On Flowing Like a River

"In rivers, the water that you touch is the last of what has passed and the first of that which comes; so with present time." --Leonardo da Vinci

Water is also a very personal experience, prompting a response by our capacity to see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Water becomes not only an integral part of our past, but also a means to focus on the present.  For me, this dual focus is akin to how the whiff of a spring flower can elicit the memory of an old lover's perfume. The sudden pain from an old piece of shrapnel can evoke the memory of a battle fought long ago as well as an awareness of how lucky you are to be alive right now.

My favorite memory of water still centers around the numbingly cold and delicious artesian water which sprang from a tall hill, arriving at our big farm house, assisted only by gravity. Some folks have always treasured memories of the sense of peace they found while fishing on a big lake or listening to a softly babbling brook. My boyhood buddies still laugh every time the story is told about running stark naked straight through a bunch of Girl Scouts lazing by the river, and then escaped by an en masse cannon-ball dive into our favorite swimming hole.  

Of course, these experiences depend on ready access to water. However, as my April 30th blog ("A Very Thirsty Planet") notes, for about 750 million people, there memories are defined by an acute lack of water; too often, they live desperate lives in the face of drought. 

I have also reported on our collective stupidity in the use of bottled water as well as the massive, unsustainable use of water to provide our insatiable demand for "fancy" food (it takes a gallon of water to grow one almond). But there is some good news also. Consider the growing attention the entire world has began paying about the subject of water shortages. March 22, 2017 was the 24 year anniversary of "World Day for Water".  The day was devoted as a kick off click here to focus on new plans for water resources within all of the 193 members of the United Nations. This year over two dozen celebrities (including Ziggy Marley, Sting, Pitbull, Pink, Bruno Mars, and Shania Twain) showed up to entertain with the support of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Google. It was described as "the largest US clean drinking water social media campaign in history."  Hundreds of experts of all things water will once again reveal new plans to address water shortages while numerous international NGOs will seek millions of dollars in funding. Water is a subject no longer ignored. The USA has been forced to recognize the impact of  four years of drought in the West and Great Plains regions. The rain has returned and conditions have eased for now, but legislation of broad legal and ethical standards have been passed in several states as a renewed effort to conserve and create new sources of water. Further good news: There is a growing, world wide consensus that the time has come for mankind to tackle climate change because our home is beginning to cook a bit more every day.

Here are a few of the new technologies available to confront our thirst:  Consider the Water is Life Foundation.  This is a largely volunteer group who have supported the creation of  a "Drinkable Book" that has pages you can tear out and use to turn raw sewage into drinking water. They also created what is known as "The Straw" which is a widely used, filtered straw warn around the necks of children (they are more vulnerable to sickness).  Stick it in virtually any source of water and suck it in; any impurities are instantly removed.  It lasts for a year at the rate of 12 cups of water a day. 
These "water warriors" have also perfected two simple filtration methods to clean dirty water; both cost about $40 and are available on ebay and Amazon.  One type, the Ceramic Filter, uses two buckets and a three stage filtration system: (1) submicron filtration (using a ceramic cup with activated carbon) (2) sterilization (water passes through colloidal silver) and (3) granular activated carbon (absorbs chlorine, foul taste and odors, and organic chemicals).  It is good for an amazing 5,000 gallons of water and lasts about 5 years. A second type, the Nano Bucket Filter, is a one bucket system which employs a hollow fiber membrane to trap pathogens. With proper flushing, it can last 10 years.

My next blog will discuss more elaborate water systems (hydrology, aquaculture, solar and desalination) but for now, let us take a moment and  Check this link to see how much water you use daily.  I am a scruffy old bachelor and it took me 5 minutes to discover that I use a lot--97 gallons a day. How about you?  Do you want to cut your water usage dramatically and save money?  Here are 25 cheap and simple ways to do it.   My final report on water will be available March 28th.   I will close with a lovely quote by Loren Eiseley (Noted anthropologst, science writer, ecologist and poet):  "If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water."  

    

A Very Thirsty Planet

"No water, no life.  No blue, no green."--Sylvia Earle

Of course, Dr. Earle (a prodigious author about all things wet) is not making a novel revelation here; we all need water to survive. But for centuries, mankind has largely taken water for granted, assuming nature would always provide an inexhaustible supply.  We were wrong; massive water shortages are growing every single day. This blog will outline how much water we have, how it's used, and how much we waste.  I will post new blogs focusing on current and future strategies to confront the single most defining question of our time: Can we provide enough food and water for a current world population of 7.4 billion, which, according to the UN, will increase to some 11 billion by 2050?

