The Pros And Cons Of Desalination

The Pros And Cons Of Desalination Desalination is a technological solution that some believe would provide ample supplies of additional water resources.   Discuss the pros and cons to this technological solution and whether or not you support it.   Less than 3% of the earths natural water is viable for human use and consumption. This brings light to the need for a solution to the quickly depleting resource in the rapid growth of population, industry, and increased overall use of water. What is desalination? Put simply, desalination is the conversion of seawater and or brackish water into consumable quality water. To elaborate, this process can be done through a few different methods depending on the location and need for quality, the main process being distillation and reverse osmosis (preferred method). Of the more than 7,500 desalination plants in operation worldwide, 60% are located in the Middle East. The worlds largest plant is in Saudi Arabia. In contrast, 12% of the worlds desalination capacity is in the Americas, with most of the plants located in the Caribbean and Florida. To date, there are currently 23 proposed desalination plants on the coast of California. With these facts in mind it is the responsibility of human kind to weigh the benefits and the consequences of this somewhat deceivingly simple solution. Pros: There is no doubt that an answer to the ongoing discussion of the potential exhaustion of water is indeed overdue. With that in mind, facts supporting the use of desalination as a good alternative remains to be seen. One factor supporting the use of desalination is that desalination can provide a backup water source and a partial solution to a growing problem. While some believe that the use of desalination plants can provide an infinite supply of water and make it possible to put an end to the depleting resource, in reality, as idealistic as this illusion may be, it is far from true. Another favorable point includes the idea that desalination can remove drug contaminated water and other substances such as arsenic and fluoride which is an ongoing issue in places such as Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It should be noted however, that the use of desalination is not currently present in either place, and the likelihood of implementing a plant, anytime in the near future, is most lik ely unattainable due to topographical and economic limitations. Another supporting idea proposes that desalination may reduce the need to take additional water from the environment and, in some cases, offers the opportunity to return water to the environment. In some areas it is proposed that desalination facilities may help reduce the dependence of local water agencies on climate sensitive sources of supply. Furthermore, desalination is currently an efficient and reliable water source in use among military operations world wide including naval ships. It is also used on some cruise ships as a reliable source of potable water. Cons: Desalination is costly not only ecologically but economically. Desalination costs are subjective due to many factors, which include location and methodology, making comparisons complex and estimates vague. For example, Tampa Bay Floridas desalination plant ended up $48 million dollars over its original estimate and is still not in full working capacity due primarily to poor planning. Previous desalination plants have cost in upwards of an estimated $100-$150 million dollar range, just to start the facility, this does not include what it costs to run after it is already built. Although Costs have come down over the past decade, as technology has become more efficient, desalination still perpetuates a cost of approximately $500-$2,000 per acre foot of water (325,000 gallons), compared with approximately $250 per acre foot for water in urban Los Angeles, and $10 per acre foot paid to the federal government by farmers in the Sierra foothills, according to Haddad, the author of Rive rs of Gold: Designing Markets to Allocate Water in California (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000). Furthermore, the assumption that desalination costs will continue to fall may be false, in fact future costs may actually increase. Another negative factor is that more energy is required to produce water from desalination than from any other water-supply or demand-management option in California, this in turn brings to light the concern of further dependence on fossil fuels. Conversely, it should be noted that the use of fossil fuels can and has been reduced in many facilities by using solar, wind and wave energy to power the facility. According to an executive summary by the pacific institute desalination can produce high-quality water however it may also introduce biological or chemical contaminants into our water supply this will weigh heavily on the design and location of the plant and should be monitored heavily by local government agencies to ensure consumer safety. Desalination produces highly concentrated salt brines that may also contain other chemical pollutants. More specifically, seawater contains approximately 35,000 parts per million of salt. During the reverse osmosis, water molecules are strained through membranes while the salt particles are retained by the membrane and result in a reject stream nearly twice as salty (70,000 ppm) as seawater. Safe disposal of this effluent presents a significant challenge. Additionally and perhaps of the most devastating of the negative aspects to this process is the Impingement and entrainment of marine organisms. This is among the most significant of the environm ental threats associated with seawater desalination. Impingement occurs when marine organisms are trapped against intake screens by the velocity and force of water flowing through them. The inevitable outcome of impinged organisms varies between intake designs as well as marine life species, age, and water conditions. Some resilient species may survive impingement and be returned to sea; however the 24-hour survival rate of less healthy and/or juvenile fish is potentially less than 15%. Entrainment happens when smaller organisms pass through an intake screen to the processing equipment. Organisms entrained into processing equipment are projected to have a mortality rate of 100%. The number of affected organisms will, of course, vary with the volume and velocity of feed-water as well as the mitigation measures developed to minimize impact. Lastly, the use of desalination is a concern because with its implementation and commercialization, the general public could potentially begin a m ore relaxed view of water use than they already do. Meaning, if people think that we have manufactured a solution to the need for conservation there will not be a need to be water use conscious e.g. the more we have the more we spend. This can lead to higher costs to the environment, more unnecessary development and less environmental consciousness. While desalination is what some have considered the holy grail of water scarcity issues, the reality seems quite the contrary. One of the most difficult factors being faced in light of desalination seems to be the idea that desalination has not been in use long enough to perpetuate actual evidence of overall environmental impacts. With that in mind, an environmental analysis conducted under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) should consider the assessment of cumulative impacts not only of the proposed project but future projects (and existing facilities) in the area. These impacts would include the cumulative entrainment/impingement impacts, cumulative energy consumption, cumulative growth-related impacts, and cumulative wastewater urban runoff impacts. These factors are especially important in areas where pre-existing air quality, water quality and ecosystem health are already compromised. More specifically, developed areas wher e water use is higher and environmental impacts are considered / monitored, have the potential of being the proverbial guinea pig when it comes to testing the idea at max capacity. This information should also be part of heavy public education to ensure a full public understanding of its costs and benefits as part of most growing problems in the world come with the lack of education and understanding. Furthermore, there is little evidence that desal plants are any more or any less of an impact than other alternatives, not because they are incapable of causing issues but more because the potential issues have not been fully investigated. Primarily the concern is that the pressing issue and urgency may prematurely cause major environmental impacts (especially long term) to be overlooked or dismissed as something we can conquer at the time it becomes an issue. This vary idea is precisely the reason why most, if not all, environmental catastrophes currently exist. Question is, when is t he woops factor going to cause all parties involved to finally get a clue? In closing, the benefits and consequences of desalination are vast and seem to be vaguely understood. While on some levels desalination should be considered as a supplemental potable water source, many other alternatives which are far less costly economically and environmentally do exist. These alternatives include treating low-quality local water sources, encouraging regional water transfers, improving conservation and efficiency, accelerating wastewater recycling and reuse, implementing smart land-use planning and fixing leaks in already existing distribution pipes and plants. Furthermore a tax deductible option to home owners encouraging water wise appliances and repair allowances should be considered as an encouragement to fix what we already have. For example it is estimated that US Homes Leak 1 Trillion Gallons of Water Annually, which is said to be enough water to supply the entire state of Colorado for three years! Is desalination the answer? To me, it seems a desperate attem pt to band-aid a far larger and blaringly obvious issue. If we continue to use and waste, as a human species, regardless of the solutions we find, our existence will inevitably be self limiting.

