There are a multitude of present and coming threats to the human population’s water resources. The term ‘water crisis’ is used in the blog post ‘ “Business as Usual” Deepens World Water Crisis’ in a way that could be misconstrued. Analysis should be done to this phrase to determine the author’s meaning and how it could be taken differently, thus changing the meaning of the article.
A crisis can be interpreted in two different ways. It is defined in a general sense as either ‘a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events is determined’, or ‘a condition of instability or danger leading to a decisive change’. These are clearly very different ways to interpret the author’s meaning of ‘water crisis’, as one as clearly negative, and one can turn out better worse, ie is not always negative.
In this blog post, the view that is taken is that for the human population, a drop in fresh water resources and an increase in demand will result, or is presently resulting in disastrous consequences especially for populations living in poverty. The second definition is most likely the one meant by the author. A water crisis is a period of instability involving freshwater resources that leads to a lowered availability of clean, fresh water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use.
The term could be misconstrued by someone reading the article with another view on what a ‘water crisis’ is. If crisis was interpreted to mean merely turning point, at which the trend of future events will be decided, it is uncertain as to whether or not disastrous consequences or instability will result. The negative aspect of crisis is implied by the author, but it may be ambiguous to some readers.
Another way to look at the positive or negative effects of the term ‘water crisis’ is to analyze to whom the effects will occur. The author takes a very human-biased view of the matter, and so states that it is indeed a negative occurrence. However, many of the things stated as worrying factors in the article, such as lack of freshwater for industrial and agricultural uses are purely worrying for humans, and not for other species of ecosystems (though human use clearly affects availability for other species’ as well)
In conclusion, the term ‘water crisis’ can be misconstrued or interpreted ambiguously in a few ways, but the author is relatively clear on what she means by it. If it is in relevance to humans (as in the author’s view), than surely a lack of fresh water ability is indeed a dangerous condition.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hoover Dam To Run Dry
Water in the Colorado River has been decreasing over the past years, to prevent further water loss, the citizens need to reduce their water use as a whole. This article talks in detail about the long term effects of the water being held by the Hoover Dam and the shortages of water that are expected to come. In the article, the author uses some phrases and words that may be misunderstood.
The article asks the question, “Can the river deliver water at the levels currently scheduled if the climate changes as we expect it to. The answer is no.” in this question, there are a lot of variables that are unclear. It talks about the water levels being currently scheduled, but the water levels change so much and it is so hard to predict exactly how much it is going to rain in the coming year, so it would be tough to really answer this question.
Another quote that is difficult to understand in this article is “People have talked for 30 years about the Colorado being oversubscribed but no one ever put a date on it or an amount.” In this quote, it is very unclear who the people are who have been saying this, also it’s uses the word oversubscribed out of context making it difficult to understand. From this quote it seems like you have to have a subscription in order to get the water, this is a totally weird concept and makes the sentence very confusing.
In this article, there are a few parts, in which the author will say something and understand what he or she means, but when someone else read it, it is unclear and may be misunderstood.
University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm
The article asks the question, “Can the river deliver water at the levels currently scheduled if the climate changes as we expect it to. The answer is no.” in this question, there are a lot of variables that are unclear. It talks about the water levels being currently scheduled, but the water levels change so much and it is so hard to predict exactly how much it is going to rain in the coming year, so it would be tough to really answer this question.
Another quote that is difficult to understand in this article is “People have talked for 30 years about the Colorado being oversubscribed but no one ever put a date on it or an amount.” In this quote, it is very unclear who the people are who have been saying this, also it’s uses the word oversubscribed out of context making it difficult to understand. From this quote it seems like you have to have a subscription in order to get the water, this is a totally weird concept and makes the sentence very confusing.
In this article, there are a few parts, in which the author will say something and understand what he or she means, but when someone else read it, it is unclear and may be misunderstood.
University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Maybe Save Lake Ontario, don’t eat lettuce
By Samantha Zaluski
In the article “Water Crisis Ends! Summing Up What Happened...” Mr. Heimbuch’s main point is that everyone needs to conserve water to help with global water shortages. The author says, “Learning more about water issues is vital to the conservation effort.”(Heimbuch, 2009) Conservation is to conserve, which is defined as “to use or manage (natural resources) wisely” (dictionary.com). Effort is defined as “an earnest or strenuous attempt”(Dictionary.com). These two definitions would lead you to believe that conservation effort is a sincere undertaking of knowledgeably managing one's consumption of water.
Mr. Heimbuch never defines what he means by conservation efforts and only instead gives examples. His first example is that we should know the amount of water it takes to produce the items that we buy, such as a pair of jeans. His second example is to know the amount of water used in making our food. Both these examples might lead you to believe that just by knowing how much water is used to produce your food or consumer products, you will be conserving water. This is false, since managing consumption requires not only knowing the amount of water used in production of your food or products, but then also being able to assess the relative benefits and risks of making different choices. If it takes a litre of water to grow a medium apple and 5 litres to produce a banana of similar weight, should we never eat bananas? Also, does it not matter how far the fruit had to travel to our homes? What other factors might need to be weighed? What if by having a shower every other day instead of every day you save 60 litres of water? His final statement on water conservation is that we cut back on water consumption. Once again, cutting back is not truly conserving, since managing implies determining all alternatives and making a long-term plan.
Well thought out, effective conservation is a difficult and complex endeavour. It requires a great deal of understanding between the relative benefits of our consumer choices and the water consumption choices in our home. By not fully exploring the complex and difficult nature of truly managing water resources, readers of this article might be mislead into believing that by choosing to eat lettuce instead of beef, they can help poor, drought stricken East Indians. If only it were so simple!
References:
"conserve." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 28 Oct. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conserve
"effort." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 28 Oct. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effort
Heimbuch, Jaymi. “Water Crisis Ends! Summing Up What Happened...”. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (water). San Francisco, California. 06.30.09. Accesses October 26, 2009
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/water-crisis-ends-summing-up-what-happened.php
Changes in the Great Lakes
by Laura Van Vliet
The article, “Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change” by Adrianne Appel, discusses the recent changes in the Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. The article, which generally clearly describes the causes for the severe changes in the lake ecosystems, is sometimes ambiguous in its use of language, detracting from the value of the argument.
One ambiguous phrase used by Appel is “profound environmental stress” (Appel, 2009), when referring to the condition of the lakes. It is unclear what the true definition of “environmental stress” really is. The main definition of stress, in the biological sense, refers to external factor(s) which is causes the ecosystem (in this instance) to act in response, changing (Dictionary.com, 2009). However, stress can be viewed positively or negatively, as can change. After all, the theory of evolution depends mainly upon the positive effects of change and environmental stress. While there is the possibility that the author is referring to positive change and stress, it is fitting with the tone of article that stress and change are depicted as negative.
A second ambiguous expression used in Appel’s article is the description of the “ailing Great Lakes” (Appel, 2009). This is not ambiguous in what it implies – illness, death, and danger – but in the idea to which it is being applied. The “Great Lakes” encompasses as vast network of organisms, species, food webs, and ecosystems. While the static states of these ecosystems are not being preserved, one cannot necessarily decide this indicates a loss of good health and is a negative incident. Change is not necessarily bad. For example, many species – such as the algae focused on in the beginning of the article whose population is exploding – certainly benefit from the “ailing” health of the Great Lakes. While other species may decline in population, and this may be the overall trend, is this automatically harmful? Nothing remains in static equilibrium; even through our own knowledge of the history of living things this can be seen. With this in mind, we must decide if the “Great Lakes”, a term which begs clarification for the reasons outlined above, can be said to be “ailing” and be unambiguously understood.
However, it can be assumed, because of the general nature of this article, what is meant by the above phrase. What Appel attempts to discuss, I believe, is the overall health of ecosystems of the Great Lakes, analysing it by comparing the present state of the ecosystem to the previous state of the ecosystem. In this sense, if the drastic changes which have occurred are viewed negatively, it could be said that the ecosystem is “ailing”.
While the clarification of the above phrases would strengthen Appel’s argument, I recognize that this is not always feasible. An article aimed at the general public is meant to attract attention, not go through a detailed analysis of every ambiguous term. Overall, this article presents a convincing view of the changing water quality and ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
References
Appel, Adrianne. ENVIRONMENT-US: Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change. 22 October 2009. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48956
Dictionary.com. 2009. Stress. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress
The article, “Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change” by Adrianne Appel, discusses the recent changes in the Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. The article, which generally clearly describes the causes for the severe changes in the lake ecosystems, is sometimes ambiguous in its use of language, detracting from the value of the argument.
