Chesters, why blame the government and what for?

[Peter Waller]

Relating to angling ofcourse! This part of your signature always intrigues me. Ask a silly question . . . . . . . . .

[greg long]

Why not?

I thought thats what they were there for.

[chesters1]

related to angling :confused: why dont the government come down hard on poluters (it doesnt matter if its not a government matter as being on the top of the pile the buck stops there) an easy new law could be issued that would cut polution overnight (theoretically) "any water that is or other substance that is discharged into a river or anyother watersource MUST be cleaner than the water its entering " when i say cleaner its in all catagories ,sediment ,chemicals ,hormones ,and organic and inorganic compounds , an easy law to enforce just test the two subjects, if the intoduced one is not as clean an immediate fine of £1,000,000 (small in u.s standards ) that source includes runnoff from drains and fields .end of message end of polution

[steeplejack]

couldn't have put it better myself.(a few swearwords prehaps) .

[Leon Roskilly]

chesters1:

related to angling   :confused:   why dont the government come down hard on poluters (it doesnt matter if its not a government matter as being on the top of the pile the buck stops there) an easy new law could be issued that would cut polution overnight (theoretically) "any water that is or other substance that is discharged into a river or anyother watersource MUST be cleaner than the water its entering " when i say cleaner its in all catagories ,sediment ,chemicals ,hormones ,and organic and inorganic compounds , an easy law to enforce just test the two subjects, if the intoduced one is not as clean an immediate fine of £1,000,000 (small in u.s standards ) that source includes runnoff from drains and fields .end of message end of polution  

er, There seems to be a problem with some rivers now. They have been 'cleaned up' so much, that there's not much in the way of nutrients.

 

Pure water, unable to support much life

 

Rather than chemical purity, a far better way to measure the health of a river is to look at the bio-diversity it supports.

 

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/...al/2001/h12.htm

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Jim Roper]

With all the chlorine etc in tap water, you could not even say that only water fit to drink should be permitted to enter water courses. I believe most London tap water has been through the sewage system several times anyway.

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.fishandfly.co.uk/messageboard.html

[miasma]

2 biggest polluters?..Water Companies and Farmers

...Shareholders or Guardians of the Countryside?

[chesters1]

its not so much the chlorine its the flourine ,its being phased out in america but still in our water whether we need it or not ,flourine in toothpaste is adequate for our needs ,too much of it is bad for teeth and heaven knows what its doing to our kidneys etc and ofcourse our fish

 

[ 02. October 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Peter Waller]

Never drink water out of a tap Chesters. Make sure that it has the right additives. Like what Adnams, Tolly, Green King etc. have.

 

Your idea to hit polluters in the pocket is a poor one, it would hit the shareholders, can't have that.

[Jim Roper]

The biggest shareholders are Joe Public's pension funds.

What goes around, comes around!

A bit like water, I suppose.

 

Bring back the good old days before chemicals when cereal yields were no better than those of the stone age and it took 3 days wages to feed the family, an hours pay to buy a dozen eggs or a gallon of petrol and 2 days wages to pay the rent. Land was £200.00 an acre and nobody wanted it.

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.fishandfly.co.uk/messageboard.html

 

[ 03. October 2002, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]