The average disposable bottle of water has come under heavy criticism as of late. Many articles such as Nicole Cotroneo’s article in The New York Times, “Movement Against Bottled Water Gains Municipal Adherents,” Annie Gentile’s “Mayors Push Benefits of Cities’ Tap Water” for American City & Country, and “New Study Finds Fault With Some Bottled Waters; Tap Water a Better Bet,” in Environmental Nutrition give their stances on why the disposable water bottles should get the can, or better yet, the recycle bin. In these three articles, the argument against disposable bottled water is posed, as it is believed that water bottles create unnecessary production costs, environmental damage, and threaten safety and health. According to Cotroneo and Gentile, bottles of water have become increasingly costly for customers to purchase and to produce and distribute by using energies such as fuel. A Suffolk county
Tap Water at its Finest Many people think it’s bottled water versus tap water, but in reality it is just the peoples taste and convenience of the water source. Both bottled water and tap water have their positives and negatives making it the people’s choice of deciding the one they think is better. Studies show, every year the bottled water consumption increases by 10%, not knowing tap water is cheaper and just as convenient as the bottled water. An abundance of people think bottled water is better for you and is easier to access and is more convenient, on the contrary it’s really not. Some of the bottled water sources are the same sources as tap water, such as, rivers, streams, lakes, and even reservoirs.
In the U.S. hydraulic fracking has been a main source of energy during today’s times, it 's cheap effectiveness makes us think this . People should know how hydraulic fracturing is not as clean and amazing as we think it is.Hydraulic fracking cannot be a sustainable option for America. There are too many faults for it to be upheld in the long run and we cannot depend on it as our main resource of energy forever. The way hydraulic fracturing is affecting the environment is too harmful for it to be a sustainable option. It contaminates drinking water, turns unused lands into industrial dumps.
Furthermore, water doesn 't have the amount of calories, sugars, or sodium that sports drink has. When I have a meal, i would chose water over sports drinks because sports drinks have about the same calories of soft drinks. I know many people especially in my lunch period that drink gatorade along with their meal. That can be eventually be really bad, because gatorade has lots of sodium and overtime can lead to something atrocious. So i would definitely want water instead of sports drink in my diet.
Sports drinks have been recommended as a way to replace electrolytes lost during exercising. However, orange juice also has electrolytes and these are naturally occurring, not man made. Although water is also a liquid recommended for exercise, it is not used for strenuous exercise because it has no electrolytes. This was all proven during my experiment. My hypothesis: Orange Juice provides more electrolytes than energy drinks, was proved to be true.
Another solution is using plastic ike substances htat are actually biodegradable. For example, a substance called liquid wood, which acts exactly like plastic, however, is good for the planet, and will not hurt the ocean or us. As you might think, these solutions will inevatiably raise food prices, since glass is more expensive, or if we resort to the biodegradable substances, they are new sciences, meaning that they will also cost more, however, wouldn’t you rather pay more for a solution to a problem that is largely afecting you, then do nothing about
To prevent and save limited amount of water left, Canadian citizens can all contribute to the maintenance of clean drinking water. Canadians are the few people who are lucky enough to have access to clean drinking water, while in developing countries there is a shortage. Many of these people are drinking water that hasn’t been filtered or treated which can cause waterborne illnesses. By turning off the tap and limiting the amount of water consumption in families can all lead to the conservation of water. Moreover, by creating policies on water usage such as how long someone can water your garden for so that citizens don’t overuse water.
It may contain other contaminants like toxic metal salts, hormones and pesticides. Tap water is usually available from the faucet for less than a penny a gallon. Water treatment plants that provide tap water have to be tested multiple times a day. Bottled water is not safer than tap water. More than half of all bottled water comes from tap.
bottle of 200ml shampoo is of Rs.350 which is suitable according to the brand recognition all over the world. This product is too much effective towards hairs and is appropriate towards its price so that middle class can also buy this. Nivea: Nivea shampoo is for the dull and dry hairs so it affects mostly on dry hairs but it cannot prove itself as appropriate for every type of hairs. So according to its working its price is high it should have to fall down to increase its sales. Garnier fructis: The Garnier Fructis shampoo is equipped with natural fruits vitamins which really affect hair towards healthiness of hairs.
Regulations Nanny States put into place for recycling are that households and businesses must have two separate garbage cans: one for trash, and one for recyclables. If this law is disobeyed, you could be finned in San Francisco. In conclusion, I am on the fence with the topic of Nanny States. On one hand they can protect citizens and our planet from carelessness. Carelessness such as not recycling, or smoking cigarettes causing other people to get sick or uncomfortable.
Gaining public support and funding will be difficult as individuals will not welcome the change. However, as two major stakeholders: police and health professionals, have displayed their support for the change, communities will soon embrace the change (Wodak, 2015). Nightclub owners might experience a loss of revenue due to individuals not drinking as much which will force them to be against the change. Nevertheless, they will be able to save money in the decrease of property damage and decreasing the amount of security on the premises, which can make up for the loss of revenue. Thus, individuals will be more incline to support the change to the drinking culture as it will benefit them in more ways compared to the current
Also water companies who have water rights would also oppose my plan. Corporations would have restrictions on their water rights which would make their sales on water drop because they are not producing and selling as much water as they used to. Corporations solution would be a major failure for everyone else because their solution only benefits their corporation because it gives more rights of the water to the corporations. The oppositions solution only protects and supports their own interest. Opposing solutions believe that their water rights entitle them to unlimited amounts of water for their corporations and products.
Just as antidepressants are used in today’s society. The people who take these drugs may be using it for depression, or other conditions such as anxiety or shyness. They can even be taken by people who are 100% healthy to make them feel better about themselves. Some may argue that these pills aren’t truly making one “jovial”, that the drug being used is really just covering up their unhappiness but putting them in a slightly better mood. “People can also drown their sorrow in alcohol or get a euphoric feeling using narcotics, but few people who do would be called truly happy.” I would never personally recommend that someone takes antidepressants to make them happy.
The reason for this lower standard is because of Americas own screw up. They thought that fluoride could help keep teeth healthy and prevent decay; however the fluoride came back and dropped everyone’s IQ level. The U.S put the fluoride into the water