Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: tony52 on June 20, 2010, 10:56:55 am
-
In the North West we are being threatened with a hosepipe ban. How are things in yor part of the country?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/20/north-west-england-hosepipe-ban-drought-warning
Currently United Utilities are building a link pipe which will connect Manchester (Lake Disrict water) to Liverpool (Welsh water). This pipe will connect between service reservoirs on the Bury/Rochdale boudary and St Helens, allowing water to be transferred either way. This is a perfectly good scheme but unfortunately it will not be in use until 2011, too late for this year.
Tony.
-
Hahaha i first thought this was a ban on pipes and couldn't work out why anyone would ban a pipe :embarrassed: ;D
However a ban on the use of hoses for activities like watering the garden and hosing hard surfaces is a very common
occurrence here in Australia, (possibly a side effect to living on one of the driest continents on earth {-) )
I think that restrictions on the use of hoses is a good idea, if it reduces water consumption per capita, regardless of
whether or not an area is in drought. after all it doesn't really hurt us to use a little less of everything. O0
Just my 2 cents from downunder,
Tim
-
Yep they tried that also here in Queensland <:( and told everyone to pack their hoses away for the duration. >>:-(
However the firies (Fire Brigade) advised everyone to leave their hoses connected in case of a fire, Health and safety concerns. O0
Queensland Govt nil, :embarrassed: Fire Brigade 1. ;)
We kept our hoses. :-)) :-))
-
I hope so- since last Novenmber we've lost 8.5ft of water on lake level and the river at the bottom of my garden that drains Coniston Water is literally just a trickle at the moment- and Coniston's not even a reservoir!!!
I havn't been up but I hear that Thirlmere is down a huge amount, and Windermere is down over 9ft.
Greg
-
Greg
The North West news earlier this year showed problems launching the Gondola due to low water level in Coniston. The boats maintenance team (yourself included?) had spent the winter months carrying out essential works, only to be hit with this problem.
Good luck for the rest of the season
Tony.
-
Hi Tony,
Yes it was a problem- and completely unexpected- 3 weeks after slipping the boat the floods hit and put us 3 weeks behind schedule, then, even with all the snow we had, the water level just kept dropping and dropping- it was in the last few inches of being able to launch this year- and that was at the end of March, since then we hava had no more than 4 days of rain at most!!!!
Thanks.
Greg
-
FOR SALE
FRESH WATER
5P A LITRE
%%
Water is something we are VERY lucky to have plenty of ,up here.
I can`t remember the last time we had a hosepipe ban in my area.
I really sympathise with you guy`s down south,it can`t be easy {:-{
-
... after all it doesn't really hurt us to use a little less of everything.
I think it does.
We are not short of water on Earth. There's about a quarter of a cubic kilometer for every person on the planet. And it doesn't ever go away - it gets recycled automatically.
What we ARE short of is the infrastructure needed to purify, store and transport the water. When the state used to be in charge of this undertaking it was slow and inefficient, but it invested in new infrastructure for the long term. We are now living on the legacy of the last 80 or so years of this investment - not only in water, but in sewerage, electricity, transport, you name it.
When all these state enterprises were passed to the private sector, they were interested in making a quick profit for their shareholders. You don't do that by investing in new infrastructure which will take 10 years to come in line and will only benefit your successors. So they stopped investing, and started using the slack in the systems - the slack that was there for emergencies. Now all our infrastructure is 100% employed, and there is no margin left for times when we have a dry summer or a cold winter. And so we get cuts....
The service companies now really need to invest. But they aren't. Instead, they are trying to persuade us to use LESS of their product (which they will sell to us for more) so that they don't have to build a new reservoir, power station, treatment works, you name it. They will keep profiting while providing a worse service per head of their customer base. And so long as they dress this up with 'green environmental' propaganda, nobody will recognise what they are doing, or push them to cut their shareholders dividends and invest for the future.
We should be demanding, and using, much more of these services. If we don't, we will watch our infrastructure degrade to a worse condition than it is already in...
-
I think it does.
We are not short of water on Earth. There's about a quarter of a cubic kilometer for every person on the planet. And it doesn't ever go away - it gets recycled automatically.
Sorry if this sounds offensive- I don't mean to offend, but it annoys me SO much when people make stupidly broad statements like this!
Water IS NOT a constantly available resource- there are many factors- industry mainly- that means that every year thousands of millions of litres of water are irreversably lost through change of state in industrial processes
And the way we look after the infrastructure we have is abysmal- we do have the right infrastructure- but again every year in just London District alone 14 million litres of water are lost through leaking mains, then there are the taps left on, hosepipes left on with a drip for weeks on end, and old toilets with large cistern flushing- plus many other ways in which we abuse our most precious resource.
Greg
-
Water IS NOT a constantly available resource- there are many factors- industry mainly- that means that every year thousands of millions of litres of water are irreversably lost through change of state in industrial processes
Irreversibly lost? What on earth happens to them? There is no way they can be destroyed short of nuclear engineering.
Change of state suggests moving from a solid to a liquid to a gas to me. Are you saying that turning water into steam loses it? What about the hydrological cycle?
My point stands. We do NOT have the right infrastructure for the number of people we have in these islands any more, and we need more. We will not get that by pretending that we are saving the world by conserving water or electricity....
-
I have to go along with DG here. While water management was in the public sector it was done so on a strategic basis even if not as efficient as it might have been. There is indeed no real incentive for the current companies to invest for the long term as needs to be the case with such a fundamental resource. Privatising basic utilities was a big mistake in my view, the emphasis should have been in making them more efficient whilst still acting in the long term public interest. Unfortunately the private good, public bad mantra won the day with the results we are now experiencing.
DG is perfectly correct in saying that there is no longer any slack in the system so that where there is a natural disaster which requires concentration of resources, those resources are no longer readily available so people end up suffering for longer.
The railways are a typical example, the franchisees have no incentive to invest and in fact have every financial reason to keep trains as short as possible regardless of consequential passenger discomfort.
None of this is rocket science. It simply demonstrates that politictians generally subordinate common sense to personal ambition but it was always thus.... :((
Colin
-
I commute past two reservoirs here in West Yorkshire. A trip today to the Northern Model Boat Show near Doncaster and back via Ripponden showed another three reservoirs where the level is lower than I have seen it in five years. And the summer hasn't started yet.
-
Irreversibly lost? What on earth happens to them? There is no way they can be destroyed short of nuclear engineering.
