks woud be more worthwhile for those with space and the extra revenue could (but probably wouldnt!) be contributed toward dam building and stormwater capture and treatment programes.
BTW Peter, did you try posting your excellent suggestion of treating storm water on Boltsblog?
No? I thought as much.
26 June, 2008 at 9:23 am
I got up on my high horse a minute ago, now i cant get off the damn thing!
I want to see the government use involuntary aquisition laws to aquire cubby station dam. It is illegal to dam waterways and wetlands, how is it that cubby station can get away with it?
These laws are regularly used to aquire farmland, national reserves and the like for the benefit of mining companies, so why not to save the murray, and the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the river for their very lives?
Its a strange world we live in were the water ‘rights’ of one farm carries more weight and is considered to be worth more than the entire South Australian economy and all the people who live here.
Its a good thing Australians are so complacent, or their could be trouble for the folks at cubby station.
26 June, 2008 at 9:43 am
Dead By Dawn.
You are a nastly little wannabe dictator aren’t you? God forbid that you ever get into a position of power.
You clearly want to impose your own views of what is necessary and what is not onto the rest of society. When we point out that you focus unnecessarily on one issue (water saving) and completely ignore any factors that relate to the economic, practicality or societal impact (waterborne diseases) of your proposals you go on a rant about the costs of digging up the streets of New York.
26 June, 2008 at 9:51 am
The notion that Flummery should not be held to account because his overwrought Cassandrism COULD have happened is ridiculous. Just about anything COULD happen. To base public policy on every factually-tenuous apocalyptic fantasy du jour is illogical, and to evade responsibility for these Chicken Little bleatings with a shrug and a “hey, it COULD have happened” is adolescent.
This is the sort of analysis you’d expect from a three-year old. Dave – deliberately generalising the issue in order to make what is clearly an illogical point just isn’t going to wash in a blog populated by adults (though it probably goes down a treat at Blair’s site).
The outcome that you are so dishonestly reducing to a ‘fantasy’ prediction of what could happen was the total depletion of Sydney’s water supply. Far from being baseless ‘Casandrism’ this was a potential outcome that was being predicted by a wide range of people <iincluding Sydney’s water catchment authority. Dam levels had been dropping for many years and there was a genuine and legitimate fear that this pattern would continue.
Water restrictions were not put in place because of Flannery’s comments in an ABC video about what a ‘worst case scenario’ would look like – they were put in place as a sensible and necessary conservation initiative. The way that you and your fellow Blairites are now childishly belittling those who urged that conservation message, solely on the basis that it happened to rain over the Sydney catchment, is idiotic. It’s particularly idioctic given that a large portion of Australia missed out on that rain, and are still facing severe water shortages.
My family has a working farm out in the Grenfell Area – and they haven’t had any drought breaking rain like Sydney has – do you want to head out there and tell the locals to quit their water conservation projects? Does your Green-hatred make you that confident that rain will come soon enough to save them?
26 June, 2008 at 10:02 am
Pull your head in NIC. Dead by Dawn successfully demolishes your response to him so you thow a tanty and start wheeling out the Right-wing playbook of insults.
His comments about ‘digging up the streets of NY’ was clearly participation in the discussion about the “economic, practicality or societal impact” of various water saving measures, and not the evasion that you so falsely claim it to be. He was pointing out that your insistence that we factor in the cost of water borne diseases into the water supply debate equally requies that we factor in the cost of continuing to rely on mains water supply.
Perhaps you should have a bex and a good lie down before you comment here again.
26 June, 2008 at 10:27 am
Mondo Rock,
I’ve seen this term “playbook” used before. Do you realise how whacky that makes you sound? As if there is a giant conspiracy of right wing people out there with a standard book of terms to insult people?
Honestly, are you really suggesting that every building in New York city should convert to rain water tanks so as to avoid having to dig up streets to replace water pipes? Because that is what Dead by Dawn is suggesting – maybe you did not read him closely enough. That is a seriously crazy suggestion.
