Britain's Water Crisis

[The bad one]

Mark I don't at all disagree with your comments about distribution or global populations, which are projected to hit 9 1/2 billion by 2050 on a planet that it's calculated can only support 7 billion.
Here's a website that takes a cool hard look without usual sh!t that goes with this topic, at sustainability of the planet and its populations into the future.
Population awareness ? Population Matters

Crow I'm pleased we are both on the same page on this one.

 

[jasonbean1]

Ha ha ha! you clearly have no understanding of the geology of the north or it's own water needs and usage. I've got a better plan for you, we'll store your water in the 1000s of fracking holes we about to get, then send it to you full of all the contaminated sh!te for you to drink. That should within in 10 years sort out the over population of the southeast. But in the meantime here's something for you to drink :w

Ok mr know it all.......

Can a complex canal system solve Britain's water woes? - E & T Magazine

The population won't stop growing so it will need ideas such as these in the future

 

[The bad one]

More a pipe dream from an idiot wanting to spend other people's money... that'll be us the tax payers then eh to service the southeast? As always with navvies all things are always doable and **** the environmental impacts and consequences!

 

[Pete Shears]

Some of the biggest wasters of water are the Water Companies themselves. Around 30% of all treated water,ready to drink, leaks out of their pipework before it even gets near the end user - no wonder river levels are low due to over abstraction and they still want to raise the price to the consumer.

 

[slaphead]

If the south is suffering from a lack of water then why not move all the financial institutions and staff, up-north.

There must be plenty of brownfield sites available for housing and commercial buildings due to the loss of our once great manufacturing industries.

This would negate the need for water transportation and distribute wealth more equally.

Nuff said.

 

[binka]

Isn't this problem all about the lack of investment by privatised water companies, a bit like the Victorian sewer system that is reported to prop up London's waste water management?

Surely no Chief Executive in his right mind is going to invest millions in improving their capacity with baying investors, who have the choice to withdraw and invest their hard earned elsewhere to pursue a decent return, need to be satisfied?

Maybe if investment in privatised companies was measured in their effective performance and not their financial performance then things would be different but pigs will fly before that happens, there's simply no gain for the investor.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

If the south is suffering from a lack of water then why not move all the financial institutions and staff, up-north.

There must be plenty of brownfield sites available for housing and commercial buildings due to the loss of our once great manufacturing industries.

This would negate the need for water transportation and distribute wealth more equally.

Nuff said.

Apparently it's already been proposed but the project was declined when the cost was revealed of dismantling the London Eye and re-locating it under it's new title of...

The Wensleydale Wheel

As an aside (and i'll shut up after this) has anyone tried Google Earthing Wensleydale?

This is it, I kid you not...

 

[slaphead]

Just goes to show we've plenty of room, Binka.

With regard to the London Eye, leave it where it is. There's hill and mountains aplenty up here.

 

[thecrow]

This would negate the need for water transportation

And HS2

 

[no-one in particular]

Mark I don't at all disagree with your comments about distribution or global populations, which are projected to hit 9 1/2 billion by 2050 on a planet that it's calculated can only support 7 billion.
Here's a website that takes a cool hard look without usual sh!t that goes with this topic, at sustainability of the planet and its populations into the future.
Population awareness � Population Matters

Crow I'm pleased we are both on the same page on this one.

I am always a bit wary of scientist predictions, take the global warming one I mentioned earlier and then there's the Cod population of Greenland. They allowed a "sustainable" quota based on their predictions and the Cod were wiped out. I just don't have a lot of faith in them.
No doubt the world population has increased but it is finite. Here is a weird fact, the more over crowded we become the less fertile men become. Is that equated into the prediction! I doubt it.

This probably means you northerners are more fertile than southerners, that should get a cheer

 

[The bad one]

Mark you view on CC is well known and you’ve stated it again in this thread, but without wanting to change this into a CC debate, which I’m quite happy to have on a CC thread, just not on this one, which is about a water crisis. Or more correctly a SE water crisis. Strange that 10 million people are driving the agenda for the 64 and half million. But hey the figure might just give an answer why there’s a crisis there.

As to the Greenland Cod Mark, you’ve got that story upside down and wrong way round. The fisheries scientists told them there was no sustainable limit to exploit the Greenland cod, as the stocks were in danger of “imminent” collapse, which is what happened. They even went further than that and told them that a minimum 20 year moratorium on taking any cod at all was needed to save the species. The legislators ignored the advice and allowed them to continue to fish for them, resulting in, to all intents and purposes, an extinct species.