Change of state suggests moving from a solid to a liquid to a gas to me. Are you saying that turning water into steam loses it? What about the hydrological cycle?
My point stands. We do NOT have the right infrastructure for the number of people we have in these islands any more, and we need more. We will not get that by pretending that we are saving the world by conserving water or electricity....
I think that what was meant was that we have, in this country certainly, and probably globally, a very finite amount of fresh water. This is replenished at a finite rate. There are such things as artesian basins which have been created over millennia, but which have been tapped as a source of fresh water and are being drained faster than they are replenished via the hydrological cycle.
I seem to recall being shown a cross-section of this while doing O level geography using the London basin as an example - various curved rock strata, some porous, some not. Precious little clue as to what happened when the wells went dry, but that was back about 1960 when ecology was something in the unknown future.
I also recall a holiday in Silloth (I've REALLY lived, me), and while looking out of the caravan window at the water rising through the grass, reading in the local tourist information sheet that "The Lake District Lakes are full of water which needs a lot of rain to keep them that way". I don't know if we are anywhere near the conditions of '75/'76, when the end of the world through thirst was confidently predicted and the village under Hawes water reappeared, but we have since then found a great many ways of wasting the stuff, not the least of which is letting private companies loose to ignore leaks in their own plant which they are being highly paid to maintain. I also recall one particularly bone-headed cabinet minister claiming that more metering would solve the problem. The bone headed p*ss artist couldn't work out that the meters happened AFTER the leaks.
If any private individual sells somebody their own property which they have already paid for, its called fraud, and the individual gets arrested. If a bunch of politicians convinces enough of the public that its a good idea that they should buy what they already own, and have already paid for, its democracy and policy, rather than a confidence trick.
Jonty - I, too, went that way and thought that Baiting's dam was a bit low for the time of year.
-
DG perhaps you may want to read here, I'm not in the habit of lying;
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n3_v54/ai_19986896/ (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n3_v54/ai_19986896/)
www.current.com/green/84936491_can-water-run-out.htm (http://www.current.com/green/84936491_can-water-run-out.htm)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change)
Greg
-
Very interesting commentary which goes to show that problems & politicians are the the same the world over <:( <*< <*<
In Oz and in particular Queensland the water is now being sold to us by "new" companies who are increasing the cost by at least 20% (no why spend their profits on infrastructure) to pay for new infrastructure to deliver extra water to meet growing population needs.
What they are not doing and need to do is make industry not use potable >>:-( >>:-(water where it is not essential such as in Cooling towers in power stations which can use sea water.
Whilst the "scientific" commentary says we are running out of water it is not addressing the problem which is how it is being wasted by industry.
It was galling here, that consummers were restricted whilst industry continued to waste the water,r eventually the Qld Government got the message and put some minor industrial restrictions/changes in place.
Trouble is the pollies are to, quick to sign up for long term contracts and don't care about the consequences 20 years down the track as they are no longer there to accept responsibility for there actions. >>:-( <*<
-
DG perhaps you may want to read here, I'm not in the habit of lying;
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n3_v54/ai_19986896/ (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n3_v54/ai_19986896/)
www.current.com/green/84936491_can-water-run-out.htm (http://www.current.com/green/84936491_can-water-run-out.htm)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/22/water-climate-change)
Greg
All three of these references are green propaganda pieces, containing no data but simply assertions that 'there are going to be shortages' - shortages that will occur because of infrastructure failings. The last piece even points out that
'...water supplies are infinitely renewable...'
even though it does so through gritted teeth.
Do you read the items you cite? They illustrate my point nicely.....
-
I think that what was meant was that we have, in this country certainly, and probably globally, a very finite amount of fresh water. This is replenished at a finite rate.
If so, then what I tried to point out still stands. We do NOT have 'a finite amount' of water in this country. We have 'a finite amount' that is easy to deliver with the current infrastructure. We can deliver any greater amount by changing the infrastructure.
A lot of environmentalists try to give the impression that services are in some way limited to what we have at the moment. I cannot see why this should be - no other age has felt this...
I also recall one particularly bone-headed cabinet minister claiming that more metering would solve the problem. The bone headed p*ss artist couldn't work out that the meters happened AFTER the leaks.
The bone-headed minister was quite right. It will solve HIS problem of sharing LESS water out among MORE people. Just force them to use less by pretending it's a scarce comodity. It's much cheaper than building a new reservoir and associated piping....
-
At the risk of sounding naive, :-)
Although water will always be replenished through the hydrological cycle it is by no means an infinite resource at any given location.
For example you say that you can just build a new reservoir, however is this really a solution?
Reservoirs are very complex systems that rely highly on the geographical structure of the area you intend to build said reservoir in. This means that reservoirs cant just be constructed anywhere. You also need to factor in climatic condition to work out whether or not a reservoir would be viable. after all a reservoir in an area that doesn't receive enough rainfall to replenish the water reserves before those reserves are fully utilised is no reservoir at all.
If you don't change peoples attitudes towards the consumption of water you will still end up with the same issue we face (especially here in aus), just you will face the issue sometime in the future. If by simply changing peoples attitudes towards the use of something as simple as a watering hose can have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of the water supplies currently in use isn't it a good idea to try this?
Also desalination, although an option certainly has its faults as well. Desalination is a highly energy intensive process and can have severe environmental impacts on the area any plant is built.
And whilst i certainly believe that industry are the main reason for resource wastage I think we can all do something to stop the needless waste of our precious water.
And water is precious, at least i believe so. :-))
Sorry if this offends
Tim
-
.......
Sorry if this offends
You seem unwilling to consider any technological solution to the issue. Of course an appropriate site needs to be found for a reservoir, but long distance pipeline transmission has been shown to be perfectly feasible in many parts of the world. And a reservoir which cannot replenish it's reserves before it is empty is not 'no reservoir at all' it is just 'one that is not big enough'.
I am more concerned by your exhortations that people's attitudes must change to your view, which seems to refuse to consider a technical solution. What happens if they don't want their attitudes changed? Compared to industry and agriculture, watering hoses are such low users that they really do not have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of water supplies, unless those supplies are at a critical level already. In that case, provide some more!
I am not sure what the 'severe environmental impact' is on an area around a water desalination plant. Are you referring to the fact that you can't grow a plant on the concrete base of an ion exchange column?
