Water Charges Protest.

volku

First of all we should ask what is the quality of water we are asked to pay for?
Then is the water safe to drink and for washing?
What can be done to have safe water?
We should demand the truth from water supplying councils, doctors, scientifics, reserchers, and Irsh Water.
Why most of us are getting the red marks on faces,
why our skin is getting dry and itchy after every bath or shower?
why our stomachs are upset?
why we get headaches?
why are ther so many phetous discharges and babies are born sick?
allergies, ADHD symptoms, autistic, cancers, etc

There is at least one answer
OUR MAINS WATER IS CHEMICALLY CONTAMINATED and it is NOT only THM s

our food is also contaminated (flour may contain up to 1% of chlorine, used as bleach)
but we are over 60% built from water

I have my rainwater harvested since August 2014.
We use mineral water Tipperary for drinking, cooking, etc.
Rainwater is used for washing, washing machines and toilets.
It is filtered with 5 micron filter plus UV lamp.
You cannot imagine how soft and nice in touch it is.
Unexpectly last January 2015 was pretty dry and my tank 3000litres lasts only 2 weeks with no rain. We were backed to mains water (like in swimming-pools)
my and my wife's skin got dry, my little son (4 y.o.) got spots on his face etc.
Same effects as many other people's faces. and you are told it is psioriasis,, eczema or some genetic sh*t. It is not
Google "chlorinated water and health" or "fluorinated water and health"
Do not ever drink tap water!!!
to save my rainwater I use the mains water for flushing the toilets and washing my car ONLY.
MAINS WATER IS A CHEMICALLY POISONED.
and now we are also asked to pay for it...

If there is any interest I will add links to many articles also from WHO (World Health Organisation, WHO confirms the chlorined and fluorined water is responsible for many phetael and infants and adults defects and disabilities, but also insists it is best water saanitisation way on the other hand ?!!!! ) and other research organisations which oppose the chemically contaminated water.

barneystinson

volku wrote: »

First of all we should ask what is the quality of water we are asked to pay for?
Then is the water safe to drink and for washing?
What can be done to have safe water?
We should demand the truth from water supplying councils, doctors, scientifics, reserchers, and Irsh Water.
Why most of us are getting the red marks on faces,
why our skin is getting dry and itchy after every bath or shower?
why our stomachs are upset?
why we get headaches?
why are ther so many phetous discharges and babies are born sick?
allergies, ADHD symptoms, autistic, cancers, etc

There is at least one answer
OUR MAINS WATER IS CHEMICALLY CONTAMINATED and it is NOT only THM s

our food is also contaminated (flour may contain up to 1% of chlorine, used as bleach)
but we are over 60% built from water

I have my rainwater harvested since August 2014.
We use mineral water Tipperary for drinking, cooking, etc.
Rainwater is used for washing, washing machines and toilets.
It is filtered with 5 micron filter plus UV lamp.
You cannot imagine how soft and nice in touch it is.
Unexpectly last January 2015 was pretty dry and my tank 3000litres lasts only 2 weeks with no rain. We were backed to mains water (like in swimming-pools)
my and my wife's skin got dry, my little son (4 y.o.) got spots on his face etc.
Same effects as many other people's faces. and you are told it is psioriasis,, eczema or some genetic sh*t. It is not
Google "chlorinated water and health" or "fluorinated water and health"
Do not ever drink tap water!!!
to save my rainwater I use the mains water for flushing the toilets and washing my car ONLY.
MAINS WATER IS A CHEMICALLY POISONED.
and now we are also asked to pay for it...

If there is any interest I will add links to many articles also from WHO (World Health Organisation, WHO confirms the chlorined and fluorined water is responsible for many phetael and infants and adults defects and disabilities, but also insists it is best water saanitisation way on the other hand ?!!!! ) and other research organisations which oppose the chemically contaminated water.

Conspiracy theory forum is that way butty
>>>>>>>>
:rolleyes:

volku

this is mine and my family experience after 6 months usage of rainwater and being forced to use mains water for a week after dry January 2015
we have see loads of people due our work every day and we see the skin condition they suffer.

Reason is SIMPLE
Polluted water by human beings.

volku

just for few litres of water a day of biollogically (no viruses, bacteria or cysts) "clean" water, another 100 of litres have to be contaminated as well?

What is the impact of these additives to enviroment?
Why these chemicals should be more generous on human cells than on baacteria or cysts' ones?

volku

GOOGLE:
water strong taste of chlorine Limerick

and the respond after numbers of negliences earlier was:

Engineer Mark Collins insisted however that standards were exceeded in Newcastle West and Abbeyfeale.

“People will be paying for water from now on and the expectation will be that it will be high quality drinking water,” Cllr John Sheahan said. “It’s like any service, broadband or electricity. You won’t pay if you are only getting half a service.”

barneystinson

3 posts in a row, are you just having a conversation with yourself?!

I think all that rainwater has you half cracked..!

Also, what has all this spoof got to do with the anti-IW protests?!

Finnbar01

barneystinson wrote: »

Thanks Rob, no mention of VAT there.

So you agree, we all ready pay for our water?

volku

I am ready to pay once I am convinced it is safe to drink and wash
at the moment it is chemical sewer in area I live

I have tried in Wicklow Mountaines in Enniskerry
and must say it is absolutely great there

barneystinson

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So you agree, we all ready pay for our water?

Nope. "We" borrow billions of Euro every year because our tax revenues aren't enough to cover all our expenditure, so no, until the budget is balanced we don't pay fully for water, roads, hospitals, or anything.

Taxburden carrier

barneystinson wrote: »

Nope. "We" borrow billions of Euro every year because our tax revenues aren't enough to cover all our expenditure, so no, until the budget is balanced we don't pay fully for water, roads, hospitals, or anything.

