Bottled Water Vs Tap Water
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” In 1993, four hundred thousand people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, suffered intestinal illness caused by a microbial pathogen known as Cryptosporidium (Cryp-to-spor-i-di-um). Cryptosporidium hospitalized four thousand people and reportedly killed fifty more (CRY). This outbreak was not an isolated issue: the states of Nevada, Oregon and Georgia where affected as well. This kind of public water contamination helped to spark a debate in the minds of many consumers whether bottled or tap water was better. Bottled water has all but replaced the consumption of tap water. Consumers justify the consumption of bottled water with the rising concern for the quality of municipal (tap) water and the convenience of bottled water. With bottled water, consumers are told that the water comes from a far away island; that the water is untouched by human hands. With tap water, consumers may not know the source of their water. With bottled water, consumers can see the clearness, taste the silkiness and detect no odor. The same cannot be said about some tap water, which in some areas is not clear, does not have a silky taste, and can have very strong odors. Consumers want to believe in the products they purchase, whether bottled or tap water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the presumed quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment.
The convenience of bottled water is not the question. What is the price of convenience to the consumer and the environment? Bottled water is becoming the next new age consumer product, one which consumers cannot do without. Bottled water has also become the second largest beverage consumed next to carbonated drinks. The bottled water industry is a billion dollar a year industry and expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled water. One of the major differences between bottled water and tap water is that the consumer can see where the bottled water comes from or the treatment technique used. With tap water, there are no such comforting images.
The quality of both tap water and bottled water are the concerns of two organizations: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tap water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for bottled water. The quality of particular water is more complex than any label or lack of labeling could tell a consumer. Contaminants are present in all water sources around the world, but it is up to EPA and the FDA to determine what levels are safe for consumption. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 to “protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply” (EPA). The EPA became aware of the health risks associated with unregulated tap water. The SDWA has been amended twice since the original was written in 1974, once in 1986 and again in 1996. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set quality standards for all public drinking water, these standards include: “assessing and protecting drinking water sources; protecting wells and collection systems; making sure water is treated by qualified operators; ensuring the integrity of distribution systems; and making information available to the public on the quality of their drinking water” (EPA). The 1996 amendment to the SDWA stated that the public has a right to know what is in their water and if it poses a health threat. Therefore, when a public water source tests high for a particular contaminant, EPA standards mandates the public be made aware of the contamination.
The EPA has two regulations governing drinking water: the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which is legally enforceable, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, which is non-enforceable. The primary standard regulates the levels of contaminants that are harmful to the public if consumed. Arsenic and Radon are just two of the many contaminants that naturally and unnaturally contaminate public water supplies. An article written by Brandon Loomis for the Anchorage Daily News reports, high Arsenic levels in two of the three Kenia’s public well water supplies. Federal regulations require 10 parts Arsenic per billion, the two wells tested at 15 parts per billion. The City has until 2009 to comply with federal regulations (Loomis). The EPA does not work alone in setting and regulating these standards; “states, tribes, drinking water utilities, communities and citizens all help to ensure that their tap water is of a safe for consumption” (EPA). The EPA gives the states authority to impose the secondary regulation. This regulation deals with contaminants that effect a person cosmetically or the taste, odor, or color of the water. The primary and secondary standards apply to all public water systems. The quality control of both tap water and bottled water are similar in that both have to abide by strict regulations.
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food. The FDA utilizes the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) to regulate the different aspects of bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR defines some of the types of bottled waters as follows: Artesian water – water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water levels stand at some height near the top of the aquifer. Mineral water – Water containing not less than 250 ppm total dissolved solids that originate from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Purified water – Water that is produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other suitable processes. Sparkling bottled water – water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide that it had at emergence from the source. Spring water – water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth at an identified location. Regulation 21 CF – 165.110[b] regulates more than 70 different chemical contaminants. These standards include but are not limited to microbiological standards (coliform levels), physical standards (turbidity) and radiological standards (radium-226 and radium-228) (FDA). Because the FDA regulates water as a food, the assumption could be made that quality control would remain high; that is not always the case. According to the FDA, if a water bottling company is in good standing with the FDA’s regulations, then inspections are not as frequent. The EPA regulates that municipal water sources must be checked regularly and a annual report on the condition of the water source. The standards for tap water and bottled water are meticulously regulated and thoroughly checked.
The cost of tap water can vary depending on the location and the type of water source available. The average household will pay about $.002 per gallon of tap water compared to between $1.00 and $4.00 per gallon for bottled water, the cost is more for imported water. The cost that a consumer pays for bottled water is not for the water alone, the price includes labeling costs, production cost and transportation cost; all of which makes bottled water very expensive. The cost of consuming bottled water is a choice that the consumer makes. The cost that the environment pays due to the production of bottled water is much steeper.
With the increased concern over Global Warming, the production of bottled water is one area that could use some improvement. The environmental impact of producing bottled water greatly overshadows that of tap water. Other than the maintenance of the water treatment facilities, tap water has little impact on the environment. The bottled water industry produces billions of bottles of water a year and from the start of production until the end, the environment is paying a price. Fossil fuels are used not only for producing the plastic bottles, but also for the transportation of the product around the world; releasing greenhouse gases and polluting the air. Millions of tons of plastic are used to produce billions of plastic water bottles. Americans consume more then 30 billion bottles of water every year and according to the Container Recycling Institute 86% of empty plastic water bottles are not recycled (Milne-Tyte). That is 25.8 billion empty plastic water bottles taking up landfill space and biodegrading for the next 1,000 years. With that amount of empty bottles, the toxic material polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used to produce the plastic bottles will affect future water supplies. The water industry is very aware of the environmental concerns with the production of the plastic used for their product.
In an article in USA Today, the CEO of Nestle Waters North America branch said “Our new Eco-Shape bottle uses the least plastic of any half-liter bottle on store shelves. We make 98% of our single-serve bottles, eliminating the need to truck 160,000 loads of empty bottles into our plants and saving 6.6million gallons of fuel per year”(“Success of bottled water”)
It seems that Nestles has recognized the hazards to the environment in the production of water bottles; and is trying to change the process and help the environment while helping themselves.
