Although AirPower just a kind of wireless charging, the background behind it is a long term drama making thousands people fluctuate.
What is AirPower?
AirPower is a kind of wireless charging with special design for providing power of electricity to several Apples’ devices. Its’ first announcement was September 2017, the same month with Iphone X, smartphone that marked the evolution of Apple Inc. The biggest difference of AirPower among various of wireless charging devices is that can be used to charge multiple devices include iPhone, AirPods and Apple Watch with every path in its’ surface.
After 1,5 year of the delay, on today morning (March 30, 2019), Apple officially gets rid of the idea of AirPower. Hence, they have no intention of development of it. Besides, Mr. Dan Riccio, the senior vice president of Apple Inc said that AirPower was have not been seen any of Apples’ qualifications of high standard. As a result, they cancelled the project of producing AirPower.
Is it Normal in Technology Industry?
In Tech field, the fact that a particular, even famous company can establish and suddenly get rid of a product is not hard to find, such as Wired Inc with the Optimus keyboard 103, the killer AirPod of Zune and Skype for Symbians’ cellphone.
The Outstanding Inc
But this is Apple, the most valuable company of Technology field with the viral waves among countries all over the world. Thus, do not forget that on the one side, Apple has a massive users, in other words is fan. On the other hand, as many as Apples’ fan is the haters (anti-fan), they always waiting for the moment to criticize and throw Apples’ reputation to the garbage dump. This lead to the consequence that the event of cancelled AirPower is perfect chance for the paparazi and anti-fan together point the gun to Apples’ head with a bullet inside. In other word, Apple should be ready for a shot of criticism ahead to their brain.
The Fluctuation from Apples’ Users
From the side of the customer, they are tremendously feeling annoyed with this decision of Apple Inc. Because the story behind AirPower is a long drama with the sadness, long waiting process to the Apples’ clients. They spent too much time waiting for the oblivious after the first establishment of AirPower for nearly 2 years, then take back the disappointed mix with angry. The final result is they got a “troll” from Apple with just one sentence of speaking of the vice senior president of Apple Inc.
The Process of AirPower to Its’ Grave
I will introduce to you guys in this article the process leads to the final result that AirPower can never be marketed.
The First Established of AirPower
It was a day on September of 2017, when Apple announce that AirPower will be released in 2018. It is all because of iPhone 8 and iPhone X, the two devices support the process of wireless charging evolution. In the same line of the wishes from the customers, Apple aggressively promised to produce a product that will charge their devices with wireless protocol, and the most important part is it will be made by Apple. Along with AirPower, Apple also pronounced that there will be a project to release the wireless charging for AirPods only “in the future”.
It was the end of 2018, but Apple still has no sight of AirPower, event just a trailer or pre-release product, or even the demo version of it. Occasionally, there was a “trustworthy” source said that “Apple will start to market AirPower in …”, but when that day coming, still the zero number.
The March, 2018
Apple released a few new devices such as iPhone 8 with red color and Leather Folio case for iPhone X. Sight of AirPower – equal to a tree hollow spaces.
The June, 2018
Mark Gurman, the writer of Bloomberg, who famous with several information from Apple wrote that Apple had vision for marketing AirPower on September the same year. The paper of Gurman wrote that Apple met some difficulties from the step to develop AirPower related to the temperature. It was believed that the engineers from Apple was trying to figure out this problem to make sure not thing will go wrong to the direction of them.
The September, 2018
The biggest event of Apple every year happened. Apple showed to their clients the new generation of iPhone are iPhone XS and iPhone XR. In contract, no words for AirPower. After this event, Apple put all the information related to AirPower out from their website. The users can not find anything with the word “AirPower”. Amazingly, in the introduction of how to use iPhone still remain AirPower information. It started to confuse the consumer of Apple Inc.
The Employees for AirPower Project
To continue the drama, Apple employs people for the project of wireless charging, include AirPower project.
The Fake News
Tons of new appeared on Twitter, making sure that AirPower are in the process of representation. The master of prediction of Apple, Mr. Ming-Chi Kuo said that AirPower could show up at late 2018 or the first of 2019. This report of him revealed the hope that AirPower was ready to on the tray of Apple stores. Hence, various of positive prediction of AirPower in the new year of 2019 were appeared. Some of them from HongKong Precision, the old partner of Apple in charge of produced AirPods and cable USB-C. Even Wall Street Journal wrote that Apple had enough certification for selling AirPower. Moreover, some code sentences in IOS 12.2 Beta 6 have the word “AirPower”.
The Final Ending
As written from the header of this article, AirPower project are officially cancelled forever. This is a good lesson of precaution for both Apple Inc and the consumers. Do not forget that Tech field is not that easy you see in the promises. It is a difficult field, with a hilly road to achieve the new technologies, so be prepare for the bad news happened. All in all, Apple or any company of tech just a group of people, they are just human, there not thing you can do at that situation. Be careful and be sympathetic to their failures. By the way, checkout the sponsor of this article are the wood level and the best woodworking books to encourage us. Thank you for your reading!