Maybe we need to have a closer look at our expenditure.

barneystinson

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

Maybe we need to have a closer look at our expenditure.

Here's an idea to reduce expenditure:

We could create a semi-state utility company for water provision (y'know, like ESB).

It could replace the inefficient model of having 30-something separate Local Authorities (whose operations are divided using arbitrary lines on a map) duplicating the same service.

Over time and with decent management the cost of provision should be capable of being reduced substantially through efficiencies. If one starts from the perspective that "we" already pay, then "we" will be paying less, so that can only be a good thing. (See income tax decreases in the last budget for example.)

Also, by having a semi-state utility company rather than the local authorities, the badly needed investment for infrastructure can be acquired without it being part of Govt borrowing and adding to Govt debt. (History has clearly shown water infrastructure isn't a sexy enough proposition when competing with schools, hospitals or roads for funding.)

Such a structure also lends itself to greater transparency and accountability, as it is an entity with a single purpose and its performance, value for money etc can be more easily identified than by trying to figure out what exactly 30+ local authorities have been up to.

All sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Taxburden carrier

All sounds pretty reasonable to me.[/QUOTE]
Take the politicians, their backers, quangos and public sector unions out of the equation and it just might work

barneystinson

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

All sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Take the politicians, their backers, quangos and public sector unions out of the equation and it just might work

Politicians - already involved in the current setup. If anything less involved once the new model is established.

Their backers - depending on your level of paranoia in this area (illuminati/lizard men?) these people, whoever you suspect they actually are, will always be involved too.

Public sector unions - do the workers in the local authorities not have unions? So no change there really.

Quangos - which quangos are you concerned about, specifically? Or do you actually simply mean the quango that's being set up, and inadvertently used the plural? "Because quangos" isn't really a reason for or against anything until you can articulate what the problem is.

O Riain

barneystinson wrote: »

Here's an idea to reduce expenditure:

We could create a semi-state utility company for water provision (y'know, like ESB).

It could replace the inefficient model of having 30-something separate Local Authorities (whose operations are divided using arbitrary lines on a map) duplicating the same service.

Over time and with decent management the cost of provision should be capable of being reduced substantially through efficiencies. If one starts from the perspective that "we" already pay, then "we" will be paying less, so that can only be a good thing. (See income tax decreases in the last budget for example.)

Also, by having a semi-state utility company rather than the local authorities, the badly needed investment for infrastructure can be acquired without it being part of Govt borrowing and adding to Govt debt. (History has clearly shown water infrastructure isn't a sexy enough proposition when competing with schools, hospitals or roads for funding.)

Such a structure also lends itself to greater transparency and accountability, as it is an entity with a single purpose and its performance, value for money etc can be more easily identified than by trying to figure out what exactly 30+ local authorities have been up to.

All sounds pretty reasonable to me.

This is how it is in the UK and Thames have very good infrastructure in the south east area.

It is worth noting that my annual water bill is around €720 for a household of 4.

Anyone who thinks this will remain a relatively cheap service and a semi state body is genuinely fooling themselves.

barneystinson

O Riain wrote: »

This is how it is in the UK and Thames have very good infrastructure in the south east area.

It is worth noting that my annual water bill is around €720 for a household of 4.

Anyone who thinks this will remain a relatively cheap service and a semi state body is genuinely fooling themselves.

But this the point - it already costs "us" what it costs us - I've heard a figure of €1.2bn.

So if IW can do it for 900m then it costs "us" €300m less - how can this not be a good thing?

O Riain

barneystinson wrote: »

But this the point - it already costs "us" what it costs us - I've heard a figure of €1.2bn.

So if IW can do it for 900m then it costs "us" €300m less - how can this not be a good thing?

Look, it is inevitable that it will become a private company and when it does it will deal with profit. That's when it will cost us more. You're talking about money savings with are possible if the company was actually set up right (it wasn't) and if we could trust the government to keep it as a semi state body, which they won't.

€720 a year to a private company. That's what you are facing.

barneystinson

O Riain wrote: »

Look, it is inevitable that it will become a private company and when it does it will deal with profit. That's when it will cost us more. You're talking about money savings with are possible if the company was actually set up right (it wasn't) and if we could trust the government to keep it as a semi state body, which they won't.

This attitude baffles me. You're anti-Irish Water, not because a semi state water utility would be a bad thing - you seem to acknowledge it would save money if done right - but because you don't trust the Govt not to privatise it. Why not cross that bridge if/when we come to it, but until then provide for water infrastructure in the most efficient way.

O Riain

barneystinson wrote: »

This attitude baffles me. You're anti-Irish Water, not because a semi state water utility would be a bad thing - you seem to acknowledge it would save money if done right - but because you don't trust the Govt not to privatise it. Why not cross that bridge if/when we come to it, but until then provide for water infrastructure in the most efficient way.

Funnilly enough, I was actually for water charges initially. I pay for them here in the UK and understand the need to do so.
Then I saw the absolute shambles that was the setting up of Irish water and I changed my mind entirely.

The timing was also bad, its just one austerity measure too much for the people of Ireland. Especially at the moment considering the recovery has only been felt by the rich.

danjo-xx

Now we have until the end of the year to sign up, it gone beyond a joke.

Irish Water has changed its rules to allow people to register with them until the end of 2015 without penalty. http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/water-charges-registration-date-hated-5284833

Cant help wondering will a snap election be called before the end of year.

The Bowling Alley

danjo-xx wrote: »

Now we have until the end of the year to sign up, it gone beyond a joke.



Cant help wondering will a snap election be called before the end of year.

Once again proving how much of a lie their initial sign up figures were.