Hard News: Drugs, testing and workplaces
115 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Apparently the waters that Forest and Bird et al want most to be cleaned up , will never be “swimmable” because they are under the ground.
Haven't read the link - but are you making the point that we needn't concern ourselves with the water quality of aquifers?
-
andin, in reply to
Mother Nature will sort it out if we don’t.
State the obvious why dont you!
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Are you overseas?
No. The prospect of arrest is kind of untenable for most people, especially those with families.
Last year, New Zealand had a low net migration loss of New Zealand citizens of just 3100.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Rather the opposite : that the campaign to fence some waterways was largely window dressing to placate the urbanites. The nitrate was already present through percolation down through the soil profile , before the water even reached the stream. Some honest scientists pointed this out at the outset of the furore . Phosphorus remains largely an erosion problem in the hill country because phosphorus binds to the soil.
But I am suggesting that "swimmable" is not a scientific term and should not have ever entered the debate. That fact seems to have been realised now, and the focus should be on appropriate soil use, stocking rates , nitrogen fertiliser , and bought in feed .
Actually I can recall having exactly this conversation with Gary Taylor and Guy Salmon several years ago. There simply has to be less nitrogen going in the top of the soil profile for there to be less coming out the bottom. -
Sacha, in reply to
the waters that Forest and Bird et al want most to be cleaned up , will never be "swimmable" because they are under the ground.
You are conflating the recently announced Green party policy on aquifers with Forest and Bird mapping which waterways the govt's new water standards apply to.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I don't think so ; which type of aquifer are you referring to? I didn't use the term.
Edit : I see what the Greens are saying about shallow aquifers, which is groundwater. Where I farm there is no risk to the main water sources which are artesian - sealed underground tanks under considerable pressure, and not subject to infiltration.
The groundwater which the Greens are talking about is not confined and finds its way into streams and rivers, swimmable or not. This is the water that should have been of concern , but the clean streams outcry got all the attention.So the real cleanup , in respect of nitrate has yet to begin, and the economic consequences nationally are massive.
-
This is the same stage that the discussion reached four years ago in the Fact and Fantasy thread.
https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-fact-and-fantasy/?p=276517#post276517
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
So the real cleanup , in respect of nitrate has yet to begin, and the economic consequences nationally are massive.
In that, I think you and Mike Joy are agreed.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the real cleanup , in respect of nitrate has yet to begin, and the economic consequences nationally are massive.
totally agree. fencing off waterways is a feint.
-
Sacha, in reply to
which type of aquifer are you referring to?
the 'under the ground' sort :)
-
mark taslov, in reply to
spread the effluent
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Essential educational material for kids , IMHO. It's a shame the schools don't use it.
Easy to understand why that won't happen though :- -
4.30 a.m. Time to hit the track . . . the day awaits.
-
Retree
-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.