-
I rather suspect that the greater proportion of water that falls as rain in the UK simply runs away down the drains and into the rivers. If we could collect and store more of it, particularly that element falling onto the built environment, then there would be much less of a problem, maybe no problem at all. I have two large water butts in my garden fed from a half inch hose connected to the roof downpipe. Only a moderate amount or rain is needed to fill them quickly.
In the Mediterranean which has a much dryer climate, many houses have their own cisterns which collect rain during the winter to supply water during the summer months. Back in Roman times they constructed cisterns to collect run off which are the size of churches inside, you can still see them today.
There have also been ingenious proposals to use the canal syastem to move water around the country, I don't think the difficulties were found to be insuperable.
Colin
-
Not taking sides but why do WE have to change our usage when we have been doing it all along WE are not the problem. <*<
In the North of the State, annual regular tropical downpours are wasted. <:(
Suggestions to collect that water and pipe it South are deemed to too expensive. >:-o
That is a crock. >>:-(
That logic was applied to the Snowy Mountains scheme in New South Wales & the Opera house but the Govt bit the bullet and they were both built. Both benefited NSW for years and put it on the map. :-))
Pollies no longer want to look ahead and plan for the future it requires brains and commonsense and doing what is best for th country not for themselves.
If there is a drought and water is short, cost is not a consideration if piping the water ends the drought, after all we MUST have water.
No they "Govt etc" want us to reduce usage to make more of the resource available to industry without increasing the cost to supply it to industry which in a lot of cases like water and electricity it is supplied free to get the industry to establish in the area/State.
We are paying for industries getting free utilities and we get slugged for increases to the infrastructure to supply more to those industries.
I am not convinced we are running out of water but do believe industry can use it better.
Example in the middle of the worst drought in or states history,Draconian restrictions were in place for years, however Car washes were allowed and more car washes were built during the drought? {:-{ {:-{
-
Well i am young (very young by some peoples standards %) ) And so probably have a very jaded and biased view on the world O0 . . .
I accepted that industry were the main reason for resource wastage in the world i was just trying to pose the question, does it really hurt us to use a little less? especially if using a little less doesn't even have to mean a great change in our normal routines?
Here in Sydney we had our water restrictions eased slightly to allow watering of the garden, not hard surfaces, but the garden at certain times of the day. i.e. early morning, late afternoon. This is a simple change that means not as much water is lost to evaporation.
You say that my example reservoir just needed to be larger DG. however, an infinitely large reservoir is not a feasible project. If you are using a dam that means that you are going to have to flood areas, so any low lying towns or villages in the area will be flooded. the bigger your dam the more area that is flooded. so I don't see how you can turn a poorly placed dam into a viable project just by increasing the size of the dam.
If that makes any sense.
however i accept that you are right in one respect, infrastructure. The infrastructure needs to be constructed by todays government for the future population. For some reason (unknown to me) governments seem unwilling to do anything that will truly benefit future generations if their are no rewards for those generations that are here now.
i must say that Sydney itself has not been in drought very often over the years. The problem is that because the Dams are placed in the most geographically sound place they could be the catchment area is in drought. Causing a lack of water for Sydney. This could have been solved if government, maybe a decade ago????, had seen a problem arising and enforced the addition of rainwater catchment systems and grey water reclamation systems on all new constructions. residential or industrial. This would have meant that all new buildings would have had their own supply of water, at least to some extent. But this didn't eventuate, in fact i don't think rainwater tanks are a compulsory addition to new constructions now either.
This would have meant that both industry and homeowners would have been using less water from the catchment areas without too much hassle.
Anyway sorry to be naive {:-{
Tim
-
Well i am young (very young by some peoples standards %) ) And so probably have a very jaded and biased view on the world O0 . . .
For 'jaded' and cynical, it's hard to beat an ex-Whitehall civil servant...
I accepted that industry were the main reason for resource wastage in the world i was just trying to pose the question, does it really hurt us to use a little less? especially if using a little less doesn't even have to mean a great change in our normal routines?
Oddly, I think it does. You can see why below...
You say that my example reservoir just needed to be larger DG. however, an infinitely large reservoir is not a feasible project.... so I don't see how you can turn a poorly placed dam into a viable project just by increasing the size of the dam...If that makes any sense.
You are quite correct - technology is not always a complete answer, and it always has to be the right technology. A poorly-placed dam will always underperform compared to a properly-placed one, and there are certainly large areas of the world where a dam/reservoir is not practical at all. My concern was rather with an implication I read into your words that, because dams have their own limitations and problems, technology should be rejected in favour of behaviour modification...
The infrastructure needs to be constructed by todays government for the future population. For some reason (unknown to me) governments seem unwilling to do anything that will truly benefit future generations if their are no rewards for those generations that are here now.
Aha! Here we come to the root of the problem, and the reason I pop up whenever I hear people extolling the benefits of saving and recycling. Are you sitting comfortably? Then |I'll begin.....
A long time ago, governments and civil servants saw themselves as mainly there to benefit the people. They ran foreign policy, and defence, and developed big country-wide infrastructure projects like railways, sewers, telecommunications, broadcasting and the National Grid.
They soon ended up with a lot of expensive equipment and services under their control, and, being civil servants, ran it quite inefficiently, without much commercial accumen.
Thatcherism changed all that. All this expensive infrastructure was sold to industry, who operated it much more efficiently than the civil servants. Look at the mobile phone explosion. Thatcherite ideas made a lot of profit for both government and industry, and were quickly copied all round the world. Unfortunately, civil servants work for the people, but industry works for profit....
As I indicated earlier, industry are always looking to maintain their profits, and will not invest in lifetime payback projects. They have politically-inspired financial disasters like the Channel Tunnel to show them what happens if they ignore profit predictions. So they will not invest heavily in new infrastructure unless, like phones, you can show a profit in 5 years or less. They will get as much as they can out of the existing infrastructure, and governments, having launched the idea, supported them in this, though they are now starting to have second thoughts...
Speaking generally, we have now used up all the slack that was built into the old infrastructure. Technology has helped this - we now run with many more trains on a track than 50 years ago, and our Grid is much nearer to 100% load - all enabled by computer technology. We badly need new and expanded services - indeed, in the UK I think it is already too late for electricity generation, and I anticipate rolling brown-outs in the next 10 years before we can get more power stations on line...
