Sunday, October 10, 2004

drinking water standards

Most people may think their drinking water has enough safe standards for drinking. Although there are bigger problems them the drinking water standards, people should have alertness, because drinking can be a serious problem. We should continue to improve the drinking water standards and protect human health, because what will happen in the future we don’t know. Preventing is better than treatment.

Since the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by the federal government in 1974 and amended several times to control the drinking water supply for protecting human health. Currently, most people may think their drinking water has enough safe standards for drinking.

However, there are some problems of the water treatment with drinking water standards in Missouri. For example, Lake Chesterfield has some problems of turbidity and suspended solids which should be cleaned by a developer, but an environmental engineer in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Hamoud, said current technology could reduce the amount of suspended solids in the lakes, but the laws had not kept up with technology, so the department had no authority to require JMB to pay for such procedures at Lake Chesterfield (Shinkle, 2004, par. 10). Although the residents of Lake Chesterfield complained a long time ago, they don't understand whether the department can or cannot request that the developers do something. Because our law is weak, although some people’s spirit is willing, the practice is weak.

On the other hand, some things are heartening; for example, conservationists combine with unemployed workers for working together to protect good jobs and our environment, and workers also “want clean air, safe drinking water and beautiful places to hike and take their kids fishing” (Miller and Perry, 2004, par. 6).

Some people exert themselves to protect the environment, but some developers only want to make more benefits, ignoring the health of people and the environment. Current law and drinking water standards seem too low, and didn’t change with the technology of disposing of sewage. Some developers have been getting away with breaking laws and violating drinking water standards. Sometimes they could get better on water treatment, but they didn’t. According to an article of Sara Shipley (2004, par. 17), Michael Alesandrini said that “No one will ever use groundwater for drinking water”, so they don’t have to clean it up to drinking water standards. Actually, according the 2003 Annual Compliance Report of Missouri Drinking Water Systems, there are 37.7 % of people who used the groundwater through water supplies (EPA, 2004).

Although environmental groups and some people who love the environment want to protect the environment, some developers are using the lack of law for achieving their benefits.

I think Missouri should change their laws and drinking water standards on water treatment and water supply. They must consider more about human health.

First, the law should grow with the technological equipment of clean water. The technological equipment can clean the water to a better condition, but some people who have responsibility to clean the water didn’t clean it better. For example, in the case of pollution of Lake Chesterfield, “Hamoud said a company of JMB has been responsible for the pollution and the technology could reduce it in the lakes, but that the department could not force the company to clean the lakes because it didn’t have authority to require the company to clean the lake” (Shinkle, 2004, par. 8 & 10). Although the technology can reduce the pollution, the company could depend on the law and wasn’t responsible for that.

For example, according to A. Clark’s article, the “liquid-liquid extraction” which is current analytical methods using for monitoring and detectible emergencies of water contamination, and researcher think that is more weakness, for example “it is time consuming for large numbers of samples, difficult to automate, and requires high purity solvents, and it is subject to contamination, recovery and precision may be poor, safe disposal of solvents is also problematic and expensive” (Clark, 2004, p. 78). The researcher thinks it is required the requirement that we should be quickly alert about the case of contamination emergencies, and be able to react quickly to protect drinking water quality and human health, and there are some advantages of rapid analysis of water, such as “the chromatographic techniques method can be exercising duty of care to protect consumers and maintain quality, a deterrent to negligent dischargers and other potential polluters, initiating remediation methods, identifying sources of contamination, processing control monitoring and improved operation, costing benefits (legal liabilities, protecting works), branding image/avoiding adverse publicity, and improving business resilience and efficiency” (Clark. 2004). Although currently the drinking water hasn’t emerged as too serious a problem, people should have an alertness about drinking water, so the water supplies should have quick equipment for monitoring and detectible emergencies.

So, I think we should make the law strong for forcing some companies to clean the pollution, because if the law didn’t force and constrain, maybe no one will clean the pollution. I think the technological equipment may be very expensive, but the government, developers, and researchers can work in coordination to find a better way for protecting our environment.

