1 posted on
12/27/2001 12:53:07 AM PST by
John W
To: John W
Bump to the top.
To: John W
We own an irrigation company. I am woefully ignorant myself in the area of mechanical operations of such systems, my husband being the expert in the design/installation area, but I seem to remember that he installs a backflow preventer in every new system, between the water meter and the main line of the system, and I don't remember it being that expensive. This backflow preventer inhibits, in the case of water lines/sprinkler heads installed in turf areas, the seepage of contaminants from that area back into the main water supply.
To: John W
1.) End immigration from the Mideast (and the third world in general).
2.) Kill all terrorist and their sponsors.
3.) Remove barriers to energy self-sufficiency.
- or -
4.) Die.
To: John W; Tuscaloosa Goldfinch; KC Burke; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom...
What's the difference between a "backflow preventer" and a check valve?
Seems to me installing check vavles at the mains going into buildings and residences would make this type of terrorism more difficult, but it would take years to accomplish.
Also, how would you prevent terrorists from disabling them?
The scariest water terror scenario I've heard so far would be to take a few grams of plutonium and toss it into a reservoir. Easier than making a bomb, and a coordinated attack could poison a large region. Chlorine would be useless.
To: John W
Do ya suppose they could come up with one or two other things for us to worry about?
19 posted on
01/01/2002 2:10:50 PM PST by
Amelia
To: technochick99
Ping for further preparation....
To: John W
I find it hard to believe your bycycycle pump or vaccum cleaner can overcome the 40-60psi of water coming into your home.
To: John W
Years ago, when I kept milk cows, the water supply system for sanitation of the milk equipment had to meet certain standards, one of which was to make sure that the devices used to provide drinking water supplies had "anti-siphon" valves, so the water from the stock tank would not backwash into the water supply lines. It was a simple air break, so when the flow of water stopped through a valve, the siphoning effect was broken immediately. Where a faucet overhangs a sink, there is a natural "air break" as long as the water does not rise to the mouth of the faucet. The method is as simple as that.
To: John W
But if theres an intentional attempt to create a backflow, theres no way to totally prevent it.
"We would've never worked on chemical/biological/nuclear weapons of mass destruction if the western press didn't continually repeat how easy it would be to do".
Just keep reporting this over and over until the ragheads figure it out and try it.
To: John W
can we purify the water with Chlorox, or just drink bottled water? Are they worried about chemicals or bacteria?
We worry about LSD, but Cholera or even Giardia would make a lot of people sick. And you can get giardia from most mountain streams thanks to the lack of indoor toilets for beavers...
36 posted on
01/01/2002 2:44:20 PM PST by
LadyDoc
To: John W
Once again I keep asking who is the enemey and I keep coming back to the same answer its the media. This article is another perfect example which tells any unstable and loose cannon out there how to perform a harmful act. For proof that this is true and you don't want my word for it there was a small article out about the Taliban not realizing that chem/bio weapons were simple to make until they read some news article. Shame on WSJ and MSNBC for helping the enemies of our country.
38 posted on
01/01/2002 2:56:48 PM PST by
ho-hum
To: John W
In Portland, Ore., alarms are now triggered by smaller drops in water pressure than in the past. Don't understand this. If I create a high enough pressure to force chemicals back into the main line, wouldn't that cause the pressure to go up in the system, not down?
40 posted on
01/01/2002 3:00:07 PM PST by
Restorer
To: John W
This article certainly could give a potential terrorist ideas & intructions on how to accomplish them....
To: John W;Sabertooth
Thanks for the bump, Sabertooth.
Thinking off the top of my head, it seems to me that terrorists would have to put a lot of any agent in a water system, otherwise dilution would take care of most of the problem.
My father-in-law is a former President of the American Water Works Association and is still active as a consultant, so I'm going to run this by him. He's on vacation, so it will be a few days before I can ask him. Anyone want a ping?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson