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>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)