Science is a living social system with multiple forces that influence its success, so all pieces must be considered to ensure that the system will thrive. Four themes in particular emerged repeatedly in response to the three key questions asked during the exploratory conversations. Underscoring all of the opportunities and challenges was a desire that we consider how to do the following things. By the way, please take a look at wood level and the Best Woodworking Books to support us.
Ensure a Dynamic and Thriving Science
A collaborative and adaptable scientific community will be able to respond to emerging challenges.
Build Public Understanding of Science As a Tool Used by Society
Science is an important element of society, with many benefits and potential risks. There is a need for science to have a relationship with the public that is built on trust in the power of the processes of science to provide reliable information that makes decision-making smarter and easier.
Build an Effective and Diverse Professional Community
The scientific workforce needs multiple talents and diverse perspectives to advance research, education, and communication of science with society in innovative ways.
Inform Public Policy Through Effective Relationships with Policymakers.
Policymakers need access to vetted information on which they can base informed decisions that balance the potential benefits and risks of new scientific developments with the needs of society.
If we consider these four results as the key elements at the root of a thriving societal scientific endeavor, how do we get there? How might we reconsider how we, the research community, reinforce, recognize, and promote professionals for their contributions? How do we organize research and educational units and professional teams? How do we educate students to be prepared to engage in this new, multidisciplinary world of modern biology? How do we assess what diverse skills and perspectives are required to advance science? Finally, how do we train the diverse community of professionals needed to communicate science to the public?
These are the types of questions and framework that will empower us to leverage the opportunities created by a changing science and society to reconfigure our living social system in a way that will increase our over- all success at building a thriving life sciences endeavor. It is clear that we are not starting with a blank slate. The life sciences have self-organized and evolved to become a complex and dynamic professional system with deep roots and long-held practices that may or may not work toward the outcomes that we really want to achieve. The life sciences have a rich professional culture of expectations and risk aversion, many stakeholders and professional entities that influence success, and a professional training system that is difficult to change. In listening to our interview respondents and the subsequent discussion among the leaders, there were three particularly sticky issues that are worth noting as obstacles that require extra investment by life scientists.
There is An Imperative For a Cross-cutting Life Science Community
The four challenge themes that emerged through AIBS’s exploratory conversations are ones that are shared broadly by the varied sub-disciplinary communities of the biological sciences. The needs of the biological sciences require that a broad view be maintained and communicated effectively; common outcomes be shared; and success be measured through a coordinated, cooperative leadership. To seize the opportunities available to us, how will the life sciences stimulate leadership to create a stronger, more cooperative community.
Benefit in Reducing Barriers to Ensure Opportunities For Innovation at The Interfaces
Life sciences research is unlimited by borders, but borders are common in our cur- rent structure. How do we promote robust basic research alongside cooperative, innovative, creative, new models in which we embrace the trans-disciplinary nature of science? Beyond developing specific scientific skill sets, how do we recognize and prepare all types of professional scientists to advance science through communication and advocacy at public interfaces? To rapidly embrace the opportunities of today and tomorrow’s science, how can we be fearless about trying new tactics to reach our desired outcomes?
Empower The Public with The Tools and Information of Science
Most of the individuals who were inter- viewed during our exploratory conversations consider the public to be the most significant stakeholders in our science. They also expressed concern about the risks that emerge when the public is disconnected from the con- text of science in society and lacks an understanding and appreciation for how science works, what scientists do, and why science matters. There is a need for a relationship with the public that is built on trust in the power of the processes of science to provide reliable information that makes decision-making smarter and easier. A high priority of the scientific community should be to increase public understanding of how to be an informed participant in the processes of science. That mes- sage should resound not just from scientists but through all of the professionals who bring science to the public using their diverse talents. How do we improve communication with our most valuable stakeholders to ensure that science benefits society and that the public supports science?
The questions that society requires science to answer now and in the coming decades are increasingly complex, and at the same time, the tools of science are becoming increasingly accessible to the broader public. What were previously activities restricted to a few are now being enriched by significant citizen participation, even in the garages of science-interested citizens exploring their curiosities in a DIY do it yourself way. And that is happening not just in the United States. We live in an increasingly globalized world, with greater accessibility to some scientific tools and data than ever before. The technological and cost barriers are dropping rapidly, which changes the innovation ecosystem of biology who can play and what is possible.
Change within Science
Nearly every per- son interviewed by AIBS noted that the greatest challenges and opportunities of modern life science include the shift to cross-disciplinary science and the new requirements to manage the vast amounts of data being produced. There are many dimensions to these changes.
Although the life sciences, broadly, are crucially important to answer- ing the emerging scientific questions, there is a crucial need for “respect for a multidisciplinary perspective. We need to take the time to listen to one another and see what each has to offer the other. We need everyone (across all sciences) working together.
