Even a pilot of one-tenth the volume of the water desalination plant in the Sea Canal will cause irreversible damage to the Arabah. The green organizations must use all their strength to prevent this stage as well, states Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, an ecologist and resident of the city of Eilat
Yesterday (Monday) the Knesset's Economic Committee held a discussion on the Sea Canal. I expressed my firm opinion in several lists (see HERE, HERE and here). (and also The site editor is here) and here News older than 2000 where we were first introduced to the sinkholes.
Adv. Tzipi Iser Itzik, CEO of Adam Teva and Din, addressed the committee meeting and said: "Regarding the project proposed by the Minister of Regional Development, Silvan Shalom, as only a pilot is eye catching. This is about starting the actual implementation of the sea canal project without examining environmental risks and without examining alternatives. It is about establishing one of the largest desalination facilities in the world (100 million cubic meters). This conduct involves destructive and irreversible environmental risks to the Dead Sea and its environment."
In one sentence: the economic viability of the project is questionable, therefore it is hidden behind political reasons, the success of which is also unclear. The project constitutes an environmental risk of catastrophic proportions, a risk that does not justify the chance of solving problems caused by human errors, therefore in order to return the situation to its original state, i.e. to "save the Dead Sea" the mistakes must be corrected and no more gross errors should be made.
In other words: reduce the exploitation of minerals and flow water in southern Jordan. In my opinion, this was joined by many good ones from the green bodies and "just" people with foresight and logic who are not biased by political positions or hidden calculations that have nothing to do with correct and sustainable economic development.
What came before the members of the house? Single offer or alternative options? Will they find out what the economic costs are and what the chances and environmental risks are? With all due respect to the honorable institution, what tools will be given in the hands of our elected officials to rule and make a decision that the consequences of the mistakes could be disastrous.
Did they bring before the Knesset the studies that show that the water from the Bay of Eilat will change the chemical composition of the Dead Sea so that its color will change, not only its color but also all its chemical properties, properties that allow the utilization of its minerals, but also give the sea its publicity as a source of vitality, health and as a medical solution to problems Lots of health, features that attract visitors from all over the world, features that might make it "one of the seven wonders of the world"? Will there be someone to explain to the members of the Knesset the environmental risks of the proposed canal, will there be someone to explain to them that the Arava is not "empty" and does not need industrial centers and "Las Vegas" doubles?
Have they presented the possible alternatives to the Knesset, even though they have no chance of bringing about "regional peace"? Will they bring the conclusions of the World Bank's survey to the members of the committee? A survey that hasn't ended yet, so there are no conclusions?
The answer to all the questions is mine, because even if all the objections, all the risks and chances are presented, according to the common and accepted course of things, it is doubtful whether the elected officials will have the time, the data and the possibilities to reach a decision that is based on logical considerations, correct and free from politics, and as evidence remember the drying of the patient.
After reading the reports from the meeting, as I predicted, the members of the Knesset do not have the faintest idea about the environmental risks of the project. They have no real data but only nonsense about the World Bank's agreement to finance the project, an agreement that was not given. Minister Shalom presents the only risk to him which is the changes in the composition of the Dead Sea water, there is no reference to the environmental destruction that will be caused by the construction works.
There is no reference to the risk of salting the "aquifer" - the water layer in the Arava, there is no reference to the social destruction of the Arava settlements following the establishment of labor camps followed by industrial and gambling centers, there is no reference to alternatives. In short, the minister sees only the glory that he might reap because of megalomaniac cooperation. If the Jordanians have a distorted and short-sighted view that will bring disaster, most of the Knesset members join him and share in the folly of Shatmit an environmental disaster.
Some time ago, when I saw that the (new) Minister of Regional Development is following in the footsteps of his predecessor and continues to push in the direction of the "disaster of the seas", I addressed his office with a letter detailing all the risks and directing the reader to everything that has been said and written on the subject... I didn't even receive a confirmation of acceptance, which shows how "serious" his attitude is and where his environmental understanding reaches when it comes to the environment versus politics.
Since the minister says that the starting project should be treated as a "pilot", it is better for everyone to understand, the planned "pilot" will indeed carry "only" a tenth of the amount of water that will be carried in the final project, but in order to lay a pipe and dig canals, it is necessary to trample its surroundings just like laying a large pipe Tenfold, the risk of leakage and salting of groundwater is equally present, labor camps will also be set up for the purpose of the "pilot", the gulf water will reach the Dead Sea (in increased concentration) and cause a change, so "pilot" is dangerous, what's more, it paves the way for His older brother."
