# Sewage dumping in rivers.



## John q (12 Apr 2021)

Quite shocked to see the amount of sewage that gets dumped in to our local rivers on tonights panorama. I was always aware this happened but didn't realise the full extent.


----------



## Nick potts (12 Apr 2021)

It is quite shocking what we are doing to our river/lakes and oceans. Won't be long (if not there already) before we get to a stage where the damage is irreversible.


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

It is nick, I was under the impression my local rivers had actually got cleaner over the last few years due to increased sightings of brown trout and salmon. Its disheartening to see them encourage wildlife with one hand only to poision them with the other.


----------



## rebel (13 Apr 2021)

Is it treated sewage or the raw stuff?

Treated sewage is released into the oceans and also various marshlands (I think) that have reed like plants to absorb them.


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

They were focusing on untreated overspill in the report last night. They are allowed to dump excess sewage proving they meet certain criteria like percentages treated and if there's a lot of excess ground water, in the film clips last night it was suggested that a lot of these water treatment sites release waste prior to meeting said criteria.
The waste shown last night hadn't even been through a screener, tampons, wipes, e.t.c.

Paragraph taken from article ~

Panorama gathered detailed data from 10 water companies in England and Wales through environmental information requests. They were each asked for information on a handful of sewage works.

The data suggests seven of the 10 companies had treatment works that were breaching their permits by dumping sewage before they were treating the specified volumes.

One of the worst offenders was the not-for-profit company, Welsh Water. The data shows three of its treatment works were in breach of their permits.

Its Aberbaiden plant illegally dumped untreated sewage into the River Usk on 12 consecutive days in December.


----------



## dw1305 (13 Apr 2021)

Hi all,


rebel said:


> Is it treated sewage or the raw stuff?


It is raw sewage. Technically all our sewage is treated before release into inland, or coastal, waters, but many of the water companies have derogation that allows them to discharge raw sewage in "exceptional circumstances", such as to stop raw sewage backing up into people bathrooms etc.

One reason that these "exceptional circumstances" have happened much more frequently in recent years is <"people flushing "wet wipes">, and if you visit a sewage treatment works all the screens etc are festooned with them and they <"often trap "fat bergs" as well">.

Much of our <"sewerage system is over a hundred years old">, and many of our water treatment works are still using technology and equipment that predates the middle of the twentieth century.


rebel said:


> and also various marshlands (I think) that have reed like plants to absorb them.


There isn't much use of <"phytoremediation in the UK">, partially because a lot of us live on a very small island, which both allows most properties to be connected to mains drainage and makes land very expensive. We also have the issue of quite a long dark winter.

I know it might seem alarmist as a program, but really it is just scratching the surface. The Environment Agency has been <"hollowed out" quite deliberately by the Government over the last ten years">.

Pre-BREXIT they still had  the issue of "appeasing" the EU, but <"post BREXIT those constraints don't exist"> and they really are both judge and jury.  

You only have to <"look at the USA"> for the <"huge profits you can make"> by not treating waste water or sewage.


John q said:


> I was under the impression my local rivers had actually got cleaner over the last few years due to increased sightings of brown trout and salmon. Its disheartening to see them encourage wildlife with one hand only to poision them with the other.


This is the "post industrial"  bonus.

cheers Darrel


----------



## PARAGUAY (13 Apr 2021)

What you write there Darrel is quite thought provoking . Does make you wonder ?mankind can send a rocket to Mars parachute a tractor on the surface and everything works!(surprisingly little media interest) Yet goverments all over the world pump out raw sewage.


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

I suppose we are to some extent the architects of own demise, as in we've all become a throw away society and lots of us happily buy up the new build houses that increasingly pop up on green field sites.


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

Not so long ago a similar scandal was made public in my country... Few journalists investigated the water companies to find out what happens with the sludge sediment from their water cleaning installations.

They secretly followed the trucks collecting and transporting this to see where it is stored or processed... Evidently, recorded on camera they were caught dumping this at a small dock back into the North Sea - Far from the eye, Far from the heart... Back into the water. 

One would think that things would change after something like this is publically revealed... But the truth is even more shocking...

Not very long after this, some journalists were tipped off to investigate the contents of cargo ships dumping rather strange looking soil into former river sand and gravel pits at the Rihn river. These former pits converted back to a nature reserve should be made shallow again. And water tests showed something suspicious going on. So they asked the captains of the ships for papers and they showed official Clean Soil Statements. After taking a sample it seemed the soil they were dumping came from our biggest asphalt producing company... They were dumping their Granulite...










						Public works dept. allowed construction firm to dump waste in Gelderland lake: report
					

The head of public works department Rijkswaterstaat allowed Amsterdam construction company Bontrup to dump thousands of tons of waste in a natural lake in Gelderland, the Volkskrant reports based on research by Zembla. Rijkswaterstaat approved this dumping shortly after former Foreign Affairs...




					nltimes.nl
				




Till now they run into a brick wall to find out how this could happen and who finally is responsible for giving this company an official Clean Soil statement to dump toxic waste in a nature reserve. It points to rather unscrupulous corrupt politicians and or government employees. But it is rather dismissed as an individual one-off incident by mistake.

Things like this keep coming up in the media, but since people seem to actually don't want this all to be true rather forget it again soon. Leaving all the room the go to the next scandal... Vicious circle?


----------



## Nick potts (13 Apr 2021)

There is a good documentary on Netflix at the moment, Seaspiracy.

It's more about plastic pollution and the fishing industry, but it does show just how hard it can be for the public to make decisions about sustainable fish and what plastics are actually causing issues as well as some other unsavoury things.

A couple of examples are the fact the many of the largest sustainable fishing logos you see on things like tuna are given to pretty much anyone who pays, and that most of the plastics in the sea are from the fishing industry.


----------



## LondonDragon (13 Apr 2021)

It's all about over population and economics  until governments start actually acting on it, nothing will ever change and fat cats fill their pockets! 

All these charities and protection groups at the end of the day most just about economics too and protecting the industry rather than the ambient/animals, and just promote campaigns that deflect from the actual truth! Make the public think they are doing something but in fact what they are doing is nothing compared to the overall scale of what is happening behind! (like the plastic straw debacle, exaggerated when you go into a supermarkets and everything is way over packaged in plastics too, and like Nick says fishing boats discard their nets into the sea most of the time which is what causes ocean pollution and kills large fish, not to mention the by catch).

Until governments come together as a whole, not much is going to change! But that will never happen as everyone is out there trying to fill their pockets too! So we are all pretty much doomed....


----------



## Nick potts (13 Apr 2021)

LondonDragon said:


> not to mention the by catch.
> 
> So we are all pretty much doomed....



This is one of the main reasons i don't eat fish/shellfish or anything from the ocean.

Imagine if this was happening on land, take 100's of 1000's of miles of net and drag it across the African savanna, then chuck all the dead lions, elephants and everything else back, there would be global uproar. But dump 40% of the fish you catch and *100's of millions *of sharks, birds, seals, dolphins and whales etc back into the sea dead or dying and no one takes any notice.

