Pollution

bob charles

Should any level of pollution ever be allowed? or are you willing to allow a trade off between economic benefits/social needs vs environmental damage?

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

Should any level of pollution ever be allowed? or are you willing to allow a trade off between economic benefits/social needs vs environmental damage?

you cannot avoid pollution bob

things are at their optimum at the moment
any more regulations will be over the top

but energy generation needs to be less reliant on oil

irelands resources need to be harnessed moreso

wind energy in particular

theyshould have large windfarms at sea far more potential at sea i reckon

a few more chp plants would solve another few problems too

Timmaay

There are too many people on this planet, and more to the point, too many of us fat rich westerners who suck the world of its resources, and emit crazy amounts of pollution, and there isn't a huge amount that can be done about it 2bh, most environmental policies etc in my view are just pissing against the wind.

J.O. Farmer

Like severeoversteer said pollution is unavoidable. Also if we go overboard and try to eliminate all pollution we will affect the environment which could be detrimental to some species.
I rememmber a story from a lecture in college. In industrial revolution Britain there was a moth that had black wings but the place was very polluted so walls were black. When things cleaned up the black moths died out because birds found it easier to see them. I don't particularly care about moths but the story shows how what appears to be a change for the better could be bad for certain species. I may have some of the story wrong and the black moths could have been more a different colour of the same species kind of like black and red limousins.

hugo29

bob charles wrote: »

Should any level of pollution ever be allowed? or are you willing to allow a trade off between economic benefits/social needs vs environmental damage?

Depends on the trade off and the level of pollution you are talking about, progress was never easy but it has to be sensible

Capercaille

severeoversteer wrote: »

you cannot avoid pollution bob

things are at their optimum at the moment
any more regulations will be over the top

but energy generation needs to be less reliant on oil

irelands resources need to be harnessed moreso

wind energy in particular

theyshould have large windfarms at sea far more potential at sea i reckon

a few more chp plants would solve another few problems too

Water quality in rivers is dire. I would hardly call that optimum.

severeoversteer

Capercaille wrote: »

Water quality in rivers is dire. I would hardly call that optimum.

it has made massive recovery in the last ten years

the only polluting factor now is agriculture and forestry

if the eu wants to improve this then they should promote slurry injectors and seriously consider anaerobic digestors to reduce bulk of agricultural effluent

it would put an economic value on slurry and it would make farmers treat it more seriously rather than spreading on land at at time that suits the farmer

agriculture needs to be policed moreso as regards slurry and effluent

but no farmer likes this hassle

Bizzum

bob charles wrote: »

Should any level of pollution ever be allowed? or are you willing to allow a trade off between economic benefits/social needs vs environmental damage?

There are several strands to this. What do we call pollution? Sticking with Agri only: Slurry, Silage effluent, Dirty water, Milk, Chemical, Fuels, Smoke, Feedstuffs. Even things like riverbank disturbance, instream disturbance (vehicals, animals etc), Noise, and Light.
Most farmers if they weren't being hogtied by calendar dates would have the means utilize their byproducts in a normal year.
Most farmers want to have a positive impact on their environment.
Even given optimal conditions minute quantities of enrichments are capable of making their way into waterways. But I feel the vast majority of farmers endevour to minimise pollution.

Native American Proverb: Only when the last tree has been cut down, only when the last river has been poisoned, only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money can't be eaten.

I would certainly be in favour of regulation. Regulations that work and are enforcable. Regulation for the sake of regulation is good for nothing.

Bizzum

Capercaille wrote: »

Water quality in rivers is dire. I would hardly call that optimum.

I wouldn't call it dire.......I wouldn't call it optimum either. From where I'm looking the single largest polluters are the Local Authorities. Still playing catch-up with municipal treatment plants not able to cope with post celtic tiger town sizes.

Conmaicne Mara

severeoversteer wrote: »

the only polluting factor now is agriculture and forestry

ahem, COUNTY COUNCILS and their dodgy sewage systems.

severeoversteer

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

ahem, COUNTY COUNCILS and their dodgy sewage systems.

