Why Is Our Water So Bad That We Need Water Filters
Why do we use and need water filters.
Heck 20 years ago a water filter was not really a thought and people knew we needed to drink water as it was pure. Did we just really start to contaminate our drinking supplies such as rivers, streams, ponds, lakes, and oceans? Did we just start manufacturing chemicals so strong that they are a hazard to our health and when dumped or combined into our water cannot be cleaned thoroughly enough to make safe drinking water?
Well actually it is a cause of many years of chemicals being dumped and becoming more commercial and all our manufacturing processes becoming automated. Not too many people do their jobs by hand. Everything is computerized, run by robots or machines.
Our water has suffered because of our extreme automation.
Even though our water companies try hard to make our water safe for drinking, the fact is that they have to use some chemicals to purify the water and there are possible long term effect of these chemicals. We may not see them right away from 5 or 10 years down the road the effects could cause degenerative diseases including cancer, arthritis, diabetes, colon problems, chronic fatigue syndrome and more.
Fortunately we do have water filters now available to help remove the contaminants and chemicals in our drinking water. It is a shame we have to actually use a filter at all but since our water is already in the condition it is there is not much we can do about it now except use a filter to clean it.
When our water was tested it was found to have tiny minute fragments of toilet paper and feces present. Acquiring a water filter of any sort will help be a great benefit to our general health.
Environmental Sustainability - A Mirage?
Introduction
Trying to have matured adults agree on one concrete definition of “Sustainability”, is by far one of the toughest jobs. Though various organizations and thought leaders have tried their best to explore, analyze and beat it down to one precise meaning without success, there seems to be the common thread of Environment, Society and the Economy, running through them all. Northwest Environment Watch, a not-for-profit research and communication center based in Seattle, has according to me given a definition that is by far the closest to appropriate. It said that sustainability is “an economy and way of life in which both people and nature flourish, a culture that can last.” The Executive Order 00-07, signed by Gov. John Kitzhaber of the State of Oregon, in May of 2000 says that, “Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs.” It also goes on a step further to say that, “Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs.” This again almost co-relates to the Northwest Environment Watch’s stand. Let us now venture to explore three of the most critical influencers, and analyze their roles in achieving the goal of sustainability.
Growth of World Population
Agenda 21, The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet. (Sitarz 1993) explains very well the relation between population growth and the environmental health of the planet: “The spiraling growth of world population fuels the growth of global production and consumption. Rapidly increasing demands for natural resources, employment, education and social services make any attempts to protect natural resources and improve living standards very difficult. There is an immediate need to develop strategies aimed at controlling world population growth.” (p. 44)
Scientists, since a long time, have been underlining that, the Earth, if we believe in the fact that it’s a spherical surface, does have a capacity and limit to which it can carry or support. The Population of the planet, rising in leaps and bounds, will soon lead to a complete utilization of the World’s depleting Natural Resources. As May observes (May 1993): “…the scale and scope of human activities have, for the first time, grown to rival the natural processes that built the biosphere and that maintain it as a place where life can flourish. Many facts testify to this statement. It is that somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the earth’s primary productivity, from plant photosynthesis on land and in the sea, is now appropriated for human use.” This truly is matter of alarm. If we continue the growth of population at the current rate, we would be in a situation, where Sustainability would be a myth. Hence at no point of time should the Growth of Population be considered in isolation. Its growth in relation to the depleting Natural Resources in the planet is what heightens concern.
Governments, Association and Individuals of credibility, have continuously assembled and voiced opinions that “something” out to be done to “save the life and the planet”. Global Warming has been an issue within an agenda, in almost every summit. But all that came out of the discussions and the so called “action plans” are vague terms like “we need to Control the population”. Never has it moved towards action steps to actually stop population growth. The Report named Agenda 21, The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, under the heading of “National Population Policies” goes to state that: “The long term consequences of human population growth must be fully grasped by all nations. They must rapidly formulate and implement appropriate programs to cope with the inevitable increase in population numbers.” (p. 45). Surprisingly such reports, continuously contradict themselves. Firstly they do not lay down concrete steps to stop the growth, even as they underplay the total problem at hand. On one hand they say that there is an immediate need to “control” the population growth to reach the goal of sustainability. With the same breath they point out, that population growth is “inevitable”. So when they do believe that the Population Growth is inevitable in spite of all, their claim of undertaking “appropriate steps” to curb or Control Population growth makes Sustainability sound like an oxymoron. Doesn’t it?