Glad to see it's not just me who thinks that there is no turning back, it's a rather depressing feeling.

Sorry @John q, I know this isn't sewage related.


----------



## LondonDragon (13 Apr 2021)

Nick potts said:


> Sorry @John q, I know this isn't sewage related.


It's the same theory in the end, governments not acting on it and economics! Population is growing, backend systems cannot cope any more due to age, technology and capacity, and not spending money where they should and instead building war ships, etc....


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

LondonDragon said:


> we are all pretty much doomed....


Exactly private frazer.


Nick potts said:


> Sorry @John q, I know this isn't sewage related


Pollution related so still very much on topic.
Besides can you go off topic in off topic/chit chat forum?


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

Remeber Little Greta Thunberg? Crying publicly about Global Warming and angry yelling "HOW DARE YOU!!" to the politicians etc. etc.

Not long after her first public appearances shouting, crying and yelling she was invited to visit the USA to give a speech. And she only approved if she could go there by sailing boat to make a statement about aeroplanes having too much environmental impact.

So Little Greta got her way and a sailing boat with a 15 head crew was arranged to sail her to the USA. Big head lines front page spectacle... Isn't it?

A few days later, not really front page but a small announcement a few pages deeper into the paper an article appears "Greta's sailing crew flew back home." How Greta got home is never revealed...

But a gut feeling tells me there were at least 16 aeroplane passengers involved to make it happen. 

Who wouldn't want to throw such a little spoiled big mouth brat under the bus?


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

I believe Greta actually sailed back from the US on a catamaran to Lisbon, at least I think I read that in the press.
Regards the crew and skipper, yes lots of flights and no carbon neutrality.


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

My apologies for being a tad rude to Greta... I have no intention to throw here literally under the bus... Also not my intention to mock her personally... She probably is a victim too at her young age, exploited and encouraged by media sharks to go public with such an act. It seems to have a lot more impact on the public than if David Attenborough would tell the same story.


----------



## shangman (13 Apr 2021)

We need Greta, just as we need David Attenborough and everyone else we can possibly get if we are ever to tackle climate change properly. David Attenborough loves Greta, for good reason. She may not be to your taste, but her speech made a tangible positive impact to climate policy in Europe (see the Green New Deal by the EU). Protest is not polite or pretty, and the facts of our future if we don't change aren't either. She doesn't stand alone, she stands with millions of young people, and millions of adults too. 

Real positive change is possible, it is not all doom and gloom, but we all have to do what we can. It's not our individual consumer choices that make a difference, but our political choices, our choices of who to work for and how to work, our voices, what we do with our lives. I actually think that this hobby we are doing is something positive - this forum is actively educating people to love, appreciate and look after nature is something that is severely lacking, we understand ecosystems far better than most, that itself is a political act, the more people that care about nature, the more likely we are to be able to protect it.

Some really good, not depressing things to read/watch/listen to about climate and pollution (staying on topic) are:
<Rewilding, by Isabella Tree> - a book about how a couple with a farm transformed it into a wildlife haven with regenerative farming
"Kiss the Earth" a documentary on Netflix, about more industrial regenerative farming. We can do this ourselves in our own gardens and allotments too though, my parents started doing the 'no dig' method a few years ago and we've seen far more wildlife, healthy soil and better crops after starting it.
<How to save a Planet Podcast>, which has episodes detailing all sorts of interesting ways to tackle the climate emergency and pollution, and how we can do our part in many real, small and big ways, and how the solutions and technologies are already out there.
<Drilled Podcast> This podcast will make you livid, but it will also make you feel less guilty if you feel that way (I used to feel very guilty that we caused climate change). It's about how the oil and plastics industry knew that the climate emergency would happen, then hid the data and did it all anyway. As normal people, none of it is really our fault, it is all government, big corporations and industry.


----------



## LondonDragon (13 Apr 2021)

Indeed, but it will take a collaboration of many governments to make a real change, Greta is a positive message delivered in not a so positive method which sometimes is counterproductive and loses the opportunity (personally I don't like the exploitation she has been put under to deliver that message, hence some mocking, could have been handled a lot differently in a more positive manner).
Politics will always protect large industries and corporations and let them get away with a lot of stuff. But hit hard on the little guys and make an example of them just for public blindness  
Off course a lot of positive things have been done and keep improving, but are they improving fast enough? Can the damage be reversed fast enough! That is the real question! 
My diet for the last few years has been about 70% plant based, some months possibly 90%, but I go into a large supermarkets and find a couple of shelves in the whole store dedicated to plant based food, and over 2-3 years the selection is pretty much the same!


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

shangman said:


> We need Greta, just as we need David Attenborough and everyone else we can possibly get if we are ever to tackle climate change properly.


I personally do not doubt the good intentions of these people and also have no doubt that we need to have a change.

When it comes to climate change and that humanity is the cause and that we can change the outcome of it is very much divided into 2 camps of believers and non-believers. I like to steer away from the rather politically loaded discussions about this. I like to listen to the scientific reasoning of both camps and can only come to one conclusion that I do not know what to believe. And I tend to agnostically lean towards the belief, that we actually can't know... And I probably will not live long enough to find out.

All I can do is hope it all works out for the next generation.

For the rest, I do have a car but only drive <1000 miles a year in a good year. Mainly do everything on my bicycle within a 20-mile radius. I'm never was such a traveller and suffer from homesickness. But that is something a already did before the climate debate. So I do this for my self actually.


----------



## Oldguy (13 Apr 2021)

Not all bad news. The Severn Trent plant in Finham (Coventry) processes over 115 million litres of dirty water a day. Ferments sewage sludge into methane which is burned to make electricity and the digested sludge is used as agricultural fertilizer. The plant has/had the largest storm water holding lagoon in Europe where ALL storm water from the city is fully treated in the plant The discharged water from the plant is sand filtered before entering the receiving water of the River Sowe.

If people would only flush pee, poo and  toilet paper and bin 'other things' then systems in general would work better.


----------



## Tim Harrison (13 Apr 2021)

I'm always a little recalcitrant when I read these sort of  discussions. Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

Further, the worlds cultures are essentially materialistic, it's the way they have developed over millennia and that's fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. Given the choice most folk will place economic interests above those of the environment.

In a post truth era, where emotional response is often considered more influential than objective fact virtue signalling has become the new green currency. Meanwhile, the population continues to grow and the environment continues to degrade with every flush of the toilet.  

_"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people."_ 
Sir David Attenborough Population Matters.


----------



## Nick potts (13 Apr 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> I'm always a little recalcitrant when I read these sort of  discussions. Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.
> 
> Further, the worlds cultures are essentially materialistic, it's the way they have developed over millennia and that's fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. Given the choice most folk will place economic interests above those of the environment.


I 100% agree with you on population, but is a very tricky one to solve, how to you stop a population from increasing? 

You could try China's take with there 1 child rule (which they have changed to a 2 child policy when faced with an aging and declining population), or incentives etc, but it is definitely a tough one.



