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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Workshop Research Paper - Are we on the Same Page
Overall
1. I thought the topic was the best part of the paper.
2. Regarding your concerns with the essay, a couple paragraphs contradict each other. The flow of the essay makes for poor reading. The information is very good, but the structure of the essay makes it hard to understand where you are going. Try writing the information in the order of your thesis, and do not change topics until you have exhausted that topic. That is the beauty of rough drafts you can edit our mistakes.
Thesis
3. The author does express her opinion clearly in the thesis. The thesis argues that fluoridated water is beneficial to the bones in our body and that it helps to prevent dental caries.
4. It is unclear what group agrees with the author; it is also unclear what group disagrees with the author. Dental experts could both agree and disagree with the information in the essay.
5. Yes, the thesis does include an Although and Because statement.
Content
6. I think the topic is about an 8 on the interesting scale, but the paper is about a 3.
7. In paragraph two, the author could have elaborated a little more on the plan of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services; also, the author could have explained what the symptoms of fluorosis.
8. Objects that someone could address about the essay it that, fluoride is not good for you and that it can damage the body.
9. The author could have addressed the concerns about the damage that fluoride can cause to the body.
10. The thesis reads, Although there are legitimate concerns regarding fluoridated water, it should not be over looked as a benefit because our bodies our bodies need this natural mineral, it benefits bones, and prevents dental carries. The first paragraph, explains what fluoride is but it could use a little more explanation. The fourth paragraph with the example involving Fredrick Mckay, the author could give more examples of the different affects of to much fluoride or the lack of fluoride.
Style
11. The transitions from paragraph to paragraph need work. The author should work related paragraphs together.
12. The author should have opened the essay with stronger information. The author could use the example of the Lemabari Village of India that was used in the body of the essay. That statement would have a much stronger effect on the reader than a personal experience.
13. The conclusion does fit with the thesis.
Research
14. There are two sources cited.
15. There are only two sources cited.
16. The author does not have many quotes.
17. The author uses stats from a report by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, which is not on the works cited list. The author also uses a fact from the Understanding Nutrition, Tenth Edition, that is not listed in the works cited.
18. That is a hard question to answer because I have not read all the works cited.
19. Again I don’t really understand that question.
1. I thought the topic was the best part of the paper.
2. Regarding your concerns with the essay, a couple paragraphs contradict each other. The flow of the essay makes for poor reading. The information is very good, but the structure of the essay makes it hard to understand where you are going. Try writing the information in the order of your thesis, and do not change topics until you have exhausted that topic. That is the beauty of rough drafts you can edit our mistakes.
Thesis
3. The author does express her opinion clearly in the thesis. The thesis argues that fluoridated water is beneficial to the bones in our body and that it helps to prevent dental caries.
4. It is unclear what group agrees with the author; it is also unclear what group disagrees with the author. Dental experts could both agree and disagree with the information in the essay.
5. Yes, the thesis does include an Although and Because statement.
Content
6. I think the topic is about an 8 on the interesting scale, but the paper is about a 3.
7. In paragraph two, the author could have elaborated a little more on the plan of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services; also, the author could have explained what the symptoms of fluorosis.
8. Objects that someone could address about the essay it that, fluoride is not good for you and that it can damage the body.
9. The author could have addressed the concerns about the damage that fluoride can cause to the body.
10. The thesis reads, Although there are legitimate concerns regarding fluoridated water, it should not be over looked as a benefit because our bodies our bodies need this natural mineral, it benefits bones, and prevents dental carries. The first paragraph, explains what fluoride is but it could use a little more explanation. The fourth paragraph with the example involving Fredrick Mckay, the author could give more examples of the different affects of to much fluoride or the lack of fluoride.
Style
11. The transitions from paragraph to paragraph need work. The author should work related paragraphs together.
12. The author should have opened the essay with stronger information. The author could use the example of the Lemabari Village of India that was used in the body of the essay. That statement would have a much stronger effect on the reader than a personal experience.
13. The conclusion does fit with the thesis.
Research
14. There are two sources cited.
15. There are only two sources cited.
16. The author does not have many quotes.
17. The author uses stats from a report by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, which is not on the works cited list. The author also uses a fact from the Understanding Nutrition, Tenth Edition, that is not listed in the works cited.
18. That is a hard question to answer because I have not read all the works cited.
19. Again I don’t really understand that question.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Mandatory Organ Donation
The solution to the shortage of organ donors is to create a mandatory organ donation system. It seems that if a person is a organ donor and dies the family can object to the organs being donated. Potentially killing someone that was waiting for a organ transplant. With a mandatory organ donation system there would be a influx of organs and recipients would not have to wait years before receiving an organ. The solution to the problem is very persuasive, Spital and Taylor argue that the government can select men to serve in the military go off to war and die for their country; so why not make people that pass way donate their organs to someone that needs it. That particular organ could save a life. The audience could be people in the organ transplant industry, members of the medical society and even members of the government hoping to sway their thoughts about a mandatory organ donation system. I think some of the audience will respond just has Nancy Scheper-Hughes responded, stating that some member of our society does not have medical insurance to help pay for their illnesses, but make it mandatory for those same citizens to give up their organs with out their consent. Where is the justice in that? Others that are awaiting an organ may endorse the idea of mandatory organ donation. I think the audience will be split.
