That last line about flashlights really cracks me up.

Subject:	Re: Water in local area - huh?
Date:	1999/06/06
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ... >In article <928693783.77119@helium.cstone.net>, >Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com> wrote: >> >>Yeah, water moves uphill all by itself.  No electricity involved. >> > >Absolutely Paul, look up 'hydraulic ram' which is a type of >pump that uses the kinetic energy of the moving water, and >no other external inputs. >   how many hydraulic rams does San Franciso, Boston, Chicago, LA and Houston use? Philadelphia, Rome, London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc etc.     Bradley, you are a completely disingenuous asshole. My next door neighbor uses a ram pump. We are not talking about getting water from a spring to a house, are we butthead?. We are talking about supplying major cities with water you consumate asshole.   Once again you have outdone yourself being a freaking moron. Any asshole like you can equivocate.   Now, we will go back to your statement that  we don't need computers to pump water.     Reading from: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/business_story.html?in_review_id= 86299   "The firms are currently testing hundreds of thousands of so-called "embedded systems" that control and monitor the flow of drinking water, and the collection and treatment of sewage."   "If the tests reveal widespread "glitches" in the systems, particularly those of larger companies, there will be "insufficient time" to replace them, the report from consultants Montgomery Watson warns. "     This states that water is CONTROLLED AND MONITORED by computer systems. But you knew better.   Now bks, you pathetic lying scumbag,  no one expects you to make an apology for your pathetic lack of computer knowlege , you being the big computer expert and all.   Once again, you have been caught red handed not being able to find your ass in the dark, with both hands, even if all your fingers were flashlights.     >    --bks >

-- a (a@a.a), June 07, 1999

Answers

And I thought Paul had become more civil...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), June 07, 1999.

Speaking of water.......I saw a very disturbing 60 minutes last night about Bangladesh's well water problems. Years ago UNICEF dug many wells in Bangladesh to help escape the drinking of dirty pond water ect. well now it has been discovered that many of the wells that UNICEF drilled have naturally occuring arsenic and many, many people now have cancer from this. Does anyone know anything about this problem??? Is this sad situation only in certain areas? Can arsenic be filtered out? Help Mr. Wizard

-- a mom (what@next.com), June 07, 1999.

So "hundreds of thousands" of water systems are being tested. This is good.

However, IF those systems are required to make water available, and IF there are bugs in them, and IF those bugs disable the systems, and IF the problems are sufficiently widespread, and IF the systems need to be replaced rather than repaired, THEN a consulting company predicts there won't be time to replace them.

This constitutes a "guarantee" of failure, Milne style.

And I'll add a little more here: IF the tests fail to uncover any serious problems, THEN Milne won't provide an update.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

Arsenic CAN'T be filtered out. The water can be treated, but its more expensive than softening or Iron removal.

There are high Arsenic reading throughout spots in the world incuding the US, but here we can drill the well deeper or abandon the well altogether AFTER TESTING, treat if really necessary.

The third world countries can do little of this, at least not quickly.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), June 07, 1999.

Filtering groundwater contaminants works best when they have adsorbed to sediment particles. If the contaminant is dissolved in the groundwater, then it will show up after filtering.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 07, 1999.

I respectfully request that the new moderators remove this post as per new guidelines on profanity. Thank you.

-- L T L (NOTB@tthis.time), June 07, 1999.

Flint, were you tormented as a child? Abused with Fleet enemas, perhaps? Do you honestly believe you serve any purpose in the great circle of life? Do you have any idea at all what you are blubbering about? Let's see : yes, yes, yes, no! NOW, water is a real sore spot with me. Gravity feed systems will fare better, providing they can keep their treatment plants operating. It doesn't do any good to have it coming in if you have no way of moving it along. Nothing like a sewege treatment plant backing up. Why even bother going into such detailed analysis, knowing they are nowhere near being complete on remediation and WILL screw the pooch in the area of testing?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 07, 1999.

flint continues to exhibit grotesque reading comprehension skills. In his incredible rush too squeeze out every possible pollyanna spin he pulls this one out of his ass....

I will post flint's comment AND what the article said for your reading pleasure....

Article: "The firms are currently testing hundreds of thousands of so- called "embedded systems" that control and monitor the flow of drinking water, and the collection and treatment of sewage."

flint: "So "hundreds of thousands" of water systems are being tested. This is good. "

no flint-child NOT hundreds of thousands of "water systems". hundreds of thousands of EMBEDDED SYSTEMS **IN** water treatment and sewage plants. This COULD be only a hundred plants depending on how many embedded systems they had , but NOT hundreds of thaosands of water "systems"

In his ruch to pronounce that hundreds of thousands of water treatment and sewage plants are being remdiated, he just forgot to stay within the bounds of the quoted text and made shit up.

If flint-child had only used his hat-holder for two second he could easily have seen that even in the US there are not hundreds of thousands of water treatment plants. There are only three thousand counties..

One more resaon that shows that no matter what is posted, flint will spin it pollyanna, or if that is nit good enough, just make shit up.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 07, 1999.