> It's not our individual consumer choices that make a difference, but our political choices


I don't agree with this, and feel this is part of the problem. When you have people thinking that it is not their choices that make a difference they are unlikely to do anything to change. IMO nothing is going to change without us as individuals changing our habits and priorities

 Industry is powered by our demand for more and more stuff for more and more people.


----------



## Tim Harrison (13 Apr 2021)

Nick potts said:


> But is a very tricky one to solve, how to you stop a


It’s not tricky in that sense. Like most change of this nature it requires political will and perhaps paradoxically faster economic growth of developing nations.  This often leads to the development of progressive  societies, that give women more choice.  When this occurs two things usually happen. One, the birth rate falls dramatically, there’s no longer the need to have big families as insurance against ill health and old age. And two, women become free  to contribute to society in many positive ways that improve the human condition further. Both of which will reduce the negative human impact on the environment.


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.



I'm not so sure about this belief either...  All tho could be...

I forgot his name but not so long ago a mathematician stated in square meters of land there actually is enough room on this planet to give everybody a decent space to live. There is more unpopulated space than there is populated space. People are like Ants ants nesting by the millions almost sitting on each others lap. Producing more than they need resulting in trash piles literally higher than the Taj Mahal rotting away. Then when you have more than you need why would you look at trash to find something useful? Meanwhile, at the other end of the world people have about nothing and are starving.

IMHO the Elephant in the room is more likely to be Greed... And those in power able to do something about it are the ignorant ones having more than they can spend and only wanting more and actually they are providing us with the Elephant that is not really there... The Lighting Rod strategy?

Same as a lot now probably tend to think towards "Oh no, not again Conspiracy Theory!?" Which also is the very same created lighting rod strategy. Just think of it, when you are secretly in cahoots with your dad to buy a nice present for your mom but she must not find out, then what are you doing? It is the simplest form of conspiring and it is as old as humanity is... Conspiring Is in human nature and all around us positively as well negatively all day every day. The other elephant in connotative disguise regarding the negative.

I gave such an elephant in a previous reply... About some corrupt government employee or even maybe a minister which remains to be seen. Giving an Asphalt producer an official permit to dump toxic waste in a public nature reserve. And if this ain't a conspiracy then I do not know what is and what is not. Then if you break all this down to a bottom line then to what conclusion can one come? My conclusion is, we have people working in the government and high placed economic contractors playing with our lives and don't give a sh|t about Public Health. All they care about is quick profit and greed. After all less profit is a loss...

Then in this very same government, we have a school teacher that in mysterious ways became Minister of Public Health propagating a hastily developed vaccine with the statement if you don't want this vaccine you're a public health hazard?

What to believe?


----------



## Tim Harrison (13 Apr 2021)

You ain’t wrong Marcel.  Although neither unsustainable popn. growth nor allowing the wealth of the planet to be concentrated in the hands of the one percent is desirable. Personally, I’m a fan of the Nordic Model. Although, like any system it’s not without its environmental challenges.


----------



## Nick potts (13 Apr 2021)

zozo said:


> I'm not so sure about this belief either...  All tho could be...
> 
> I forgot his name but not so long ago a mathematician stated in square meters of land there actually is enough room on this planet to give everybody a decent space to live.



Space isn't so much the issue, it's more about the amount of resources we use and therefor waste we create, a lot of which is on totally luxury and throw away items. 

We already produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population according to the UN, fortunately the majority goes to feed animals or biofuels rather than help poor countries become the kind of places Tim mentions above.
But as you say, it all comes down to money and greed in the end.



Tim Harrison said:


> It’s not tricky in that sense. Like most change of this nature it requires political will and perhaps paradoxically faster economic growth of developing nations.  This often leads to the development of progressive  societies, that give women more choice.  When this occurs two things usually happen. One, the birth rate falls dramatically, there’s no longer the need to have big families as insurance against ill health and old age, and two, women become free  to contribute to society in many positive ways that improve the human condition further. Both of which will reduce the negative human impact on the environment.



I did read a few interesting articles on this a while back, it's all very interesting and the main point was as you said, in many developed countries with equal rights etc, population growth had slowed or levelled out where as it was still growing in developing nations.


----------



## zozo (13 Apr 2021)

A question...

What are you willing to give (away) to make all these issues go away?

Look around you and look at what you actually don't really need... And think about why do you actually have it?

I guess you are the same as me... Lucky to be born where you are born and have what you have...


----------



## shangman (13 Apr 2021)

Nick potts said:


> I don't agree with this, and feel this is part of the problem. When you have people thinking that it is not their choices that make a difference they are unlikely to do anything to change. IMO nothing is going to change without us as individuals changing our habits and priorities
> 
> Industry is powered by our demand for more and more stuff for more and more people.


I think I wrote this a bit wrong (sorry dyspraxic/dyslexic with disorganised thoughts), what you said isn't disagreeing with my sentiment, you missed off a bit which clarified "_our choices of who to work for and how to work, our voices_*, what we do with our lives"*, I didn't say all choices, but specifically CONSUMER choices, what we buy isn't our whole lives. I mentioned it because I've been reading a lot about climate change and what we as people can do about it lately so was maybe giving too much of an elaboration which isn't needed here.

Another part of what I mean is though, that we as individual consumers in the supply/demand don't matter nearly as much as we think compared to industry, it simply isn't a 50/50 split - the drivers of climate change are overwhelmingly big industry + the governments who turn a blind eye. This shift of blame is a documented tactic of the oil industry to pin climate change on us "the people", rather than them, and now a lot of us feel really guilty and apathetic, when we should be angry that they destroyed it, and turn that angry into legislative action. <When exon mobile realised in the 1970s that this would happen, they had the ability to stop and change to developing renewable energy, and spread the news of what climate change could become. They didn't stop, and hid the evidence so they could carry on.> Supply and demand are extremely wonky when industries are so large - look at the way world-wide agriculture relies on subsidies, or the way that OPEC control oil. Or think of fashion, the industry I am part of, where every big fast fashion company, and many luxury ones often too, massively overproduce clothes (which incidentally are dyed with chemicals which are released into waterways completely eradicating any life in and around them), not because they will sell, but because the price is cheaper if you produce as many as possible, then they burn or bury the extra. So basically, let's regulate the hell out of them all! 

I definitely think there is something in the overpopulation theory, we are just like all organisms that go through population booms and busts, consuming all resources until we can't anymore and the population naturally shrinks... but idk, we're the first animals to understand that we're doing it in real time, and we have paths to do something about it, it would be nice if we could at least attempt to be better together.


----------



## Tim Harrison (13 Apr 2021)

The debate regarding climate change is somewhat polarised. Neither extreme is particularly helpful. The media have fuelled a global hysteria fanning the flames of moral panic; fear is a marketable commodity, and a form of control. Something many scientists and commentators and governments are very aware of.

Apocalyptic claims about climate change are almost certainly wrong. And that’s perhaps the crux of the biggest paradox. If the trillions of dollars spent on  researching and inventing new and interesting ways of combating climate change where used to tackle social inequality, poverty, war, famine, oppression. etc, popn. growth would decline and our environmental problems would all become far easier to solve.

Either way don’t panic, everything will be fine, ‘cause there’s a poodle in Wandsworth that can tap dance...


----------



## John q (13 Apr 2021)

Really interesting, thought provoking discussion, to all involved.



zozo said:


> question...
> 
> What are you willing to give (away) to make all these issues go away?



For me this pretty much sums up the whole thread, be it waterway pollution or climate change.

A few summers ago when Greta was doing her thing I had some rather in depth discussions with my eldest daughter and I asked her what she was prepared to give up to help facilitate the change she craved. 
Was she prepared to give up the convinient wipes that removed her make up, which coincidentally were probably made of or produced using various toxic chemicals, could she manage without the latest iPhone, those snasy Nike trainers, the laptop, those colourful clothes in the wardrobe, the car sat on the drive, how about stay cations in England rather than that week in ibiza? The answer I got back was "why, it won't change anything"

Well if we the people want change, it is believe it or not within our grasp, but we really have to want it, and be prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve it. 
The oil companies only supply oil because we the people consume it.
The plastic companies only produce plastic because we the people demand it.
The earth is mined for its precious minerals because you guessed it "we the people" want it.

I don't blame the multinational companies or the politicians for the mess we're in, I blame ourselves and I firmly believe we all have a part to play in fixing it, if that's what we really desire.

I'm unashamedly happy with my lot and won't be walking or cycling the 12 miles to work every day to save the planet.


----------



## dsandson (13 Apr 2021)

Interesting discussion. I'm a civil engineer by trade, and do work for water utilities. That has lessened over the last while but that's just a business thing.
I work for a consultancy but see lots of what happens. Many of the thoughts so far have been over population or a lack of respect of nature.

In my experience the utilities do a pretty good job (however we have a publicly owned water company here so perhaps we're luckier than England). Some of the big issues are legacy. These companies have a massive network. In an urban setting these networks are at their core made up of Victorian era pipes. The problem is not necessarily age, but design. As these networks were built to take all the water, including rain water. The problem is that the pipes have to be oversized, and the pumping stations and treatment works struggle to cope with vast swings in flow. Essentially perfectly clean water is mixed with raw sewage. Sounds crazy but the costs to separate out an entire city is well beyond the best funded utility.

Another issue is the nature of treating water. Old techniques were low tech, and often electrify free. But not high quality. Now to meet the ever increasing standards (from the Water Framework Directive - EU regulations which are still in UK law) generally needs more equipment and often lots of electricity. I believe in NI and Scotland the water companies are the largest single users of electricity. But the new plants are quite remarkable.

Some of the discharges are largely to avoid out if sewer flooding (ie. It might run into your business or house). The second could be argued it's to protect the treatment works themselves. They can't flood, or all the non-submersible electrics will try. And that's not sustainable. A works out if action for months will pollute many many times more than a 2 hour spill. Another aspect is there is a land and economic limit on the construction of storage facilities. A finite overall capital budget has to be spent to best enhance the overall network, not just one facility.

That might seem like an odd way of using the sustainability term, but sustainability triangle is defined as environment, social and economic. It can't be justified to trash a hugely expensive asset just to protect a watercourse once. To be fair there's plenty of ways of looking at sustainability, but it really has to be balanced.

You don't get into this business to pollute. And in fact the vast majority of work we'd do is to design or manage upgrades. Just at the weekend I saw an article about a project I worked on a few years ago. Turns out it's been constructed and is operating now. This was a multi million pound project to eliminate out of sewer flooding near an area in a river flood plain. The river authority rightly wouldn't let a new overflow discharge to be created. So storing the water was the only solution. The sewer causing the flooding weren't massive ... Less than a foot diameter. In the end to get the volume of storage a 15m diameter tank had to be sunk 8m into the ground. New pumps and control equipment to return the stored water at a safe rate. A massive job for storing what in the grand scheme of things was not a lot of water.

Just thought the other side of the coin was a useful counter balance.


----------



## Nick potts (13 Apr 2021)

shangman said:


> I think I wrote this a bit wrong (sorry dyspraxic/dyslexic with disorganised thoughts), what you said isn't disagreeing with my sentiment, you missed off a bit which clarified "_our choices of who to work for and how to work, our voices_*, what we do with our lives"*, I didn't say all choices, but specifically CONSUMER choices, what we buy isn't our whole lives.
> 
> I definitely think there is something in the overpopulation theory, we are just like all organisms that go through population booms and busts, consuming all resources until we can't anymore and the population naturally shrinks... but idk, we're the first animals to understand that we're doing it in real time, and we have paths to do something about it, it would be nice if we could at least attempt to be better together.


I fully agree, big business and industry should be held accountable as well

With regards to population booms and busts. This is how most natural ecosystems work, populations rise until they reach a level that is sustainable, whether that be based on food availability or territory etc.

Humans are the only species that have ever been able to radically alter the environment to suit our needs, food and territory are not really limiting factors in our population growth so we just keep going.


----------



## Tim Harrison (14 Apr 2021)




----------



## PARAGUAY (14 Apr 2021)

I rather like Sir David Attenboroughs talk with Greta he apologies for what we have left her generation. My 14 years old grandaughter is a great suppoerter of Greta and its all the familys fault. We encourged her to have an interest in the outdoors and the natural world from a toddler She has a fish tank in her room when she stays over. Think l am a big fan of Greta through her. Not many politicans can be trusted on the planet and climate debate.


----------



## Wookii (14 Apr 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


>




Really interesting discussion guys - but I think the above Matrix clip pretty much sums up the human condition pretty well, and I think the problem really is the human condition. 

We are a net consumer of resources, it is a completely ingrained in the primitive human psychology to want, acquire and consume more, and better, no matter what that is, and no matter the costs (to society, and the environment etc) that do not directly impact on us. It is so deeply part of our culture and mental construct that we simply cannot break away from it in any significant and meaningful way. 

It is only when the impact of those costs of consumption impact us directly that we push for change, either societal or technological, to eliminate them. None of us are willing to take the necessarily large steps as individuals to mitigate those societal and environmental costs in advance of their effect on us. 

Depressing as it may be, I can't help but think that in the long term, like any successful virus (net consumer of resources), we are ultimately doomed to be the victim of own success  . . . it is an inevitability Mr Anderson.


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

John q said:


> The oil companies only supply oil because we the people consume it.
> The plastic companies only produce plastic because we the people demand it.
> The earth is mined for its precious minerals because you guessed it "we the people" want it.
> 
> I don't blame the multinational companies or the politicians for the mess we're in, I blame ourselves and I firmly believe we all have a part to play in fixing it, if that's what we really desire.


Not entirely correct...  I don't know your age and I can understand that the generation that never seen it differently believe this is how it needs to be because people demand it and that we kinda living a self fulfilling prophecy...

