なかなかスゴイ番組ですが、英語が理解できると本当に面白いです。
From Wikipedia...
The Japanese blood type theory of personality is a popular belief that a person's ABO blood type is predictive of their personality, character, and compatibility with others. It was a serious scientific hypothesis which was proposed early in the 20th century, which gained currency within the Japanese public. This theory has long since been rejected by the scientific community. (For a proponent, see Masahiko Nomi). This belief has been carried over to a certain extent into other parts of East Asia, and South Korea. In Japan, asking someone their blood type is considered as normal as asking their astrological sign. It is also common for Japanese-made video games (especially role-playing games) and the manga series to include blood type with character descriptions.
The blood type diet is an American system whereby people seek improved health by modifying their food intake and lifestyle according to their ABO blood group and secretor status.[43] This system includes some reference to differences in personality, but not to the extent typical of the Japanese theory.
The Japanese blood type theory of personality is a popular belief that a person's ABO blood type is predictive of their personality, character, and compatibility with others. It was a serious scientific hypothesis which was proposed early in the 20th century, which gained currency within the Japanese public. This theory has long since been rejected by the scientific community. (For a proponent, see Masahiko Nomi). This belief has been carried over to a certain extent into other parts of East Asia, and South Korea. In Japan, asking someone their blood type is considered as normal as asking their astrological sign. It is also common for Japanese-made video games (especially role-playing games) and the manga series to include blood type with character descriptions.
The blood type diet is an American system whereby people seek improved health by modifying their food intake and lifestyle according to their ABO blood group and secretor status.[43] This system includes some reference to differences in personality, but not to the extent typical of the Japanese theory.
個人的には、この手の辞書が一番早く引けます。
電子辞書と比べてもこちらの方が（自分は）はるかに速いです。
また、単語数が圧倒的に多い。
（英字新聞の単語は英和辞典に載ってないのが結構あります。）
あと、安い（千円台）、結構軽いというメリットがあります。
まあ、分からない単語も辞書を引くことはめったに無いです。
何回も出てくる単語ならそのうち意味がわかりますよね。
電子辞書と比べてもこちらの方が（自分は）はるかに速いです。
また、単語数が圧倒的に多い。
（英字新聞の単語は英和辞典に載ってないのが結構あります。）
あと、安い（千円台）、結構軽いというメリットがあります。
まあ、分からない単語も辞書を引くことはめったに無いです。
何回も出てくる単語ならそのうち意味がわかりますよね。
Japan cedes solar power lead to Germany; China closing gap
Kyodo News
Germany's solar power output was about twice that of Japan in 2006, according to a recent study conducted by a research organization.
Japan had long been a forerunner in solar power. But in 2005, Germany unseated Japan as the world's largest solar power generating country and the gap in output between the two is widening, according to the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies.
The results of the study by ISEP also suggests Japanese companies, which still control about 50 percent of the world's production of solar power generators, are facing increasingly tough competition from German and Chinese manufacturers.
"Japan's solar power generation will further fall behind other countries if we don't drastically review current energy policies," said Tetsunari Iida, executive director of the nonprofit research body.
Germany's output stood at 3.06 million kilowatts at the end of 2006, increasing by 1.15 million kw from the previous year, ISEP said.
In contrast, Japanese output last year grew by only 250,000 kw, or less than one-fourth of the growth in Germany, to total 1.67 million kw, the research body said.
Sharp Corp. is the world's top maker of solar power generators, with a 30 percent market share. But it did not see much of an increase in production volume from 2005 to 2006, while German and Chinese rivals showed a rapid expansion during the same period, ISEP said.
ISEP's Iida said the Japanese law requiring power firms to generate a certain amount of electricity by using new energy is not functioning.
In fiscal 1994, the government introduced subsidies for individuals purchasing solar power units. This helped the country become and stay the leading solar power country. But in fiscal 2005, the subsidies ended.
米国でもエネルギー問題関連の法律がやっと議会を通り、動きが
出てきそうです。しかし、ブッシュ大統領は拒否権だと息巻き、どうなることか。
表題のRenewable Powerは、キーワードですが決めての訳語がないですね。
Energy Bill Adopted by House Requires Utilities to Use Renewable Power
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: August 5, 200
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — The House passed a wide-ranging energy bill on Saturday that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.