Consumer – Oriented Lifestyle
In the light of the definitions of Sustainability indicated earlier, the consumer-oriented lifestyle is best analyzed through a Social Practices Approach to Environment. We have been pushing the blame of an ever-increasing population for an Environmental crisis towards under-developed and developing nations so far. Apart from the fact that our home ground is also no lesser evil in this respect, there is a bigger problem of our consumer-oriented lifestyle that is contributing substantially to killing the existing Natural resources and has become an important issue to be addressed to reach the goal of sustainability.
According to Prof. dr. ire. G. Saracen in his The Social Practices Approach for Environmental Policymaking; theory, methodology and policy-development for sustainable domestic consumption, “The Social Practices Approach offers an integrative model to analyze and under-stand transitions towards sustainable consumption at the level of everyday life”. He also says that individual Consumers “develop ’story-lines’ with respect to the environmental dimension of their lifestyles and provide legitimacy and rationality to the choices they make at the different segments of their lifestyles”. The three major consumption needs of an individual in a Society, namely Home and Maintenance, Food Consumption, Travel & Transport, have led to Rapid Urbanization & Home Construction, increasing vehicles and road construction, food preparation, and building Factories. As you see, a consumer-oriented approach is directly proportional to Industrialization, which in turn directly affects the Environment with its depleting Natural resources. When the need of the day is to increase rapid Agricultural Opportunities to counter the depleting Natural Assets of the Environment, isn’t a consumer Oriented Lifestyle with it’s need of sustenance a contradiction to the attainment of the goal of sustainability?
Stewardship
The last topic we would explore is the role of Stewardship. Sustainability is just not an individual problem or issue anymore. Though the life of every individual in this planet is affected, the magnitude of the problem is so vast, that no single department, or government can be held responsible. It is a Global issue, and needs to be addressed collectively. The inattention so far to attributing a direct responsibility, has been one of the major problems of not acting in the direction of attaining the goal. Hence every individual, every Government, every Organization or Association Body, and every Educational Institution has to own stewardship, to take steps, of reaching the goal of Sustainability.
This being said, the second aspect of Stewardship that needs to be addressed is “who leads?” We at United States, being the most developed, has a direct role in leading the world towards the goal. As they say that the best way to lead, is through example. “Our own country is the leading polluter on Earth, generating more greenhouse gases, especially CO2, than any other country. Not a word alone but by binding action, our nation has an inescapable moral duty to lead the way to genuinely effective solutions. We …call upon our government to change national policy so that the United States will begin to ease, not continue to increase, the burdens on our biosphere and their effect upon the planet’s people”. (Joint Appeal by Religion and Science for the Environment “DECLARATION OF THE ‘MISSION TO WASHINGTON” Washington, D.C,, May 12, 1992) What action steps have we really taken so far since then?
Conclusion
Bottom line: the word “Sustainability” has been continuously used so freely. If it is a sustained effort to cure today for a better tomorrow, what have we done for the immediate present? Every result of a meeting, every conclusion of a summit, has been filled with redundant usage of vague terminologies as “efforts will be taken”, “control will be exercised”, “reduction in population growth” etc. It has been interspersed with blame games. But never has any one body pointedly answered the specific question of “How”? It is about time, that we did this, unless everyone of us living today, every government in power, and every responsible organization wish to be accountable for the total extinction of the human species on earth.
Environmental Causes of Morbid Obesity Are Far Reaching
Morbid obesity is no laughing matter, especially to the over nine million Americans who are suffering with this condition. Add this to the millions in other developed countries around the world and morbid obesity is a significant health issue. By definition, a person can be diagnosed with obesity if they weigh at least 100 pounds over their ideal body weight and if they also have a BMI (body mass index) over 40. What makes someone morbidly obese as opposed to someone who is obese is the fact that those who are classified as morbidly obese have had the problem for many years so that the problem is termed as chronic.
