The topic of clean and safe water is one that needs to be of high priority, as it is what keeps us alive and holds such value to the environment. This is why it is a shame that “Canada is (along with Australia) only one of two Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member states that does not comply with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation that all countries have national, legally binding drinking water quality standards.” (Dunn, Bakker, and Harris, 2014, n.p.) Companies often dump harmful chemicals into our water, which affect not only the animals, but humans and the entire ecosystem. Although there are laws and regulations in place, they are often in favor of the company. With water being a basic human
…show more content…
(p. 15) This is shown through the CBC article discussing Nalcor Energy. “Officials at Nalcor Energy are refuting the alarming findings of a scientific study into methylmercury fears at Muskrat Falls, but are pledging to consider the information in its human risk health assessment for the massive project.” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) Although they are monitoring the effects their project is having on the water, the Inuit are not happy. By monitoring the levels of toxic chemicals in the water, Nalcor Energy would be able to “issue warnings about consuming fish or seal” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) if the levels got too high and would begin to harm the people consuming it. This is not acceptable. The level of methylmercury should not get to a level where there needs to be a warning released, as many of the Inuit rely solely on their hunting of fish and seal for themselves and their …show more content…
This is simply not true; This mentality creates laws and regulations that allow for the pollution of water and do not promote the water security we should have. It is important to preserve the resources we have to ensure they last. During Nalcor Energy’s project, “the Inuit [wish to] have a greater say on environmental monitoring.” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) The public should have a greater say in what happens to the water on their land as it is directly affecting their wellbeing. “Unfortunately, the Canadian legal system’s approach to water issues is heavily influenced by the enduring myth of endless water… As a result, our laws and policies generally fail to provide the level of water security sought by Canadians.” (Boyd, 2003, p.
(p. 15) This is shown through the CBC article discussing Nalcor Energy. “Officials at Nalcor Energy are refuting the alarming findings of a scientific study into methylmercury fears at Muskrat Falls, but are pledging to consider the information in its human risk health assessment for the massive project.” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) Although they are monitoring the effects their project is having on the water, the Inuit are not happy. By monitoring the levels of toxic chemicals in the water, Nalcor Energy would be able to “issue warnings about consuming fish or seal” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) if the levels got too high and would begin to harm the people consuming it. This is not acceptable. The level of methylmercury should not get to a level where there needs to be a warning released, as many of the Inuit rely solely on their hunting of fish and seal for themselves and their …show more content…
This is simply not true; This mentality creates laws and regulations that allow for the pollution of water and do not promote the water security we should have. It is important to preserve the resources we have to ensure they last. During Nalcor Energy’s project, “the Inuit [wish to] have a greater say on environmental monitoring.” (Roberts, 2016, n.p.) The public should have a greater say in what happens to the water on their land as it is directly affecting their wellbeing. “Unfortunately, the Canadian legal system’s approach to water issues is heavily influenced by the enduring myth of endless water… As a result, our laws and policies generally fail to provide the level of water security sought by Canadians.” (Boyd, 2003, p.