Second, the law should be strong on the drinking water standards for keeping people’s health. In November of 1993 to the middle of January 1994, 500 people became ill, and seven residents of a nursing home died, which was caused by water supply whose water had fecal coliforms, and the water was from a local well and it was proved uncontaminated, the coliforms problem was from the water tank (Deininger, 2004). In this case, although the well water was uncontaminated, the water supplies didn’t pay attention or clean their water tank. We should know human health is very important, and water supply should not only pay attention on drinking water, but also pay attention to other equipments such as water tank.

Moreover, as for the Water Protection Program, I think the drinking water standards may be weak, and that didn’t constrain the supplier. According to Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which published the 2003 Annual Compliance Report of Missouri Drinking Water Systems, many as 339 public water systems still violated the Maximum Contaminant Level of Total Coliform Rule (MoDNR, 2003). Nevertheless, authorities advise the residents to boil drinking water because it has a problem of fecal coliform (Hill, 2004). Although the authority had advised the people to boil drinking water, does anyone do that? I don’t think so, because people are not used to boiling the drinking water before they drink. I don’t know why the water supplier didn’t clean the fecal coliform, and why the Water Protection Program of MoDNR didn’t force the water supplier to clean the fecal coliform, and why they only tell people the water has a problem. On the other hand, people still didn’t have alertness about the drinking water and didn’t boil the drinking water.

Furthermore, we should make a strict safe drinking water standard for protecting human health. according to an article of Federal Register Notice “Minor Clarification of National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic”, in 2001 the new Safe Drinking Water Act had changed the regulation of arsenic, which requires the water supplier to change the amount of arsenic in drinking water from the 50 parts per billion (ppb) standards to 10 ppb and 0.010 mg/l standard beginning on January, 2006 (EPA, 2003). On the other hand, although the drinking water standard has improved for toxic arsenic, it still seems still too high of arsenic standard. According to the Dr. Lebanon’s article, the medical researchers found a very low level of the arsenic standard that can cause many diseases, “including several form of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and reproductive or developmental problems, and other abnormalities” (Lebanon, 2004, par. 1, 4). Although the new Safe Drinking Water Act had changed the standard, the medical researchers think that arsenic level is still too close to the margin of influencing human health. They recommend the arsenic standard should be as low as 2-3 ppb for human health, because they found some case of effects to health that the arsenic standard was such as 10 ppb (Lebanon, 2004). Sometimes, the water supplier violated the regulation of safe water; for example, according to 2003 Annual Compliance Report of Missouri Drinking Water Systems, there were five water systems that violated the arsenic standard that is more than 0.050 MCL (mg/l). So, we can assume if sometime the water systems will violate more than 10 ppb of arsenic standard, and if the arsenic standard was made at 2-3 ppb, that people may not worry about the arsenic standard of more than 10 ppb, because the water supplier usually only control the drinking water under or at the margin of safe standards.

Moreover, I suggest and hope the drinking water standards can be made higher. According to an article from USA Today, “the usual water treatment methods can’t remove the pesticides from drinking water” (2004, p. 06d). In this case, farmers use pesticides, which affect the drinking water in Missouri and cause a lot of problems which can affect our health. I think if the drinking water standards aren’t made stronger, then people will get some disease from drinking.


Lastly, the industries and developers should restore the environment and keep water quality. According to a Journal from Dolan Media Newswires (2004), a company will deal with the contaminated well, and return its standards to public drinking water standards in Oak Grove Village, Mo. This is because some chemicals “such as trichloroethylene, were discovered in Oak Grove Village's municipal well in June 1986” (Dolan Media Newswires, 2004, par. 6). Since that time the well has been closed until the company considers cleaning it. In this case, the well was polluted by chemicals, which caused the well to be unable to supply water for the city. People usually consider their benefit, and didn’t care about other people’s health and environmental protection. On the other hand, the environmentalists and corporations are working together to protect our environment because they worry about unemployment rates, and their workers want to improve the environment such as the drinking water, and have a beautiful places to travel with their kids (Miller and Perry, 2004, p. d07). In this case, some people attempt to protect and to improve our environment, but some people still don’t care about environmental problems and destroy our environment for their own benefit. I suggest some industries and developers who should be responsible for their pollutants and control their pollutants. They should restore the society and environment such as the above-mentioned, because the pollutants were made by them.