What about Genetics?
When an individual suffers with obesity, they often want to figure out the cause, other than “eating too much” which is often the first thing people blame it on. This is not always the case but is very often a significant part of the problem. It’s true that many professionals believe that genetics play a part in those who are obese, or fat. There was an article recently published in the Sunday Mail newspaper in Brisbane Australia about new studies declaring that the diet of the pregnant woman, can actually be a factor in whether or not her child has a future problem with obesity. So, what this means is that a child born with the predisposition to obesity will have to learn how to avoid developing it from a very early age. This is where the environment steps in.
Environmental Causes
After a child is born, their environment consists of their parents and family. They learn everything from them. So it’s important that the family practices good, healthy eating and exercise programs as part of the family activities. It’s not necessary to scare the children into eating right, but if from the beginning they are taught good practices for healthy living, they may head off the problem, at least for awhile.
When the child gets a bit older and is exposed to the activities of their peers and of course TV, well, then these more unhealthy environmental factors can influence the behavior of the child. Again, this is where the family and schools have to play a greater role in educating children about having a healthy lifestyle.
Other environmental issues can come into play as well. You have genetics which can affect metabolism, other medical conditions that can cause one to be obese, you have the culture and society into which one is born which can also influence the eating and lifestyle habits which can be good or bad. The socioeconomic status can be an environmental cause of morbid obesity because often the less healthy foods are less expensive to buy that the fresh, and healthy alternatives. So, if a family is simply not financially well off might feel they have no choice but to provide the unhealthy alternatives to their family members.
Health Problems Relating to Morbid Obesity
Many health problems can be in part attributed to by morbid obesity. These include but certainly aren’t limited to cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke, gallbladder problems, arthritis, and sleeping problems, like sleep apnea for example.
Lifestyle Decisions Can be Complicated
Most everyone in the western world (unless they’ve been living under a rock) are aware of the obesity epidemic. The issue then becomes, if we know all this, why is the problem getting worse and not better? Environmental influences contribute to the difficulty in making the healthy decisions because the person is influenced by their family, friends, TV, and other media. They want to feel “normal” and be able to have a lifestyle full of junk food and no exercise and still look like all the media stars they see on a daily basis. Then what happens, is they find out that they’re getting fatter by the day , get depressed and then try to fill the void with even more food. It’s quite a dilemma.
Changing your lifestyle is always a challenge at the best of times. Making the better decisions can be as simple as walking to the store instead of driving. Stop using the elevator and take the stairs. Get out into the fresh air for a half hour in the morning and afternoon and walk around the neighborhood. Simple but effective ways to alter your environment.
Help Doesn’t Come Cheap
If you’re one of the “rich and famous” and can have your own chef, personal trainer, and lifestyle coach then changing your life may seem to be easier. You can afford all the gym memberships and weight loss programs you want to help you achieve your goals.But if you’re not one of “them”, then you are left with the tried and true way of eating less than you you’re used to, exercise more and make better food choices. Support for these changes is always important and the individual may again need their “environment” to change in order to get the support. They will need the help of friends and family and maybe even help through the Internet or diet and exercise programs. But, no matter what the environmental cause of morbid obesity is, the solution remains pretty much the same.
No Escaping Diet and Eating Behavior
No matter what the cause of morbid obesity, diet and eating behaviors are issues that can’t be avoided. Even if genetics are the major culprit, the solution is inevitably diet and eating behaviour. Diet itself is one of the most significant environmental causes of morbid obesity. Fast food outlets have gradually increased the portion sizes so that over time people have come to believe that these large portions are in fact normal. This is so untrue but the impact on diet has been profound.In addition, the public has come to rely on fast food and junk food for their convenience and this high caloric intake has done a lot of damage.
Now What Do You Do?
If environmental causes of morbid obesity is of concern to you either for yourself or for your family, then finding a way to change to a healthier lifestyle is paramount. Find a weight loss program you can stick to and incorporate physical activities to your daily routine. There are literally thousands of weight loss programs available. There is no “one size fits all” program but with a bit of searching you can find one that appeals. Do your homework, commit to changing your life and it will happen. It’s always a good idea to consult a physician if you feel their are significant health issues that need to be addressed. And, finally, don’t wait until the problem gets worse. Do something about it today.
