Page 2738 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR PROWSE (11.00): This has been presented, as I see it, as a furphy by Mr Berry, because, as the only engineer present in this chamber, I can recognise the error. As an electrical engineer who has studied - - -
Mr Kaine: I do not think you should extrapolate electrical engineering to fluoride, Mr Prowse.
MR PROWSE: Thank you for your observation, Mr Accountant. The situation is that the equipment at Stromlo "can only dose at 0.5 mg/L to within acceptable tolerances ...". To the fireman opposite, I say that that is a significant statement. I will tell him what it means, if he cares to listen. On any equipment you specify tolerances that are acceptable, and they are designated.
I have been caught unawares with this documentation of Mr Berry's. It would have been nice if he had circulated it to us, but the point is that I would assume that, on the standard rate of tolerances for equipment of this nature, you would come in with a tolerance of 0.02 parts per million or thereabouts. I am not saying that I am correct, but it would be a very small tolerance that you have to maintain for the equipment supplying this fluoride to the water. So, what we have here is a furphy insofar as it is suggested that this equipment cannot operate within the tolerances designated. All we have to do is give approval for the tolerances to be lifted, Mr Berry - to an opening up, so that it can come in to, say, 0.1, 0.01 or whatever the tolerance is. You can accommodate this problem simply by varying the tolerance.
There is no major problem. We are not going to see the tolerance vary by 0.5 parts per million. We might see the tolerance lifted from whatever it is at the moment to 0.1 parts per million. So, we can accept that. There is no need for this expenditure of $200,000 on the basis of the variation in the tolerance. There certainly is no need to pull the equipment out altogether or spend another $200,000. It has cost us hundreds of thousands a year to put fluoride in the water. But the point is that this is not a major problem. You obviously did not appreciate the significance of the wording there saying that the tolerance needs to be varied. There is no problem.
MR STEVENSON (11.03): In Part III, Recommendations of our report, it states:
the concentration of fluoride in the ACT water supply be reduced to 0.5 parts per million.
This report was tabled in February this year. This letter from ACTEW was passed around for the perusal of members of this Assembly at 10.45 tonight. I suggest that the gentleman that goes by the title of Health Minister is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .