Nestle Chairman: Water is Not a Human Right, That's Extremist, Privatization is Best

[Fillerguy]

I dont see what the big deal is. These companies provide pure clean water to the poor brown people of the world at a reasonable price. I'm pretty sure what Hans Gruber cooks up in his labs is more healthier than that stuff in some random poor brown person's titty as well. Even us 1st worldiers gotta worry about our governments and their mischievous fluoride schemes. I know it hasnt killed us yet but does drinking fluoride water make sense:rational: If our officials had have a mind they would've sold off our Public Water Systems to the highest bidder. Food, land, oxygen, sunlight to a degree and labor is privatized....why not liquid life energy?

You've got a right to live but its up to you to determine how long
To the Nestle and #Mollywatr of the world, have at it

 

[Serious]

can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not ^^^^^

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I didn't praise the killing of Al-alawki. I don't know where you got that from. The Black Panthers were communist terrorist organization. I was never a fan. I did tie that into the drone attacks to provoke you people, but sarcasm and satire seems to go over your head a lot.

You did praise the Awlaki killing, and you condemned it in another post within days. Stop trying to pass your mental illness off as sarcasm.

 

[theworldismine13]

The point of disagreeing with him, imo, is that you don't need to believe water is a human right to understand that it's not an extremist idea to consider total privatization wrong. And he brought it up as part of a way to smear people who are opposed to privatization by lumping them in one category and painting them with a broad brush in an effort to try and hide the vast amount of space between the two arguments in which many reasonable positions could exist. In addition, maybe water should be a right in some sense... that argument hasn't really been fleshed out, and there are a number of positions which could exist there, too, but again, he wants to try and prevent that from happening.



That depends. To call it a human right, I agree, is somewhat meaningless. But to make it a right in particular legal contexts is not.



Maybe, but government owning something and making it public is very different from private notions of property.

Sure if you have a problem with privatization than you can disagree with him

You got all these posters outraged over the thread title, when in reality the thread title is correct, water is not a right and it has never been a right, water rights is simply a part of property rights

 

[The Real]

Sure if you have a problem with privatization than you can disagree with him

You got all these posters outraged over the thread title, when in reality the thread title is correct, water is not a right and it has never been a right, water rights is simply a part of property rights

The only part of the title that is correct is that water is not a human right, and that's if you read it empirically, which is not exactly accurate since he says that only 'extremist' NGOs have that idea, meaning he's using it in an ideal sense, just as anyone here would- obviously no one believes that water is empirically a human right. In other words, none of the title is accurate. It's a bunch of opinions. People here disagree with those opinions for various reasons- they might disagree that water is not a human right, in the ideal sense, and/or that the aforementioned view is extremist, and/or that privatization is best.

In short, I think you're being contrarian for no real reason here. All those disagreements are perfectly valid, and only 1/3rd of the title (and not even that, if you read it properly,) would be "correct."

 

[theworldismine13]

The only part of the title that is correct is that water is not a human right, and that's if you read it empirically, which is not exactly accurate since he says that only 'extremist' NGOs have that idea, meaning he's using it in an ideal sense, just as anyone here would- obviously no one believes that water is empirically a human right. In other words, none of the title is accurate. It's a bunch of opinions. People here disagree with those opinions for various reasons- they might disagree that water is not a human right, in the ideal sense, and/or that the aforementioned view is extremist, and/or that privatization is best.

In short, I think you're being contrarian for no real reason here. All those disagreements are perfectly valid, and only 1/3rd of the title (and not even that, if you read it properly,) would be "correct."

Yeah I just meant the rights part is correct, privatization is an opinion, but water is not a right

 

[Serious]

Slightly offtopic, but I remember reading up on this the other day

Research Harnesses Solar-Powered Proteins to Filter Harmful Antibiotics from Water

Apr. 19, 2013 — New research, just published, details how University of Cincinnati researchers have developed and tested a solar-powered nano filter that is able to remove harmful carcinogens and antibiotics from water sources -- lakes and rivers -- at a significantly higher rate than the currently used filtering technology made of activated carbon.

In the journal Nano Letters, Vikram Kapoor, environmental engineering doctoral student, and David Wendell, assistant professor of environmental engineering, report on their development and testing of the new filter made of two bacterial proteins that was able to absorb 64 percent of antibiotics in surface waters vs. about 40 percent absorbed by the currently used filtering technology made of activated carbon[. One of the more exciting aspects of their filter is the ability to reuse the antibiotics that are captured.

Kapoor and Wendell began development of their new nano filter in 2010 and testing in 2012, with the results reported in a paper titled "Engineering Bacterial Efflux Pumps for Solar-Powered Bioremediation of Surface Waters."

The presence of antibiotics in surface waters is harmful in that it breeds resistant bacteria and kills helpful microorganisms, which can degrade aquatic environments and food chains. In other words, infectious agents like viruses and illness-causing bacteria become more numerous while the health of streams and lakes degrades.

So, according to Wendell, the newly developed nano filters, each much smaller in diameter than a human hair, could potentially have a big impact on both human health and on the health of the aquatic environment (since the presence of antibiotics in surface waters can also affect the endocrine systems of fish, birds and other wildlife).