Whilst it’s true the sperm count in the UK has been dropping since 1921 and is most acute in the SE, I’ve no doubt the power that be would say, it’s purely coincidental that drop started with the birth of the agrochemical business and recycling of water in the SE to quench the usage of the ever increasing population expansion. And has nothing to do with the chemicals that are still in the water provided to that populous that are known to be endocrine disruptors in mammalian species…..Oh no definitely not!

Heaven forbid the dents in profits to those shareholders would mean we'd have to renationalise SE water to sort the problem out, at tax payers expense before, we could then give it back to them as a private equities floatation by Sid.

Oh and ps Mark the world population is not finite, the resources of the planet to support them are!

 

[no-one in particular]

Mark you view on CC is well known and you’ve stated it again in this thread, but without wanting to change this into a CC debate, which I’m quite happy to have on a CC thread, just not on this one, which is about a water crisis. Or more correctly a SE water crisis. Strange that 10 million people are driving the agenda for the 64 and half million. But hey the figure might just give an answer why there’s a crisis there.

As to the Greenland Cod Mark, you’ve got that story upside down and wrong way round. The fisheries scientists told them there was no sustainable limit to exploit the Greenland cod, as the stocks were in danger of “imminent” collapse, which is what happened. They even went further than that and told them that a minimum 20 year moratorium on taking any cod at all was needed to save the species. The legislators ignored the advice and allowed them to continue to fish for them, resulting in, to all intents and purposes, an extinct species.

Whilst it’s true the sperm count in the UK has been dropping since 1921 and is most acute in the SE, I’ve no doubt the power that be would say, it’s purely coincidental that drop started with the birth of the agrochemical business and recycling of water in the SE to quench the usage of the ever increasing population expansion. And has nothing to do with the chemicals that are still in the water provided to that populous that are known to be endocrine disruptors in mammalian species…..Oh no definitely not!

Heaven forbid the dents in profits to those shareholders would mean we'd have to renationalise SE water to sort the problem out, at tax payers expense before, we could then give it back to them as a private equities floatation by Sid.

Oh and ps Mark the world population is not finite, the resources of the planet to support them are!

The story I read was that scientists were called in to assess the Greenland cod situation and after their study they allowed a quota that was totally inadequate and the cod got wiped out. I cannot remember where I read it though.
Population is finite, apart from sheer living space, the more of us the more pollution and if this affects sperm count as you said then less fertility. I was thinking of stress caused by over population though, this reduces sperm count as well, this helps keep most animal populations from expanding infinitely as well as many other factors, same applies to humans.
If the resources of the planet to support humans are finite (quote), then the population is finite!
I do not believe the world population will reach 9.1 million by 2050 or ever possibly. Just a graph taken from the increase in population the last 100 years and expostulated to 2050 without taking any of the above in , same as they do with climate. It will plateau out, probably already has and may even go down for all the above reasons and more.; because I am sure they exist.
Just scare mongers and often wrong which would be OK except whole Governments strategies and spending are based on them and they do a lot of harm. You want to believe it all, fine, but not me. Pure science properly conducted I can listen to, not this biased futuristic garbage.
And another thing is - population growth in the last 100 years is a lot down to better medicine, infant mortality reduction/ better crop and food production etc. What can be achieved in this is finite so less and less it will affect population growth. Have these wonderful predictions taken it all in to account, I very much doubt it.
Apologies for being off topic.

 

[bullet]

I'm sure localised water storage might help.If I could store the amount p*ss*ng off my roof at the moment it would probably keep me going for months.

 

[The bad one]

Clearly you don’t recognise the link in human terms between the two statements you’ve made and why they’re contradictory?

I was thinking of stress caused by over population though, this reduces sperm count as well, this helps keep most animal populations from expanding infinitely as well as many other factors, same applies to humans. And another thing is - population growth in the last 100 years is a lot down to better medicine, infant mortality reduction/ better crop and food production etc.