The developers and businessmen should restore the environment because they have destroyed our environment. I think the government should require them to take responsibility for the environment, such as paying the money for cleaning water and air etc. According to Ted Halstead’s article, he suggests that the businesses should pay the tax on pollution, because the “pollution taxes would protect the environment by encouraging businesses and individuals to generate less pollution” (Halstead, 1998, par. 1). I agree with the pollution taxes, because if the government made a tax code on pollution, general people would have a new environment. The businesses would consider and reduce more pollution, and they would emit less pollution because they don’t want to pay too much on pollution taxes. Moreover, the pollution taxes also can help cleaning up the contaminated areas because currently the government may not have too much budget to clean it up, and general people don’t have responsibility for cleaning it and they don’t want to pay more taxes, because the pollution was not caused by them. The pollution taxes also can be used to study for improving and reducing pollution. In addition, when the government has money to clean the contaminated areas, water or air, it would bring more jobs to the unemployed. It would seem to have more advantage for people and environment

In conclusion, because the current laws about protecting water and drinking water standards have had some problem, we should make stronger laws to protect our health. We should add on to the law with the technological growth that can reduce pollution and make the water clean. I stand on cleaning up water and getting better and high drinking water standards for people and environment. The drinking water can be a very serious problem, so people should consider more about preventing and improving drinking water standards.


Bibliography



Clark, A. (2004). Contamination Monitoring: Screening VS Targeted Analysis. In J. Gray and K. C. Thompson (Eds.), Water Contamination Emergencies: Can We Cope? (pp. 77-79). Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Dolan Media Newswires (2004, Aug 20). Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources hires The Benham Cos. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2003, March 25). Minor Clarification of National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register Notice. Retrieved Oct 01, 2004 from www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR). 2003 Annual Compliance Report of Missouri Drinking Water Systems. Retrieved Oct 01, 2004 from www.dnr.state.mo.us/wpscd/wpcp/fyreports/2003acr.pdf.

Shinkle, F. (2004, April 5). Developer is cited under water law State finds problems at enclaves in Wildwood. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

Hill, F. (2004, July 09). News Briefs. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

Lebanon, (2004, Sep 26). New Arsenic Drinking Water Standard May Still be Toxic. Medical News Today. Retrieved Oct, 01, 2004 from www.medicalnewstoday.com.

Miller, J. and Perry, M. (2004, Sep 6). Hybrid ingenuity from hybrid thinking. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. D07. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

Shipley, S. (2004, Aug 16). Maplewood mall will cover toxic ground. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

Deininger, R. A. (2004). Overview of Handling Emergencies: Some Cautionary Tales. In J. Gray and K. C. Thompson (Eds.), Water Contamination Emergencies: Can We Cope? (pp. 135-136). Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Halstead, T. (1998, April 20). Businesses Should Be Taxed on Pollution. In Roleff, T. L. (Ed.) 2002, Pollution: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 200-203). Greenhaven Press, Inc.
USA Today (2003, Jun 18). Pesticides lower sperm levels. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from EBSCO Host Database.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Problems of water treatment

There are some problems of the water treatment with drinking water standards in Missouri. Lake Chesterfield has some problems of turbidity and suspended solids which should be cleaned by a developer, but an environmental engineer in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Hamoud, said current technology could reduce the amount of suspended solids in the lakes but the laws had not kept up with technology, so the department had no authority to require JMB to pay for such procedures at Lake Chesterfield (Shinkle, 2004, par. 10). Although the residents of Lake Chesterfield complained a long time ago, they don't understand whether the department can or cannot request that the developers to do something. Because our law is weak, although some people’s spirit is willing, the practice is weak. On the other hand, some things are heartening; for example, conservationists combine with unemployed workers for working together to protect good jobs and our environment, and workers also “want clean air, safe drinking water and beautiful places to hike and take their kids fishing” (Miller and Perry, 2004, par. 6). Some people exert themselves to protect the environment, but some developers only want to make more benefits, ignoring the health of people and the environment. Current law and drinking water standards seem too low, and didn’t change with the technology of disposing of sewage. Some developers have been getting away with breaking laws and violating drinking water standards. Sometimes they could get better on water treatment, but they didn’t. According to an article of Sara Shipley (2004, par. 17), Michael Alesandrini said that “No one will ever use groundwater for drinking water”, so they don’t have to clean it up to drinking water standards. Although environmental groups and some people who love the environment want to protect the environment, some developers are using the lack of law for achieving their benefits.