A New Era for Advertisers

In his article, â€Å"The Post Advertising Age,† Bob Garfield describes the end of advertising as we know it.   According to the author, a substantial number of television and print advertisers may soon find themselves out of work because online advertising is increasing.As a matter of fact, numberless viewers of television and readers of print media have already been seduced by the world wide web, which now caters to their viewing and reading needs better than television and print media ever could.The world of the Internet is interactive, allowing users to fulfill their viewing or reading needs depending on their demands at any given time.   The television and print media, on the other hand, do not carry the advantages that the Internet has.   In short, the kinds of choices available to users of the Internet cannot be matched by the advantages of television or print media.The only choice for a television viewer is to change the channels until he or she finds something o f interest.   The reader of a print magazine, on the other hand, has to purchase a new magazine if the one that he has already bought does not suit his interests.The Internet, on the contrary, is not only cheap, but also has the advantage of presenting all kinds of information to the user.   Hence, the advantages of online advertising surpass the advantages of television and print media advertising based on the basic benefits of Internet use as compared to television and print media.The number of people viewing MTV has been drastically reduced, thanks to the virtues of the Internet which allows the MTV generation to now enjoy online videos.[1]   Also according to Garfield:In December 2005, Viacom spun off CBS, the so-called Tiffany Network, lest the broadcast business impede growth and depress shareholder value.Just before Christmas 2005, Time Inc. laid off 100 employees.   Just after Christmas, inJanuary 2006, Time Inc. laid off 100 more employees.   In April 2006, Time I nc. laid off 250 more employees-the last round of job cuts, the company said.   In January, Time Inc. laid off300 more employees.   No wonder.   Since 2001, Time Warner's market capitalization has shrunk to $82 billion from $193 billion.Last fall, ostensibly to promote their new seasons, five broadcast networks bypassed their local affiliates and gave away new programs online.In October 2006, NBC announced a $750 million cost cutback, including 700 jobs and amoratorium on scripted programs in the first hour of prime time.In November 2006, Clear Channel-the boogeyman of media consolidation-sold to private- equity owners and declared that it wants to unload its TV and small-market radio stations.The sale fetched $38 a share.   In 2000, the stock sold at $100 a share.The Minneapolis Star Tribune, acquired by McClatchy in 1998 for $1.2 billion, was sold to private investors in December 2006 for $530 million.In 2000, Chicago-based Tribune Co. was valued at $12 billion.   It the n bought Times-Mirror Co. for more than $8 billion.   At this writing, with Tribune Co. for sale as a whole or in part, the value of the merged company is $7.34 billion.[2][1] Bob Garfield, The Post Advertising Age, Advertising Age, 78(13): 26 March 2007.

