Complacency, inept officials – a Government inquiry paints a frightening picture of the state of New Zealand’s drinking water, with at least 750,000 of us drinking from supplies that are “not demonstrably safe” – a figure described as likely to be a “significant underestimate”.
The inquiry was sparked by the 2016 Havelock North gastro outbreak, which has now been linked to four deaths, and calls for a major overhaul of water supplies, including mandatory treatment.
The Government has now written urgently to all mayors and district health boards asking to check the water they are supplying meets current standards after the inquiry revealed 20 per cent of water supplies were not up to standard.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99591173/state-of-new-zea...

Chemically treating Christchurch’s water to make it extra safe for drinking would cost ratepayers more than $100 million, city council officials believe.
A damning Government report in the wake of last year’s Havelock North disease outbreak condemned water regulation across New Zealand and called for the universal treatment of drinking water.
But medical experts believe Christchurch, which has long-resisted suggestions its drinking water should be treated, is a “special case” because its water quality is so good.
Council bosses said introducing chlorination would be a “major undertaking” and would cost millions to install treatment systems in the 50 or so boreholes across the city.
David Adamson, council city services manager, said: “To treat against things like protozoa we would need something like ultraviolet treatment or fine filtration, and to treat against ongoing E coli would need some residual treatment like chlorination.
Residents in some parts of North Canterbury have had issues with discoloured and “crunchy” water.
“You’re looking at a bill of probably $100 million plus, and my engineers have estimated an operating cost of possibly $5m a year to run it.”
Adamson welcomed the report for stimulating “interesting conversation” but said the council had “very good measures” in place over risk, including secure deep boreheads and a stringent water quality monitoring regime, and it should be up to the community to decide whether those measures were sufficient.
“I think Christchurch City Council has got some very good practices, both in the construction and depth of their wells and in their monitoring regimes that produce barriers to minimise that risk.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/99610068/chlorinating-christchu...–council
Christchurch’s pure drinking water could be contaminated due to farming

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/95097028/authorities-discuss-po...
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/800000-nzers-at-risk-of-inf...

Views: 150

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

AH ha ha ha - as if we didn't see that coming.

Get tanks while you still can.

No a pandemic would be too obvious Martin & folk would be outraged. I call this slow or is it soft kill they call it? It slips easily under the radar, everybody zzzz ing away & not noticing. Long slow relentless carcinogens at every turn tho. Still control yes, but yes I do think they are overall aiming to knock us off. IMO anyway. I didn't know about the centralised thing. Figures though. Some more sustainable development?  think we've had all the sustainability we can stomach really.

Can anyone tell me if taking water off your roof would be affected by chemtrail contamination? I know other contaminants may be present eg lead primers, giardia from birds/posums, dust from earthquake demolition of houses (yes I am from ChCh), etc. But have often wondered if chemtrails would be dropping heavy metals into the mix as well.

I collected water off my roof when the piped water was out during the big quake aftermath, but I didn't drink it I used it for washing dishes etc. However, I DID water the flowers with it (sunflowers) and they really thrived! This was mostly condensation from tin garage roof (A big drum of it collected daily even in dry weather!). I would at the very least boil it before drinking but filtration would be ideal.

Yes filtration and the odd lab test might be prudent! Trouble with lab tests is that they have std tests for example "potable water", so if you wanted to know if barium was present you would need to stipulate that plus anything else you suspect. In other words you need to know and stipulate every target to test for. This also escalates the cost considerably. Ignorance is bliss and then you die!

Hi Mark, the rainwater is full of everything that falls from the sky.  A good water tank system needs a good filtration system.  Our water tanks have a infra red light cleaning system also and we have various tricks to keep the water healthy and flowing.

We distil our drinking water even though our tanks meet regulations.  The rain water tastes sweet (better than anything you will get out of a town water system) but we choose to distil due to the known sky carcinogens.  

We are fortunate enough to have a spring fed catchment also. 

One thing you can be sure of, none of us we have any real idea, as to what nasties lie in our current skies so best to take all precautions.  We've read that even distilling doesn't remove nano, but am yet to see the science.

Taking personal action on this subject is vital.

These options are viable and not as expensive as imagined.  Think how much you pay to the water corporation for the poisoned crap townies drink, with or without chloride.

RSS

© 2017   Created by rose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service