Water Safety

msg · Guru

Water Safety

Plain Truth · Guru

Katherine's water supply was contaminated with PFAS chemicals from the Tindal RAAF base.

They brought in an emergency plant from the USA in 2017,don't know if the situation has been fixed.

Whenarewethere · Guru

A lot a places in Australia have water below world heath standards. Some years ago we had a problem in Sydney.

As far as taste, decades ago in my suburb in Sydney we had great tasting water. Then one year the water taste changed. Tea tasted horrible. After a year we had had enough so we installed a 4 stage water filter.

A few years later I found out that the Water Board stopped using the water tank on top of the hill and pump the water directly. This was when the taste of the water changed. The high value land was sold to put money into government "slush" funds.

So I have the cost of the original water filter and the cost of new filters every year. Government externalising!

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

Most town water supplies in Australia is chlorinated.
Chlorination treatment makes water biologically safe, but does nothing for taste.

Unfortunately, the chlorine breaks down naturally and disapears within a few days (along with the protection it provides), so any water in a pipe that does not get used regularly may have no chlorine left in it. That means that even in a town with a chlorinated water supply, it is possible to find water that is unprotected, especially at the end of a distribution pipe that has not been used for a while. The warmer the water is, the faster the chlorine breaks down, so this is more likely to be a problem in the tropics than in southern Australia in the winter.

And despite some beliefs to the contary, bugs can and do grow in the complete dark, especially if it is warm. On 2 occasions that I can recall, water in the Morgan-Whyalla pipe line in SA has become unsafe to drink after it left the treatment plant at Morgan and before it arrived in Whyalla. They increase the initial chlorine content to overcome this in summer.

Cheers,

Peter

msg · Guru

You all missed the point. This is about the NT Government having no responsibility to provide safe water through their taps. No comeback. bad luck.

Of course, there will be accidents and instances but these are usually temporary and fixed when they are found out. Don't know what responsibilities are in other states and was hoping someone might be able to fill me in.

Back in the 90's the water in my home town was supplied by a large tank on top of the local hill pumped from the river some 20 miles away. People had been complaining for some time about the taste and eventually someone investigated and found a dead body in it. How did they know I don't know. I doubt you would be able to tell the difference with one decomposed body in such a large tank and no it really happened and wasn't an urban myth. Council confirmed. It took a while for people to drink the water again.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

The point is that it is a mistake to assume that water is safe just because it comes out of a tap.
99% of the time it will be fine. When it is not, it can make you VERY sick, but you probably won't know why.
Our policy is to assume that the water is NOT safe, and treat it accordingly.
Cheers,
Peter

msg · Guru

Peter, is obvious that you did not read the article.

The point of the article is that the remote community are drinking water laced with uranium and other things and there is nothing the people can do. Because there are no laws in the NT that require it.

Also you give the impression that's its OK if " it can make you VERY sick, but you probably won't know why"

Would you care a LITTLE more if you fill up your tank (you give the impression that you visit quite often and are old hands in remote communities) and your much vaunted filter system didn't filter it out?

Whenarewethere · Guru

I donate to Isabelle Grata Fund

An email from 27-4-2021

Hi Jonathan,

Late last week we got a clear signal that what we do together as a Grata Community matters, and that we are powerful. After 18 months of pushing for the Northern Territory Government to address the dangerous uranium-contaminated water supply in Laramba through litigation, the Government has been forced to act.

As the Laramba community's litigation team, Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights sat in the NT Supreme Court, the NT Government announced its plan to invest in water infrastructure in some remote communities.

After more than 10 years of Government inaction over dangerous uranium-contaminated water, the CEO of Housing has claimed that he is not responsible for water supply, so the legal team was arguing to have the NT Government joined to the case as a respondent. Now the NT Government is saying that they aren't responsible for the water supply either, begging the question, who is then?

While the bureaucracy of the NT Government appears to be twisting itself into knots to escape legal responsibility, the community of Laramba and many others across the NT are left stranded with no other choice but to drink and bathe in toxic water.

The Government has been forced to announce a $28 million investment in water infrastructure for some communities over 4 years because of the pressure that the families in Laramba, led by lead plaintiff Johnny Jack, have been able to mount on the NT Government, aided by the generous support of the Grata Community.

It's well overdue.

Despite the good news of some action, it's clear that it's nowhere near enough to deal with the serious and extreme water stress issues faced by First Nations communities across the Territory. Many, many remote and rural communities filled with little kids, babies, Elders and people with chronic health conditions will miss out.

The Government hasn't released enough detail in its plans for anyone to know if the investment in the communities will be enough and if it will be urgently delivered to protect people's health.

Access to safe water is one of the most basic human rights. What sort of country are we if we are willing for some Australians to have safe drinking water, but for others to be left to drink toxic water?

We must continue to stand behind First Nations communities fighting to have their right to health, water and safety respected.

Yours,

Isabelle

msg · Guru

Thanks Whenarewethere that is even better than the above article.

What is wrong with trucking in water to all the communities now until they get the infrastructure in place in 4 yrs time (if ever). Filling up tanks like we do on farms etc.
Its a disgrace.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

msg, you are correct that I did not read the article. Yes I agree that a safe water supply is fundamental.
There is a lot of missing information in the article though.
1. It appears that the radioactivity is natural. If it were not so, whoever caused it should be 100% liable for a proper solution for the community.
2. On the basis that it is natural, it has probably always been radioactive. The question if this is so is who chose the location of the community and hence the water supply. If it was chosen for them, that authority should be liable for fixing the water or moving the community to a safer location of their choice. If the community chose their own location then it would seem to be difficult to put the cost of a remedy onto someone else? But it does seem that the Government will pick up the tab.

There are many places in Oz where there is radioactivity in the surroundings and the water, all of us would be exposed to some from time to time. This level does seem excessive for long term consumption.
Cheers,
Peter

Whenarewethere · Guru

msg wrote:
Thanks Whenarewethere that is even better than the above article.

What is wrong with trucking in water to all the communities now until they get the infrastructure in place in 4 yrs time (if ever). Filling up tanks like we do on farms etc.
Its a disgrace.

Let's no get onto the subject that Northern Territory was arguing in court that they did not have to provide humane rental properties.

They were then arguing over the difference of extremely inhumane & inhumane.

Water, housing, health...

Hairyone · Veteran Member

Is it really a Government responsibility to supply water to private property? I would have thought it was a community responsibility?

Cupie · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
msg, you are correct that I did not read the article. Yes I agree that a safe water supply is fundamental.
There is a lot of missing information in the article though.
1. It appears that the radioactivity is natural. If it were not so, whoever caused it should be 100% liable for a proper solution for the community.
2. On the basis that it is natural, it has probably always been radioactive. The question if this is so is who chose the location of the community and hence the water supply. If it was chosen for them, that authority should be liable for fixing the water or moving the community to a safer location of their choice. If the community chose their own location then it would seem to be difficult to put the cost of a remedy onto someone else? But it does seem that the Government will pick up the tab.

There are many places in Oz where there is radioactivity in the surroundings and the water, all of us would be exposed to some from time to time. This level does seem excessive for long term consumption.
Cheers,
Peter

I agree.

I sometimes ponder the responsibility & cost of providing 'city/town' standard of services to those who 'choose' for whatever reason to live in remote areas.

Of course, where subsequent action by others has degraded the quality of those services then I would have thought that they would be responsible for corrective action et al.

BTW, although we are relatively conservative & careful about most things, we have never taken precautions about drinking water, except when we travelled overseas. If it comes out of a tap in Au, we drink it. Maybe we should rethink as standards apparently fall.