You may like to sign a petition to prohibit the use of recycled sewerage effluent for drinking purposes:
CURRENT E-PETITION
Subject:
Prohibit the use of recycled sewerage effluent for drinking purposes
Eligibility:
Queensland Citizens
Sponsoring Member:
Ray Stevens MP
Principal Petitioner:
Dahl Cummins
PO Box 763
BROADBEACH QLD 4218
Posting Date:
22/10/2008
Closing Date:
22/04/2009
>>> Go here:
www.parliament.qld.gov.au/sitecore/service/notfound.aspx?item=%2fview%2fepetitions_qld%2fcurrentepetition&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=website
if you think about it, recycled water from the technology they are using is much cleaner then the water in dams, not to mention, water is recycled eventually anyway.
isn't this tech similar to the kind of tech astronauts use to recycle water and live in space for months at a time? if they don't have a problem with recycled water...
obviously there may be other factors i'm not aware of, but as far as the idea of recycled water goes, i don't see a problem.
btw can we petition against this petition somewhere?
and can we petition for daylight savings?
How many animals/people have p1ssed out even the freshest rain water you're drinking already? The same water has been here for squillions of years, going around and around..
There's probably more harmful bacteria under your small fingernail, than in 10000 litres of processed water.
I read somewhere (probably on the interweb, so it's bound to be true) that the average male inhales enough particles of crap over a life time from smelling his own, and his mates farts to make between 6 and 8 good sized turds.
Girls were significantly less - apparently they talk crap more, and that cancels some of it out.
Probably pays not to think about it too hard, or you might stop eating, drinking and breathing entirely.
It's not like they're just going to run it through a big strainer and only take the lumps out or something!
Well hasn't this all caused a bit of a stir.
I have to disagree with the petition. And some of the arguements that are being used.
Many other developed nations have used a percentage of recycled water in their town water supplies for many years with no directly attributable adverse effects. In fact Purified recycled water has been added to drinking water supplies for the last 40 years in various parts of the world. Examples include Orange County USA, Singapore, Belgium and Essex, UK.
Remember that we are not talking about drinking 100% recycled water. Also consider this... the purification is part of a 7-barrier system for collecting, treating, storing and supplying purified recycled water which is designed to ensure that the drinking water supplied to consumers is always safe. The water is subject to water quality monitoring and testing at all stages of the 7-barrier process (QLD Water currently uses a 2 barrier process). Once added to Wivenhoe Dam, purified recycled water mixes with dam supplies before being treated and tested by the Mt Crosby Treatment Plant, as is all water we recieve, before being supplied to households.
Now I'm not trying to sell it to you, you are able to have you own opinion, thats the part of living in a society like we do. But I would hope that prior to beating something down you look into the facts and realise that many of the arguements against this are simply hype.
As for daylight saving, I get no end of amusement from the articles like you have posted. I personally am all for spliting QLD in 2 on that front. Areas like Mt Isa, simply due to thier geographical position, already effectively have DLS so don't need it at all, where as for SEQ we could potentially benifit a great deal.
Last post on this I promise, else you all think I'm a nutter ...even more so.
Yeah look, I'm only 5% against it, I'd rather know more/anything first. I've actually received NO information from either side of the argument, which is a bit rude and lacks foresight from the govt. I think. Perhaps there was a brochure so thin it got lost in the junk mail?
Up to you to do whatever you want, spam the thing if you feel like it. I'm not wearing a tin foil hat or anything, I am for fluoride in the water, nuclear power etc. I've only put in here as is a QLD forum.
As far as I know about Singapore they use "indirect potable" water. In Singapore it is mostly used for industrial purposes.
"Known as indirect potable use, a small amount of NEWater is mixed with the reservoir waters."http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/NEWater.aspx
We'll be using "potable". I think LA is the only other place to use a fair amount in the drinking water, ie "potable", and they only began this year.
OK, I've got to get back to work, put this "REPENT NOW SINNERS" placard on and walk around the city yelling at people. [}:)]
I have access to a bit of info through work, however I am sure if you search the net you could find lots. Try here as a start http://www.qwc.qld.gov.au
Indirect Potable is the term used when waste water is combined with fresh water, which is exactly what will happen with our supply, and continues through a purification process.
Potable water is the term used for water of sufficient quality that it can be drunk without risk of immediate or long term harm i.e drinking water.
So essentially any area that is adding recycled water to their water supplies is adding indirect potable water to potable water.