26 June, 2008 at 10:50 am
Dead by dawn
660 billion dollars spread over many years is loose change for a 15 trillion p.a. economy. Everything has to be replaced eventually. Roads, dams – the lot. A big problem is that governments rarely look that far ahead and save for these eventualities or succumb to pressures and put off the hard decisions.
Do you suggest that because it will be expensive to replace sewer lines we go back to the dunny man??
You seem to have no idea that expensive problems always create innovative solutions like no dig line replacement and sewer relining – the list is endless.
It is you that assumes we ‘right wingers’ insist on unlimited dirt cheap water. I have long argued that water should be properly priced and the whole system privatized and put on a market basis. But I do insist on the right to be able to decide for myself if washing a car or letting my kids play under a sprinkler or fill my pool is frivolous or not.
As you virtually agreed in the latter part of your post the real problem is lack of market forces ( and I don’t regard the current system as in any way a competitive free enterprise situation).
And what’s with the pressure to put my “excellent idea” on Bolts blog? It’s hardly a novel idea – just common sense. If I’m the first to point out that we already have a vast network to collect urban rainwater we are in more strife than I thought!
As I have said before our current water situation is entirely due to small minded thinking, pressure group politics and NIMBYism – there is plenty of water in Australia. Engineers have been warning us for years that this will happen and the difficult decisions put off for another day/year.
I read the other day that a similar situation is now occurring with the electricity supply in the US. Excess capacity is now only just above a critical level needed to ‘keep the lights on’. This is *entirely* due to the same factors – people insisting we don’t want a power station here, no nuclear there, let them use low power light bulbs etc. If you want to see where that will lead just look to the energy supply situation in South Africa and how it is affecting the economy. Of course free enterprise – capitalism – will get the blame as usual and stupid policies will be enacted – excess ‘profits’ taxes, retail price control etc.
26 June, 2008 at 10:56 am
I would have thought it was the rain that filled the dams.
Certainly, when there was no rain, the dams that were, were running dry. But, why did the government not develop more dams, or, better still, allow private companies to build dams, or desalination plants and sell water, for profit.
What could be more natural???
26 June, 2008 at 11:19 am
goodness. one day at work and the idiots take over the assylum. to all those who claim the sky will fall in and whole cities will be wiped out by vector-borne diseases if people install rainwater tanks for garden use, please note the following.
i rely on two rainwater tanks for water supply as there is no mains water. one is 160,000L and the other is 120,000L. the only maintenance i’ve done is clean the filters (altho i have 1st flush diverter) and had the liner replaced on the big tank. grey water recycling does the garden – why waste beautiful drinking water on a garden? i have lived here for 12 years and have never contracted dengue fever, ross river virus nor have i ever been hit on the head by the sky. my neighbours are in the same boat, and even though they are further up the hill i’m not aware that they’ve been hit over the head by the sky either. ditto for dengue and RRV.
about 9 years ago my mother who lives in the city in a 2 bed townhouse installed a rainwater tank (dunno how big) and connected her toilet. it also does her very small garden. she is as fit and healthy as she always was before the rainwater tank. no dengue or RRV. no sky collapsing on her little patch of paradise either. her only regret is that she doesn’t have the space for a bigger tank to supply the laundry.
sometimes i think people are just afraid of change and they invent all sorts of crap in order to keep themselves in a cozy denialism. the case for backyard rainwater tanks to do the sort of stuff like car washing, supplying garden beds etc is firmly made in my view. those who claim the sky will attack them if the mosquitoes don’t get them first just don’t understand the issue is about changing attitudes about the water we waste.
enough said!
26 June, 2008 at 11:21 am
“But, why did the government not develop more dams, or, better still, allow private companies to build dams, ”
That’s a fair question though with the lack of rain we’d have more empty dams. Having said that I’m not a hydrologist (neither is Blair or Bolt)
“desalination plants”
Are one solution – albeit and expensive, power hungry, polluting solution.
“sell water, for profit.”
I’d go with that, I’d certainly advocate putting a higher value on water – we’ll actually be doing this in Vic – But that’s to pay for the desal plant.