The Bottled Water Industry And Its Environmental Impacts
The bottled water industry is a rapidly expanding business- to illustrate, consumers spend $100 billion collectively on this product each year. Most buyers perceive bottled water as being more clean and better than regular tap water, and it is thought to have a positive health impact. But what about its environmental impacts?
Unfortunately, the industry is generally proclaimed as having a negative environmental impact. An excess of energy and resources are used in the process of manufacturing and transporting the bottles, and even worse is its generation of solid waste- the used plastic bottles.
According to the calculations of the Pacific Institute, the bottled water industry process for making the plastic bottles for those used up in the US utilizes as much as 17 million barrels of oil each year, which is enough to power 100,000 for 1 year.
Aside from the making of these bottles, additional resources are used to transport the products. A number of brands are imported and therefore have to be transferred through large distances via ship, rail transit, or truck. So much energy and resources are employed just for the process of transporting a product from where it was manufactured, to stores, and finally to the consumer. For example and as described at best-bottled-water.com, 250g of CO2 is produced for each bottle of Fiji Water shipped to the USA-this is composed of 93g to make the water bottle in China, 46 for moving the bottle to Fiji where it is filled with water, and 153g for transporting the bottle to the USA.
And although the plastic bottles are made up of material that are generally recyclable, 80% of the bottled water bottles consumed in the USA just end up in landfills. Recycling rates are even lower worldwide, with 90% of the bottles not being recycled.
Unlike tap water, the manufacturing and transportation of the product uses up large amounts of oil, fossil fuels, and other resources. It also adds waste to landfills. Furthermore, what consumers need to know is that city tap water undergoes rigorous testing and has purification standards. Tap water testing is actually done more frequently than that for some commercial water brands.
Some entities, like a water wholesaler in the Santa Clara County of Northern California, are even urging people to drink tap water to reduce the negative environmental impact and reserve funds and resources. Now that you know more about the bottled water industry and its economical costs, will you still buy the product?
Sustainable Development On The Stump - Environmental Policies Of Obama, Clinton, And Mccain
How will U.S. environmental and energy policies look in 2009? With the primaries winding down, we’re starting to get a better idea. Senator Barack Obama fancies himself on this issue, as on most, a man of vision. Senator Clinton calls above all for accountability. The presumed nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, has very noble beliefs. Because recent polling shows that environmental issues like global warming aren’t at the top of voter priorities, it is doubly important to press candidates about clarifying their positions. So, what are candidates saying now about environmental and energy policies?
Obama’s rabble rousing oratory capacities have awed and inspired many; however if you watch a clip of him on the stump it is easy enough to see how he is guilty of espousing what one journal describes as a “vague uplift”. While hardly a death blow, this claim is at present especially damaging for its implicit contrast to the “crisp detail” famously proffered, and willingly delivered on cue, by the Clinton machine.
Not so in the policy literature. Hillary’s showing is respectable, to be sure; however it is Obama’s campaign webpage that wins my top marks for clear, effective and economical presentation of his intended approach. In the field of carbon emissions, he aims to impose a market-based cap-and-trade system with the ultimate goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. He would utilize some of the revenues generated in carbon-credit auctions to ease the burden of those negatively impacted by the enormous economic transition.
Obama believes in a massive investment in clean energy initiatives. As president he would “invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure”, with the specific goal of ensuring that newly developed technologies are commercialized and brought to market in the United States and beyond. He would pursue an ambitious campaign to double funding for energy research and development. He would invest to ensure labor supply in a “clean technologies workforce” and to bring clean technologies to manufacturing centers such as Detroit. Obama would actively pursue the development of coal technologies cleaner than those which are presently in use. His hope to move toward oil independence is founded on the improvement of fuel efficiency standards. To do this he would provide guarantees to auto manufacturers that experiment with new engines and lightweight materials. This would be parcel to a broader national campaign of efficiency improvement; other incentives would include grants for local governments that implement building codes more favorable to energy efficiency.
