"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a €œmonster€� fatberg 1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes €“ equivalent to 250 cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get so immense - however they do it.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 03:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
polygonum_on_google wrote:

"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a €œmonster€� fatberg
1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services
company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was
about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes €“ equivalent to 250
cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after
its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been
triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get
so immense - however they do it.

And it would help if people didn't flush things like nappies down the
toilet. Instead of smart water supply meters, maybe we need smart loo
flush meters. If you send something down that you shouldn't, you pay.

--
Davey.

On 01/05/2021 11:08, polygonum_on_google wrote:
"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a €œmonster€� fatberg 1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes €“ equivalent to 250 cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get so immense - however they do it.


I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through a
large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the outside.

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/05/2021 12:15, Davey wrote:
Instead of smart water supply meters, maybe we need smart loo
flush meters. If you send something down that you shouldn't, you pay.


Sounds like a $hit idea ;-)

--
Adrian C

On 01/05/2021 11:08, polygonum_on_google wrote:
"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a €œmonster€� fatberg 1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes €“ equivalent to 250 cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get so immense - however they do it.

There is a trade-off. How much money do you spend on sensors. How much
time and effort on direct and remote inspection.

As another poster pointed out, it is a developing problem with people
flushing so-called flushable wet wipes, etc. There are also more city
centre restaurants and take-aways, although I have the impression that
much more effort now goes into preventing fats from entering sewers from
these sources

On 01/05/2021 15:26, newshound wrote:

As another poster pointed out, it is a developing problem with people
flushing so-called flushable wet wipes, etc. There are also more city
centre restaurants and take-aways, although I have the impression that
much more effort now goes into preventing fats from entering sewers from
these sources

Wet wipes do seem to be a big problem and not just those that will never
break down in a your lifetime. Since the problem was highlighted
manufactures of wet wipes now sell biodegradable wet wipes. These will
breakdown but they do stay intact on their way through the sewers so are
no different to the non-destructible ones with regards their part in the
formation of fat burgs.

Some forms of eco recycled paper toilet roll may also be responsible.
Fluffy toilet paper seems to start disintegration in the toilet bowl
with a little water. Some of the eco paper I once used, similar (but
softer) to the hard Izal paper of old, was still sheet form when I
lifted a manhold cover to find some caught on a rough join in the clay
pipe. This was weeks after I stopped using the paper. This was the type
sold by the German supermarkets when they first opened up. After buying
a few very cheap multi-packs I came to the conclusion that the paper was
crap - the main problem was it was smaller in width so I tended to use
more of it for each wipe


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 15:26:58 UTC+1, newshound wrote:

There is a trade-off. How much money do you spend on sensors. How much
time and effort on direct and remote inspection.

As another poster pointed out, it is a developing problem with people
flushing so-called flushable wet wipes, etc. There are also more city
centre restaurants and take-aways, although I have the impression that
much more effort now goes into preventing fats from entering sewers from
these sources

Certainly, while people put wet wipes, etc., down, there will continue to be a problem.

But the costs of removal can be huge - just had a look around and saw one 10 tonner cost £400,000 to remove and fix. And costs in millions for others.

It simply cannot cost anything like that much to have a look every week with a camera. Though a fully automated system could cost a bit to install.

On 01/05/2021 15:52, alan_m wrote:
it was smaller in width so I tended to use more of it for each wipe

That's because you had an imperial sized arse and not a metric sized one.

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 17:34:07 UTC+1, mm0fmf wrote:
On 01/05/2021 15:52, alan_m wrote:
it was smaller in width so I tended to use more of it for each wipe
That's because you had an imperial sized arse and not a metric sized one.

Appropriate for a throne.

On 01/05/2021 16:45, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 15:26:58 UTC+1, newshound wrote:

There is a trade-off. How much money do you spend on sensors. How much
time and effort on direct and remote inspection.

As another poster pointed out, it is a developing problem with people
flushing so-called flushable wet wipes, etc. There are also more city
centre restaurants and take-aways, although I have the impression that
much more effort now goes into preventing fats from entering sewers from
these sources

Certainly, while people put wet wipes, etc., down, there will continue to be a problem.

But the costs of removal can be huge - just had a look around and saw one 10 tonner cost £400,000 to remove and fix. And costs in millions for others.