In my humble opinion I believe the key is conservation – we waste too much water – Melbourne loses more water due to leaks and bursts than consumers actually use. It seems like with many things there has not been sufficient investment in infrastructure – short sighted governments (that’s all of them regardless of political leanings) cause many problems when their only focus is re-election.
26 June, 2008 at 11:25 am
One more point about frivolous water use. Dead by dawn says that washing a driveway is frivolous. Just the other day I had to wash off a large patch of black sooty mould on a path caused by a diseased (native) plant in our sideway. The alternatives were a few minutes with a high pressure type washer or a half hour scrub with bleach and probably as much water in a bucket. I chose the criminal route and switched the stereo up full blast to mask the sound. Is it healthy that I now have to keep an eye out for spying neighbours? There are now ‘dob in a neighbour’ campaigns – very un australian if you ask me.
26 June, 2008 at 11:36 am
Yes, i am a nasty little wannabee dictator nic, and woe unto the Right if ever i achieve the power i seek. I think you might be reading things that were not written again nic. What was you problem with what i said? Perhaps you could point out where i turned into the Green Hitler?
Nic, i simply suggested that water is a valuable thing, and if people want to waste it they should pay more than people who use less.
Its called ‘user pays’ and its nothing to do with imposing my will. Its common sense and a capitalist principle. I suggest we have a set amount of water that every household gets at a cheap rate, and any water over that amount is charged at a much higher rate. Truly the mad ranting of a power crazed dictator.
You talk about me ignoring the economics and societal impacts, i actually did mention the long term economics and societal impacts in all my posts. I did mention the cost to future generations due to environmental degradation, the cost of maintaining and repairing the water infrastructure, the societal and economic costs of allowing cotton and rice farmers to dominate water supply up stream, the risk to Adelaide’s economy and realestate prices due to a lack of water security and the huge costs to the murray irrigation and lower lakes districts (both economic and societal)
So what are you on about?
If you were reffering to my post about ‘involuntary aquisition’ laws and cubby station, do you understand what these laws mean? They allow the government to aquire land compulsoraly (the owners are paid hansomely) when it is for the greater good. For example for mining and building dams or a little thing like providing water security for over 1,000,000 people and saving hundreds of farms from going broke. Are you aware that Adelaide and many rural areas are supplied drinking water from the murray river?
Regarding my ‘rant’ about NY and London ripping up the streets i have perhaps not explained myself. Peter has been throwing around a lot of numbers that show rainwater tanks to be the most expensive way of storing water, which is probably true. However he did not consider the costs now being faced in older cities in the US and Europe of repairing and maintaining a water, sewage and gas pipe system that is at least a hundred years old and buried under a city. As i pointed out the costs are astronomical and if you and peter and others want to debate the economics of mains water vs. rainwater i thought those long term costs were relevant to the debate, as Australian cities will soon have to face these costs too.
Beware the GreenShirts and the Cafe Putsch.
26 June, 2008 at 11:37 am
confessions of a (former) bolt blogger
Statistically none of us here will come down with RRV but some others will. This is a very silly argument. Its the same type of argument that the anti vaccination crowd make – my kids were fine and didn’t get measles so its all a crock. They just don’t see the dead kid a thousand miles away who was unfortunate enough to catch it – and die – because the communities collective resistance to the disease had been reduced by 5%.
26 June, 2008 at 11:57 am
yes peter i agree. statistically you have more chance of being in a car crash than contracting dengue fever from your rainwater tank. so yes, a silly argument to say don’t install rainwater tank because you’ll catch this this and this.
tiresome and boring.
26 June, 2008 at 11:58 am
dead by dawn – I sense a rather subtle backtracking here.
Tell me how are we to decide what is frivolous or not? Are we allowed to wash our windows? If so – should there be limit on how many times per year we can do it? Who keeps track of this? If not – we may as well not have a window because after 10 years it will be useless as a window.
What about outdoor pot plants? Indoor pot plants? And if one why not the other? What happens if I miss ‘my’ watering day and the plants really need water?
What represents the frivolous washing of a path and an owner deciding it needs cleaning due to a spill or something? How is he going to explain it all to an inspector?
What about people who take long showers? If I don’t take a shower can I use the water I saved to water my lawn? If not – why not? Why should an avid gardener but occasional showerer be penalized but the reverse not?
As you can see – the whole thing quickly becomes a farce and akin to the soviet union and is the inevitable result of the meddling in the first place.
You may think my questions are silly but I assure you over the last five years I (and many others) have had to make many decisions based on unclear water laws.
26 June, 2008 at 11:59 am
A couple of points if I may (15yrs in the water industry for those who ask):
1. Recycling water (either stormwater or sewer) has been put up as a viable option in Victoria for a long time. It would and should be used in place of potable water for no drinking purposes. Look at the schemes near Carrum. The issue is that you need to treat the water to a similar level and the costs get close to desalination. Sewerage has a very high level of salt as a result of detergents and industrial practises as well as groundwater incursion. Stormwater has high levels of bacteria and nutrients from dog poo of all things.
There are already large retarding basins throughout Melbourne that could be recycling locations including along Dandenong Creek and near the Yarra in Fairfield.
2. The state government guidelines suggest not to drink rainwater in urban areas unless it is treated. Filtration and chlorination at a minimum. If water restrictions are in place (as they are) and you cannot use potable water for some purposes then it does not matter how much a tank costs if you value your garden or lawn more. It is your choice and you do what you want.
3. Build more dams? This is a whole seperate argument that goes back to when the Thomson Dam was built. Demand outstripped supply when it opened. Conservation strategies were implemented (Don’t be a Wally with Water) which almost halved demand.
Also if you build a dam you need to rely on rainfall. Something that is becoming less reliable. Indicators suggest that as a resault of climate change rainfall will occur in discrete large rainfall events (thunderstorms) rather than ongoing soaking rainfall. This results in much lesss runoff into rivers and dams.
26 June, 2008 at 12:03 pm
4. tank maintenance. Install mozzie mesh and maintain inlets is simple as previously stated.
5. greywater. as long as it is used within 24 hours it is ok. Don’t use it on vegies to be safe.
As an aside the combined effect of greywater diversion and water restrictions has lowered the quality of water entering the large sewer treatment plants in melbourne. A lot of recycling schemes now are using sewer mining (pump down a manhole) techniques to recycle water for irrigation. there is a large scheme being implemented in royal park.
26 June, 2008 at 12:05 pm
confessions – let it go. You know that that was only one of many reasons. If it wasn’t a concern at all why does the WA government put out an elaborate brochure on how to prevent mosquitos breeding in urban water tanks – and their dangers? It may not be a problem now because there aren’t that many and they are mostly newish – give it 20 years and it will be quite a different story.
26 June, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Cubbie Station is the largest single user of water in Oz. They got their licenses from the Qld state govt and only pay a minimal amount for what they use.
the amount of water used on rice or cotton is about 22ML/year per hectare. Dairy is about 16ML. Grapes or fruit trees are generally less than 10ML. The return on water use depends on the quality of the output but rice and cotton are at the lower end of the range.
I have seen the Darling flow backwards as a result of the large River divertors sucking the water out.
26 June, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Peter, do you have evidence to back your claim about disease??
Maintaining a tank in tropical areas with tropical diseases is different to say Vic or tas wouldn’t you say?
26 June, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Peter in Nth Qld they used to float kero on the top of the rainwater tank to stop the wrigglers.
26 June, 2008 at 12:26 pm
RobJ “In my humble opinion I believe the key is conservation – we waste too much water – Melbourne loses more water due to leaks and bursts than consumers actually use.”
Not true. about 11% of water is termed ‘non revenue water’ which includes leakage 7% comapres to 59% used in homes. Search ‘Water Supply Demand Strategy’ for Melbourne.
26 June, 2008 at 12:28 pm
windrider – I have seen a similar method in northern victoria as well.
