Slashdot Mirror

People say water shortage and I just think they are mad.

If water is pumped from the Great Lakes to the Southwest you may not see water much longer.

Falcon

We pipe oil 800 miles across Alaska.

Water is piped or pumped now. The Colorado River used to flow from Colorado to the Sea of Cortes or Gulf of Mexico through the desert. Now it rarely makes it all the way, instead Nevada and Arizona cities built in the desert like Los Vegas and Phoenix pump a lot of the water out. Because of the Colorado River Compact 8 states have claims on more water than the river has. Scientists now say that when the pact was drawn up the river reached a high water level.

Some states are now drawing up plans to pipe water from the Great Lakes region to the Southwest.

Falcon

Why is Michigan going to flood? Are great storms going to rain down upon us? Lake Erie(which the other four lakes that affect Michigan drain into) is 571 feet above sea level; pretty much all of Michigan is above that.

These guys think global warming will *drain* the lakes:

http://www.ecocenter.org/releases/20030414climate. shtml
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/oh/111803_great _lakes.htm
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007 0407/METRO/704070370

So before you say 'shill' make sure you are dealing with actual facts.

I disagree completely with you and saying that this is not enough for sustainable human development. I'm sure this is enough water to sustain development for years to come, long enough for somebody to find water somewhere else.

Well, it's of order 20 trillion liters (10mi*10mi*200 feet) of ice (which is about the same volume as the equivalent liquid water content - ice is only about 10% less dense).

A random site says that Americans use on average 80-100 gallons per day, which means that water would supply a colony of 10,000 for 11,000 years.

Yes, the water needs for a colony are higher than the water needs for a person, but an off-planet colony probably is going to recycle water (one would hope), so I'd imagine actually that it probably works out pretty well.

So yah, I agree with you. This is a heckuva lot of water.

Because, thank the proverbian god, the Conservatives got kicked out before they sold Canada's water by river/channel-full. Look at the James Bay crap. Then earlier in the 60s there was the NAWAPA proposal.

Even now, G.W.B. wants to buy Canada's water in bullk. http://greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/101702_gr eat_lakes3.htm.

In NAFTA, it states that bulk water is not covered. BUT if Canada starts selling bulk water, we cannot stop (under NAFTA). That's why a company selling bulk water to Middle East (oil to us, water to them) got shut down by the government.

Let's hope that the current brand of Convatives (political party of canada) do not ever get a majority. They might just sell our most important asset. Brian Mulroney sure tried.

Forgot the link, and me login: Toronto's solution will have far less impact than Milwaukee's solution of building more coal power plants which will suck 2.2 billion gallons of water and fish from Lake Michigan every day and convert it to mercury contaminated steam, or discharge it at a much higher temperature... all in order to inefficiently cool buildings to the temperature of lake michigan, a stone's throw away from the power plant. Can I burn some karma points with a duh here? Canadian industry finally cops onto an idea that every 7-year-old has when his toes are in 40F degree water and his head in 100F air. If only American industry wern't so hung up on our industrial past, we could see the way to the future.

This has been covered extensively on Discovery Canada, which I watch regularly. Here's a quote that puts this into perspective:

...He said environmental studies show the system will cause a temperature increase [each year] equivalent to the heat the lake surface absorbs during seven seconds of sunshine....
-Toronto cools off using Lake Ontario waters

>Would you rather I put traces of animal fat in your food and soil

Considering in Walkerton farm runoff killed 7 and made 5000 sick, the second looks like a great option.

>would you rather have benzene and arsenic in your drinking water.

Arsenic has no smell (so that can't be the problem in that city!) and considering the maximum exposure factories can give you to benzene (legally), and that it's effects are only from really, really, really long term exposure (unlike that farm water), I think you can guess where I'm heading.

>Why do you think it's illogical to make a distinction between pollutants?

Well, to me, wether I drink naturally poisoned water or synthetically poisoned water, I'm still dead. When something is a dangerous pollutant, to me it really makes no difference if the source is a pig's ass or a tipped over bottle of arsenic. To me they are both deadly, and therefore get the same rating.

I suppose this comes down to arguments like "Would you rather be shot by a musket point blank or an AK-47 round from a distance" Either way, you're probably going to be sorry.

I thought that was just a problem with the morons running the government in Milwaukee