One ambiguous phrase used by Appel is “profound environmental stress” (Appel, 2009), when referring to the condition of the lakes. It is unclear what the true definition of “environmental stress” really is. The main definition of stress, in the biological sense, refers to external factor(s) which is causes the ecosystem (in this instance) to act in response, changing (Dictionary.com, 2009). However, stress can be viewed positively or negatively, as can change. After all, the theory of evolution depends mainly upon the positive effects of change and environmental stress. While there is the possibility that the author is referring to positive change and stress, it is fitting with the tone of article that stress and change are depicted as negative.
A second ambiguous expression used in Appel’s article is the description of the “ailing Great Lakes” (Appel, 2009). This is not ambiguous in what it implies – illness, death, and danger – but in the idea to which it is being applied. The “Great Lakes” encompasses as vast network of organisms, species, food webs, and ecosystems. While the static states of these ecosystems are not being preserved, one cannot necessarily decide this indicates a loss of good health and is a negative incident. Change is not necessarily bad. For example, many species – such as the algae focused on in the beginning of the article whose population is exploding – certainly benefit from the “ailing” health of the Great Lakes. While other species may decline in population, and this may be the overall trend, is this automatically harmful? Nothing remains in static equilibrium; even through our own knowledge of the history of living things this can be seen. With this in mind, we must decide if the “Great Lakes”, a term which begs clarification for the reasons outlined above, can be said to be “ailing” and be unambiguously understood.
However, it can be assumed, because of the general nature of this article, what is meant by the above phrase. What Appel attempts to discuss, I believe, is the overall health of ecosystems of the Great Lakes, analysing it by comparing the present state of the ecosystem to the previous state of the ecosystem. In this sense, if the drastic changes which have occurred are viewed negatively, it could be said that the ecosystem is “ailing”.
While the clarification of the above phrases would strengthen Appel’s argument, I recognize that this is not always feasible. An article aimed at the general public is meant to attract attention, not go through a detailed analysis of every ambiguous term. Overall, this article presents a convincing view of the changing water quality and ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
References
Appel, Adrianne. ENVIRONMENT-US: Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change. 22 October 2009. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48956
Dictionary.com. 2009. Stress. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress
Water distrubution!
In the The Jerusalem Post the article tittled “Water Authority: Amnesty Didn’t Consult Us Over Critical report” written by Ehud Zion Waldoks provides a few points that required the use of conceptual analysis. The Israel and Palestinian governments are having difficulties dividing up the water resource that are shared between their land. Due to this concern, both the Water Authority and Amnesty International were involved in the debate. Here are a few points I would like to highlight the idea of conceptual analysis:
“Revoke all outstanding orders for demolitions and prohibit further demolitions of water facilities” (Waldoks, 2009)
The phrase above taken from the article is the final recommendations the Amnesty International suggests. The keyword that is of focus is: Demolitions. By using this word I think the Amnesty reporter is referring to the illegal wells and pollution that the Palestinians cause damage to. However in another perspective the word could also refer to the continuous debate the two counties (Israel and Palestine) are having over the water. Due to this the problem it must come to an agreement so future arguments will not occur. As you can see the word can have two different meanings all together; the word demolition in general means explosives. This can cause misunderstanding to the meaning of the phrase, since no explosives or weapons were mentioned in the article.
The second term that conceptual analysis is required is: Outstanding orders. The Amnesty reporter could have meant a few things. The first meaning of what the reporter is trying to convey is that both groups (Israel and Palestine) have disagreements and need to be worked towards an agreement. For this reason the reporter has referred to it as outstanding orders seeing as the agreement is the first step towards any change between the two groups. Another meaning the reporter could be relating is the actions taken by the Palestinians to illegally obtain water. This term could also be misunderstood because in the context of the phrase it does not say what is outstanding. There could be many outstanding issues between the two groups. When using the term outstanding the phrase could refer to anything of importance that is occurring. Since the phrase does not refer to anything important it could be easily misunderstood.
The idea of a conceptual analysis is the understanding that if a certain condition is not met it can affect the condition that is being applied to be applied improperly or perhaps misunderstood. However if the condition is met, the condition will be applied with clarity. Just like the example that was chosen, the condition was that: all outstanding orders must be demolished. Without understanding what the reporters definition of those words can lead to confusion or misunderstanding of what he/she is attempting to do. Therefore conditions must be clearly constructed to define its meaning with words that may be misinterpreted.
Reference:
Waldoks, Ehud Z. "Water Authority blasts Amnesty on report." Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post. Web. 27 Oct. 2009..
“Revoke all outstanding orders for demolitions and prohibit further demolitions of water facilities” (Waldoks, 2009)
The phrase above taken from the article is the final recommendations the Amnesty International suggests. The keyword that is of focus is: Demolitions. By using this word I think the Amnesty reporter is referring to the illegal wells and pollution that the Palestinians cause damage to. However in another perspective the word could also refer to the continuous debate the two counties (Israel and Palestine) are having over the water. Due to this the problem it must come to an agreement so future arguments will not occur. As you can see the word can have two different meanings all together; the word demolition in general means explosives. This can cause misunderstanding to the meaning of the phrase, since no explosives or weapons were mentioned in the article.
The second term that conceptual analysis is required is: Outstanding orders. The Amnesty reporter could have meant a few things. The first meaning of what the reporter is trying to convey is that both groups (Israel and Palestine) have disagreements and need to be worked towards an agreement. For this reason the reporter has referred to it as outstanding orders seeing as the agreement is the first step towards any change between the two groups. Another meaning the reporter could be relating is the actions taken by the Palestinians to illegally obtain water. This term could also be misunderstood because in the context of the phrase it does not say what is outstanding. There could be many outstanding issues between the two groups. When using the term outstanding the phrase could refer to anything of importance that is occurring. Since the phrase does not refer to anything important it could be easily misunderstood.
The idea of a conceptual analysis is the understanding that if a certain condition is not met it can affect the condition that is being applied to be applied improperly or perhaps misunderstood. However if the condition is met, the condition will be applied with clarity. Just like the example that was chosen, the condition was that: all outstanding orders must be demolished. Without understanding what the reporters definition of those words can lead to confusion or misunderstanding of what he/she is attempting to do. Therefore conditions must be clearly constructed to define its meaning with words that may be misinterpreted.
Reference:
Waldoks, Ehud Z. "Water Authority blasts Amnesty on report." Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Three Minutes
By Geneviève Lalonde
Venezuela is in serious danger. Their water supplies are abnormally low causing multiple power failures within the nation. According to President Chavez, “The low rainfall caused by the El Niño weather phenomenon meant water levels were critically low in the El guri reservoir, one of the world’s largest dams.” This is a strong and definitive statement, on his part.
On October 22 2009, the Globe and Mail published an article about the Venezuelan president urging the population to “shower in three minutes”. The article provides the background of this story. The nation is suffering from black outs due to a water shortage and they must change their habits or be affected by a national drought.
The article in the Globe and Mail is very conclusive. It gives a brief description of the issue and highlights, “No singing in the shower, three minutes is more than enough” in the words of President Chavez. He has called on Venezuelans to wash in three minutes because the water levels in hydroelectric dams are insufficient.
Chavez uses a “catchy” comment to emphasize the need for the population to conserve water, and a very clear analogy on why the water shortage exists. However, if we look into the meaning of these comments, do the two pieces really fit? Are there underlying issues that are being overlooked?
By analyzing the text, you can separate it into many pieces. President Chavez claims, “Low rainfall is caused by El Niño”. This is an overgeneralization, and just a reason to explain why he wants his citizens to conserve water.
The second statement, of showering for three minutes, also has little meaning. One person could use the same amount of water in three minutes that another may use in five. This is an odd way to discuss the control of water quantity.
The declaration that water levels are critically low in one of the world’s largest dams is likely not just an effect of El Nino, or how long the citizens of Venezuela are showering. The article hints that under spending and poor maintenance may have caused a loss of volume and retention capacity in the dam. In addition, water use by the population has never been properly regulated, which is a lack of initiative by the government. However, the strong quotations by Chavez “I shower for three minutes and I do not stink” overshadows these issues.
Chavez uses some powerful statements to influence his people, and avoids mentioning some of the shortfalls of his government. There are many reasons why there is a water shortage and a lack of electricity. When we see the headline that Venezuelans need to stop singing in the shower, the seriousness of this issue-is erased away.