Mass communication

In a face-to-face communication, the source or the person who started talking to you expresses himself through the message in Aramaic. The encoding process involves his motor skills. These are his vocal mechanisms, the movement of his lip and tongue, his lungs, his vocal cords and the face muscles.   But what if the source had his vocal cords removed because of throat cancer? He may be able to encode his message verbally through artificial aid. But he may have difficulty doing so, nonverbally with the use of intonation, pitch and volume. That may cause the message to be encoded inappropriately or insufficiently. The channels through which you, as the receiver, receive his message are your five senses. The problem is you cannot understand the Aramaic language. Though there are channels through which people send information, there could be a possibility that it can’t be decoded. We cannot assure that you will be able to decode what the source sent, the same way he sent it.   This difference between your use of codes is an example of noise. (www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk, 2003) An example of a distance communication is through the telephone. For instance, you have a job from a faraway place. But due to a lot of work and the other people waiting in line to use the pay phone, you only have a few minutes to call a friend, the receiver. You are the source here. You express your message through the mouthpiece of the telephone, â€Å"which transmits the signal through the telephone-wire channel†. The signal acquires static noise as it goes. This distorted signal is once again converted so it can be received at the destination or at the other end, to the receiver. Loss of information may occur, causing the message to be quite different from what you sent. The possible problem in distance communication, like in this example is, whether or not the telephone system will work properly. (Griffin,1997) In public communication, the source utilizes machines, which transmits public messages that sent to large audiences, who may be at different places at the same time. The channels are media like TV and movies. The audiences are the receivers. (University of South Florida, 2005) The Shannon-Weaver, though offering an efficient analysis, does not involve much consideration of the traces of the emotional and psychological drive of humans behind the messages they send. (Buddenhagen, 1994) Generally speaking, the model is helpful in understanding the interrelatedness of the elements in a communication process. Works Cited: Buddenhagen, E.   (1994). Communication. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.explorit.org/science/bytes/communication.html Griffin, E. (1997) Information Theory of Claude Shannon & Warren Weaver.[Electronic version] A First Look at Communication Theory.   Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/information.cfm?source=archther Communication: Mass, Interpersonal, and Machine-Assisted (2005). Retrieved August 31, 2006, from University of South Florida, College of arts and sciences Website: http://www.cas.usf.edu/lis/lis6260/lectures/shannon.htm The Shannon-Weaver Model. (2003). Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sw.html               

The Effects Of Gmo Foods On Our Health - 1979 Words

1. Introduction: The effects of GMO foods on our health, GMO (genetically modified organism) also known as genetic engineering, biotechnology, or recombinant DNA technology (rDNA). Where the gene extraction resulting from the DNA of one species and inseminated artificially into unrelated plant or animal genes. These foreign genes come from the following sources: bacteria, viruses, insects, animals, even humans. GMOS are also known as â€Å"transgenic† organisms as it involves genes transferring. It’s also called genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM). Current genetic engineering is very crude. Inaccuracy of new gene insertion disrupts organism of DNA. With current extremely limited knowledge of DNA it is impossible to predict or†¦show more content†¦In 1913 the Rockefellers invested billions of dollars with the hope that it would improve their image of doing charity and created a tax free foundation the Rockefeller foundation which took over American medicine sto ck shares. The Rockefellers were obsessed with Eugenics a type of science used to improve a human population this is done in two ways 1- positive which is where you try to improve the breed you are trying to control. 2- negative were you get rid of the worst of the breed. Rockefeller financed the eugenics movement the same race science used by Adolf Hitler’s third Reich. After the horrible press got out around the world that the Nazis were putting into action what they were just thinking of doing. After world war 2 the chairman of the American eugenics society an intimate Rockefeller friend announced the name change from eugenics to genetics. Later, the Rockefeller foundation financed the international research institute in the Philippines a project to genetically modify the staple food of many people around the world â€Å"rice† more than one million was spent on the development. With a claim that it would cure child blindness in Asia. The unappetizing looking rice na med â€Å"golden rice† turned into a flop and is still attempting to gain approval since the 1980s, but not able to get since there is no scientific evidence to back any of its claims. Recombinant DNA technology a way of moving DNA from one organism to