The industry is addressing this problem by trying to cut demand. It has stoked up an almost religous fervour for 'green environmentalism'. This is aimed squarely at the government regulators, who may be minded to 'force' companies to invest. The total savings you can get if the public turn off standby on TVs is miniscule, but if you can make it impossible for a government to consider a series of new power stations, you have saved your company and shareholders many billions.
This is managed by running advertising campaigns, working with environmental activists, with the aim of turning people off the whole idea of new technology. You may think it's odd - I couldn't possibly comment - but it makes perfect financial sense. Get people to reject the whole idea of new investment, as a religious duty, and you won't be forced to pay for any of it. That is why I try to encourage people to think about what lies behind the glib phrases and exhortations to 'Save a little bit'...
Eventually, of course, government will have to buy back the infrastructure from industry if they want it run for the benefit of the people. But by then, the politicians who made their reputations in this way will be long dead....
-
For 'jaded' and cynical, it's hard to beat an ex-Whitehall civil servant...
Not cynical. Cynical means not caring about the evil being perpetrated. Sceptical, on the other hand, mean not believing the words of those giving the instructions for the particular evil. You didn't need to be in Whitehall.
-
I thought the problem was the increasing amount of water. Burning 1 unit of methane makes two units of water.
A few years ago the water companies were criticised because they like building reservoirs. A new reservoir is a capital asset increasing the share price, whereas if they just mend a leaking pipe they only have the same number of pipes they started with.
-
Someone on here asked the question 'Why should we have to change the way we use water?' or words to that effect.
The reality is that we have changed the way we use water. Domestic per capita use has increased a lot since the 1970s, I cannot remember the exact figure but it is over 300%.
At home. People will often shower at least once a day, and a shower run for a long time uses more water than a bath. Back in the 1970s many people only bathed twice per week. And I guess will all smelled a bit more.
The washing machine is used daily in many households today, when I was a kid it would be once or twice a week.
Additionally, the population has increased.
Indirect use of water per person has also increased as industry does a lot more with water on our behalf than before.
In short we already have changed the was we use water, in the wrong direction. I find ideas of 'why should I change' a bit short sighted. This is why there is such a push in the industry for water meters. To make people think a bit more about how they use water. Currently there is not much in the system to answer the question 'What's in it for me if I behave responsibly?' (apart from less tangibles like the environment and no hosepipe ban). The meter provides at least some answer. What is in it for me?, a lower bill (£).
-
The hosepipe ban for domestic premises in now in force in this part of the UK. The penalty for breaking the ban is a £1,000 fine.
United Utilities (the water supplier in these parts) have applied to the Environment Agency to extract a lot of water from lake Windermere.
This has caused upset to the boat owners who are already facing low water levels before any further extractions. The boats which cruise the lake regard the next two months as their main income season for the year, due to the tourists. They already pay expensive fees for the use of this lake.
If you were the Environment Agency faced with this decision what would you choose? either continue to provide water to the towns and cities of the North West of England, or risk robbing the boat owners of their main income. Not an easy choice!
Tony.
-
In short we already have changed the was we use water, in the wrong direction...
What's wrong about it? Tigertiger has accurately pointed out that there are more of us, using more water per head than before. It's quite reasonable for more water to be required. There should be no reason to ration it.
This is called advancing the human condition. Each generation, due to technical advances, should live a more luxurious life than its predecessor. There is no shortage of water - it's a constantly renewable facility. What there is a shortage of is supporting infrastructure - reservoirs and the like. This is because we have sold off our infrastructure to private companies who do not want to spend their profits on investment for the future. They have taken a lot of profit out of the system, and are now trying to force us to make do with less by playing the 'green' card.
If the Victorians had thought this way, we would still be drinking out of local wells and taking a bath once a year. If we had the vision of the Victorians, we would already have a national water grid, and a better infrastructure for dealing with fluctuations in supply. Instead, we have a lot of rich water company owners and shareholders.....
-
I think arguments for water meters are rubbish, as part of having central heating installed last year I had a new water main installed which included a meter. The meter cost me best part of £1000 to have installed, and what do I save in water costs??? absolutlely nothing. Thames water base their bills on how many people live in the property, so I will never recoup the cost of the install and it would take my daughter and myself to leave for my wife to get a lower water bill.
So I am sorry to dissapoint everyone, but all this dross talked about water meters has nothing to do with saving water but everything to do with making money.
Thames Water recently announced to the government that if the price they can charge does not go up they will not have the investment to solve the massive leak problem in London. So what do they do build a desalianation plant on the Thames to draw water from it to help replace the lost water, we will not get a hosepipe ban but we also do not get cheaper bills. If the untilities were still in government control they might eventually replace all the pipes and cure all the leaks, but not while they are private that will never happen and a lot of the water in the system will always be lost. >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Rant Over
Brian
-
There is no shortage of water - it's a constantly renewable facility. What there is a shortage of is supporting infrastructure - reservoirs and the like.
You might want to tell that to the people who live in the deserts of the south western US. The same people who use so much water for "recreational pursuits" that the Colorado river no longer reaches the ocean, the river through Pheonix (Gila I believe) that no longer flows water because people have siphoned it all off. The head pond of the Hoover Dam sports a bath tub ring over a 100 feet high due to the level dropping to the point nature can't keep up with the use. 85% of this water is used for washing cars, watering lawns, misting headers over sidewalks to cool the pedestrians in desert weather, irrigating fields in desert areas for crops (up to 80% of that evaporates before it hits the fields), the list goes on. People move to the desert areas and expect to have eastern green fields and bush, so they use more water than nature can provide. When they realize that has happened, they now want to drain the fresh water lakes of Canada so they can squander more water to the deserts.
The availability of water is becoming tight in some areas. I feel the biggest reason for this, and a lot of our other world ails, is the effects of over population that is only going to get worse. All our latest and greatest technology in the world isn't going to help us on that one.
John
-
I'm happy to tell them. All water engineers agree that water is a completely renewable commodity. Evaporating water is not 'lost'. You are mistaking 'water infrastructure shortages' for 'water shortages'.
Of course, if 1000 of people decide to live in an area where the natural water provision can support 100, then people will go short unless they invest in a more sophisticated water delivery infrastructure. Lots of people can live in the Nevada desert if they pay for the infrastructure. What I am complaining about is that nobody seems to be addressing this issue in the way the Victorians did. Faced with impossible living conditions in London, they did not sit down and decide that they had reached the limit of their civilisation. They went ahead and built a sewer system that enabled the City to expand and prosper. Why can't we do the same today?