Selecting which type of water to consume is a choice. If consumers are not satisfied with their home water, they can purchase a wide variety of filters that will provide further filtration; these filters will also help with the color, taste, and odor of the water. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The EPA monitors the regulations place on tap water closer than FDA does for bottled water. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. Twenty-five percent of the bottled water produced today is treated tap water, which is produced by the Coke, and Pepsi. The cost we pay for bottled water is more than 100 times that of tap water. But as consumers, do we put a price on our health? We as consumers are given a choice between what seems to be a better product on the outside and what we know very little about. Thoughts of beautiful mountain water falls and crystal clear streams look and feel better than thoughts of underground mazes of pipes used for tap water. What most consumers do not know is that the United States has the best municipal water sources in the world. The environmental impact is the deciding factor in this debate. On one hand, there is tap water with no or little environmental impact and on the other hand, there is bottled water, which effects the environment in many ways. Water is such a vital resource to the survival humans and the environment. The health benefits associated with the consumption of bottled or tap water are unquestionable. The fact that Americans are drinking more water is pleasant to hear. Too many consumers drink beverages that contain as much as eleven teaspoons of sugar per twelve ounces of liquid. With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled, the plastic bottles are the problem. The plastic is causing the pollution that is slowly killing our planet. If bottled water is to be accepted across the board, bottling companies must find a better way to produce the bottles. Transportation methods reworked and solutions created to improve the existing recycling processes.
Works Cited
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
“Fluoride and Water.” Kids Health for Parents. Sep. 2005. Nemours Foundation. 7 October 2007 <http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/teeth/fluoride.html>.
Loomis, Brandon. “Kenai City Water Has too Much Arsenic.” Anchorage Daily News. AK, 3 Oct 2007. Newspaper Source. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 20 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6977618859&site=src-line>.
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
NSF. National Science Foundation. Your Tap Water: Will That Be Leaded or Unleaded?. 4 August 2005. Press Release 05-131. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104334>.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Annotated Bibliography
Working Thesis
Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the presumed quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment.
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Karen Breslau wrote this article about the Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ross Anderson. Mayor Anderson according to the article is one of many city mayors trying to combat Greenhouse gases by promoting tap water. The article goes on to discuss the type of plastic used to produce water bottles, the amount of single serving water bottles that are not recycled, and the profits generated by the water bottle industry. The author is trying to reach people in the local community.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
This is a government agency web site; Environment Protection Agency is responsible for regulating public drinking water around the United States. This particular web site provides significant information into the guidelines and regulatory procedures governing public drinking water. The audience is the local community, water treatment plants.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
This is a government agency web site; Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the regulating the production of bottled water. This particular web site provides significant information regarding the guidelines and regulatory procedures governing the production of bottles water. The audience is the bottling companies and consumers.
Loomis, Brandon. “Kenai City Water Has too Much Arsenic.” Anchorage Daily News. AK, 3 Oct 2007. Newspaper Source. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 20 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6977618859&site=src-line>
Brandon Loomis writes an article for the Anchorage Daily News outlining the current situation with the public water of Kenai. Loomis explains in some detail the cosmetics of the local water and the effects it is having on the local community. The levels of naturally occurring arsenic are contaminating two of the three local well, forcing city officials to seek new sources of water. The health risks associated with arsenic are discussed as well as the potential cost of new wells or new water treatment methods. Loomis is trying to reach the local community to inform them of the problems plaguing the local water supply.
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
This is a printed news report on bottled water found on the Container-recycling Institute web page. This web page is dedicated to the recycling methods and programs around the United States. Ashley Milne-Tyte and Tom Standage discuss facts about the production of bottled water. They also discuss the fact that 86% of plastic water bottles end up in landfills. Audience is the local community where the report was broadcasted.
NSF. National Science Foundation. Your Tap Water: Will That Be Leaded or Unleaded?. 4 August 2005. Press Release 05-131. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104334>.
This is an article found on the National Science Foundation web site. This article is about lead that is leaking in to public through brass pluming parts. There are standards governing the levels of lead in public water. A series of tested conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency reviled that new methods would need to be implemented in order to detect the levels of lead in public drinking water. A method used for testing the water had high concentrations of orthophosphate, which is used to inhibit lead leaching. Resulting in the water tested showing low levels of lead when in facts the levels where higher.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
This is an article published in USA Today, suggesting that bottled water is not has harmful on the environment has reported. According to Susan K. Neely, the president and CEO of American Beverage Association, plastic water bottles contribute one-third of 1% to municipal waste. Kim E. Jeffery, President and CEO of Nestle Waters North America states the they make 98% of their single-serve bottles, eliminating 6.6 million gallons of fuel per year. Also discussed is that fact that people drink bottles water for the convenience and if not for the sale of bottled water that consumers would purchase more beverages containing sugar.
“Fluoride and Water.” Kids Health for Parents. Sep. 2005. Nemours Foundation. 7 October 2007 <http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/teeth/fluoride.html>
This cite is dedicated to the education of parents about health issues regarding their children. This particular article deals with fluoride. It explains how fluoride help protect children’s teeth from decay. It also explains that studies have shown that to much fluoride can also harm children’s teeth. Discussed as well are the topics of Fluoride and the Water Supply, Your Child’s Fluoride Needs, and Overexposure to Fluoride. This article is geared toward parents concerned with fluoride.
Franklin, Pat. “Down the Drain.” Waste Management World. May/Jun. 2006. Container Recycling Institute. 1 October 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.htm>
The author of this article discusses the growth in the bottled water industry. Particular attention was paid to the plastic bottle and the fact that Americans are consuming bottled water at a high rate, resulting in millions of plastic water bottles ending up in landfills. The fact that China offers more money for plastic bottles hinders the recycling efforts here in America. The globalization of bottled water is discussed.
Tigno, Cezar. “Using Solid Waste to Treat Water Waste.” Water. Feb. 2007. Asian Development Bank. 1 October 2007. <http://www.adb.org/water/actions/PHI/using-solid-waste.asp>.
This article is about a new technology developed by environmental engineers in the Philippines. These engineers have developed a wastewater treatment system using scrap plastic water bottles, rice hull, and other solid wastes. Household wastewater accounts for most all pollution of public water in the Philippines. Septic tanks overflow into the local water supply and create waterborne diseases. Utilizing perforated plastic bottles, and plastic septic tanks the effluent is filtered in anaerobic and aerobic reactors.
Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the presumed quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment.
