Example #1 – Banning carbonated drinks
Nowadays, the use of carbonated drinks, meaning that they contain carbon dioxide gas creating those bubbles and fizzling which many kids and adults, as well, like so much has become into a global issue. Carbonated beverages include soft drinks and energy drinks. According to Cameron (2005), more than half of the young population in the developed countries consumes soft drinks frequently (p. 49). Britain, France and big school systems in the USA, such as Philadelphia and Los Angeles have already banned soft drinks in public places, such as schools (Vartanian et al., 2007, p.667).
Now imagine a hot summer day, you are thirsty and go into a supermarket. You have a wide choose of drinks in front of you: water, soft drinks, juices, lemonades or whatever, and in most of cases, you are going to buy a can of cola. Why not mineral water? The use of carbonated drinks has always been an actual theme in the health area and everyone has been told about their dangers. The question is: why do people keep buying them? Doctors and opponents assert that carbonated drinks that affect critically on people’s health and cause the shortage of water resources. However, opponents say that the production of carbonated drinks brings an enormous profit to the economy.
The first reason against soft drink production is that they may lead to different health problems. The increase in obesity among children is a big problem nowadays and one of the main factors is consuming soft drinks. Some of the 88 long-term studies conducted in the area of soft drink usage have shown that the high glycemic index present in the soft drinks stimulates appetite and suppresses the sense of satiety. Participants that used soft drinks for 3 to 10 weeks consumed 20% more energy than in their normal diet, as a result, participants gained weight during the studies, the consequence was a 0.3 increase in their body mass index (BMI) (Vartanian et al., p. 668).
Current research made by James and Kerr (2005) shows that there is a direct link between soft drinks and obesity at every age (p. 56). This can be attributed to the 500% increase in the consumption of soft drinks all over the world in the last 50 years, which followed the increase of obesity among children in both developing and developed countries. As an example, 3.3% increase in childhood obesity between 1991 and 1993 in Thailand, or a 3.8% increase between 1995 and 2003 in the UK (James & Kerr, p. 54).
Moreover, the number of people who suffer from diabetes increased by a 112%. The increase in the average body mass index (BMI) of the population and energy consume correlates with the increase in consuming non-diet carbonated drinks between 1970 and 1997 (Vartanian et al, p. 672). In addition to this, there was a shocking result from a study in the USA where 91249 women participated over 8 years, which showed that those women who consumed 1 serving of soft drink per month had a twice less risk of diabetes and increase in blood pressures than those women who consumed 1 or more serving per day (Vartanian et al., p. 673).
Furthermore, a few studies have shown that participants who consumed soft drinks had exceeded the daily amount of required sugar, which is 32g by 4-5 times. The amount of protein has decreased by an average of 14% and intake of variety of vitamins and nutrients was improper.
Lower level of fruit, dietary fiber and macronutrients in the diet of participants was present. In addition to this, the use of soft drinks has decreased the consumption of calcium sources like milk, which lead to calcium deficiency, lowered bone mineral density and a 10% increase in bone fracture (Vartanian et al., p. 671). Consequently, different health problems may be cause by soft drink consumption.
The second reason in favor of banning energy drinks is that energy drinks are a relatively new product in the market and consumers do not know about possible outcomes of energy drinks’ consume. According to a report by The Associated Press(2003) , third of the teenagers in the USA admit to drink several cans in a row to get a rush of energy, as there are no labels and regulations made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, indicating the possible harms and effects of energy drink consume.
First of all, energy drinks contain caffeine, they also contain amino acids, such as taurine and carnitine, and stimulants, such as ginseng and guarana, which have similar effects to caffeine. Many energy drinks contain the amount of caffeine equal to one cup of coffee, taking more than just one drink may cause problems. According to Bernstein et al. (2002), too much caffeine can lead to insomnia, tremors, sweating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pains and neurologic symptoms (as cited in Finnegan, 2003, .p 149). “Much controversy was around the stimulant drinks” as the case of death in Ireland in the 2000, a male student died after consuming 3 cans of energy drink while participating in a basketball tournament. Three more deaths were linked with going to the gym after consuming several cans of stimulant drinks and the use of energy drinks mixed with vodka in Sweden, July 2001 (Finnegan, .p 148).
