Comments for

Comment on Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off? by Tom Marting

Tom Marting — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:06:45 +0000

It would be nice if more source waters were as free of impurities. As we get our drinking water from Lake Erie, I think we are a few years away from being able to hit that same standard.

As we develop life cycle thinking into our corporate culture, we will face similiar choices between environmental impacts like the one you describe above. If we pursue bio-based resins, should we accept less GHG for potentially higher eutrophication? How much it too much?

What are your thoughts on revealing and making choices like these?

Comment on Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off? by David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:07:53 +0000

Hi Tom. Thanks for your comment.

Water nerds (a term I use endearingly) in watersheds that don’t require filtering tend to be proud of that fact. This isn’t because they believe that unfiltered water is purer than filtered. It’s just that they like the fact that their water source is free of the contaminants that necessitate filtering. There’s no judgment implied about the quality of the end product.

The UV process is for disinfecting, not for removing chemicals. I believe the reason that NYC has a pass on filtering is because the water is judged to be relatively free of chemicals and other impurities to begin with.

Put me down as a fan of Purell, by the way.

Comment on Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off? by Tom Marting

Tom Marting — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:15:24 +0000

I don’t buy the idea that unfiltered water is more pure than filtered water. I agree that UV disinfection is better than chemical treatment, but to me clean means it has been disinfected (no microbes) and pure means a lack of chemical contaminates. UV may break down some organic contaminates, but it will not eliminate as many chemicals as an activated charcoal filter can. Reverse osmosis is a ultrafiltration technology that purifies water nearly as well as distillation, but strips some minerals out of the water. Combining UV disinfection with some other filtration technologies might have been more energy efficient than intense UV alone, but not worthy of a headline.

Comment on Do Americans Believe in Global Warming Anymore? by David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:11:59 +0000

I wouldn’t propose to have a solution for moving public opinion. Those that claim to know how to do so are either bluffing or are evil geniuses.

Comment on Do Americans Believe in Global Warming Anymore? by Jacob Maddox

Jacob Maddox — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:46:09 +0000

Reblogged this on jacobmaddox and commented: A great article to read. I can see how vest interests and loss of MSM coverage has affected public opinion on this issue. What is your position or comment on this article and what are some possible solutions to reverse this change on opinion.

Comment on Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off? by David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:02:06 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Mitra. It’s an interesting point. I wonder what a full life cycle analysis of your suggested alternative would show. Nonetheless, it’s a Federal requirement that determined approach. I would supposed that the Feds have their reasons.

Comment on Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off? by Mitra Ardron

Mitra Ardron — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:19:47 +0000

Its an interesting trade off. Doing the math, thats about 0.02 liters/WH which is about 4x more efficient than the most efficient household UV treatment. Since many NYers probably filter or otherwise treat anyway to get the chlorine and since we only drink maybe 5 liters per day out of the 200-500 consumed it would make a lot more energy & financial sense to treat at the tap, and might have the added effect of getting more people off the environmental monstrosity of bottled water.

Comment on Is Your Company Ready to Go Zero Waste to Landfill? by David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:26:20 +0000

Thanks, Anna. I found this white paper by Ricoh Electronics which provicdes a an interesting case study on their zero waste to landfill journey:

http://www.bizforum.org/whitepapers/rei.htm

Comment on Uptake of Energy Management Standard Likely to be Muted by David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:13:59 +0000

Thanks for your comment. By the way, I’ve checked with ISO and that apples-to-apples data is not available.

Comment on Uptake of Energy Management Standard Likely to be Muted by Gabe Crognale (@TheEnviroGuy)

Gabe Crognale (@TheEnviroGuy) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:14:21 +0000

David,

Greg makes a valid point, to which I would add, while there a number of core similarities between ISO 14001 and 50001, there are also fundamental differences between the two standards, and while it is true some tenets of ISO 50001 can be folded into an ISO 14001-conforming EMS, some aspects of the energy standard are miles apart from ISO 14001 – take it from a seasoned ISO 14001 practitioner, trainer and all-around ISO 14001 specialist.