The Bridge
Millions of people across the US use well water, but very few test it often enough to make sure it’s safe
Gabriel Lade, Macalester College
About 23 million U.S. households depend on private wells as their primary drinking water source. These homeowners are entirely responsible for ensuring that the water from their wells is safe for human consumption.
Multiple studies show that, at best, half of private well owners are testing with any frequency, and very few households test once or more yearly, as public health officials recommend. Even in Iowa, which has some of the strongest state-level policies for protecting private well users, state funds for free private water quality testing regularly go unspent.
Is the water these households are drinking safe? There’s not much systematic evidence, but the risks may be large.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still relies on a 15-year-old study showing that among 2,000 households, 1 in 5 households’ well water contained at least one contaminant at levels above the thresholds that public water systems must meet. While other researchers have studied this issue, most rely on limited data or data collected over decades to draw conclusions.
I’m an economist studying energy and agriculture issues. In a recent study, I worked with colleagues at Iowa State University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Cornell University to understand drinking water-related behaviors and perceptions of households that use private wells. We focused on rural Iowa, where runoff from agricultural production regularly contaminates public and private drinking water sources.
We found that few households followed public health guidance on testing their well water, but a simple intervention – sending them basic information about drinking water hazards and easy-to-use testing materials – increased testing rates. The burden of dealing with contamination, however, falls largely on individual households.
Nitrate risks
We focused on nitrate, one of the main well water pollutants in rural areas. Major sources include chemical fertilizers, animal waste and human sewage.
Drinking water that contains nitrate can harm human health. Using contaminated water to prepare infant formula can cause “blue baby syndrome,” a condition in which infants’ hands and lips turn bluish because nitrate interferes with oxygen transport in the babies’ blood. Severe cases can cause lethargy, seizures and even death. The EPA limits nitrate levels in public water systems to 10 milligrams per liter to prevent this effect.
Studies have also found that for people of all ages, drinking water with low nitrate concentrations over long periods of time is strongly associated with chronic health diseases, including colorectal cancer and thyroid disease, as well as neural tube defects in developing fetuses.
Nitrate pollution is pervasive across the continental U.S. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to determine whether water contains unsafe nitrate concentrations. Test strips, similar to those used in swimming pools, are cheap and readily available.
The water’s fine … or not
Mailing lists of households with private wells are hard to come by, so for our study we digitized over 22,000 addresses using maps from 14 Iowa counties. We targeted counties where public water systems had struggled to meet EPA safety standards for nitrate in drinking water, and where private wells that had been tested over the past 20 years showed nitrate concentrations at concerning levels.
We received responses from over half of the households we surveyed. Of those, just over 8,100 (37%) used private wells.
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing annually for nitrate, just 9% of these households had tested their water quality in the past year.
More concerning, 40% of this group used their wells for drinking water, had not tested it in the past year, and did not filter the water or use other sources such as bottled water. They were drinking straight from the tap without knowing whether their water was safe.
Our survey also showed that, despite living in high-risk areas, 77% of households classified their well water quality as “good” or “great.” This may be driven by a “not in my backyard” mentality. Households in our survey were more likely to agree with the statement that nitrate is a problem in the state of Iowa than to perceive nitrates as a problem in their local area.
Climate change is likely to worsen nitrate contamination in well water. In regions including the Great Lakes basin, increases in heavy rainfall are projected to carry rising amounts of nutrients from farmlands into waterways and groundwater. https://www.youtube.com/embed/yDaaIo3JBNw?wmode=transparent&start=0 Nitrate contamination is often thought of as a rural problem, but in California it also has shown up in urban areas.
Providing information and tools helps
To see whether education and access to testing materials could change views about well water, we sent a mailer containing a nitrate test strip, information about risks associated with nitrate in drinking water, and contact information for a free water quality testing program run by the state of Iowa to a random 50% of respondents from our first survey. We then resurveyed all households, whether or not they received the mailer.
Over 40% of households that received test strips reported that they had tested their water, compared with 24% of those that did not receive the mailer. The number of respondents who reported using Iowa’s free testing program also increased, from 10% to 13%, a small but statistically meaningful impact.
Less encouragingly, households that received the mailer were no more likely to report filtering or avoiding their water than those that did not receive the mailer.
Households bear the burden
Our results show that lack of information makes people less likely to test their well water for nitrate or other contaminants. At least for nitrate, helping households overcome this barrier is cheap. We asked respondents about their willingness to pay for the program and found that the average household was willing to pay as much as US$13 for a program that would cost the state roughly $5 to implement.
However, we could not determine whether our outreach decreased households’ exposure to contaminated drinking water. It’s also not clear whether people would be as willing to test their well water in states such as Wisconsin or Oregon, where testing would cost them up to a few hundred dollars.
As of 2024, just 24 states offered well water testing kits for at least one contaminant that were free or cost $100 or less. And while most states offer information about well water safety, some simply post a brochure online.
The upshot is that rural households are bearing the costs associated with unsafe well water, either through health care burdens or spending for treatment and testing. Policymakers have been slow to address the main source of this problem: nitrate pollution from agriculture.
In one exception, state agencies in southeastern Minnesota are providing free well water quality testing and offering a few households filtration systems in cases where their wells are laden with nitrate from local agricultural sources. However, this effort began only after environmental advocates petitioned the EPA.
If state and federal agencies tracked more systematically the costs to households of dealing with contaminated water, the scale of the burden would be clearer. Government agencies could use this information in cost-benefit assessments of conservation programs.
On a broader scale, I agree with experts who have called for rethinking agricultural policies that encourage expanding crops associated with high nutrient pollution, such as corn. More restoration of wetlands and prairies, which filter nutrients from surface water, could also help. Finally, while the Environmental Protection Agency can’t force well owners to test or treat their water, it could provide better support for households when pollutants turn up in their drinking water.
Gabriel Lade, Associate Professor of Economics, Macalester College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How to make every day recycling day
(Family Features) With so many mixed messages, recycling can feel confusing, but the truth is simpler than you might think. Recycling isn’t just for today – it’s a year-round commitment to a healthier planet.
In honor of National Recycling Day, consider these facts about recycling from the experts and tips to make a difference.
Recycling Is Real
Americans recycle more than 6 billion pounds of plastic every year. Among the plastics recycled, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) remains a responsible material choice. PET is the world’s most recycled plastic, with more than 1.8 billion pounds of PET bottles and containers recovered in the U.S. annually. Since PET bottles can be made from 100% post-consumer recycled content, each recycled bottle contributes to a circular economy where materials are continuously reused instead of wasted.
Recycling PET Plastic is Better for the Environment
Countless others from academics, researchers and industry experts show plastics, such as PET specifically, often have a lower environmental impact. In fact, glass bottles produce three times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to PET bottles, and making an aluminum can produces twice the emissions, according to Life Cycle Assessment studies. Producing PET also uses less energy and water and lowers acid rain and smog potential. Using and recycling PET is a more responsible, more eco-friendly choice than banning plastic outright.
Recycling Saves Energy
Recycling PET bottles requires less energy than producing new glass bottles or aluminum cans. Every PET bottle you recycle helps conserve resources and supports a more responsible production cycle.
Not All Plastics are Created Equal
PET is a superstar among plastics because it can be recycled repeatedly without losing strength or quality. It’s also an inexpensive, lightweight and shatter-resistant package that preserves and protects the food and medicine people place in their bodies.
Recycling Can be Easy
Recycling services can be accessible, with many communities across the U.S. offering easy ways to recycle. Today more than 73% of all U.S. households have access to recycling, according to The Recycling Partnership.
By staying informed, choosing packaging that’s easily recyclable and recycling consistently, you can help build a more sustainable future every day. Visit recyclecheck.org to find out where you can recycle in your community.
5 Recycling Tips
- Know your plastics. Look for the No. 1 recycling symbol – inside three arrows forming a triangular shape – to identify polyethylene terephthalate (PET), helping ensure your recycling efforts are impactful.
- Recycle PET plastic packaging over bans. Choose products packaged in PET bottles where possible, as recycling PET reduces reliance on resource-heavy materials and greenhouse gas emissions.
- See recycling as energy conservation. PET bottle recycling uses significantly less energy compared to producing new glass bottles or aluminum cans.
- Think of recycling as an investment. Every PET container you recycle contributes to a circular economy and more sustainable world.
- Get involved within your community. Connect with local recycling programs and stay updated on your area’s recycling guidelines by visiting recyclecheck.org.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Amcor Rigid Packaging
Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
College Life
Campus diversity is becoming difficult to measure as students keep their race and ethnicity hidden on college applications
When the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions at American colleges and universities just over a year ago, many predicted U.S. campuses would become much less diverse. But in part due to students who decide not to disclose their race or ethnicity, coupled with universities’ selective use of statistics, it is not clear how much the decision has affected diversity on campus.
As higher education institutions begin reporting the racial makeup of the class of 2028 – the first to be affected by the 2023 decision – the data is hard to interpret, confusing and inconclusive.
As a sociologist who has studied how institutions of higher education collect and report data on race and ethnicity, I have identified some factors that contribute to this lack of clarity.
Students don’t identify with choices given
Some students may not select a racial or ethnic category because they don’t believe any of the categories really fit. For example, before multiracial students could select “one or more,” an option that became widely available in 2010, they were more likely to decline to identify their race or ethnicity. Some even boycotted checkboxes entirely.
Other students don’t view their race as important: 67% of the students who choose “race and ethnicity unknown” are white. Of these students, 33% say race and ethnicity are not a relevant part of their identity, a researcher found in 2008.
The number of students who don’t respond to questions about race or ethnicity – and are listed in the “race unknown” category – is increasing. At Harvard University, for example, the percentage of “race-unknown” undergrad students doubled from 2023 to 2024.
As the number of “race unknown” students grows, it not only becomes harder to determine a student body’s ethnic and racial diversity but also the impact of the ban on race-conscious admissions.
Fearing discrimination, students don’t disclose race
Some students believe their race or ethnicity will harm their chances of admission.
This is particularly true at many selective institutions, which have higher nonresponse rates than less selective institutions, about 4% compared with 1% to 2%.
My research shows that students are even more likely to pass on identifying race or ethnicity at selective law schools, where race and ethnicity could be used among a variety of criteria for admissions before the Supreme Court ruled against that practice. An average of 8% of students at those schools chose not to identify, compared with 4% at less selective law schools.
‘We’re very diverse’: University decisions distort statistics
What a university chooses to report will also affect the student body demographic data the public sees. Harvard, for example, does not report its proportion of white students.
Some institutions use statistics strategically to appear more diverse than they are. These strategies include counting multiracial students multiple times – once for each race selected – or including international students as a separate category in demographic pie charts. The greater the number of different-colored slices on the chart, the more demographically “diverse” an institution appears to be.
Impact of Supreme Court ruling: Clearer picture coming soon
While universities may not all report their student demographics the same way in their own materials, they all have to report it the same way to the federal government – namely, to its Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System, better known as IPEDS. The next IPEDS report on characteristics for the 2024 enrollment class is expected to be released in spring 2025. Once that data is available, a better picture of how the Supreme Court’s decision has affected diversity in college enrollment should emerge.
That clearer picture might not last long. In 2027, the federal government will require colleges and universities to make changes to how they report student race and ethnicity. Among the changes is the addition of a Middle Eastern and North African category. Under the current standard, Middle Eastern and North African students are counted as white. As a result, white enrollment at some colleges and universities will appear to decline after 2027.
The new standards will also change the way universities treat Hispanic or Latino ethnicity on enrollment forms. Today, if students self-identify as Hispanic and white, they will be categorized as Hispanic. If students select Hispanic and white in 2027, they will be categorized as multiracial. The revised categories will muddy the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision. A drop in the number of Hispanic students reported could be due to the court’s ruling. Or it may result from the new way students will be counted.
Until universities and colleges adjust to the new guidelines about collecting and reporting race – and as long as students decline to provide their racial identities – the full effect of banning consideration of race in college admissions will remain a cloudy picture at best.
Karly Sarita Ford, Associate Professor of Education and Sociology, Penn State
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
podcasts
Populist podcasters love RFK, Jr., and he took the same left-right turn toward Trump as they did
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., once a Democrat, endorsed Trump and aims to lead Health and Human Services, symbolizing a notable shift in populist political dynamics.
Rachel Meade, Boston University
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in the new administration. The idea of Trump, a Republican, appointing Kennedy to his cabinet would have been surprising just a few months ago.
After all, Kennedy began his presidential run last year as a Democrat and is the scion of a Democratic dynasty. Nephew of former President John F. Kennedy and the son of former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Kennedy spent most of his career as a lawyer representing environmental groups that sued polluting corporations and municipalities.
Yet Kennedy, 70, has long held positions that put him at odds with the Democratic mainstream. He pushes public health misinformation around vaccines and HIV/AIDS, opposes U.S. military involvement in foreign wars, including in Ukraine, and claims that the CIA assassinated his uncle.
Kennedy’s ideologically mixed politics are hard to categorize in traditional left-right terms.
My political science research finds that Kennedy’s journey from left-aligned skepticism into Trumpism is part of a broader trend of contemporary left-to-right populist transformations happening across the United States.
Rise of the populist alternative media
Populism is a political story that presents the good “people” of a nation as in a struggle against its “elites,” who have corrupted democratic institutions to further their own selfish interests. It cuts across the ideological spectrum, often combining left-wing economic critiques with right-wing cultural ones.
Based on my research, I find that Kennedy uses a populist style of speech that matches the rhetoric of today’s online alternative media, also known as the “alternative influence network.”
If populism cuts across the ideological spectrum, so does the alternative media.
This network of politically diverse independent podcasters, YouTube hosts and other creators connects with young, politically disaffected audiences by mixing politics with comedy and pop culture, and presenting themselves as embattled defenders of free thinking – in opposition to mainstream media and mainstream parties.
Top-rated shows include “Breaking Points,” “Stay Free with Russell Brand,” “The Joe Rogan Experience,” The Culture War with Tim Pool“ and ”This Past Weekend w/Theo Von.“
While many of these shows have been around since the 2010s, the network expanded throughout the Trump era. Their popularity skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public distrust in government, anger over pandemic restrictions and vaccine skepticism surged.
These shows hosted Kennedy frequently throughout his presidential run in 2023 and 2024. He was particularly focused on a class of male-dominated alternative shows sometimes called the ”manosphere.“
Kennedy finds his audience
I analyzed a set of Kennedy’s appearances for this story. Both Kennedy and alternative media hosts claim to care about “the real issues” facing Americans such as war, corporate and political malfeasance and economic troubles. They condemn the “mainstream” for promoting frivolous “culture war” topics related to race and identity politics.
Kennedy and the alternative media hosts also combine left and right arguments in a typically populist way. They claim that corporations control the government and that liberals and corporations censor free speech.
For example, on a May 2024 episode of “Stay Free with Russell Brand,” Brand asserted that corrupt institutions are backed by the “deep state.” He asked Kennedy how he would fight these powerful interests.
“The major agencies of government have all been captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate and act as sock puppets serving the mercantile interests of these big corporations,” responded Kennedy. “I have a particular ability to unravel that because I’ve litigated against so many of these agencies.”
My research found that Kennedy often bonded with his alternative media hosts over his perception that liberal media sources – allegedly controlled by the Democratic National Committee or the CIA – were censoring his campaign.
Like Kennedy, alternative media hosts often identify as former or disaffected Democrats. Many used to work at mainstream left news sites, where they say they experienced censorship.
‘This little island of free speech’
In a June 2023 episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan explained that he no longer identifies as a liberal because of the “orthodoxy it preaches” around issues like vaccines. He then cited YouTube’s removal of some of Kennedy’s vaccine-related videos for violating its COVID-19 misinformation policy.
Kennedy had just spent 90 minutes outlining his journey toward vaccine skepticism, which started with meeting a mother who believed vaccines caused her son’s autism.
“If a woman tells you something about her child, you should listen,” he said.
Kennedy also described being convinced by a set of studies that public health officials had ignored.
“Trust the experts is not a function of science, it’s a function of religion,” he said. “I’ve been litigating 40 years; there’s experts on both sides.”
Afterward, he thanked Rogan for maintaining “this little island of free speech in a desert of suppression and of critical thinking.”
Kennedy reiterated this point in the Aug. 23, 2024, speech that ended his presidential campaign. The “alternative media” had kept his ideas alive, he said, while the mainstream networks had shut him out despite his historically high third-party poll numbers of 15% to 20%.
“The DNC-allied mainstream media networks maintained a near-perfect embargo on interviews with me,” Kennedy said.
Speaking directly to the reporters in the room, he added, “Your institutions and media made themselves government mouthpieces and stenographers for the organs of power.”
Kennedy ended that speech by endorsing Trump for president, a move that reportedly prompted Trump to promise his former rival a role overseeing health policy in his administration.
Left-to-right pipeline
Trust in a range of U.S. institutions is at historical lows. Americans on both the right and the left are skeptical of power. As the 2024 election results showed, they crave radical change.
Alternative media hosts tapped into this desire, helping to push some disaffected listeners rightward. The same left-to-right pipeline landed Kennedy in Trump’s orbit.
Trump and his allies were adept at harnessing the power of the alternative media ecosystem. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump appeared on male-centric shows like “The Joe Rogan Experience,” and “This Past Weekend w/Theo Von,” and many media critics see this as a big factor in Trump’s success winning over young, male voters. Both Rogan and Von were personally thanked by name at Trump’s victory celebration.
Trump and his inner circle even form part of the alternative media themselves. Trump founded the alternative social media platform Truth Social and his adviser Steve Bannon hosts an influential podcast called the “War Room” on another MAGA alternative media platform, Rumble. Known for its fiery populist rhetoric, the “War Room” broadcasts live for an astonishing 22 hours a week.
Bannon, who was briefly jailed for contempt of Congress in mid-2024 and now faces trial in New York for financial fraud, used his show as a soapbox to promote Trump’s candidacy. He also praised Kennedy on the air, boosting the Democrat’s profile among his far-right listeners.
For Kennedy, aisle-crossing is part of the solution to partisan polarization.
“Step outside the culture war!” he tweeted in July 2024. “Step outside the politics of hating the other side!”
This story has been updated to reflect the outcome of the 2024 election and Kennedy’s likely nomination to Trump’s cabinet. It was originally published on Oct. 29, 2024.
Rachel Meade, Lecturer of Political Science, Boston University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
Urbanism1 year agoSignal Hill, California: A Historic Enclave Surrounded by Long Beach
-
News2 years agoDiana Gregory Talks to us about Diana Gregory’s Outreach Services
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoThe Absolute Most Comfortable Pickleball Shoe I’ve Ever Worn!
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoACE PICKLEBALL CLUB TO DEBUT THEIR HIGHLY ANTICIPATED INDOOR PICKLEBALL FRANCHISES IN THE US, IN EARLY 2023
-
STM Blog2 years agoWorld Naked Gardening Day: Celebrating Body Acceptance and Nature
-
Automotive2 years ago2023 Nissan Sentra pricing starts at $19,950
-
Travel2 years agoUnique Experiences at the CitizenM
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years ago“THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARDS OF PICKLEBALL” – VOTING OPEN