I think Missouri that should change their laws and drinking water standards on water treatment and water supply.

First, the law should grow with the technological equipment of clean water. The technological equipment can clean the water to better condition, but some people who have responsibility to clean the water didn’t clean better. For example, a case of pollution of Lake Chesterfield, “Hamoud said a company of JMB has been responsible for the pollution and the technology could reduce it in the lakes, but that the department could not force the company to clean the lakes because it didn’t have authority to require the company to clean the lake” (Shinkle, 2004, par. 8 & 10). Although the technology can reduce the pollution, the company could depend on the law and wasn’t responsible for that. So, I think we should make the law strong for forcing some companies to clean the pollution, because if the law didn’t force and constrain, maybe no one will clean the pollution. I think the technological equipment may be very expensive, but the government, developers, and researchers can work in coordination to find a better way for protecting our environment.

Second, the law should be strong on the drinking water standards for keeping people’s health. Authorities advise the residents to boil drinking water because it has a problem of fecal coliform (Hill, 2004). Although the authority had advised the people to boil drinking water, does anyone do that? I didn’t think so, because people are used to not boiling the drinking water before they drink. I didn’t know why the water supply didn’t clean the fecal coliform, and why they only tell people the water has a problem. I think the drinking water standards may be weak and that didn’t constrain the supplier. On the other hand, people still didn’t have alertness about the drinking water and didn’t boil the drinking water. Moreover, according to an article from USA Today, “the usual water treatment methods can’t remove the pesticides from drinking water” (2004, p. 06d). In this case, farmers use pesticides, which affect the drinking water in Missouri and cause a lot problems which can affect our health. I think if the drinking water standards aren’t made stronger, then people will get some disease from drinking. So, I suggest and hope the drinking water standards can make higher.

Lastly, the industries and developers should pay back the environment and keep water quality. According to a Journal from Dolan Media Newswires (2004), a company will deal with the contaminated well, and return its standards to public drinking water standards in Oak Grove Village, Mo. This is because some chemicals “such as trichloroethylene, were discovered in Oak Grove Village's municipal well in June 1986” (Dolan Media Newswires, 2004). Since that time the well has been closed until the company considers cleaning it. In this case, the well was polluted by chemicals, which caused the well to be unable to supply water for the city. People usually consider their benefit, and didn’t care about other people’s health and environmental protection. On the other hand, the environmentalist and corporations are working together to protect our environment because they worry about unemployment rates, and their workers want to improve the environment such as the drinking water, and have a beautiful places to travel with their kids (Miller and Perry, 2004, p. d07). In this case, some people attempt to protect and to improve our environment, but some people still didn’t care about environmental problem and destroy our environment for their own benefit. I suggest some industries and developers who should be responsible for their pollutants and control their pollutants. They should pay back the society and environment such as the above-mentioned, because the pollutants were made by them.

In conclusion, because the current laws about protecting water and drinking water standards have had some problem, we should make stronger laws to protect our health. We should add on to the law with the technological growth that can reduce pollution and make clean on the water. I stand on cleaning up water and getting better and a high leave of drinking water standards for people and environment.

Reference

Dolan Media Newswires (2004, Aug 20). Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources hires The Benham Cos. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Florence, S. (2004, April 5). Developer is cited under water law/ State finds problems at enclaves in Wildwood. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Hill, F. (2004, July 09). News Briefs. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Miller, J. and Perry, M. (2004, Sep 6). Hybrid ingenuity from hybrid thinking. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. D07. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Shipley, S. (2004, Agu 16). Maplewood mall will cover toxic ground. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
USA Today (2003, Jun 18). Pesticides lower sperm levels. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from EBSCO Host Database.