Some current statistics:   According to the UN's 2014-2015 World Water Development Report (1) Estimates vary, but at least 768 million people still have no access to fresh water. (2) 20 % of the world's aquifers are facing over-exploitation. (3) By 2050, 3 billion people will move out of poverty, and besides water, will also want more of everything (houses, cars, a full belly, etc.). The Journal of Environmental Health has a simple way to describe how much H20 exists: "If you take all the water in the world and put it in a five-gallon bucket, the amount of fresh water would be about two tablespoons. Even then, only about 1% of our fresh water is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and ice fields."  And this shortage of water is exacerbated by a new threat--world wide climate change, which is already negatively affecting the amount and quality of all water sources.

The Earth Island Journal reported last June  about the disappearance of lakes world wide, including:  Bolivia's Lake Poopo (56 miles long and 20 miles wide), Turkey's (135 square miles) Lake Aksehir and Iran's Lake Urmia (2,000 square miles).  Further,  the report noted that a fifth of the ponds in Northern Alaska (there are millions) have disappeared completely while Mongolia has lost 25 % of its lakes since the 1980's. The loss of Russia's Lake Aral was famously chronicled in print and film starting in the 1960's, when Russia began a vast but monumentally stupid effort to divert two rivers which fed the lake, so they could grow cotton in the desert. What was once the 4th largest inland sea in the world (26,000 square miles) is now a poisonous desert.

Historically, water was primarily used for slaking our thirst and growing food.  Water usage mushroomed as a critical component of three revolutions. The First Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century began with the creation of steam energy. A Second Industrial Revolution would occur in the late 19th century and involve the development of steel industry and giant corporations. Now, a Third Industrial Revolution is evolving after the advent of personal computers, creating game changing technologies like  3D printing, robots and countless web-based applications. 

Since the demand for water continues to rise, we must learn how to husband this resource wisely.  How are we doing? I will start with an analysis of California agriculture, the largest source of food production in America, focusing on just how much irrigated water it takes to grow the following specific crops (US Dept. of Agriculture numbers):
One head of broccoli-- 5.4 gallons  one walnut--4.9 gallons a head of lettuce--3.5 gallons  a tomato--3.3 gallons  one almond--1.1 gallons  one pistachio--0.75 gallon  a strawberry--0.4 gallon  one grape--0.3 gallon.

The Smithsonian   has provided an interactive graph which shows how much water is needed to fill your dinner plate. For example, 8 ounces of beef (621 gallons), 6 ounces of pasta (99.6 gallons) and 8 ounces of asparagus (162.6 gallons) for a stunning total of 850.2 gallons. (The food calculations are derived from all US sources, not just California.)  Perhaps it is way past time humans begin to contemplate reducing our intake of animal proteins because continuous meat production will cause an unsustainable use of precious water.
  
California's water use is unique because, unlike other states, 80% of their water is dedicated to agriculture, the rest is for the 20 million, largely urban, residents.  This ratio has created a long history of fights over water rights, but the recent five year drought put such a severe strain on their water, the state was forced to enact emergency legislation to 
conserve water, which includes bans on watering lawns after 48 hours of rain, washing cars without a shut-off nozzle on the hose and cities watering grass on road mediums with potable water. They also have a program of rebates for people who remove grass and install desert landscaping. I certainly applaud these efforts, but I also believe it is time to revisit places like Oregon's famously fertile Willamette Valley, and the Mississippi Delta.  The old Cotton Belt is fading because there is a world wide glut of the white stuff. Why not transition some of that acreage into the rapidly growing domestic market for fruit and vegetables? 

I also feel it is long past due that America dramatically reduce providing egregiously expensive farm subsidies ($20 billion per year, according to the USDA) most of which goes to big, rich farmers, producing staple commodities like corn and soy beans by using vast amounts of water and chemicals. (Sadly, according to the Government Accountability Office, between 2007 and 2012 Uncle Sam paid some $3 million in subsidies to 2,300 farms where no crop of any sort was grown. Another $10.6 million was paid to farmers who had been dead for over a year.)  By reducing fat-cat subsidies, there would be, in my opinion, a growth in small farms.  They would not provide all the food we need, at least initially, but it would be a damned good start.  