-
the hosepiope ban also as a silly side effect. you have a bath and have saved water, so throw a hosepipe from the bathroom window and SIPHON the water from the bath down the hose. this water would normally go down the drain but rather than WASTE it you use it to water the plants, you get a £1000 fine
-
the hosepiope ban also as a silly side effect. you have a bath and have saved water, so throw a hosepipe from the bathroom window and SIPHON the water from the bath down the hose. this water would normally go down the drain but rather than WASTE it you use it to water the plants, you get a £1000 fine
No you wouldn't!
I'm happy to tell them. All water engineers agree that water is a completely renewable commodity. Evaporating water is not 'lost'. You are mistaking 'water infrastructure shortages' for 'water shortages'.
Of course, if 1000 of people decide to live in an area where the natural water provision can support 100, then people will go short unless they invest in a more sophisticated water delivery infrastructure. Lots of people can live in the Nevada desert if they pay for the infrastructure. What I am complaining about is that nobody seems to be addressing this issue in the way the Victorians did. Faced with impossible living conditions in London, they did not sit down and decide that they had reached the limit of their civilisation. They went ahead and built a sewer system that enabled the City to expand and prosper. Why can't we do the same today?
'Water' is a renewable and finite resource, yes.
Clean, available water that can be used by the ever expanding popluation of the planet IS NOT a never ending resource- nature just simply can't keep up- yes it's alright banging on about the water cycle, but water as salt water, water vapour, rain, streams and rivulets IS NOT useable water until it works it's way back into the reservoirs and lakes that we use to supply our mains- keeping the balance of what goes out to what goes in is a delicate and huge responsibility.
Siphoning off water at any stage before it collects into the lakes and reservoirs is out of the question because then it wholly interrupts with the local ecology and habitat.
As I said right at the beginning, it is NOT our problem individually, we are just the ones that reap the consequences of the uptil now (beginning to change) lacidasical attitude to water that industry around the world.
Yet we as end users also have our responsibilities- water is NOT ours, it is used by the entire planet and supports all life on it, second, but only just, to sun light as this planets most important factor for life existing here.
So when you turn the tap on to wash your teeth, turn it off while you brush- 7 or 8 litres of water can easily run out of a slow running tap in 1 minute- times this by lets say 20million people nationwide and you get the picture.
Those people that wash the car with a pressure washer, when quite clearly after 4 months of no rain there is no mud on it, use a bucket for goodness sake!
All those toilets that are in peoples houses from before 2004 that are over 6 litre flush- EVERY time you flush your toilet you are using 50% more water than a new toilet, even more if it is a pull chain type.
All those slow running constant feed urinal washers in all the offices, public toilets, theatres, cinemas, shopping malls, pubs etc- EVERY SINGLE ONE of those could be stopped by putting a 'cistermiser' on or an infrared flush sensor- billions and billions of litres of water are literally going down the pan!
And when it does rain we make no use of it at all- why dont we all have 500litre tanks below ground- certainly on all new build properties- that collect rainwater discharge from our gutters and grey water from our bath waste etc that we can use to flush the loo or water the garden- grey water is FREE WATER!!!!!!
We are all responsible for it- and I don't think by being responsible it means we have to resort to ancient living conditions at all- in fact reducing our needless water consumption would be a sign of progress if anything.
On the other hand the ageing and rapidly degrading infrastrcture we have is also to blame- the amount of leaks and burst that we have every year is scary- it's said that to raise Coniston Water 1 inch it takes 1billion gallons (thereabout) or 4.54 billion litres of rainfall- just think if we did all that I mentioned, plus every other detail that I've missed, we might not have a hosepipe ban right now.
It's allright for you guys that live in cities or countryside where hosepipe bans and drought are just an inconvinience, but if you took the trouble to come upto Cumbria and look at Windermere or Thirlmere (which was a week ago ALMOST dried up entirely) it is scary- and I'm not being dramatic here, when you think of the amount of water that has been used in such a short period of time and how many millions of people are relying on these water supplies, and you can see the bottom of most of the reservoir, and walk across it without getting your feet wet, that is scary.
Greg
-
My mate Spanish Trevor works some high-end swanky job at Wessex Water, Bristol. He reckons all the top brass are counting on planet Nibiru smashing into earth on 2012. Therfore, no point in wasting good money of future infrastructures.
You heard it here first.
-
Hi All,
All a result of "Party Politics".
If individual politicians where elected to parliament and worked to the benefit of their electorate, then we may be better of. But "party politics" has allowed certain greedy parties to "privatize" government departments, so they and their wealthy business buddy's can pocket the profits from utilities, which YOUR taxes paid for in the first place. Short term gain for the few. The dumb electorate will keep shelling out.
Has happened in The UK, NZ and AU over the last 25 years, and all the original infrastructure is about worn out.
Don't expect the "Private" utility companies to fix it, the govt of the day will shell out YOUR tax dollars/pounds to these companies to repair/replace, until the next time.
You pay taxes to build them, then pay through the nose for the use of same.
Ad infinitum.
cheers
kiwi
-
No you wouldn't!
Yes I would - I am doing so now..
Clean, available water that can be used by the ever expanding popluation of the planet IS NOT a never ending resource-
Yes it is. That's what a cycle MEANS.
I have no difficulty with utilising any raw material efficiently - that's just basic engineering. But calls to limit domestic use are completely useless 'gesture politics' - only useful for enforcing the 'green religion'. Domestic use is less that 20% of total use anyway. I recall a recent Canadian study on low water-use flush toilets which found that the projected water savings were not occurring, because in order to clean the bowl people were flushing them twice!
This attempt to lower everyone's standard of living is strange. It is playing right into the hands, not of the NIMBY brigade, but the BANANA crowd (Build Absolutely Nothing, ANywhere At all). All appropriate water engineering solutions are automatically rejected in favour of making individual sacrifices to Gaia. Where are the plans for a National Water Grid? Rejected by the combined water companies as too costly - they would rather take government subsidies to fit us with meters. Why do we suffer flash floods and yet always have problems recharging our ground supplies every winter? Because when you develop land, there is no strategy for diverting the run-off into holding lakes, and it is cheaper just to wash it down the sewers.
I would have thought that this forum would be anxious to push hydrological engineers and councils to create the new lakes we need, instead of filling in all the ponds, and then calling on people to share a bath...