References
Venezuelans urged to stop singing in shower to save water
Published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/venezuelans-urged-to-stop-singing-in-shower-to-save-water/article1333323/?service=email
The Return of the Aral Sea
The article, From Ecological Soviet-Era Ruin, a Sea Is Reborn, the author, Peter Leonard describes the effects of the disappearance of the Aral Sea on local fishing villages and ecosystems. The Aral Sea, located in Central Asia was the world’s fourth largest body of water until the nations around it became part of the Soviet Union. With their interest only in making money, they diverted the rivers that fed the sea, causing it to shrink to 10% of its original size. The sea is now slowly reverting back to hopefully, its original state.
In the article the author says, “Now fresh water was lapping at his boots, proclaiming an environmental miracle- the return of the Aral Sea”. The use of the phrase “environmental miracle” may lead to some discrepancy depending on how it is interpreted by the reader.
First of all, the phrase “environmental miracle” insinuates that the return of the sea was a spontaneous action and that no human assistance was required. A miracle is officially defined as an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin (dictionary.com). However, the slow rehabilitation of the Aral Sea is due to the environmental efforts of the Kazakhstan government. In 2001 the Kokaral dam was built to channel the water from one of the main rivers into the Kazakh section of the sea, rather than let the water flow further south were it would be wasted by other countries. The use of this phrase may mislead some readers into thinking that there was no human assistance.
Also, readers might misunderstand the use of the phrase “environmental miracle” because it leads readers to believe that the sea has reached its full potential and is the same as it was before it was drained. This is not the case at all. Even though efforts have been in place to reestablish the sea, there is still environmental degradation occurring. One section has shrunk by 80% in the last 3 years. It is a possibility that the sea will never be able to sustain an ecosystem again, and it most certainly will never be the same as it once was. Uzbekistan has decided to keep taking water from what is left of the Aral Sea for irrigation of cotton fields and will also continue to look for gas and oil under the exposed seabed, making it extremely unlikely that the sea will return to its full potential.
Therefore, it is seen that there are several ways that the reader could interpret the phrase “environmental miracle”. Perhaps the author chose this phrasing for emphasis- meaning that it is so incredible that this sea may be improved from its recent desert like state. However, if the countries that use the water don’t agree on an action plan, there will be no “environmental miracle”. If the countries implement laws about shared water usage and continue to revive the ecosystem, then there is potential for this “environmental miracle” to occur.
Leonard, P. (2009 Oct. 26). From Ecological Soviet-Era Ruin, a Sea Is Reborn. ABC News. Retrieved 2009 Oct 26 from,
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=8914467&page=1
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Flow of Canada's Rivers Threatened
A recently published study by the WWF has been reported in several news outlets, including the Vancouver Sun. According to the report, without ‘serious action’, Canada’s rivers may be facing serious threats. Demands on water flow have increased in proportion to energy demands, and city expansion.
The WWF is taking the side that without action taken, the rivers of Canada may fall into environmental degradation. Though they published a study, they are clearly an environmental rather than a scientific organization. Many people could argue about the scientific validity of WWF’s report, and therefore, the precautionary principle applies. Precautionary thinking requires some scientific uncertainty, and yet a desire to act to protect the environment (or whatever else one believes requires protection).
The point of view the WWF is arguing that even without full information, action must be taken now or else long term environmental harm could result. There are valid reasons for arguing the opposite way. One could say it would not be cost effective to act, as according to the article the WWF seems not to have suggested valid and economical ways to ‘fix’ the rivers.
I feel that precautionary is definitely a logical way to approach this issue. Fresh water is an invaluable resource in these dry days, and Canada is one of the richest in it. However, if we don’t protect our waters, it could mean not only economic but serious industrial, domestic, and environmental effects. Logical thinking is necessary in any case to sort out this issue.
References
De Souza, Mike. “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (Oct 15, 2009) Canwest News Service. Accessed October 21 from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadian %20rivers%20trouble%20study%20warns/2104100/story.html
The WWF is taking the side that without action taken, the rivers of Canada may fall into environmental degradation. Though they published a study, they are clearly an environmental rather than a scientific organization. Many people could argue about the scientific validity of WWF’s report, and therefore, the precautionary principle applies. Precautionary thinking requires some scientific uncertainty, and yet a desire to act to protect the environment (or whatever else one believes requires protection).
The point of view the WWF is arguing that even without full information, action must be taken now or else long term environmental harm could result. There are valid reasons for arguing the opposite way. One could say it would not be cost effective to act, as according to the article the WWF seems not to have suggested valid and economical ways to ‘fix’ the rivers.
I feel that precautionary is definitely a logical way to approach this issue. Fresh water is an invaluable resource in these dry days, and Canada is one of the richest in it. However, if we don’t protect our waters, it could mean not only economic but serious industrial, domestic, and environmental effects. Logical thinking is necessary in any case to sort out this issue.
References
De Souza, Mike. “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (Oct 15, 2009) Canwest News Service. Accessed October 21 from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadian %20rivers%20trouble%20study%20warns/2104100/story.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Chlorine; Good or Bad?
The residence of Sherborn, have been very worried recently because their drinking wells have been contaminated by a coloform bacteria. The town said that the water is now clean but precautionary steps are still being taken to clean the water. This is an explicit use of the precautionary principle. The use of the precautionary principle in this case is very good. There was a risk of E-coli and fecal matter in the water, causing the Board of Selectmen to start adding chlorine to kill the bacteria. The Board is taking precautions because the bacteria in the water can possibly kill people or make them sick. By adding the chlorine to the water to kill the other bacteria, it is making the water safer to drink. However, the long term use of chlorine is not healthy to the human body or soil where it is used. Because the chlorine is so harmful, it will only be used for a small period of time and the ultraviolet lights, iron filters, and water softeners will be replaced. The precautionary principle is very good in this situation for both the people’s health and the economy of the town. If no action had been taken, people may have gotten sick and needed health care. This would cost the government money and they might have been sued. I think that using the precautionary principle here to chlorinate well water is a very good idea and I strongly agree.
Cronin, Jon. "Sherborn Selectmen deal with Woodhaven water woes." Wicked Local 21 Oct 2009, Print.
Cronin, Jon. "Sherborn Selectmen deal with Woodhaven water woes." Wicked Local 21 Oct 2009, Print.
Petitcodiac River Restoration: Keep your Fingers Crossed!
The Petitcodiac River system with a tidal bore that once flowed through Greater Moncton, to the Bay of Fundy is going to be revived and restored, or is it?
As broadcast on CBC News, the Province of New Brunswick plans to spend an initial $20 million on what is said to be "Canada’s biggest river restoration project ever". A recent publication from the local newspaper The Times and Transcript states that restoration will begin in the spring of 2010. In addition, it will require a bridge to replace the existing causeway, as well as erosion protection and remediation work.
This is great news for environmentalists. The causeway is said to have "choked" the river's tidal bore and blocked the passage of fish. "This is an environmental disaster that needs to be fixed." However, the causeway has existed since 1968, so it is unlikely that things are going to improve quickly.
If we apply precautionary thinking to this argument, many questions arise. How will the restoration affect lakeside communities and resources that have developed since 1968? Will the original Tidal bore return? If this project fails, could it cause drought in the region? These are key issues that need to be assessed. This is an expensive project. Where will the funding come from to complete it? One would hope that since it has taken so long to realize the river is in need of restoration, that many of these questions have been resolved.
References
By unknown, CBC news
July 8, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/07/08/nb-river.html
By Craig Babstock, Times and Transcript
September 26, 2009
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/804626
Petitcodiac Riverkeeper’s Third Annual List
January 31, 2005
http://www.petitcodiac.org/riverkeeper/english/Campaigns/News_Articles/list04.htm
Saving Alaskan Coastal Waters
by Laura Van Vliet
The article, “Lessons of the Exxon Valdez” uses the precautionary principle to argue against oil development in coastal waters off Alaska. The example of the Exxon Valdez disaster is used to caution that further drilling in coastal waters could prove catastrophic for the environment, the economy, and the livelihoods of many.
In my opinion, the author has effectively and appropriately used the precautionary principle. The Exxon Valdez was a disaster from which we are still recovering; it has been proven that oil still remains in some areas and the populations of some sea creatures in areas particularly affected never fully recovered (Ricciardi, 2009). The livelihoods of many fishermen were threatened, and over $2 billion was been spent as a result of the spill (Lessons, 2009). The accident of the Exxon Valdez was, however, many years ago. It could be argued that new safety measures and the knowledge acquired in these areas since the disaster since could help us to avoid a similar accident. In addition, though a precautionary argument is the unknown effects of drilling on the aquatic ecosystems, drilling has been done in other aquatic ecosystems with relatively few environmental impacts. However, the small risk of enormous disaster outweighs, in my opinion, the benefits of drilling in Alaskan coastal waters – especially considered with other environmental factors threatening oceans, such as rising temperatures, overfishing, and pollution.
The loss of money and negative effect on economy of a future oil spill is an effective argument in itself against oil development. However, a rebuttal could point out the economic boost which the region would experience. However, we must decide whether this is truly positive. Improving the economy may seem to be positive, but does the region really benefit? When considered environmentally, no gain is apparent, but other factors - such as overall happiness and wealth - must also be considered.
Overall, I believe this is a situation in which the precautionary principle was successfully applied to argue against oil development in coastal waters of Alaska.
References
Lessons of the Exxon Valdez. New York Times. March 22, 2009. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23mon1.html
Ricciardi, Michael. May 1, 2009. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill – 20 Years After: The Analysis. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/01/the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-20-years-after-the-analysis/
The article, “Lessons of the Exxon Valdez” uses the precautionary principle to argue against oil development in coastal waters off Alaska. The example of the Exxon Valdez disaster is used to caution that further drilling in coastal waters could prove catastrophic for the environment, the economy, and the livelihoods of many.
In my opinion, the author has effectively and appropriately used the precautionary principle. The Exxon Valdez was a disaster from which we are still recovering; it has been proven that oil still remains in some areas and the populations of some sea creatures in areas particularly affected never fully recovered (Ricciardi, 2009). The livelihoods of many fishermen were threatened, and over $2 billion was been spent as a result of the spill (Lessons, 2009). The accident of the Exxon Valdez was, however, many years ago. It could be argued that new safety measures and the knowledge acquired in these areas since the disaster since could help us to avoid a similar accident. In addition, though a precautionary argument is the unknown effects of drilling on the aquatic ecosystems, drilling has been done in other aquatic ecosystems with relatively few environmental impacts. However, the small risk of enormous disaster outweighs, in my opinion, the benefits of drilling in Alaskan coastal waters – especially considered with other environmental factors threatening oceans, such as rising temperatures, overfishing, and pollution.
The loss of money and negative effect on economy of a future oil spill is an effective argument in itself against oil development. However, a rebuttal could point out the economic boost which the region would experience. However, we must decide whether this is truly positive. Improving the economy may seem to be positive, but does the region really benefit? When considered environmentally, no gain is apparent, but other factors - such as overall happiness and wealth - must also be considered.
Overall, I believe this is a situation in which the precautionary principle was successfully applied to argue against oil development in coastal waters of Alaska.
References
Lessons of the Exxon Valdez. New York Times. March 22, 2009. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23mon1.html
Ricciardi, Michael. May 1, 2009. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill – 20 Years After: The Analysis. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/01/the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-20-years-after-the-analysis/
Chlorine in Your Drinking and Shower Water
In the article “ On Chlorine”, on the "friends of water" web-site, the author cautions against drinking or bathing in chlorinated water because of the risk of cancer. This statement is explicit: “Drinking it, and absorbing it though the air and water in showering and bathing seems like a bad idea to us.” This is a poorly supported precautionary statement because they don’t give enough evidence to prove that it may cause irreversible harm or that there is not a scientific consensus about the potential risks.
The article discusses a study which states that when trihalomethane, a chemical by-product of chlorination, is absorbed or inhaled into the body, the chemical becomes much more dangerous because it does not go through a detoxification process in the liver. They link chlorine exposure to increased incidents of cancer, which could be argued to be irreversible harm.
The article describes only the one study, cited in the previous paragraph, where scientists believe using or drinking chlorinated water is harmful. Arguing that the scientific community believes that drinking chlorinated water does not cause harm, the article quotes the US Environmental Protection Agency: “Chlorine is not classified as a carcinogen by the EPA, and chlorine levels are controlled in drinking water at levels the EPA deems safe.” This limited evidence of one scientific body believing it is safe and one group of scientists believing it is unsafe hardly leaves the reader feeling there is a lack of consensus.
This article has unsuccessfully used the precautionary principle to show that absorbing or drinking chlorine is bad. Although, it tries to prove using chlorinated water in your homes may cause cancer, it certainly does not convince the reader that the scientific community is divided on this issue. The article is enormously biased because it is on a web-site selling chlorine water filters. It is essentially semi-subtle advertising for their products, targeted at their potential customers.
References:
Friends of Water. "On Chlorine". friendsofwater.com. 2007-2009. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.friendsofwater.com/No_Chlorine.html
Precautionary Thinking and Water Availability
In the article Population and Water, by Peter Gleick (2009), the issue of growing populations and water availability is discussed. The author implies some thinking that relates to the precautionary principle, in that he wants to prevent a possible ecological disaster before it occurs. People must realize that we are seeing evidence of more complex and harmful consequences of human activities, and therefore it is very important to do everything possible to prevent any more harm to the environment. This includes situations that have some uncertainty as to what the implications of certain activities may be.
In the article it is suggested that we must address water problems by increasing the water supply, decreasing the water demand per person and/or changing the number of people. In relation to the precautionary principle, it is possible that we may not run out of water. It is possible that we could get an enormous amount of rain for an extended period of time and the water could be captured and stored. But it would be more beneficial to take action just in case. If instead we encountered a drought, we would still have to deal with the threat of water loss. Also, the probability or extent of the damage that could be caused by decrease in water availability is uncertain. The ecosystems in the area of the water reserve would change if all of the water was gone, and no one knows how many other ecosystems would be affected by the change in that one. It is also unknown how people will get more water, most likely in a way that may cause even more environmental damage.
I agree with the author in that something must be done to prevent the complete depletion of water reservoirs. It is more likely that there will be bad environmental consequences on surrounding ecosystems if a water system is to go dry, therefore we should prevent this from happening.
Gleick, P. (2009 October 13) Population and Water. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail?entry_id=49461
Arsenic in drinking water!
In the news article “Arsenic in Water Doesn’t Float with Riverkeeper” written by John Marks on October 20th 2009 has implied the use of the precautionary principle. Summarizing the details of the article, it refers to two organizations: (1) Duke Energy and (2) Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation. Within Lake Wylie, the company Duke Energy has permission by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to continue having coal ash ponds. The Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation disagrees and has been fighting with the department to reassess for a new permit.
The two sides of the argument have shown both the strong and weak Precautionary Principle (pp). On the Riverkeeper side, they state that the pollution from the coal ash ponds has a possibility of contaminating the ground water supply and could harm the wildlife. On the other side of the argument, Duke Energy has says that arsenic is not considered toxic due to its small amounts.
From the two sides of the argument I’d like to agree upon Riverkeeper’s side. This is because if there is a possibility that the water can cause contamination to the drinking water, the pp states that it should be removed. If small amounts of arsenic are found to be non toxic like Duke Energy states, then how is it possible to have arsenic poisoning. The poisoning is caused by either large dosage, or small amounts through a long period of time. Seeing the uncertainty of the arsenics harmfulness it should be that the coal ash ponds are removed. It is clear that if the coal ponds are removed a large energy source has been loss; this can cause a potential job loss. But with the cost of harm done to other organisms it is best to not continue the burning of coal.
Reference:
Mark, John. "Arsenic in Water Doesn't Float With Riverkeeper; Duke's Coal Ash Plants Meet EPA Requirements, but Group Wants Stricter Rules." 20 Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2009..
"Arsenic Poisoning." BBC news. BBC, 27 Sept. 1999. Web. 21 Oct. 2009..
The two sides of the argument have shown both the strong and weak Precautionary Principle (pp). On the Riverkeeper side, they state that the pollution from the coal ash ponds has a possibility of contaminating the ground water supply and could harm the wildlife. On the other side of the argument, Duke Energy has says that arsenic is not considered toxic due to its small amounts.
From the two sides of the argument I’d like to agree upon Riverkeeper’s side. This is because if there is a possibility that the water can cause contamination to the drinking water, the pp states that it should be removed. If small amounts of arsenic are found to be non toxic like Duke Energy states, then how is it possible to have arsenic poisoning. The poisoning is caused by either large dosage, or small amounts through a long period of time. Seeing the uncertainty of the arsenics harmfulness it should be that the coal ash ponds are removed. It is clear that if the coal ponds are removed a large energy source has been loss; this can cause a potential job loss. But with the cost of harm done to other organisms it is best to not continue the burning of coal.
Reference:
Mark, John. "Arsenic in Water Doesn't Float With Riverkeeper; Duke's Coal Ash Plants Meet EPA Requirements, but Group Wants Stricter Rules." 20 Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.
"Arsenic Poisoning." BBC news. BBC, 27 Sept. 1999. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Reducing Water in Rice Cultivation
by Laura Van Vliet
A recent study revealed by scientists has shown that the use of ammonium as a fertilizer rather than a nitrate and ammonium mixed fertilizer can increase the tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to water stress.
Researchers at the Nanjing Agricultural University in Nanjing, China, used rice seedlings grown by hydroponics (where water stress was simulated through the addition of PEG, 6000) and greenhouse grown (in pots) rice seedlings to study the drought tolerance of the plants. Under non-water stress conditions, the researchers found that the two different treatments had little effect on rates of photosynthesis, water uptake, and general nutrient flow in the plants. However, the study, headed by Yong Li and Yingxu Gao, showed during water stress significantly less negative effects on plant growth and photosynthetic activities when ammonium was provided to the plants, compared when the nitrate and ammonium mix was. Under water stress, it was also shown that the dry mass of the rice shoots was decreased by 25% for the ammonium treatment versus 43% for the nitrate mix. There was also a major increase in the water uptake and general nutrient flow in the plants treated with ammonia. This suggests an increased capacity to produce grain when higher levels of ammonium are present under water stress conditions.
A key difference between rice fields which are flooded (non-water stress) compared to those which are not (water stress) is the form of nitrogen which was available to the plants. Flooded fields generally contain more ammonium, while those not flooded have a higher level of nitrates. This study suggests that by artificially creating high levels of ammonium during water stress, we may be able to combat the major effects of low water levels on rice cultivation.
This study suggests that rice may be able to be cultivated in areas where water stress may normally have prevented a viable crop. Or similarly that water-saving irrigation techniques which have been developed but cast aside - because water stress prevented there use being profitable - may be put into place to avoid the wasteful over-usage of fresh water. In today’s world, this is especially important. Food prices worldwide have been on the rise in past few years, due to crop failures and low levels of food stocks (FAO, 2008). Compounding this issue is water quality and supply problems in many parts of the world. A large amount of water is crucial to rice farming. For each kilogram of rice produced by farmed, 2 m3 of water is required, and over 80% of this water is lost through evaporation and leakage (Li, Yong et al, 2009). This is two to three times more than other cereals, but rice is a staple food for over half of the world’s population (Aragon et al., 2008). In a world where clean and fresh water is rapidly disappearing, the use of ammonia to increase rice productivity in conditions of water scarcity could be crucial to the solving water conflicts in the future.
References
Li, Yong et al, 2009. Ammonium enhances the tolerance of rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.)
to drought condition. Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009), pp. 1746-1750. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3X-4X3DRY7-1&_user=1067211&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=10&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%234958%232009%23999039987%231505120%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=4958&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=22&_acct=C000051237&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067211&md5=feb25e6c2b767c7841fcf3b8855903e2
Aragon, C.T. et al. 2008. The United Nations Must Manage a Global Food Reserve. UN Chronicle. Accessed on 14 October 2009. Available at http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/issue2_3/2_308p58.html
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2008. FAQs on Food Situation. Accessed on 14 October 2009. Available at http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-faq/en/
A recent study revealed by scientists has shown that the use of ammonium as a fertilizer rather than a nitrate and ammonium mixed fertilizer can increase the tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to water stress.
Researchers at the Nanjing Agricultural University in Nanjing, China, used rice seedlings grown by hydroponics (where water stress was simulated through the addition of PEG, 6000) and greenhouse grown (in pots) rice seedlings to study the drought tolerance of the plants. Under non-water stress conditions, the researchers found that the two different treatments had little effect on rates of photosynthesis, water uptake, and general nutrient flow in the plants. However, the study, headed by Yong Li and Yingxu Gao, showed during water stress significantly less negative effects on plant growth and photosynthetic activities when ammonium was provided to the plants, compared when the nitrate and ammonium mix was. Under water stress, it was also shown that the dry mass of the rice shoots was decreased by 25% for the ammonium treatment versus 43% for the nitrate mix. There was also a major increase in the water uptake and general nutrient flow in the plants treated with ammonia. This suggests an increased capacity to produce grain when higher levels of ammonium are present under water stress conditions.
A key difference between rice fields which are flooded (non-water stress) compared to those which are not (water stress) is the form of nitrogen which was available to the plants. Flooded fields generally contain more ammonium, while those not flooded have a higher level of nitrates. This study suggests that by artificially creating high levels of ammonium during water stress, we may be able to combat the major effects of low water levels on rice cultivation.
This study suggests that rice may be able to be cultivated in areas where water stress may normally have prevented a viable crop. Or similarly that water-saving irrigation techniques which have been developed but cast aside - because water stress prevented there use being profitable - may be put into place to avoid the wasteful over-usage of fresh water. In today’s world, this is especially important. Food prices worldwide have been on the rise in past few years, due to crop failures and low levels of food stocks (FAO, 2008). Compounding this issue is water quality and supply problems in many parts of the world. A large amount of water is crucial to rice farming. For each kilogram of rice produced by farmed, 2 m3 of water is required, and over 80% of this water is lost through evaporation and leakage (Li, Yong et al, 2009). This is two to three times more than other cereals, but rice is a staple food for over half of the world’s population (Aragon et al., 2008). In a world where clean and fresh water is rapidly disappearing, the use of ammonia to increase rice productivity in conditions of water scarcity could be crucial to the solving water conflicts in the future.
References
Li, Yong et al, 2009. Ammonium enhances the tolerance of rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.)
to drought condition. Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009), pp. 1746-1750. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3X-4X3DRY7-1&_user=1067211&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=10&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%234958%232009%23999039987%231505120%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=4958&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=22&_acct=C000051237&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067211&md5=feb25e6c2b767c7841fcf3b8855903e2
Aragon, C.T. et al. 2008. The United Nations Must Manage a Global Food Reserve. UN Chronicle. Accessed on 14 October 2009. Available at http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/issue2_3/2_308p58.html
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2008. FAQs on Food Situation. Accessed on 14 October 2009. Available at http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-faq/en/
A change in the future
In Canada, water shortages have never happened, nor have they even been thought of. This is because here in Canada fresh water is very plentiful. It is predicted that there is going to be a lack of drinking water in the years to come.
With all the climate change that is happening, it is expected that there will be a water shortage in the coming years. The water shortages will have major effects on our world. There will be major desertification due to the lack of ground water. This will cause countries to lose farmland and enter a famine. When people are in times of trouble like that, any actions necessary to survive will be taken. It is expected that mass migration will happen at the start of the water shortage, but when countries begin to close their borders, government or non-government groups will begin to fight for their survival. Countries with large amounts of freshwater will be forced to defend themselves or open themselves up to everybody.
This is a serious threat to all of humanity and should not be taken lightly. If all the fresh water is used up, it means that the natural cycle of our world has been disrupted. This will mean that we are either using too much water, or our world is overpopulated. Either of these are very bad. If we do not find a solution soon, the planet will be in serious trouble and may soon be the end of much life on earth.
There are a few solutions for this problem, we can reduce the amount of water used daily dramatically, or we can figure out how to convert salt water into fresh water. The problem with converting salt water into fresh water is that it cannot be used to replace ground water or refill lakes. It can only be used for non-natural purposes.
As a whole, we need to take better care of our earth and fix the problems before they are reversible. If everybody works together, future famine, wars and death can be avoided.
Salehyan, Idean. "The New Myth About Climate Change". 2007.
With all the climate change that is happening, it is expected that there will be a water shortage in the coming years. The water shortages will have major effects on our world. There will be major desertification due to the lack of ground water. This will cause countries to lose farmland and enter a famine. When people are in times of trouble like that, any actions necessary to survive will be taken. It is expected that mass migration will happen at the start of the water shortage, but when countries begin to close their borders, government or non-government groups will begin to fight for their survival. Countries with large amounts of freshwater will be forced to defend themselves or open themselves up to everybody.
This is a serious threat to all of humanity and should not be taken lightly. If all the fresh water is used up, it means that the natural cycle of our world has been disrupted. This will mean that we are either using too much water, or our world is overpopulated. Either of these are very bad. If we do not find a solution soon, the planet will be in serious trouble and may soon be the end of much life on earth.
