Federal pollution of groundwater

I am not easily upset,  but the ABC's excellent review of the pollution of groundwater by Defence is a reminder of huge risks that would and should have been avoided . Having worked with Defence in my career its clear they can be a law unto themselves,The risk with them is profound .

Federal politicians like Bob Hawke are also clearly implicated because they should have properly reviewed the environmental risks on placing the base near Katherine for example.  
Politicians who promise industry to an electorate MUST have the courage to qualify their promises in the light of independent review of WHERE and HOW such developments should occur.

When I was working in SW Victoria,  we would never allow an industry using long life chemicals and surfactants to use them in groundwater recharge areas, Any extensive use would be required to use those chemicals ONLY in the many areas where surface water pollution can managed and controlled.  

Since the Victorian government messed around with environmental review in the early 22nd century it would not surprise me that serious avoidable planning and practice failures are now occurring across Australia .
There is no need  or excuse for anyone to pollute or risk polluting our precious groundwater resources

The federal government must support the training and application of earth planners in all states so that all industry changes and general practice are reviewed.
 This regional focus  wouldn't cost the earth and it would prevent this impossible scenario of trying to clean up after a failure,  A no brainer!

A recipe for more disasters .

The public and parliamentary response to the recent Queensland floods ( just for eg) show that we are losing sight of how to properly respond – no policy doc will help if we ignore responsibility issues .( see links below ) Governments who allow other people to continue to live in disaster area are not responsible , and yet we all pay , Similar with Vic Bushfires . It's a recipe for more disasters .

Christchurch responses

Great to see a better balance between experts and politicians in a disaster symbolised by the police technical spokesperson today stating in practical ways what the audience needs to really know and do as well as stating the priorities ( getting water supplies back and to repair broken pipes" .
This consensus about experts on camera is a reflection of the cooperation of people on the ground and lots of experience and training .
The earthquake is of course a real disaster and not one created by the media . The police minister and the mayor spoke wisely stepped back so we could hear the representative who knows . Politicains will continue to push themselves forward when all media need to think about and call for competence and true authorship

Best dealt with by real experts ......not panic merchants

Positive changes . Was great to see A doctor from the Childrens Hospital (not a poly or public Servant) talking about the practical issues of taking care in the current HOOPING COUGH EPIDEMIC.

Maladaptive alliance between the media and the people

Reporters often desperate to put " its absolutely huge " in the mouths of the people they interview, alienating most of the people in the area who know its not.
It must be said that many people enjoy a good disaster . The point is, because its not good to " admit it so" , just to recognise the truth - that it is so .If we don't face the truth when danger or perceived danger exists we risk being circumscribed by our own denials. Disasters can be good for business ( some ) and certainly are often good for leaders ( because they come and go they can look like something " they've solved" cf what they do normally during the year ) and the media .
The medai should be on a big leash when governments allow them to provide warnings for real issues ( imagine "60 minutes "on every channel ) Noone reading this should ignore the huge additional energy and resources added by audience interest. Is such energy productive is my main question ?
I get into trouble for not listening to warnings and worries ( I have just a little trouble feeling for tearful leaders who recently allowed buildings in a flood prone zone - Brisbane river recently) from the media and politicians (yesterdays warnings about Cairns and Cyclone Yasi )Many flagging leaders get an unexpected boost from disasters . If nature is the determinant , it not in the interests of leaders to stop disasters.
But you only have to look at how an anticipated risk tends to be seen as " the biggest risk ever "to get a sense of the exaggeration effect that so often characterizes media anticipation.
I am not saying don't listen if you are in the area but the energy loss from such a focus is disturbing when the focus really needs to be local planning and design focused to avoid cynicism amongst those facing the wolf .You only have to ask people in disaster areas what they really think of all the media and political interest to realise that all this conspicuous care is not always recognised as such - sometimes the opposite .
Now today in Cairns ( with the "biggest cyclone ever ") the press are driving around looking desperately for damage and repeating the warnings that polys have been making Even tall trees have leaves , banana trees fall over easily and typically cyclone damage is a big unpredictable in " where it really hits " ( the winds are on the edge ? ) .
There is a strong case that its better, like parents, it better to be thought a panic parent than have your children hurt. Clearly with post cyclone dangers ( moving roof iron , electricity wires down )the warnings are very important .
My point is that this projection business can impact adversely on the protection business. For decades now , emergency focus has been growing while planning focus wanes ( while this is a normal tendency , the growing alliance between media , the people and algophobic elements is- no more so because of the later element in particular ) .Planning too is a real job worth doing where the emergency and remedial stuff is much less attractive ( kids need an attractive if challenging job)
What do you think ? How can we really balance public desire to support / prevent disaster with better planning .
Fewin or out of the hype time want to ensure the best way to avoid disasters is adopted- plan for them . The best way to deal with risk is to ensure there are local observers and power people in place.
Designated as a shelter , a Senior citizens centre in Cairns collapsed and only the initiative of a nurse prevented "a real disaster" - why don't all cyclone towns have reliable shelters. It s the planning problem right!!!!!
I think its this lack of planning people ( diminishing in the last decade)that grates . The main way to reduce the impact of disasters is to plan well and avoid generalized panic.( the very things that we are spending less on in between them )

The biggest fire disaster we have seen

This week: 181 dead , over 1000 homes lost .
Disasters will happen, and governments can't always prevent them . However, the size of the disaster demonstrates just how effective governments are in prevention and planning ; doing the job they are supposed to do ( The summary stuff is written on the floor of the building). Its not really about fire firefighting, but fire planning. The current Victorian government has no excuse - Fire after fire after fire.

Ministers who legislate against hot air

Yesterday the English Parliament sort to enshrine legislation which would make it manditory for future generations to limit their carbon emissions. Sound like a ephemism for hot air , but is really a piece of hypocrisy and desperate stuff too .

English grand children will not only pay the price for our profligate use of resources but they will not be allowed to make up their minds on the subject or use the same resources .

A disaster ? Well its supposed to stop one isn't it ? maybe its just another quickfiz