26 June, 2008 at 12:33 pm
DamBuster,
I’m sure I read in the media a breakdown of water usage – Naturally I can’t remember the exact numbers but it went something like this:
Agriculture – 60%
Industry & Commerce – 22%
Domestic (maybe I should have included the word domestic? ) 9%
Loses due to leaks and bursts – 10%
(don’t kill me about it not adding up to 100% I’m working from memory – not too clever, I know)
Anyway – I’m happy to be educated and will run a search on the string you’ve provided – Thanks
Ah – I think I see my error – I’m including all of Victoria’s water usage and we are discussing dams (which supply Melbourne)
26 June, 2008 at 12:34 pm
peter,
we also have govt-sponsored road safety guidelines, yet i don’t hear anybody shrieking that we should relinquish our hold on vehicles because they are killers on 4 wheels. WA councils also have guidelines for swimming pool owners around controlling algal blooms yet i don’t hear anyone opining that swimming pools are an urban disease-based disaster zone and should be abandoned lest our cities are wiped out by marching algae.
face it, you took a minor point and tried to make it into some sort of sky’s falling in disaster in order to make your argument seem sane and rational. this is a tactic so favored by the bolt and blair sheep, and one that i’m able to discern in a flash i’m surprised you’d try it on here with a straight face. yes, there are guidelines for home owners wanting to install rainwater tanks. and just like with driving, just like with maintaining your swimming pool, if you follow the guidelines for maintaining your rainwater tank there is no reason to expect you’ll contract any diseases.
26 June, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Dam Buster of Preston – see my post two above your question.
Don’t know about Vic and Tas but a 2004 govt report says:
” In Queensland it has long been suggested that rainwater tanks are associated with
breeding of Aedes aegypti, the primary vector of dengue virus (Kay et al. 1984). This was
confirmed in an outbreak of dengue in the Torres Strait Islands in 1996–97 (Hanna et al.
1998). In addition, a survey conducted in the Torres Strait Islands in 2002 detected adult
mosquitoes, including Aedes aegypti, in rainwater tanks with missing or faulty insect
screens (Ritchie et al. 2002).”
Note the bit about “missing or faulty insect screens” – some here suggest that tanks are low maintenance and easy to look after. Indeed they are, but as we all know there are thousands of highly irresponsible people who will not look after their tanks.
Also this:
“Dengue virus has been recognised since the latter part of the 18th century as causing epidemics in tropical and subtropical parts throughout the world. Dengue was first recognised in Townsville late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century. Outbreaks occurred in an area from the coast of Western Australia to the Northern Territory and down through high rainfall areas of Queensland and New South Wales. At that time Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were widely distributed in northern Australia and occurred as far south as the Victorian border in eastern Australia and south of Perth in Western Australia. By the 1970s Aedes aegypti were restricted to a small area of northern Queensland. Epidemic dengue returned to north Queensland in 1981–82. Other outbreaks occurred there in the 1990s, a time when Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were spreading westwards from Queensland to the Northern Territory border and towards the New South Wales border.”
Tens of thousands of badly maintained tanks will likely see a resurgence of these diseases – and then we will see another campaign to have them removed – after a lot of people get sick or die.
26 June, 2008 at 12:58 pm
confessions of a (former) bolt blogger – actually the disease part was minor – people such as you have then called me on this particular aspect and I of course replied. It only appears to you that I have tried to make a major issue out of it.
eg DB of Preston asked “Peter, do you have evidence to back your claim about disease??” So I replied. I am also replying to you below re disease – does this mean I am making a bit issue out of it? It is unfortunately one of the downsides of arguing about a big issue.
Re algal blooms in swimming pools. This is quite silly. For a start swimming pools are only put in voluntarily. They need constant maintenance and its pretty obvious when something is wrong – not so a water tank. Also an algal bloom will only hurt the owner and family – it is unlikely their friends will agree to swim in an unhealthy looking pool. Their badly maintained tank around the side of the house is a different matter and if you can’t see this well…
26 June, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Tens of thousands of badly maintained tanks will likely see a resurgence of these diseases – and then we will see another campaign to have them removed – after a lot of people get sick or die.
There’s that sky falling in again.