There are a few solutions for this problem, we can reduce the amount of water used daily dramatically, or we can figure out how to convert salt water into fresh water. The problem with converting salt water into fresh water is that it cannot be used to replace ground water or refill lakes. It can only be used for non-natural purposes.
As a whole, we need to take better care of our earth and fix the problems before they are reversible. If everybody works together, future famine, wars and death can be avoided.
Salehyan, Idean. "The New Myth About Climate Change". 2007.
Monitoring Water Quality using Vending Machines
by Samantha Zaluski
In a recent study in South Arizona, a group of scientists from the University of Arizona developed a method of monitoring the quality of tap water using filters from commercial vending machines. They think this system could also help in understanding the patterns of all stages of bacterial outbreaks.
The scientists took the filters from the vending machines and passed water with a known level of contamination through them. Then they collected the organisms form them to figure out how well the filters caught the bacteria. A total of 48 filters were sampled from 41 different shopping malls and convenient store parking lots. They tested three types of filters: new, artificially aged and naturally aged. The artificially aged filters were new filters that had 16000L of treated water passed through them over six days in a laboratory. “Out of 48 SBC [solid block carbon] filters 54.2% were positive for at least one organism. The number of filters positive for total coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and enterovirus was 13, 5, 19, and 3, respectively, corresponding to 27.1%, 10.4%, 39.6%, and 6.3% of the total filters. No filters were positive for noroviruses or Cryptosporidium.” (Miles, 2009)
The results of these experiments were that the efficiency of catching the microbes in the filters was higher in the aged filters than the new ones. This is probably because the aged filters had more matter and particles that it had accumulated over time, which helped catch the bacteria and hold on to it. In the study they mention why they might not be able to recover one hundred percent of the bacteria from the filters: the organisms might not be retained in the filters, they could get caught permanently in the filters, or they may be injured and therefore not be measurable. These factors make it falsely seem that the water is cleaner than it really is.
Post-treated water can be contaminated due to treatment deficiencies, contamination of main pipes due to construction, water and sewer pipes inadequately separated, broken or leaking pipes, cross-connection or backflow events, intrusion events (i.e., bio terrorism), or bacterial re growth. All these reasons seem inevitable and while this monitoring system is still under development, it seems like it might be an economical way of monitoring our tap water.
References:
Miles, Syreeta L., Gerba, Charles P., Pepper, Ian L. and Reynolds, Kelly A. (2009). Point-of-Use Drinking Water Devices for Assessing Microbial Contamination in Finished Water and Distribution Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol 2009. 10.1021/es801482p. January 29, 2009
"When in Drought..."
By Geneviève Lalonde
Pretend you have a cottage on the side of a river; you have had this cottage for quite some time. One day there is some sort of drought. This affects your water supply. If you have a neighbor that is very agreeable, you will talk about this situation and discuss possibilities of how to best share the water. If not what rights to you have over his and how is conflict going to help the water levels? What is your likely course of action?
By Erik Ansink , Hans-Peter Weikard
European Journal of Political Economy 25 (2009) p. 247–260
Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated?
Pesticide use has increased dramatically worldwide due to the rise in the global population. More people means that more food is needed for survival, and pesticides are used to grow this food efficiently. Most significantly in tropical regions, pesticide use has also increased in order to supply a larger crop. Although it is disputed that pesticides are essential in modern agriculture, there is a growing concern about the possible environmental contamination of waterways. Within the last 25 years an intensive agricultural industry has developed in the northern region of a state in Brazil, which involves frequent pesticide use. A recent study has found that 68% of water surface samples and 97% of rainwater samples in southern regions of the state contained traces of the pesticide used in the northern region.
This study concluded that there were traces of pesticides present in waterways far from the application site. Drinking water is already scarce in some regions and this will reduce it even more. What will the effects of these pesticides be? One of the authors of this paper, Volker Laabs says “The measured river water concentrations of pesticides were substantially lower in our study area than in the Midwestern USA.” This could suggest that the application of pesticides may have an even greater effect in the USA. Do we know if our drinking water contains some traces of pesticides?
Significant amounts of suspended sediments were detected downstream of the main application sites, while very little were found farther upstream in several of the streams and rivers studied. The concentrations of pesticides detected in the studied streams were below the maximum contaminant levels of pesticides established for drinking water by the USEPA (2000). It was also noticed that there was a smaller number of pesticides found in river water than stream water, however this has been attributed to dilution effects. The team found that pesticides were detected in 97% of all collected rainwater samples, with up to 9 pesticides detected in 1 sample. Halfway through the study period the application (by plane) of a pesticide in cotton fields began, leading to the detection of this pesticide in rain samples almost immediately. The process of contamination of waterways doesn’t take time to occur, it is an immediate action-reaction process.
The results presented in this study suggest that the application of pesticides in the tropics has a great effect on nearby water sources. Noticeable concentrations of the applied pesticides had been detected in both rainwater and surface water samples of streams and rivers nearby. It is very important that we consider the use of chemical applications in agriculture, as it has been proven that it disturbs the aquatic ecosystems in the tropics. If pesticides have a proven role in the tropics, we have to wonder about their effects here in a more temperate climate. Hopefully our drinking water is actually safe to drink.
Amelung, W., Laabs, V., Pinto, A. &, da Silva, C. (2009). Pesticides in Surface Water, Sediment, and Rainfall of the Northeastern Pantanal Basin, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31:1636-1648. Received 2009 October 10, from, http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/5/1636
The changing seasons in Puerto Rico has taken away crop yields and freshwater!
The seasonal changes in Puerto Rico have taken a drastic impact on their land and the ability to grow crops. According to the Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems and Climate Science Department of Berkley National Laboratory, in the next 50 years the crop yield will drop by 60%, precipitation will continue to increase, and the main source of freshwater from aquifers will dry up. This can greatly inhibit the growth of Puerto Rico’s economy, since it is solely based upon agriculture.
In the Agricultural Water Management Journal, the results of the study were published recently this summer. The study was done to predict effects on the amount of precipitation in relation to the reduction of crop yields. To do this the Agricultural/Biosystems and Climate Science departments have teamed up to create and mathematical model to represent the future predictions. Three different parts of Puerto Rico that were studied are: Adjuntas, Mayaguez, and Lajas. Within each region three different years were projected: 2000, 2050, and 2090. One set of data contained the data collected during the wet seasons, and another set consists of the dryer seasons.
In the Lajas it is projected that almost 80% of the crops will be reduced by 2090. Not only has crops decreased in yields it is found that the aquifer recharge rate was 0. This means that either the water evaporated quicker than water could reach the aquifer or there was not enough precipitation that year. Comparing the results in the year 2090 and the results in the year 2000 there is a dramatic difference in the crop yields. In 2000, the findings show that there was close to a 70% in crop yields. Barely reaching 100 years there has been a 10% increase.
With the changing seasons, the rainy seasons will become wetter than before, and the dryer seasons will become even dryer than before. In other regions such as the Mayaguez will perhaps experience this in the next 80 years. During the month of September the precipitation rate increased almost 300mm between year 2000 and 2090. However during the dryer months, February the precipitation was as low as 40mm. This justifies that during the wet seasons it is only going to get wetter, and during the dryer seasons it will just get dryer.
Although these are only projection based on a mathematical model, these are possible outcomes that may happen in the future. Scientists that published the results cautioned that the data only considered simple assumptions; there are still possible doubts with the climate projections. However this is a first step to expand our knowledge to the changing climate that affects the fertile soil, and freshwater aquifers.
Reference:
Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering,, Climate Science Department, Earth Sciences Division,, Earth and Planetary Science Department, and Department of Mechanical Engineering. "Seasonal climate change impacts on evapotranspiration, precipitation deficit and crop yield in Puerto Rico." Agricultural Water Management 96.7: 1085-095. Web..
In the Agricultural Water Management Journal, the results of the study were published recently this summer. The study was done to predict effects on the amount of precipitation in relation to the reduction of crop yields. To do this the Agricultural/Biosystems and Climate Science departments have teamed up to create and mathematical model to represent the future predictions. Three different parts of Puerto Rico that were studied are: Adjuntas, Mayaguez, and Lajas. Within each region three different years were projected: 2000, 2050, and 2090. One set of data contained the data collected during the wet seasons, and another set consists of the dryer seasons.