On Seeking Scrupulous Sources About Suspicious Supplements

"The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not." -- Mark Twain

Editor's note;  My last blog also centered around supplements, and would be very useful reading.
It is unfortunate that the old master of humor and  honest journalism is not around to cast a knowing eye on the current dietary supplements that purport to fix any and all ailments of mankind. Instead, I will offer a list of websites that are dedicated to an honest evaluation of supplements and their effects as well as the supplements with ingredients considered dangerous enough to removed from the market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  For me, the old principle of Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) also applies to purchasing supplements.
Dietary supplements to avoid.  Consumer Reports has repeatedly listed these 11 to avoid:  Aconite (dangers--toxicity, nausea, vomiting, respiratory paralysis, heart rhythm disorders, death)  Bitter Orange (fainting, heart attack, stroke, death) Chaparral (liver damage, kidney problems) Colloidal Silver (bluish skin, neurological problems, kidney damage) Coltsfoot (liver damage, cancer) Comfrey (liver damage, cancer) Country Mallow (heart attack, heart arrhythmia, stroke, death) Germanium (kidney damage, death)  Greater ( liver damage) Kava (liver damage) Lobelia (toxicity, overdose can cause fast heartbeat, very low blood pressure, coma, possibly death) Yohimbe (high blood pressure, rapid heart rates; high doses: severe low blood pressure, heart problems, death).  This list is not complete; check the websites listed for more.  Surprise! Supplements for weight loss and sexual enhancement are pulled from the market in large numbers.
Websites for supplements, drugs and general medical--labeled as s, d, and g.
National Institutes of Health  nih.gov  sdg  Mayo Clinic   mayohealth.org sdg Drugs.com drugs.com d RxList rxlist.com ds
Food and Drug Administration fda.gov sdg  Consumer Reports consumerreports.org  sg  Medicine Net  medicinenet.com g U.S. Department of Health and Human Services hhs.gov  sdg WebMd  webmd.com sdg  Federal trade commission (FTC) ftc.gov sdg.  
I also highly recommend a blog site called Confessions of a Quackbuster for a list of the most unreliable health websites, click here 

It is also important to recognize the impact of the power of faiths, beliefs and placebos. Miracles can and do happen.  They are not to be dismissed simply because neither science or logic can tolerate the impossible.  And it is my firm belief that animals and humans have evolved with a capacity to employ mind over matter.  

The power of the mind is the subject of new, ground breaking research in the April 2017 issue of National Geographic Magazine. GO!


                                       Amur Leopard --Critically Endangered

Supplements: Sources of Salvation or Inspiration for Suckers?

"Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food."  --Hippocrates

The sage advice of "the father of medicine" for centuries, has evolved into the  adage  "You are what you eat."  By now, we all know if your diet includes four bowls of  ice cream, two Porterhouse steaks and a six pack every day, you are likely to suffer from obesity, alcoholism and an occasional heart attack.  We also know damn well that we should mind our mothers who urge us to "eat your vegetables".  Mankind has learned from centuries of consuming food what works to sustain us and scientific analysis has long served to enhance this "common" knowledge with a vast universe of precise information about what is in our food and how it affects our health.

Our newest merger of food and health interests has created a new dietary love affair-- supplements.  Dietary supplements (minerals, botanicals, herbs. minerals, amino acids, concentrates and extracts) have evolved into a new and controversial way to enhance nutritional value.  I seek to shed some light on the size of the industry and how to determine if the supplements lining the shelves of your local pharmacy, grocery store, convenience store or website warehouse are safe to consume.   (The industry is vast and complicated, so I will publish another blog next week to address the efficacy of various products by providing governmental and private websites which are well respected for providing objective information about supplements as well as answering questions about healthy lifestyles, many diseases and how our amazing human bodies function.)

Size:   This industry is tricky to size because there are oodles of privately held companies, endless supply chains, and fuzzy product descriptions.  Detailed reports can cost thousands, so I relied on official US governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and The National Institute of Health as well as respected journals like Nature or magazines such as Consumer Reports.   The last reliable numbers show that in 2006 over half of adults used supplements (usage in 1988-1994 hovered around 24 per cent.)  In 2000, $17.2 billion in profits was reported; in 2017--$36.1 billion.  The boomer generation grew up when the industry was virtually nonexistent.  Many of them had chuckled when people began taking pills for nutrition or weight loss.  They thought it was just a craze; now at least half of adults 65 and older take daily vitamins and supplements. 