10 years ago yes

but the plants they have nowadays are extremely efficient, i should know im a Civil engineer

the small rural type settlements are getting their new treatment systems as we speak

laois is getting more than 6 treatment plants this year

clifden is getting a new treatment plant starting now

you would hardly suggest that the governments budget has not been in some way devoted to sewerage treatment plants, they cost an almerciful amount of money to construct and run and monitor,

we have came a long way in the last ten years

get a tour around a wwtp of galway tuam loughrea portumna etc
you will be impressed, and the one being built in clifden

i picked these examples because you are in galway

agriculture remains the principle polluter

bob charles

severeoversteer wrote: »

agriculture remains the principle polluter

Reason I started this thread is because I was looking at the outlet pipe from the roof water today that is diverted as its clean water and there was some tiny bit of residue around pipe outlet. I concluded it was bits of straw,moss and grain dust landing on the roof. I have been pricing a system to collect all water of roofs and yards and land spread but it will set me back just over 10 grand but with piece of mind.

Now within a mile of my yard the local town of 850 peoples sewage and street water etc drops into the local large river. There is the usual talk about the solution is in the pipe line, no money etc and still the EPA dont hassle the council.

The local dump serving what now seems to be about 6 counties, has 4 trucks drawing all the waste water out of it each day for treatment. when heavy rain comes they dont stand a chance of keeping up with whats produced so the invariable happens, this facility is due to close soon and once the gates shut I can forsee no trucks taking any water for treatment.

Also not far away is probably one of the biggest polluters and dumpers within the country.I read a report that this factory is creating 66% of all waste (including animals/human everything) in the county. The older storage facilities are all unlined and if you talk to any of the experts they dont speak highly of the non existent design.

And after all that, who will be the first prosecuted for pollution?

Birdnuts

bob charles wrote: »

Reason I started this thread is because I was looking at the outlet pipe from the roof water today that is diverted as its clean water and there was some tiny bit of residue around pipe outlet. I concluded it was bits of straw,moss and grain dust landing on the roof.

?

I seriously doubt that would ever be an issue for you Bob as such water does not represent a pollution risk under any heading you care to think of - years ago we used such water to cook, clean and fill cisterns when there were problems with the mains water supply. Indeed with water charges coming down the tracks for many such water will become a valuable commodity for many users

bob charles

Birdnuts wrote: »

I seriously doubt that would ever be an issue for you Bob as such water does not represent a pollution risk under any heading you care to think of - years ago we used such water to cook, clean and fill cisterns when there were problems with the mains water supply. Indeed with water charges coming down the tracks for many such water will become a valuable commodity for many users

Yes, but having not looking at the outlet for the last year or so it looks as like there is a nice bit of residue deposited. We would be grinding grain monthly so on windy days there could be 50kgs minimum of dust blown onto the roofs maybe more and this all heads for the clean water outlet. This why im seriously considering installing a new automatic soil water spreading thingy but thats going to cost allot of twine but give me piece of mind


A quote from Ms Laura Burke, EPA director General

"the environmental protection agency should not be racing to prosecute business for not complying with environmental licences and regulations”

Conmaicne Mara

severeoversteer wrote: »

10 years ago yes

but the plants they have nowadays are extremely efficient, i should know im a Civil engineer

the small rural type settlements are getting their new treatment systems as we speak

laois is getting more than 6 treatment plants this year

clifden is getting a new treatment plant starting now

you would hardly suggest that the governments budget has not been in some way devoted to sewerage treatment plants, they cost an almerciful amount of money to construct and run and monitor,

we have came a long way in the last ten years

get a tour around a wwtp of galway tuam loughrea portumna etc
you will be impressed, and the one being built in clifden

i picked these examples because you are in galway

agriculture remains the principle polluter

I would not suggest anything. I would definately say you can't/couldn't swim at Clifden beach, and Oughterard contributed to the pollution of the Corrib. I would say the village in which I live has to have drinking water pumped from 60km away due to Galway CoCo giving so much planning permission around the former lake reservoir to a point it became unusable.

I'm sure I'd say a lot more if I bothered myself to go digging but that's just three examples off the top of my head and I don't travel out much

Everyone makes progress, just that them shouting the loudest should maybe have cleaned their own house first.

Gillespy

Seems overkill to me but it's very conscientious of you. Something I've never really gleaned from your other posts I have to say.:pac:

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

The local dump serving what now seems to be about 6 counties, has 4 trucks drawing all the waste water out of it each day for treatment. when heavy rain comes they dont stand a chance of keeping up with whats produced so the invariable happens, this facility is due to close soon and once the gates shut I can forsee no trucks taking any water for treatment.

Also not far away is probably one of the biggest polluters and dumpers within the country.I read a report that this factory is creating 66% of all waste (including animals/human everything) in the county. The older storage facilities are all unlined and if you talk to any of the experts they dont speak highly of the non existent design.

And after all that, who will be the first prosecuted for pollution?

what factory is this bob?
is it something to do with aluminium processing?

the lorrys out of the landfill are drawing leachate,
the rainwater falling on the cell capping would be treated onsite in reed beds and the like as it is tested and does not pose risk as it never comes in contact with waste due to the landfill capping membrane

F.D

I would count some of the people outwintering on kale etc more of a risk with soil erosion and big piles of slurry around ring feeders, i see some at it who pick good fields suitable for the job and others who just dont seem to use common sense at all, i would count it more of a pollutant than what is coming off your roof bob
The calender farming will cause way more pollution than it will stop in the long term, i know grass is growing in the spring but slurry could have been spread on dry ground a month ago, instead people will be out on saturated ground in a few weeks time trying to get loads out, fair enough you could argue they should have more storage but still..

bob charles

severeoversteer wrote: »

what factory is this bob?
is it something to do with aluminium processing?

the lorrys out of the landfill are drawing leachate,
the rainwater falling on the cell capping would be treated onsite in reed beds and the like as it is tested and does not pose risk as it never comes in contact with waste due to the landfill capping membrane

yip, your right. The latest lined ponds in theory are fine but if you talk to some of the guys that worked on construction of it, to some of the machine operators lets say, they werent the most careful with the liner which covers 350acres:( to look into this pond is frightening, just the vast scale of things

Regards the landfill, the guys are hauling leachate from the cells. each treatment plant can only handle a load or two a day due to its potency. when your talking about such a massive area and in a bog, there will always be water seeping through defects in the lining process. local water wells for houses and farms were all capped and a mains supply of water installed. Why would any council do such a thing unless there were serious ground water problems. To my mind you would be looking a leachate being produced for years and years to come but I imagine once the gates shut on this facility after a few years so will the trucks hauling the leachate

the problems with sewage and wastewater for majority of towns in the county is in a dire state and nothing being done about it. I am not aware of any new treatment facilities for any of the local towns.

I have seen the way the council were these facilities are in there jurisdiction operate when in comes to farmers, and its completely disproportionate. Now im completely against pollution in the main, but your talking about an authority who go completely over the top in one regard and then close there eyes to other problems.

hugo29

in theory these solutions that are put in place to help with pollution eg reed beds, membranes etc are great on paper but are only as good as the people who install them and lets be honest here, we as a country do not have the best track record for doing the job the right way.

all these treatment systems, again sound great, As the sales rep says "the water is perfect after it exits these systems" but would anyone here drink the water from them or bath their kids in the water from them

to say agriculture is the single biggest culprit is lunacy, its by no means not guilty but it aint the worst
take Limerick City, mains sewer system into the shannon, thats 60,000 + people, You then have Galway City, Cork City, Dublin, Waterford

The biggest pollutant is GREED

49801

Bob could you contain the dust in thirst place?

bob charles

49801 wrote: »

Bob could you contain the dust in thirst place?

kinda impossible keep all dust down as even when you tip a bucket of maize or wheat into the diet feeder it will spit out dust for the first few seconds, and for the last month I need not talk about the wind.

hugo29

and for the last month I need not talk about the wind.[/QUOTE]

eat less beans

bob charles

hugo29 wrote: »

eat less beans

Let me tell you there is a good reason the collective name for goose/turkey/chicken is "fowl"

49801

bob charles wrote: »

kinda impossible keep all dust down as even when you tip a bucket of maize or wheat into the diet feeder it will spit out dust for the first few seconds, and for the last month I need not talk about the wind.

