Water Pollution

• Tension between migrants and locals
• puts pressure on space
• Puts pressure on resources
• puts pressure on school as it is hard to teach the children if some of them don't speak English
• Criminal gangs form
• Workers are exploited

These 2 have similarities but air and water are 2 different topics.

Water pollution results in aciditation and warming of water, this has major environemtal consequences, like dying coral reefs and unbalanced eco systems.

Therefore certain destination will decrease in popularity, this can have massive economic consequences.

Also think of the regulations that arose because of the water pollution problems for for instance the cruise industry:

International

• International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

• Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)

• International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers (STCW)

United States-

• Title VII Certain Alaskan

Cruise Ship Operations

• Clean Water Act

• Oil Pollution Act

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

• Ocean Dumping Act

• Garbage and Refuse Protection Act

• Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

• Marine Mammal Protection Act ICCL. (2012).

When water is polluted the clean water reserves decline, food would not be able to be watered and therefore increase in price. Money for vacation would be less.

Polluted water and air increase chances of diseases and the chance of unhealthy food growth.

With polluted air I am not so familiar at the moment.

However there are opportunities for the hospitality to go green. Hospitality industry is one of the most active industries in this regard. The tourism industry accounts for 1% of total CO2 emissions and working hard to get this down (green keys, LEEDS certification, Water programs national and international)

Large populations bring with them unpermeable surfaces. Meaning that water from the surface is unable to percolate down through the ground in order to recharge the aquifer. This lessens the amount of water which is contained in the aquifer. With a large population also comes a higher demand for water. Meaning more wells and higher rates of pumping lessening the quantity even more. Basically death and destruction once it runs out. its has bad effects

Polluting the water where animals live can be hazardous for their health and their environment. They can die from harsh chemicals or trash that is emptied into large bodies of water.

yes they do. flood waters can take in rubbish into the water

Because if all the material is at the bottom of the water, think about the fish. They wont live. Basically because the fish and other creatures will die from pollution in the water.

Water pollution is the introduction into fresh or ocean waters of chemical, physical, or biological material that degrades the quality of the water and affects the organisms living in it. This process ranges from simple addition of dissolved or suspended solids to discharge of the most insidious and persistent toxic pollutants (such as pesticides, heavy metals, and nondegradable, bioaccumulative, chemical compounds). "http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/SCI_ED/grade10/ecology/conservation/poll.htm"

The thing is that the roots of the trees hold on to the soil,

now we know about soil erosion..when it takes place the water gets mixed up with the soil and the quality decreases...the trees prevent this and hence keeps it clear.

Also trees play a major role in transpiration and that leads to rain,

and we all know that rain is one of the purest forms of water.

so i guess these are the ways in which trees improve water quality.

A possible source of water pollution is agricultural runoff, which occurs when rainwater washes fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides from fields into nearby rivers, lakes, and streams. This runoff can lead to nutrient overloads, causing algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water and harm aquatic life. Additionally, sediment from eroded soil can cloud water and smother habitats. Contaminated runoff poses risks not only to ecosystems but also to human health through contaminated drinking water sources.

by making a fire , they make smoke which pollutes the air , that how culture practices contribute to air pollution

Most water pollution happens in the oceans, where ships dump garbage. Pollution also accumulates in the oceans as a result of runoff from rivers.

No good ones. The few I've seen all stink.

Some people get lazy and refuse to wash they re boat upon going into different waters and bring in invasive species which lower the oxygen levels. The worst is algae with uses the dissolved oxygen in the water to breath and suffocate the fish living below them.

Two examples of point source pollution would be:

Factory smoke

Waste being directly dumped into rivers and/or oceans

Overflow of raw sewage

Lots of the pollution caused by plastic is from the oil and other materials that it takes to make it. Oil, which is used to make plastic, pollutes the air.