-
Yes I would - I am doing so now..
I meant you wouldn't get fined, using grey water through a hosepipe isn't illegal- I would have thought as you know so much about water supply regulations you would know that.
Yes it is. That's what a cycle MEANS.
{-) Any cycle can be stopped by removing any part of it, or reduced by doing the same.
I have no difficulty with utilising any raw material efficiently - that's just basic engineering. But calls to limit domestic use are completely useless 'gesture politics' - only useful for enforcing the 'green religion'. Domestic use is less that 20% of total use anyway. I recall a recent Canadian study on low water-use flush toilets which found that the projected water savings were not occurring, because in order to clean the bowl people were flushing them twice!
Ah, so you do recognise that using water efficiently is common sense and is basic engineering, yet are quick to rubbish prototype WC designs that do just so- just because manufacturers havn't quite perfected the design doesn't mean they aren't useful- more expensive well designed WC's flush just as well with 6litre flushes, the worst culprits are plumbers that put 6litre flushing siphons onto a 9litre cistern.
This attempt to lower everyone's standard of living is strange. It is playing right into the hands, not of the NIMBY brigade, but the BANANA crowd (Build Absolutely Nothing, ANywhere At all). All appropriate water engineering solutions are automatically rejected in favour of making individual sacrifices to Gaia. Where are the plans for a National Water Grid? Rejected by the combined water companies as too costly - they would rather take government subsidies to fit us with meters. Why do we suffer flash floods and yet always have problems recharging our ground supplies every winter? Because when you develop land, there is no strategy for diverting the run-off into holding lakes, and it is cheaper just to wash it down the sewers.
Why is it an attempt to LOWER peoples standard of living!?!?!? Surely ensuring everybody has enough water to use how they see fit within efficient and legal bounds is INCREASING standards of living- what is a hosepipe ban if not lowering standards of living- but you would rather the majority carried on using ineficient methods of using water so that it happens more frequently?
I'm sorry but the at the end of the day the population and amount of industry world wide is expanding exponentially, consuming huge amounts of potable, clean population destined water supplies, and the amount of water coming from the water cylcle- which IS a finite amount- just isn't enough to cope to demand.
Our attitudes to water and our infrastructure need rapid and dramatic re-thinks.
Greg
-
Most interesting circular discussions here, reminds me of the old song, here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush,..............
You all have similar ideas, with many different points of view. Some simply more right than others. How do I know. Water collection, distribution, usage and disposal, have been designing all this and more for the last 40 odd years, in various countries around the world.
Not putting anyone down, I truly find all your discussions most interesting.
Anyway, back to model boats, the important part of life
cheers
kiwi
-
I meant you wouldn't get fined, using grey water through a hosepipe isn't illegal- I would have thought as you know so much about water supply regulations you would know that.
Why do you tell me I know 'so much' about water regulations? I know nothing about them and have never claimed to do so...
{-) Any cycle can be stopped by removing any part of it, or reduced by doing the same.
I cannot understand what you are implying here. Nobody is going to remove part of the hydrological cycle. I am simply saying that if we need more water from it we must make provision for that. The water cycle is not going to stop.
Ah, so you do recognise that using water efficiently is common sense and is basic engineering, yet are quick to rubbish prototype WC designs that do just so- just because manufacturers havn't quite perfected the design doesn't mean they aren't useful- more expensive well designed WC's flush just as well with 6litre flushes, the worst culprits are plumbers that put 6litre flushing siphons onto a 9litre cistern.
In your rush to score a point you don't seem to have understood my comment at all. I said nothing whatsoever about prototype designs - indeed, none were involved in the recent Canadian studies. I was commenting on human behaviour. I have no problem with engineering solutions which address real problems, though I would suggest that any product design which is 'not perfected' is probably going to be less than useful...
Why is it an attempt to LOWER peoples standard of living!?!?!? Surely ensuring everybody has enough water to use how they see fit within efficient and legal bounds is INCREASING standards of living- what is a hosepipe ban if not lowering standards of living- but you would rather the majority carried on using ineficient methods of using water so that it happens more frequently?
Why do you keep claiming I am saying things that I am not? You do not seem interested in understanding my points at all. I am suggesting that the water distribution infrastructure needs considerable investment and expansion, so that everyone can have enough water. How this can cause more hosepipe bans escapes me completely...
I'm sorry but the at the end of the day the population and amount of industry world wide is expanding exponentially, consuming huge amounts of potable, clean population destined water supplies, and the amount of water coming from the water cylcle- which IS a finite amount- just isn't enough to cope to demand.
Why do you make incorrect statements when they would be so easy to get right? World population growth is nothing like exponential. The growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and halved to 1.10% by 2009. Current projections show a steady decline in the population growth rate, with the population expected to peak at around 9 billion around 2045 and drop in real terms thereafter.
You do not seem to understand that the water cycle carries water past us. We can take as much as we want - we are part of that cycle. We do not destroy water - we release it back into the cycle as we use it. There is no way we can break that continuous loop. Any shortages are shortages, not of water per se, but of our storage, treatment and distribution network, and it is that we need to address. We have failed to do so over the last 30 years, because the water companies have taken profits rather than ploughed them back in, and they are now using eco-speak to justify that decision.
Despite the entire green industry trying to paint a picture of doom and gloom, the world is doing very nicely. What it needs is more sensible engineering decisions - and a lot less attempts to extract taxpayers money for dubious projects driven by a mixture of greed and eco-religion...
-
As Kiwi says, a you can't find the end of a circle, we are both seeing the same problem from a different point of view, but have the same overall view of what is wrong- people's attitude to water needs to change- whether that be the suppliers who will struggle on plugging leakes continually using subsidies from the government, the governments for not having the foresight to invest in a nationalised water grid, or the end users, whether that be industrial or domestic and their 'it's always been ok in the past, why should it change now?' attitude.
You are right, I should not have used the term 'exponential growth' for the population rates, however when your talking increases of whole percents of billions you are talking a huge increase nevertheless. Not to mention the increase in developing countries industry- look how China robbed Europe of other raw materials, do you think she will have a responsible attitude to water misuse?
My point about the water cycle is thus, and I do not mean to be patronising so bear with me-
The majority of water that falls as rain on our land is from the sea- we have no hand or influence in this process.
The rain that falls on our land in cities goes straight from the sky, onto concrete, down a drain and into the rivers straight away- it now can't saturate the land and flow in slowly.