Ah but you were only mentioning grinding grain before.

Sure why not build a shed over the lot then:pac:

freedominacup

hugo29 wrote: »

in theory these solutions that are put in place to help with pollution eg reed beds, membranes etc are great on paper but are only as good as the people who install them and lets be honest here, we as a country do not have the best track record for doing the job the right way.

all these treatment systems, again sound great, As the sales rep says "the water is perfect after it exits these systems" but would anyone here drink the water from them or bath their kids in the water from them

to say agriculture is the single biggest culprit is lunacy, its by no means not guilty but it aint the worst
take Limerick City, mains sewer system into the shannon, thats 60,000 + people, You then have Galway City, Cork City, Dublin, Waterford

The biggest pollutant is GREED

The first of the reed beds were put in around here over 20 years ago. The biggest problem with them is capacity. The local village was put on a reed bed around 2000 but it was never right esp after a new estate with 40 houses was added shortly after. There was a major extension to the reed beds installed last year/year before as part of a bigger project developing an amenity walk and at the end of last summer as it was fully up to speed local kids were swimming in the last pond with no ill effects. None of the lads who have reed beds (the majority of dairy farmers at this stage) thought anything of it.

severeoversteer

hugo29 wrote: »

Limerick City, mains sewer system into the shannon, thats 60,000 + people, You then have Galway City, Cork City, Dublin, Waterford

The biggest pollutant is GREED

I think you'll find all the places you mentioned have treatment plants installed for at least a few years
Note the cost of these !!!

Know your facts!!

http://www.limerickcity.ie/Water/LimerickMainDrainage/

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/WaterandDrainage/WasteWaterandSewage/MuttonIslandWasteWaterTreatmentPlant/

http://www.vinci-construction-projects.com/projets.nsf/en/type-of-works.htm?openagent&f=Cork%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant


http://www.dublincity.ie/WATERWASTEENVIRONMENT/WASTEWATER/RINGSEND%20WASTE%20WATER%20TREATMENT/Pages/RingsendWasteWaterTreatment.aspx

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/News/MainBody,26475,en.htm

hugo29

severeoversteer wrote: »

I think you'll find all the places you mentioned have treatment plants installed for at least a few years
Note the cost of these !!!

Know your facts!!

http://www.limerickcity.ie/Water/LimerickMainDrainage/

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/WaterandDrainage/WasteWaterandSewage/MuttonIslandWasteWaterTreatmentPlant/

http://www.vinci-construction-projects.com/projets.nsf/en/type-of-works.htm?openagent&f=Cork%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant


http://www.dublincity.ie/WATERWASTEENVIRONMENT/WASTEWATER/RINGSEND%20WASTE%20WATER%20TREATMENT/Pages/RingsendWasteWaterTreatment.aspx

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/News/MainBody,26475,en.htm

Lovely shiny articles there telling me a lot of bull****,

Can I ask what the cost has to do with anything, just because a local authority paid a huge amount don't mean it got value for money, I could also buy so called top of the range products with someone else's money

Maybe I did not articulate my point properly and don't worry I know that the average citizen who uses his lavatory in limerick is not discharging directly to the Shannon , But correct me if I am wrong , but does the so called treatment plants not discharge into each river associated with the above mentioned cities, my point was we are told these treatment systems are perfect, the water is so good we could drink it, so lets dump it into our rivers , would you except your water
supply direct from this treatment system, those are the FACTS as I see them

bob charles

hugo29 wrote: »

Lovely shiny articles there telling me a lot of bull****,

Can I ask what the cost has to do with anything, just because a local authority paid a huge amount don't mean it got value for money, I could also buy so called top of the range products with someone else's money

Now that someone mentions costs, here is what the best brains managed

"A €9.57m contract awarded for work on part of the Limerick main drainage scheme ended up costing the exchequer almost €83m".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0214/99600-politics/

it was a complete cluster ****up. To this day the limerick treatment plant isnt working properly. Anyway cost are a side issue, its whats actually happening on the ground is what I am concerned with.

severeoversteer

hugo29 wrote: »