But those who can look 40 years back in time, to the days that each neighbourhood had its own grocery store, butcher and countless other little stores each providing the neighbourhood with its specific expertise, hardware, toys, household products name it, we had it. If you were missing one screw, there was always a shop to find in a 5-mile radius to buy that one needed screw. There were very few plastic bags and boxes but they had paper bags if you happen to forget your own bag. The butcher, fruits and vegetable shop, the snack bar and the grocery store wrapped your order into old newspapers. The old day supermarket had an in-house real-time Butcher and not a cooler full of plastic packet ready-cut meat.

There was nobody in the world yelling we want it plastic... I remember everybody happy and a lot of people turned a good sandwich with their small shops all over the place.

Then the big companies came raging a price war with the small shop owners and competing them all to damnation. And by the time the big supermarket and hardware companies etc. had achieved their desired monopoly, the packaging industry started making millions as well.

About one thing I agree, laziness is a natural-born habit for all living organisms thus also for us... Our society thrives on the rather lazy than tired concept. And this is a very convenient human feature for creating monopolies.

But I rather believe it's a matter of education and upbringing with an artificially created demand and the people unknowingly and conveniently got slowly sucked into an abyss that knows no turning back. Too many people have too much than they really need...

@Tim Harrison I actually like your Elephant very much... Thinking of it i see them all over the place and we seem to have a complete herd we don't see.


----------



## John q (14 Apr 2021)

Haha yes I remember the good old days, I'm almost 50.

Agree with all your points about the big companies forcing out the little guys, but again this is capitalism and people have the option to shop local, but they choose not to.


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

John q said:


> people have the option to shop local, but they choose not to



That's indeed the best politically correct answer... We present you an XXXL shop and you may choose where to go.

Same as with the food industry, nobody is forcing you to eat the good tasting greasy crap we hold in front of your nose.
Thus being healthy is your own choice and the food industry washes its hands in innocence...


----------



## Tim Harrison (14 Apr 2021)

Wookii said:


> We are a net consumer of resources, it is a completely ingrained in the primitive human psychology to want, acquire and consume more, and better, no matter what that is, and no matter the costs (to society, and the environment etc) that do not directly impact on us. It is so deeply part of our culture and mental construct that we simply cannot break away from it in any significant and meaningful way.


I think a condition of becoming a politician should be to have several shaman guided Ayahuasca experiences. It might shift their perception from the material to the spiritual, and then they may pay more attention to what's really important 😁🌳🌿


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

Watch this if you haven't yet...













						Thank You for Smoking (2005) - IMDb
					

Thank You for Smoking: Directed by Jason Reitman. With Joan Lunden, Eric Haberman, Aaron Eckhart, Mary Jo Smith. Satirical comedy follows the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who spins on behalf of cigarettes while trying to remain a role model for his 12-year old son.




					www.imdb.com


----------



## Wookii (14 Apr 2021)

zozo said:


> That's indeed the best politically correct answer... We present you an XXXL shop and you may choose where to go.
> 
> Same as with the food industry, nobody is forcing you to eat the good tasting greasy crap we hold in front of your nose.
> Thus being healthy is your own choice and the food industry washes its hands in innocence...



I don't think its just the politically correct answer, I think it is the only real answer. All supply is driven by demand, period - if the demand is there, and there is sufficient profit available, then ultimately supply will follow. If something occurs to negatively affect the demand, the supply will vanish also - but it has to affect the demand of the individual directly.

We buy the greasy crap because its cheaper than the healthy alternatives, and eat it because it tastes better than the healthy alternatives. It comes back to the point I was making above, we are inherently driven to consume more and better - in this example more quantity, and better taste, and we ignore the costs to our health and to society because those 'costs' don't personally affect us immediately and directly. By the time we develop the cancers and heart disease the consumption has already long since happened, though at that point we likely cease the consumption because the direct impact of the 'costs' to us as individuals become too large and significant (i.e. poor health or imminent death).

Had the greasy crap caused cancerous lumps to appear on swallowing the last mouthful we'd likely never buy it again, and the demand would vanish as would the supply.

Obviously I'm consciously dodging the moral point you are making on the responsibility of those providing the 'supply', or those who might be able to legislate against them, but ultimately each individual _has_ to be responsible for their own demand and the consumption in the fulfilment of that demand.


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

Wookii said:


> I don't think its just the politically correct answer, I think it is the only real answer.



Yes and No...  The industry and if they fail to do this the government needs to take action and responsibility...

I can give a simple example named "Margarine" look up it's history i bet very few people know about its true origin.

In a nutshell, it's a French invention from the Napoleonic war era... Because of the war, there was a major food supply shortage for the military. Back in those days bread, butter and milk were somewhat essential... But there was little and even less butter available. Napoleon asked a Chemist if he could come up with a solution. And this guy hustled a bit of all kind of cheap readily available waste product greasy stuff, water, emulsifiers and colour agents together and found a way to make it look like and taste somewhat like butter. And so be it, Margarine was born. And the army had a full belly feeling again. After the war, it was discarded and the recipe ended up in the archives not to be seen anymore.

If you ever come to France, hop into a shop and ask for Margarine. You will not find it and everybody you ask about it will lift their nose and give you the advice that you should not eat this nasty crap...

But there happened to be a few smart Dutch guys that found out about this recipe and smelled a profit and they bought the patent. Went back home and started producing Margarine... This crap became known as Poor men's Planta butter and it was advertised as Very healthy vegetable origin butter for not 1 penny too much. It literally was everywhere, in every magazine and newspaper, on the television day in day out... "Why does what the Bakker makes tastes so good? It can only be Margarine."

Nobody knew what it only knows it is allegedly from vegetable and it's cheap and it looks like butter... And what do you do? In good faith, you buy it and eat it... The producers started putting in all kinds of crap to keep up with the demand. Till the 1960's they did put some emulsifiers in it that proofed to be a tad bad. 4 people died, 1000nds got sick with fever and skin rash etc. 100ds of people ended up in the hospital before finally was determined it was the Margarine.

Sorry! Better next time... Not even a slap on the wrist... It was forgotten again not long after...

You know who this was and what happened to them? They still are selling it today all over Darn Healthy as is and for not 1 Penny too much, except still not in France.

It all started with Mr Lever and the Margarine Union buying the patent... One day having enough of competing each other they decided it's best to cooperate and founded Unilever.

This is nowadays one of the worlds biggest multinationals in the food industry and affiliated. Healthy Margarine made it all happen. So powerfull and darn filthy rich you won't believe it... They could buy countries if they not done this already.

Unfortunately, I can not find an international article about their unfortunate Planta (Margarine) Affair... Guess why that is?
They rather don't want the whole world to know...

Yes, people have a demand, but no responsibility about how food is made and what is in it. And it could be me, I've never noticed a label on a package saying "This is Unhealthy - Eat at own risk!"

Your statement about that only real answer makes everybody stupid and Unilever very smart... And with that, I disagree sincerely. There is a big difference in smart and being totally unscrupulous... And that's what they actually really are but don't want us to know.