Of course the latter is correct but only because we humans cheat the system and have the ability to produce medicines, vaccines, antibiotics, etc to combat the natural controls of illness and diseases, that 100 years ago would have acted as the control on human global populations.
The list of illnesses and diseases that acted as serious controls on the human population that are no longer present or present infrequently is quite extensive.
Eg smallpox gone
Measles mostly gone in the western world
Malnutrition mostly gone from the western world
Flu pandemics which in 1918 - 1921 killed up 100 million people globally (3% of the global population), now kills less than 5 people in a 1000.
TB fully treatable in most cases and caught early enough.
Leprosy fully treatable if found early enough.
Blood poisoning/septic fully treatable.
Even malaria the world’s biggest kill we know how to eradicate it cheaply but needs the global will to do it.
And on and on the list goes.

But Mark in the rest of the animal world they do not have such cheating mechanisms, so their populations are limited by those illnesses and diseases they suffer from, which may well make some of them infertile.

You may also not accept that the predictions of 9 ½ billion by 2050 are correct and I’ve no doubts you’d have said the same in 1990 when the global population stood at 4.5 billion that by 2015 it wouldn’t be 7.3 billion. But the fact is that is the figure. We have added in the last 25 years 2.8 billion people to this planet. The trend whether you accept it or not based on the last 25 years factual increase is upwards with no signs of it levelling off.

So Mark, just may be those biased futuristic garbage peddlers are right. It would just, for once, be nice if you showed what evidence, facts you have to support your claims other than “your opinion” in the fishing pub!

 

[thecrow]

But the fact is that is the figure. We have added in the last 25 years 2.8 billion people to this planet. The trend whether you accept it or not based on the last 25 years factual increase is upwards with no signs of it levelling off.

That's frightening, I fear for my grandchildren and their kids, what sort of a world will they be in?

 

[geoffmaynard]

population growth in the last 100 years is a lot down to better medicine, infant mortality reduction/ better crop and food production etc.

This is probably true on a global scale but in the UK (and all western Europe) the birth rate has been declining since the 1950s. The UK population in 1965 was 50 million. Today it's 63 million despite a falling indiginous birth rate - so the growth can only be totally down to immigration.

 

[The bad one]

Crow it frightens the cr*p out of me for my grandkids and future generations to come after them.
Geoff you are correct on both counts. In the western world the birth rate is down to about 1.6 children per family and the population growth is driven by migration. The growth in global populations is in the developing world.

The whole global population growth opens up a real Pandora’s box, it really does.

 

[bullet]

Crow it frightens the cr*p out of me for my grandkids and future generations to come after them.
Geoff you are correct on both counts. In the western world the birth rate is down to about 1.6 children per family and the population growth is driven by migration. The growth in global populations is in the developing world.

The whole global population growth opens up a real Pandora’s box, it really does.

Caution! Tabu subject alert!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The whole global population growth opens up a real Pandora’s box, it really does.

The comparison with Pandora's box is rather apt when you consider what lay at the bottom of the box when all other contents had been let free?

Remember what it was?

It was "Elpis" which translates from the Greek to . . . . .


HOPE




You know, many years ago when in the lower 4th and studying Greek Mythology I would never have guessed that I'd have ever found a use for any of the minutiae from that didactic poem . . . . . until now

 

[The bad one]

Peter these's always "hope," but for it to flourish and take root you need a plan and there's little evidence of one coming along anytime soon.

 

[no-one in particular]

So Mark, just may be those biased futuristic garbage peddlers are right. It would just, for once, be nice if you showed what evidence, facts you have to support your claims other than “your opinion” in the fishing pub!

No evidence, . I just don't believe everything I read and I just have a brain and can work things out for myself. Just taking the increase and assuming that increase is going to continue at the same rate for perpetuity is ridiculous. So, if its going to be 9.1 billion by 2050 its going to be 220 billion by 2250 or 3356 billion by 3000. Yeh right. garbage.

The population is finite and no one can put a reliable figure on it but it is. And how do you know its not less than 9.1 billion?
The population will slow down and may even reverse for many reasons, some I have laid out and others not foreseen; and none of them have been equated into these predictions; so they are not reliable by a long chalk and are harmful scare mongering.

You know, I have done quite a bit of work on statistics, they can be useful for showing a trend but, only if the criteria stay the same and even then not 100% reliable and I always say they are only a record of history and not a guarantee of the future. With population and climate there is even less certainty that the criteria will stay the same so even less a guarantee of the future. They should not be ignored but treated with a lot of circumspection, not just taken as fact especially such wildly variable things as population and climate which have many influences that are impossible to reliably calculate and foresee..