Problems of water treatment

I am interested in the water treatment of Missouri because of reading about some problem about it. Lake Chesterfield has some problems of turbidity and suspended solids which should be cleaned by a developer, but an environmental engineer in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Hamoud, said current technology could reduce the amount of suspended solids in the lakes but the laws had not kept up with technology, so the department had no authority to require JMB to pay for such procedures at Lake Chesterfield (Shinkle, 2004, par. 10). Although the residents of Lake Chesterfield complained a long time ago, they don't understand whether the department can or cannot request that the developers to do something. Because our law is weak, although some people’s spirit is willing, the practice is weak. On the other hand, some things are heartening; for example, conservationists combine with unemployed workers for working together to protect good jobs and our environment, and workers also “want clean air, safe drinking water and beautiful places to hike and take their kids fishing” (Miller and Perry, 2004, par. 6). Some people exert themselves to protect the environment, but some developers only want to make more benefits, ignoring the health of people and the environment. Current law and drinking water standards seem too low, and didn’t change with the technology of disposing of sewage. Some developers have been getting away with breaking laws and violating drinking water standards. Sometimes they could get better on water treatment, but they didn’t. According to an article of Sara Shipley (2004, par. 17), Michael Alesandrini said that “No one will ever use groundwater for drinking water”, so they don’t have to clean it up to drinking water standards. Although environmental groups and some people who love the environment want to protect the environment, some developers are using the lack of law for achieving their benefits.

I will write some things about the law and drinking water standards which should change in water treatment in Missouri. First, the law should grow with the technological equipment of clean water. Second, the law should be strong on the drinking water standards for keeping people’s health. Lastly, the industries and developers should pay back the environment and keep water quality.

I have found some problem on drinking water of Missouri, such as the fact that pesticides used for killing sperm would affect the drinking water, and chemically polluted groundwater that has been there a long time couldn’t be used for drinking water in Oak Grove Village, Mo, etc. Moreover, worth cheering and rejoicing things are some industries that try to protect the environment, and the EIERA will put a lot of the money into water pollution control and clean drinking water.

Reference:

Dolan Media Newswires (2004, Aug 20). Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources hires The Benham Cos. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Florence, S. (2004, April 5). Developer is cited under water law/ State finds problems at enclaves in Wildwood. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Hill, F. (2004, July 09). News Briefs. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Miller, J. and Perry, M. (2004, Sep 6). Hybrid ingenuity from hybrid thinking. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. D07. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
Shipley, S. (2004, Agu 16). Maplewood mall will cover toxic ground. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.
USA Today (2003, Jun 18). Pesticides lower sperm levels. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004 from EBSCO Host Database.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Cleaning up the polluted site

According to Sara Shipley in “Maplewood mall will cover toxic ground”, in a case of redevelopment in St. Louis, a developer will build two restaurants on a poisonous site in which a prior chemical factory was located. To begin with, the developer and some supporters want to reuse the polluted site for getting more benefits. In addition, the author gives some examples of the polluted sites which have been redeveloped. The polluted grounds have to make it clean for a safe standard, and the cleaning of polluted water has to attain a standard of drinking water. Although the plant can reuse a polluted site, some people think that changing a polluted site is unnecessary and doesn’t have economic benefits. Some people agree with the existing clean standard, but some people think the standard is too weak, because they think that this way only conceals the real problems. Moreover, the developer plan will take responsibility and put a lot of money into cleaning the highly poisonous chemical pollution and ground water. Lastly, the author mentions that the developer thinks that they want to make a non-productive site become a productive site and they made a very high standard for the plan of cleanup. Some people disagree with the developer deal, which contravenes with environmental rules. On the other hand, others might think that it is necessary for urban redevelopment.
I agree with the plan of reusing a polluted site, because I think it will be able to improve the polluted environment, and to redevelop for getting more benefits.

To begin with, I think the plan can help to improve polluted water and the ground. According to Sara Shipley’s article, “The money also is supposed to pay for the construction of a new system that would pump out contaminated ground water and strip the vinyl chloride into the air, preventing more pollution from flowing toward Black Creek” (2004, par. 34). In this site, there had not been chemicals for several years, but no one would clean the site, so it still has pollution problems of ground and water. I think if there are some developers who want to redevelop the polluted site, this will be a good thing for this area. Because of the pollution problems, the site has not been used for several years, and the problem is still around this site. If people didn’t want to clean the site, I think it will be a non-productive site forever. Cleaning this site is more advantageous for the people who live around the site, because they have faced the contaminated ground and water for a long time. I think no one wants to live around a contaminated zone.