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Karen Breslau wrote this article about the Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ross Anderson. Mayor Anderson according to the article is one of many city mayors trying to combat Greenhouse gases by promoting tap water. The article goes on to discuss the type of plastic used to produce water bottles, the amount of single serving water bottles that are not recycled, and the profits generated by the water bottle industry. The author is trying to reach people in the local community.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
This is a government agency web site; Environment Protection Agency is responsible for regulating public drinking water around the United States. This particular web site provides significant information into the guidelines and regulatory procedures governing public drinking water. The audience is the local community, water treatment plants.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
This is a government agency web site; Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the regulating the production of bottled water. This particular web site provides significant information regarding the guidelines and regulatory procedures governing the production of bottles water. The audience is the bottling companies and consumers.
Loomis, Brandon. “Kenai City Water Has too Much Arsenic.” Anchorage Daily News. AK, 3 Oct 2007. Newspaper Source. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 20 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6977618859&site=src-line>
Brandon Loomis writes an article for the Anchorage Daily News outlining the current situation with the public water of Kenai. Loomis explains in some detail the cosmetics of the local water and the effects it is having on the local community. The levels of naturally occurring arsenic are contaminating two of the three local well, forcing city officials to seek new sources of water. The health risks associated with arsenic are discussed as well as the potential cost of new wells or new water treatment methods. Loomis is trying to reach the local community to inform them of the problems plaguing the local water supply.
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
This is a printed news report on bottled water found on the Container-recycling Institute web page. This web page is dedicated to the recycling methods and programs around the United States. Ashley Milne-Tyte and Tom Standage discuss facts about the production of bottled water. They also discuss the fact that 86% of plastic water bottles end up in landfills. Audience is the local community where the report was broadcasted.
NSF. National Science Foundation. Your Tap Water: Will That Be Leaded or Unleaded?. 4 August 2005. Press Release 05-131. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104334>.
This is an article found on the National Science Foundation web site. This article is about lead that is leaking in to public through brass pluming parts. There are standards governing the levels of lead in public water. A series of tested conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency reviled that new methods would need to be implemented in order to detect the levels of lead in public drinking water. A method used for testing the water had high concentrations of orthophosphate, which is used to inhibit lead leaching. Resulting in the water tested showing low levels of lead when in facts the levels where higher.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCOhost. Elmer E. Rasmuson Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
This is an article published in USA Today, suggesting that bottled water is not has harmful on the environment has reported. According to Susan K. Neely, the president and CEO of American Beverage Association, plastic water bottles contribute one-third of 1% to municipal waste. Kim E. Jeffery, President and CEO of Nestle Waters North America states the they make 98% of their single-serve bottles, eliminating 6.6 million gallons of fuel per year. Also discussed is that fact that people drink bottles water for the convenience and if not for the sale of bottled water that consumers would purchase more beverages containing sugar.
“Fluoride and Water.” Kids Health for Parents. Sep. 2005. Nemours Foundation. 7 October 2007 <http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/teeth/fluoride.html>
This cite is dedicated to the education of parents about health issues regarding their children. This particular article deals with fluoride. It explains how fluoride help protect children’s teeth from decay. It also explains that studies have shown that to much fluoride can also harm children’s teeth. Discussed as well are the topics of Fluoride and the Water Supply, Your Child’s Fluoride Needs, and Overexposure to Fluoride. This article is geared toward parents concerned with fluoride.
Franklin, Pat. “Down the Drain.” Waste Management World. May/Jun. 2006. Container Recycling Institute. 1 October 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.htm>
The author of this article discusses the growth in the bottled water industry. Particular attention was paid to the plastic bottle and the fact that Americans are consuming bottled water at a high rate, resulting in millions of plastic water bottles ending up in landfills. The fact that China offers more money for plastic bottles hinders the recycling efforts here in America. The globalization of bottled water is discussed.
Tigno, Cezar. “Using Solid Waste to Treat Water Waste.” Water. Feb. 2007. Asian Development Bank. 1 October 2007. <http://www.adb.org/water/actions/PHI/using-solid-waste.asp>.
This article is about a new technology developed by environmental engineers in the Philippines. These engineers have developed a wastewater treatment system using scrap plastic water bottles, rice hull, and other solid wastes. Household wastewater accounts for most all pollution of public water in the Philippines. Septic tanks overflow into the local water supply and create waterborne diseases. Utilizing perforated plastic bottles, and plastic septic tanks the effluent is filtered in anaerobic and aerobic reactors.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Solution Final Draft
Recycle or Die
What is recycling? Recycling is using a product then sending that used product off to be processed and reused for other product containers. Any thing can be recycled, newspapers, Aluminum cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles just to name a few. My proposal will focus on developing a solution for plastic bottle recycling because 86% of plastic bottles sold are not recycled. That is a staggering number when over 40 billion plastic bottles are produced each year. Some 34.4 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills polluting the earth. Although there are recycling methods available, recycling companies (Waste Management of Fairbanks, Alaska and K&K Recycling Inc of North Pole, Alaska) and local businesses (SafeWay, Fred-Meyer, and Wal-Mart) should develop incentives programs for recycling because the current recycling programs are not working, non-recycled material is hurting the environment, and with incentive programs everyone involved will benefit.
In the past few years, the concerns of environmental effects from pollution have taken center stage in our society. Still, with all the information that has flooded the mass media, citizens have not taken recycling seriously. That is because we are a “what have you done for me lately society.” Recycling relies on the consumer with little or no instant gratification. Therefore, most Americans do not see the benefit of recycling; they are to busy to separate the cans from the plastics, the plastics from the paper, they are just too busy. If they did recycle, what difference would one person make? Some states offer a monetary redemption value for certain plastic bottles, but that program only offers a small incentive. The recycling methods used today benefit only the recycling companies. These companies are making profits off the recycled material. They offer curbside pick up or a centralized drop off point, which offers the consumer nothing in return for their efforts.
Fred Meyer, Safe Way or Wal-Mart could integrate the solution to the recycling problem; with their already existing reward card program that their customers use every time they make a purchase. These companies could create a recycling center in the store, and allow their customers to bring there recyclables to the store in exchange for reward points. At the recycling center, the customer would be given a choice to apply the reward points to a percentage off a gas purchase or a percentage off a store purchase. With the number of customers that would participate in the program, the companies would be able to redeemable the rewards on a monthly bases and still make a profit. This would give the consumer the instant gratification that all consumers want, and by allowing them to choose where the rewards are used, makes them feel that they are in control of the situation. This recycling program would benefit the consumer instantly; slowly erasing the environmental effects felt by the millions of non-recycled plastic bottles.
