Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
Where is the mention of recycled water?
[Read the article: How to solve America's water problems]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As someone who grew up in CT, and for the past 5 years has lived in Melbourne, Australia I've seen two vastly different attitudes to water.
CT is by no means on the great lakes, but water is not a problem there. When my parents talked about a 'drought' they basically meant that their lawns were looking a bit brown because it hadn't rained in a few days.
Melbourne is in the throes of a decades-long drought (begging the question of when does a drought stop being a drought and start just being considered the normal climate?) Meanwhile the population here has been growing at a record pace (no thanks to immigrants like myself!)
What baffles me is that with a drought that has lasted over 10 years, the local government has done virtually nothing to seriously fix the problem. Water restrictions are a good SHORT TERM solution, but do nothing to solve the long-term issue of a growing population and dwindling supply.
Instead of looking for new ways to pump water from far-off places (destroying ecosystems and costing millions to build pipelines in the process), why don't cities start recycling their water? This is almost certainly both the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution. And yes, by recycled water, I mean treated effluent. (like, OMG, drinking pee!)
Effluent that has been treated to a high standard is often cleaner than water that has been pumped out of 'natural' resivors. It must meet incredibly high standards to be considered drinkable. Altering existing sewage treatment plants to make them able to fully recycle water back into the drinking water supply makes the most sense (or at least a lot more sense than pumping water from Lake Michigan). Cities should make the water restrictions permanent, and start building water recycling plants. Anyone who has a problem with drinking highly treated effluent can move back to upstate New York, or build a bridge and get over it.
Its just a shame for everyone from the fishes to the 4 million inhabitants of Atlanta that local governments are too scared to introduce drinking recycled water because of perceived public backlash.
-
nothing to replace face to face consultations
[Read the article: Is there a doctor in the mouse?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I totally agree with this article in that doctors need to be online. I can see how, as a doctor, it would be frustrating to have patients coming in who were all convinced they had some terminal disease based on their 'internet research', or who refuse life-savings vaccines because some forum told them to.
On the other hand, the internet can be useful in helping people recognise their own symptoms. It can also be incredibly helpful in keeping patients up-to-date on potential treatments and ongoing studies.
Many poor doctors do not keep their own knowledge up-to-date on treatment options (even though this information is now more readily available than ever), or they let pharma sales reps do all their thinking and 'research' for them. The internet can and has exposed these undesireable elements. How many doctors know inside and out about all the drugs they perscribe?
My mother is a type 2 diabetic, and recently discovered some newly reported side-effects of her meds. Her doctor didn't call her up and say 'hey you should probably switch to soemthing else'... she had to call him, after getting the information on her own, online.
And then theres alt medicine... when persrcibing birth control, how many doctors ask a woman if she is taking St. John's Wort? Many women use this herb as a way to prevent depression, but as it is non-perscription, most doctors wont even bother asking about it. It interferes with birth control, and the internet can give a patient that information.
Doctors need to get off their collective high-horse and realise the potential the internet has to help answer patient questions and go over drug information that they may not have time (or remember) to cover in the standard 15-minute appointment.