This means that the rain that falls onto land and flows slowly, as it should, into streams, rivulets, rivers and then lakes and reservoirs and rivers again out to the sea is relied upon by the densely populated areas as well as the habitat and populations of these areas too.
Now we have interfered with the water cycle- the lakes, and reservoirs (that were once streams themselves or small lakes that drained into the sea) are now there solely to supply water- and in times of drought (the environment agencies description of our current conditions not mine) they simply can't cope with their dual role as a habitat and a cistern for a city, and in most cases the rivers (one of the steps in the water cycle if I'm not mistaken) dry up that should run into the sea.
This then has a knock on effect of badly damaging the river wildlife in that area- up here we have had tonnes of fish stocks that have been stranded in dried up tarns and rivers that have had to be rehomed- upsetting the local ecological balance at the same time.
IF WE DID NOT USE AS MUCH WATER THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN, not a theory, not an idea, a fact.
WE includes the people I mentioned at the top of the post.
Greg
-
Been there, Queensland did that {-) it didn't work. :embarrassed:
Cut to the chase, there is no water shortage just lack of moral fibre by Govt to make the abusers, Industry change their 'potable' water wastage.
It is not the individuals that is you and me who are at fault.
My/our consumption is negligible compared to industries wastage and lack of political fortitude to bring them to heel, build dams, pipelines, treatment plants etc.
It has been rightly commented that our forefathers yours and mine planned for a rainy day.
Nowdays its is crisis management, don't do any maintenance, don't fix anything , don't build new dams don't do anthying unless it is necessary.
Hear endeth the lesson. %) :-))
-
In fairness, the lesson has begun..........the Steel industry in Port Kembla [OZ] [which pays for my existance :D] now uses approx 95% recycled & treated waste water in the production of steel
So there are a few winning stake holders here
1. the community... less water resrtictions
2. the community...as Sydney Water does not have to increase water costs for domestic use
3. the State Government so they can claim superior technology & vote their senior staff a big pay rise
4. senior staff @ Sydney Water
5. the chemical companies that now sell $M PA of chemicals to the steel industry to keep the PH balance of the recycled & treated waste water at acceptable levels
But there are a few looooooooosers here
6. the community, as they paid the $billions for the recycled water plant
7. the steel industry as the structures are rusting away whilst using this new beaut recylced water ......Derek <:(
-
That's good to hear, unfortunately money comes in second next to having water. What's your average rainfall btw?
Greg
-
It sems a bit strange to me that a large number of people can get very upset at the thought of a "hosepipe" ban.
Let's get real folks, the time to start complaining is when ALL your water supplies are limited - then you will have very real grounds for complaint. Having lived for a couple of years in a tropical location where the water supply was limited (not restricted, just cut off) for twelve hours per day, I can assure you that the old proverb "you never miss the water till the well runs dry" is oh so true. Two spells of water supply of six hours duration (lesss when you consider that when it was restored all you could get was a filthy muddy dribble out of the tap) in a climate such as that was not much to my taste. Flush the toilet? No chance! We had one family who went down with food poisoning, four people with violent screamers, don't even think about it!
I'm fortunate, I live down stream from one of the largest man made lakes in Europe. The water from that is piped/pumped/shipped all over the place. No shortages. They even sold it to Gibraltar a few years back - supplied by super tankers loaded down river. Ban hosepipes? No big deal to me - as long as domestic supplies are maintained.
Mention has been made above of using grey/dirty/sea water for cooling in power stations. What a lot of people do not consider are the knock on effects of this practice.
In the good old days (ie when we had a decent electricity supply industry) we had, locally, four power stations sited on the river within a distance of around ten miles of each other. One used cooling towers, the remainder used river water (known as direct cooling). The reason for not using river water for all the stations was given as the effects the hot water discharge would have on the river. It was claimed that you could create a complete change in the nature of the river.
Another station locally used sea water for cooling, the effect there was to create a warm water stream into the sea which often attracted very strange fish to it. The could and did cause problems when they got sucked into the sytem. This was,of course, not including the effects of salt water on the cooling system.
I have never watered my garden, I prefer to be able to drink a glass of the stuff or enjoy a shower. Wash a car in the sunshine? Complete waste of time and water, you'll end up with water marks galore as the sun dries it off before you can do it manually.
Just my own view of things....
-
Now we have interfered with the water cycle - the lakes, and reservoirs (that were once streams themselves or small lakes that drained into the sea) are now there solely to supply water- and in times of drought they simply can't cope with their dual role as a habitat and a cistern for a city, and in most cases the rivers dry up that should run into the sea.
IF WE DID NOT USE AS MUCH WATER THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN..
Greg
We are ALWAYS 'interfering' with the water cycle - we are part of it. If we extract more water from a repository than is there it will go dry. Our options then are twofold - to extract less water or build a bigger repository. Since there is no 'shortage' of water, a bigger repository have no problem filling, and will last longer.
Why does nobody consider this second option? Other countries do it - why can't we? Forcing people to use less domestic water is an activity which has already passed the point of diminishing returns - it is less than 20% of all water useage, and hosepipe volume usage, in particular, is miniscule. And it disrupts already-designed infrastructure. The Vancouver experiment I referred to earlier is a case in point - they mandated low flush WCs, and then found that the low volumes of water in the sewers were resulting in blockages.
There seems to be a semi-religious movement away from the big Victorian public works which improved peoples lives immeasurably over the last century, and towards life under a central rationing regime where inefficient energy generation and service provisions are mandated because they are 'green'. None of this makes engineering sense, and it is being forced on us amid ill-informed cries that 'We must save the planet'...
-
The "over engineering" of the Victorians created as much of a furore when originally carried out as the under engineering of today. T'aint missile technology that when an "Investor" buys into a market, that has stood the test of time for going on for a century virtually untouched, despite an increased pressure on the use of its resources, "something's gotta give."
This seems to have happened with our water industry. Not only are WE more wastefull but we are expected to bail out (Bad Pun) the supply owners who have just realised that the infrastructure is crumbling, not only metaphorically but also literally. The Cast Iron network always has had a limited lifespan so to now turn round and bleat they need more money from the users to replace it seems a little shortsighted(?) when they were in the board room negotiating the most lucrative deal for their shareholders.