Since the minister is in the coalition, it is possible to fear the reaction of the majority of the Knesset members, to fear that their reaction to the issue will not be professional but, once again, political. We will not stay but to wait and hope that she perishes.
47 תגובות
Millions were invested in the Dead Sea factories and hotels - the plan that could harm them must be canceled.
Even if new hotels are built - who will give compensation to the existing hotels. And in general - who would want to come to a hotel immersed in the sea when there are newer and more beautiful hotels along the canal? The canal must be canceled or at least paved in Jordan - that way the hotels in Jordan will not compete with our hotels. Yes and I have also heard that mixing Red Sea water will create gypsum and this can cause serious problems for the fish in the Dead Sea.
Honorable gentlemen.
Maybe in the XNUMXth, who of you knows what the Jordanian government's intentions are in regards to the Dead Sea?
According to a number of articles (I have no idea how many) they have already made the decision to establish a water carrier from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. Simply put, if this is indeed the case, the main environmental concepts, however right they may be, are again not grasping, which is supposed to completely change our approach to the plant.
splendor:
Discussion is something that needs two to advance it to some place.
As soon as one of the two is captive to the concept and does not even find it necessary to bring any reasoning to it, it is difficult to move forward.
Is there any basis for the law of nature that you present, according to which everyone who enters the Knesset committees (even you - if you enter there) is immediately caught up in concepts and stops knowing how to think?
This is a nonsensical claim like no other!
And I see that your discussion is going nowhere...
splendor:
In my opinion, you are captive to the concept that the members of the government and its committees are captive to
Michael,
I do not know what you're talking about.
What does it have to do with monkeys.. There should also be criticism.. It is true that you listed "doing nothing - Ivani Taala" as an alternative, but if this is the attitude of the committee members (not exactly the Knesset) then there is a problem..
What you describe is not a process, there is a problem here, in what ways can it be solved.. What is the best way and is it good enough and then let's do it..
What you describe.. there is an idea to do something.. that might be able to do some things better.. let's find out if it's okay... how can it be made better, let's do it..
And it is a destructive method. It looks similar.. but it's not... the problem may not seem to need to be presented.. but in my opinion no one has really defined it.. when we are blinded by one solution (on the multitude of ways to do it) we will never see other solutions.. better Or less that exist or can be done.. and that's what happens here.. and in many other places.. it's a process that also happens in the business sector.. and companies fall into this pit.. and get stuck in computer fixation.. and it has nothing to do with their level of education.. Monkeys you said... Just about the concept which is sometimes good and sometimes less good.
When I'm in my work I find that I was trapped in a conception about how to deal with certain situations... the only way I have to solve the problem... is with the help of a review (sometimes my own and sometimes someone else's) to start looking at the problem in a different way... and again and again to return to the central point of what we wanted to solve and not Which solution suited us..
A concrete pipe with a diameter of 2 meters should be placed between the buds and the Dead Sea when it is all buried in the ground. At the end of the pipeline in the Dead Sea, there will be a turbine that will generate electricity from the difference in height between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, the electricity will be used exclusively for the purpose of desalination of sea water that will be flowed to nearby communities. There will be absolute control over the amount that will be poured into the Dead Sea and all the damages caused to the sea due to evaporation will be eliminated. We need to get off all the megalomaniac schemes of lakes and recreation areas along canals. Shallah will concentrate solely on restoring the water that has disappeared from Hima in the last 100 years.
splendor:
I don't get your point.
Even in what I presented there was an alternative of "not building a canal" so that not all the alternatives were "which canal to build".
I don't know if you are aware of this, but in the Knesset there are ordinary people who also hear people outside the Knesset.
The issue has been discussed in Israeli society and academia for a long time and various and (some) modified alternatives have been put forward.
You probably think that monkeys sit on committees.
I think differently.
You are only talking about one subject…
That's the point.
If all the alternatives are just what kind of canal should be made... it's not alternatives and it's not a proper public discussion..
There are many alternatives to the canal idea in general and they are not discussed because there is no one in the Knesset to propose them...
The "proper manager" you are talking about.. is problematic not because there are no "kidnappers" but because there is not a sufficiently open process.. even if there are committees they do not see the whole picture, only what they are fed.
And there are many more interests here than real criticism... and there are so many examples...
I'm not saying that the State of Israel is corrupt... I'm saying that the system is too square... and not transparent...
Grandiose, complex and dangerous changes are discussed for a few weeks.. and not by experts - the ministers are not at all sufficient to delve into the various conclusions... (see the value of the state budgets) ... decision-makers are easily swayed to the side of what is well-publicized (for example, cutting the rehabilitation of prisoners is not politically correct.. but it is cheaper than the damage), or on the side of those with financial interests - as in dozens of different decisions (such as giving the Dead Sea factories for free to some of the biggest capitalists in Israel). not tomorrow
We did not inherit the world from our parents, we borrowed it from our child...
splendor:
What you are describing is not the State of Israel.
In the State of Israel, every decision involves committees that check it and there are no kidnappers of the type you describe.
An idea will be published by a politician only if that politician supports the idea and not if he opposes it.
If the professionals have convinced all the politicians that one alternative is better than others - none of them will say anything about the others.
Specifically, on the issue of the Sea Canal, at least three alternatives were publicly discussed:
1. From the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea
2. Red Sea to the Dead Sea
3. Do not build any canal
I have no doubt that other alternatives such as the variety of ideas (very bad, in my opinion) of injecting fresh water into the Dead Sea were also examined and simply rejected (perhaps outright - depending on the speed of thought of the members of the Knesset).
Michael Rothschild:
I'm not slandering, it's just…
Politicham doesn't talk about it, they don't know about it... it's not about state secrets... but neither you nor anyone else here has even hinted at this or that alternative idea that has passed through the Knesset's corridors or been discussed on television... well, if someone were to argue about it... he would I want them to know.. as much as he is a fierce fighter for.. idea X... but there isn't one.. and that's exactly the problem I'm talking about.. with no one talking about it.. so we don't talk about it!!!!!
Also sorry for speaking out and interfering, but the idea of desalination was practiced already 40 years ago by a strange and religious eccentric: Zarchin and a "beautiful and strong and white" party "center" sat in politics at that time. (quite close to the left-science of today) how come those considerations prevented What are the applications of the idea of desalination?
There is politics even without any choice and elections in every field of science, society and the primacy or initial competition accompanied by hypocrisy and considerations of mutually contradictory interests exist in every corner.
In short: we dried up from everything and in all respects.
When they finish settling all the contradictions between all the factors (I still don't understand who is against whom and for what from the many confusions) suddenly there will be a lot of water and a lot of rain and the Sea of Galilee will be filled to the brim and haha.. haha.. who then will want to spend money again on "Teflah" ?
As for the Jordanians: let them take care of their wells, if they want! Miraculously there too there is much water in the depths and there is no need to have mercy on them, have mercy first on your people who know no mercy on themselves and their close relatives.
To Ephraim Hamor Hamorutim (sorry for the expression),
It must be remembered that we live in an area where our Jordanian neighbors receive running water from the faucet once a week for two hours and sometimes even less. In Amman, the capital city, there, too, the water flows from the taps for only two hours once a week or two weeks. The fact that we have plenty of water that always flows in the pipes and there is no restriction still does not mean that everyone has it. And of course, as you say - desalination plants must be established. money is there? there is. Is there water from the sea? there is. Will there be? there is. So what's missing? Who removes the preventer? Who doesn't allow these things to happen? Who even has the power to decide?
The answer is the politicians. Our politicians from the right and from what is supposedly known as the left do not allow water to be an abundant commodity and erupt like a spring because they know that in our moment our neighbors will also want it and when it is given to them and they will receive it and the water in the taps will flow - otherwise there is no longer any point in war and it has no reason. And without war there are no politicians. There is no army. There is no military industry. There is no cumbersome system that generates most of the money in the country.
So for a glass of water no one wants to cut the branch on which he sits and the hand that feeds him (but leaves him thirsty).
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Sylvan Shalom:
Another failed politician without an iota of vision,
who does not deserve to be in leadership.
What he has done to this day and continues to do with great vigor is political manipulation of vote contractors,
and title search for respect
(which his wife sometimes spoils for him) and of course good jobs for friends on the plate
And if there is one more point. The author of the article is right that the solution should be according to the source of the problem. The source of the problem stems from the fact that Israel stopped the waters of the Kinneret and draws from them, and does not allow them to flow further, thus drying up the Jordan and the Dead Sea, and this should also be the direction of the solution.
We could build several large desalination plants on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea or expand the current ones (in Ashkelon and Hadira), so that they would not have to pump more water from the Sea of Galilee, and let the seawater flow freely through the Jordan to the Dead Sea.
According to my calculation, if the total annual water consumption of the State of Israel is about 2 billion cubic meters, and 30 percent of that is drawn from the Sea of Galilee (about 600 million cubic meters), we need six desalination plants such as the Ashkelon desalination plant (which produces 100 millions of cubic meters) in order to produce this output. In any case, the cost of the desalination plant per cubic meter, which is about 0.5 dollars, is not much higher than water that is pumped from a new source.
And if necessary in the first years, it is even possible to increase and pour desalinated water into the Kinneret or its exit, in order to fill the gap. (Much more logical than pouring water and pouring it straight into the saltiest sea, as there was such a proposal). In this way, you don't need to lay any pipes, anywhere, because the country in the central region is already networked, and if necessary, you can turn the national carrier, instead of supplying water from the Kinneret to the center, through which desalinated water will pass to the Kinneret.
That way, instead of billions being wasted on 200 km long pipes in the Arabah and the desalination of the water, it will be possible with this money to build and expand desalination plants in the center of the country and in the north. As for the Jordanians, they will either buy desalinated water from us, or they will build desalination plants for themselves in Aqaba and flow the water from there to their cities. To mark a redeemer.
As for the green organizations, they are like the ultra-Orthodox who make wars over Shabbat and graves. Every time there is a project that may cause minimal damage to nature, they immediately jump in and try to ban it, even if this will cause greater damage to the environment and the heartache of hundreds of thousands of people, because the survival of one plant or some deer in its natural habitat is more important than the problems it will cause to millions of people Adam, and the best example is Route 6 as someone brought up here and another example is the opposition to the high-speed train between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in the Nahal Yatla issue. Therefore, they are "immediate suspects" in this matter, because for them it is not about interests but about "religion".
As for all the opponents of the Red Sea water being pumped into the Dead Sea, why haven't they done a real field experiment, and instead are terrorizing everyone? On the contrary, if they believe that this is a catastrophe, let them prove to everyone in a real scientific experiment, that they create some kind of closed pool near the Dead Sea and fill it with the water of the Red Sea, and we'll see what happens. It is much easier to shout Gveld than to prove black and white.
Regarding the Honorable Minister, the problem with him is that he is an amateur, who jumps on ideas without examining all the possible alternatives as should be done. And this is indeed a problem. It was enough to see how he dismissed the idea of pumping water into Jordan on TV, without even referring to it or examining it in depth.
What should have been done was to form a team of experts in all the required aspects, and to examine all the existing alternatives to Ashuram. Maybe it's even better to move the matter down to national security, because it is one of the only bodies that has proven that it can do research work of this kind.
And another question: If you already pray before the transfer, should you consider transferring a pipeline from the Mediterranean Sea to Jordan? The distance from the Mediterranean Sea to Jordan is about 55-60 km, while the distance between Eilat and the southern Dead Sea is about 200 km (four times).
In this way they will not only be able to save the Dead Sea, but also the entire Jordan whose waters have dried up and become brackish, killing two birds with one stone (sorry to all nature lovers, it's just an expression).
splendor:
OK.
You know that in the academy alternatives are examined (and you know this from personal acquaintance).
On the basis of what acquaintance do you claim that among the politicians alternatives are not examined?
Unlike academia - when it comes to an engineering project - in life you have to decide on the chosen alternative and once you have decided on it you have to implement it. The academy of course has the privilege of continuing to discuss forever.
I do not claim that among the politicians there is a serious study of the issue and a discussion of the alternatives, but I criticize the method - to jump and slander without verified information.
I will only criticize the method…
Even according to what is unfolding here in the discussion, there is more than one alternative
And although among the academics (and I know knowingly I will do this), alternatives are being examined, among the politicians.. there are none..
And that's what I'm complaining about, criticism is an extremely important process in any project, even in such a large project..
But according to any journalistic or other report... I don't see a real criticism and presentation of a serious alternative to the project and the way it is implemented.
So even for the viewer's turn, the canal is genius, it is possible that the execution is screwed up... and no one seriously checks it...
A serious bright spot that I see in the project.. is that it is innovative and provokes debate and discussion.. from such a real process.. the best solution for peace, economy, energy, water and the environment can emerge...
Once again we are playing chess with ourselves. Where is Assaf Shasaudi's security?
Refuse to finance to Jordan and the Palestinians a salt transporter for desalination that has been drained
in the Dead Sea. There are less logical projects that have already been carried out in our world, so to cancel in half a sentence about current financing a problem that has already been presented more than once does not add to a serious discussion as conducted here.
By the way, I would be more than happy if someone in the know could confirm the state of the ideas
The above will share the information with us.
Hanan Shaliv
Regarding response 23:
"Heb"=>"Kish"
Hanan:
There is no need for a beautiful solution but an effective solution. This does not seem to me to be an effective solution.
There are priorities in solving the country's problems and the Dead Sea is not in the first place.
One of the problems whose solution priority is much higher than solving the Dead Sea problem is the fresh water problem.
Therefore, taking fresh water that we lack so much and pouring it into the Dead Sea is not a sensible thing to do.
Let me remind you - the sea canal is also about desalination and here - in many ways - everyone really benefits because they also gain energy, they also gain fresh water and they also solve the problem of the Dead Sea.
So it's true - you have to make sure that there is no leakage along the path of the pipe, but from all other aspects this seems to me to be a better solution.
Knows what? To me it is also more beautiful.
For Michael, the beauty of the solution is in the synergy.
Everyone wins and especially one of the seven wonders of the world (hopefully he chooses).
to Aria,
Regarding concern Jordan is not able to carry out alone without funding, there will be no funding without a "political vision"
Therefore, we also do not have an examination of the alternatives.
to my people,
If all the assessment is for you, you are relying on incorrect data,
- As I already wrote, the difference is not only in the concentration but mainly in the composition of the various minerals,
Since the intention is to "save the Dead Sea", what kind of rescue is this when the composition changes and the sea processes the
Its health, tourist and economic value?
- The pumping will be at the head of the Gulf of Eilat, i.e. from a maximum depth of about 120 meters (unless they estimate the carrier at about 30 km and share Saudi Arabia in the project (?),
- The sinkholes are formed due to the melting of a layer of salt in the ground by water flows in the subsoil, the melting continues and will continue until the Dead Sea water creates a pressure that will raise the underground water to a level above the salt layers, a process that, if expensive, will last for hundreds of years, (contact Eli Raz Ba'in Capricorn for a detailed explanation).
- As for the development of the Arava, you are right, but most of the Arava residents prefer the current situation
Without cities, industry and pollution, we have passed the stage of "wearing concrete and cement"...
When Peres was the Minister of Development, on the one hand he pushed the Moval project and at the same time his office published
A call to "build your house in the quiet and pollution-free prairie" when the broadcast is accompanied by voices
Birds and pictures of the desert nature... Am I the only one who sees the illogicality (the "absurdity")?
Since I do not intend to continue the debate, only two facts:
The cost per cubic meter of treated water is less than $1/2 (half a US dollar)
The cost of a meter at the southern end of the national carrier that carries the waters of the Jordan/Kinneret... $1+1/2 (one and a half dollars)
Avi:
I'm talking about Uri Lahav's article - not the usual idea of the Sea Canal.
For Michael, the water is intended for Ravath Ammon. The brine will be injected into the Dead Sea in a double concentration that will remain after most of the water has been removed from it.
I did not try to reproduce the energy calculations in the process suggested by Uri (they of course depend, among other things, on the altitude data) but one thing seems to have been omitted and that is the fact that the more water is used on the road from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, the less energy that can be produced and (of course) the less amount of fresh water that will flow into the Dead Sea .
From a logical point of view, the proposal is similar to the combination of two independent actions:
1. Desalination of a certain amount of water for the benefit of the settlements along the pipeline
2. Desalination of an additional amount of water for discharge into the Dead Sea.
The proposed calculations describe only the second part so that the really proposed solution is to inject desalinated water into the Dead Sea.
The main advantage is apparently in the fact that no sea water is transported along the way and probably does less harm to the relationships between the different minerals in the Dead Sea.
The downside is that "Dahil Rabak - if we have already desalinated water why not use it for domestic consumption and agriculture?"
to Urila.
Brilliant idea, and changes the whole picture.
I take back my words.
Thanks!
Maybe there are attractive alternatives! For example, the subject of the Sharev Chimney has already been the subject of 25 doctorates, through which electricity can be produced by using solar energy and salty water from the Mediterranean Sea (which can afford pumping...) and as a by-product about 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water is produced. And today negotiations are underway to establish one in India.
By the way, it was discussed in the Knesset in a positive way and buried somewhere. Type "Chimney Shrev" and see what I'm talking about. With all due respect to Herzl, and there is a lot of respect, he died in the 19th century and did not exactly conduct economic and environmental research on the project he envisioned. The way things are done in this country is simply outrageous.
Thanks to Urila for the challenging contribution to the discussion.
Very interesting.
collect,
I don't know what you meant by your (correct) comparison between ocean water and the Dead Sea and a cat and a dog - in any case, as mentioned, the comparison is correct and indeed they are very similar. As the difference between a cat and a dog is minimal (both genetically and ecologically) so is the content of the different waters. In the Dead Sea, the composition of the salts is indeed different - highly concentrated and with different ratios - than ocean water. In a small way, I say. But even if not - so what? Are the quantities in question really meaningful in relation to the volume of water in the Dead Sea? Are gypsum blocks really formed (and if so, what's the point?).
As for the issue of the sinkholes - no one has any idea if the rising level will stop the phenomenon. You firmly stated here that a project to artificially raise the level of the Dead Sea will not stop the gaping of the sinkholes. I would be very grateful if you could provide a reference for this. And if so, we will write an article together for Nature or Science - your choice.
You propose to inject fresh water into the Dead Sea from the north and reduce the removal of salts from the Dead Sea and stop its drying. Both of these suggestions are great in an imaginary world where there is plenty of water available and no industry consuming all these salts - so please understand that these arguments are seen as meaningless and even a little embarrassing.
The prairie does not need development. There are few people and they make a decent living there and in a not bad way at all (there are some who really managed to make a lot of money). This argument, whose basis is anthropogenic, is also an argument irrelevant to the green aspects of the canal. How will the social fabric of the Arava change if we blossom the Negev and its surroundings and settle the residents of the area and the Jews of the Diaspora who are to come? I do not know. A country, like any large and uncontrolled body, will develop in its natural direction which cannot be predicted in advance. whatever This argument should be removed from the arsenal of technical arguments regarding possible damages of the canal. What ecological disaster can even be compared to the establishment of a city and the total destruction of the flora and fauna on its territory?
The effect on the gulf currents is a very puzzling matter to me. The Red Sea reaches a depth of 2 km and the volume of water in it is enormous. 2 billion of whatever it is is a drop in the ocean. It's not either, the pumping is usually done from surface water and not deep water, which means that warm surface water will flow from the gulf on one side and warm surface water will flow from the other side of the Bab al Mandav and Tiran straits. Nutrient-poor water that won't put anything into the bay that doesn't fit into it anyway. On the contrary, if you think the change due to pumping is significant - suggest pumping from deeper places, under the thermoclite, then nutrients would come out of the Red Sea and reduce the algae outbreak. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that, because as mentioned, this is a drop in the ocean.
And in conclusion, you say:
"And in conclusion (interim) it has already been said that: when there is a debate between: wise, good, honest, talented and beautiful, and between those who know... it is clear where the truth is!"
So it's true, we are really wise, good, honest, talented and more beautiful, as you say - but do you really know where the truth is as you testify?
Jordan will make a canal without us - that's what I read about two months ago, I think in D'Marker, after they despaired of the regional cooperation that should exist between our countries. If this is indeed carried out, then we will eat the negative effects, if any, without reaping the benefits, if any.
A freshwater pipeline between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea is better than the Sea Canal:
http://urila.tripod.com/Yamim.htm
The naked truth is that there are really no attractive alternatives.
Either we wait until we run out of the Dead Sea or we pour sea water into it. According to the spirit of things and the wars of the Jews
We choose the default, which means to do nothing and it really is a default...
First, kudos to Assaf for finally bringing up a topic that exists in his backyard instead of topics related to the black hills of Zimbabwe or the depths of the Pacific Ocean...
Second, the various "environmentalists" who jump at every opportunity to strike have not helped you in this case. A good example is Route 6: for example, the truth is that, in the bottom line, it saves so much greenhouse gas emissions (a car driving fast emits a few percent of gases compared to a car standing in traffic) that the other vulnerabilities may be dwarfed compared to the benefit. But, the environmentalists raised an outcry in the past without checking what they were talking about!
Thirdly, I understand your anger at the "ignorant people and the people of the land" who oppose your ideas, but between us, you also did not exactly explain clearly what you wanted to say, you did not provide a reference and what you said sounded very biased. For example, the destruction of the environment with work camps and IEDs - I know the following sentence is not popular, but - the destruction that continues for years and years of the habitats and nature almost everywhere possible by 4x4 vehicle drivers is probably of a much larger order.
I'm sure if you want (as anyone else can) you can find more examples of the populism of your words.
To finish - rather! Bring a reference and explanations - maybe you will convince!
collect,
Font 48 would have been more appropriate for the level of hysteria you use in your arguments.
And regarding the actual reasons:
Desalinated water that will be poured into the Dead Sea - this is simply a genius idea! How did we not think of him before?! At 50 cents per cubic foot, what's $50 million between you and me?
There is indeed a real issue of chemical differences between the water that will come from the Red Sea and the rest of the water in the Dead Sea. It's good that the greens light up our eyes, because no one but them cares that blocks of plaster, or whatever they are, are floating around. Well, the planners will sit down, and propose solutions, and try them in a pilot. And if the pilot fails, that is, there will be no human power to prevent devastating results, then the faucet will be closed and the pilot will be abandoned, and things have already happened before.
Regarding the development in Arava, if and when it happens - well, this is more of a political issue than an environmental one. I am not sure that all the inhabitants of the Arava share your opinion.
As for 100 million cubic meters a year, that sounds like a lot, but it's 11400 cubic meters - less than half of the Yarkon Negev line, which flows through an 80-diameter pipe." Don't worry, the water in the sea will not run out, not even at the rate of 2 billion. Will the array of streams change? Definitely possible. Is this a reason not to carry out the project? Only if it causes harm that outweighs the benefit...
Only one solution sounds logical and applicable to me:
Desalination of Mediterranean sea water and its discharge to the Sea of Galilee (and from there to the Dead Sea through the Degania Dam).
Cheaper,
yields fresh water,
Does not harm nature like the canal.
Why not consider this alternative?
And one more thing
Descartes is the "genius" who cut off the tails of mice thinking that after several generations of cut off mice
Mice without tails will be born …….. !
And a few more words
To Ami Bachar
The similarity between the oceans and the Dead Sea is like the similarity between a cat and a dog,
In the oceans (and the Gulf of Eilat) the main mineral is sodium chloride (table salt) in concentrations
Between 3.5% and 4.5% in the Dead Sea are minerals with a concentration of 33%, the main of which is potassium,
Additional magnesium salts, bromine salts, fluorine salts and others,
Therefore, to compare and say that "the total concentration is different" is a mistake.
Whoever wants to wait two hundred million years until the Indian Ocean reaches the Dead Sea... let him be perfumed,
Descartes
At the time, when a plan for a canal from the Mediterranean Sea was examined and the goal was to produce electricity, it turned out that
The electricity that will be produced will be about 5% of the national consumption...!
Those who deal with a political agenda must consider the future (not the end of the "term"),
Part of the inclination of those who agree to the "disaster move" is the economic issue, since any cheap alternative is correct and practical
More will be at our expense, is that why we have to agree to a megalomaniac project that will bring disaster?
And finally, see the final paragraph in the previous comment!
For a conditioned reflex: I liked your response.
I'm glad there are other sane people in this world.
To all respondents
A solution to an environmental problem that we have created must be separated from attempts to resolve the ancient conflict in the area,
It turns out that an attempt to combine the two... spelled disaster.
A - To solve the "Dead Sea problem" the level can be raised by pumping water into southern Jordan,
Fresh or brackish water that will come from different sources (the Kinneret and treated water),
and at the same time reduced utilization of the minerals - elimination of the evaporation ponds south of the hotels,
the damages caused due to the drop in the level, especially the sinkholes, cannot be repaired,
Even the fullness of the sea will not stop their formation,
B - Chemical experiments showed the change that would cause the sea!
C - Anyone who thinks that Nahal David constitutes an addition of water...doesn't know the situation,
D - In Arava, agricultural crops are irrigated with brackish water,
Those who do not know the difference between salty and salty better learn and not make wrong comparisons!
E - Those who think that the Arava needs Las Vegas-style "development"... to stay in Tel Aviv.
And - whoever thinks that such a megalomaniac project can be carried out without trampling and trampling everything that exists in the area,
Without the establishment of labor camps where hundreds of workers and dozens of tools ... let him explain ... how.
G - Anyone who thinks that pumping one hundred million mXNUMX a year from the head of the Gulf of Eilat will not cause a change in the flow pattern
In the Gulf... rehabilitation... (one hundred million is only in the "pilot" "big brother" is planned to pump two billion)!
H - Greater economists than me said: because there are much cheaper alternatives...
And in conclusion (interim) it has already been said that: when there is a debate between: wise, good, honest, talented and beautiful,
And who knows... It's clear where the truth is!
I'm in favor of the Sea Canal
Generate clean electricity that will be enough for 3 countries (with the technology that exists today)
The rest is negligible
The environmentalists, including Dr. Rosenthal, give the environment a bad name.
There is no disputing that man is harmful, or for the most part: a burden, on the environment.
The idea that the damages are accumulating, some of them irreversible, and that our generation, like the generations to come, will pay a heavy price if the rate of pollution and disturbance to the environment continues is increasingly accepted.
From here we will move to the practical conclusions. Here, I fear that the environmentalists are a little flawed in their understanding of the human world, perhaps from paying excessive attention to the physical world, perhaps from emotional motives. And the human world contains strong factors of greed, mental stagnation, bureaucratic clumsiness, interest groups and more.
In this context, the opposition that appears as automatic [I allow myself to state] must be examined for any project that is large enough to have any effect on the environment. No one ignores such an influence, but the alternatives must be examined. And in the case of the Dead Sea:
The non-viable alternatives are:
- Increased flow of fresh water from the sources of the Dead Sea (Jordan, Arnon, Nahal David)
- Cessation of mineral mining (and if anyone thinks this is possible, refer to the "Human World" section)
It is clear that currently the water balance in Bima is negative, and it is clear that it must be improved, and changes will inevitably be caused to the environment. Will these changes be cataclysms, as threats are upon us? I doubt.
There is no doubt that with serious work it will be possible to minimize damages and save values, but the tactic of automatic outcry has its real price in automatic ignoring, which does not allow serious discussion and real improvement of the situation.
From what I understand, the danger in changing the chemical composition of the sea is that lime crystals will form, not that they will "kill" any fish.
I'm actually a fan of the Sea Canal project. But I would prefer that they do it not from Eilat but through the Western Negev.
I think that a river of water that will pass right through the middle of the country can change the appearance of the entire area and create a green and flourishing environment here - and to hell with this whole desert and its "hunger line". This year we had two daily rains. Two days! And even then it was a trickle
Correction: after the word 'Professional CEL 'one'.
It is strange that Dr. Rosenthal does not raise even a professional point that is positive about the project.
It is assumed that after the pilot we will be smarter, including Dr. Rosenthal.
The matter of the economic argument and the viability are irrelevant. There is a problem and they are trying to fix it. And there is money - the fact is that there is money, so it is not an argument whether it is worthwhile or not. It is neither me nor my pocket that spends the money. And they won't tell me about tax money because Israel hasn't supported itself from tax money for a long time. As mentioned above - these are the World Bank's money (whatever it is).
The matter of regional peace and the question of whether or not there is anything in the project in this sense are not relevant, since it is no longer possible to make the situation worse. All that can be done is to improve the relations with the neighbors and maybe (who knows? Maybe? Maybe Dr. Rosenthal will find out?) Is this project one of the travails of birth that one must go through in order to reach rest and possessions?
The salting of the aquifer is a reasonable argument for this, but it should be taken into account, firstly, that in smart construction and proper planning of buildings should not cause malfunctions (after all, the problems are known and preventive measures will be taken) and secondly, that the aquifer water in the Arava is salty anyway (there are some sweet springs). The question arises, will a lot of water really be spilled and will the aquifer become even more wasteful, assuming that all the systems collapse and the planning goes down the drain - and then what? The main water reserves in the Arava are brackish and anyway are treated or used in agriculture as brackish water. The same argument must be made regarding the construction and burial of ammunition and other poisons in soils that seep into the groundwater. The same applies to dairy farms and monoculture agriculture, which impair the quality of the soil and groundwater. There is no end to it and it is not a reason to stop an opportunity for something that could be good or fail.
The quality of the water and the chemistry that will change in the Dead Sea is a very puzzling matter to me. The chemical will change. will you change Maybe. Salt water from ocean water will be concentrated and transferred to a very large and very deep basin whose water is also salty (and by the way, as we know, the Dead Sea is the opening to a new ocean that was created with the shifting of the plates, so in the long run surely none of this has any meaning). It is not clear to me what exactly they are afraid of the chemical change that can be created in the Dead Sea. Will the dolphins die? Will the fishermen be unemployed? The chemical composition will change... which will change. And it's not completely safe either. Water is water and it is the bulk of the mass. The salts that are in the ocean are also in the Dead Sea and in a very large concentration. The thinning of the Dead Sea is not significant since its depth reaches almost 400 meters and its length is tens of kilometers. In fact, they are trying to restore 10-20 meters to the sea, which has dried up due to the drying ponds and the taking of the salt (also a point that is ignored - doesn't the salt that is taken from the sea frequently change its chemistry?)
In conclusion,
Politicians have an agenda and so does Dr. Rosenthal. He has been strongly preaching against the project for a long time and just like the politicians, Dr. Rosenthal also has no idea what will happen. Will the aquifer be salted? Will the chemistry change? Will there be peace? Will drinking water and energy be produced for the well-being of the people of the area? Do you know for sure, Dr. Rosenthal, that all of this is a "disaster" and does your scholarly opinion, which predicts the future in a mystical way, clearly differ from the opinion of other professionals, in the service of the state, who say the complete opposite?
Greetings friends,
Dr. Ami Bachar