Moreover, the usage of energy drinks, a stimulant, combined with alcohol, a depressant, is widely practiced nowadays. A research by Finnegan shows that energy drinks combined with alcohol are consumed by more than half of the people surveyed on Ireland. Few researches were conducted in this area. According to O’Brien (n.d), “people who consumed energy drinks with alcohol were twice as likely to injure themselves, require medical attention, or ride with a drunk driver” (as cited in Cody, 2009, p. 23). Alcohol consumed separately leads to change in behavior, lowered blood pressure and increased heart rate, while caffeine consumed separately causes increased blood pressure.
According to Rush et al. (1993), when caffeine and alcohol are mixed together, caffeine “partially decreases the behavioral effects of alcohol”. However, heart related effects, like heart pressure and heart rate do not change (as cited in Finnegan, .p 153). The Swedish National Food Authority[SNFA](2001) recommended not to drink stimulant drinks with alcohol, which was followed by the case of a young woman’s death in Sweden from arrhythmia after using energy drinks with alcohol (as cited in Finnegan, p. 153). Thus, there is a small information about energy drinks and they should be drank carefully.
The third reason in favor of banning carbonated drinks is that the carbonated drinks’ industry consumes too much water resources. According to Vandani(2005) “it takes nine litres of clean water to manufacture a litre of Coke” (para. 1). As an example, the case of India. Nowadays, Coca-Cola and Pepsi owned 90 multinational factories that produce carbonated drinks in India.
The companies constructed water-pumping plants describing them as bottling plants which extract up to 1.5million litres of water a day. As a consequence of Coca-Cola’s activities, 260 wells have depleted in India, followed by the drop of the water table from 45 to 150 m below the surface (Vandani 2005, para. 3). This case was followed by the closure of several multinational water-pumping factories in India.
However, carbonated drinks bring enormous profit to the economy. Carbonated drinks generated a total of $187.2billion in the 2009 (Datamonitor, 2010, p. 7).One of the most well-known giants in this industry are companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Red Bull, followed by thousands of brands. These companies contribute to huge amounts of money going through the world trade market. To give an example, in the 2007 the Coca-Cola brand itself was valued at $44.134 billion (Brand Value of Coca-Cola, para. 4), after Microsoft, GE and Google, owning other 12, billion dollar brands, such as Fanta, Sprite.
The statistic shows that only Coca-Cola’s net sales are $28billions, $32billions and $30.990billions worldwide for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively, the profit was $5.9billions, $5.807billions and $6.823billions each of the years (Coca-Cola Company (KO), 2010, Table 1). Nowadays, the Coca-Cola Company is expanding all over the world, establishing its presence in more than 200 countries.
This includes over 92,800 employees all over the world (Coca-Cola Company Information, 2010), without counting those who work on factories and different facilities. Another example of the carbonated drinks industry member is Red Bull, which is the fastest growing industry in the USA nowadays, doubling their sales every year. They have a net income of $4billions and a profit of $2billions in the 2009 with 8000 employees (Forbes, 2009).
Moreover, carbonated drinks companies invest a lot of money in different projects. The Coca-Cola Company itself has 19 local and regional foundations which help to improve the well-being of society. As an example, The Coca-Cola Africa Foundation, founded in the 2001, which made a $30million investment to African countries in the 2009, it also helps anticipating malaria and AIDS, it also provides education and job places in Africa.
There are other foundations, such as The Coca-Cola Youth Foundation, which helps young disabled children, providing disabled people with different activities and supporting young, or the SAS & Coca-Cola Environmental Foundation, which “funds projects related to waste management, recycling, and water resources”.
Foundations like Coca-Cola Foundation Philippines, Thailand , Indonesia help citizens of those countries in cases of disasters, provide better opportunities in livelihood and education, supporting young people in need (Coca-Cola Regional and Local Foundations, 2010). Taxes on soft drinks also bring profit to the economy. As an example, $40 million from 2 cents per 360 ml of soft drink taxes in Arkansas, $218 million from 7.25% sales tax in California and $1 billion in the USA annually (Jacobson & Brownell, 2000, p. 854). So, the world economy benefits from the carbonated drink industry.