The final pillar of his environmental policy is the restoration of American leadership on climate change. He would create a new Global Energy Forum to facilitate communication amongst the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and would further pursue coordination within the framework of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Senator Clinton’s proposals are remarkably similar to Obama’s on a number of levels. She too favors a cap-and-trade system which would see 100% of permits auctioned; she too hopes to invest $150 billion over ten years in “new energy” (some of the bills to be footed by corporations); and she too hopes to double federal investment in energy research. She has established timetables of national goals for energy reduction and use of clean energy similar to those of Obama. And finally, she too favors efforts to increase automobile fuel efficiency, specifically through the provision of $20 billion in “Green Vehicle Bonds” to American automakers. It would be interesting to see a chronological side-by-side of their respective policy evolutions.
In her traditional mass appeal to America’s middle and lower-middle classes, there is finally something of a differentiation, if it is more one of form than function. In addition to supporting “green collar” jobs, she would seek to modernize 20 million existing low income homes to improve energy efficiency. She would initiate a “Connie Mae” program to ease the acquisition of green homes by low and middle-income Americans. And finally she would require all new federal buildings to comply with zero-emissions specifications.
There is one commendable initiative unique to Clinton. She would oblige publicly-traded companies to include estimations of financial risk posed by climate change in annual reports submitted to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. However such a policy might be of limited effectiveness if companies included the estimations only to appease the requirement without genuine regard for its implication.
To end the investigation, it is John McCain who receives poor marks, not for benevolence of intentions but for clarity of vision. In five short and murky paragraphs, it is he who commits the sin of “vague uplift”, failing to elicit a single clear policy initiative through verbose allusions to the forces of a cap-and-trade regime. In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt he believes in preserving America’s natural majesty. His belief that “America’s economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked” is all fine and well. But I would hope to see a more clear-eyed expression of his means to this end. In a video clip tagged to the page, the Senator expresses his belief that the United States should join the Kyoto Protocol if China and India could be brought onboard. This suggests another debate which I evoked in last week’s column concerning the respective sacrifices of developed and developing nations in the battle to cut greenhouse emissions. Finally, citing the instability of many oil-producing states, McCain too advocates energy independence for the United States. America has been a net importer of oil for decades; true independence is only achievable through the intensive use of renewables and a great push to improve conventional fuel efficiency.
New headquarters facility for Sentry Equipment
Sentry Equipment and Pabst Farms Development held a groundbreaking ceremony on 18 October for the Sentry Equipment new headquarters facility in Oconomowoc.
Sentry Equipment and Pabst Farms Development held a groundbreaking ceremony on 18 October for the Sentry Equipment new headquarters facility. The new 51,100-square-foot building will house company offices and manufacturing. The company manufactures sampling systems and components, automatic samplers, and specialty heat exchangers.
Industries that Sentry serves include utility/power generation, oil refining, pharmaceutical, chemical, plastics, food, mining and cement.
Sentry products are distributed worldwide and the company has been the recipient of multiple awards for export sales.
Sentry Equipment CEO Mike Farrell addressed the 100 Sentry employee owners during the groundbreaking: ‘For without each and every one of you we would not be here today starting on a new building to house our collective and individual creativity, hard work and effort.
In our company we machine, weld and assemble products, we solve problems for the people who use our products, we design new products, we make processes work better, and we do it best because every employee is an owner; every customer is a commitment’.
Dan Warren, development manager at Pabst Farms Development, said Sentry Equipment will be a welcome addition to the Commerce Centre at Pabst Farms.
‘We are particularly happy that a long-time, highly respected employee-owned business has decided to relocate within Oconomowoc’.
Sentry Equipment began as The Henszey Company in 1924.
The Henszey family sold the business to its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust in 1986.
Currently, 100 employee owners are actively engaged in the expanding company.
Sentry’s continued growth, as well as two recent acquisitions, has given rise to the need for additional manufacturing and office space beyond what its current Oconomowoc site allows.
The resulting entity is the single company with the most diverse array of sampling equipment and solutions in the world.
Automatic aseptic sampling system for breweries
A contamination-free aseptic sampling system, initially developed for the milk processing industry by leading hygienic valve specialists Sudmo, is now gaining recognition in the beverage industries.
A contamination-free aseptic sampling system, initially developed for the milk processing industry by leading hygienic valve specialists Sudmo, is now gaining international recognition in the brewing and beverage industries, ensuring they maintain the highest possible quality for their products. Qualified laboratory personnel and a suitably equipped laboratory require aseptic sampling to prove that filling systems are themselves aseptic. The Sudmo sampling system prevents germs entering the sampling process from the environment and thereby avoids contamination, which can affect any results through secondary infection.
A germ-free environment during continuous 24-hour production is one of the principle demands the beverage industry makes on the process periphery of cold aseptic filling (CAF) systems.
In order to prove sterility, any corresponding sampling system must provide an aseptic mode of operation.
This fully-automatic system for contamination-free sampling can be used for products with a viscosity of up to 100 mPas.
Essentially, it consists of a dead space-free valve block with an inline housing connection and is equipped with three miniature fold bellows valves.
One of the valves and the pipeline system to be sampled are connected via an inline connection.
The two other valves serve to import steam and flushing water into the sampling system.
A sampling station is connected to this valve block via a pipeline, into which a sampling bottle can be inserted via a special sampling lock.
The system is sealed by a combination consisting of a PT-100 resistance thermometer, a steam trap and two aseptic valves via which the condensate, flushing water and the CIP (cleaning in process) media can be separated.
Easy Dismantling.
During the design phase special consideration has been given to the sampling bottle stopper.
It is designed similar to a keg flat fitting and consists of a minimum number of parts that can be dismantled and reassembled with the minimum of effort.
The stopper has a spring-loaded locking pin, which can only be pressed towards the inside.
In contrast to other competitive systems, the bottle can be removed after sampling without other components.
After processing the specimen, the bottle and the dismantled stopper are cleaned, re-assembled and subsequently autoclaved as a complete unit.
This guarantees the sampling bottle is in perfect hygienic condition before the next sampling.
Handling the sampling bottle when placing it into the pick-up unit is extremely easy and can even be performed single handed.
A locking bar makes the operation ergonomic, simple and safe.
After the pick-up unit has been clamped and mechanically secured, the automatic sampling cycle can be started.
It automatically performs a series of steps, which carry out the following functions sequentially under temperature and/or time-controlled conditions:.
* Steaming of the inside of the sampling system at up to 150C in order to sterilize all areas.
* Defined cooling phase, in order to avoid a thermal change of the specimen when being transferred to the sampling bottle.
* Transfer of the specimen from the pipeline system to the sampling bottle, in which the drive of the pick-up unit presses the locking pin towards the inside during pulse/pause operation, thereby releasing the flow path of the liquid to be sampled into the sampling bottle.
* Flushing the sampling system to remove product residue.
The Sudmo aseptic sampling system unit is available in various design formats.
The simplest design is limited to the mechanical components.
The scope of delivery includes valve technology together with complete piping and adaptation in the process pipe.
This design offers customers the advantage of integrating the unit with an existing control system.
As an extended expansion level Sudmo offers automation and a switch cabinet with corresponding peripheral equipment.
In this case, the manufacturer also is able to carry out the commissioning.
A stand-alone unit, which is factory-fitted with a standard switch cabinet, can be integrated on site directly via aseptic flange connections with the higher-ranking process in accordance with the plug-and-play principle.
The operator has the option of choosing between individual and collective specimens and can start the function at the sampling system directly with the push of a button.
Overall, the complete system offers safe and simple operation providing companies with complete peace of mind; furthermore, the design fully meets all hygiene requirements.
Vehicle Emissions Monitoring Programme launched
Following the success of their Accuscan 4600 vehicle emissions monitoring demonstrations in London and Glasgow this June, Enviro Technology have launched a Vehicle Emissions Monitoring Programme.