Because millions of plastic bottles are not recycled, bottling companies must produce more plastic. An estimated 17 million barrels of oil are used in the production of plastic bottles every year, and that does not include the millions of gallons of gas used for transporting the bottles. The Ozone layer that protects the earth from the sun is slowly evaporating from the more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide produced from the production and transportation of plastic bottles. This program would benefit all parties involved.
The grocery stores would gain profits in two ways. Because of the recycling program offered at their stores, customers would increase thereby increasing profits from purchases. They would also profit from the recyclables collected and turned in to recycling companies. Recycling companies would stand to make the greatest profits form this program. Companies would be able to limit there collection points, reducing costs for transportation and the potential man hours needed for sorting would decrease; enabling them to make larger profits from the bottling companies. This would increase in crease there participation in the program. Because their profits will increase, some recycling companies may offer to support the stores with the implementation of the recycling program. This recycling program would not only produce monetary profits, but environmental profits as well.
The environmental impact of this proposal would benefit generations to come. Just a 10 percent increase in the recycling of soft drink and water bottle plastic would save almost 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil used to produce plastic bottles, 72 million gallons of gas used to transport the plastic, and more than 3 million tons of Ozone layer depleting Greenhouse Gas emissions could be avoided. The cost of implementing this recycling program is less than the cost the environment is paying.
The recycling methods available today are not producing the results that the earth needs to sustain life has we know it. The recycling program does not allow the consumer to experience the benefits now. I have proposed a new recycling program that will motivate the consumer to get involved with recycling, while making the benefits felt immediately. Consumers and local business will earn profits from this new recycling program; but the environment will benefit the most.
What is recycling? Recycling is using a product then sending that used product off to be processed and reused for other product containers. Any thing can be recycled, newspapers, Aluminum cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles just to name a few. My proposal will focus on developing a solution for plastic bottle recycling because 86% of plastic bottles sold are not recycled. That is a staggering number when over 40 billion plastic bottles are produced each year. Some 34.4 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills polluting the earth. Although there are recycling methods available, recycling companies (Waste Management of Fairbanks, Alaska and K&K Recycling Inc of North Pole, Alaska) and local businesses (SafeWay, Fred-Meyer, and Wal-Mart) should develop incentives programs for recycling because the current recycling programs are not working, non-recycled material is hurting the environment, and with incentive programs everyone involved will benefit.
In the past few years, the concerns of environmental effects from pollution have taken center stage in our society. Still, with all the information that has flooded the mass media, citizens have not taken recycling seriously. That is because we are a “what have you done for me lately society.” Recycling relies on the consumer with little or no instant gratification. Therefore, most Americans do not see the benefit of recycling; they are to busy to separate the cans from the plastics, the plastics from the paper, they are just too busy. If they did recycle, what difference would one person make? Some states offer a monetary redemption value for certain plastic bottles, but that program only offers a small incentive. The recycling methods used today benefit only the recycling companies. These companies are making profits off the recycled material. They offer curbside pick up or a centralized drop off point, which offers the consumer nothing in return for their efforts.
Fred Meyer, Safe Way or Wal-Mart could integrate the solution to the recycling problem; with their already existing reward card program that their customers use every time they make a purchase. These companies could create a recycling center in the store, and allow their customers to bring there recyclables to the store in exchange for reward points. At the recycling center, the customer would be given a choice to apply the reward points to a percentage off a gas purchase or a percentage off a store purchase. With the number of customers that would participate in the program, the companies would be able to redeemable the rewards on a monthly bases and still make a profit. This would give the consumer the instant gratification that all consumers want, and by allowing them to choose where the rewards are used, makes them feel that they are in control of the situation. This recycling program would benefit the consumer instantly; slowly erasing the environmental effects felt by the millions of non-recycled plastic bottles.
Because millions of plastic bottles are not recycled, bottling companies must produce more plastic. An estimated 17 million barrels of oil are used in the production of plastic bottles every year, and that does not include the millions of gallons of gas used for transporting the bottles. The Ozone layer that protects the earth from the sun is slowly evaporating from the more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide produced from the production and transportation of plastic bottles. This program would benefit all parties involved.
The grocery stores would gain profits in two ways. Because of the recycling program offered at their stores, customers would increase thereby increasing profits from purchases. They would also profit from the recyclables collected and turned in to recycling companies. Recycling companies would stand to make the greatest profits form this program. Companies would be able to limit there collection points, reducing costs for transportation and the potential man hours needed for sorting would decrease; enabling them to make larger profits from the bottling companies. This would increase in crease there participation in the program. Because their profits will increase, some recycling companies may offer to support the stores with the implementation of the recycling program. This recycling program would not only produce monetary profits, but environmental profits as well.
The environmental impact of this proposal would benefit generations to come. Just a 10 percent increase in the recycling of soft drink and water bottle plastic would save almost 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil used to produce plastic bottles, 72 million gallons of gas used to transport the plastic, and more than 3 million tons of Ozone layer depleting Greenhouse Gas emissions could be avoided. The cost of implementing this recycling program is less than the cost the environment is paying.
The recycling methods available today are not producing the results that the earth needs to sustain life has we know it. The recycling program does not allow the consumer to experience the benefits now. I have proposed a new recycling program that will motivate the consumer to get involved with recycling, while making the benefits felt immediately. Consumers and local business will earn profits from this new recycling program; but the environment will benefit the most.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Workshop for Esther under construction
I am working the workshop for Esther, Will have it posted tomorrow.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Shitty 2nd Research Draft -
Bottled Water Vs Tap Water
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” In 1993, four hundred thousand people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin suffered intestinal illness caused by a microbial pathogen known as Cryptosporidium (Cryp-to-spor-i-di-um). Cryptosporidium hospitalized four thousand people and reportedly killed fifty more (CRY). This outbreak was not an isolated issue: the states of Nevada, Oregon and Georgia where effected as well. This kind of public water contamination helped to spark a debate in the minds of many consumers whether bottled or tap water was better. Bottled water has all but replaced the consumption of tap water. Consumers justify the consumption of bottled water with the rising concern for the quality of municipal (tap) water and the convenience of bottled water. With bottled water, consumers are told that the water comes from a far away island; that the water is untouched by human hands. With tap water, consumers may not know the source of their water. With bottled water, consumers can see the clearness, taste the silkiness and detect no odor. The same cannot be said about some tap water, which in some areas is not clear, does not have a silky taste, and can have very strong odors. Consumers want to believe in the products they purchase, whether bottled or tap water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the presumed quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment.
The convenience of bottled water is not the question. What is the price of convenience to the consumer and the environment? Bottled water is becoming the next new age consumer product, one which consumers cannot do without. Bottled water has also become the second largest beverage consumed next to carbonated drinks. The bottled water industry is a billion dollar a year industry and expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled water. One of the major differences between bottled water and tap water is that the consumer can see where the bottled water comes from or the treatment technique used. With tap water, there are no such comforting images.
The quality of both tap water and bottled water are the concerns of two organizations: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tap water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for bottled water. The quality of particular water is more complex than any label or lack of labeling could tell a consumer. Contaminants are present in all water sources around the world, but it is up to EPA and the FDA to determine what levels are safe for consumption. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 to “protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply” (EPA). The EPA became aware of the health risks associated with unregulated tap water. The SDWA has been amended twice since the original was written in 1974, once in 1986 and again in 1996. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set quality standards for all public drinking water, these standards include: “assessing and protecting drinking water sources; protecting wells and collection systems; making sure water is treated by qualified operators; ensuring the integrity of distribution systems; and making information available to the public on the quality of their drinking water” (EPA). The 1996 amendment to the SDWA stated that the public has a right to know what is in their water and if it poses a health threat. Therefore, when a public water source tests high for a particular contaminant, EPA standards mandates the public be made aware of the contamination.
The EPA has two regulations governing drinking water: the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which is legally enforceable, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, which is non-enforceable. The primary standard regulates the levels of contaminants that are harmful to the public if consumed. Arsenic and Radon are just two of the many contaminants that naturally and unnaturally contaminate public water supplies. An article written by Brandon Loomis for the Anchorage Daily News reports, high Arsenic levels in two of the three Kenia’s public well water supplies. Federal regulations require 10 parts Arsenic per billion, the two wells tested at 15 parts per billion. The City has until 2009 to comply with federal regulations ( Loomis) . The EPA does not work alone in setting and regulating these standards; “states, tribes, drinking water utilities, communities and citizens all help to ensure that their tap water is of a safe for consumption” (EPA). The EPA gives the states authority to impose the secondary regulation. This regulation deals with contaminants that effect a person cosmetically or the taste, odor, or color of the water. The primary and secondary standards apply to all public water systems. The quality control of both tap water and bottled water are similar in that both have to abide by strict regulations.
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food. The FDA utilizes the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) to regulate the different aspects of bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR defines some of the types of bottled waters as follows: Artesian water – water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water levels stand at some height near the top of the aquifer. Mineral water – Water containing not less than 250 ppm total dissolved solids that originate from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Purified water – Water that is produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other suitable processes. Sparkling bottled water – water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide that it had at emergence from the source. Spring water – water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth at an identified location. Regulation 21 CF – 165.110[b] regulates more than 70 different chemical contaminants. These standards include but are not limited to microbiological standards (coliform levels), physical standards (turbidity) and radiological standards (radium-226 and radium-228) (FDA). Because the FDA regulates water as a food, the assumption could be made that quality control would remain high; that is not always the case. According to the FDA, if a water bottling company is in good standing with the FDA’s regulations, then inspections are not as frequent. The EPA regulates that municipal water sources must be checked regularly and a annual report on the condition of the water source. The standards for tap water and bottled water are meticulously regulated and thoroughly checked.
The cost of tap water can vary depending on the location and the type of water source available. The average household will pay about $.002 per gallon of tap water compared to between $1.00 and $4.00 per gallon for bottled water, the cost is more for imported water. The cost that a consumer pays for bottled water is not for the water alone, the price includes labeling costs, production cost and transportation cost; all of which makes bottled water very expensive. The cost of consuming bottled water is a choice that the consumer makes. The cost that the environment pays due to the production of bottled water is much steeper.
With the increasing concern over Global Warming, the production of bottled water is one area that could use some improvement. The environmental impact of producing bottled water greatly overshadows that of tap water. Other than the maintenance of the water treatment facilities, tap water has little impact on the environment. The bottled water industry produces billions of bottles of water a year and from the start of production until the end, the environment is paying a price. Fossil fuels are used not only for producing the plastic bottles, but also for the transportation of the product around the world; releasing greenhouse gases and polluting the air. Millions of tons of plastic are used to produce billions of plastic water bottles. Americans consume more then 30 billion bottles of water every year and according to the Container Recycling Institute 86% of empty plastic water bottles are not recycled (Milne-Tyte). That is 25.8 billion empty plastic water bottles taking up landfill space and biodegrading for the next 1,000 years. With that amount of empty bottles, the toxic material polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used to produce the plastic bottles will affect future water supplies. The water industry is very aware of the environmental concerns with the production of the plastic used for their product.
In an article in USA Today, the CEO of Nestle Waters North America branch said “Our new Eco-Shape bottle uses the least plastic of any half-liter bottle on store shelves. We make 98% of our single-serve bottles, eliminating the need to truck 160,000 loads of empty bottles into our plants and saving 6.6million gallons of fuel per year”(EBSCO).
It seems that at least one company is trying to change the process and help the environment while helping themselves.
Selecting which type of water to consume is a choice. If consumer are not satisfied with their home water they can purchase a wide verity of filters that will help with the color, taste, and odor of the water. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The EPA monitors the regulations place on tap water closer than FDA does for bottled water. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. Twenty-five percent of the bottled water produced today is treated tap water, which is produced by the Coke, and Pepsi. The cost we pay for bottled water is more than 100 times that of tap water. But as consumers, do we put a price on our health? We as consumers are given a choice between what seems to be a better product on the outside and what we know very little about. Thoughts of beautiful mountain water falls and crystal clear streams look and feel better than thoughts of underground mazes of pipes used for tap water. What most consumers do not know is that the United States has the best municipal water sources in the world.
The environmental impact is the deciding factor in this debate. On one hand, you have tap water with no or little environmental impact and on the other hand, you have bottled water which effects the environment in many ways. It is not the water that is the concern. The fact that Americans are drinking more water is pleasant to hear. Too many consumers drink beverages that contain as much as eleven teaspoons of sugar per twelve ounces of liquid. With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled the plastic bottles are the problem. The plastic is causing the pollution that is slowly killing our planet. If bottled water is to be accepted across the board, bottling companies must find a way to improve recycling.
Works Cited
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Loomis, Brandon. “Kenai city water has too much arsenic.” Anchorage Daily News. AK, 3 Oct 2007. Newspaper Source. EBSCO. [library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 20 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6977618859&site=src-line>
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” In 1993, four hundred thousand people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin suffered intestinal illness caused by a microbial pathogen known as Cryptosporidium (Cryp-to-spor-i-di-um). Cryptosporidium hospitalized four thousand people and reportedly killed fifty more (CRY). This outbreak was not an isolated issue: the states of Nevada, Oregon and Georgia where effected as well. This kind of public water contamination helped to spark a debate in the minds of many consumers whether bottled or tap water was better. Bottled water has all but replaced the consumption of tap water. Consumers justify the consumption of bottled water with the rising concern for the quality of municipal (tap) water and the convenience of bottled water. With bottled water, consumers are told that the water comes from a far away island; that the water is untouched by human hands. With tap water, consumers may not know the source of their water. With bottled water, consumers can see the clearness, taste the silkiness and detect no odor. The same cannot be said about some tap water, which in some areas is not clear, does not have a silky taste, and can have very strong odors. Consumers want to believe in the products they purchase, whether bottled or tap water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the presumed quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment.
The convenience of bottled water is not the question. What is the price of convenience to the consumer and the environment? Bottled water is becoming the next new age consumer product, one which consumers cannot do without. Bottled water has also become the second largest beverage consumed next to carbonated drinks. The bottled water industry is a billion dollar a year industry and expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled water. One of the major differences between bottled water and tap water is that the consumer can see where the bottled water comes from or the treatment technique used. With tap water, there are no such comforting images.
The quality of both tap water and bottled water are the concerns of two organizations: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tap water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for bottled water. The quality of particular water is more complex than any label or lack of labeling could tell a consumer. Contaminants are present in all water sources around the world, but it is up to EPA and the FDA to determine what levels are safe for consumption. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 to “protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply” (EPA). The EPA became aware of the health risks associated with unregulated tap water. The SDWA has been amended twice since the original was written in 1974, once in 1986 and again in 1996. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set quality standards for all public drinking water, these standards include: “assessing and protecting drinking water sources; protecting wells and collection systems; making sure water is treated by qualified operators; ensuring the integrity of distribution systems; and making information available to the public on the quality of their drinking water” (EPA). The 1996 amendment to the SDWA stated that the public has a right to know what is in their water and if it poses a health threat. Therefore, when a public water source tests high for a particular contaminant, EPA standards mandates the public be made aware of the contamination.
The EPA has two regulations governing drinking water: the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which is legally enforceable, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, which is non-enforceable. The primary standard regulates the levels of contaminants that are harmful to the public if consumed. Arsenic and Radon are just two of the many contaminants that naturally and unnaturally contaminate public water supplies. An article written by Brandon Loomis for the Anchorage Daily News reports, high Arsenic levels in two of the three Kenia’s public well water supplies. Federal regulations require 10 parts Arsenic per billion, the two wells tested at 15 parts per billion. The City has until 2009 to comply with federal regulations ( Loomis) . The EPA does not work alone in setting and regulating these standards; “states, tribes, drinking water utilities, communities and citizens all help to ensure that their tap water is of a safe for consumption” (EPA). The EPA gives the states authority to impose the secondary regulation. This regulation deals with contaminants that effect a person cosmetically or the taste, odor, or color of the water. The primary and secondary standards apply to all public water systems. The quality control of both tap water and bottled water are similar in that both have to abide by strict regulations.
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food. The FDA utilizes the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) to regulate the different aspects of bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. Regulation 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. Regulation 21 CFR defines some of the types of bottled waters as follows: Artesian water – water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water levels stand at some height near the top of the aquifer. Mineral water – Water containing not less than 250 ppm total dissolved solids that originate from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Purified water – Water that is produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other suitable processes. Sparkling bottled water – water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide that it had at emergence from the source. Spring water – water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth at an identified location. Regulation 21 CF – 165.110[b] regulates more than 70 different chemical contaminants. These standards include but are not limited to microbiological standards (coliform levels), physical standards (turbidity) and radiological standards (radium-226 and radium-228) (FDA). Because the FDA regulates water as a food, the assumption could be made that quality control would remain high; that is not always the case. According to the FDA, if a water bottling company is in good standing with the FDA’s regulations, then inspections are not as frequent. The EPA regulates that municipal water sources must be checked regularly and a annual report on the condition of the water source. The standards for tap water and bottled water are meticulously regulated and thoroughly checked.
The cost of tap water can vary depending on the location and the type of water source available. The average household will pay about $.002 per gallon of tap water compared to between $1.00 and $4.00 per gallon for bottled water, the cost is more for imported water. The cost that a consumer pays for bottled water is not for the water alone, the price includes labeling costs, production cost and transportation cost; all of which makes bottled water very expensive. The cost of consuming bottled water is a choice that the consumer makes. The cost that the environment pays due to the production of bottled water is much steeper.
With the increasing concern over Global Warming, the production of bottled water is one area that could use some improvement. The environmental impact of producing bottled water greatly overshadows that of tap water. Other than the maintenance of the water treatment facilities, tap water has little impact on the environment. The bottled water industry produces billions of bottles of water a year and from the start of production until the end, the environment is paying a price. Fossil fuels are used not only for producing the plastic bottles, but also for the transportation of the product around the world; releasing greenhouse gases and polluting the air. Millions of tons of plastic are used to produce billions of plastic water bottles. Americans consume more then 30 billion bottles of water every year and according to the Container Recycling Institute 86% of empty plastic water bottles are not recycled (Milne-Tyte). That is 25.8 billion empty plastic water bottles taking up landfill space and biodegrading for the next 1,000 years. With that amount of empty bottles, the toxic material polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used to produce the plastic bottles will affect future water supplies. The water industry is very aware of the environmental concerns with the production of the plastic used for their product.
In an article in USA Today, the CEO of Nestle Waters North America branch said “Our new Eco-Shape bottle uses the least plastic of any half-liter bottle on store shelves. We make 98% of our single-serve bottles, eliminating the need to truck 160,000 loads of empty bottles into our plants and saving 6.6million gallons of fuel per year”(EBSCO).
It seems that at least one company is trying to change the process and help the environment while helping themselves.
Selecting which type of water to consume is a choice. If consumer are not satisfied with their home water they can purchase a wide verity of filters that will help with the color, taste, and odor of the water. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The EPA monitors the regulations place on tap water closer than FDA does for bottled water. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. Twenty-five percent of the bottled water produced today is treated tap water, which is produced by the Coke, and Pepsi. The cost we pay for bottled water is more than 100 times that of tap water. But as consumers, do we put a price on our health? We as consumers are given a choice between what seems to be a better product on the outside and what we know very little about. Thoughts of beautiful mountain water falls and crystal clear streams look and feel better than thoughts of underground mazes of pipes used for tap water. What most consumers do not know is that the United States has the best municipal water sources in the world.
The environmental impact is the deciding factor in this debate. On one hand, you have tap water with no or little environmental impact and on the other hand, you have bottled water which effects the environment in many ways. It is not the water that is the concern. The fact that Americans are drinking more water is pleasant to hear. Too many consumers drink beverages that contain as much as eleven teaspoons of sugar per twelve ounces of liquid. With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled the plastic bottles are the problem. The plastic is causing the pollution that is slowly killing our planet. If bottled water is to be accepted across the board, bottling companies must find a way to improve recycling.
Works Cited
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Loomis, Brandon. “Kenai city water has too much arsenic.” Anchorage Daily News. AK, 3 Oct 2007. Newspaper Source. EBSCO. [library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 20 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6977618859&site=src-line>
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Solution Workshop - Are We On The Same Page?
Thesis:
1. Restate the thesis in your own words. If the thesis is a question and not an assertion, make it an assertion. Make sure the words “although” and "because" are in it.
Although office environments require many personalities to operate, personality conflicts can damage the professional atmosphere of an office because the effort required in finding a solution to the conflict, conflicts divert employee attention from their primary duties, and the overall quality of work will decrease.
2. Does the thesis state the author's position on a controversial topic? Is it at the end of the first paragraph?
The thesis does state the author’s position and it is located at the end of the first paragraph.
Reasons:
List below the author's reasons for holding his or her position. Are they listed in the thesis, or in the body of the paper? They should be listed in the thesis, and expanded upon in the body of the paper.
1. Valuable time wasted
2. Others prefer not to participate
3. Reduces office efficiency
Audience:
Who is the author's audience? Do they already agree with the author, or is the author writing to the opposition? How can you tell? Give specific examples.
The author’s audience is her co-workers. I cannot tell if the audience agrees because there are not many examples. The author is only writing to her co-works because she uses phrases such as, our office, we need, our clients, and our Doctors.
Counterargument:
List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Do you see any logical fallacies?
1. Disagreements can foster togetherness.
2. Disagreements are the exchanging of ideas (a little far fetched but could work)
3. Disagreements show how passionate works are
Title:
Does the paper have an interesting title? If not, help author come up with one.
No interesting title. Death of an office, Battlefield workplace
Introduction:
Is there a catchy lead sentence? What is it? If there isn't one, what would you suggest?
The lead sentence could be catchy but the statement There is no doubt, kills it for me. Try “A new infection is affecting offices around the local area, and it has been identified as drama.”
Conclusion:
How does the author conclude the paper? What do you think of it?
The conclusion starts the same way the introduction starts.
Flow/Transitions:
Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?
Some of the transitions are good some are bumpy. Some of the paragraphs flow so repeat themselves.
When I read this essay, I see that you are part of the drama either directly or indirectly. It sounds to me that you are anger about something that has happened in the workplace and you wrote the essay from that perceptive. If you try to view the problem from the outside and present your solution from the outside, your position will be more effective. As it stands, you sound like part of the problem and not part of the solution.
1. Restate the thesis in your own words. If the thesis is a question and not an assertion, make it an assertion. Make sure the words “although” and "because" are in it.
Although office environments require many personalities to operate, personality conflicts can damage the professional atmosphere of an office because the effort required in finding a solution to the conflict, conflicts divert employee attention from their primary duties, and the overall quality of work will decrease.
2. Does the thesis state the author's position on a controversial topic? Is it at the end of the first paragraph?
The thesis does state the author’s position and it is located at the end of the first paragraph.
Reasons:
List below the author's reasons for holding his or her position. Are they listed in the thesis, or in the body of the paper? They should be listed in the thesis, and expanded upon in the body of the paper.
1. Valuable time wasted
2. Others prefer not to participate
3. Reduces office efficiency
Audience:
Who is the author's audience? Do they already agree with the author, or is the author writing to the opposition? How can you tell? Give specific examples.
The author’s audience is her co-workers. I cannot tell if the audience agrees because there are not many examples. The author is only writing to her co-works because she uses phrases such as, our office, we need, our clients, and our Doctors.
Counterargument:
List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Do you see any logical fallacies?
1. Disagreements can foster togetherness.
2. Disagreements are the exchanging of ideas (a little far fetched but could work)
3. Disagreements show how passionate works are
Title:
Does the paper have an interesting title? If not, help author come up with one.
No interesting title. Death of an office, Battlefield workplace
Introduction:
Is there a catchy lead sentence? What is it? If there isn't one, what would you suggest?
The lead sentence could be catchy but the statement There is no doubt, kills it for me. Try “A new infection is affecting offices around the local area, and it has been identified as drama.”
Conclusion:
How does the author conclude the paper? What do you think of it?
The conclusion starts the same way the introduction starts.
Flow/Transitions:
Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?
Some of the transitions are good some are bumpy. Some of the paragraphs flow so repeat themselves.
When I read this essay, I see that you are part of the drama either directly or indirectly. It sounds to me that you are anger about something that has happened in the workplace and you wrote the essay from that perceptive. If you try to view the problem from the outside and present your solution from the outside, your position will be more effective. As it stands, you sound like part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Not so SHITTY first Draft Solution Paper - Recycle or Die
What is recycling? Recycling is using a product then sending that used product off to be processed and reused for other product containers. Any thing can be recycled, newspapers, Aluminum cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles just to name a few. My proposal will focus on developing a solution for plastic bottle recycling because 86% of plastic bottles sold are not recycled. That is a staggering number when over 40 billion plastic bottles are produced each year. Some 34.4 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills polluting the earth. Although there are recycling methods available, recycling companies (Waste Management of Fairbanks, Alaska and K&K Recycling Inc of North Pole, Alaska) and local businesses (SafeWay, Fred-Meyer, and Wal-Mart) should develop incentives programs for recycling because the current recycling programs are not working, non-recycled material is hurting the environment, and with incentive programs everyone involved will benefit.
In the past few years, the concerns of environmental effects from pollution have taken center stage in our society. Still, with all the information that has flooded the mass media, citizens have not taken recycling seriously. That is because we are a “what have you done for me lately society.” Recycling relies on the consumer with little or no instant gratification. Therefore, most Americans do not see the benefit of recycling; they are to busy to separate the cans from the plastics, the plastics from the paper, they are just too busy. And if they did recycle, what difference would one person make? Some states offer a monetary redemption value for certain plastic bottles, but that program only offers a small incentive. The recycling methods used today benefit only the recycling companies. These companies are making profits off the recycled material. They offer curbside pick up or a centralized drop off point, which offers the consumer nothing in return for their efforts.
Fred Meyer, Safe Way or Wal-Mart could integrate the solution to the recycling problem; with their already existing reward card program that their customers use every time they make a purchase. These companies could create a recycling center in the store, and allow their customers to bring there recyclables to the store in exchange for reward points. At the recycling center, the customer would be given a choice to apply the reward points to a percentage off a gas purchase or a percentage off a store purchase. With the number of customers that would participate in the program, the companies would be able to redeemable the rewards on a monthly bases and still make a profit. This would give the consumer the instant gratification that all consumers want, and by allowing them to choose where the rewards are used, makes them feel that they are in control of the situation. This recycling program would benefit the consumer instantly; slowly erasing the environmental effects felt by the millions of non-recycled plastic bottles.
Because millions of plastic bottles are not recycled, bottling companies must produce more plastic. An estimated 17 million barrels of oil are used in the production of plastic bottles every year, and that does not include the millions of gallons of gas used for transporting the bottles. The Ozone layer that protects the earth from the sun is slowly evaporating from the more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide produced from the production and transportation of plastic bottles. This program would benefit all parties involved.
The grocery stores would gain profits in two ways. Because of the recycling program offered at their stores, customers would increase thereby increasing profits from purchases. They would also profit from the recyclables collected and turned in to recycling companies. Recycling companies would stand to make the greatest profits form this program. Companies would be able to limit there collection points, reducing costs for transportation and the potential man hours needed for sorting would decrease; enabling them to make larger profits from the bottling companies. This would increase in crease there participation in the program. Because their profits will increase, some recycling companies may offer to support the stores with the implementation of the recycling program. This recycling program would not only produce monetary profits, but environmental profits as well.
The environmental impact of this proposal would benefit generations to come. Just a 10 percent increase in the recycling of soft drink and water bottle plastic would save almost 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil used to produce plastic bottles, 72 million gallons of gas used to transport the plastic, and more than 3 million tons of Ozone layer depleting Greenhouse Gas emissions could be avoided. The cost of implementing this recycling program is less than the cost the environment is paying.
The recycling methods available today are not producing the results that the earth needs to sustain life has we know it. The recycling program does not allow the consumer to experience the benefits now. I have proposed a new recycling program that will motivate the consumer to get involved with recycling, while making the benefits felt immediately. Consumers and local business will earn profits from this new recycling program; but the environment will benefit the most.
In the past few years, the concerns of environmental effects from pollution have taken center stage in our society. Still, with all the information that has flooded the mass media, citizens have not taken recycling seriously. That is because we are a “what have you done for me lately society.” Recycling relies on the consumer with little or no instant gratification. Therefore, most Americans do not see the benefit of recycling; they are to busy to separate the cans from the plastics, the plastics from the paper, they are just too busy. And if they did recycle, what difference would one person make? Some states offer a monetary redemption value for certain plastic bottles, but that program only offers a small incentive. The recycling methods used today benefit only the recycling companies. These companies are making profits off the recycled material. They offer curbside pick up or a centralized drop off point, which offers the consumer nothing in return for their efforts.
Fred Meyer, Safe Way or Wal-Mart could integrate the solution to the recycling problem; with their already existing reward card program that their customers use every time they make a purchase. These companies could create a recycling center in the store, and allow their customers to bring there recyclables to the store in exchange for reward points. At the recycling center, the customer would be given a choice to apply the reward points to a percentage off a gas purchase or a percentage off a store purchase. With the number of customers that would participate in the program, the companies would be able to redeemable the rewards on a monthly bases and still make a profit. This would give the consumer the instant gratification that all consumers want, and by allowing them to choose where the rewards are used, makes them feel that they are in control of the situation. This recycling program would benefit the consumer instantly; slowly erasing the environmental effects felt by the millions of non-recycled plastic bottles.
Because millions of plastic bottles are not recycled, bottling companies must produce more plastic. An estimated 17 million barrels of oil are used in the production of plastic bottles every year, and that does not include the millions of gallons of gas used for transporting the bottles. The Ozone layer that protects the earth from the sun is slowly evaporating from the more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide produced from the production and transportation of plastic bottles. This program would benefit all parties involved.
The grocery stores would gain profits in two ways. Because of the recycling program offered at their stores, customers would increase thereby increasing profits from purchases. They would also profit from the recyclables collected and turned in to recycling companies. Recycling companies would stand to make the greatest profits form this program. Companies would be able to limit there collection points, reducing costs for transportation and the potential man hours needed for sorting would decrease; enabling them to make larger profits from the bottling companies. This would increase in crease there participation in the program. Because their profits will increase, some recycling companies may offer to support the stores with the implementation of the recycling program. This recycling program would not only produce monetary profits, but environmental profits as well.
The environmental impact of this proposal would benefit generations to come. Just a 10 percent increase in the recycling of soft drink and water bottle plastic would save almost 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil used to produce plastic bottles, 72 million gallons of gas used to transport the plastic, and more than 3 million tons of Ozone layer depleting Greenhouse Gas emissions could be avoided. The cost of implementing this recycling program is less than the cost the environment is paying.
The recycling methods available today are not producing the results that the earth needs to sustain life has we know it. The recycling program does not allow the consumer to experience the benefits now. I have proposed a new recycling program that will motivate the consumer to get involved with recycling, while making the benefits felt immediately. Consumers and local business will earn profits from this new recycling program; but the environment will benefit the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)