In conclusion, banning carbonated drinks causes much controversy. There are opinions that the negative effects of carbonated drinks are the different health problems that they cause and the shortage of water resources, however, they bring economic profits to the economy. In my point of view, the ban of carbonated drinks does not seem a very realistic solution, as in the case of banning cigarettes or alcohol. However, the regulation of carbonated drinks usage and proper advertising among children should be a good solution. Also, carbonated drinks should be banned in public places such as schools and universities.
Example #2 – Napster: Problem Or Solution
In mid-1999, 19 year old Northeastern University student Shawn Fanning designed a computer program that allowed one to log on to a central server, and be able to download mp3 music files from another computer at lightning speed, with great ease. He called this program Napster, after his old high school nickname. Since it’s inception, Napster has sparked court cases involving every major record company in North America, and created a worldwide debate about copyright infringement and it’s effects on the music industry.
Napster is a peer to peer file-sharing program designed specifically for the exchange of MPEG 1 Layer 3,also known as MP3, digital audio files. These files are super-compressed audio that would normally be more than ten times larger than they are as MP3s. This is because MP3s special coding cuts down on file size while maintaining nearly all noticeable sound quality.
Because of this people use MP3s to record songs and store them on their computers. They can be played using many different pieces of audio software available such as Nullsoft’s Winamp and Microsoft Windows Media Player. Napster is designed to facilitate the easy searching and exchanging of MP3 files by allowing users to search for specific songs or artists and displaying a list of those songs available through other Napster users.
This is great for users who want to enjoy free music but the record companies aren’t quite as happy about this. They are concerned that Napster steals money from them and the artists that they represent. This is because if Napster users get songs for free from other users, they won’t be paying the record companies for CDs. Luckily for the record companies, there are laws in place to protect interests such as theirs.
These laws are called copyright laws. They prevent people from using, distributing, or selling things that are not theirs. By having music that one did not buy on a CD, or distributing music through programs such as Napster, one is committing copyright infringement. The record companies are so angry about all of this that they have decided to take it to court. Since they can not sue all of the thousands and thousands of Napster users who are committing copyright infringement, they have decided to sue Napster itself instead.
This would effectively eliminate the source of the problem as most MP3 exchange today is done through Napster. The problem is that Napster is never actually committing copyright infringement, as Napster is never actually in possession of illegal MP3 files.
They are never stored in, nor do they travel through Napster’s server. The server merely record the name and location of the files and routes users together in order to exchange files. Once the users have been connected the file is transferred directly from one user to another and the Napster server is no longer involved. Because of this design, the record companies have decided to accuse Napster of facilitating copyright infringement.
This means that they did not actually steal any music but they help user do so. Right now the case is still going on. In early August, the courts decided that Napster must shut down its server, effectively cutting off all of its users. This was handed down in the form of an injunction.
Shortly after, the decision was appealed and the case continued. Napster went back online, and the court case is continued. Recently Bertelsmann, owner of BMG Records, dropped its part of the suit and settled out of court with Napster. Some individual bands have also decided to act against Napster, but in a different way. Metallica, a band widely known as the most popular heavy metal band today, hired a consulting firm to record the username and IP addresses of users who had illegally shared or downloaded their songs over a period of days. They delivered the list of hundreds of thousands of users to Napster headquarters and demanded that these users be kicked off of the service.
They were. Other musicians such as rap superstar and forefather Dr. Dre have followed suit. Many users who were kicked off have become very angry and Metallica has received a lot of negative media attention as a result of their actions. Other bands, on the other hand, see Napster as an easier way to new bands to get heard, a way to take away some of the power from the strangle holds of a few giant media conglomerates that control the music industry, and as the new wave in music distribution. Either way, one thing is for sure: MP3s, the Internet, and Napster has and will continue to seriously change the way that recorded music is exchanged.
How Napster Works:
1. Napster is downloaded and installed on a personal computer. It is available as a completely free download from http://www.napster.com. It is now available to users of all recent versions of either Microsoft Windows or Apple’s Mac OS. The only other requirement is a connection to the Internet. A faster Internet connection is beneficial because the faster the connection, the faster one can download music.
2. The software enables the PC to log on to Napster’s server. The server is the center of the Napster service. It keeps virtual “libraries” of the songs that each Napster user has. Whenever a user logs in, their computer reports to the server what songs they are sharing in these libraries. When a search is made, the server checks its database for any other Napster users who are online and have the file that the searcher is looking for. A search can be made using the criteria of title and artist.
