"Sounds flippant but they are already connected--through the Sea."
Of course. Why didn't the Indian hydrologists think of that? :-) They don't have to dig anywhere nor displace any farmer to connect the water bodies. But wait, what are they going to do with salt water? And also the water has to be pumped back, unless they can get hurricanes every day to raise 30 ft waves. Darn it.
=====================================================================================
mc mahant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mc mahant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<<and they have good reasons for it. That shouldn't stop RIL for the areas
where it makes sense.>>>
I don't feel strongly against RIL.
Sounds flippant but they are already connected--through the Sea.
mm
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Assam] OUR RIVER ISLANDS ARE GONE!!
>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:48:11 -0500
>
>>Has the president ever said it is all of RIL that has to be implemented? I
>>have >not seen such a statement.
>
>
>**** And *I* haven't seen anything in which the the pres. has said anything
>to CLARIFY that he is merely promoting RIL SELECTIVELY.
>
>There is also a good reason for it however: Because the concept of RIL does
>not stand a chance of justification, even to its most ignorant supporters,
>without the Brahmaputra waters; as was very clearly and persuasively
>pointed out by Prof. Bandopadhyay of IIM-Kolkata , who undertook one of the
>most exhaustive study of the proposal, at Guwahati sometime back.
>
>
>>But I cannot accept that no change should be made to what nature has
>> >established for us -------.
>
>
>**** In the absence of context, such truisms mean little, if anything at
>all.
>Particularly when it is floated in the context of such outrageous proposals
>as RIL.
>
>
>And for those devotees of RIL mythology, I paste below something, that
>might be of interest--from Riverlink Digest# 545, and hopefully the math
>will help where ordinary reasoning fails:
>
>
>Message: 1
>
> From: "S.G. Vombatkere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Flood and Droughts
>
>Dear Friends,
># Further to Dinesh ji's (as usual, illuminating) note, anybody who thinks
>that interlinking rivers (ILR) can solve Bihar's flood flow of 50,000
>cumecs in Ganga by removing 1,000 cumecs by means of a canal, wears rose
>coloured spectacles or lives in a fool's paradise. This year, with drought
>in Bihar when they usually have fl;ood, the situation is bad and will get
>worse when the dry season begins. Is it at all likely that Biharis will
>entertain the idea of parting with 1,000 cumecs in the dry season when
>Ganga flows at about 5,000 cumecs and they themselves need the water?
># Yet this ILR idea appears to have ignited the imagination of people like
>our President Kalam who has been vigorously advocating it with the aim of
>solving flood and drought at the same time by inter-basin mass transfer of
>water. When we met him on 20 April 2005, he had said that "my people in
>Assam" and "my people in Bihar" suffer every year from flood, and he is
>very much concerned with the problem. But he was not at all receptive to
>the logic of the argument that a canal cannot relieve flood more than about
>2% and that too only downstream of the canal.
># The current disaster due to floods in Mumbai is because water does not
>drain away, and that in turn is because of artificial structures like roads
>and railways (without adequate cross drainage), and encroachments in
>waterways, and "reclaiming" of low-lying areas for constructions. {The word
>"reclaiming" is incorrect because it was not with people earlier - it is
>actually land grabbed from nature.}
># Interlinking rivers (ILR) will create canals that will directly obstruct
>the natural drainage of the land and cause waterlogging. With unusually
>heavy rainfall, there will be disastrous flooding like in Mumbai or in
>Gujarat. One does not require a college education to understand these
>simple things ... even a school child will see the illogic of ILR and
>understand the cause of the disaster due to flooding. But then, without
>being "unparliamentary", suffice it to say that some are born blind, some
>become blind and some are made blind. Each of us needs to decide into which
>category we fit.
>Sudhir Vombatkere
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
>>If one wants to draw a distinction between science and engineering, Dr.
>>Kalam is not a scientist but an engineer by training. He may be an expert
>>in rocketry but does that make him an expert in RIL? In the details it
>>does not. But in concepts, it does not matter whether he did his doctorate
>>in rocket engineering or in hydraulics. There are aspects of RIL that will
>>be good for some regions in India. I agree everything that is proposed in
>>RIL may not be good for all of India.
>>Some people in assam feel strongly against implementation of RIL in Assam
>>and they have good reasons for it. That shouldn't stop RIL for the areas
>>where it makes sense.
>>
>>Has the president ever said it is all of RIL that has to be implemented? I
>>have not seen such a statement.
>>
>>The arrangement of the earth in terms of hills and rivers is not the
>>ultimate in design, it just happened due to natural forces. To change the
>>arrangement is not a crime as some make it appear. Definitely care must be
>>taken to rearrange what has been there for millenia. But I cannot accept
>>that no change should be made to what nature has established for us. With
>>an attitude of no change, life for human beings on this earth would be
>>impossible. Should crude oil be processed into the hydrocarbons and
>>plastics that we need in modern life or should we let crude oil remain in
>>the ground because processing impacts the environment?
>>
>>Dilip Deka
>>
>>
>>"Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>Excuse me for butting in here, C'da.
>>
>> >India's top self-appointed "scientist", APJ Kalam, from his bully
>>pulpit at Hastinapur has >ignored/brushed aside
>>
>>"self-appointed" scientist? Isn't Dr. Kalam a recognized, well known
>>scientist?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Barua25" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mc mahant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>CC: [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: [Assam] OUR RIVER ISLANDS ARE GONE!!
>>Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:46:33 -0500
>>
>>blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
>>Rajen:
>>
>>Two things to note:
>>
>>1: Do you keep tab on all that appears in Assam Net? If you do, how did
>>you miss what I posted?
>>
>>2:Who is this "--- scientific co community" comprised of, and is capable
>>of passing verdicts?
>>
>>India's top self-appointed "scientist", APJ Kalam, from his bully pulpit
>>at Hastinapur has ignored/brushed aside the Indian scientific community's
>>opposition to Riverlinking. So who is the 'scientific community' that you
>>put your faith in? The people who know about rivers, hydrology, geology
>>and the environment, or a rocket engineer, or who-have-you?
>>
>>c
>>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