It simply cannot cost anything like that much to have a look every week with a camera. Though a fully automated system could cost a bit to install.

I disagree. That's a cost for what total length of sewers? And a
comparatively infrequent event? An inspection, whether by camera or
direct man access is going to require a minimum of two people, almost
certainly more. Add in the equipment, infrastructure, and overheads cost
it's a minimum of £1000 a day. I doubt if you would inspect 100 yards a day.

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 21:56:31 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 01/05/2021 16:45, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 15:26:58 UTC+1, newshound wrote:

There is a trade-off. How much money do you spend on sensors. How much
time and effort on direct and remote inspection.

As another poster pointed out, it is a developing problem with people
flushing so-called flushable wet wipes, etc. There are also more city
centre restaurants and take-aways, although I have the impression that
much more effort now goes into preventing fats from entering sewers from
these sources

Certainly, while people put wet wipes, etc., down, there will continue to be a problem.

But the costs of removal can be huge - just had a look around and saw one 10 tonner cost £400,000 to remove and fix. And costs in millions for others.

It simply cannot cost anything like that much to have a look every week with a camera. Though a fully automated system could cost a bit to install..

I disagree. That's a cost for what total length of sewers? And a
comparatively infrequent event? An inspection, whether by camera or
direct man access is going to require a minimum of two people, almost
certainly more. Add in the equipment, infrastructure, and overheads cost
it's a minimum of £1000 a day. I doubt if you would inspect 100 yards a day.

If you are silly enough to require people to go down every week - yes.

But you don't need technology any more sophisticated than a mobile phone and battery pack if you leave it down there. Once a year do a recharge.

(Of course, an actual mobile phone wouldn't be quite right - but no greater technological sophistication.)

Yes we had one in Kingston and I asked at the time why these things are not
spotted sooner, the answer of course is that they don't look for a problem
until its large enough to affect the system. Nobody routinely puts a robot
camera down in problem areas near baby booms or chip chops perhaps?
:-)

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a "monster" fatberg 1km
long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services
company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was about
four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes - equivalent to 250 cars. The
water services company was alerted to the stoppage after its sensors
detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been
triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get so
immense - however they do it.

Would it not be easier to find these items in smaller sewers before they get
to the really big ones, Certainly they would have a lot of smaller call
outs, but one supposes these should take very little time to clear and not
gum up the whole of a major sewer affecting thousands of people. Wet wipes
are apparently making things worse at the moment. Maybe nappies and wet
wipes which are bio degradable might well help.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2021 03:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
polygonum_on_google wrote:

"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a "monster" fatberg
1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services
company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was
about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes - equivalent to 250
cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after
its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been
triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get
so immense - however they do it.

And it would help if people didn't flush things like nappies down the
toilet. Instead of smart water supply meters, maybe we need smart loo
flush meters. If you send something down that you shouldn't, you pay.

--
Davey.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 09:26:39 +0100
"Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" wrote:

Would it not be easier to find these items in smaller sewers before
they get to the really big ones, Certainly they would have a lot of
smaller call outs, but one supposes these should take very little
time to clear and not gum up the whole of a major sewer affecting
thousands of people. Wet wipes are apparently making things worse at
the moment. Maybe nappies and wet wipes which are bio degradable
might well help. Brian


Yes, as I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters. When we
lived in the US, in a rented property, there were historical tree root
problems, which meant that we saw the Roto-Rooter man about once per
year. He talked about one client who kept on getting blockages due to
Q-tips put down the loo, and every time he explained that this was not
where to put them, he just got a shrug of the shoulders in response. So
they had to keep paying for him to return.

--
Davey.

On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 11:40:15 UTC+1, Davey wrote:

Yes, as I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters. When we
lived in the US, in a rented property, there were historical tree root
problems, which meant that we saw the Roto-Rooter man about once per
year. He talked about one client who kept on getting blockages due to
Q-tips put down the loo, and every time he explained that this was not
where to put them, he just got a shrug of the shoulders in response. So
they had to keep paying for him to return.

I keep wondering whether ordinary paper hankies are safe to flush? They always seem to be no more substantial than toilet tissue. (Not thinking about the heavy ones with multiple layers and embossed patterns. Just ordinary cheap ones.) If I happen to blow my nose in the bathroom, it is tempting just to drop it in the pan.