Safety:  People should note that the Food Drug Administration does not regulate supplements the same way as prescription medications involving years of tightly controlled clinical trials.  The FDA's role is primarily to investigate supplements which reveal a potential for harm to users and to enforce the FDA's Good Manufacturing Practices which technically ensures production standards and licensing.  Sounds good, but in reality, Consumer Reports reported in 2015 there were 15,000 supplement manufacturers in the US in 2015 and since 2010 the agency has inspected less than 400 of those companies per fiscal year.  To remove a supplement from the market, the FDA must show that it poses a danger to consumers once it is already for sale.  depending on reports from doctors, consumers and supplement manufacturers  to report any issues.  But even doctors might not connect the dots between an illness and the use of a supplement by a patient and call the FDA.  The Government Accountability Office found that 5,000 more supplement related calls were going to poison control offices than to the FDA in 2015.  The Sept. 2016 Consumer Reports magazine reported 23,000 people per year are treated at the ER after taking a supplement and over 1,000 supplements have been found to contain prescription or experimental drugs.

The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was created by the FDA. It requires supplement  manufacturers to notify the FDA at least 75 days before bringing a new dietary ingredient to market and to provide evidence the new ingredient can reasonably be expected to be safe.  So, how is the DSHEA program doing?  The same 2016 Consumer Reports article paints a rather bleak picture:  90,000 dietary supplements are on the market and over 5,000 are being introduced every year; the agency has been notified of less than 1,000 new ingredient notifications in the past 20 years.  In 2011, a draft of new rules was issued for DSHEA but was shelved after a long and angry debate by stakeholders.   A 2016 draft of rules is still under review by the FDA's new Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) which is charged with oversight of new ingredients into the market. 

Consumer Reports has also noted that 43 per cent of those who regularly take at least one supplement were advised to do so by a doctor.  Little research has centered around interviewing doctors as to why they recommend supplements, but one rationale offered for the recommendations is that doctors realize that if  people are going to take supplements anyway,  many physicians would rather provide a supplement that does not create a health risk when consumed with drugs that they have prescribed for a patient.  That rationale becomes questionable when doctors actually sell supplements. The American Medical Association (AMA) has strongly disapproved the sale of products related to health from a doctor's office, saying "The profit motive can impair clinical judgement and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own." According to a 2014 Gallup Survey of 200 physicians, a staggering 94 percent now recommend vitamins or minerals  to some of their patients; 45 percent have recommended  herbal supplements also.  And 7 percent are actually selling them in their offices.

Some supplement labels carry emblems with lofty, feel-good words such as "verified," "certified," or "approved."  These labels are granted by organizations (NSF International, US Pharmacopoeia, etc.) insuring that the product contains the amount of the ingredient advertised on the label, but they do NOT, repeat NOT, guarantee a product has any therapeutic value whatsoever.  Virtually all manufacturers point to studies which show the positive "scientific"results  of their products.  These studies are conducted with absolutely no-zip-nil governmental oversight.  They are often directly or indirectly funded by a supplement manufacturer using measurements of a large number of things about a small number of people which virtually guarantees a "statistically significant" result. Critics note that ingredients which were submitted for approval as a new dietary ingredient (NDI) by one company but rejected by the FDA, can show up in products sold by other companies.

No discussion about false science claims, in my opinion, would be complete without reading an  article by Cliff Weathers in Alternet e-magazine on July 17, 2014 entitled "4 of the Biggest quacks Plaguing America with False Claims About Science."  Dr. Joseph Marcola is an osteopath who operates an internet site that promotes and sells dietary supplements.  A sampling of his articles includes "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Rock Salt", "Learn How Homeopathy Cured A Boy of Autism", and (referring to Vitamin D) "The Silver Bullet for Cancer?"  He sells everything from Organic Sea Buckthorn Anti-Aging Serum to "worry-free" organic cotton tampons.  He has been slapped by the FDA with numerous warning letters for his claims and the Better Business Bureau has given Mercola.com an F rating.  "The Health Ranger," Mike Adams,  has no medical credentials at all but (until recently being delisted by Google) had a Natural News website which Dr. David Gorski of the Science Based Medicine Website calls "a one-stop shop, a repository if you will, of virtually every quackery known to humankind..."  Up next is "The Food Babe", Vani Hari, who has a background devoid of credentials other than a stint as a management consultant.  Some of her most highly implausible ideas on food are: Microwaves kill food and remove nutrients and alter the properties of water.  Water also changes its physical properties when the words Satan and Hitler are spoken nearby.   Gorski says "Her strategy is very transparent...name a bunch of chemicals and count on the chemical illiteracy of your audience to result in fear at hearing their very names." Dr. Oz needs no introduction here, because millions tune in to his TV show.  But he is not a quack per se.  He is a professor at the Dept. of Surgery at Columbia University who has authored 400 medical research reports and as well as directing the Cardiovascular Institute at New York's Presbyterian Hospital.  Weathers noted "Dr. Oz has been exposed as a daytime-television snake oil peddler, while being shamed during testimony before a U. S. Senate subcommittee on Consumer Protection."  Oz admitted to the committee "While there is no such thing as a "miracle" supplement and many he promotes wouldn't pass scientific muster, my job is to be a cheerleader for the audience.  When they don't think they have hope, I want to look and I do look everywhere, including alternative healing traditions, for any evidence that might be supportive to them." Chairwoman Claire McCaskill said that Oz was "giving people false hope."  For me, he is merely a quack with credentials and a mountain of money.