3. If the server finds a match, Napster puts the computer that has the file directly in touch with the computer that wants it, and the file is downloaded from one to the other. Each computer on the Internet has an address. This is called an IP address. Depending on the type of service that one uses to connect to the Internet, IP addresses can either be static or dynamic. Static IP addresses are always the same while dynamic IP addresses change every time that the user connects to the internet. Cable modems use static IP addresses while telephone, Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) use dynamic IP addresses. There are pros and cons to each system. The main criticism of static IP addresses is that hackers can get a user’s IP address and take as long as they need to in order to work on breaking into their system.
Hackers can not do that if one’s IP address changes every time that they connect. Providers of static IP address services use firewalls in order to help prevent such unwanted tampering by hackers. Firewalls are available in two forms, hardware and software. Hardware firewalls are separate devices that attach to a personal computer, a network, or a server. Software firewalls are pieces of software in a PC or network server. Both types of firewalls perform the same function. They monitor information between a user and the Internet. They are programmed to detect and eliminate any unwanted exchanges of information from occurring, such as a hacker attempting to infiltrate a user’s computer.
The Arguments: Napster, the Record Companies, the Artists
Artists whose music is shared on the Napster network are very divided on the issue of whether the service is to be shut down. Several artists have taken very prominent stances for or against the program. While some have brought forth legal proceedings against the company, others have embraced it and openly admit its benefits.
In May 2000, Lars Ulrich, drummer from the rock band Metallica, delivered a list of 317,377 names of Napster users names to the company who were later banned, as he demanded that Napster restrict access to the band’s music. The site subsequently banned 230,142 users who downloaded mp3’s of rapper Dr. Dre. Metallica and Dr. Dre later filed identical copyright infringement lawsuits against Napster.
Later, in July, Ulrich took the case up a notch before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that Congress needs to pass new laws to protect copyrighted music against Napster and other Internet music-download services.
Then, in September, Howard King, a Los Angeles attorney who represents Metallica and Dr. Dre, sent letters earlier this month to about a dozen prominent educational institutions asking campus administrators to restrict access to Napster. Duke University, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently rejected these requests to halt the use of Napster. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) also has declined to impose a ban. On the opposing side, Yale University , University Of Indiana, and the University of Southern California decided to implement the ban. These requests, as well as the actual suit, were still unresolved at the time of writing this essay.
Alternately, there are several artists that have embraced the technology. The Offspring originally had some problems with the company, as they used the Napster logo on merchandise without the company’s permission. However, they have since reached an agreement and continue to sell the merchandise and support all of Napster’s efforts to remain functional. The funds from the merchandise are going to The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
During July and August of this year, rock band Limp Bizkit reached an agreement with Napster to perform in a series of free tour dates, sponsored by the company, with the band receiving no profits. They also brought rappers Cypress Hill on the tour. They have also made statements openly supporting their decisions and encouraging users to continue taking advantage of the service, calling it an excellent way to expose people to new music. In fact, on Napster’s web site, there is an entire feature on artists’ statements supporting Napster, by performers such as Madonna and Prince.
Finally, rapper Chuck D. received serious criticism when he posted four of his newest songs in mp3 format on his internet home, and actually spoke in front of Congress in May to speak of his experiences and opinions on Napster and it’s effects on music as a business and an entertainment.
Even without going into much depth as to the reasons behind their stances, the chasm between some artists regarding Napster and mp3 is huge, and while some artists only mildly represent one side or the other, several have taken huge steps in the direction that they feel is right.
The Napster-Bertelsmann Agreement
Napster, of Redwood City, California and Bertelsmann, of Germany have recently formed a strategic alliance. Bertelsmann, the media conglomerate and owner of BMG music, has decided to make a large financial investment in Napster to give it a much needed injection of capital.
They have also agreed to drop the lawsuit brought on by BMG, their record company, that is similar to the suit brought on by other record companies. The lawsuit was a multimillion-dollar case brought on against Napster by many of the world’s largest and most powerful media empires. They were suing Napster for facilitating copyright infringement by allowing users to exchange MP3 files that had been illegally copied without consent or royalty paid to the record companies.