I read somewhere that nappies could take 1000 years to biodegrade
when sent to landfill.

Need to build more clean incinerators like that one in Denmark that
has an artificial ski slope on its roof.

Andrew


On 02/05/2021 09:26, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Would it not be easier to find these items in smaller sewers before they get
to the really big ones, Certainly they would have a lot of smaller call
outs, but one supposes these should take very little time to clear and not
gum up the whole of a major sewer affecting thousands of people. Wet wipes
are apparently making things worse at the moment. Maybe nappies and wet
wipes which are bio degradable might well help.
Brian

On Sun, 2 May 2021 05:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
polygonum_on_google wrote:

On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 11:40:15 UTC+1, Davey wrote:

Yes, as I understand it, wet-wipes are described as
'biodegradeable' when they are not, at least within the time frame
that matters. When we lived in the US, in a rented property, there
were historical tree root problems, which meant that we saw the
Roto-Rooter man about once per year. He talked about one client who
kept on getting blockages due to Q-tips put down the loo, and every
time he explained that this was not where to put them, he just got
a shrug of the shoulders in response. So they had to keep paying
for him to return.
I keep wondering whether ordinary paper hankies are safe to flush?
They always seem to be no more substantial than toilet tissue. (Not
thinking about the heavy ones with multiple layers and embossed
patterns. Just ordinary cheap ones.) If I happen to blow my nose in
the bathroom, it is tempting just to drop it in the pan.

I always thought that toilet paper was faster biodegrading than tissue
paper so I throw my tissues in the bin.

--
Davey.

On 02/05/2021 09:26, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Maybe nappies and wet
wipes which are bio degradable might well help.

But they have to be biodegradable within minutes or hours of flushing to
avoid the problems.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through a
large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom, so
when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow from
stagnating.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Andrew wrote:
I read somewhere that nappies could take 1000 years to biodegrade
when sent to landfill.

Need to build more clean incinerators like that one in Denmark that
has an artificial ski slope on its roof.

Its a nice idea *but* incinerators can actually end up driving demand for
more waste if youre not careful.

I believe that in Denmark they dont have sufficient domestic waste so have
to import it.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 May 2021 05:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
polygonum_on_google wrote:

On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 11:40:15 UTC+1, Davey wrote:

Yes, as I understand it, wet-wipes are described as
'biodegradeable' when they are not, at least within the time frame
that matters. When we lived in the US, in a rented property, there
were historical tree root problems, which meant that we saw the
Roto-Rooter man about once per year. He talked about one client who
kept on getting blockages due to Q-tips put down the loo, and every
time he explained that this was not where to put them, he just got
a shrug of the shoulders in response. So they had to keep paying
for him to return.
I keep wondering whether ordinary paper hankies are safe to flush?
They always seem to be no more substantial than toilet tissue. (Not
thinking about the heavy ones with multiple layers and embossed
patterns. Just ordinary cheap ones.) If I happen to blow my nose in
the bathroom, it is tempting just to drop it in the pan.

I always thought that toilet paper was faster biodegrading than tissue
paper so I throw my tissues in the bin.

In the 60s the building manager had to tell an Indian immigrant
that we put the dunny paper you have just wiped your arse with
down the dunny and not to leave it on the floor beside the dunny.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through a
large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom, so
when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow from
stagnating.

None of ours are and I have been watching 4 new estates done in a row now.

On Mon, 3 May 2021 05:15:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 3 May 2021 05:19:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

In message , Davey
writes



I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters.

AIUI, not ''biodegradeable', but 'flushable'.


--
Ian

On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 08:13:32 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Davey
writes

I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters.
AIUI, not ''biodegradeable', but 'flushable'.


Just had a look at a few - every single one I checked said "Do not flush", but some also said "biodegradable". But I am pretty sure some say "flushable" despite it being folly to do so.

On 03/05/2021 08:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Davey
writes



I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters.

AIUI, not ''biodegradeable', but 'flushable'.



Flushable is also a misleading term that was/is used by manufacturers of
such products. It just means that if you place it in the toilet bowl it
will disappear when you flush the toilet. There have been a few TV
programs that show such products stay intact for weeks or months after
being put in water.

There may be a perception problem with some products. I have seen wet
toilet wipes - to wipe your arse the comfortable way using soothing Aloe
Vera etc. The small print on the package actually says not to flush
them down the toilet pan but I guess many people using such a product
and after covering it in **** would just automatically dispose of it in
the bowl.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/05/2021 09:38, alan_m wrote:
On 03/05/2021 08:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Davey
writes



I understand it, wet-wipes are described as 'biodegradeable'
when they are not, at least within the time frame that matters.

AIUI, not ''biodegradeable', but 'flushable'.



Flushable is also a misleading term that was/is used by manufacturers of
such products. It just means that if you place it in the toilet bowl it
will disappear when you flush the toilet. There have been a few TV
programs that show such products stay intact for weeks or months after
being put in water.

There may be a perception problem with some products. I have seen wet
toilet wipes - to wipe your arse the comfortable way using soothing Aloe
Vera etc.Â* The small print on the package actually says not to flush
them down the toilet pan but I guess many people using such a product
and after covering it in **** would just automatically dispose of it in
the bowl.

which is why I have a basin for washing next to the toilet - and no wet
wipes...

--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton

On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through
a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the
outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom, so
when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow from
stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.

--
Colin Bignell

On 03/05/2021 10:22, nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through
a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the
outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom,
so when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow
from stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.


How come the solids and sediment don't collect at the lowest point
and block it ?

On 03/05/2021 10:22, nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through
a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the
outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom,
so when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow
from stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.


I never knew that. I wonder if they ever have to clean it for sediment.

On 03/05/2021 14:46, Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2021 10:22, nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send
through a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips
around the outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom,
so when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow
from stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.


How come the solids and sediment don't collect at the lowest point
and block it ?

That is why they send the big wooden ball through. It is a very close
fit to the sewer and, besides scraping all the walls at once, it pushes
any debris ahead of it.


--
Colin Bignell

On 03/05/2021 14:49, newshound wrote:
On 03/05/2021 10:22, nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send
through a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips
around the outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom,
so when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow
from stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.


I never knew that. I wonder if they ever have to clean it for sediment.

As I said, they send a big wooden ball though as required. It is a very
close fit to the sewer and simply pushes everything ahead of it. A very
clever piece of Victorian era engineering.

--
Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message
news
On 03/05/2021 14:46, Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2021 10:22, nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2021 18:03, alan_m wrote:
On 01/05/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:

I like the way they clear the sewer under the river in Paris. It is
circular and, every so often, using water pressure, they send through
a large wooden ball, fitted with steel cleaning strips around the
outside.


Many sewers are built egg shaped, with the pointy bit at the bottom, so
when there is little sewerage the head of liquid keeps the flow from
stagnating.


The sewer tunnel under the Seine is like a giant U bend. It is always
full of liquid.


How come the solids and sediment don't collect at the lowest point
and block it ?

That is why they send the big wooden ball through. It is a very close fit
to the sewer and, besides scraping all the walls at once, it pushes any
debris ahead of it.

Bet that thing is pretty stinky when they pull it out.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 08:01:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Bet that thing is pretty stinky when they pull it out.

Not as stinky as you are, senile Rodent!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 01/05/2021 11:08, polygonum_on_google wrote:
"Engineers are working around the clock to clear a €œmonster€� fatberg 1km long which is clogging a sewer in Birmingham.

The blockage is not expected to be removed until June, water services company Severn Trent said in a statement, adding that the fatberg was about four miles east of the city centre, in Hodge Hill.

The mass is thought to weigh about 300 tonnes €“ equivalent to 250 cars. The water services company was alerted to the stoppage after its sensors detected rising water levels in the sewer."

Written as adulation of their sensors.

But just how sensitive do they need to be? Could they not have been triggered when it was only 999 metres long and 299 tonnes/249 cars?

It is a 300 tonne fail. They need to detect before the fatbergs get so immense - however they do it.

Many of the Fatbergs come from Takeaways / restaurants running without
grease traps

On Thursday, 6 May 2021 at 19:39:22 UTC+1, rick wrote:

Many of the Fatbergs come from Takeaways / restaurants running without
grease traps

It is, therefore, obvious that such establishments (whether takeaways, sit-ins, food factories, or whatever else) should conform to grease trap requirements before they open. And become responsible for failure to do so.

Getting back to an earlier point, if we know the fat is coming from such places, then the positioning of sensors (of whatever sort) should be fairly obvious.