Moreover, the plan will not only solve ground and water problems, but also contribute money to the university for environmental engineering. Although it is not a lot of money, it can help to provide more study for environmental protection and improvement. It will be a positive contribution for the community. Having a company or developer will pay for environmental improvement of the community; how can people let slip the opportunity?

Lastly, the developer redevelops the polluted site, which will promote economic development. Part of the chemical factory had already became a shopping center, which also brought some economic benefits. On the other hand, according to Sara Shipley’s article, “In 1988, then-owner Chemtech Industries signed a consent agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to clean up contamination, primarily petroleum fuels, the solvent trichloroethylene, and their breakdown products, including vinyl chloride and benzene” (2004, par. 23); although they had agreed to clean up the environment, it still has a pollution problem in the site until now. So I think if someone wants to change the condition that can bring more the economic benefits for the community. For example, cleaning it up makes it a clean area, and brings more jobs and helps residents decrease taxes, etc.

In conclusion, the plan can advance environmental improvement and make more economic benefits. I think that is a good things for the community and residents. So I support the plan of cleaning up the chemical pollution site.

Reference:

Shipley S. (2004, Aug 16). Maplewood mall will cover toxic ground. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

Cement plant influences air quality

According to Sara Shipley in “Cement plant gets air permit”, a company has obtained an air permit and will set up an extensive cement plant near St. Louis, which stirs up some environmentalists to oppose it in order to avoid an air-quality crisis. The side of the opposition thinks that “the amount of smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions” (Shipley, 2004, par. 5) will influence air quality and human health. In addition, the author writes that in the St. Louis area, people have spent a long time to clean the air, and some people didn’t want to break the economic health. On the other hand, supporters and the company think that the cement plant can make many jobs. Although the company will use equipment of selective noncatalytic reduction to reduce the pollutants and get a test of its efficiency for several years, the environmental groups still think the company is using technological equipment that can’t control the emission or air pollutants very well.

I disagree with the company setting up the cement plant because it will cause the aggravation of air quality. People should consider more about health of the living environment.

To begin with, although the company will use the technological equipment for reducing most of the emissions, I think that the technological equipment can’t all-round eliminate the pollutants. I don’t think that this is my prejudice because the technological equipment only can reduce some percentages of the emissions. According to Sara Shipley’s article (2004, par. 8), the company thinks there will be “an insignificant impact on air quality in St. Louis." Although the company thinks the plant wouldn’t make too much air pollution, I think it only can refer to the average scope of this area. Because of the people living around the plant, and the polluted air around their living environment, I think there is more danger than in other places. I think people would like to say, “don’t build the plant around my home”. Everyone has the right to keep his or her own health.

Moreover, I believe that people will not sacrifice themselves for making more jobs and economic benefits. I think that everyone knows the valuable life, not to mention making a pollution source around their home. For example, if a person lives only 0.5 miles from the plant, compared to other people who live 5 miles from the plant, I think his health would be getting some disease. The air pollution can be an invisible killer because it would unknowingly influence human health. So, I strongly disagree with building the plant to hurt humans and influence the living environment.

Nowadays, people already live in adverse circumstances, such that people should attach importance to our environment because we only have one earth. Breaking the environment is easier than protecting the environment or rebuilding the environment. According to Ted Heisel, who is quoted in the article, “we’ve had to make an effort to clean up air over the past two decades in St. Louis” (2004, par. 7); people spend a long time to make the air clean, but if the plant is built, this would cause people to spend more and more time to clean the air. So, people should think that making a little thing would cause a very long time of influence. So, people should consider more things are highest in their orders of priority, importance, and worth.

In conclusion, people have to consider more about futurity and the coming generation. We should make and keep a good environment. People should not only see the present benefits. The earth is not only for the whole human race, but also for the whole organisms, plants and animals. People should be treasuring our earth, and not hurt it any more.

Reference:

Shipley S. (2004, June 09). Cement plant gets air permit. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, P. A01. Retrieved Aug 27, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis Database.