~BotTlE WaTeR~

Have you ever wandering the cleanliness of water drinking that you take every day?Most of us bring water from home by  a big bottle.Bottled water is a healthy water-or so marketers would have us believe. Just look at the labels or the bottled water ads: deep, pristine pools of spring water; majestic alpine peaks; healthy, active people gulping down icy bottled water between biking in the park and a trip to the yoga studio.

Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere.     

In reality, bottled water is just water. That fact isn't stopping people from buying a lot of it. Estimates variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent.

Bottled water is big business. But in terms of sustainability, bottled water is a dry well. It's costly, wasteful and distracts from the brass ring of public health: the construction and maintenance of safe municipal water systems.

 

Want some solid reasons to kick the bottled water habit? We've rounded up five to get you started.

1) Bottled water isn't a good value

Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon.

Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station.

In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce.

And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.

 

2) No healthier than tap water

In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight.

On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database.

While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.

3) Bottled water means garbage

Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According toFood and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away.

That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birdsand fish which mistake our garbage for food.

4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems

Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.

This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment.

There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.

5) The corporatization of water

In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies.

Water is being called the "Blue Gold" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource.

Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.

What can you do?

There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.

Consider taking Food and Water Watch's No Bottled Water Pledge. Conserve water wherever possible, and stay on top of local water issues. Want to know more? Start with the Sierra Club's fact sheet on bottled water.

  Thefore it is advising to use bottle water such as made fromm tupperware and eplas. It has high quality and promises us the cleanliness of water without any toxic.

~The FuTuRe iS FlAt~

The panels are flat but th sales most certainly aren't. The television market ,long dominated by the conventional TV, is undergoing a revolution. The 'tube' or the 'box' as it is often known, sits heavily in the corner of most living rooms across the planet. Beautiful it isn't . But that's about to change if sales forecast are realised. Already millions of families are opting for thin screen wall mountable plasmas and LCD TV's as the latest consumer product of choice.

Statistics show that Americans watch TV on average for four hours a day , whilst Europeans watch three hours, so it's not  surprising that consumers are saying that as they spend so much time watching TV, that they might as well look at something that looks good!But it's not just viewing statistics that are impressive ,the economic statistics are also looking good , with the market for thin screen TVs worth $21 billion in 2004. Plasmas are taking the biggest slice of this market ,especially for screens of 40 inches or more where they have an 88% slice of the market. LCDs are also selling fast but relative to plasmas the growth rate is slower.

The end looks to be in sight for the conventional CRT TV, although for now cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions still account for 72% of US sales . This is perhaps not surprising if you think that they have been around for over fifty years. With bargain prices starting from $100 and having an external long life expectancy, CRTs are not going to disappear overnight . The downside of course is that they are big and bulky and are unlikely to win any design awards . The technology though , is tried and tested-all colours televisions create images using red,green,and blue light , but conventional televisions use an electron gun to generate these images. The cathode element within the gun emits beams of of electrons which are fired at phosphor-coated screen which is covered with blue,green and red phosphorus . The larger the screen ,the longer the tube needed and the bigger the box.
                                     
At present demand for plasma TVs is overtaking that of LCDs ,as prices are 10% to 20% cheaper for similar-sized screens,although this price differential is narrowing . Plasmas also beat LCDs in terms of maximum screen size, offering consumers an almost cinema like experience with with screen sizes ranging up to a massive 55 inches (137.5cm) with models such as Hitachi's PD5200.Plasmas also don't suffer from the problem of trailing edge blur with fast-moving images ,which is the problem with even the best LCDs on the market. Having said that,they have had some problems with image that,they have had some problems with image burn -in that leaves static images on the screen ,like permanent ghost images. This is not so much of an issues as you might think as this is only likely to occur when the same image,such as a sign,is continuously displayed on screen . Since TV images are constantly in motion , burn-in isn't likely to be a problem so long as the screen isn't hooked up to your computer and used as a PC monitor.

LCDs on the other hand, win hands down in terms of weight, slimness and flexibelity-they can be as little as Toshiba 20VL56compared to 8-15cm plasma ,they are more durable and weigh considerably less than their plasma equivalent ,and can also be easily wall-mounted .Over the life of the product ,a strong case can be made for the cost efficiency of LCDs as they have life expectancy of 25 years.

The big picture then for consumers and retailers alike is that plasma and LCD TVs are today's high-tech tube and as new players enter the market so quality and value for money will rise further . Plasmas look the better buy for the present,but LCDs are likely to seize market share in the future when screen sizes get bigger and prizes come down. This trend will be further accelerated with the expected entry into the market of the big PC manufacturers,offering even lower prices together with technological even.

~sIdE EffEcTs Of GloBaL WaRmInG~

Scientists have long stated that the main effect of global warming is the melting of the polar ice caps,resulting in a rise in sea levels. However ,as we observe the theory become a reality ,it is becoming apparent that this phenomenon also has multifarious secondary effects.

Fresh water from melting  ice caps flows into the sea reducing the concentration of salt in the water and thus the sea's density. Saline -dense water would normally sink to the sea bed and then travel to warmer equatorial regions. Concurrently,the warmer less densely saline water in warmer parts of the world would travel along the sea surface to the poles,where its salinity would increase and the water would consequently sink. However as the salinity of polar water decreases ,this ocean process slows down. This cycle is vital, however as it has an oxygenating effect on the water and also carries nutrient  from deeper water to the surface. Therefore any slowing down of the cycle may have dramatic consequences of sea life .



A second alarming discovery is that the sea itself has traditionally played a role in reducing global warming. Oceans hold within them a certain amount of carbon dioxide . As the temperature of the sea  rises ,so its capacity to hold carbon dioxide ,falls , thus the problem of global warming is further exacerbated . However ,there is a piece of good news to counter this,melting ice caps and lower saline levels enable the sea to hold more carbon dioxide ,so the problem could be offset to some extent.