Also, this might not relate to the air in particular, but lots of plastic products are eventually thrown away after human use and put into landfills, which kills animals from choking on it, and looks terrible. Plastics take up to thousands of years to break down.

pollution affects the earth in many different ways. the most important way it affects the earth is that as living creatures OF THE EARTH when people inhale what is that i just call POLLUTE it can cause LUNG DECEASE. and with lung disease being a problem the government will use as much money they have on their budget to fix it and they will use anything. by those means the chances of those people living is about 40/60 and there will be no one to take care of the earth. at least until god puts something else on this earth

the ganga river has been polluted by peole in varoius ways

1:deficating done by people

2:sacrifices of the dead permofmed n being buried away in the water

3;washing of clothes utensils n bathin have made the river polluted

4:also effluents from factories thrown in ihe river harm aquatic life n the people in turn

because you would need to hear things like cell phone , watch , tv , and alots of things . its bad because if the sound is to loud you can go deaf or it can hert really bad .

Nonpoint source pollution is pollution that is caused by diffuse sources and can negatively affect waterways such as rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading cause of water quality problems and is occurs when rainfall or snowmelt picks up pollutants as it moves over land or through the ground and then deposits then in water sources. Nonpoint source pollution can occur in an urban or a rural setting and each area presents its own unique circumstances. A mitigation plan for nonpoint source pollution would need to address the specifics in each setting.

Unlike point source pollution, the direct cause of nonpoint source pollution cannot be identified in terms of the pollution coming from one distinct source. The diffuse sources, depending on location, may include pollutants such as excess herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers, sediment, salt, bacteria and nutrients, oil, grease, and toxic chemicals. The result of these pollutants being deposited into various water sources can be beach closures, the destruction of habitat, fish kills, and unsafe drinking water, among other things. The most common pollutants in terms of nonpoint source pollution are sediment and nutrients (EPA, 2009).

Because NPS pollution is the leading cause of water quality problems, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has conducted extensive studies to quantify the NPS problem. Approximately 40% of the surveyed estuaries, lakes, and streams were determined to be not fit to meet even the most basic of uses such as fishing and swimming. Of the surveyed estuaries, urban runoff was determined to be the largest source of water quality problems. Urban runoff often includes oils, grease, and toxic chemicals that are washed from impervious surfaces such as roads into the waterways and on to the receiving waterbodies. Agricultural runoff is determined to be the cause of pollution in 60% of the surveyed river miles that are classified as impaired and in 50% of the impaired lake acreage. In addition to the fertilizers and chemicals that are applied to agricultural lands, soil erosion also contributes to the pollution problem because of the increase in sediment load (EPA, 2009).

Residential areas present their own form of problems with NPS pollution. Septic tanks that are not properly functioning can contribute to the addition of bacteria and nutrients. Also, fertilizers and pesticides that are not applied in the proper manner can result in excess product reaching receiving waterbodies as well. In addition, the improper use, storage, and disposal of household chemicals can contribute to water pollution. One of the major challenges with addressing NPS pollution is determining what potential sources are contributing to the problem (EPA, 2009).

NPS pollution is a problem that can be addressed on many levels. On the federal level, programs such as the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program are meant to address the NPS pollution problem. This act was established in 1987 by the Clean Water Act Amendments. The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program was established in 1990 by the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorizing Amendments. Other ways the federal government can take responsibility for NPS pollution is to ensure that federal lands are managed for soil erosion, logging, and pesticide application (EPA, 2009).

States can take responsibility for NPS pollution by enacting legislation that enforces the use of best management practices in industries such as mining and logging to reduce the impact of those industries on the water resources. Locally, ordinances can be passed for zoning as well as erosion control. Individuals can also be responsible for their part in NPS pollution by practicing conservation and by changing some habits regarding landscaping and the use of household chemicals.

On the east coast of the United States, an estimated 285 million pounds of nitrogen reach the Chesapeake Bay each year. Excess nitrogen can lead to problems such as algal blooms. When algae decompose, they deplete the water body of oxygen and can result in 'dead zones' that disrupt the aquatic food web. In 2002, the states that contribute to Chesapeake Bay sought federal support to reduce the amount of nitrogen that was reaching this important estuary. The states asked for $20 million to test four new farm practices that could reduce the runoff from agricultural lands by 50%. The anticipated reduction in nitrogen loading would be about 6 million pounds per year. One of the programs suggested by the states was to pay farmers to use fewer nutrients on their crops and to plant cover crops to reduce soil erosion (Blankenship, 2002).