----------



## John q (14 Apr 2021)

zozo said:


> Unfortunately, I can not find an international article about their unfortunate Planta (Margarine) Affair...


Luckily I can 😃








						The Planta Disease: how product reformulation went terribly wrong
					

In August 1960, multinational food company Unilever introduced a reformulated version of its margarine Planta to the Netherlands. On pack, a red label bore the word “renewed” and consumers were pro…




					robgraywriter-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org
				




And if you're really bored.








						The Planta food scare
					

This article considers the Planta food scare that gripped the Netherlands in 1960. A new synthetic emulsifier had been added to a brand of margarine—called “Planta”—and a large number of people became seriously ill. The article uses the food scare as



					www.academia.edu


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

John q said:


> Luckily I can 😃
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice find, didn't know it was out there as a disease...  It's more like poisoning...

Pretty recently published also...


> Undeterred, Bosman dug deeper. Under Dutch law, there is a closed period of 50 years for files relating to public figures. Reports held under lock and key for decades are made available after half a century under freedom of information rules.


Good, it's out there now...  But something like this "Law" should ring a bell also... One could wonder who has the money and power to create such a law and for what? That such a law even exists is already criminal... What they deserve is being chased out in pitch and feathers. Instead, pay a few million, duck for the mud flying around for a while and we make it go away and you get protected for half a century. Go figure...


----------



## Wookii (14 Apr 2021)

zozo said:


> Yes and No...  The industry and if they fail to do this the government needs to take action and responsibility...
> 
> I can give a simple example named "Margarine" look up it's history i bet very few people know about its true origin.
> 
> ...



I don't want to get into to much of a bum fight on specifics, as I was talking in very general terms, but just to mention that margarine is widely available and extensively used in France. One of the leading brands is indeed Planta Finn made by Unilever:




I obviously don't disagree in situations where sufficient information isn't available to the individual, or indeed where individuals are outright lied to about product, then correct objective decisions aren't possible - and in your example where deaths and illness occurred then the suppliers should definitely be held to account. I don't think anyone would argue any differently.

Yet, your example supports precisely what I was saying. We have access to this historic information on margarine. Even if the specific story of the deaths you refer to isn't widely known, the inclusion of trans fatty acids in margarine have been widely covered in the media, and most all consumers will know that margarine (or indeed butter) is not a healthy product to consume, on some conscious level. But still it sells by the tonne on a daily basis. Why? Because its cheaper than non-margarine alternatives (generally), and I guess some people prefer the taste (though personally I think its awful stuff). The product exists because people, individuals, generate demand for it - even in light of the information that exists about the product, and that is because these wider 'costs' to the individuals health, and to society, aren't immediately obvious nor felt at the point of purchase and consumption. That doesn't necessarily make consumers of margarine stupid and Unilever smart - though it could certainly be interpreted that way - but there can be no denying that the consumers of the product are making a conscious decision driven by their own demand to consume more.

Perhaps products should have more warnings on them - certainly most products in the UK have to show a list of their contents - and there is now  traffic light system on foods with red to indicate high salt, fat or sugar content - but as has been proven with smoking, even having pictures of a rotting lung or cancer victim on the packet does little to affect demand, simply because the 'cost' (health, social), isn't instantly felt by the individual consumer of cigarettes at their point of consumption.

They (we) all buy these things because of our inbuilt innate desire to consume more resources - it's why we buy a cheaper items of lower quality or with known risks, so we can consume more of something else instead, be that 'more' food on the family shop, or the 'more' being the family foreign holiday being saved for, or 'more' being the next fish tank.

It is also why we go to the supermarket rather than 5 local grocery shops because it is cheaper, and doing so allows us to consume more resources - we save money on the shop to spend on other consumption, and because it takes us two hours instead of all day, we have more time (the ultimate commodity) to consume even more things.


----------



## zozo (14 Apr 2021)

Wookii said:


> extensively used in France. One of the leading brands is indeed Planta Finn


I'll be darned even the French fell for it? Unbelievable... How disappointing!!.. We are seriously doomed... 

I always like to look at both sides of the coin... Regarding smoking and other so-called legal drugs-related products making people addicted. Also has a history of hush the truth and sell... And now all that is addicted is to blame that a picture of a rotting long doesn't have enough impact. And the producers are yet so powerful keeping up with the demand that all we can try to do to stop them is turning cigarette packages into a silly quartets game.

The first guy ever caught smoking in Europe was some innocent Portuguese sailor, he got dragged before the Bishop to show it to him... The bishop said he is possessed by the devil burn him at the stakes. A decade or so later and high placed admiral or something Jean Nicotte I believe (Hence Nicotine) was his name and he gave it alleged medical properties and BAM! even the Bishop was caught smoking after that... They burned the wrong fellow!... But indeed it always easier to burn innocents...


----------



## LondonDragon (15 Apr 2021)

just bumped into this today:









						Just 3% of world’s ecosystems remain intact, study suggests
					

Pristine areas in the Amazon and Siberia may expand with animal reintroductions, scientists say




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Apr 2021)

Nice article. Essentially, it's about rewilding. It's really only possible in large tracts of land that are relatively uninhabitated by humans. So these remote areas only populated by indigenous peoples would be ideal.

There have been experiments in Scotland with reintroduction of keystone species like the Eurasian beaver, which has greatly improved the health and functioning of river catchments. The reintroduction of Eurasian lynx to Scotland has been proposed as well. However for the most part, on a relatively heavily populated island, there is often huge resistance especially from land owners and livestock farmers.

I'm not sure there are any pristine habitats left. Regarding the Amazon Rainforest at least, recent research suggests it's far from a vast natural wilderness. More likely a vast garden, the product of over 8k yrs of indigenous agriculture. - The Amazon Rainforest Was Profoundly Changed by Ancient Humans.

These gardens were needed to feed populations of millions that inhabited huge cities, which have recently been discovered as a result of deforestation and using lidar or light detection and ranging to penetrate the dense rainforest - Myth of pristine Amazon rainforest busted as old cities reappear. These populations were wiped out by small pox carried by the Spanish conquistadors.


----------



## PARAGUAY (15 Apr 2021)

Theres a good example of the barriers we face in trying to reverse whats happening to the planet. Politicans and people in high places lobbying parliaments and goverments for finanancial commercial gain and its in the uk just now and l am just hoping some of those exPrime Ministers and ministers are forced to be scrutanised. This is going on all the time whether oil companys wanting to exploit the seas or mining companys trying to convince us through political favour theres good reason ramroad their way into a rain forest or a protected habits
                 The series Mad Men set in wealthy USA in the 50s and 60s is so true sadly to this. When the big tobbacco companys were reeling after scientists exposed the link between lung cancer and cigarettes the ad men set about a sucessful ad campaign. The Don Draper line " we only use the finest tobacco there is" was fiction but based on the truth


----------



## not called Bob (15 Apr 2021)

With the Netflix film a lot is old news and some data that's been redacted, 'Seaspiracy' fact check: An expert debunks the controversial Netflix doc is a interesting take on it. Having worked in Fisheries, its probably the most cruel method of getting meat going, none to the welfare rules of killing say a cow or sheep or the stocking limits. 

