Drinking-water supply

Author: No author 

Publisher: Gale 

Publication Date: June 13, 2011 


Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644150392&mode=view

Picture:

This shows the normal water people drink. Even though it looks clean and pure, it may contain many impurities that we are not aware of. 

Summary:

Ever since the Drinking Water Act was passed, most people assume their water is clean and pure. However, there are many limits to this act that prevent the water from being truly pure: millions of privately owned wells are not under the act; the act only standardizes 90 out of the 700 contaminants in the water; bottled water is not covered by the act, and even when the water is protected under the act, some companies may violate the law and cut corners. These realities, then, reveal that not all water is protected or pure. Thus, many people are drinking water with much less purity and protection than they may realize. Whether the people know so or not, the article did not say, but I am sure they are not fully aware of the health risks of drinking such water. Even when in compliance with the law, the water is still not fully free of contaminants, so there are many remaining health risks—risks of carcinogens, risks to the nervous system, risks of trace metals and minerals that can also have health hazards. Lastly, bottled water is not protected. It is a common misconception that bottled water is better for someone, but the truth is the water is just the same as tap water. Overall, the water here is still better than other countries with no protection, but there are still things that need improvements. 

Opinion/Reflection:

The article I read held some real surprises for me, for I had just believed that all the drinking water in this country was safe and pure—for sure. I know now that belief is wrong. The quality and purity of the drinking water varies significantly from place to place. Also, I was surprised to learn how many contaminants remain unchecked and unregulated. What the article failed to clarify, though, is the relative risk from these remaining levels of contaminants and impurities, trace metals and minerals, fluoride and such. The article just mentions these impurities are there, but how immediate and likely are the health risks? My thought is the actual dangers cannot be too great, for there would be a real public outcry for higher protection standards if significant numbers of cancers or other illnesses could be traced back to drinking water. So I wonder if there really is all that much difference between the protection levels we now have and the absolute level of purity. 

Questions: 

1. Even though it is possible to impose more stringent purity standards for water, is there really that much of an actual danger with the current levels? 
2. Is there likely to be enough good drinking water available for the foreseeable future?
3. Is the technology of desalinization cost effective yet?

3/27/12

Both Coasts Watch Closely as San Francisco Faces Erosion

By FELICITY BARRINGER

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/science/earth/san-francisco-fights-erosion-as-coastal-cities-watch-closely.html?src=mv&ref=science

http://coastalcare.org/2011/07/us-west-coast-erosion-spiked-in-winter-2009-10-previewing-likely-future-as-climate-changes/

Picture:

This graphic shows a huge chunk of sand and the road being eroded from Ocean Beach in San Francisco. It shows the Great Highway, a road along the coast, having parts of it eroded and into pieces. This clearly shows how big of an effect erosion has on many coasts around the world.

Summarize:

                Along the coast in Ocean Beach, San Francisco there are problems with erosion eroding away much of the sand and roads along the coast. California officials are worried about the erosion especially because they expect to see sea levels going up to 14 inches by 2050. The San Francisco State study says that sea levels going up will impose a cost of $650 million by 2100 if nothing is done about the erosion. There are three options that are available to choose from to take on the situation. The options are to keep installing hard structures in areas of vulnerability, replenish the sand or just letting the erosion take place without doing anything about it. Environmentalists are preferring to replenish the coast with sand in trying to mimic how the coast was before. They prefer this option in order to maintain species survival. Out of the three options the second one is the least in cost and better for the time now.

Opinion/Reflection:

                I cannot believe that erosion could be this powerful and harmful to the Earth. Though, I find it interesting that coasts and beaches show up on T.V. but they do not talk about what erosion is doing to our important coasts. I have gone swimming before along the beaches in New Jersey but I find it difficult to see a nice place like that being washed away like in Ocean Beach, San Francisco. The inference of the sea levels going up to 14 inches by 2050 seems very high and I cannot imagine how high it will be for other coasts around the world. It worries me to see that land is being taken by water and what the future will look like for our country or other countries around the world if nothing is done about. Though luckily there are people coming up with ideas to solve the problem.  