But Dave it is required. I support recycled water however what pi$$es me off is the inaction of various governments/councils to act before our water situation became a crisis. And it seems continued inaction since we've had a year of decent rain. Why didn't they make recycled non-potable water mandatory for use in industry years ago, one company I worked for used anything up to 70,000 litres of water a day- and this is only 1 small company in a small industry. We did receive an offer to install non-potable but the incentives where not worth it. Conscience and industry dont mix.
It's funny how so many people don't trust the government to get this right, however these same people trust profit driven corporations to provide contaminate free food and drink every day of your life. Personally I am more concerned about a company that might be willing to take a cost reducing short cut in the production of something like Milk for instance and the potential harm that could do. Only today there has been a recall of Boost bars.
Honestly this is something that is necessary for the sustainability of our region, and if we were to worry about every risk, no matter how remote, we as a race would never leave our homes...hell the last few days shown even our homes can be a dangerous place.
They're mixing stats there.
... And don't worry, if you can sway me into the whole recycled water thing I'll be happy, since we're getting it anyway. 
However I took some of the agreement as the risk involved in the ongoing operation of the facilities, rather than the initial construction...after all it seems we can get this part right for NASA space craft.
It seems strange to me that we should put recycled waste into our drinking water when we do not know the full extent of what is and isn't making it through the filtering systems. Wouldn't it be more sensible to use this water for irrigating crops or for industrial purposes, which currently use water strait from the dams (you would be surprised how much water is used in everyday processes like making paper etc).
This is especially so considering that this is touted to be a 100 year drought, meaning that for the next 100 years we may have predominantly full dams. People forget that it wasn't too long ago that the council banned household water tanks and would come to your house and put a pickaxe through your tank if it was in use.
What makes me cringe is the fact that my old neighbour had cancer and needed dialysis. The old blood, contaminated with chemo drugs and God knows what else used to be flushed down the toilet. This is apparently common procedure and I just can't get my mind around this type of effluent going into our drinking water.
My vote is no recycled water when the dams are full.
Scot, here some info I lifted from the Queesnland Health network answering at least one of your concerns:
How are chemicals such as pharmaceuticals (including chemotherapy drugs), hormones, endocrine-disrupting compounds and pesticides removed from the water?
Conventional sewage treatment in Queensland (barrier 2) is so effective that most pharmaceuticals (including chemotherapy drugs), hormones and endocrinedisrupting chemicals have already been reduced to concentrations below health guideline values. The advanced wastewater treatment process that follows conventional sewage treatment (particularly reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation) reduces the remaining chemicals that, if detectable, are much too low to pose a risk to people’s health, according to the strict requirement laid down by the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling. Those guidelines are based on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines which were used as a model for the World Health Organisation’s Drinking Water Guidelines. Queensland Health’s drinking water criteria are also based on these guidelines.
And I should make it clear, I do not work for QLD Water...I merely spend way too much time sitting in an Office at the Royal Bris Hospital working out better ways to deliver IT services to staff and paitents, and taking part in conversations that stimulate the mind and open up new possibilities.
I really am not for or against the use of recycled water, but do like to gather as many facts as I can prior to making a decision. I do agree that the ruling parties of government have dropped the ball over many years to let our whole infrastructure get to the poor state it is currently at. Roads and water are only one issue...from where I sit hospital beds are another huge issue. However don't be fooled into thinking that the different government agencies did not foresee this many years ago, I would hate to think how much work gets up to the level of a politician for it to be knocked on the head due to the release of that information not being good for a political career. In politics it's all about low hanging fruit, what's easy to do with the greatest possible return. Major infrastructure initiatives take a long time to materialise so are not seen as politically advantageous.
So I guess I should get back to work now...
The government (which all you oldies kept voting in- because Beatie could lie well to the media) did screw up big time but you have to look to the future, it's no good blaming the government when your neighbour reports you for washing your sails once a year. They are the government voted in, they have more information than any of us so we have to trust them with providing the best possible solution to the problem, yes we should question but not disregard the whole idea. Simply there is no way to prove either side as there is no such thing as "independant" research (apart from a few bored uni students).
Panda science has provided every thing you own, it should be a religion since it has explained more than god ever has. What people need to stop doing is stop thinking about "theories" as proven science, it takes only 1 crackpot to end up in the news but that doesn't make his ramblings fact. The drought has been going for much longer than a few years, it is certainly not an 8 year cycle.
All my pro recycled water is not to say I am not concerned, removal of microbial contaminants is my only concern but that is more as I know nothing of the process and systems in place to do so. Much of what people are worried should show up early in the dams as algal blooms etc.
But the important question is which method provides more salt in the bay so fatties like me get on the plane earlier 