A modest Proposal
I am trying to place myself in the authors position when writing this response. I am not sure how to answer this. The effectiveness of the solution can be viewed in many ways; first, the way that he describes the uselessness of the thousands of beggars and the bourdon that they pose on themselves the kingdom; the solution seems very effective. Swift suggested eliminating the number of beggars while increasing the bond between husband and wife is an admirable thought. Swift is very persuasive with his proposal, uses detail and many examples when describing the current situation and his solution to the problem for his kingdom. Swift is trying to reach the wealth gentleman that is feed up with the every growing numbers of beggars in their town. Swift is also trying to reach the baggers that have not other choice, the beggars that have no food, no shelter, no cloths and too many children to fend for; the beggars that will do anything to survive. Some of the audience both the wealthy and beggars alike will be appalled by this proposal stating that Swift is a heatless mad man. Some both wealth and beggars will applaud Swift and say that he is brilliant. If his audience has children their response will greatly be affected. I would think people with children, especially women would not agree with the proposal at all.
Research Rough Draft - Bottled water or Tap water
Bottled Water Vs Tap Water
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” The debate over whether bottled or tap water is better has been the question on the minds of many consumers for sometime now. 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, a person never has to refill; they can just discard the empty bottle and open a new cold one. With tap water, a person must first find a suitable container then fill it up; all the while hoping that the water reaches that perfect temperature eliminating the need to locate ice.
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 has become a 15 billion dollar a year industry and is expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled 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 quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment. 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 words.
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 for bottled water. The quality of particular water is 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 nations public drinking water supply.” 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 treaded 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 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 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. 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 Food and Drug Administration (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. 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. 21 CFR defines the 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. 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). 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 on a annual basis. 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.
The debate over which is better tap water or bottled water can go on forever. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. 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. 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 is many ways. Should the environmental responsibility be placed solely on the bottled water industry? With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled who is to blame, the industry for trying to create environmentally safe bottles, or the consumer that does not recycle?
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>.
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?” The debate over whether bottled or tap water is better has been the question on the minds of many consumers for sometime now. 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, a person never has to refill; they can just discard the empty bottle and open a new cold one. With tap water, a person must first find a suitable container then fill it up; all the while hoping that the water reaches that perfect temperature eliminating the need to locate ice.
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 has become a 15 billion dollar a year industry and is expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled 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 quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment. 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 words.
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 for bottled water. The quality of particular water is 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 nations public drinking water supply.” 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 treaded 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 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 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. 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 Food and Drug Administration (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. 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. 21 CFR defines the 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. 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). 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 on a annual basis. 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.
The debate over which is better tap water or bottled water can go on forever. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. 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. 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 is many ways. Should the environmental responsibility be placed solely on the bottled water industry? With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled who is to blame, the industry for trying to create environmentally safe bottles, or the consumer that does not recycle?
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>.
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>.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Grammar Girl # 49
Again, I am tasked with writing about my weakest subject in the academic world, grammar. I envy the writers that can sit at a computer and create a beautiful passage without the red and green squiggles of stupidity. Well, that is how I feel sometime. Nothing stops my creative juices from flowing than a squiggle red or green. I feel great before I sit down to write, then as my thought flow faster than my finger can type they happen. Squiggle after squiggle, slowly changing my creative juices into paranoia and self-doubt. Last weeks Grammar Girl discussed comma splicing which was very painful. This week however, my confidence is back. I can truly say that I have a handle on run-on sentences. I have not received the crushing news that I have committed the writing sin of run-on sentences. My sins are that of comma usage or the lack there of, grammar sins such as using then instead of than (I am good at that one). However, my all time favorite has to be the lack of proof reading. I fear not for I know that writing is a work in progress and I am working to progress.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Grammar Girl
I must admit. I am not very good at punctuation. Especially commas and semicolons, when and where to use them confuses me. I think I have the basic usage of those particular punctuations down. It never falls that when I am writing something I misuse a comma. After listen to Grammar Girl, I have a better understanding of comma splices and semicolons usage; At least one of the uses. I know that practice makes for better results, so I am practicing right know. In this short passage I am trying not to comma splice has I type my response to the Grammar Girl lesson. I will not know how I am doing until I receive my instructor’s response. I hope that I have accomplished my goal of not utilizing comma splices in my writing.
Here is an example of a comma splice
Brian ran up the hill, holding his dog named Punisher.