Questions:
1. What are some ways we can help lessen erosion or erosion's effects on the coast? What will this do for Humans or other organisms? 
2. Why is erosion not as big of an issue than other issues such as endangered species when it is taking away the very land you're living on? 
3. Why is it so important to conserve the coast? Explain.

Clean Water...Not so Common

Liter by Liter, Indians
Get Clean Water
By
Amy Yee
The
New York Times, Published March 21, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/business/energy-environment/liter-by-liter-indians-get-cleaner-water.html?_r=1&ref=waterpollution




















PICTURE:
This graphic shows what an Indian village pump looks like and how its residents
receive drinking water. Clearly, it does not look safe at all and the Indian government
has a huge problem to fix.



SUMMARY:
In the town of Chuddani, India, 500 homes are finally receiving a lifesaver—clean
water. The people of the town arrive by bike, motorbikes, tractors and on foot
with jars to fill from a filtration plant that rids groundwater of chemicals,
toxins, and bacteria. The filtration plants are quite expensive, $20,000
dollars per building and there are 428 in India. Before the plant was built in
2009, and residents would drink water from the village hand pumps, which might
as well have been poison. This water contained 1,850 milligrams per liter of
dissolved solids, which exceeds the World Health Organization’s acceptable
level of 500. The new filtered water is excellent, with only about 65 milligrams
per liter of dissolved solids (about 3.5% of what it originally was). Dirty
drinking water can cause typhoid, hepatitis and cholera, plus diarrhea, which
causes 1.5 million children, worldwide, to die each year. This is more than
AIDS, measles and malaria…combined. Humans are somewhat at fault for the
life-threatening water, spilling fertilizers, pesticides and other pollutants.
However, more filtration plants are continuously being built to save more and
more lives, liter by liter.

OPINION/REFLECTION:
I agree with the article that India and other third-world countries have an
urgent problem on their hands. We learned in class that water is essential for
all living things, and once it is toxic, it is useless or even
life-threatening. When I drink water, from tap, bottles, or a fountain, I do
not even think about what chemicals are in it because I think it is just basic
water. However, that is why water is good and bad for having the quality of being
a good solvent. Whoever drinks water may not be able to see the toxins they are
in taking, which is completely scary to me. Children worldwide do not know
this, 1.5 million of them, and have to pay the price. The UN should try to
educate the children of the world of safe drinking water, its contents, and how
to safely drink it, then maybe the world now and in the future will not
hesitate to have a sip of clean water.

QUESTIONS:
1.
Should farms/factories have to pay for the fatalities of people that drink from
the water they polluted? Explain.
2.
If the clean water crisis is not fixed soon, what do you think could happen in
the future?
3.
India has one of the largest population, 1.2 billion. Do you think the unsafe
drinking water’s effects will be passed down to the offspring of a growing
population? If yes, what do you think will come of it and if no, why not?

Why Michigan Plants to Kill Thousands of Mute Swans
Howard Meyerson
Michigan Live LLC
March 1st, 2012
Article&Image- http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2012/03/why_michigan_plans_to_kill_tho.html


Image: The mute swan here is disturbing ducks in a Michigan lake. With the exponential growth the mute swans are in, swans need more food to sustain their population. They need to compete with other species for food sources.








Summary

       The mute swan was introduced into the Americas from Europe in the 19th century. In most areas they are not huge problem, except in Michigan. The mute swans are a social nuisance, according to wildlife agencies that monitor the birds. The birds are aggressive to native species, and a threat to the marsh vegetation and other waterfowl. Ever since 2000, the mute swan population has about tripled from 5,400 to 15,500. The swans are seeing a growth of about 10% annually. The mute swans are both invasive and under exponential growth. The government and environmental agencies in Michigan have come up with an agreement that by 2030, the population of the swans needs to be no more then 2000. The agreement states that the swans can be removed only by killing them. Moving the swans will only cause problems for areas they are taken to.

Opinion

       It's amazing how the population of the swans has tripled in nearly ten years. They are obviously under exponential growth, and it is a good thing that they are being tamed. However, I find it a little extreme to have to kill the swans. The agencies should just prevent the swans from  reproducing, such as injecting a drug, so that the swans can die peacefully. Killing them and disposing of them is just too much work and resources needed, and it's inhumane. If I were in control of the situation, I would just prevent some of the current population from reproducing, just enough so that the 2,000 limit is reached. This seems really similar to the human population growth. However, with the swans, there is organisms that can tame the swan population. With humans, we have nothing taming us. It seems unfair for the swans, as they have something that can stop them and we don't. However, that's also a good thing since the swans now won't have to deal with problems we have like overpopulation and starvation.