“It’s a big, big deal,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a longtime member of the energy committee. “There has been no legislation like this for a generation.”
The energy measure passed by a vote of 241-172, with 26 Republicans voting in favor and 9 Democrats opposed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made the bill one of her top legislative priorities for her first year as leader of the House Democrats.
The bill allots money for the development of alternative fuels and for increased efficiency of appliances and buildings. It is also meant to spur research on methods to capture the carbon dioxide emissions that scientists say are largely responsible for global warming.
The House also passed a bill to repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects in the energy bill.
The utilities provision, or the so-called renewable electricity standard amendment, was among the most contested measures in the energy bill. Sponsored by Representative Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, and several others, it will force utilities to make a significant share of their electricity from solar, wind, geothermal, water and other nonfossil fuel sources, although they can meet part of the requirement through conservation measures.
The standard applies only to investor-owned utilities and exempts rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the state of Hawaii from the mandate.
“I think this was a great victory for the planet,” Mr. Udall said. He noted that more than 30 Republicans had voted for the amendment and predicted that it would be part of any energy bill that reaches the president’s desk later this year.
Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, called the House vote “very disappointing” and said it would bring big rate increases to electricity customers. Mr. Kuhn noted that the Senate had failed to pass a similar provision and that its fate in a House-Senate conference committee this fall was uncertain.
The 786-page House energy bill does not include an increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks that supporters called the single most effective way of cutting oil consumption and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Sponsors vowed to bring it up again when Congress reconvenes in September.
The Senate passed energy legislation in June with numerous differences from the House package. The Senate version requires that cars and light trucks sold in the United States achieve a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Democrats said if the bill that emerged from conference contained both the renewable electricity standard and the mandate for higher corporate average fuel economy, it would be the most significant energy legislation ever enacted.
The bill the House passed on Saturday sets new requirements for energy efficiency in appliances and government buildings. It also contains billions of dollars in incentives for production of alternative fuels, new research on capturing carbon emissions from refineries and coal-burning power plants and training for workers in the “green” industries of the future.
One of the bill’s goals is that the federal government, the world’s largest single energy consumer, be “carbon neutral” by 2050, meaning that all federal operations, including the Pentagon, would not produce a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The bill does not specify how the government is to achieve this.
Even if the major provisions of the House bill are enacted into law, consumers will experience few short-term effects, either in higher utility bills, more choices of fuel at the filling station or different vehicles on sale at their local car dealership. Those are longer-term goals.
But Americans will soon light their houses differently. The bill outlaws the sale of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs by 2012 and requires that all bulbs be 300 times more efficient than today’s ordinary bulbs by 2020.
The White House expressed its opposition to the Democratic energy bills, saying they did not meet their stated goals of reducing oil imports, strengthening national security, lowering energy prices and beginning to address global warming. The White House also said the tax bill unfairly singled out the oil industry.
Republican opponents of the measure echoed the White House position, saying that the package provided no new supplies of energy, would drive up fuel prices and provide billions in what they called “green pork” to support Democrats’ pet environmental projects.
“It tells us to turn the lights out, that’s what this bill does,” said Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska. “There is no energy in this bill at all.”
Representative Joe L. Barton, who led the Republican opposition to the package on the House floor on Saturday, said the hours spent debating the bills had been wasted.
“This is really an exercise in sterile futility,” Mr. Barton said, referring to the president’s veto threat, “because this bill isn’t going anywhere.”
Rancor from the partisan feuding of the week continued to resonate Saturday as Republicans sought a vote criticizing Democrats for deleting some remarks from The Congressional Record. The move was blocked by Democrats, leading Republicans to cry “cover-up” on the House floor.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
出てきそうです。しかし、ブッシュ大統領は拒否権だと息巻き、どうなることか。
表題のRenewable Powerは、キーワードですが決めての訳語がないですね。
Energy Bill Adopted by House Requires Utilities to Use Renewable Power
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: August 5, 200
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — The House passed a wide-ranging energy bill on Saturday that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.
“It’s a big, big deal,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a longtime member of the energy committee. “There has been no legislation like this for a generation.”
The energy measure passed by a vote of 241-172, with 26 Republicans voting in favor and 9 Democrats opposed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made the bill one of her top legislative priorities for her first year as leader of the House Democrats.
The bill allots money for the development of alternative fuels and for increased efficiency of appliances and buildings. It is also meant to spur research on methods to capture the carbon dioxide emissions that scientists say are largely responsible for global warming.
The House also passed a bill to repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects in the energy bill.
The utilities provision, or the so-called renewable electricity standard amendment, was among the most contested measures in the energy bill. Sponsored by Representative Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, and several others, it will force utilities to make a significant share of their electricity from solar, wind, geothermal, water and other nonfossil fuel sources, although they can meet part of the requirement through conservation measures.
The standard applies only to investor-owned utilities and exempts rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the state of Hawaii from the mandate.
“I think this was a great victory for the planet,” Mr. Udall said. He noted that more than 30 Republicans had voted for the amendment and predicted that it would be part of any energy bill that reaches the president’s desk later this year.
Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, called the House vote “very disappointing” and said it would bring big rate increases to electricity customers. Mr. Kuhn noted that the Senate had failed to pass a similar provision and that its fate in a House-Senate conference committee this fall was uncertain.
The 786-page House energy bill does not include an increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks that supporters called the single most effective way of cutting oil consumption and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Sponsors vowed to bring it up again when Congress reconvenes in September.
The Senate passed energy legislation in June with numerous differences from the House package. The Senate version requires that cars and light trucks sold in the United States achieve a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Democrats said if the bill that emerged from conference contained both the renewable electricity standard and the mandate for higher corporate average fuel economy, it would be the most significant energy legislation ever enacted.
The bill the House passed on Saturday sets new requirements for energy efficiency in appliances and government buildings. It also contains billions of dollars in incentives for production of alternative fuels, new research on capturing carbon emissions from refineries and coal-burning power plants and training for workers in the “green” industries of the future.
One of the bill’s goals is that the federal government, the world’s largest single energy consumer, be “carbon neutral” by 2050, meaning that all federal operations, including the Pentagon, would not produce a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The bill does not specify how the government is to achieve this.
Even if the major provisions of the House bill are enacted into law, consumers will experience few short-term effects, either in higher utility bills, more choices of fuel at the filling station or different vehicles on sale at their local car dealership. Those are longer-term goals.
But Americans will soon light their houses differently. The bill outlaws the sale of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs by 2012 and requires that all bulbs be 300 times more efficient than today’s ordinary bulbs by 2020.
The White House expressed its opposition to the Democratic energy bills, saying they did not meet their stated goals of reducing oil imports, strengthening national security, lowering energy prices and beginning to address global warming. The White House also said the tax bill unfairly singled out the oil industry.
Republican opponents of the measure echoed the White House position, saying that the package provided no new supplies of energy, would drive up fuel prices and provide billions in what they called “green pork” to support Democrats’ pet environmental projects.
“It tells us to turn the lights out, that’s what this bill does,” said Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska. “There is no energy in this bill at all.”
Representative Joe L. Barton, who led the Republican opposition to the package on the House floor on Saturday, said the hours spent debating the bills had been wasted.
“This is really an exercise in sterile futility,” Mr. Barton said, referring to the president’s veto threat, “because this bill isn’t going anywhere.”
Rancor from the partisan feuding of the week continued to resonate Saturday as Republicans sought a vote criticizing Democrats for deleting some remarks from The Congressional Record. The move was blocked by Democrats, leading Republicans to cry “cover-up” on the House floor.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
日本では水道水はできるだけ飲むなという雰囲気ですが。
米国の水道水は質がよいのでしょうか。
In Praise of Tap Water
Published: August 1, 2007
On the streets of New York or Denver or San Mateo this summer, it seems the telltale cap of a water bottle is sticking out of every other satchel. Americans are increasingly thirsty for what is billed as the healthiest, and often most expensive, water on the grocery shelf. But this country has some of the best public water supplies in the world. Instead of consuming four billion gallons of water a year in individual-sized bottles, we need to start thinking about what all those bottles are doing to the planet’s health.
Here are the hard, dry facts: Yes, drinking water is a good thing, far better than buying soft drinks, or liquid candy, as nutritionists like to call it. And almost all municipal water in America is so good that nobody needs to import a single bottle from Italy or France or the Fiji Islands. Meanwhile, if you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents.
Next, there’s the environment. Water bottles, like other containers, are made from natural gas and petroleum. The Earth Policy Institute in Washington has estimated that it takes about 1.5 million barrels of oil to make the water bottles Americans use each year. That could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead. And, only about 23 percent of those bottles are recycled, in part because water bottles are often not included in local redemption plans that accept beer and soda cans. Add in the substantial amount of fuel used in transporting water, which is extremely heavy, and the impact on the environment is anything but refreshing.
Tap water may now be the equal of bottled water, but that could change. The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political support there will be for investing in maintaining America’s public water supply. That would be a serious loss. Access to cheap, clean water is basic to the nation’s health.
Some local governments have begun to fight back. Earlier this summer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom prohibited his city’s departments and agencies from buying bottled water, noting that San Francisco water is “some of the most pristine on the planet.” Salt Lake City has issued a similar decree, and New York City recently began an advertising campaign that touted its water as “clean,” “zero sugar” and even “stain free.”
The real change, though, will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save the planet, by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap.
To the Editor:
Related
Editorial: In Praise of Tap Water (August 1, 2007)
“In Praise of Tap Water” (editorial, Aug. 1) rightly casts the choice between tap water and bottled water in important environmental concerns.
We must fight the efforts of corporations to transform into a product what is and should be maintained as a public resource. Watersheds must be protected, and municipal water infrastructures must be kept up.
I propose a second public health initiative for our mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, to go along with his smoking bans. New York City has the blessing of clean, good-tasting water.
Let’s get water fountains out on the streets and in the parks of our great pedestrian city — not a handful, but thousands and thousands. I could imagine a design for fire hydrants to be mixed-use devices.
Visitors to the city should be going home extolling our municipal munificence, not complaining that a bottle of water in Bryant Park costs $3.
Tim Philo
Brooklyn, Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
As any kid knows, water from the drinking fountains in older school buildings tastes yucky, no matter how good the water is from the municipal system.
The same goes for public bubblers in parks and on streets, and those fountains suffer the added risk of contamination by previous users.
Most parents have had the experience of traipsing to the kitchen to get a drink of water for their child because bathroom water just doesn’t taste right. Even in my condo building, I need to let the faucet run a while to flush the stagnant, off-tasting water from the pipes before filling my glass.
Visitors know that in Manhattan, San Francisco, London and any other major city with good water, it is nearly impossible to find a simple drink of tap water without having to go into a restaurant and order food.
The bottled water industry addresses a genuine need that before its rise was satisfied only by the soda and juice companies and their vending machines.
Hugh C. Lauer
Concord, Mass., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
The extent of the use of bottled water has got to rank as one of the most astonishing mass-market brainwashes ever.
When you consider the costs — the high price of a near-free commodity and the impact on the environment — and the ease with which one can get tap water, this should be one of the easiest addictions to eradicate.
Now, if only I could get my own family to listen to me ...
Rajeev Krishnamoorthy
San Jose, Calif., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
An additional reason to encourage drinking tap water, particularly for children and adolescents, is that it contains fluoride.
A surgeon general’s report in 2000 ranked oral health as a serious health problem in children in America. For low-income families in particular, substituting bottled water without fluoride for tap water in formula feeding or for general use increases the likelihood of dental caries and poor oral health.
High-risk children don’t need to buy “status water,” which will add one more problem to a long list of adverse health outcomes they face.
John J. Frey III, M.D.
Madison, Wis., Aug. 1, 2007
The writer is a professor of family medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
•
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 1 editorial nicely extols the virtues of America’s high-quality tap water and casts a spotlight on the growing economic and environmental costs of our unnecessary bottled water use, including the large amounts of energy required.
Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than it seems. We estimate that the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil were used to make the billions of plastic bottles Americans consumed in 2006 as bottled water.
And that doesn’t include the additional energy needed to fill the bottles with water, move them to our stores and homes, chill them for use or dispose of them.
Peter Gleick
President, Pacific Institute
Oakland, Calif., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
We should support people drinking water, both tap and bottled, because it’s healthier for them and the environment than drinking anything else.
Obesity and related illnesses are soaring. There has been a 370 percent increase in overweight schoolchildren in the last 30 years. More than 20 percent of the calories Americans consume come from beverages.
People want and need bottled water when tap water is not available or not preferred. Seventy-five percent of bottled water drinkers also drink tap. If they don’t have bottled water, our research shows that half would drink sweetened beverages.
Our bottles use a third less plastic than other beverage containers. At the same time, it is imperative that we all strive to recycle bottles and other packaging. While water bottles alone make up less than 1 percent of the waste stream, at Nestlé Waters, we support improving our recycling laws.
Kim Jeffery
President and Chief Executive, Nestlé Waters North America
Greenwich, Conn., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
I agree that the water supplies in most cites are very clean and safe to drink. But there is an unfortunate part of the equation, the delivery system of that clean water. By the time the water gets into our glass, it can go through some pretty unsavory pipes.
If we could afford to replace those rusty old iron pipes, or convince our landlords to replace them, maybe more of us would drink from the tap.
Jeff Holtzman
Seattle, Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
I made the switch a year ago out of bottled water. It was mostly a psychological hurdle, not a taste issue.
Hint: add a couple of cubes of ice to your tap water and the psychology works in your favor. In a blind taste test, tap water with ice cubes beats bottled water with no cubes every time.
Gordon Baird
Gloucester, Mass., Aug. 1, 2007
米国の水道水は質がよいのでしょうか。
In Praise of Tap Water
Published: August 1, 2007
On the streets of New York or Denver or San Mateo this summer, it seems the telltale cap of a water bottle is sticking out of every other satchel. Americans are increasingly thirsty for what is billed as the healthiest, and often most expensive, water on the grocery shelf. But this country has some of the best public water supplies in the world. Instead of consuming four billion gallons of water a year in individual-sized bottles, we need to start thinking about what all those bottles are doing to the planet’s health.
Here are the hard, dry facts: Yes, drinking water is a good thing, far better than buying soft drinks, or liquid candy, as nutritionists like to call it. And almost all municipal water in America is so good that nobody needs to import a single bottle from Italy or France or the Fiji Islands. Meanwhile, if you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents.
Next, there’s the environment. Water bottles, like other containers, are made from natural gas and petroleum. The Earth Policy Institute in Washington has estimated that it takes about 1.5 million barrels of oil to make the water bottles Americans use each year. That could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead. And, only about 23 percent of those bottles are recycled, in part because water bottles are often not included in local redemption plans that accept beer and soda cans. Add in the substantial amount of fuel used in transporting water, which is extremely heavy, and the impact on the environment is anything but refreshing.
Tap water may now be the equal of bottled water, but that could change. The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political support there will be for investing in maintaining America’s public water supply. That would be a serious loss. Access to cheap, clean water is basic to the nation’s health.
Some local governments have begun to fight back. Earlier this summer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom prohibited his city’s departments and agencies from buying bottled water, noting that San Francisco water is “some of the most pristine on the planet.” Salt Lake City has issued a similar decree, and New York City recently began an advertising campaign that touted its water as “clean,” “zero sugar” and even “stain free.”
The real change, though, will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save the planet, by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap.
To the Editor:
Related
Editorial: In Praise of Tap Water (August 1, 2007)
“In Praise of Tap Water” (editorial, Aug. 1) rightly casts the choice between tap water and bottled water in important environmental concerns.
We must fight the efforts of corporations to transform into a product what is and should be maintained as a public resource. Watersheds must be protected, and municipal water infrastructures must be kept up.
I propose a second public health initiative for our mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, to go along with his smoking bans. New York City has the blessing of clean, good-tasting water.
Let’s get water fountains out on the streets and in the parks of our great pedestrian city — not a handful, but thousands and thousands. I could imagine a design for fire hydrants to be mixed-use devices.
Visitors to the city should be going home extolling our municipal munificence, not complaining that a bottle of water in Bryant Park costs $3.
Tim Philo
Brooklyn, Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
As any kid knows, water from the drinking fountains in older school buildings tastes yucky, no matter how good the water is from the municipal system.
The same goes for public bubblers in parks and on streets, and those fountains suffer the added risk of contamination by previous users.
Most parents have had the experience of traipsing to the kitchen to get a drink of water for their child because bathroom water just doesn’t taste right. Even in my condo building, I need to let the faucet run a while to flush the stagnant, off-tasting water from the pipes before filling my glass.
Visitors know that in Manhattan, San Francisco, London and any other major city with good water, it is nearly impossible to find a simple drink of tap water without having to go into a restaurant and order food.
The bottled water industry addresses a genuine need that before its rise was satisfied only by the soda and juice companies and their vending machines.
Hugh C. Lauer
Concord, Mass., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
The extent of the use of bottled water has got to rank as one of the most astonishing mass-market brainwashes ever.
When you consider the costs — the high price of a near-free commodity and the impact on the environment — and the ease with which one can get tap water, this should be one of the easiest addictions to eradicate.
Now, if only I could get my own family to listen to me ...
Rajeev Krishnamoorthy
San Jose, Calif., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
An additional reason to encourage drinking tap water, particularly for children and adolescents, is that it contains fluoride.
A surgeon general’s report in 2000 ranked oral health as a serious health problem in children in America. For low-income families in particular, substituting bottled water without fluoride for tap water in formula feeding or for general use increases the likelihood of dental caries and poor oral health.
High-risk children don’t need to buy “status water,” which will add one more problem to a long list of adverse health outcomes they face.
John J. Frey III, M.D.
Madison, Wis., Aug. 1, 2007
The writer is a professor of family medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
•
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 1 editorial nicely extols the virtues of America’s high-quality tap water and casts a spotlight on the growing economic and environmental costs of our unnecessary bottled water use, including the large amounts of energy required.
Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than it seems. We estimate that the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil were used to make the billions of plastic bottles Americans consumed in 2006 as bottled water.
And that doesn’t include the additional energy needed to fill the bottles with water, move them to our stores and homes, chill them for use or dispose of them.
Peter Gleick
President, Pacific Institute
Oakland, Calif., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
We should support people drinking water, both tap and bottled, because it’s healthier for them and the environment than drinking anything else.
Obesity and related illnesses are soaring. There has been a 370 percent increase in overweight schoolchildren in the last 30 years. More than 20 percent of the calories Americans consume come from beverages.
People want and need bottled water when tap water is not available or not preferred. Seventy-five percent of bottled water drinkers also drink tap. If they don’t have bottled water, our research shows that half would drink sweetened beverages.
Our bottles use a third less plastic than other beverage containers. At the same time, it is imperative that we all strive to recycle bottles and other packaging. While water bottles alone make up less than 1 percent of the waste stream, at Nestlé Waters, we support improving our recycling laws.
Kim Jeffery
President and Chief Executive, Nestlé Waters North America
Greenwich, Conn., Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
I agree that the water supplies in most cites are very clean and safe to drink. But there is an unfortunate part of the equation, the delivery system of that clean water. By the time the water gets into our glass, it can go through some pretty unsavory pipes.
If we could afford to replace those rusty old iron pipes, or convince our landlords to replace them, maybe more of us would drink from the tap.
Jeff Holtzman
Seattle, Aug. 1, 2007
•
To the Editor:
I made the switch a year ago out of bottled water. It was mostly a psychological hurdle, not a taste issue.
Hint: add a couple of cubes of ice to your tap water and the psychology works in your favor. In a blind taste test, tap water with ice cubes beats bottled water with no cubes every time.
Gordon Baird
Gloucester, Mass., Aug. 1, 2007