Lovely shiny articles there telling me a lot of bull****,

Can I ask what the cost has to do with anything, just because a local authority paid a huge amount don't mean it got value for money, I could also buy so called top of the range products with someone else's money

Maybe I did not articulate my point properly and don't worry I know that the average citizen who uses his lavatory in limerick is not discharging directly to the Shannon , But correct me if I am wrong , but does the so called treatment plants not discharge into each river associated with the above mentioned cities, my point was we are told these treatment systems are perfect, the water is so good we could drink it, so lets dump it into our rivers , would you except your water
supply direct from this treatment system, those are the FACTS as I see them

you obviously dont know anything about wwtp's these days

they are monitored by the epa on behalf of europe and have strict discharge license with parameters that must be met or else the local authority is fined

bob charles

severeoversteer wrote: »

you obviously dont know anything about wwtp's these days

they are monitored by the epa on behalf of europe and have strict discharge license with parameters that must be met or else the local authority is fined

severeoversteer you are pointing out the theory which is the mantra the authorities of the state throw out, the reality is much different, you know all too well that with sampling is easy enough to provide acceptable results. or not so if its so desired.

the latest fine I am aware off to the local large company I mentioned earlier was €400 for an accidental discharge:D:D:D

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

Now that someone mentions costs, here is what the best brains managed

"A €9.57m contract awarded for work on part of the Limerick main drainage scheme ended up costing the exchequer almost €83m".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0214/99600-politics/

it was a complete cluster ****up. To this day the limerick treatment plant isnt working properly. Anyway cost are a side issue, its whats actually happening on the ground is what I am concerned with.

it was a government procurement cockup

and that figure is made up of legal fees and compensation

bob charles

severeoversteer wrote: »

it was a government procurement cockup

and that figure is made up of legal fees and compensation

erra that's fine so

hugo29

severeoversteer wrote: »

you obviously dont know anything about wwtp's these days

they are monitored by the epa on behalf of europe and have strict discharge license with parameters that must be met or else the local authority is fined

Well if the good man from the EPA is happy then so am I

In the infamous words of "Ming" would you drink that, seriously would you drink water from one of the plants

Dont be daft

Would 10k not let ya roof just a small area in the yard. Maybe a lean to against an existing shed, sheltered from the prevailing wind. Then mix away.

We mix under a roof. Its a straw/concentrates store and once a few rows of bales are gone there's enough room to back in the feeder and mix away.
Only do it because the yard was getting destroyed in dust and straw but it works grand.

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

severeoversteer you are point out the theory of the mantra the authorities of the state throw out, the reality is a much different, you know all too weel that sampling is easy enough to provide acceptable results. or not so if its so desired.

the latest fine I am aware off to the local large company I mentioned earlier was €400 for an accidental discharge:D:D:D

the epa arent fools bob , fiddling results will not fool them for long

as regards auginish alumina which i assume you are talking about it is pure negligence and if there is any wrong doing it should be fined severely

but i would find it hard to believe that if the epa passed it on inspection that perhaps it is ok

im well up to speed on the wwtp's in my area and i know they're ran well but i havent been down at the alumina refinery to know the scale of the place

bob charles

severeoversteer wrote: »

the epa arent fools bob , fiddling results will not fool them for long

as regards auginish alumina which i assume you are talking about it is pure negligence and if there is any wrong doing it should be fined severely

but i would find it hard to believe that if the epa passed it on inspection that perhaps it is ok

im well up to speed on the wwtp's in my area and i know they're ran well but i havent been down at the alumina refinery to know the scale of the place

Give me the EPA to deal with anyday. Any of the local authority environmental staff I have had to deal with across a number of county councils both personally and professionally are completely incompetent of their titles. Anytime I talked with the EPA they were able to answer questions quickly and precisely. Your lucky to get through to anyone in the councils as they spend most of the year out of office (17 sick days on average for local lads if recall in latest report, thats how to run an operation )

Bizzum

severeoversteer wrote: »

you obviously dont know anything about wwtp's these days

they are monitored by the epa on behalf of europe and have strict discharge license with parameters that must be......

