Environmental Pollution Concerns Come To Forefront Essays

Environmental Pollution Concerns Come To Forefront Essays Environmental pollution concerns come to forefront Reports that the state finds El Dorado Irrigation District's drinking water system primitive, outdated and an avenue for hazardous pollutants sent El Dorado County residents scrambling for more information Wednesday. The message that pregnant, elderly and sick residents should boil their water or buy it bottled was buried in fine print in the 28,000 notices mailed in September to EID customers. Dozens of residents called EID offices Wednesday after The Bee obtained a copy of a state report showing photographs of manure piles, animal carcasses, mats of algae and other contaminants in and near EID's open reservoirs. "That article made me a firm believer that I'm not crazy," said Sue Reimer, who was seven months pregnant in 1996 when she was diagnosed with giardia, a water-borne virus that causes intestinal problems. The El Dorado engineer said she was drinking only EID water and lots of it, at her doctor's suggestion. There's no confirmed connection between EID's water and illness in El Dorado County, county officials say. The problem at EID, state health officials say, is that after the district filters water drawn from the American River, it stores the water in small reservoirs open to the elements. Most other water districts use closed steel or concrete tanks. Only a few other California water districts currently store treated water in open reservoirs, including those in McCloud, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Carpinteria and Los Angeles. None of those has as many as the 11 used in EID. The El Dorado reservoir water consistently meets state health standards on bacteria, EID officials say, because the district constantly bubbles chlorine from nearby tanks into the reservoirs and sends the water on to homes. But they admit their open reservoirs expose the water to contamination by disease-causing agents for which there are no health standards or required testing in small water districts: giardia, viruses and cryptosporidium. "We are more vulnerable because they are not covered," said Marjie Lopez Read, EID water quality superintendent, "even though the treatment is complete at the water plants." William Hetland, EID general manager, said the district hasn't ignored the problem of covered reservoirs. Several years ago, he said, it began buying rubberized membrane covers for the reservoirs. Seven had already been installed when, in July, the California Department of Health Services ordered the district to either build steel tanks or put concrete lids on all of its reservoirs. The rubber covers, the state decided after a 1997 investigation, allow too much contamination of treated water by animals, vegetation and rain. "We've been addressing this problem," said Hetland. "Maybe not as fast as they'd like, but we have been addressing the problem." Until 1990, he said, the district didn't even filter its water. It simply pumped American River water to the reservoirs and treated it with chlorine. The state put EID on a four-year schedule to cover its reservoirs, a job that EID board member Raymond Larsen estimated would cost $30 million to $40 million and force the district, with an annual water supply budget of $10 million, to raise rates 50 percent. The state also ordered the district to advise customers that if they're elderly, pregnant, ill, HIV-positive, undergoing cancer therapy or otherwise suffering from a compromised immune system, they should either use bottled water or boil their water. A flier titled "EID News from the Water Front" was mailed to all customers and sent home with school children, Hetland said. But several residents said they either didn't notice it or didn't realize its significance. The warning about boiling water appeared on the third page. "I never saw this notice," said resident Reimer. "I always look." To back up its enforcement order, the Department of Health Services prepared a vividly photographed report that didn't circulate much beyond the EID board of directors. It shows bird droppings, dead frogs and birds, beer bottles, the footprints of human swimmers, runoff from horse and cattle pastures and animal skeletons in the reservoirs. "If an infected cow, while grazing, defecates into the drinking water stored in this reservoir," states the caption to one photo in the report, "the water becomes contaminated with literally millions of Cryptosporidium organisms." Water quality experts

Shylock From the Merchant of Venice Character Analysis

Shylock From the Merchant of Venice Character Analysis A  Shylock character analysis can tell us a lot about The Merchant of Venice. Shylock, the Jewish moneylender is the villain of the play and the audience response  depends on how he is portrayed in performance. An actor will hopefully be able to extract sympathy for Shylock from the audience, despite his vengeful bloodthirsty and greedy proclivities. Shylock  the Jew His position as a Jew is made much of in the play and in Shakespeare’s Britain some might argue, that this would have positioned him as a baddy, however, the Christian characters in the play are also open to criticism and as such Shakespeare is not necessarily judging him for his religious belief but demonstrating intolerance in both religions. Shylock refuses to eat with the Christians: Yes, to smell pork, to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazerite conjured the devil into! I will buy with you, sell with you, talk to you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. He also questions the Christians for their treatment of others: ...what these Christians are, Whose own hard dealings teaches them to suspect the thoughts of others! Could Shakespeare be commenting here on the way Christians converted the world to their religion or on the way that they treat other religions? Having said this, there are a lot of insults leveled at Shylock merely based on his being a Jew, many suggesting that he is akin to the devil: A modern audience may find these lines insulting. A modern audience would surely consider his religion to be of no consequence in terms of his status as a villain, he could be considered a reprehensible character who also happens to be a Jewish man. Must Jessica convert to Christianity in order to be accepted by Lorenzo and his friends? This is the implication. That the Christian characters are considered the goodies in this narrative and the Jewish character the baddy of the piece, suggests some judgment against being Jewish. However, Shylock is permitted to give as good as he gets against Christianity and is able to level similar insults as he receives. Shylock  the Victim To an extent, we feel sorry for Shylock’s victimization based solely on his Jewishness. Apart from Jessica who converts to Christianity, he is the only Jewish character and it feels he is somewhat ganged up on by all of the other characters. Had he just have been ‘Shylock’ without the religion, almost certainly one could argue a modern audience would have less sympathy for him? As a result of this assumption, would Shakespeare’s audience have had less sympathy for him because of his status as a Jew? Shylock  the Villain? Shylock’s position as a villain per se is possible to debate. Shylock is sticking to his bond to his word. He is true to his own code of conduct. Antonio signed that bond and promised that money, Shylock has been wronged; he has had his money stolen from him by his daughter and Lorenzo. However, Shylock is offered three times his money back and he still demands his pound of flesh; this moves him into the realms of villainy. It depends on his portrayal as to how much an audience has sympathy for his position and character as to how much he is judged at the end of the play. He is certainly left at the end of the play with very little to his name, although at least he is able to keep his property until his death. I think it would be difficult not to feel some sympathy for Shylock as all the characters celebrate at the end while he is all alone. It would be interesting to revisit Shylock in the years following and find out what he did next. â€Å"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose† (Act 1 Scene 3)â€Å"Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnation;† (Act 2 Scene 2)