Hi Kay,
Thanks. You omitted my use of the conditional "arguably", so thanks for
arguing another perspective as invited :-)
On 22/05/11 05:11, piersdad wrote:
> [arguably] over-extraction thereof has caused a major expensive earthquake,
>
> sorry to bust your balloon but to say that a few thousands of tons of water
extracted against billions of tons of earths crust makes the--speakers --look
like idiots in the face of any engineer in that knows his stuff.
You haven't 'deflated' me yet, because we are actually talking about
_millions_ "of tons of water extracted" over the preceding 2+ decades,
since bulk dairy conversions started impacting the central Plains.
That's a substantial weight which, coinciding with very dry decades and
steadily lowered water tables from depleted aquifers, of course has
lifted the downward pressure of gravity from what has now been proven to
be a mobile lattice of faults. - Great what hindsight can offer, from
which we must learn! ...
But the stronger argument, perhaps, is in how the extracted millions of
tons of water has been and is being abused. The increased greenhouse gas
emmissions (CO2, methane & nitrous oxide) of the unsustainable dairy
herd over-population are not only escaping new compensation tax of the
herd owners, but warming the planet. Now you must have heard a house
creak and click as it warms and then cools, each day and then night -
little 'quakes' in the timber framing - of course the Earth will behave
the same, except the 'micro-motion' adjustments in structure are
relatively much more significant and sometimes devastating.
Mammalian over-population - in the human food production systems in
particular - is the number one driver of the building climate crisis, of
which more earthquakes are but one feature. The 'right' to over-extend
private stock herds - within the historical paradigm - and to steal from
the natural public estate and community well-being in order to do so,
has become a primary focus for justice to challenge today; alongside the
'welfare insurance' that large families do provide in underdeveloped
countries - resolve the 'underdevelopment' instead!
And which "engineer" statement, if any, were you referring to here please?
- Are they connected, at all, with the (paid) "scientists" who said that
Christchurch was safe to reopen after September 4th?
> however it is true that the liquefaction has removed water from the sub soil
and lowered the levels.
You say? - I'm more convinced that the 22 February fault rupture lifted
the Port Hills and sunk the eastern City, by 40-60 centimetres on either
side, as was reported.
In other words it will be a _lot_ more difficult to mitigate the already
flood-prone nature of Christchurch now.
- Abandon Ship? ...
> how ever our aquifers are under stress and the future of water use has to be
addressed.
Agreed.
> for instance the use of large quantities of water for toilets some thing like
8 liters each time a flush and a kiwi design to halve this quantity would cut
water use by 1/4 at least.
Maybe (check the stats on that - garden watering is biggest single use
by far), but is this improvement now not actually outmoded? Composting
toilets and neighbourhood greenwaste digestors / energy generators is
what I'd recommend - a massive, sustainable change in community
infrastructure.
The gravity-driven, water-carried (parallel to natural seaward flow)
waste system that we had was the cheapest and most efficient for its
time. But have the times not now changed, along with the lay of the land?
Thanks again for your thoughts Kay.
> kay Edgecumbe
> linwood, christchurch
Kia ora ~ Rik