Los Ososology? Bwa-hahahah
Ron Crawford, over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ is having a grand time while quaking in his boots with his latest post, "Shandon, Tempelton, Santa Margarita, Arroyo Grande, Nipomo, WELCOME TO LOS OSOS" with his newly coined word: Los Ososology and comments on the new Stealth Onsite Resolution 005& 006. Hahahahah. Well, many people in those communties wrote snotty letters to the editor calling the people of Los Osos names and laughing at The Los Osos 45. Ah, but The Laws of Karma are not mocked. Despite their lack of understanding as to what happened here, those people in those communities now have my deepest sympathy.
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(205)
-
▼
March
(17)
- Here We Go Again, or Los Ososology, ReduxAs mentio...
- Los Ososology? Bwa-hahahahRon Crawford, over at ht...
- Reclamator’s Up And Running!The following email ex...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, S...
- Morro Valley Farmers Fined Out of Existence by RWQ...
- Basin Plan Update? The Basin Plan's up for review ...
- THWOK! Mr. Murphy Replies:
- Poor Los Osos...Now In Closed Session
- Guess Who's At The Back Door...With A CDO And A Gun?
- Is That A Registered Sex Offender You're Driving A...
- Permit Me, Please
- Crunch Time
- Stuck At The Corner of Then and Now
- Duh, Duh, Part DuhThe following excerpt is from Th...
- PZLDF's Day In Court, AgainYesterday, Judge LaBarb...
- Misc. Sewer NewsIMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 4th, 2008CO...
- Yep, It's Official, We're Now A Third World Countr...
-
▼
March
(17)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
58 comments:
Government generally treats symptoms. Private industry seeks to solve problems.
Technology that eliminates "the discharge of pollutants" is technology that would eliminate alot of the problems caused by treating symptoms.
Why would anyone stand against solving water pollution? Why?
Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.
Ronald Reagan
Anyone else notice how the smaller Tri-W gets in the rear-view mirror, the less behavior-based-mar... errrrrrrrr... nasty, anonymous comments there are in these sections?
Methinks the meaning of "flogging a dead horse" has finally set in with that tiny, tiny, tiny handful of people.
WM wrote:
"Why would anyone stand against solving water pollution? Why?"
Why? To C.Y.A., of course.
Fraud in California, especially when it deals with the amount of public money that we're talking about here, carries stiff penalties -- stiff enough to make a teany, tiny handful of people not give a wink about water pollution.
Right, "Coastkeeper?"
Thanks for the link Ann.
It'll be interesting to see if the Trib writes a word on how Briggs intends to turn every non-sewered community in the county into Los Ososes.
It's a complex subject, so my guess is, no.
Ron sez:"It'll be interesting to see if the Trib writes a word on how Briggs intends to turn every non-sewered community in the county into Los Ososes"
The silence from the Tribune on this is amazing. Usually, they're very generous of their newspaper space (front page Section B, huge headlines) whenever the RWQCB needs some "message" sent to the community. But on this onsite basin plan update -- utter silence. Wierd.
AES has set its sights on every point of discharge in QCB3 and beyond. Briggs knows it. The more NOV's and CDO's he authoriaes the better. Think 13360 here.
Watershed Mark sez:'AES has set its sights on every point of discharge in QCB3 and beyond. Briggs knows it. The more NOV's and CDO's he authoriaes the better. Think 13360 here."
All the more reason, methinks, for AES to get the word "discharge" defined once and for all, donchathink?
Ann:
When one searches Porter-Cologne for "discharge" the word "waste" is always associated with it. There is no stand alone use of the word discharge.
Discharge is already defined, under the law. QCB3 cannot change that definition no matter how it may have tried. QCB# was formed and constrained by law.
I'm unimpressed that citizens have been led or forced into believing that Briggs, Packard, Young or whoever can make law and alter defintions of law.
LO/BP has a front row center seat at watching history in the making.
With internet technology available to this citizen it won't be long until those responsible for upholding the law will be made responsible. Without law there would be no "equal protection". Think 14th. Amendment here.
The 11 out of the 45 should understand what I am saying. It only takes one person to "get it" and I already do.
Watershed Mark sez:"When one searches Porter-Cologne for "discharge" the word "waste" is always associated with it. There is no stand alone use of the word discharge."
Ah, but in the official CDO paperwork sent to the Los Osos 45, that word "waste" and "waters of the state of California" disappeared from the OFFICIAL paperwork sent to the CDO recipients -- Version 1 included theword "waste" and "waters" & etc. The last version before the final hearing did not. Magic.
This is a "FINE" legal point.
The CDO may not be legal...wouldn't that be LOvely.
I Love LO
I still say: How can leaky sewerage without PRETREATMENT be installed and permitted in a "PZ"?...legally, ethically, morally, logically, etc. ad nauseum
We LOVE IT!!
Who says it is going to be leaky mark? Didn't you hear the request by one of the speakers representing an environmental group in SLO at the BOS yesterday? They requested sealed pipes be used on whatever system is chosen.
mark, you seem to have forgotten to answer me. Have you tried a plan such as you present here to towns in other states? How did that work out for you?
Toons:
The November 2007 Public Improvement Standard states the leakage rate of 500 gpd/mi/diameter inch pipe for sewerage built in the county.
Do you really think that something stated at a BOS meeting would trump that PIS?
I have covered our work effort in other areas: Do you need me to cut and paste it, again?
I did hear Al Barrow speak about future depressed revenues..John Diodati about refunds of assessments/urging property owners not to pay the assessment...Paavo prattled on about the study process/strategy/approach and issues of uncertainty 5956 & 20133 Practice, Policies, Guidelines, Options, "best value"(he spoke on this last year...he will "eat his words"). His talk was light, very light/non existent on law, regarding: "PRETREATMENT". Also "FACTS" will have a significant effect on any private source funding. Ask Sam Sperry @ ORRICK.
Dr. Fullwood recommended that unsealed pipes be used. All Pipe is subject to failure. The shorter the pipe the better. NO SEWER PIPE IS BEST. RECLAMATE then you'll have the shortest length of purple pipe possible...WATER CONSERVATION is one advantage that is a no cost side effect of the RECLAMATOR.
Where is that "affordability study"?
Exceptions and Variances from the QCB? Septic Tank Survey...We don't it...Think!!LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution here!!!
orrection:
Dr. Fullwood recommended that sealed pipes be used. All Pipe is subject to failure. The shorter the pipe the better. NO SEWER PIPE IS BEST. RECLAMATE then you'll have the shortest length of purple pipe possible...WATER CONSERVATION is one advantage that is a no cost side effect of the RECLAMATOR.
Gotta love Margetson.
The man has his finger of the figures, DAMN he's good!
Fine mark, show us the years of data that proves your device will work for years. Show us that the Water Board thinks your device is great and gives it a certificate with a big, shiny, gold star.
Now, please respond to these questions and stop avoiding them: have you proposed this plan for other communities in other states? How did it work out?
Toons:
Where is that leaky pipe/failing sewer plant data?
I'm sorry you don't like my answer regarding our work efforts elsewhere.
What answer?
A gag may have a beginning, a middle and an end to them, or they may not. Gags can also refer to the prop stunts/tricks or the stunts that clowns use, such as a squirting flower.
Your point?
Watershed Mark said...
Now I asked this on another thread - Have you tried this before in another state at another time? You haven't answered yet.
Toons: I am sorry but I won't be discussing our work in other areas of the world. As an anonymous blogget, you can understand "privacy" can't you? I'm focused like a laser beam on several projects and Los Osos is still my favorite. I love L.O.
10:50 PM, March 22, 2008
12:12 PM, March 23, 2008
I'm not asking about other areas of the world, just the continental US.
I suspect most of us would think that if you had work that was successful, you would have it plastered all over in this blog and outside of it too. It would be an excellent sales tool to persuade us to get on-board with your product. When Orenco was here pitching us, we heard all about towns like our that they had built in.
Why care if I am anonymous. The bulk of your potential customers are anonymous to you right now too. That just does not make sense and makes me think that you are tying to conceal something.
Trying to sell me something on this blog and out in the community should not be "private" unless it comes in a brown paper bag.
Mark,
I need to point out that you've never addressed Sewertoons request for the evidence that your device is any better than ... um ... say, a septic tank.
Where is the evidence that nitrates will be reduced to the levels you claim and how do we know this will be the case for decades (not just months)?
How do we know your company won't go under because your devices don't work as well as you hope and we'll be left holding the bag after your firm files for bankruptcy?
How do we know you're not selling anything more than hope?
Until you get RWQCB approval for your devices and explain who is legally responsible for providing services should you leave town, I don't think I want to buy.