Sorry, Paul, but your're REALLY clutching at straws here.

The article said "systems". Can you read. Try it. Try again. Take your time, you can do it. See? It says "systems". I know you can read if you put your 'mind' (sic) to it.

These are systems used to "control and monitor" WATER! These are not any other kind of systems, These are WATER systems. Golly.

So what does Milne the Idiot say: Check it out:

"there are not hundreds of thousands of water treatment plants."

Now Paul, try reading again. Where does it say "plants"? *I* didn't say that, the article didn't say that, *YOU* said that.

Putting your words into my mouth and then blasting me for saying them is lower than dirt. And very stupid. And SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

Now why don't you toddle back to school, until you can handle words of two syllables, and don't get them confused with words of one syllable, OK?

Shame, fool.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

FLINT, you full-blown pompous douche bag. "SYSTEMS", means from your tap....to your poop tank......to the treatment facilities! You are a worm wrapped up in silk, and it makes me physically ill that so few can see through your BIG-BRAIN veil.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 07, 1999.

And as long as I'm on a roll....anybody who WOULD fall for your "bubbling ballet routine" ALSO makes me want to spill my cookies! Church or school? BBBBBBOOOOOUUUPPPP!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 07, 1999.

On the subject of Arsenic, I would expect that 2 approaches might help: 1) Generally, as pH goes up, metal solubility declines. If water were treated with a base, then if precipitation occurs, filtration could then be used to remove at least some of the metal. 2) Precipitation of the unwanted heavy metal might be forced by adding a soluble salt whose anion would form an insoluble compound with the arsenic. There are compounds that work nicely for Ca and for Ba, but I do not presently know of ones that would work for Arsenic. 3) There is always distillation and/or filtration through activated charcoal...

my Y2K website: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 07, 1999.

Can't help but notice that when Milne is wrong, he applies Rule of Disinformation #25 and vanishes. Anyone familiar with his history on csy2k knows he's been caught in obvious errors many times, and has vanished without a trace every time. A coward to the core, as should be crystal clear from his presentation.

And, uh, 'a'? Ray? Where are you? Yoo Hooooo

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

Many of the wells in question in Bangladesh were drilled with funds provided by international organizations. Bangladesh is a very poor nation (1998 GDP was $260US per person), and can't afford to pay for water treatment. See Statistics of Arsenic Calamity

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

as per the new treatise instituted by the new moderators

"he constant heckling, harrasing, profanity, flamming--within reason--and the barrage of TROLL attacks trying to disrupt the Forum need to stop. This intent has amply been proven to be the case by a small group of Debunker and Biffy posters, and others.

We have given some of the agitators polite warnings. PLEASE STOP THE TROLLING.

If continued, your post will be edited for profanity or deleted." -- FORUM SYSOPS

I again respectfully request the deleting of the posts which contain profanity and move that 'a@a.a' be reprimanded as a repeat offender along with Mr. Milne.

Thank you.

-- L T L (NOYB@tthis.time), June 07, 1999.

Yes LTL, let's delete all of the threads that have bad news and ban all of the posters with less than rosy outlooks. Great idea!

Idiot.

-- a (a@a.a), June 08, 1999.

Why would any of us bother coming back, after that last display of heavy hitting IQ you offered. The conversation was O-verrrr.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 08, 1999.

LTL...HA, I thought you were only kidding, HOOOO! You're actually searious, aren't you? How many "flashlights" do you have? Do YOU think you could find your own -bleep- if your -bleep-ing -bleep- was duct-taped to your -bleep-? Just wondering!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 08, 1999.

Back to the original post, and further, the article it refers to... Article can be accessed here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/business_story.html?in_revi ew_id=86299

If one reads the first two paragraphs, one will understand that the area being referred to is England and Wales.

AND, it is pointed out in the second paragraph, that there are 28 companies and 34,500 sites that the report is concerned about the vulnerabilities of...

[snip]

BRITAIN'S biggest water companies are leaving it dangerously late to prepare their computer systems for the millennium, risking dry taps and sewage flooding on the first morning of the 21st century.

An independent report into the state of readiness of the 28 water companies of England and Wales, a copy of which has been seen by Business Day, expresses "concern" about the time left to test and protect the 34,500 sites vulnerable to the millennium computer bug.

[End Snip]

So the "Hundreds of thousands" of "so-called Embedded Systems" in "34,500 sites" that belong[?] to "28 water companies" which are the "biggest water companies" in "Britain" are what you folk are "discussing?"

Do I have this right?

And the "systems" "control and monitor the flow of drinking water, and the collection and treatment of sewage."

Now, if there are 28 companies, as stated in the article, and they have 34,500 sites that are vulnerable, also as stated in the article, and they are just now starting to check them, then this is definitely something to be concerned about. We can only hope that there will be no problems found. Or at least a small number.

So, let's wait and see what they find. Okay?

BUT!!!!!!!!

[Snip]

The report was commissioned in July by water regulator Ian Byatt and quietly deposited in the library of his Ofwat offices in Birmingham.