In the Lajas it is projected that almost 80% of the crops will be reduced by 2090. Not only has crops decreased in yields it is found that the aquifer recharge rate was 0. This means that either the water evaporated quicker than water could reach the aquifer or there was not enough precipitation that year. Comparing the results in the year 2090 and the results in the year 2000 there is a dramatic difference in the crop yields. In 2000, the findings show that there was close to a 70% in crop yields. Barely reaching 100 years there has been a 10% increase.
With the changing seasons, the rainy seasons will become wetter than before, and the dryer seasons will become even dryer than before. In other regions such as the Mayaguez will perhaps experience this in the next 80 years. During the month of September the precipitation rate increased almost 300mm between year 2000 and 2090. However during the dryer months, February the precipitation was as low as 40mm. This justifies that during the wet seasons it is only going to get wetter, and during the dryer seasons it will just get dryer.
Although these are only projection based on a mathematical model, these are possible outcomes that may happen in the future. Scientists that published the results cautioned that the data only considered simple assumptions; there are still possible doubts with the climate projections. However this is a first step to expand our knowledge to the changing climate that affects the fertile soil, and freshwater aquifers.
Reference:
Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering,, Climate Science Department, Earth Sciences Division,, Earth and Planetary Science Department, and Department of Mechanical Engineering. "Seasonal climate change impacts on evapotranspiration, precipitation deficit and crop yield in Puerto Rico." Agricultural Water Management 96.7: 1085-095. Web.
Groundwater (Mis)Management in Northern China
In a recent study out of Northern China analyzing groundwater use, it has been found that over-exploitation and mis-management has led to serious problems in the quality and quantity of available groundwater.
Often an under-appreciated resource, groundwater exists in porous soil and underground geologic functions underneath the Earth’s surface. It is in constant balance with surface freshwater systems. Rain and snow seep into the ground to recharge the groundwater, which discharges to springs and rivers, becoming surface water (CTIC 2009). Because groundwater cycles are complex and not fully understood, they constitute difficult problems for government. Modern groundwater management must counter-act exploitative and pollutive actions from the past, as well as deal with increased demand in the form of industry, agriculture, and domestic use.
China in particular has had it’s share of change in the past few years; it’s sizable population has moved from the rural to the urban, it’s standard of living (and therefore water use) has increased, and industry continues to expand. The area of Zhengzhou, in Northern China, has been facing these challenges, and was the subject of a recent study published in Hydrogeology Journal.
The area of Zhengzhou, which consists of Zhengzhou city and surrounding rural land, is a perfect area to study typical groundwater management in China. Zhengzhou gets 70% of its water from groundwater, and over-exploitation and mismanagement of this resource is leading to three main problems: a decline in the water table, groundwater pollution, and formation of depression cones around urban areas.
Urban areas are using more groundwater than rural areas, and the high intensity of use is creating cones of depression underneath the city of Zhengzhou. These are generally circular areas of depleted aquifers, where groundwater has been overused and has run out. Deeper and deeper wells are being dug to compensate for the loss, but according to the study a better solution would be to restore the aquifers with treated wastewater and rainwater, or to alleviate urban groundwater use by using more surface water (from the nearby Yellow River).
The rural areas around Zhengzhou have quite different problems. Wastewater is generally dumped untreated into rivers, and so farmers cannot use surface water because of the bad quality. This makes them use more groundwater, which is unsustainable and discouraged because it lowers the water table. According to the study, agriculture should re-use treated wastewater, rainwater, and river water, as it does not need the same high quality as domestic use.
None of the problems faced by governments who manage groundwater use have easy solutions. Depression cones, lowered water tables, and groundwater contamination, are all wide-reaching and complex problems and require the same kind of solutions. Presently the institutes involved in China’s groundwater management are uncoordinated and the functions and responsibilities of each overlap, but water management has such wide influence that communication and coordination between government agencies and institutes are necessary. The importance of groundwater to society is truly being realized, and problems identified; the only thing left to do is find solutions.
References
Sun, Ronglin, Jin Menggui, Mark Giordano, and Karen Villholth. "Urban and Rural Groundwater Use in Zhengzhou, China: Challenges in Joint Management." Hydrogeology Journal. 17.6 (2009): 1495-1506.
Groundwater & Surface Water: Understanding the Interaction. (2009) Conservation Technology Research Center. Accessed Oct 13 2009 from http://www2.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/GroundSurface.html.
Often an under-appreciated resource, groundwater exists in porous soil and underground geologic functions underneath the Earth’s surface. It is in constant balance with surface freshwater systems. Rain and snow seep into the ground to recharge the groundwater, which discharges to springs and rivers, becoming surface water (CTIC 2009). Because groundwater cycles are complex and not fully understood, they constitute difficult problems for government. Modern groundwater management must counter-act exploitative and pollutive actions from the past, as well as deal with increased demand in the form of industry, agriculture, and domestic use.
China in particular has had it’s share of change in the past few years; it’s sizable population has moved from the rural to the urban, it’s standard of living (and therefore water use) has increased, and industry continues to expand. The area of Zhengzhou, in Northern China, has been facing these challenges, and was the subject of a recent study published in Hydrogeology Journal.
The area of Zhengzhou, which consists of Zhengzhou city and surrounding rural land, is a perfect area to study typical groundwater management in China. Zhengzhou gets 70% of its water from groundwater, and over-exploitation and mismanagement of this resource is leading to three main problems: a decline in the water table, groundwater pollution, and formation of depression cones around urban areas.
Urban areas are using more groundwater than rural areas, and the high intensity of use is creating cones of depression underneath the city of Zhengzhou. These are generally circular areas of depleted aquifers, where groundwater has been overused and has run out. Deeper and deeper wells are being dug to compensate for the loss, but according to the study a better solution would be to restore the aquifers with treated wastewater and rainwater, or to alleviate urban groundwater use by using more surface water (from the nearby Yellow River).
The rural areas around Zhengzhou have quite different problems. Wastewater is generally dumped untreated into rivers, and so farmers cannot use surface water because of the bad quality. This makes them use more groundwater, which is unsustainable and discouraged because it lowers the water table. According to the study, agriculture should re-use treated wastewater, rainwater, and river water, as it does not need the same high quality as domestic use.
None of the problems faced by governments who manage groundwater use have easy solutions. Depression cones, lowered water tables, and groundwater contamination, are all wide-reaching and complex problems and require the same kind of solutions. Presently the institutes involved in China’s groundwater management are uncoordinated and the functions and responsibilities of each overlap, but water management has such wide influence that communication and coordination between government agencies and institutes are necessary. The importance of groundwater to society is truly being realized, and problems identified; the only thing left to do is find solutions.
References
Sun, Ronglin, Jin Menggui, Mark Giordano, and Karen Villholth. "Urban and Rural Groundwater Use in Zhengzhou, China: Challenges in Joint Management." Hydrogeology Journal. 17.6 (2009): 1495-1506.
Groundwater & Surface Water: Understanding the Interaction. (2009) Conservation Technology Research Center. Accessed Oct 13 2009 from http://www2.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/GroundSurface.html.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Arsenic in Bangladesh: A Source Comparison
News articles often sacrifice detail and clarity in their drive for catchy headlines. However, they can serve as a means for distilling important scientific information to an uninformed public, as does Henry Fountain’s “In Bangladesh, Findings on Arsenic and Water”, published by the New York Times. The primary source he derives his information from is the study “Redox trapping of arsenic during groundwater discharge in sediments from the Meghna riverbank in Bangladesh”, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This paper describes the highly elevated concentrations of arsenic in subsurface sediment around a river in Bangladesh, and hypothesize that the chemical reactions result in a barrier (‘iron curtain’) being formed around the river that prevents arsenic from entering the water. The secondary article briefly summarizes the information from the paper.
The fact that the primary article is written for a scientifically literate audience alters not only the style the information is presented, but also the content. The audience an article or journal is written for sets the entire tone for the article, as we can see in these two examples. Not only that, but each type has a different purpose. Fountain’s article for the Times is a very readable piece for the general public, but lacks in the full detail that is necessary for an objective and scientific study. But this is not it’s purpose; that job falls to the scientific research paper.