The County is offering an expensive but sure (in a financial sense) solution. You are offering a cheaper but very uncertain "solution."
Toons, Shark, Richard,
You are free to stick with the county's consulting engineer's study of leaky polluting sewerage.
As I have stated previously, the data which supports the the RECLAMATOR is located in our Engineering Report.
I see you all just don't understand how a "project" gets approved so you'll continue to ask for something that is not required.
Where is all the leaky/polluting sewerage data, toons?
Shark:
It's obvious you do not understand engineering, process, biology or memgrane technology. Don't worry about it the regulators do.
mark, it's obvious that do not understand salesmanship.
Thanks Richard and Shark. It is so nice to encounter some sanity in here.
Snakeoil, pure snakeoil!
Toons: You have choices...
MIKE: As long as it can meet or exceed the quality as laidout below...
The MMBR Clarification Module ensures that the water quality which interfaces with the filtration technology that is selected is less than 5/5/5 BOD/TSS/TN, which in many cases, is sufficient on its own for most discharge applications. As the mixed liquor flows into the Module, the biomass flocks and falls back into the main aeration basin. This Module initiates clarification over conventional clarification rates of as much as eight times (8Xs). This Module, located within the reactor, typically requires 5% of the reactor volume, less room than membrane compartments of conventional MBRs.
This is the really good part:
The quality of the water produced consistently meets a “0” pollutant, “0” discharge water quality standard, which meets the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” (MCLG) which are “un-enforceable standards”. The “AES Technology” Process Performance Guarantee is; 100% removal of colloids and particulates larger than 10 nano meters, turbidity less than 0.1 NTU, over log 6 removal of bacteria (99.9999% removal), over log 4 removal of viruses (99.99% removal), removal of large molecular weight organic compounds (above 100,000 Daltons) before disinfection. This consistent quality of reclaimed water produced by the “AES Technology”, “which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction” which is “a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants”, which thereby establishes the “AES Technology” as “The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available” as defined and required by the CWA.
Toons wrote: Trying to sell me something on this blog and out in the community should not be "private" unless it comes in a brown paper bag.
Toons: I am interested in what you think the county and their consulting engineer are doing?
This is the really good part:
The quality of the water produced consistently meets a “0” pollutant, “0” discharge water quality standard, which meets the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” (MCLG) which are “un-enforceable standards”. The “AES Technology” Process Performance Guarantee is; 100% removal of colloids and particulates larger than 10 nano meters, turbidity less than 0.1 NTU, over log 6 removal of bacteria (99.9999% removal), over log 4 removal of viruses (99.99% removal), removal of large molecular weight organic compounds (above 100,000 Daltons) before disinfection. This consistent quality of reclaimed water produced by the “AES Technology”, “which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction” which is “a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants”, which thereby establishes the “AES Technology” as “The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available” as defined and required by the CWA.
Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.
Aristotle
Shark wrote: The County is offering an expensive but sure (in a financial sense) solution.
What is it,Shark? Specifically, what is it?
As far as I can see the county has a study process...not a solution.
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
I Love L.O.
Mark,
I misspoke. The County is over log 5 (99.999%) certain to be able to design a system which will pass muster with the RWQCB.
From your interaction here and the evidence you've presented, I suspect that the chance that AES will have a system which will pass muster with the RWQCB (let alone before the County has something online) is less than 9%.
Let's see ... the odds that they will get something done are over a million times the odds that you can help us. Mabye I was a bit hasty when I wrote that their solution was "sure". Let me correct myself by saying that the County is offering an expensive but almost certain solution.
Thank you for pointing out my poor choice of words.
What is the county "solution" Shark?
Hint:The equity in your property is the basis for anything the county and its consulting engineer "wants" no matter how much it leaks or needs repair/replacement. There is no guarantee without your money once your hooked on a ~P~I~P~E~ to dispose of your wastewater. Think NOwastewater here.
Remember the county is over budget by about 5% so they need a big project to help out with the shortfall.
Seems you are extremely sensitive to how things are said but are unconcerned with the facts, you must be a retired english teacher.
Mark, have you ever taken a Salesmanship course? Or any course on how to put your point across without having the door slammed in your face? You have totally failed to convince any of the knowledgeable folks in this community.
You have certainly failed on this blog and in front of every Board in the County. You produce reams of meaningless words with absolutely no facts to back YOUR wishful sales campaign.
Mike:
I suggest that any "failure" to understand our product and service is not on our part.
Without a last name and face to go with the "persona" how can you be considered credible or knowledgeable. Interesting that you seem to believe you speak for everyone reading this blog. Did you ever think that there may be some who communicate with me off blog? I consider anyone in support of the county's consulting engineer's study process, unless and until it includes the RECLAMATOR, gullible.
BTW a failure is someone who stops trying/getting up after being knocked down which has not and will not happen. Why would we give up? We have the technology and the law on our side of the equation.
Shoot the messenger for delivering the message and don't dare expect answers to questions like: How much to build, operate, repair/replace? That makes economic sense to a "bigger the better" Public Works Project guy like you. The county is in the red and needs a project, no matter how stupid or costly it may be.
So you can understand that, I'll consider the source and continue my "blogeting".
OK... You WIN ...you now own this blog...
Apparently Ann has given over the rights to what used to be her opinion column...
Since it is you calling anyone gullible for trying to obtain facts about your septic tank, I guess you don't have a clue what we have been talking about...
Good luck Ann...
Mike, Toons:
When we win, everyone in LO/BP wins.
My point is that you believe that you are comparison shopping "solutions", when in fact you are not.
If you were to put every question you have about the RECLAMATOR to the county's consultig engineer and the county's TAC, I would think your questions "fair".
I said that if the county's consulting engineer's study process did not include the RECLAMATOR those believing in that "study" would be "gullible".
The "FACTS" are presented in the Engineering Report located in plain sight @ www.NOwastewater.com.
MIKE, when are you going to start that "I WANT A BIG LEAKY ~P~I~P~E~ NO MATTER HOW STUPID OR HOW MUCH IT COSTS OR POLLUTES Blogspot?
I'd love to come on over and shoot down every argument anyone makes in favor of 2,000 year old sewerage and in support of BADCT in order to conserve money, time, energy and water, while ceasing the discharge in LO/BP to satisfy the NOV's and CDO's in compliance with 13360. Any CAO would automatically be satisfied with a RECLAMATOR installation/septic tank replacement.
I think that about covers it. Do I "get it" or should I go on?
mark, clearly YOU don't "get it," but we know you will go on regardless.
We know that if we went to the County with these questions, they would simply come back to you and ask for more data, of which there is clearly NONE. IF YOU would ALREADY have provided the County/Water Board with the data, then THEY would be coming to US with your device as a possibility. Your LACK of data means we CAN'T comparison shop.
The burden of proof that your Wrecklamator works is not on the County, nor is it on the Water Board; it is on YOU. I'm hoping that this fact will soon sink in, so that Ann can have her blog back - if she wants it.
Toons:
Interesting you think you have a handle on the county process, because you don't.
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution leaves the county without a project that takes control of your water that they make money with.
I double dog dare you to send any type of request to the county or QCB3 regarding the RECLAMATOR.
That way you could actually participate instead of just blogging your opinions.
I'm still waiting for all those years of leaky/polluting sewerage and treatment plant data points...
Also you seem to be ignoring the whole infiltration/exfiltration sewerage discussion about your beloved PIPE. WHY?
Toons:
Just for fun, while your asking for that data, how about we focus on the last 180 days of the treatment plant for SLO City and the Men's Colony?
Treatment results and flow rates from these pieces of municipal infrastructure will make my point about how stupid sewerage really is, given BADCT on the ground or should I say in the ground and operational in LO.
I would think someone would want to prove me wrong, so I can be effectively nuetralized, without using gun powder, of course...
Whadaya say? Game on? The folks you are asking are, after all, public servants.
The only thing we will lose is our bias...
It may be a game to you, it isn't to us.
I'm not requesting anything from the County about your device because you haven't given me the data I require to make a toaster purchase, let alone urge them to look into a Wrecklamator. I wouldn't waste their time.
I don't think you have been here long enough to know that if the County could get off the hook for this thing, they would. Don't think that this process is not painful for them, it is. They manage somehow to keep on a professional and neutral face while certain groups throw trash at them every opportunity they can get. The County's team is ultra-professional and a credit to this County and would be in ANY county.
BTW, I am participating, by giving my opinions on your lack of data.
Also BTW, the County is not a water purveyor in this town.
So if the County or QCB3 revealed the records regarding the failing sewerage and treatment plant data they would fold their tent and go away as you say:
"if the County could get off the hook for this thing, they would."