Questions

1) Do you think it is humane to kill all the mute swans just because they have a large population? Do you think it is something that needs to be done?

2) Do you believe that the swans' growth is similar to human growth? Why?

3) Do you think increasing the population of the swans' food and removing other waterfowl will solve the problem? Why?

4) Do you think that if nothing was done, eventually the swan population will balance itself out, or will eliminate the other species? Why?

Population Growth

Economic crisis slows U.S. population growth

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/us-population-growth-slows/53157486/1

Updated 2/20/2012 12:38 PM

By: Aidan Knox

Photo:

This is a picture of the United States and shows the states that have lost and gained populations.

   

Summary-

The U.S. population is growing at its slowest since the Great Depression after years of nonstop population’s increases.  For two year since 2009 the population growth was .7% a year.  It has never been this low since the 1930’s.  In the year of 2010-2011 the population grew 2.2 million.   The government says that the population percentage decrease is from the recession.  The economy has improved though but its effects are still present.  For example the numbers of babies born from July 1, 2010 to July 2011 dropped 200,000.  The U.S. fertility which was 2.1 kids per woman has now dropped to 1.9 kids.  Demographers expect the population to grow more once the economy is fixed.

Opinion-

                This article about the population was very interesting.  I never really followed things about the population of the United States which it said was 311 million.  I think that this is a good thing that our population growth is slowing.  All over the world many more people are being born than die.  This is causing our population to increase rapidly.  We should all try and limit how many kids people can have to help prevent overpopulation because if people don’t try and limit it we will run out of resources and people will start starving and dying.

Questions-

1.       How much of a population can the United States support with its ever increasing number of citizens?

2.       What would the world do if the population of Earth outgrew its carrying capacity in terms of food supply and resources?

3.       Why don’t more countries around the world limit families to having between 1-2 kids to help stop overpopulation?

4.       If overpopulation continues the pace it is going will the world consider trying to populate other planets?

California in conflict over Endangered Species Act
Paul C. Barton
Desert Sun Washington Bureau

February 6th, 2012

Article - http://www.mydesert.com/article/20120206/NEWS10/202060323/California-conflict-over-Endangered-Species-Act

Image - http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/longfinsmelt.jpg/

Picture: These are delta smelt. With water being pumped out of their natural habitats, more and more delta smelt will end up like these.

Summary: 

Delta smelt are a fish species native to the Central Valley of California. The problem is that water is pumped out of the Central Valley rivers and lakes for irrigation and farming. The farmers produce large amounts of produce that supplies much of the population. However, ever since put under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, water pumping from these regions is limited. Before this, the delta smelt population has been decreasing rapidly, enough to be out under protection of the Endangered Species Act. This has a huge affect on the farmers, who say that this will lead to fewer, more expensive produce. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Desert Water Agency have been to court numerous times to try and settle this. Saying that economic consequences are to be kept out of the equation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has won every time. The Desert Water Agency states that farmers will be put out of business, and cause doom for the regional economy.

Opinion/Reflection:

Im surprised at how much the farmers rely on the lakes. I mean California is next to an ocean, couldn't they just purify that water? The delta smelt only need the few lakes and rivers they are in, and the ocean has a nearly unlimited supply of water. If I were to make the decision, I would stop pumping water from the delta smelts' lakes and rivers, and just get purifiers to purify the ocean water. I agree with the government that economics should be kept our of environmental decisions, as the survival of a species is far more important. Removing the delta smelt would ruin the ecosystem, and cause other species to die or overgrow. The farmers have alternative water sources, and should use those.

Questions:

1. Do you think that the rivers and lakes with the delta smelt should't have water pumped from them? Why?

2. If you were to make the decision, who would you have sided with?

3. Should economics play into environmental decisions?

4. Would switching to using and purifying ocean water be better for the farmers? What are some advantages of switching?