Can agree with both DGs and Gregs point of view re the reasons, but the answers are not as easy. Yes we have allowed a concrete jungle to form over vast tracts of land that previously allowed a temporary adequate drainage, but how many "New" developments have been coupled up to the existing drainage systems? The original systems were over engineered at the time they were built but the daisy chain effect has naffed that one a bit. "Separation of surface and waste water drainage systems" What a superb idea that one was, fine idea on a board room table, cheaper to treat and release surface water, does stuff all in keeping the main waste drainage systems clean now that were "using" less water for flushing, washing etc.
Dig a big hole in the ground to collect more water? Good idea, trouble with that cherry is we HAD big holes in the ground but it's more lucrative to fill them in and sell the land for DEVELOPMENT which creates more jobs laying a drainage system and covering it with concrete and populating it and ---------! La Ronde. If you generate more storage facilities they too will falter, why? look at the M25 as a classic need exercise. It NEEDED to be able to carry more traffic, so make it wider. Solved the problem? Yes, it's a BIGGER car park now.
The water users and suppliers both need to take a long inward look at themselves.
Regards Ian.
-
And whats happening at the moment .. Yes Hail-stone and big uns as well.
-
There seems to be a semi-religious movement away from the big Victorian public works which improved peoples lives immeasurably over the last century, and towards life under a central rationing regime where inefficient energy generation and service provisions are mandated because they are 'green'. None of this makes engineering sense, and it is being forced on us amid ill-informed cries that 'We must save the planet'...
Fully agree here with you..
IMHO we really need to build bigger and better storage facilities, on a whole this country gets more than enough rainwater which could be better stored and redistributed, you only have to look at lakes like Coniston and Windermere which for the last decade have been regularly overwhelmed by the additional rainfall , Where has most of that water gone (and I believe Windermere rose by well over 6 foot and considering the size of the lake that is a lot of water) I assume it just went down stream back to the ocean, this could have been used to stock up storage facilities , but oh no its easy just to impose a ban,have they banned all these street hand carwash areas which seem to crop up in any disused car park or petrol station...
Also I recon I would use less water with a hose to wash my car than using a bucket, as I do not let the hose continually run. Stupid thing is if I use the hose I could be fined £1000. but if I chuck 30 buckets over my car Nothing would happen.
I collect rain water in an old standard size Whiskey Barrel, (yes there was still about a third in when I got it but nobody dare try it as it had been there outside for about 10 years that I know about ) and as Colin early commented on it quickly fills up, and usually lasts until the next downpour.
I have thought that if we all did collect are rainwater, how long would it be before the drains became clogged because of lack of water ?. Also when the councils and agencies allow new properties , supermarkets with their huge car parks, could the run off not be put to some use rather than sent down the drain , could large soakaways not be built so that the water gets back into the earth to follow its natural course.
just a few ramblings.
-
Fully agree here with you..
IMHO we really need to build bigger and better storage facilities, on a whole this country gets more than enough rainwater which could be better stored and redistributed, you only have to look at lakes like Coniston and Windermere which for the last decade have been regularly overwhelmed by the additional rainfall , Where has most of that water gone (and I believe Windermere rose by well over 6 foot and considering the size of the lake that is a lot of water) I assume it just went down stream back to the ocean, this could have been used to stock up storage facilities , but oh no its easy just to impose a ban,have they banned all these street hand carwash areas which seem to crop up in any disused car park or petrol station...
Windermere rose 9ft above average level in November, and Coniston 8ft. The reason that the floodwater could not be used is because the reservoirs that the lake water is pumped into were also flooded so, as you correctly surmise, it flowed into the ocean.
However, just to set one thing straight, Windermere and Ullswater are the lakes that are emptied to fill reservoirs, Thirlmere is one, Tarn Hows being another and Orrest Head reservoir serves the Windermere community.
Coniston, Derwentwater, Bassenthwaite, Wastwater and Crummock Water are all just lakes- though all are used to suppy local reservoirs- with the exception of Coniston which uses Levers Water as it's reservoir.
As we speak United Utilities are extracting water down to Wier level (Newby Bridge) on Windermere and are seeking permission (following public discussion with the Windermere Lake User Forum) to extract a further 750mm of water level from the lake should they need it- already half the boathouses around the lake are dry!!!
Greg
-
And this was my point that at the time the excess water could have been used to supply not so full resevoirs , but as I think has already beed discussed this would take a fair bit of pipe laying and that costs money that the water boards are not willing to spend.
Intresting note about the lakes.
As long as there is water in Coniston this weekend for the Coniston Championship swim..I just love canoeing that lake..
-
There is plenty of water in Coniston now- it has gone up 18" in the past 3 days!
Thank goodness I'm not helming Gondola on saturday, it's going to be chaos- 40 swimmers in the swimming championship and 30-40 under 16's in a dinghy race at the same time.
You will of course be going for a trip on Gondola while you're up won't you...?
Greg
-
Good, like to hear it can't behaving a lake with no water.. a tiny bit of wind but not to much straight down the lake would also be nice..Yes the dinghy's can be a problem but generally only to those who do not know how to control their swimmer 8) These swims are the only time SWMBO listens to me.!
The race on Saturday is a relay , and swum very near the shore, The main race is on Sunday :-)) where we are more in the middle. Often wonder as the boats steam past what the passengers think of a load of mad people swimming the 5.5 miles of the lake.
Is the cafe back in operation after last years floods, as I need my bacon sandwich before we go..
We have sailed in one of the boats about 2 years ago , must admit can not remember which one.. Not sure this year.
Out of interest my wife is the current 3-way Coniston swim record holder which she has held the title for over 10 years.
-
Hi,
Sorry to disappoint, wind is forecast to be 40mph straight up the lake i'm afraid- if it is we won't be sailing anyway.
Very interesting about your wife, is she the same lady that swam Windermere, Coniston, Derwentwater and Ullswater in the same day?
We get a lot of swimmers in the lake, unfortunately they are not all accompanied, and an even fewer number don;t even wear a bright cap- we had a very near miss a couple of weeks ago- guy in a black suit and cap on a windy day- 20secs later and he would have been round the prop- it shakes you up a bit I can tell you, but he didn't seem to give a damn!
Suppose there's always one, and we always responsibly report their position, heading and whether they are accompanied or not so other lake users know their whereabouts, but we can only do so much.
Bluebird Cafe is back up and running yes, still in Portakabins though- they have planning permission to do something with the proper corrugated side but no-one knows what exactly.
You would remember if it was Gondola you had sailed on!
Greg