[End Snip]

The article was written in October of 1998. Please note:

[Snip}

) Associated Newspapers Ltd., 28 October 1998

[End Snip]

And you folk ar arguing over news that is EIGHT MONTHS OLD! Surely someone can find out something about their CURRENT STATUS?

Now all of you go to your rooms! And no noise or I am coming in there and smacking some butts!

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 08, 1999.

J:

Water supplies are important, I think. Surely they're important enough that if the testing that has now been going on for nearly a year had uncovered any serious problems, someone would have noticed. Yet we have this deafening silence. How very strange.

As I said earlier, IF no serious problems are found, THEN no update will be posted. Thanks for pointing out that in order to make his case, Milne is reduced to posting half-truths about obsolete articles, and running away when caught at it. If there were any real reason to worry about water any longer, you can be sure it would be given LOTS of forum space.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

The only purpose of posting the article was to point out the fact that water "systems" are highly automated.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 08, 1999.

AAAANNNNNDDDD! In addition, FLINT, there is precious little *room* for posting anything....you have been taking up FAR too much of this space for FAR too long now! THEY ARE IN TROUBLE. Deeper than that enormous orifice in your head. The whole point of the *obvious* (duh) conspiracy behind y2k, is the fact that NOBODY is willing to say that they are humped worse than a couple of camels in heat. How did you find your shoes this morning?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 08, 1999.

Flint said : "Surely they're important enough that if the testing that has now been going on for nearly a year had uncovered any serious problems, someone would have noticed. Yet we have this deafening silence. How very strange. "

Now if they did uncover serious problems, YES somebody would have noticed; presumably the people doing the uncovering would have noticed, at the very least. But news of these serious problems might not reach US because a) the water companies, perhaps under state instruction, don't want anyone to know that there is bad shit on the horizon that they are culpable for, or b) no journalist has gotten off his/her butt and followed-up on the matter and written the next article, c) such an article has been written, or an equivilent government report exists, but it just hasn't come to the attention of the y2k research community yet, or d) none of the above. I lean towards b).

Flint, YOU are actually making the "absence of evidence as evidence of absence" mistake, Bwaha..ha..ha! ;~)

-- humpty no.6 (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

Humpty no 6:

For the sake of discussion here, I'll assume you care more about your water supply than you care about convincing yourself that you're scoring points.

In my first post to this thread, I listed several factors, ALL of which would need to go wrong to threaten your water supply. If you reread that list, you'll have more insight into the actual issue here.

As for what we know and what we don't know, you raise a thorny issue. To me, this is a case of the dog that didn't bark in the night. If all of that investigation had uncovered serious problems, I suggest it's quite likely this would have been publicized. Not guaranteed, of course. Just likely. Conversely, journalists typically don't consider routine to be newsworthy. Writing that the water works OK is like writing that the sun rises in the East. It's not news. But I grant this is indirect reasoning. The dog that didn't bark *might* have been drugged. It *might* have been off the premises. it *might* not have felt like barking that night. But certainly the media had no problem writing about the tests, and had no problem writing about the 30 million people who might be without water, etc.

You may be right, of course. It's possible that journalists have lost interest in their own water. It's even possible (at least for some here) to believe that everyone involved in these "hundreds of thousands" of system tests has been muzzled, along with all the journalists covering the story. If it seems more likely to me that lack of problems makes for a dull story and doesn't get written, maybe I'm just biased.

You'll notice that at the time the water article was written, there were no known problems. This is distinct from articles we read that say (worst case): There are known big problems, and we're in big trouble if they aren't fixed.

NOW consider: We see one article mentioning only a massive investigation. Then nothing. No good news, no bad news, no news at all. What (if anything) can we deduce from this? Yes, you're quite right, there are many possible reasons why we haven't heard anything. Are you implying that we can draw no conclusions at all?

If so, I find this highly ironic. As I'm sure you're aware, my reluctance to draw conclusions in the absence of information draws a lot of heat in this forum. I'm accused of being indecisive, wishy- washy, confused, you name it. And in the absence of that same information, the doomers here project wild worlds of fantasy and nobody thinks twice about it (except to attack me for pointing out what they're doing).

And here, I imply that, everything considered, no news has a high probability of being good news, and some doomer propmtly pops up and accuses me of drawing a conclusion when no conclusion can properly be drawn! Hehehe. Surely you wouldn't be claiming you object to the *method*, when you really object to the conclusion.

Oh yes -- even if power stays up (very high probability), I don't plan to consume any water from my municipal water supply until I'm satisfied that it's safe. I seriously doubt there will be any problems at all, but why take unnecessary risks?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

We had a water main bust yesterday. There is now a "Boil Advisory" in effect for 150,000 people. Shit happens, even in best of times. Y2K will be the worst of times.

-- a (a@a.a), June 08, 1999.

I know this is slightly off topic, but does anyone agree with me that Paul Milne is a bit of a wanker?

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@x-stream.co.uk), June 09, 1999.

Paul Milne does have the capacity to get people thinking.

Of course, some don't always think about what he posts, as much as how he goes about it.

The ability to get people to begin discourse is not hard to do, either.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 09, 1999.