They will also put BMG music on Napster to be available to all Napster users. In return, Napster intends to make a huge concession that some believe will compromise the original intent and current appeal of the program. They intend to charge a monthly user fee to all Napster users to allow them to access the service.
The impact of this concept is yet unknown, and can only truly be known once implemented. Napster has promised advanced warning befor any change of this size takes place. They are asking for the opinions of users about the proposed change. Many users are concerned about the effect that this will have on them. They are worried that the number of users will decline sharply and there will thereby be far less music to choose from.
They are also concerned that the fee will be more than many users would be willing to pay. Napster has created a whole new mindset for many people about the entire concept of getting and having music. They have fostered the idea that music is free for all to access and have. It will be very hard for them to change this revolution that they themselves had a huge part in creating. It is hypocritical of them to talk about Napster and free music being the “new wave” and that this is the new direction that the music industry must go in, and then turn around and start charging a fee. Some have even questioned whether or not Napster will survive this change.
Whatever happens as a result of this new policy and business plan, one effect that most experts agree on is the fact that other similar services that are actually free will gain in popularity if Napster decides to charge a user fee. Some other services such as Gnutella are already available. It is very different because unlike Napster, Gnutella has no server. The Gnutella program searches for MP3s directly on other user’s computers rather than on a centralized server. This makes a profound difference because without a centralized server there is nothing to shut down if the company is sued. The downside to Gnutella and programs like it is that it is slower, less effective, and less user friendly than Napster. These issues should be resolved eventually and the process should speed up if Napster decides to charge a user fee because the demand for a free and viable alternative will jump.
The answers to these questions are held, more than anywhere else, in the hands of the major record companies. Bertelsmann’s BMG is no longer an issue, but Sony, Epic, and several others have not yet shown an interest in Napster’s continuation. The only apparent way for the program to continue would be to reach an agreement with the aforementioned companies and find some way to record and charge users a subscription fee, while paying these fees to the appropriate corporations and, therefore, artists. In return, Napster would avoid the multimillion dollar suit in currently faces and, depending on it’s success at that point, perhaps even be a profitable endeavor.
This idea, however, does have some faults. For example, one must examine how many users would cease to use Napster with its proposed subscription charge. There are several other programs available that, since they have no central server, would be impossible to shut down.
These programs, on the other hand, are not as user friendly as Napster, and therefore some users may decide to pay for its ease.
As one can deduce from the information presented in this essay, the court case involving Napster and the Recording Industry Association of America is a complex one with no definite right answer. It seems impossible to please the artists, the record companies, and Napster users all with one solution. In the meantime, Napster is a huge force in the dynamic of music today and continues to be enjoyed by thousands of users every day.
Example #3 – Enacting More Laws To Prevent Online Falsehoods In Singapore
Social media has become part of Singaporeans’ lives. Citizens aged between youths and adults have at least own an account in Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or WhatsApp. It is no doubt that these interactive technologies have enable us to be connected with people from far distance, and it is very efficient for users to obtain information needed through these apps or search engines like Google or Safari. However, many are starting to abuse this platform by spreading false news through online and it is hard to tell which is true or false.
Online falsehoods can be in different kinds of forms, it could be a fake post, an edited video, an unclear picture or even a chain of spam messages. According to Minister of Law (2018), such disinformation can look real with the use of advanced expertise such as digital manipulation technology. It is stated that “researchers at the University of Washington produced a realistic video of then-President Obama speaking, using artificial intelligence to precisely imitate how the then-President moved his mouth during speeches”.
According to Romero (2018), online disinformation is a serious threat as there is much more widespread access for anyone to make and spread content through online. On top of that, Studies has shown that two-third of Singaporeans were uncertain of which post is true or false, and one-quarter of them found out that the shared information was false (govsingapore, 2018). Thus, there has been a debate about whether should the Government enact more laws to avoid online falsehoods.
While some argued that the government should make a new legislation, many are against it and agree to the concept that implementing of new laws does not stop online falsehoods from spreading in Singapore. A glance into one of the issues that enacting more laws does not help to combat online falsehoods. Mr Xu (2018) claims that citizens’ rights of expressing their feelings and thoughtson may be affected if new legislation is endorsed (The Straits Time, 2018).