I hope that is correct or I will have to go back to the drawing board.
Here is an example of a comma splice
Brian ran up the hill, holding his dog named Punisher.
I hope that is correct or I will have to go back to the drawing board.
Cause and Effect - Final draft
The numbers do not lie, according to the National Institute of Diabetes 68% of America is either overweight or obese. By definition, a person is obese when their body has enormous proportions of fat, concentrated mainly around the abdomen. Obesity has continued to plaque the United States year after year. Obesity increases a person’s risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Obesity has no preference when it comes to color or gender. Age is not a factor either, because of technology and other outside factors, child obesity has increased at alarming rates. Although the United States has the largest obese population in the world, the daily convenience of the American lifestyle causes this condition because of the affect that fast food has on the body, the lack of physical activity and the lack of knowledge concerning a healthy way of life. When it comes to food, convenience is not always a benefit but a hindrance to your body.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture has implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads, eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend amount of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it is more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast, dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better than their parents do when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it needs, the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replaced imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well. Social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet has taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. Doctors recommend that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating, reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Technology not only hinders body fats lose, but technology can also help attain the recommend amount of physical activity by using exercise DVDs. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfectly shaped models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. The intimidation factor can also increase a person chance of becoming obese because the person may give up and not try. Some may argue that if a person does not have a genetic disposition for obesity then there is no reason for being obese. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americans do not find a way to control their lifestyles, their lives will end prematurely.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture has implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads, eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend amount of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it is more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast, dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better than their parents do when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it needs, the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replaced imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well. Social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet has taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. Doctors recommend that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating, reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Technology not only hinders body fats lose, but technology can also help attain the recommend amount of physical activity by using exercise DVDs. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfectly shaped models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. The intimidation factor can also increase a person chance of becoming obese because the person may give up and not try. Some may argue that if a person does not have a genetic disposition for obesity then there is no reason for being obese. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americans do not find a way to control their lifestyles, their lives will end prematurely.
Reading Response
In the article Poor Taste, the author is writing to the consumer. Consumers being people that while shopping purchase only specific foods. The specific types of food are locally grown, far-trade or organically grown also know has ethical foods. The audience the auth0r is writing to will agree and if not already well informed on the topic will gain insight on the subject. The author also is writing to the opposition because the author restates the opposition position. The author writes, “The magazine opens its critique by implying that the sustainable –food movement has abandoned politics in favor of enlightened consumerism”.
The main claim for both articles is that buying a certain type of food is not the way to invoke social change has many shoppers believe. The article voting with your trolley makes the stronger argument. Because the author gives specific examples such as “What I hear as I talk to people is this phenomenal sense of despair about their inability to do anything about climate change, or the disparity between rich and poor.” “But when they go into a grocery store they can do something-they can make decisions about what they are buying and send a very clear message.”
In the article Poor taste the arguments are not well organized, the author is more or less rebutting the made by the Economist regarding the sustainable-food movement. On the contrary, the article Voting with your trolley, is well organized and the reader will be able to follow the article. The information in the article Voting with your trolley gives in-depth information about the ethical food movement. Where as the Poor Taste article only refutes what the Economist stated.
I learned a lot from both articles. I consider myself well versed on produce, and the information provided has increased my awareness.
The main claim for both articles is that buying a certain type of food is not the way to invoke social change has many shoppers believe. The article voting with your trolley makes the stronger argument. Because the author gives specific examples such as “What I hear as I talk to people is this phenomenal sense of despair about their inability to do anything about climate change, or the disparity between rich and poor.” “But when they go into a grocery store they can do something-they can make decisions about what they are buying and send a very clear message.”
In the article Poor taste the arguments are not well organized, the author is more or less rebutting the made by the Economist regarding the sustainable-food movement. On the contrary, the article Voting with your trolley, is well organized and the reader will be able to follow the article. The information in the article Voting with your trolley gives in-depth information about the ethical food movement. Where as the Poor Taste article only refutes what the Economist stated.
I learned a lot from both articles. I consider myself well versed on produce, and the information provided has increased my awareness.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Cause and Effect 1st Draft- Obesity
The numbers do not lie, according to the National Institute of Diabetes 68% of America is either overweight or obese. By definition, a person is obese when their body has enormous proportions of fat, concentrated mainly around the abdomen. Obesity has continued to plaque the United States year after year. Obesity increases a person’s risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Obesity has no preference when it comes to color or gender. Age is not a factor either, because of technology and other outside factors, child obesity has increased at alarming rates. Although the United States has the largest obese population in the world, the daily convenience of the American lifestyle causes this condition because of the affect that fast food has on the body, the lack of physical activity and the lack of knowledge concerning a healthy way of life. When it comes to food, convenience is not always a benefit but a hindrance to your body.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture as implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend about of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it’s more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast; dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better then their parents when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it need the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping, to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replace imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours, or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well, social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet as taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. It is recommended that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating; reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, just the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfect models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. This also increase a person chances of becoming obese because. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americas do not find a way to control their lifestyles, health care cost will increase to an uncontrollable amount.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture as implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend about of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it’s more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast; dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better then their parents when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it need the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping, to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replace imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours, or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well, social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet as taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. It is recommended that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating; reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, just the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfect models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. This also increase a person chances of becoming obese because. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americas do not find a way to control their lifestyles, health care cost will increase to an uncontrollable amount.
