NationStates Jolt Archive

Categroy: Environmental Indrustry Affected: All

Due to a recent independent study of public drinking water by state accredited laboratories~ Trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs, herbacides and pesticides have been found.

Further investigation has found direct links to these chemicals and cancer, still born babies, kindy failure, diminitive reproduction organs found in both sexes, as well as a substantial list of other health ailments.

Where as the cost to public water purveyors to remove the chemicals wouls be greatly substantial and the cost would be passed on to their consumers.

This pending resolution would put 100% of the cost on the pharmaceutical and chemical Industries to fund the cleanup of our drinking water.

Please take a moment of your time here in Nation States to look at this pending resolution and vote on it. This resoulution will protect us and future generations.

source topic from: American Water Works Association @ AWWA.Org
search topic :pharmaceutics

also information avilable on this topic from the EPA

Our kindys are just fine and our organs are not diminitive.

Go home.

Due to a recent independent study of public drinking water by state accredited laboratories~ Trace amounts of pharmacutical drugs, herbacides and pesticides have been found.


Point 1: None of us know what you are referencing. If there was a study, mention it. If there were multiple studies, it would be wise to at the very least reply with a post citing them.

[OOC: While what you've stated is true, in the game you should either cite a specific study or make it clear that you are making a generalization ... even if it is valid, which in this case is true.]


Further investigation has found direct links to these chemicals and cancer, still born babies, kindy failure, diminitive reproduction organs found in both sexes, as well as a substantial list of other health ailments.


Again, I'd like to see your study.

[OOC: Actually the information here is a bit more speculative. Water quality is a problem. A big time one. But trust me when I say we are going to need amble documentation to prove this to people. Basically you can strengthen your position by researching the above facts, 'cause if you don't many UN members are going to dispute this.]


Where as the cost to public water purveyors to remove the chemicals wouls be greatly substantial and the cost would be passed on to their consumers.


You'll want to reword this. I'd use UN language, not the "where as" language.

Point 2: Who is to say that water users shouldn't pay the costs for their water supplies?

Consider this, if water is being transported from say a water rich mountainous region like my Confederation to a water poor region, maybe the people in the water poor region shouldn't have built a huge city in a desert? Part of their cost is in moving the water, that much we can all agree upon. But part of their cost should be in cleaning and protecting their water. Naturally one of the most important resources of any mountain region is its snowpack and runoff. This freshwater is the source of life. But at the same time, this spring runoff can be used for many industrial and agricultural processes. A country of origin policy may seem like tough cookies, but it is a fact of life, and my nation's right to the water in its mountains is as solid as that claim ownership is Nine Tenths of the law. In other words, mountain regions and agricultural regions shouldn't be penalized without compensation for using a renewable natural resource.


This pending resolution would put 100% of the cost on the pharmacutical and chemical Industry to fund the cleanup of our drinking water.


Point 3: What makes you think 100% of the treatment cost is associated with the above industries?

Did you know that the largest and most significant soucre of organic carbon (which is a precursor to trihalomethanes) is from natural vegitation? Wetlands produce TOC (Total Organic Carbon), and that TOC is bad for urban drinking water quality, but excellent for the health of the ecosystem. In any case, it is morally and economically unjustified to pass along the cost of treating DBPs (disinfection by-products) from water users to unrelated industries.

The second largest source of TOC would be agriculture, but guess what? Increasing ag mitigation costs will drive the costs of food up. Who pays? Simply consumers. Even in socialist states like my confederation, the consumers pay by having their tax rates increase to offset the costs.


Please take a moment of your time here in Nation States to look at this pending resolution and vote on it. This resoulution will protect us and future generations.

I think this body needs to address drinking water supplies, but just as I have an established track record of being an advocate for environmental protection (see the record on ballast water), my nation is perhaps one of the most vocal advocates for sustainable development.

Drinking water quality resolutions that fail to address some of the other water stakeholders are doomed to fail. Any environmental project that is started without addressing the economic impacts is doomed to fail.

Finally, I also am a huge believer in consensus building. Unlike nations that like to play BIG BROTHER and force their ideals on other nations simply because they can, I have been on record stating that the UN should only pull this Orwellian trick when there is international standing. With that in mind, any clean drinking water resolution should be international in scope and definition, because frankly put, each resolution that plays BIG BROTHER forces more nations to flee from the UN, which undermines the resolutions.

Why? Imagine if you passed a Freedom of Choice resolution (just a random example), but what if the nations that most need this resolution resigned from the UN? Who have you helped? Your ego? Certainly not the people in dictatorships!

Please stop the trend of thinking in the short-term. Think of the biggest picture and address:

- International Standing, &
- Economic Impacts

In resolutions. I have, and you can be sure that whem my nation speaks FOR a resolution that my people's long-term interests coincide with your people's long-term interests.

10kMichael