If your business is Jo's waste water, it makes sense if your paying a dumping fine based not on volume but on event to not just dump the 1000 cubes of waste water, but hell divert a few 1m cubes and save all that hassle and cost, as that's the way the rules and laws have been written, so it's just using the loopholes. Not great for man or beast unless your a shareholder.


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Apr 2021)

I think it's hard to explain how the system really works without sounding like a conspiracy nut. But democratically elected governments don't get a free ride to run the country according to political ideals even if they wanted to.

The lobbying  power of major corporations and billionaires is huge, and unfortunately the revolving door of influence is a harsh political and economic reality, as is the military industrial complex; which incidentally isn't just a US thing.

The reality is that the politicians we elect don't really consider us muggles as their constituents but rather as disenfranchised consumers or passive beneficiaries of externally influenced policy. Their real constituents are the wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations that have the ability to consolidate their own political power base in return for special favours, and low regulation.

Unfortunately, the interest of constituents and consumers aren't very often aligned that well, and corporations etc will often benefit at the expense of the electorate, and the environment. It's unlikely anything will change significantly in our's, or even our grandchildren's lifetime despite tougher environmental legislation.

The cost and responsibility is just transferred to the consumer through higher prices and taxes. In the case of energy companies, for example, profits continue to rise at the expense of consumers, despite lower crude prices. As a result, increasing numbers of folk experience fuel poverty. The cynical response is to issue households with digital metres, it then becomes our fault for flagrant waste, racking up huge bills, and destroying the environment.


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Apr 2021)

I'm in a contentious mood so whilst I'm on a role I thought I'd relate something that's connected to the above post but perhaps has more to do with the OP.  I was asked recently what I thought of the WWF report - The World's Forgotten Fisheries. My response was that I approach anything the WWF et. al. have their sticky fingers on with a degree of educated scepticism.

So many of these multinational organisations exist to make money for their own sake and to promote agendas that aren't perhaps as altruistic, or make as much sense, as it might at first appear. Their modus operandi is ofen to try and shock folk in to parting with their hard earned cash by commissioning sensationalist reports like this one. It's a form of extortion through emotional blackmail, and in our current woke culture it's a very effective strategy.

The big problem is that very little of the money folk donate to these organisations is spent on tackling the root cause of the problem, most is spent on treating the symptoms and the rest on maintaining the organisation's  operation. So they make very little difference in the end. I've been reading reports like this since I first became a research ecologist specialising in wetalnds over 25 years ago.

But to be fair conservation organisations are often forced to operate within a very narrow remit since they are limited by the political will of governments that are trying to balance all sorts of issues that contribute to a viable and growing economy. So obviously there is a conflict of interests there.

So often the government's answer is to greenlight projects that appear to be bottom up green initiatives but in reality know won't interfere with economic growth. In the spirit of democracy they are contrived to involve all stakeholders, including business and big corporations, not just conservation NGOs and altruistic members of the public. It doesn't take a genius to workout the various agendas will never align.

So, the stakeholders end up  pulling in completely different directions, and surprise surprise, nothing meaningful is ever achieved. This suits government perfectly, it gives the impression it's working toward whatever global summit it was it signed up to, whilst knowing full well most stakeholders will place economic interests above conservation interests every time. Once again politicians dodge responsibility for the environment by handing it back to the public. It's a paradox of devolution...

For instance, the Catchment Based Approach is just one such "community led" initiative that clearly doesn't work and probably never will otherwise the WWF wouldn't feel the need to issue their report. In fact the entire conservation paradigm doesn't work and hasn't for many decades. I'm sure we'll be reading the same WWF report in another 25 years time. So even if it's accurate, which I doubt, nothing they do will make any difference at all in the long run.


----------



## John q (15 Apr 2021)

How do you follow on from those excellent posts by Tim? 👏.
I know copy and paste jobby.

NFU Cymru response to original panorama article.

*NFU Cymru has written to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to express its concerns after a Panorama investigation uncovered alleged illegal dumping of untreated sewage in Welsh rivers.*

The Panorama ‘River pollution scandal’ aired on Monday 12th April and appeared to show untreated sewage being illegally discharged into protected rivers in England and Wales, including the River Usk.

NFU Cymru says the broadcast has caused ‘great concern’ among Welsh farmers, who just two weeks ago were severely burdened with ‘indiscriminate and punitive’ measures as part of Welsh Government’s new all-Wales NVZ regulations aimed at improving water quality in Wales.

The union is asking that Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) carry out a full investigation into the findings of the Panorama documentary, in order to assure farmers that ‘agriculture has not been held accountable for the pollution caused from other sources, particularly sewage treatment works’.

*NFU Cymru President John Davies said:* “NFU Cymru has long highlighted that there are a range of factors influencing water quality in Wales. The evidence is clear that a sole focus on agriculture through the introduction of regulatory measures to tackle agricultural pollution will not deliver Water Framework Directive objectives, yet we have observed a false and flawed narrative developing in recent years that frames agriculture as ‘the problem’ with respect to water quality issues in Wales.

NFU Cymru seeking confirmation on actions being taken by Welsh Government​“In light of the evidence uncovered by the Panorama programme, NFU Cymru is seeking confirmation on what actions are being taken by government and the regulator to stop these illegal practices. We also ask what investigations are being undertaken to understand if and where else within Wales similar illegal practices are or have taken place.”

As part of its letter, the union has also urged that any potential contribution that discharges are making to phosphate levels in the River Usk is accurately accounted for.


I'm assuming this is to add weight to their current legal objection against certain parts of agricultural act.









						Position statement: Water quality
					

NFU Cymru has received notification that the union’s application for permission to judicially review Welsh Government’s decision to introduce water quality regulations




					www.nfu-cymru.org.uk


----------



## sparkyweasel (15 Apr 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> The big problem is that very little of the money folk donate to these organisations is spent on tackling the root cause of the problem,


If they did that, they would put themselves out of business.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (15 Apr 2021)

In a similar vein I happened to stumble across a study by Lancaster University one day while searching for aquarium related po4 things. It would appear that the environment is getting the s**t end of the stick regardless whether the water is going in one end or coming out the other. Because so much of our drinking water (approx 25%) gets wasted through leaking pipes and we load it with PO4 to prevent lead poisoning this PO4 inevitably makes its way into ecosystems causing eutrophication.

The farmers have been blamed for this for many years but now they can differentiate between the source of the PO4 it appears the water companies who monitor the farms also have a lot to answer to. <Link to it here>


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Apr 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> If they did that, they would put themselves out of business.


I guess it depends on what exactly is considered a symptom vs a root cause? For me the root cause is unsustainable population growth and perhaps a flawed system of government, not so much a democracy as a corporatocracy.