Big Idea
The greatest thing about the United States of America is that we as citizens have the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is important because of the diversity in American. Not everyone shares the same values or opinions. To have the right to express ones thoughts without recourse is a wonderful privilege. Therein lays the problem, because America is so diverse the likelihood of offending another person’s value and opinion is inevitable. There will always be a person that does not agree with another and they have that right to disagree. In the interview with Ann Coulter, Donny Deutsch the host of the Big Idea asked Ann her opinion. Ann was attempting to express that opinion when she stated something to the effect that Jews need to perfect themselves. Donny expressed his difference of opinion and went to a commercial. Once the show returned, Donny gave Ann an opportunity to explain her thoughts further. Unfortunately for Ann the damage had already been done. With every statement that came out of her mouth, Donny fired back with both guns blazing. Donny no longer wanted to hear what she was saying, all he could hear was “Jews need to perfect themselves.” Ann Coulter’s freedom of speech caused Donny Deutsch to transform from an open-minded show host, to a close-minded practicing Jew. Because of the effect of Ann’s words on Donny, the viewers watching the show were forced to form their own opinion about Ann. Is she a racist or just misunderstood. This is the unpleasant side of freedom of speech, once a person has offended another they no longer listen with an open-mind. This is cause and effect at its best. The effect of Ann’s words Cause Donny’s reaction.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Plagiarism
Paraphrasing helps me to understand the material better also helps me broaden my vocabulary and beefs up my writing skills. Lord knows they need beefing up!!!
I have two questions.
Is writing one paper for two classes ethical?
If another student writes a paper for you and you turn it in, who is more to blame?
I have two questions.
Is writing one paper for two classes ethical?
If another student writes a paper for you and you turn it in, who is more to blame?
Postsecret
I enjoyed the site. Any time people can have a place to release their creative ideas is wonderful. Things like this give some people a reason to function. Sunday secrets give them a chance to release what they hold inside them, relieving the pressures of everyday life. I am not sure that it matters if the submissions are real or fake, the postings are there to provoke thought, emotions and feelings not judgment. How is to say what is real? What is real to one person may seem fake to the next. It is all about individual perception and experience, if a person reads a posting and can relate it to their life then that posting is real. If they cannot relate then that person will just move on, not wondering if what they just read was real. The functionality of the site is based on individual perspectives. Serving as a release for people to express feelings that they may not be able to express under normal communication, that element makes the site very valuable to the users. From the responses, you can tell that many people share some of the same felling and thoughts, which lets them know that they are not alone.
When my fiancé left me, I volunteered to go to Iraq hoping I wouldn’t come back. I got the Purple Heart instead.
I have experienced the lost of love and it hurts. Love hurts so much that you feel as if you cannot go on. This is the reason for volunteering to go to war and hoping not to come back. The person cannot just kill them self, although they feel like dying. So dying in war would be the next best thing. That is not what happens. They go to war, fight bravely; sustain wounds and transported home a decorated hero. Now their pain is doubled, physical pain from the wound and mental pain from the heart break. The only thing that heals heartache is time, not war or any other type of pain.
Pros and Cons
It is 2007 and parents and grandparents do not care how their children are treated. The only thing that they care about is the color of skin, sad but true fact that will never die out. Not every person is like that…I have to add that in there because it has gotten better.
When my fiancé left me, I volunteered to go to Iraq hoping I wouldn’t come back. I got the Purple Heart instead.
I have experienced the lost of love and it hurts. Love hurts so much that you feel as if you cannot go on. This is the reason for volunteering to go to war and hoping not to come back. The person cannot just kill them self, although they feel like dying. So dying in war would be the next best thing. That is not what happens. They go to war, fight bravely; sustain wounds and transported home a decorated hero. Now their pain is doubled, physical pain from the wound and mental pain from the heart break. The only thing that heals heartache is time, not war or any other type of pain.
Pros and Cons
It is 2007 and parents and grandparents do not care how their children are treated. The only thing that they care about is the color of skin, sad but true fact that will never die out. Not every person is like that…I have to add that in there because it has gotten better.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Logical Fallacies
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers) – Attempting to prove something by showing how many people thinks it is true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn’t necessarily make it true or right. I have found this logical fallacy in contemporary magazines for both genders. Men’s health for example will have a survey stating that 60% of men think women are moody. The only problem with surveys like this is that the number of people actually surveyed does not accurately represent any given population. I have committed this fallacy before, I am sure that I have committed it more then once. At some time in my life, I have exaggerated the number of people in a story, the amount of work completed. I am now aware of what I was doing because it now has a name. Logical fallacies are something new to me, before the assignment I had never heard of this. Now I will be aware that what I am doing is called Argumentum ad numerum. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Blog Review
First, I would like to explain my feelings about this topic. I do not understand the idea of designing a blog page, what is the function of the having a blog page that is designed? The time and effort put into looking for that perfect background or that picture that screams me is too much for me to handle. I have tried to sit at my computer and search the thousand or even millions of backgrounds and pictures that are on the net. In hopes of finding, that one perfect background or picture that defines me. It is only after I have searched the first fifety that I realize that I am fighting an uphill battle. All of the backgrounds start to look the same, the pictures become blurry and everything starts to fade to black. Soon, I am franticly clicking my mouse button trying to exit the hell that I have entered. At one point, I just turned off my computer vowing never to search the internet again. On the other hand, I do envy those that can stand the hours of searching to find the background that matches their lavender font. It takes a calm hand, a steady eye and most of all patients of a preying cat to sit and wait before pouncing on that perfect fit to the page. I am just jealous that my blog sucks!! With that said, I will give what I like about a few blog pages because there is not one that jumps out at me as the best there all equally good.
Welcome to Laura’s Blog – I like the pictures and the music
So this is what English is – I like the colors
Sarah Treulich’s blog – The best layout of all.
Pastafarian’s Noodly Mash – The picture on the lower right side of the blog is very interesting
Welcome to Laura’s Blog – I like the pictures and the music
So this is what English is – I like the colors
Sarah Treulich’s blog – The best layout of all.
Pastafarian’s Noodly Mash – The picture on the lower right side of the blog is very interesting
Stung
Kolbert argues the importance of the western honeybee, which is the single most important pollinator in North America. Kolbert also argues that the populations of honeybees in North America are in jeopardy of becoming extinct because of a disease called colony-collapse disorder, which may be cause by a newly introduced insecticide called neonicotinoids.
The difference between this essay and what a newspaper would report is the in depth investigation of the story. The detail, in which Kolbert depicted the story of the western honeybee and their keepers, came from a beekeepers point of view not a reporter. A newspaper would not have as much detail and would leave the reader wanting more of the story. Kolbert left no questions to ask.
Three sources
Mid-Atlantic Apiculture – Informational page about CCD also other links to more information. http://www.ento.psu.edu/MAAREC/ColonyCollapseDisorder.html
Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) – Informational site on the honeybee. Includes links to more information. http://pelotes.jea.com/honeybee.htm
Advanced Beekeeping 301 – Informational page about commercial beekeeping.
http://www.beeclass.com/DTS/301commercialbk.htm
Insect Pollinators – Informational page about insect pollinators, other links to types of pollinators. http://hometown.aol.com/insectpollinator/
The difference between this essay and what a newspaper would report is the in depth investigation of the story. The detail, in which Kolbert depicted the story of the western honeybee and their keepers, came from a beekeepers point of view not a reporter. A newspaper would not have as much detail and would leave the reader wanting more of the story. Kolbert left no questions to ask.
Three sources
Mid-Atlantic Apiculture – Informational page about CCD also other links to more information. http://www.ento.psu.edu/MAAREC/ColonyCollapseDisorder.html
Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) – Informational site on the honeybee. Includes links to more information. http://pelotes.jea.com/honeybee.htm
Advanced Beekeeping 301 – Informational page about commercial beekeeping.
http://www.beeclass.com/DTS/301commercialbk.htm
Insect Pollinators – Informational page about insect pollinators, other links to types of pollinators. http://hometown.aol.com/insectpollinator/
Monday, October 8, 2007
Exploratory Essay
As I child, I can remember running into the house headed straight for the bathroom sink, tuning the handle and plunging my head as deep into the sink as I could. My mouth open as wide as I could get it trying to get as much water as I could. I’m not sure when, but some years later I can remember the same scenario happing but with a different out come. As I run in to the bathroom turned on the sink, I could hear my mother calling me. So I turned off the water and went to see what she wanted. She told me that she wanted to show me something, and all I could think about what rapping my lips around the bathroom sink and drinking until my belly was full, not until my thirst was quenched but until I got my full. So, I cleared my head and asked what to you want to show me. She told me to get a clear glass out of the cabinet and go to the bathroom and get some water, do not drink it she stated. So in my confusion, I staggered to the bathroom wondering what the old wise one could possible trying to show me. In the bathroom, I had visions of dunking my head into the sink and shaking it back and forth, as if I were a pig at play. I filled the glass with water and as I walked back to my mother, I liked at the glass and noticed something floating in the glass. I thought the glass must have been dirty, so I poured out the water and rinsed the glass and filled it again. Gazing into the glass, I could still see things floating around in the glass. My mother could see the confusion on my face and in a motherly voice said, “That is what I wanted to show you”, still confused I asked show me what? She went on to explain as well as she could that the water that I just loved to drink had germs in it. As she was explaining how this could happen she handed me a bottle of water. The look was the same, the taste was the same but there was nothing floating. That was my first experience with bottled water Vs tap water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality product, the quality of some leading bottled water companies has come into question because of testes conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, controversies surrounding the Coke-Cola bottling company.
From that, point on I was a bottled waterman, refusing to drink anything but bottled water and when bottled water was not available, I cringed as I felt the water hit my lips. In the world of bottled water, we as consumers have a plethora of water to choose from, the difficult part is selecting which water to drink. There is spring water, purified water, mineral water, sparkling water, artesian water, well water, and my al time favorite municipal/tap water. I have tried all types of bottled water Dasani, Aquafina, Deer Park to name a few. The best water that I have ever tasted is Evian water; I think I am partial to Evian because I spent 4 wonderful months in France TDY for the Air Force. Evian was provided to us free of charge, so I drank until I could not drink any more. My experiences in France were I drank Evian every day has turned me into an Evian man. The only thing is in America Evian is very expensive. If given a choice I will always buy Evian. It was not until I started to become interested in the difference between spring water and purified water that I realized the aspects of bottled water. Spring water comes from the ground, purified water as been treated.
From that, point on I was a bottled waterman, refusing to drink anything but bottled water and when bottled water was not available, I cringed as I felt the water hit my lips. In the world of bottled water, we as consumers have a plethora of water to choose from, the difficult part is selecting which water to drink. There is spring water, purified water, mineral water, sparkling water, artesian water, well water, and my al time favorite municipal/tap water. I have tried all types of bottled water Dasani, Aquafina, Deer Park to name a few. The best water that I have ever tasted is Evian water; I think I am partial to Evian because I spent 4 wonderful months in France TDY for the Air Force. Evian was provided to us free of charge, so I drank until I could not drink any more. My experiences in France were I drank Evian every day has turned me into an Evian man. The only thing is in America Evian is very expensive. If given a choice I will always buy Evian. It was not until I started to become interested in the difference between spring water and purified water that I realized the aspects of bottled water. Spring water comes from the ground, purified water as been treated.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
How Far Does My Food Travel
Breakfast
Folgers Coffee – Distributed by Procter and Gamble
Cherry Lane eggs – National food corp. Spokane, WA
Lunch
Land O Frost Turkey meat – land O’ Frost Inc. Lansing, IL
OROWEAT 12-grain bread – Bimbo Bakeries. Fort worth, TX
Dinner
Hormel canned Breast O Chicken – Hormel Foods Austin, MN
While stationed At Eielson AFB from 1993 – 1997, I had little experience with shopping for food because I lived in the dorms. Once I departed Eielson and arrived at my next duty station things changed. Allowed to reside off base, started my obsession with fresh fruit. Warner Robins, Georgia, the home of the peach is the place where I first tasted fresh fruit. Fresh, meaning plucked right off the tree, sun ripened warm peaches. So rip that the juice squirts from both sides of your mouth when you bite down on it. At that time, the only fresh fruit that I experienced was from the store. Store bought fruit is not that bad, if you can get past the process before it hits the shelves. Plucked, processed, shipped, and stocked; freshness is not guaranteed. The cost of the fruit was another aspect that at the time did not affect me because it did not cost me anything, just the time to pick the fruit. A coworker and my aunt both had peach trees in their yards so access to the peaches was easy. I left Georgia with a basket of just picked peaches heading for Fort Walton Beach, Florida, state of the orange. I missed peaches for a while, that is until I eat a fresh orange. The brightness of the orange color made the orange seem wet. The juice, once I bit into the orange was the sweetest I had ever tasted. Only fresh fruit entered my mouth from that point on. The two southern states that I resided in spoiled me with fresh produce.
Now I am back in Fairbanks, AK, state of long summer and cold winters and no fresh produce. Not only does Alaska not have fresh produce, items that are here are so over priced that I have to think twice before I buy them. Fruits and vegetable are picked before reaching maturity to allow for travel time to Alaska. I love fresh produce; I will have to deal with over priced not so fresh produce. There is a bright side to all of this; it is only for 3 years.
Folgers Coffee – Distributed by Procter and Gamble
Cherry Lane eggs – National food corp. Spokane, WA
Lunch
Land O Frost Turkey meat – land O’ Frost Inc. Lansing, IL
OROWEAT 12-grain bread – Bimbo Bakeries. Fort worth, TX
Dinner
Hormel canned Breast O Chicken – Hormel Foods Austin, MN
While stationed At Eielson AFB from 1993 – 1997, I had little experience with shopping for food because I lived in the dorms. Once I departed Eielson and arrived at my next duty station things changed. Allowed to reside off base, started my obsession with fresh fruit. Warner Robins, Georgia, the home of the peach is the place where I first tasted fresh fruit. Fresh, meaning plucked right off the tree, sun ripened warm peaches. So rip that the juice squirts from both sides of your mouth when you bite down on it. At that time, the only fresh fruit that I experienced was from the store. Store bought fruit is not that bad, if you can get past the process before it hits the shelves. Plucked, processed, shipped, and stocked; freshness is not guaranteed. The cost of the fruit was another aspect that at the time did not affect me because it did not cost me anything, just the time to pick the fruit. A coworker and my aunt both had peach trees in their yards so access to the peaches was easy. I left Georgia with a basket of just picked peaches heading for Fort Walton Beach, Florida, state of the orange. I missed peaches for a while, that is until I eat a fresh orange. The brightness of the orange color made the orange seem wet. The juice, once I bit into the orange was the sweetest I had ever tasted. Only fresh fruit entered my mouth from that point on. The two southern states that I resided in spoiled me with fresh produce.
Now I am back in Fairbanks, AK, state of long summer and cold winters and no fresh produce. Not only does Alaska not have fresh produce, items that are here are so over priced that I have to think twice before I buy them. Fruits and vegetable are picked before reaching maturity to allow for travel time to Alaska. I love fresh produce; I will have to deal with over priced not so fresh produce. There is a bright side to all of this; it is only for 3 years.
Grammar Girl "100 Proof"
In the podcast Grammar Girl explains that typos are going to happen. Typos can happen to even the best of us. She stated that articles written in newspapers and magazines are proof read by three different editors before final print. She gave several suggestions on how to improve your proof reading skills.
· Read your work out loud
· Read your work backward, last sentence first
· Proof read only printed work
· Give yourself time before you proof read
Another thing that she mentioned that really hit home was that it is very difficult for the writers to proof read their own work. As the writer you know what you are trying to say, therefore when proof reading you will tend to miss errors because you know what it is supposed to say even if it does not read that way. This is something that I struggle with every time I have to write a paper on anything. Even when sending e-mails I have the hardest time proof reading my owe work. I have tried to print the work then proof read, same result. I have printed it and used a ruler trying to proof read, same result. Grammar Girl suggested the best way to proof read work is to have some one else proof your work if you can have two or three people proof your work before submitting it. I have found that the best way to have my work proof read is to have some one else read my work. I must admit that I struggled with having someone else read my papers, but once my grades started to improve, I swallowed my pride.
· Read your work out loud
· Read your work backward, last sentence first
· Proof read only printed work
· Give yourself time before you proof read
Another thing that she mentioned that really hit home was that it is very difficult for the writers to proof read their own work. As the writer you know what you are trying to say, therefore when proof reading you will tend to miss errors because you know what it is supposed to say even if it does not read that way. This is something that I struggle with every time I have to write a paper on anything. Even when sending e-mails I have the hardest time proof reading my owe work. I have tried to print the work then proof read, same result. I have printed it and used a ruler trying to proof read, same result. Grammar Girl suggested the best way to proof read work is to have some one else proof your work if you can have two or three people proof your work before submitting it. I have found that the best way to have my work proof read is to have some one else read my work. I must admit that I struggled with having someone else read my papers, but once my grades started to improve, I swallowed my pride.
Positive Black Images
Positive African American Images
The black race is struggling to find it’s purpose in society. The African American people have nothing to follow. Negative images flood the television stations and airways. Black athletes with no regard for their influence over the youth of America are continually in trouble with the law. Rap stars telling stories of days gone by, embellishing the life of standing on street corners selling drugs, running from the police, and “putting in work”. The same rap stars living in multi-million dollar homes far away from the street life they once knew. Driving cars worth more than five average families will make in a year. These are the people that are going to help the African American community grow help them reach new heights? Although the efforts of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Linda Brown made great strides, the lack of next generation leaders have caused the African American race to struggle in finding a place in American society. Because of the lack of parental support in the homes of some African American families, the promotion of negative people and images and the lack of positive role models in the media and local African American communities.