Editor's note.  My apologies for my long absence, but I spent months in 3 hospitals recovering from a severe case of Pneumonia and a  virulent MRSA infection.  I was in a coma for 12 days, but I am in dandy shape now. 
                                                                                                                              Red Panda
                                                                                                                          Endangered Species

When I look into the future, it's so bright it hurts my eyes -- Oprah Winfrey

Pain. Sweat. Boredom. That’s what I remember most about working in the Northwest a lifetime ago. In the 60’s I pulled lumber, veneer and railroad ties off a fast moving “green chain” in many mills. Each shift was always a dull repetition as the last and typically left me with an aching back and sweaty brow.  But the money was pretty good, especially in union shops.  Nor did one have to worry about education requirements as a high school diploma wasn’t required.  Loggers made more money, but the occupation was routinely rated as one of the most dangerous in the country. In hundreds of towns like Morton, Packwood and Roseburg, timber was king. Lumber was in demand for a rapidly growing America and the accompanying rural lifestyle appealed to many families.

Many urban areas had similar, well paying, blue collar jobs for men and women who toiled to manufacture goods like cars, textiles, steel and electronics for the whole world. So, as the saying went, “there’s a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage”.

No more. Since those halcyon days, mill towns gradually lost access to forests because of species and waterway protections as well as over cutting. Globalization caused thousands of   manufacturers to close their doors.  What remains is The Rust Belt (a region of the upper Northeastern US, the Great lakes, and the Midwest states).  The US Bureau of Labor has reported that “since 1970, manufacturing jobs as a percentage of total employment have declined from a quarter of payrolls to less than 10 per cent.” 

Further, wages for the middle class have remained flat for 30 years. So it should be no surprise that, millions of Americans are mad as hell. 2016 Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are trying to harness that anger.  Trump points to the loss of US jobs to immigrants and “really bad” trade agreements.  Sanders reserves his anger for Wall Street, the “Billionaire Class” and student loan debt. And just about everyone rates the dysfunctional members of congress as lower than, um, cockroaches.

There is some merit to all those opinions, but instead of seeking a nostalgic return to old jobs that were lost or trying to redistribute the treasure accumulated by those greedy billionaires, perhaps it is time to consider just what kind of jobs will exist in the future.

This writer thinks that the types of jobs in the future will be determined not by political will alone. Jobs will be radically different as will the way we live our lives. The source of these changes has been labeled with names like E Commerce, The Digital Age and The Gig Economy. The names all point to an age in which technology will transform the world as much as The Industrial Revolution did in the 20^th century.  In my humble opinion, those angry voters looking for a rebound in manufacturing jobs are set to be keenly disappointed because those jobs will not be replaced in the US and probably not overseas either. Instead, manufacturing will rely on multiple locations where the technology and talented people exist.  Products will be produced with contributions from many points on the globe.

White collar jobs are affected also.  Already robotics and new digital technology have taken over jobs like on-line marketers, Anesthesiologists, Diagnosticians and Surgeons according to a year-old report by Fortune magazine.  Financial consultants are being replaced by ever more powerful algorithms which allows computers to buy and sell stocks and commodities almost instantly.

Two years ago, research by the University of Oxford estimated that 47% of total US jobs could be automated and taken over by computer by 2033. According to Boston Consulting, “By 2025 the share of tasks performed by robots will rise from a global average of around 10 per cent to about 25 percent across all manufacturing industries.” 

