Thread: Damn the damn dams or be dammed!

G'day,

Fair go Daddles.

Originally Posted by silentC

Well, actually this very thing happened to a friend of ours who lives on the other side of town. When he built his house, he was told that he could not connect to the sewer and he was required to put in a septic tank, which he did. Then a couple of years later, the sewer line was upgraded and they told him and everyone else in his street that they had to connect. He refused, saying that he had been forced to install a septic tank at the council's bidding and they had no right to then come along and force him to decommission it. Maybe they're just pussies down here but they let him be.

My DA says that I must provide a complying onsite sewerage management system and onsite water storage, so I have met their conditions of consent.

Very lucky. My next door neighbour bought a house with an existing septic system. Found out a while later it was never approved, and apparently not to the council's standard anyway.

Few years later, along comes the sewerage, along with a letter stating everyone will be charged $1200 to connect. He contacts council and explains about the septic. Their response was no way would they connect him as he had a non-compliant septic. He says, "but I want to do away with the septic and use your nice new sewer". Their answer "no, wont connect you - won't discuss it any further". He says "ok stuff you I'll stay on the septic". He did just that. BUT HE STILL HAD TO PAY THE $1200!!

Originally Posted by Daddles

You need to grow up shedhand. I'm sure you've got some half reasonable ideas in there somewhere, but this insistence in presenting yourself as a bigot is hiding them. How about calming down and talking some sense because your behaviour on this thread and some others is akin to the worst of the greenies you detest.

Richard

Here we go again. Nah, on second thoughts. I don't have a beef with you Daddles. Just the lying anti-everything - tree huggers. If you want to identify with them go ahead.
I could probably sit here and run up a 100,000 word essay based on credible science which supports the forest practices in Tasmania but I'd rather be in the shed.
BTW telling people to grow up when they express an opinion you don't like is a tad facile mate.
Bigot is defined as a person who doesn't accept an opinion different from their own. I listen to the green's opinions but i don't accept them because I know and read the science of sustainable forestry practice and know equally that their opinions are based on lies, false hysteria, emotion and here-say. One can't be accused of bigotry if an alternate view is unproven and not based on good science.

Cheers

Shedhand,

Which studies do you base your credible science on? Have they been paid for by forestry interests?

I take what the green groups AND what the forestry group say on the matter with a grain of salt. Both groups push lies and propaganda.

If sustainable forestry is possible it certainly isn't being widely practiced.

My view is that there is almost nothing that is practiced in a capitalist society that is sustainable. Capitalism relies on growth. If we have a 4% growth rate that means we double our consumption in 18 years.

That means we use twice as much of everything in 18 years. The 2 decades after that we will be using 4 times what we use today. In 40 years time we will consume 8 times what we use today. We live in a finite world and we can't keep consuming for ever. Exponential growth is just not sustainable.

I don't have a beef with you either Shedhand, and don't want to start anything here (after all, its a water debate ), but to shout out abuse in with large multicoloured font doesn't really do justice to your well researched opinions!
Most reasonable people- and I put myself in that category- wouldn't have any problems with "sustainable forestry" practices, but I don't think woodchipping falls under that umbrella. Well, maybe it sustains a couple of hundred jobs, a multinational company or two and the odd politician, but doesn't sustain a forest!!
Now back to our water crisis...


Cheers!

http://www.airwatermakers.com/


cop this lot! So now, presumably if you live in a humid environment, and presumably don't mind a bit of greenhouse gas generation (should this be in the lilypond thread?) you can make water from thin air!

Cheers,

P

I saw that on the news the other day. This bloke was talking about building a huge one to service Brisbane. The problem I see is that if you strip all of the moisture out of the air it won't bloody rain! I bet the wanks pushing for this project have forgotten all about that in their great wisdom.

One of the quotes on that website also sounds a bit wrong.
"Remote locations…. no delivery charges once the machine is installed."
Sounds a bit BS doesn't it. We'll charge you to deliver and install it then we won't charge you again. One would hope not.

I think they mean that once you have installed the machine, you'll never have to pay for water deliveries again.

Originally Posted by silentC

I think they mean that once you have installed the machine, you'll never have to pay for water deliveries again.

Possibly, but as my Communication and Scholarship Professor said last year,
"Say exactly what you mean and there will never be confusion".

What if you are confused about what you mean?

I had an English teacher who used to say "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".

Originally Posted by silentC

I had an English teacher who used to say "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".

Which explains all the coffee stains on the front of my shirts I guess.

P

Speaking of water, I had a kilometre and a half of merbau decking delivered to the site last week and unfortunately it has now been rained on for 4 days in a row. I was going to start nailing it down this weekend but I'm worried that it will shrink once it dries out again. What do you reckon?

And you didn't cover it??? :eek: :eek:

Crack city here we come. (Thats' cracks in the board not the the other sort of crack).

I don't think there's a solution. Drill and nail it by hand and hope for the best, but get a coating on it as soon as it's down!

It'll be ok if you're not going to be too heartbroken and pedantic at the end of the day.

Cheers,

P

To dam or not to dam calls to mind the more important question: why do we have to keep populating the landscape with humans so that we need to build dams and demolish nature? Please, someone tell me what we gain in having 20 billion people on the earth instead of 1 billion? Are we more able to face alien attacks?

In Oz we have around 20 million people, but we seem to be determined to build it to the USA's 250 million or whatever it is these days. Why? The more we want to populate the more we'll need to turn nature into culture. In this context the argument about dams and sustainable forestry seems spurious. It's a bit like having ten children then trying to work out how they'll fit into a two bedroom house.

I apologise, Silent, for ignoring your woodwork related question. I don't have an answer for that either .