Surprisingly, this filter employs one of the very elements that enable drug-resistant bacteria to be so harmful, a protein pump called AcrB. Wendell explained, "These pumps are an amazing product of evolution. They are essentially selective garbage disposals for the bacteria. Our innovation was turning the disposal system around. So, instead of pumping out, we pump the compounds into the proteovesicles." (The new filtering technology is called a proteovesicle system.)

One other important innovation was the power source, a light-driven bacterial protein called Delta-rhodopsin which supplies AcrB with the pumping power to move the antibiotics.

The bacterial protein system has a number of advantages over present filtration technology:

The operation of the new filtering technology is powered by direct sunlight vs. the energy-intensive needs for the operation of the standard activated carbon filter.

The filtering technology also allows for antibiotic recycling. After these new nano filters have absorbed antibiotics from surface waters, the filters could be extracted from the water and processed to release the drugs, allowing them to be reused. On the other hand, carbon filters are regenerated by heating to several hundred degrees, which burns off the antibiotics.

The new protein filters are highly selective. Currently used activated carbon filters serve as "catch alls," filtering a wide variety of contaminants. That means that they become clogged more quickly with natural organic matter found in rivers and lakes.

Said Wendell, "So far, our innovation promises to be an environmentally friendly means for extracting antibiotics from the surface waters that we all rely on. It also has potential to provide for cost-effective antibiotic recovery and reuse. Next, we want to test our system for selectively filtering out hormones and heavy metals from surface waters."

In relation to the work published in this paper, Wendell and Kapoor tested their solar-powered nano filter against activated carbon, the present treatment technology standard outside the lab. They tested their innovation in water collected from the Little Miami River. Using only sunlight as the power source, they were able to selectively remove the antibiotics ampicillin and vancomycin, commonly used human and veterinary antibiotics, and the nucleic acid stain, ethidium bromide, which is a potent carcinogen to humans and aquatic animals.

Research harnesses solar-powered proteins to filter harmful antibiotics from water

 

[newworldafro]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Shouldn't you be for private corporations owning the water supply? I mean, they don't put fluoride in it to poison us all like the evil government right?

 

[newworldafro]

Shouldn't you be for private corporations owning the water supply? I mean, they don't put fluoride in it to poison us all like the evil government right?

A. I'm against poisoning of the human population via all entities (including extraterrestials )

B. Harvard University study (if that's what it takes to convince folks) just stated in January 2013 that flouride reduces IQ of kids ..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html .. that's pretty much intellectuall defectation as far I'm concerned.... not to mention plenty of other studies that shows no benefit from flouride and numerous ailments derived from it..... even the toothpaste tubes says not to swallow this product, yet we are swallowing and ingesting flouride in our water supply VVD ....

C.I'm for regulations if its protecting people's health number 1 ...... and I consider a water public utility that should be accessible to all, and not to the whims of shareholders ...

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

How do you own something that falls out of the sky

These motherfukkers are losing it

 

[Poppa_Dock]

I dont see what the big deal is. These companies provide pure clean water to the poor brown people of the world at a reasonable price. I'm pretty sure what Hans Gruber cooks up in his labs is more healthier than that stuff in some random poor brown person's titty as well. Even us 1st worldiers gotta worry about our governments and their mischievous fluoride schemes. I know it hasnt killed us yet but does drinking fluoride water make sense:rational: If our officials had have a mind they would've sold off our Public Water Systems to the highest bidder. Food, land, oxygen, sunlight to a degree and labor is privatized....why not liquid life energy?

You've got a right to live but its up to you to determine how long
To the Nestle and #Mollywatr of the world, have at it

thing is they put those things in water to purify it, yes i imagine its harmful but if you drinking water that was full of the stuff we FLUSH down the drain, what would you be drinking besides flouride? Semen? barf? shyt? piss? blood?laundry soap? dish soap? bleach? rust from pipes? lime? calcium? and everything else people flush down pipes which is basically everything.

You got all these posters outraged over the thread title, when in reality the thread title is correct, water is not a right and it has never been a right, water rights is simply a part of property rights

This. If you didn't own the water hole u weren't getting a drop from it

 

[Serious]

B. Harvard University study (if that's what it takes to convince folks) just stated in January 2013 that flouride reduces IQ of kids ..... Dr. Joseph Mercola: Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children's IQ .. that's pretty much intellectuall defectation as far I'm concerned.... not to mention plenty of other studies that shows no benefit from flouride and numerous ailments derived from it..... even the toothpaste tubes says not to swallow this product, yet we are swallowing and ingesting flouride in our water supply VVD ....

Just couldn't resist...

Fluoride Lowers Your IQ: B.S. Headline of the Week | Cracked.com

 

[theworldismine13]

man i hate to be bearer of bad news because some of yall sound distraught, but you have never had the right to food or water, its never been that way, ever

some water is privately owned some is publicly owned, just like land or any other resource, but there is no legal mechanism that says you have the right to water

im sorry i had to break the news to yall

 

[The Real]

man i hate to be bearer of bad news because some of yall sound distraught, but you have never had the right to food or water, its never been that way, ever

some water is privately owned some is publicly owned, just like land or any other resource, but there is no legal mechanism that says you have the right to water

im sorry i had to break the news to yall

Who exactly are you arguing with here? Like I said earlier, you seem to be contrarian for no reason. Literally no one here believes that there is some empirical right to water, the same way pro-gay marriage homosexuals obviously know that gay marriage is not empirically a right when they say "we have a right to marriage."