Water tanks are now a necessary and vital part of Australia’s urban water infrastructure. If there are problems with them, and your predictions in this regard seem plausible, we won’t see a campaign to have them removed, we will see a campaign to ensure they are proerly maintained and used.
Confessions has nailed it – it’s no different to the campaigns for road safety. I don’t see you calling for the abolition of cars because they regulalry kill people, yet you’re damning water tanks on the basis that they might. It all just seems like typical Bolt/Blair anti-green kneejerk stuff.
26 June, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Some people rely on tank water to drink – fortunately in Melbourne we don’t need to but it makes sense that we use tank water to wash our cars (if we must) and water our gardens – It beats using drinking water (Very fine drinking water we have in Melbourne as well)
I have a water tank – my wife is a keen gardener – I also have a sump pump to empty my bath/shower on to the garden – it just makes sense, our dams are less than 30% full with no prospect of them filling anytime soon.
26 June, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Also, confessions of a (former) bolt blogger, I am fast concluding that you are unable to follow even the most simple arguments. It is not whether you or I follow the proper guidelines, it is the bloke across the street or in the next suburb. Car accidents and pool blooms at worst affect those directly involved.
26 June, 2008 at 1:19 pm
” Water tanks are now a necessary and vital part of Australia’s urban water infrastructure.”
They are only now becoming necessary because of the stupid policies of the past.
“If there are problems with them, and your predictions in this regard seem plausible, we won’t see a campaign to have them removed, we will see a campaign to ensure they are proerly maintained and used.”
Typical – so a bunch of people have to get sick or die and diseases get another stronghold – and then a campaign to prevent it will kick in. Barking mad.
26 June, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Peter,
It makes sense that we use tank water to wash our cars (if we must) and water our gardens – It beats using drinking water (which is what we get from dams)
I can understand that there are pros and cons of water tanks though I can’t understand why you so zealously oppose them.
My water saving measures are at my own expense – it’s no skin off your nose.
26 June, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Some people die in Melbourne due to Legionerre’s disease because of poorly maintained cooling towers. Should we ban them as well?
And that is even with the state guidelines on maintenance and disenfection.
26 June, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Peter, thank you for the reference materials.
The disease has been identified here since white settlement. Surely an outbreak is going to occur with tanks or not? Yes poorly maintained tanks may contribute to breeding of the mozzie in question. The outbreak is due to other climatic conditions as further reading in the references you provide indicates.
It still means that the tank is a viable option in areas like Melbourne and greater Victoria as it has been for decades.
26 June, 2008 at 3:23 pm
RobJ – believe it or not its not that big an issue for me. I have no probs with voluntary water tanks because there won’t be that many of them and users know what they are doing. When there are millions of them – many compulsorily installed or only installed via massive incentives – the equation changes.
Legionellosis because of poorly maintained cooling towers. Again I am not suggesting tanks be banned, I am just saying they shouldn’t be encouraged though incentives or made compulsory. There is also a big difference between a few thousand large aircon systems that need fairly regular maintenance and a few million tanks that don’t. Also most cases of Legionellosis are, again, very localized.
Re outbreaks with/wo tanks. Malaria was until recently found in much of Italy. Proper methods removed it. Outbreaks don’t just ‘happen’ – except in the third world.
26 June, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Also according to wiki the true cause of Legionellosis may not even have been caused via aircon systems whereas stagnant water is a known breeding ground for mozzies. There have been (apparently) less than 1000 deaths over many years – it doesn’t ’spread’, but malaria, RRV and dengue and other diseases cause havoc and are making a comeback. They shouldn’t be encouraged.
Anyway – I think I’ll retire now as I doubt I’ll change any minds.
26 June, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Peter,
outbreaks do happen. Look at the references you gave previously. how did the Dengue fever start in the first place?
But all you have to do is drive past one of those poorly maintained air con units to catch a potentially lethal disease. Ask the poor sod in Preston who died from visiting Northland shopping centre due to the Optus building a few hundred metres away.
26 June, 2008 at 3:43 pm
So to summarise Peter’s actual argument:
In areas where Dengue fever can occur (currently north QLD, and Northern WA – mozzie killed off in NT) tanks should be considered carefully. Elsewhere it is ok if the user is willling to pay for it.