As an African American before and during the civil rights movement, it was easy to find positive role models. There were plenty of movements meant to improve the quality of life for African Americans. The Supreme Court case of Brown Vs the Board of Education ruled the segregation of public schools was illegal. The courage of Oliver Brown and the others involved in this case helped propel the forward motion of the African American people. These types of positive images helped continue the growth of African American people around the world. Today there are no such positive African American images in the media; instead, the images are of overpaid athletes pleading guilty running illegal dog fighting operations. After apologizing to his fans and teammates for not only lying but also committing the crime, tested positive for marijuana. This type of behavior sets the African American race back; because it overshadows any positive that has happened within the community. This recent situation and many more like it is the reason that the African American people need more positive role models. Some will say that the African American people have come as far as any one race could come. That their place in society has improved dramatically over the past 100 years. African Americans are no longer outwardly discriminated against, no longer shackled and whipped, no longer hung from the noose of injustice. It is the African Americans as a race that is promoting these negative images. By idolizing individuals that are convicted criminals and making excuses for inappropriate behavior and bad decisions. By accepting this kind of conduct, the forward progression made by generations before comes to a complete stop.
I would contend these statements, because the lack of positive African American imagery gives generation X nothing to hold on to, nothing to fight for. If the mass media flow of information were flooded with Malcolm X’s and Martin Luther King’s pushing for better education for the inner city children, asking for the halt of violence in the music or demanding that people take responsibility for their action and to stop blaming the “system” or “the man”. This will continue the forward progress of the African American race. Instead, images of “thugs”, “pimps”, and “ballers” bombard the radio and television stations. Artists claim “freedom of speech” when creating songs that glorify glorifying the killing of other African Americans. This only hurts the race; this tarnishes the image of those that lost their lives in the effort to gain equality. There are doctors, lawyers, firefighters, police officers, community programs that are doing positive things in their communities. Reports on these types of people and the positive things they are doing would greatly improve the future of the African American people
The lack of positive African American leaders and positive role models is greatly affecting the African American people. The available images send the wrong message to the communities. The images tell stories of violence, poorly educated people and mistrust in not only the law but of themselves. The effects of these images are felt every day as young African American men are dying in the streets, and young African American mothers are left to care for fatherless children. The affects are felt when the number of incarcerated African Americans has nearly reach 1 million.
The black race is struggling to find it’s purpose in society. The African American people have nothing to follow. Negative images flood the television stations and airways. Black athletes with no regard for their influence over the youth of America are continually in trouble with the law. Rap stars telling stories of days gone by, embellishing the life of standing on street corners selling drugs, running from the police, and “putting in work”. The same rap stars living in multi-million dollar homes far away from the street life they once knew. Driving cars worth more than five average families will make in a year. These are the people that are going to help the African American community grow help them reach new heights? Although the efforts of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Linda Brown made great strides, the lack of next generation leaders have caused the African American race to struggle in finding a place in American society. Because of the lack of parental support in the homes of some African American families, the promotion of negative people and images and the lack of positive role models in the media and local African American communities.
As an African American before and during the civil rights movement, it was easy to find positive role models. There were plenty of movements meant to improve the quality of life for African Americans. The Supreme Court case of Brown Vs the Board of Education ruled the segregation of public schools was illegal. The courage of Oliver Brown and the others involved in this case helped propel the forward motion of the African American people. These types of positive images helped continue the growth of African American people around the world. Today there are no such positive African American images in the media; instead, the images are of overpaid athletes pleading guilty running illegal dog fighting operations. After apologizing to his fans and teammates for not only lying but also committing the crime, tested positive for marijuana. This type of behavior sets the African American race back; because it overshadows any positive that has happened within the community. This recent situation and many more like it is the reason that the African American people need more positive role models. Some will say that the African American people have come as far as any one race could come. That their place in society has improved dramatically over the past 100 years. African Americans are no longer outwardly discriminated against, no longer shackled and whipped, no longer hung from the noose of injustice. It is the African Americans as a race that is promoting these negative images. By idolizing individuals that are convicted criminals and making excuses for inappropriate behavior and bad decisions. By accepting this kind of conduct, the forward progression made by generations before comes to a complete stop.
I would contend these statements, because the lack of positive African American imagery gives generation X nothing to hold on to, nothing to fight for. If the mass media flow of information were flooded with Malcolm X’s and Martin Luther King’s pushing for better education for the inner city children, asking for the halt of violence in the music or demanding that people take responsibility for their action and to stop blaming the “system” or “the man”. This will continue the forward progress of the African American race. Instead, images of “thugs”, “pimps”, and “ballers” bombard the radio and television stations. Artists claim “freedom of speech” when creating songs that glorify glorifying the killing of other African Americans. This only hurts the race; this tarnishes the image of those that lost their lives in the effort to gain equality. There are doctors, lawyers, firefighters, police officers, community programs that are doing positive things in their communities. Reports on these types of people and the positive things they are doing would greatly improve the future of the African American people
The lack of positive African American leaders and positive role models is greatly affecting the African American people. The available images send the wrong message to the communities. The images tell stories of violence, poorly educated people and mistrust in not only the law but of themselves. The effects of these images are felt every day as young African American men are dying in the streets, and young African American mothers are left to care for fatherless children. The affects are felt when the number of incarcerated African Americans has nearly reach 1 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)