Manufacturing technology is also being almost magically transformed by 3D printing. 3D has evolved from making small items (mostly plastic) layer by layer within the confines of an enclosed box to newer external systems, allowing construction of buildings and homes. In fact, my son in law, an Amsterdam based graphics designer, recently told me that efforts are to begin soon in The Netherlands to build a bridge of steel using the new 3D system. On a smaller scale, but equally impressive was a video posted on You Tube revealing that on January 1, 2016 a 3D printer enabled the successful transplant of a new kidney for a toddler.

The rapid emergence of a new, on-demand economy matches freelance workers to needed services such as drivers (Uber), cleaning supplies (Handy) and food (Instacart).  Axiom will provide a lawyer. Click on Medicast’s site and a doctor will be at your door “within 2 hours”.  Elance-oDesk brags that they have “9.3m workers for hire with 3.7m companies.”

The online sharing economy is also emerging rapidly.  The earliest example of this, carpooling, was (and is) a way to share the cost of travel and use an auto which sits usually sits idle most of the time. This peer to peer, excess capacity model goods is being applied to houses, apartments, clothing, computers, tools and toys, to mention a few. It’s a new way of doing business by using the new technologies like GPS, cloud data storage and social media. Price Waterhouse Coopers, an accounting firm, has reported that “the peer to peer story is one of stellar growth…reaching about 15 billion in 2014 and on track to reach $335 billion by 2025.” In my opinion, corporations will soon join in. The excess capacity would probably work well with car rental agencies and with hotels who could save money by allowing  individual franchises to own the property.  

.

This world of E Commerce will transform the way we work.  Industries like travel, tourism, transportation and equipment for hire will have to evolve to survive.  Individual jobs such as seamstresses, translators, sports writers, medical transcriptionists and (gasp!) journalists are already being replaced.

Of course, many workers are already familiar with working outside of the traditional 40-hour work week in a corporate cubicle.  A growing number of folks are engaged in work anytime and anyplace in the world. This always available concept provides more flexibility but whether this is a good idea or not depends on who you talk to. No doubt many enjoy this new found freedom. However, many friends engaged in these positions tell me they are probably often working more than 40 hours a week, apparently because time considerations are often secondary to the successful completion of tasks in determining compensation.

More than likely, jobs in the future will be less secure and less stable than they were. Clearly, the labor environment of the late 20^th century is dying. People will often have to stitch together many unrelated jobs.  That is a scary concept for some, especially folks in their 50’s who must once again retrain themselves for a changing world. Younger folks, who learned to play on a computer as a toddler, will probably find it easier to embrace jobless working. I believe that they will also create lives that still reflect our long held values.  Americans have always risen to a challenge with equal amounts of grit and laughter. We will do so again.

Corporate Wet Dreams

I have a long list of things I hate. I won’t list them all because I hate long lists. Warm beer, crappy Chinese imports, head banging music, TV commercials that never die and one ply toilet paper are all things that suck to me. But my chief source of ire has to be bottled water. I know that bottled water is all the rage right now; It’s likely that many folks have a bottle within reach  right now, even if it costs roughly $7.50 per gallon, according to a Business Insider column.  Rock stars, famous actors, politicians and, sadly, even some environmentalists are seen swilling the stuff.  In fact, according to the IBWA (International Bottled Water Association) Americans consumed 10 billion gallons or 32 gallons per person in 2013.  Sometime this year, bottled water will exceed sales of soda drinks (Coke, 7 Up, etc.).  Given the long association of soft drinks with diabetes, obesity and bad teeth, this is a welcome development. No one would argue that water isn’t better than “pop”.

Yes, water is life, but why are we so willing to forego tap water for the bottled kind with idyllic sounding brands like Fiji, Arrowhead, Eden Springs or Dasani, or any of the 173 worldwide brands?

The Natural Resources Defense Council visit site issued a 4-year independent review of water sources and determined the following: (1) “25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle—sometimes treated, sometimes not.”  (Let me note that most states do not require brands to list the source of their water.) (2) “About 22 percent of the brands tested contained, in at least one sample, chemical contaminants at levels above strict state health limits.” 