Following the success of their Accuscan 4600 vehicle emissions monitoring demonstrations in London and Glasgow this June, Air Quality Monitoring specialists - Enviro Technology - have launched a bespoke Vehicle Emissions Monitoring Programme aimed at local authorities. The launch of this programme comes about due to the overwhelming attendance and information requests which the company received both in the run up to, and during, the Accuscan 4600 demonstration events. Over 4,000 vehicles were tested in both London and Glasgow over a four hour period in June 2006.
Representatives from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Borough of Newham and Transport for London were just some of those in attendance.
Recorded findings from the sites showed the following.
* The percentage of vehicles emitting over 1,500 ppm NO was similar at both sites - around 7%.
* Of the two cities, Glasgow recorded the highest vehicle emissions, with an HGV recorded as emitting 5621 ppm NO and a 4×4 recorded as emitting 3334 ppm NO.
* In London the most prevalent vehicle, the black cab, averaged 800 ppm NO.
* It was noted that brand new (06) registrations were significantly lower.
Says Duncan Mounsor, Enviro Technology Operations Director: ‘These demonstration events showed local authorities just how rapidly vehicle emissions testing technology has developed in the past few years.
Technology has become more rugged and commercially available, and many local authorities were surprised at just how simple it was to set up the Accuscan 4600 and thus start generating results.
Following the success of these events, Enviro Technology has launched their first ‘Vehicle Emissions Monitoring Programme’.
This programme is specifically targeted at those authorities looking to embark on fleet characterisation studies.
ET will work with the authorities to identify suitable testing sites and will then provide the manpower and technology to monitor vehicles over a specific time period.
Says Duncan: ‘Our new programme will enable us, on behalf of the LAs, to monitor vehicles at various pre-determined sites over a specified time period.
We will be able to provide data for over 20,000 vehicles and also provide post processing information.
Enviro Technology has already been commissioned to work on two fleet characterisation surveys using the Accuscan 4600 technology during the next few months.
Enviro Technology is planning on staging more demonstration events later in the year for those local authorities who didn’t make it to London and Glasgow.
Further details will be available on the website.
New distributor for Perma Pure in UK and Ireland
Brunswick Instrumentation Ltd will now distribute Perma Pure conditioning systems and accessories to the gas analyser market in the UK and Ireland
Perma Pure, the leading manufacturer of gas sample conditioning products, has appointed a new distributor. Brunswick Instrumentation Ltd will now distribute Perma Pure conditioning systems and accessories to the gas analyser market in the UK and Ireland. Perma Pure, a member of the Halma Group, has over thirty years experience of manufacturing dryers, humidifiers, filters, coalescers, speciality scrubbers and complete sampling systems for the gas analyser market.
Tony Howard of Brunswick Instrumentation has worked in the extractive gas industry for almost twenty five years and has used Perma Pure products in a variety of demanding applications.
He says ‘The Perma Pure range complements our existing business in both process and continuous emission monitoring system gas analysis and I’m looking forward to developing the Perma Pure business in the UK and Ireland’.
Seamless sampling cylinder range conforms to TPED
These SS sampling cylinders from allow the extraction of a sample from a process location, and provide safe containment for storage and transportation to the laboratory for analysis
Parker Instrumentation has launched a range of stainless steel sampling cylinders, conforming to the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (TPED). The new TPED Series Cylinders are ‘hot spun’ from 316 stainless steel tubing, providing a seamless finish for maximum integrity and corrosion resistance. This weld-free process provides a smooth internal flow path through the neck, minimising the pockets that can trap sample material - for easy cleaning after use.
The cylinders allow the extraction of a sample from a process location, and provide safe containment for storage and transportation to the laboratory for analysis.
Typical applications include hydrocarbon sampling in refineries, gas sampling in chromatography, and condensate sampling in fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.
Sampling cylinders are also commonly used as pressure surge accumulators or reaction vessels.
Four sizes are available: 150, 300, 500 and 1000cc; all are rated for use to 124bar (1800PSI).
Precision, controlled-tolerance female NPT threads are machined at each end of the cylinders for connections with valves and fittings.
The stainless steel material used is heat code traceable.
This traceability follows each cylinder through manufacture, heat treating, cleaning and pressure testing.
Parker offers a comprehensive range of accessories for use with the cylinders including valves and carrying handles.