I disagree. The records will show just how stupid sewerage really is as a means to eliminate pollutants and reclaim water.
Toons, the agenda is not about cleaning up the water as evidenced by the PIS that SLOCO put out in NOVEMBER 2007.
Also the blueprint for the "toaster" is located in the RECLAMATOR Engineering Report. You shouldn't feel badly about not being able to interpret it.
Remember we aren't selling you a system, we are providing service using the device. This concept is groundbreaking but not unprecedented.
Think county (studying) providing you a service using a sewerage scheme, here. You don't have any idea what happens to the wastewater once it enters their "device".
We do, serious as a heart attack. Game Over...
mark, I understand what is MISSING out of your report, the parameters for collecting the data. I do understand you are selling a "service." I'm sorry that you are not able to interpret my plain, written English.
What YOU don't understand is that WE need the Water Board to approve your device for us to consider using it. That would solve the problem for you and for us. Until that happens we don't have much more to talk about. If it doesn't happen, then we have nothing to talk about.
What I mean about the County wanting to be off the hook is so they would not have to put up with the continual, nit-picking, rude abuse that they must endure from a bunch of people with a need to voice every little thing that is on their mind, whether they know what they are talking about or even what they want -- other than the ego boost of hearing themselves talk in a public forum.
Actually, if water entered a device as was proposed by the last sewer project, we would have an idea of what would happen to the water. The plan was to put it back into the ground at the most likely place for it to return to the lower aquifer, instead of across the upper aquifer where water now leaks out into the bay.
So you don't understand what is "in" the Engineering Report. OK.
QCB3 is on the line as the first regulatory authority to acknowledge a technology that eliminates pollutants at the source. Stay tuned.
So the county civil servants should be "unaccountable" to the people to whom they serve? I will redouble my efforts to hold civil servants accountable.
Exfiltration of full strength wastewater from a pipe into the upper aquifer by a sewer pipe is not environmentally responsible stewardship. Think Morro Bay leaky/polluting sewerage here.
Toons, you have been drinking the county/dreamer Kool-Aid for far too long. You might want to try something else, there has been SO MUCH PROGRESS made in many areas of technology. Technology exists that can remove Nitrates from ground water at the well head, which is used in areas of the southwest that were used for crop production now being urbanized. A technology such as this makes the alleged nitrate laden upper aquifer useable as a primary source of drinking water...
History and the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will demonstrate that leaky gravity sewers are stupid and unnecessary.
Again, stay tuned...
A government of laws, and not of men.
John Adams
Date of Birth:
October 30, 1735
Date of Death:
July 4, 1826
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Mark,
I am not a retired English teacher. Sorry.
Perhaps it was a joke ... after all, you said I am unconcerned with facts. The funny thing is that I've asked you for data (facts) which demonstrate your claims and you are the one who hasn't provided this information.
I am very much concerned with facts but I have given up hope that you will offer us anything other that bold claims about your own method and criticisms of every other method.
The problem is that you don't understand you've not demonstrated your system can remove any nitrates, let alone your claimed level. Presumably the RWQCB and Los Osos would also want to see history of longterm nitrate removal before they'll approve your device for widespread usage.
So ... stop posting so darn much off-topic and entirely useless stuff and start measuring your nitrates and once you have data that prove your point, get back to us.
English teacher .... hahaha!
I'll stick with my guesstimate that you've got less than a 9% chance of getting approval and that the County has at least 99.9999% sure to be able to design something which will be approved and thus the odds of them helping us are over a million times the odds of you helping us. With an odds-ratio like that, you've got a lot of convincing to do ...
Shark,
Sorry, I can't give you credit for knowing "numbers" because you want a big leaky/polluting pipe the cost of which is unknown as digging 40+ miles of deep trench in sandy conditions comes with "unknowns". Think Native American Burial site, cave in/dewatering/etc. here. Good news for the "I love a big Public Works Project" people, bad news for those people who pay for it. See what I mean about the numbers.
I see again you do not understand "data" or "demonstrated" as embodied in the NSF Nitrogen Series.
Can you show us the data the county's consulting engineer has provided? Didn't think so....
You stick with what you want, it is a free country.
I guess pointing out the lack of discussion put forward by the county's consulting engineer regarding exfiltration even as the county put out a PIS document delinating 500 gpd/mile/in on pipe is off topic.(Have you read SLOCO PIS or any of the TM's?)