Let us not forget the bottles: About 3 years ago, I remember a TV infomercial which showed that a stream of water bottles placed end to end would stretch to the moon in 14 days. Further, according to numerous waste management companies we recycle 23 percent of all plastics, including water bottles, each year.  Currently,14 national parks and two cities (San Francisco and Concord) have banned the sale of single use plastic bottles.  What are the energy costs of bottled water? The Pacific Institute link here has reported that bottle production for US consumption required “…more than 17 million barrels of oil EXCLUDING TRANSPORT COSTS” (my emphasis). They also noted that it takes 3 liters of water to make 1 liter of bottled water.

I have found that it is instructive to focus on one brand (Fiji) and one manufacturer (Nestle).

Fiji is the number one selling brand in the US. It is far more expensive than most store brands (largely because it has to be shipped the equivalent of over 5000 miles) but the cost has not deterred sales. Why?  Because Fiji is considered way cool. Fiji has spent millions promoting Fiji spring water as having “life-changing” qualities. And nobody burnishes their green credibility and charity work like Fiji.  They have managed to hydrate climate change meetings, anti-capitalism confabs and the 2008 Democratic Convention.  Obama sips it.  Ditto for Ditty, Paris and Nicole Kidman. Allegedly, the elite Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan fills their dog bowls with Fiji.

The source of Fiji Water is an artesian well in the Yaquina Valley of Vita Levu.  Fiji bottled water was started in 1996 and has been surrounded by controversy ever since.  In 2006, Fiji water posted an ad that said “The label says Fiji because it’s not bottled in Cleveland.”  Cleveland was insulted.  They ran numerous tests and found “Fiji Water contained 6.31 micrograms of arsenic per liter and Cleveland contained none. In 2010 The University of Vermont link here reported that Fiji Water had “high levels of bacteria well above standard plate count (SPC).”

Fiji’s artesian water is not available to locals. The Vermont report also noted “Water supply for locals is unreliable and outbreaks of typhoid and parasitic infections have occurred.”  Arguably, water infrastructure has probably improved since then but in January 2015 The Fiji Health ministry reported 2 dozen typhoid cases in Bus and 17 cases of Dengue Fever in Macuata.

Now let us examine Nestle, who is not only the largest producer of food products worldwide but is also the global leader of bottled waters with 70 brands shipped to the US and Europe (think Perrier, San Pellegrino and Nestle Pure Life).  A good place to start is by viewing the award winning 2013 film documentary entitled “Bottled Life” which was produced by Swiss Journalist Res Gehringer.  He travelled to Pakistan, the initial test market for Nestle Pure Life (now a best seller) which is made from purified groundwater.  He was denied entry into the company plant, but outside the plant the film reveals that nearby groundwater levels had fallen dramatically and the local fountain water appeared to be stinky sludge.  The film notes that in Lagos, Nigeria, slum dwellers spend half of their income on water canisters while the upper class buys Pure Life.

In America, Nestle’s efforts are centered in small rural towns like Fryeburg, Newfield, Shapleigh, McCloud and recently, in Hood River, Oregon. According to a watchdog group called Stop Nestle Waters,link here Nestle employs an army of lawyers and lobbyists to battle local resistance with lawsuits and by funding campaigns of pro-Nestle election candidates.  They have been kicked out of Enumclaw WA and Kennebunk MA.  However, brands like Aquafina, Dasani and Arrowhead are doing just fine, despite the fact their water comes from drought zones in California.

If the growth in bottled water doesn’t frost you, consider the following:  Since 1990 there has been a worldwide effort to privatize water.  Water rights would be transferred to major corporations. Water would cease to be a free and basic human right; it would be secondary to profit.  The idea (backed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) is that water in private hands improves effiency and service. However, a 2014 report by the Transnational Institute revealed that “180 cities in 35 countries have regained control of their water to municipalities in the last 15 years.”  The change was prompted by citizen protests on a massive scale.  Stay tuned and chuck your Fiji bottle.

Que Sera Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) ---Doris Day

On New Year’s Eve, I thought of my mother who loved to sing that old 1950’s ditty about “the future’s not ours to see.”   Now, some 60 years later, the future really is ours to see.  Following the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions we are now in the midst of an Informational or “E” Revolution. It is the most kinetic and dramatic rate of sustained technical progress ever known. Computers enable us to create new ways to live, work and dream.  Yeah, the future can still be a crap shoot, given the nasty problems we are all too familiar with (climate change, seemingly endless wars, a fading middle class, corrupt politicians, etc.).  But for now, let us take some time to consider some of the wonderful changes occurring soon, to wit: 

Drinkable water has been difficult to get for much of the world for centuries.  Now we have something called The Drinkable Book.  It’s a manual that provides safe water. The book educates the user and provides filters (wood pulp pages) which eliminate bacteria and waterborne diseases from drinking water with the use of low levels of silver nano-particles.  One filter page can clean up to 26 gallons of clean, drinkable water and each book (it looks to be about 8 inches thick with overall dimensions of 8 by 11 inches) can provide a user with up to four years of clean water! The silver particles cost pennies.  Global distribution is set for mid-2016.  Contact info@waterislife.com for more.