You're naive in the extreme if you think for one minute that A) A large amount of STP's are not discharging in breach of said parameters. The EPA are monitoring the situation anywhere near adequately.
I'm sick looking at Local Authorities with "issues" blaming everything from equipment failure to the weather for their inadequacies. And these are the same people dictating what pollution is.

Here's a little story for ya all: I was at a meeting a number of years ago, attended by a Midland county Environment Officer. Nice chap he was too. It was a meeting "on site" . Two things remain with me from that day. He didn't know what a slated shed was, he didn't know what a silage pit was. We were standing between both, assessing a pollution incident. It took some explaining to convince him that it was silage under the plastic and not slurry!

So forgive me if I don't believe all the spin the Councils churn up. It's what's happening on the ground that counts!

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

Give me the EPA to deal with anyday. Any of the local authority environmental staff I have had to deal with across a number of county councils both personally and professionally are completely incompetent of their titles. Anytime I talked with the EPA they were able to answer questions quickly and precisely. Your lucky to get through to anyone in the councils as they spend most of the year out of office (17 sick days on average for local lads if recall in latest report, thats how to run an operation )

ahh ya sure all those people down your country are lazy fellows who are useless at their job especially the council:D

can only speak for galway county and city council here

and you verified with me that the epa are ok;)

caseman

bob charles wrote: »

Reason I started this thread is because I was looking at the outlet pipe from the roof water today that is diverted as its clean water and there was some tiny bit of residue around pipe outlet. I concluded it was bits of straw,moss and grain dust landing on the roof. I have been pricing a system to collect all water of roofs and yards and land spread but it will set me back just over 10 grand but with piece of mind.

Now within a mile of my yard the local town of 850 peoples sewage and street water etc drops into the local large river. There is the usual talk about the solution is in the pipe line, no money etc and still the EPA dont hassle the council.

The local dump serving what now seems to be about 6 counties, has 4 trucks drawing all the waste water out of it each day for treatment. when heavy rain comes they dont stand a chance of keeping up with whats produced so the invariable happens, this facility is due to close soon and once the gates shut I can forsee no trucks taking any water for treatment.

Also not far away is probably one of the biggest polluters and dumpers within the country.I read a report that this factory is creating 66% of all waste (including animals/human everything) in the county. The older storage facilities are all unlined and if you talk to any of the experts they dont speak highly of the non existent design.

And after all that, who will be the first prosecuted for pollution?

Is the reasons for wanting to collect and treat this water due to some inspection. If so what will they come up with next.

bob charles

caseman wrote: »

Is the reasons for wanting to collect and treat this water due to some inspection. If so what will they come up with next.

nope, just so as my house is in order. I have regular inspections anyway so always like to keep ahead of the game

caseman

bob charles wrote: »

nope, just so as my house is in order. I have regular inspections anyway so always like to keep ahead of the game

Alot of money to keep ahead of the game. Do you think this could be one for the future.
Sick to the teeth of inspection here.

bob charles

caseman wrote: »

Alot of money to keep ahead of the game. Do you think this could be one for the future.
Sick to the teeth of inspection here.

No but the 10k would entail a system to handle both soiled water and roof water. Could set it up to run during the dark hours when no eyes about. What are the running costs for any of the sprinkler self moving systems. or just a big sprinkler that I move myself every now and again. Actually what I thinking would be going against the ethos of the nitrates directive:rolleyes:

rancher

bob charles wrote: »

No but the 10k would entail a system to handle both soiled water and roof water. Could set it up to run during the dark hours when no eyes about. What are the running costs for any of the sprinkler self moving systems. or just a big sprinkler that I move myself every now and again. Actually what I thinking would be going against the ethos of the nitrates directive:rolleyes:

I think you'll need 16/20 wks storage if you include soiled water

darragh_haven

Im going to a farm in Banbury, England that we are installing an AD plant in. But our contract doesn't include a storage tank! Apparently the farmer is installing a separator/dryer system the will evaporate off between 90% to 92% of the "water" in the slurry. I don't know muck about it only that the system is coming from maylaisia.
It's saving the construction of over a million gallon storage tank and the spreading of end product too (bar the solids that remain)
I'll know a lot more about it in 8 or 9 months after its installed