Furthermore, there should be “freedom” of information act where citizens are exposed with information in social media whether it is true or not. According to the opposing views, this would allow them to share their opinions and thoughts on the issue and become more aware through this process of engagement (Yuen-C, 2018). Thus, introducing a new law would combat online falsehoods nonethelessbut may restrict the citizens to have free speech or gaining access to more sources of information. Apart from that, the opposing views find that the existing laws like Parliamentary Elections Act, Telecommunications Act and the Penal Codes are adequate enough to combat online falsehoods as they have the authority against spreading of fake news against particular institutions or individuals.
Moreover, according to MARUAH (2018), the Government has yet to specify the danger of self-radicalisation by extremist websites when justifyingvindicating new legislation against online falsehoods. Thus, (Mahmud, 2018). Thus, the opposing views do not find that there was a lack of examples and there is nore is a need to make new laws as the existing laws are sufficient enough (Mahmud, 2018). . Yet another problem, it is warned that new legislation may resulted to the opposite effect and the government may backfire especially when the new law is used in the wrong state of affairs.
Singapore is in a vulnerable state as it is a multi-racial country and a potential target for other countries – thus, it is a sensitive issue for religious or racial groups. It may feed the anger and these intolerant groups may rebel and they would protest more towards the Government for enacting more laws.
Moreover, it can also have unintentional effect instead. By taking down every false information in social medias make citizens frame that the Government has a conspiracy and an agenda behind it. (Yuen-C, 2018). Admist the disagreement issues and complication on whether the Government should make new legislations, several committee members, such as Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, however, have strongly emphasised that new law is necessary (Yuen-C, 2018). A real-life example of online falsehoods that happened in Singapore – the government has exposed that there was a disinformation and misinterpretation about ministerial salaries that have been spreading through several websites lately (Channel NewsAsia, 2018).
Many has recommended to create a law that can take down or prevent access to online falsehoodfalsehoods immediately, whether by captivating people or technology platforms to eliminate the illegal content or blocking them. Additionally, the government should have the authority to destruct the spread of online disinformation (The Straits Times, 2018). One cannot deny that online falsehoods is a potential threat to Singapore and enacting more laws in regards to this issue may prevent it. However, instead of endorsing more laws which may have the opposite effect or are not effective enough, there are other alternative ways that could combat this threat.
According to The Straits Times (2018), the government could urge Ministry of Education to enhance students’ learning on media literacy especially for secondary and tertiary students as they are prone to have easy access to social medias. For instance, educate them on the tactics and strategies to combat online falsehoods. In addition, provide on-going trainings for media journalists in methods for ensuring accuracy in their journals and standardise the media platforms that will be held.
Lastly, public institutions are also recommended to have provision of time to the public response to misinformation. We should always be aware of the information that we are sharing in our social medias and always look out for the right source of information before sharing it to other people. It is also a good practice for citizens to be always truthful whether in their media platforms or not because small act goes a long way, and it has the potential to combat online falsehoods without enacting more laws.
Example #4 – Interesting Ideas
Behavior in children. For example, the problem in a child won’t clean his room. The proposal would be incentives, discipline etc. I know it’s not very exciting but if your proposal is written well, and the solution seems plausible, you’ll get a good grade. After all, that’s what you’ll be graded on.
Another way to go is to actually make it somethign wierd or quarky to make it interesting…let’s say a dispute with a tenant, becoming the favorite child, umm…how about a cow, horse or mule that won’t budge?
I once was lost for ideas on a similar paper, I wrote it on that exactly — Problem: Not being able to come up with a subject for the essay. Solution: well. use some of what you’re doing now. My professor thought it was an excellen spin, I got a 96!
When you think of problems in the world today, water pollution isn’t one that would normally come up. In fact it is one of the worst problems in the world today. Water pollution, by definition, is the contamination of streams, lakes, underground water, bays, or oceans by any substances harmful to living things.
All living things contain it, live in it, and most need it to survive, so water pollution is a big problem, if not the biggest. If severe, the pollution can kill off birds, fish, and any animals that use the water source. In some cases even killing an entire species.
Keeping the pollution to a minimal isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do. The major water pollutants are chemical, biological, or physical materials that degrade water quality. Pollutants can be classed in to eight categories, each of which presents its own set of hazards…