Move over Wi-Fi.  Li-Fi is here.  According to a recent article by Pavlos Manousiadis et al from Scotland’s University of St. Andrews appearing in ScienceAlert “…your future Internet could come through your lightbulb.”  Li-Fi is visible light communications (VLC) which rapidly modulates the intensity of a light to encode data as binary zeroes and ones.  It is a form of wireless technology that transmits much faster than Wi-Fi.  How fast?  According to the article, in 2014 scientists in a number of industrial locations in Tallinn, Estonia were able to transmit data at 1 GB per second-- about 100 times faster than current average Wi-Fi speeds.  Yes—100 times faster.

According to ScienceAlert, “Li-Fi was invented by Harald Hass at the University of Edinburgh in 2010.  He demonstrated that by flickering the light from a single LED, he could transmit more data than a cellular tower.”   He also noted that because light can’t pass through walls, Li-Fi is much more secure than Wi-Fi and “also means there’s less interference between devices.”  Further, it can use existing power lines as LED lighting so no new infrastructure is needed.

Numerous wireless tech sources have pointed out that in approximately 5 years, due to the mind-boggling growth of mobile devices as well as the oft-ballyhooed The Internet of Things (computerized fridges, stoves, beds, toilets, etc.), Wi-Fi will be overwhelmed. Radio and microwave frequencies simply cannot provide the additional space required for exponential growth.  In addition, Wi-Fi also struggles with electromagnetic interference.  All those wandering souls trying to find their city connection will easily find another wireless source--LiFi.

      

This writer cannot predict how soon Li-Fi will be widely available but several companies (including PureLiFi in Scotland and Oledcomm from France) are already offering VLC products. Of course Wi-Fi infrastructure is huge. Removing it will not  happen rapidly.  However, based on an admittedly early and cursory glance at the data, it is this writer’s bet that it will be largely available by 2025 or less.

Haas said it best: “In the future we will not only have 14 billion light bulbs, we may have 14 billion Li-Fi's deployed for a cleaner, greater and even brighter future.”

Arguably, the most important meeting of humans ever convened will begin on February 11-12, 2016 in Washington D.C.   It will be an international summit sponsored by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to determine “…the potential use of human gene-editing technologies, their use in bio-medical research and medicine-including human germ line editing – and the clinical, ethical, legal and social implications of their use.”   Research on the nature of all life has seen exponential growth since the cloning of the first sheep (Dolly) and the successful mapping of DNA some 30 years ago.  Some call this new era The Age of the Red Pen—a reference to the ability to remove or introduce individual genes.  It is now easy to edit the genomes of plants, animals and humans.

Nature magazine reported in December about the first non-genetically modified (non-GM) crop of oil-seed rape that is herbicide resistant; no gene was taken from a different kind of organism or plant. This is an example of mutagenesis (using some of the plant’s own genes) and may be a means to escape the long and expensive efforts to meet current GM regulations.  Mutagenesis is also much more precise in gene selection than earlier modification efforts.  By 2050, the UN predicts that we will have a net increase of 2 billion people to feed and a new breed of plant editing may well be crucial.  So will increasing the availability of animal protein.  Pig farmers are awaiting the potential eradication of African swine fever by using the selective immunity provided by the genes of warthogs (same family).

According to Wikipedia, the advent of CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspersed-short palindromic repeats) in 2012 allowed researchers to quickly change the DNA of nearly any organism, including humans.  Research with mice, rats and monkeys have shown some success correcting cataract mutations, and correcting a defect with cystic fibrosis.  Money is flowing. click here The MIT Technological Review noted that in November a company named Editas raised $43 million in venture capital to use CRISPR technologies against a broad range of diseases.  Wonderful.  But there is a raging worldwide argument about editing the human germ line. It is one thing to prevent diseases from being passed on, but do we really want to have the ability to choose those genes that will insure the arrival of designer babies? Or alter the genomes of healthy embryos?   ARE WE GOING TO PLAY AT BEING GOD?