Lburch (2015) alleged in
"Pharmaceutical Disposal" that legislation can help to prevent
contamination of water sources by "common” pharmaceutical disposal which
causes health problems to lives. Lburch claims Flushing of medications is common.
Drugs are detected in the water resources. Studies support his idea by
detecting drugs in 80% of water sources. Lburch notes water treatment plants
cannot filter out the medications. These medications affect aquatic life,
especially the amphibians. He mentions studies showing spawning problem and
drop of fertility caused by the meditations. Lburch believes, to prevent such
contaminations, safe and convenient medication disposal is the key. Laws, such
as Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act, were passed and ways are provided
and promoted dispose the drugs safely. However, the causes he listed for the
problem is not adequately comprehensive. Furthermore, part of his claim lacks direct
evidence to support the reliability.
Lbruch’s argument is not
comprehensive when he talks about the ways to solve the contamination of
pharmaceuticals in water. Not to flush the pharmaceuticals into the toilet and
legislation are the possible ways. However, Lbruch does not discuss about the
root cause of the problem. Pharmaceuticals may not be used because people
purchase them in large amounts unnecessarily. Just talk about flushing here or
providing ways for safe disposal are not enough for this situation. Sealing the
bags containing pharmaceutical wastes as suggested by Harvard University (2015) also suggests that the bags that are not
sealed may cause the same contamination problem even if the pharmaceuticals are
not disposed into the water. Furthermore, pharmaceuticals, for external
application or in skincare products and perfumes (Harvard University, 2015) , may be used, but they are
secreted through human skins or with human waste into the water, too (D. Fallik,
2013). In these situations, not to flush the pharmaceuticals into the
toilet or legislation is not practical. Therefore, the lack of analysis of the
root causes in such contamination problem fails to give the readers a complete
picture of the problem. This makes the argument misleading.
In addition, the data used to show
the negative consequences of the pharmaceutical contaminations to the aquatic
life is not convincing
enough. As suggested by L. Eisenstadt
(2005), the abnormality of the aquatic life can be affected by “weather
changes, other chemicals present in the water, temperature fluctuations, and a
host of other variables”, in an environment without high control. Thus, without
data that can show the direct relationship between pharmaceutical contamination
and aquatic life, it renders the impact of how people react to the consequence
of the contaminations.
Summarily, despite using data to
build the link on how pharmaceutical contaminations is caused and causes other
problems, the author should show a more comprehensive analysis to show the root
causes of the pharmaceutical contaminations and try to show data demonstrating
a more proportional and convincing relationship between the contaminations and
the environment. However, no matter pharmaceutical disposal practice is a way
for such water contaminations, the contaminations in the water sources are a truly
existing and proven problem for people to worry about.
References
Lburch (2015, March 4). PHARMACEUTICAL DISPOSAL
. Retrieved from http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/pharmaceutical-disposal.asp
Harvard University (2015). Drugs in the water
. Retrieved from http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water
Lburch (2015, March 4). PHARMACEUTICAL DISPOSAL
. Retrieved from http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/pharmaceutical-disposal.asp
https://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/apa-referencing-guide
ReplyDeletehttps://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/apa-referencing-guide
ReplyDelete