Primary sources go into great detail on one the results of one experiment under various conditions. This is a great strength of the scientific study, specifically “Redox trapping of arsenic…”, but also for the published research in general. By giving great detail in the milligrams of arsenic per kilograms of soil in each of the nine sites and providing detail and figures (such as maps, tables, and graphs) to support the points being made, primary sources provide far more convincing arguments. The fact that the secondary article does not go into the same amount of detail can confuse some of the points trying to be made, and mislead the audience. For example, “…the sediments form an “iron curtain” to keep the arsenic out of surface water in the river. But recycling of these arsenic-laden sediments to the…aquifer may lead to further groundwater contamination.” (Fountain, 2009) However, in the research paper, the authors only refer to the possibility of further groundwater contamination as an alternative, among several others. By placing a possible claim next to a proven one, the author of the secondary source misleads the audience into believing that point be more concrete and supported than it is. Therefore, going into detail on the concepts and experimental results is a definite strength of primary research reports.
There are several benefits to a short distillation of information compared to a lengthy report. The secondary article gives as much or more space to context as to new experimental results, which is vital in fully understanding the information. The primary article is comparatively limited in the amount of background information it presents. Every convincing argument must begin with the reader understanding enough about the subject to be aware of why the information is being presented, and in what context. The news article accomplishes this better than the research paper, which could be considered a strength.
In conclusion, each type of article has limitations and strengths. The condensed quality of a news article can lose information and detail, but gain in readability and context. The length of a scientific research paper provides the detail necessary to prove and support new, experimental claims, but loses the ability to appeal to a wider audience. It is because of the audience that each of these pieces function the way they do. Together they make up a system that creates and disseminates knowledge, for which we can all be grateful.
References
Fountain, Henry. (Sep 21 2009) “In Bangladesh, Findings on Arsenic and Water” New York Times. Accessed Oct 6, 2009, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22obarsenic.html
S. Datta, B. Mailloux, H.-B. Jung, M. A. Hoque, M. Stute, K. M. Ahmed, and Y. Zheng
(July 30 2009) “Redox trapping of arsenic during groundwater discharge in sediments from the Meghna riverbank in Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States. Accessed Oct 6, 2009 from
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/09/18/0908168106.abstract
The fact that the primary article is written for a scientifically literate audience alters not only the style the information is presented, but also the content. The audience an article or journal is written for sets the entire tone for the article, as we can see in these two examples. Not only that, but each type has a different purpose. Fountain’s article for the Times is a very readable piece for the general public, but lacks in the full detail that is necessary for an objective and scientific study. But this is not it’s purpose; that job falls to the scientific research paper.
Primary sources go into great detail on one the results of one experiment under various conditions. This is a great strength of the scientific study, specifically “Redox trapping of arsenic…”, but also for the published research in general. By giving great detail in the milligrams of arsenic per kilograms of soil in each of the nine sites and providing detail and figures (such as maps, tables, and graphs) to support the points being made, primary sources provide far more convincing arguments. The fact that the secondary article does not go into the same amount of detail can confuse some of the points trying to be made, and mislead the audience. For example, “…the sediments form an “iron curtain” to keep the arsenic out of surface water in the river. But recycling of these arsenic-laden sediments to the…aquifer may lead to further groundwater contamination.” (Fountain, 2009) However, in the research paper, the authors only refer to the possibility of further groundwater contamination as an alternative, among several others. By placing a possible claim next to a proven one, the author of the secondary source misleads the audience into believing that point be more concrete and supported than it is. Therefore, going into detail on the concepts and experimental results is a definite strength of primary research reports.
There are several benefits to a short distillation of information compared to a lengthy report. The secondary article gives as much or more space to context as to new experimental results, which is vital in fully understanding the information. The primary article is comparatively limited in the amount of background information it presents. Every convincing argument must begin with the reader understanding enough about the subject to be aware of why the information is being presented, and in what context. The news article accomplishes this better than the research paper, which could be considered a strength.
In conclusion, each type of article has limitations and strengths. The condensed quality of a news article can lose information and detail, but gain in readability and context. The length of a scientific research paper provides the detail necessary to prove and support new, experimental claims, but loses the ability to appeal to a wider audience. It is because of the audience that each of these pieces function the way they do. Together they make up a system that creates and disseminates knowledge, for which we can all be grateful.
References
Fountain, Henry. (Sep 21 2009) “In Bangladesh, Findings on Arsenic and Water” New York Times. Accessed Oct 6, 2009, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22obarsenic.html
S. Datta, B. Mailloux, H.-B. Jung, M. A. Hoque, M. Stute, K. M. Ahmed, and Y. Zheng
(July 30 2009) “Redox trapping of arsenic during groundwater discharge in sediments from the Meghna riverbank in Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States. Accessed Oct 6, 2009 from
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/09/18/0908168106.abstract
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Coral Reef Health
Laura Van Vliet
The health of coral reefs around the world has been a serious issue in recent years. Many different factors have been related to the aggravation of the issue: water pollution, water quality, rising sea temperatures, and coral disease (Raymundo et al, 2009). Coral disease is an area in which the incidence, origin, and spread of disease is not well understood by the scientific community (Raymundo et al, 2009). A recent study, titled Functionally diverse reef-fish communities ameliorate coral disease, led by Laurie J. Raymundo, sheds some light on the matter. This research is also presented in an article; Diverse fish reduce coral disease, by Richard Black, from the BBC. These two articles, while based upon the same scientific study and data, are different in their inherent purpose and basic writing approach. These presentation of the data and the weight it is given is thus affected.
The primary source article, a journal article titled Functionally diverse reef-fish communities ameliorate coral disease and appearing in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is a detailed description of the study performed. Its purpose is to convince members of the scientific community of its validity, and thus provides a report of the study which proves its merit. In Diverse fish reduce coral disease, the secondary article, methods are not discussed except for some rudimentary explanations of sample size. This article is trying to reach the general public, and thus must be to the point, sensational, and not necessarily contain proof. The discussion of method in this article is contained in, “the researchers selected sevens marine protected areas (MPAs)... and seven neighbouring areas” (Black, 2009). A full understanding of detail is, however, central to the full understanding of the implications of the study. In Dr. Raymundo’s journal article the choosing of the 7 MPAs and surrounding reefs is discussed in relation to water quality and past overfishing in that area (Raymundo et al, 2009). The discussion of methods in the primary article shows areas of uncertainty in the results while also explaining how certain errors were avoided. In general, however, the lack of an in depth discussion of method makes the study seem more definitive than it is, by simplifying the process it appears that the method utilised is best method, and not a debatable one.
Similar to above, the way material is presented in the primary article versus the secondary article is quite different. In Black’s article regarding the study, the implications of many interpretive statements are facts. For example, in Black’s article he states that “reefs where lots of different kinds of fish swim are healthier than overfished ones, scientists have shown” (Black, 2009). While in Raymundo’s scientific journal article, a less definitive statement is used, “we showed that even among fished reefs, those with greater fish diversity were, on average, less diseased.” (Raymundo et al, 2009). The connotations on the word ‘health’ versus ‘less-diseased’ are very different. The second quotation portrays the relationship between fish diversity and incidence of disease a potential causation, but perhaps also a correlation. In the first statement however, it is implied that the relationship is causal.
Water pollution and poor water quality was referred to by both articles in reference to coral reef health. The journal article presents this information in the introduction to the article, and as it is not the focus of the research but a key contributing factor, this is logical. The primary article is in this way of a more specific focus. The secondary article presents the information as a part of the discussion of other causes and conclusions. For example, the secondary article claims that “disease seems to be exacerbated by pollutants... may be stimulated by anything that stresses coral” (Black, 2009), while the primary article marks in the introduction that reefs “remain under increasing threat from poor water quality, habitat degradation, and destructive fishing practices” (Raymundo et al, 2009). The main difference is in a previously arrived at conclusion or recently arrived at one; though both agree that poor water quality is major contributor to poor coral reef health.
Generally, the same conclusions are drawn by both authors, despite differences in connotation. Raymundo and Black both agree that butterflyfish are potentially a main cause of coral disease, and that the population of the butterflyfish increases as a result of decreased species diversity. They also suggest that at least a partial reduction or limitations on fishing in non-protected zones would increase coral reef health by increasing species diversity. Further, they both note that water quality, pollution, and other factors are degenerative to the health of coral reefs. While the secondary source does make the results of said study appear more authoritative than suggested in the primary source article, the effects are not prominent enough to affect the basic message.
References
Black, Richard (2009) Diverse fish reduce coral disease. BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279572.stm Accessed 7 October 2009.
Raymundo, Laurie J. et al. (2009). Functionally diverse reef-fish communities ameliorate coral disease. PNAS. Vol. 106, no. 40, pg 17067-17070. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/40/17067.full.pdf+html Accessed on 7 October 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)