In 2008, Virginia and Maryland introduced another program aimed at reducing runoff from agricultural land. This came as a result of a study that estimated that 42% of the nitrogen, 46% of the phosphorus, and 72% of the sediment that was reaching Chesapeake Bay came from agricultural lands. Virginia proposed spending $20 million to implement best management practices aimed at improving water quality. The main components of the plan included building buffers around agricultural fields, keeping cattle out of creeks and rivers, and coming up with improved methods of fertilizer storage. In Maryland, state officials proposed the Cover Crop Program to reduce sediment loading from soil erosion as one of their strategies. Chicken farms are a large business in Maryland and presents unique problems. A manure management plan was proposed as well, but the enforcement of manure management remains a problem (Kelleher, 2008).

In Florida where the water table tends to be high and canals and ditches are common, nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for the state's waterways. In an effort to reduce the standing water that serves as a habitat for mosquitoes and to provide more land for development, areas in Florida have been ditched to drain the water quickly from inland areas. While this serves its purpose to prevent flooding and reduce the mosquito population, it also serves as a conduit for nonpoint source pollution to reach important estuaries and other waterways. The EPA originally set a deadline of 2004 for Florida to establish limits on the amount of nutrients that reach these waterways. Florida essentially disregarded the order, though many local governments have enacted their own local ordinances to combat the nutrient problem (Earthjustice, 2009).

Fertilizer ordinances such as those in Sarasota County, Florida are designed to prevent excess nutrients from residential application of fertilizer from reaching the coastal waters. To do this, residents are not allowed to apply fertilizer to their lawns from June 1st to September 30th. This is Florida's rainy season when almost daily rainfall would wash many of the nutrients out to receiving water bodies. Fertilizer-free zones were established within 10 feet of water bodies. For those who violate the ordinance, the first offense is a warning followed by a $500 penalty for repeat offenders. The ordinance also established a voluntary 'low-maintenance' zone within 6 feet of water bodies and it recommended the use of slow-release fertilizers (Whittle, 2007). The state has looked at statewide legislation similar to Sarasota County's ordinance, but has been met with some resistance from fertilizer companies. The phosphate industry is a large component of the Florida economy and there is concern that restrictions on fertilizer use would impact this market.

The high water table in Florida also presents problems with the use of septic tanks. When properly installed and maintained, septic tanks provide residential waste water treatment. When they malfunction or are installed in a place that does not allow them to function as they should, they can contribute nutrients and bacteria to the NPS pollution problem. Communities across the state are taking actions to replace septic tanks with central sewer in areas where the septic tanks are thought to be contributing to the nutrient loading that causes algal blooms and bacteria that can result in beach closings. Marco Island is one place that has taken steps to increase their central sewer system to reduce the nutrient loading (SFWMD, 2008). The problem with this course of action is that it is often cost prohibitive. There is a cost to the utility for extending the sewer lines and often a cost to homeowners to hook up to the system. In addition, some homeowners are resistant to the idea of paying for central sewer when with septic tank they had no monthly charges. Local ordinances requiring central sewer are one solution to voluntary hook ups that may not have the same participation rate.

The mitigation strategy for NPS pollution would have to have many layers. Beginning at the local level, ordinances could be passed to address the problem. Among the possible local strategies are: requiring new development to have a higher percentage of pervious surfaces to reduce runoff volume; enact fertilizer ordinances to reduce the amount of available nutrients in runoff; require new developments to hook up to central sewer and start septic tank replacement programs; institute public education on the use, storage, and disposal of household chemicals; and, improve stormwater management systems that would lengthen retention time of stormwater runoff and allow removal of some components of NPS pollution.

At the state level, a mitigation plan would include: legislation regarding the use of fertilizers; requirements for buffer zones around agricultural areas; legislation for the storage and disposal of animal waste; grants for homeowners who replace their septic tanks with central sewer connections; and, to provide funding to support local initiatives to reduce urban runoff. At the federal level, support would come in the form of funding to investigate which strategies would work best in certain areas, develop new best management practices, and to provide subsidies for farmers who implement the best management practices.