When are you going to start that "I LOVE A BIG LEAKY/POLLUTING PIPE , NO MATTER HOW STUPID OR HOW MUCH IT COSTS" Blogspot?
Don't worry we shall continue to continue. That is a fact you can count on.
Shark wrote:So ... stop posting so darn much off-topic and entirely useless stuff...
WM says-Like this from the county's consulting engineering TM on Loads and Flows:
This estimate would be conservative for Los
Osos, since a new sewer is expected to have low I/I for many years. -What happens then, Shark, Toons, MIKE?
mark, says, "blah, blah, blah, blah." Then mark says, "blah,blah,BLAH, blah blah."
mark, if and when the Water Board approves the use of your device, we will read real words here. Otherwise it is just, "blah, blah, blah" to us.
PS -NO proposed solution will be the "perfect" one, not even yours. We all get that, do you?
No data on that big leaky polluting pipe and failing treatment plant(s) yet Toons?
Lets keep pushing for it OK?
The data belongs to the people, doesn't it?
Government generally treats symptoms. Private industry seeks to solve problems.
Technology that eliminates "the discharge of pollutants" is technology that would eliminate alot of the problems caused by treating symptoms.
Why would anyone stand against solving water pollution?
Why would anyone want a leaky polluting ~P~I~P~E~?
Mark,
In your comment of 2:39pm today you say that I "want a big leaky/polluting pipe" which is silly to write. Even if I did want a sewer pipe (which you don't know but are assuming), there is no reason to write that I would want a sewer pipe to be leaky. If I were going to play "rhetorical tit-for-tat" I would write that you want to impose an untested and legally risky gizmo on me as a way of making a profit. Now, I will not play that game and I would similarly request that you not misstate my position.
As for your contention that I don't understand data ... hahahahaha. If you only knew ...
Perhaps if you understand what data is and how one can use it to justify your claims, you would have already presented these data to us and the RWQCB and the media. That you haven't yet done so, even though asked repeatedly, speaks to your lack of knowledge, lack of data or lack of honesty ... I can't tell which, but there is no other logical explanation.
As for your suggestion that the County has the same burden of proof that you do, datawise, you are sadly incorrect. The County has the legal right and requirement to build us a sewer. Unless you get approval (think data) from the RWQCB, the County is precluded from using your device as a sole method of water treatment and Los Osos residents won't adopt your device.
Speaking of creating blogspots ... didn't you create one of your own Mark?
Lastly, when you write that "private industry seeks to solve problems" ... you misspoke. Private industry seeks to make a profit. Nonprofit organizations seek to solve problems. If we all knew that you, Mark, were going to make $0.00 from the device you are promoting, it would make us far less suspicious ... just like we would be less suspicious of your claims if you already had a working reclamator and 10 years of monthly data showing it eliminated nitrates.
Think data. Think proof. Think no proof means no approval.
As for your contention that I don't understand data ... hahahahaha. If you only knew ...You sound like a county man wanting a big pipe...
The County has the legal right and requirement to build us a sewer. I hope you aren't referring to AB 2701, if not "show us the law". I didn't think so.
Seems you mis-thought...Non -profits need someone's profits to operate. Please don't put words in my mouth. Privete industry solves problems, to do that on a continuing basis it must make a profit. Think SLCOCO and CALIF. red ink here.
I thought LO/BP had a septic tank discharge "problem"?
Fortunately you are not in the position to make approval. Why not not aprovenen system for 20, 30 , 40 or 50 years?
When we get the "citizens" sewerage data fleshed out my point about how it leaks and polluteswill be made to you.
The government already knows it.
Why isn't that data sitting on a web-site?
If it is so good I would think it would be shouting it from the hill tops,why isn't it? Hmmmm.
FYI Shark:
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is a "community wide collection and treatment system",. The words sewer or centralized do not appear in AB 2701. Check it out, if you don't mind the facts getting in the way of your position.
mark, when you say, "Private industry seeks to solve problems,"are you referring to the clean-up in Alaska of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?
Mark,
If your system gets approved by the RWQCB, the County would love to consider the benefits and drawbacks of your system. How's the RWQCB process going?
Shark: Stay tuned.
Toons: Google.
hahahahaha. If you only knew ...
Shark what or why are you hiding?
More tea?
Post a Comment