26 June, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I heard about an artificial aquifer project in northern Adelaide. They direct all local storm water into a gravel filled sump or cistern in a local park. It gets pumped back out to irrigate the footy field’s and parkland’s in summer.
I can’t help but feel that these more decentralised systems are more robust and probably more efficient. This applies to energy and food supply as well.
26 June, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Peter,
sorry but think it’s you who can’t follow logic. i haven’t seen any government compulsorily requiring urban residents to install rainwater tanks. i also haven’t seen any evidence that your average jo/e blow doesn’t have the capacity to respond to public education campaigns about safe use of rainwater domestically. it wasn’t that long ago that most australians had no idea that consuming folate during pregnancy protected against birth defects, notably spina bifida. yet a public education campaign (mass media, GP and antenatel nursing level and food fortification) saw our intake of folate increase considerably. using the logic you apply to installing rainwater tanks, no australian woman should have gotten pregnant because of the risk of birth defects. THAT is illogical my friend.
“Tens of thousands of badly maintained tanks will likely see a resurgence of these diseases – and then we will see another campaign to have them removed – after a lot of people get sick or die.”
STILL crying about the sky falling in. there is NO evidence to suggest that installing rainwater tanks for toilet or garden use will cause unecessary death or disease. the current guidelines for urban use concern human consumption – physically. but watering the shrubs, flushing the toilet all ok. the WA government gives rebates to householders for this very purpose and has done for a couple of years now. unfortunately i do not have details to hand about whether there has been a corresponding spike in ross river virus, dengue fever or malaria notifications to the health dept, but anecdotally feel that the answer would be ‘NO’. if you like i will do some research on this and post back to you.
26 June, 2008 at 9:44 pm
There is a website dedicated to watching Blair through binoculars? I am sure he is flattered, but it seems a little creepy to me. Is being a ‘Peeping Tom’ legal in Australia?
26 June, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Now, now, Percy. It’s rude to draw attention to the fact that the three hosts of this site define the meaning of their existence by reference to Bolt and Blair.
Get a hobby, boys. Or even better: a girlfriend. Especially you, Jeremy. Sad git.
26 June, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“Get a hobby, boys. Or even better: a girlfriend. Especially you, Jeremy. Sad git.”
Why is it always “The Right” that resorts to personal abuse? Shame on you, Anonymous Troll.
27 June, 2008 at 9:03 am
percy, just a note champ. This comment thread has more comments in it than ANY published by Blair on the Tele website. What does that tell you abou his dwindling readership?
27 June, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Should I ask my wife about whether I should have a girlfiend?
27 June, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“Get a hobby, boys. Or even better: a girlfriend”
oh abu. you’ve been owned so many times on this blog i thought you was our bitch.
27 June, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Here is an interesting article that im sure Bolt and Blair wouldn’t like to acknowledged regarding global warming
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
27 June, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“Get a hobby, boys. Or even better: a girlfriend”
oh abu. you’ve been owned so many times on this blog i thought you was our bitch.
Nice try, confessions. I’m surprised at your tenacity. I would have thought you’d be at home, relaxing on your rubber donut with a cold compress.
28 June, 2008 at 3:26 am
A question to all the pro dam crowd:
Where are you going to put them?
28 June, 2008 at 9:10 pm
“Where are you going to put them?”
another question to the pro-dammers: and what are you gonna put in them?
30 June, 2008 at 9:54 am
regarding dams – Bolt et al would usually say put it on the Mitchell River where there was a public reserve (now state park) ear marked for a potential dam. Of course the water flowing in that river just ‘drains’ to the sea now. Of course if it rains somewhere else the dam magically moves to suit the rainfall pattern of the day to spots like the Otways, Maribynong, even Tasmania.
I have pointed out to them a number of times that the algael bloom in the Gippsland Lakes is due to a lack of flushing flows combined with nutrient wash from bushfire debris and that a dam would in fact lower this flow making the lakes worse.
I usually get no reply.
Comments are closed.