As with any strategy, the problem with legislation at the local or state level is enforcement. Enacting laws to restrict the use of fertilizers is only the first step to addressing the problem. Finding and penalizing those who ignore the law presents a greater challenge, especially in communities where funds are sometimes in short supply. The benefits of this multi-layered mitigation strategy is the reduction of nonpoint source pollution reaching and harming our water bodies. This protects habitat, areas used for drinking water supply and recreation, and improves the quality of life. Challenges to the plan would come from industries who may be impacted by the reduction of sales in certain products, though the strategy may encourage them to develop products that are more environmentally friendly. The other challenges may come from homeowners who are impacted financially if they are required to replace their septic tanks with central sewer and from homeowners who are resistant to the idea of a government entity telling them when and how much fertilizer they can apply to their lawns.

Whatever the approach, it is obvious that nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem in both rural and urban areas. The pollution can kill fish, destroy important habitat, impact fishing and recreational opportunities, and present a threat to human health. The reduction of runoff, both from urban areas and agricultural lands, will only improve the health of the world's water resources. The mitigation strategies are something that must be pursued in order to stop any further degradation from occurring and before the water resources reach a point where they are permanently impacted.

rijgrwhguihewuighrwghjvnfkjbghkfgbfg

We all take it for granted andd what we are doing to the wolrd could probably one day end it an dthe would be no world and no people!

Water pollution has emerged as one of the gravest environmental threats in India. Its biggest sources are city sewage and industrial waste that are discharged untreated into the rivers. Despite the best efforts of the government, only about 10 per cent of the waste water that is generated in the cities is treated and the rest is discharged into the rivers.

The entry of toxic substances into water bodies like lakes, streams and rivers leads to deterioration in the quality of water and severely affects the aquatic ecosystems. Due to this, even the ground water gets contaminated. All these have a devastating effect on all living creatures that exist near the polluted water bodies. Urgent steps are needed to be taken by the Indian government on the water pollution management front and the flawed policies need to be amended in order to obtain concrete results.

Water pollution is a reality of human existence. Activities like agriculture and industrial production generate water pollution apart from the biological waste. In India, every year, approximately 50,000 million litres of wastewater, both industrial and domestic, is generated in urban areas. If the data of rural areas is also taken into account, the overall figure will be much higher. The materials that constitute industrial waste include highly harmful substances like salts, chemicals, grease, oils, paints, iron, cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc, tin, etc. In some cases even radio-active materials are discharged into the rivers bodies by some companies, who for the sake of saving money on water treatment, throw all the norms to the winds.

All efforts by the government to put a check on wastewater management have failed as the treatment systems require high capital investment for installation and also high cost is incurred on operational maintenance. This is a sore point not only for the farmers but also for the factory owners as the high cost of treating industrial wastewater affects their bottom-line. The cost of establishing and running a wastewater treatment plant in a factory can be as high as 20 percent of the total expenditure. Hence we see a situation where, despite the presence of government norms, effluents continue to flow into the river bodies untreated.

On the other hand, the government of India is spending millions of rupees every year on water pollution control. According to rough estimates, Indian government has spent nearly 20,000 crore rupees till now on various schemes in India, like the Ganga Action Plan and Yamuna Action Plan, to control water pollution in rivers. But no positive results have been achieved as yet. The government should realise that all efforts to get the river-bodies free from water pollution will fail unless the process of untreated industrial and other wastewater getting into the water bodies is not stopped.

Hence the government should, instead of spending money on pollution control schemes, divert its resources to encourage wastewater treatment in agriculture and industrial sector. The money spent on pollution control should be spent on giving subsidies to the industries which generate wastewater and on strict monitoring of their adherence to the norms. Research should be promoted in areas like nanotechnology to find out ways and means to build cheaper wastewater management plants. Here also, the approach should be to re-use the treated water for agriculture instead of letting it go into the rivers and streams.

It should not be forgotten that only 0.3 per cent of total water available on this planet is fit for consumption for human beings, animals & plants. The remaining 99.7 per cent is present either as sea water or as glaciers on the mountains. Hence ignoring the issue of water pollution any longer would mean inviting a Third World War which would be fought for the control of water resources.

the top ten are (not in order) 1. Dzerzinsk, Russia 6.Chernobyl, Ukraine 2. Linfen, Shanxi, Province, China 7.La Oroya, Peru 3.Kabwe, Zambia 8.Ranipet, India 4.Norilsk, Russia 9.Rudnaya Pristan and Daneorsk, Russia 5.Haina, Domimican Republic 10.Mailuu-Suu, Kryrgyzstan