----------



## John q (15 Apr 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> The farmers have been blamed for this for many years but now they can differentiate between the source of the PO4 it appears the water companies who monitor the farms also have a lot to answer to



I read the linked article and also the paper that the article refers to but couldn't quite work out what percentage of the PO4 loading entering waste treatment plants is attributed to inclusion in tap water. At the beginning of the paper it says its estimated at 6%, but then figures of 12~20% are mentioned.
Truth is the paper is probably above my pay scale but I did mange to work out the isotope they identified as being unique to tap water was δ¹⁸OPO4.

So I asked myself a question and wondered if they could identify this isotope in river water?
Another search and another paper suggests they can't reliably identify it due to the rivers microbial cycling rapidly removing any original source of δ¹⁸OPO4 values.

Above mentioned papers if anyone is remotely interested.



			https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b01137
		










						The oxygen isotopic composition of phosphate in river water and its potential sources in the Upper River Taw catchment, UK
					

The need to reduce both point and diffuse phosphorus pollution to aquatic ecosystems is widely recognised and in order to achieve this, identification…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## Karmicnull (15 Apr 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> I approach anything the WWF et. al. have their sticky fingers on with a degree of educated scepticism.


Which begs the question - if you do want to support a charity in this space, how do you judge which one is best to invest in?  Whilst I want any donation I make to be as effective as possible,  in the absence of any data beyond what a relatively surface web search reveals, I'd rather support something than nothing.  I tend to think along the three axes of (1) are they taking the right approach? (2) is a decent proportion of each dollar donated actually making it to the coal face? and (3) is the org big enough to have a material effect?  But without doing a ton of research, the info available to assess those criteria is sketchy at best.


----------



## PARAGUAY (15 Apr 2021)

My son when he lived at home gave to a few animal charities l think one was . He had moved on new girlfriend and all and when l said about he had letters donations not recieved and then phone calls he said he was dropping support for now but maybe later donating again. I was a bit taken back by the forcefulness of phonecalls which appeared to be out of private companys working for the charity in question.
                         So l do agree some have lost their way and how much donation actually gets to what we want it to get to? 
                      It felt like make you feel guilty for not donating but only so many charitys you can help and an office full of paid canvassers ?


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Apr 2021)

Karmicnull said:


> Which begs the question - if you do want to support a charity in this space, how do you judge which one is best to invest in?  Whilst I want any donation I make to be as effective as possible,  in the absence of any data beyond what a relatively surface web search reveals, I'd rather support something than nothing.  I tend to think along the three axes of (1) are they taking the right approach? (2) is a decent proportion of each dollar donated actually making it to the coal face? and (3) is the org big enough to have a material effect?  But without doing a ton of research, the info available to assess those criteria is sketchy at best.


It’s entirely an individual choice. As is how well informed an individual chooses to be about the world in which they live.

I’m not advocating the support of any one charity but what Population Matters have to say about environmental issues might interest some folk.


----------



## PARAGUAY (16 Apr 2021)

Its a bit of a problem which charity .? My own way of this is to pick one or two and give a small amount. Border Collie Rescue is one of mine because a lot of my own dogs have been that. The present one is 10 year old and a real handful and l know why so many get rehomed People get them often for looks cute without research. Also to Cancer Search. My daughter fund raises for Maggies. Thats a good way as sponsership doesnt impact on your finances and she seems to have a lot of fun. Back to politics. Goverment Overseas Aid (UK)aid we all give to that in one respect but corruption is a constant threat and why do rich or unethical regimes get this? Incidently anyone who shps a pets at home can get a VIP card a percentage of any purchase goes to your chosen charity. Tryingbto keep a bit positive its a complicated world we live in


----------



## zozo (16 Apr 2021)

Greenpeace headquarters Hamburg





Greenpeace headquarters Amsterdam




And they have 26 other regional offices worldwide.

Amsterdam is good for a €100.000, maintenance cost p/y and not so very long ago the completely refurbished this office for a several 100.000 extra with a completely new Interieur...

Not to mention the salaries paid, the Amsterdam Greenpeace director alone gets € 6075 net. p/m that is about € 11716 p/m without tax etc. That makes € 152.308 p/y. And when he's asked about it, his argument is what are you nagging about this is a drop on a hot plate compared to the average director's salary.


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Apr 2021)

That’s pretty much it Marcel. But most of these multinational NGOs refuse to engage in conversations about unsustainable popn.  growth and the role of big corporations in government because they left their counter culture begings behind long ago and are now part of the establishment. And they would loose donors.


----------



## zozo (16 Apr 2021)

Yup they are and why and how it points to the obvious and all follow a pre-written scenario that won't bite the hand that feeds it... Making any suggestions about what the obvious is put down as you said before, conspiracy idiocy...

"Divide et Impera" an ancient strategy still very much in play today, it was never gone since the day it was first described... Especially in times of crisis, it's evidently present... Look around what's happening now, dividing with a blunt axe... And they are not even ashamed to show the jet-set having parties and conferences almost sitting on each other lap breathing down each others neck. 

Our very own minister of justice publically made a statement, Not abiding by the rules of social distancing etc. Is Irresponsible ad utterly antisocial behaviour and we will strongly respond with high fines and a criminal record... Not long after he was caught having a private party and pictures leaked out. At least 40 people standing shoulder to shoulder dancing, kissing and hugging each other.

Do you know what happened? He got away with a crocodile tear and a speech that he's only human too and very sorry for the mistake. He paid a €450 donation to the red cross. The parliament majority voted him still on with confidence and he's still on today... 

I'm not even going to try to explain what is so utterly wrong with this... The ones too blind to see are beyond help anyway...

Imho it was a don't bite the hand that feeds you vote... Somebody far away out of sight is pulling strings.

This show must go on... And I'm not saying nothing is going on...


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (16 Apr 2021)

zozo said:


> Not to mention the salaries paid, the Amsterdam Greenpeace director alone gets € 6075 net. p/m that is about € 11716 p/m without tax etc. That makes € 152.308 p/y. And when he's asked about it, his argument is what are you nagging about this is a drop on a hot plate compared to the average director's salary.


There was a similar situation going viral not so long ago regarding Children in Need. people wrongly assume that it is ran by the BBC but it is in fact a seperate company that uses the BBC as its platform. They were heavily criticised for spending millions on their HQ, the Director was getting 120K per year and the average salary of the employees was 42K (The national average being 25k) Wage bills had ran into millions. They were also questioned about the 90million in assets and investments which they were paying fund managers to keep control of.
No doubt it has done a lot of good work so I'm not cliticising that.


----------



## PARAGUAY (17 Apr 2021)

I know the Green Partys in Europe are strong and in the UK they used to be a good choice for a protest vote against establishment partys At one  time they were a good way of example protesting against all what is said above. Now they spend most of their time berating you for your democratic right to have your choice in referendums as e.g  and issues nothing to do with their original aims. I thought they might be the saviours of Rural Britain, Climate Change ,the Green Belt and so on. It seems now they taken these irons out of the fire and attempting to be mainstream .They have one MP in the UK that says it all


----------