There is a trend toward big science a significant force in how we organize and collaborate to answer questions. Big data, trans-disciplinary research, and bio-complexity are crucial areas for investment, but nearly all of the respondents cautioned that investment in the new should not be undertaken at the cost of continuing traditional disciplinary research. The slow pace of accumulation of essential natural history knowledge for many economically important species, from fisheries to crop pests, has repeatedly hindered the development of robust, predictive policies that would benefit humanity. In many industries, this has resulted in repeated failures of sustainable management, even though these attractive systems are the very ones for which natural history knowledge should be most complete.
There is a changing intellectual property structure in the life sciences. It is still the case that each institution has its own rules for collaboration, on intellectual property, and concerning the right to claim something as one’s own. Competitiveness can potentially squelch sharing, which may inhibit collaboration. The old model was, for example, to develop a drug and then “patent the hell out of it. The new and potentially more collaborative model involves open-source systems using repositories of standardized biological parts that can be readily accessed and shared.
A significant investment is being made by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in cyber-infrastructure. The Cyber-infrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering is a funding mechanism designed to provide a comprehensive, integrated, sustain- able, and secure cyber-infrastructure to accelerate research and education and new functional capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and engineering, thereby transforming our ability to effectively address and solve the many complex problems facing science and society. A vision and strategy for that infrastructure was outlined and describes for the complexity of the task, including meeting increased storage demands, long-term sustainability, curation, and providing new analysis that will drive discovery.
Great advances in the life and geosciences have been made in developing a cyber-infrastructure that meets the inseparability and integration requirements considered necessary for this global data currency. “Finding solutions to these last two pieces is the holy grail in unlocking the challenge, an initiative to create a community-driven knowledge and data management system for the geosciences. His team also co-directs an international planning effort for global e-infrastructure and data management. Allison likens the emerging cyber-infrastructure to the data version of the World Wide Web and says that the research community is well on its way to having that capacity up and running, noting that “it’s within our reach that a global cyber-infrastructure will be accessible and usable for the 90% of individual scientific investigators who constitute the long tail of scientists who don’t need or use supercomputers.
Beyond the infrastructure itself, concerns expressed by a senior science adviser at NSF highlight the fact that creating such an infrastructure has broad implications for how we approach scientific workforce and training needs. We are going to need new quantification methods to integrate everything. We will need enough modeling skills to see what the data can show us. The biologist of the future will need to be able to address this, but the question is [whether] our curricula really prepare students for that. How are we going to train the biologist of the future? How are they going to learn the language of science, the culture of science have an understanding across the board? Scientists must have a strong grounding in quantitative skills and related areas from day one. It is important to train individuals with a broad set of skills to enable them to deal with complex systems and the overall complexity of life.
Change within Society
Peter Linett, owner of a start-up business called Culture Kettle, holds a unique position as a market researcher who helps cultural institutions (in both the arts and the sciences) understand the mechanisms by which the changing dynamics of how people interact in the twenty-first century affect how institutions might alter their business models to stay relevant.
In his presentation to science festival leaders at the International Public Science Events Conference 2014, Linett described what he sees as a moment of punctuated equilibrium in the arc of culture. Linett gave detail to this metaphor: Following a period of relative stability from the late nineteenth to the end of the twentieth century, technology and other less tangible forces have led to the current period of rapid change a flurry of innovation, experimentation, and new models of production and consumption premised on new cultural assumptions and values very different from those of the previous period. Linett added that, once we settle into them, those new values and approaches may prove durable for a number of decades, at least fundamentally (although technology will continue to reshape things rapidly on the surface). We may enter a long period of relative stability, a twenty-first-century set of cultural norms. But for now, we are in that transitional period, which can be especially difficult for the institutions and producers of culture that excelled in the previous period. These are not easy times, but they are exciting.
The relatively high cost of treating and delivering water has led many world governments to subsidize water for agriculture and household use. For example, some U.S. farmers pay as little as 1¢ to 5¢/1000 liters they use in irrigation, while the public pays from 30¢ to 80¢ per 1000 liters of treated water for personal use. Farmers in the Imperial Irrigation District of California pay $15.50 in delivery fees for 1.2 million liters of water. Some investigators suggest that if U.S. farmers paid the full cost of water, they would have to conserve and manage irrigation water more effectively.
The construction cost subsidy for federally-subsidized western U.S. irrigated cropland amounts to about $5,000 per hectare, and represents an annual construction cost subsidy of about $440 per ha/yr over the life of the project. The total annual government subsidy is estimated to range from $2.5 billion to $4.4 billion for the 4.5 million hectares of irrigated land in the western United States. Worldwide, from f94 to 1998 governmental water subsidies totaled $45 billion per year for non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and $15 billion for OECD counties. During the same period, agricultural subsidies per year total $65 billion for non-OECD and $355 billion for OECD countries.
Fair Water Pricing
The objectives of fair water pricing are: to seek revenue to pay for the operations and maintenance of water availability; improve water-use efficiency; and recover the full costs of water pumping and treatment. However, in general there appear to be problems with some private, for profit companies operating water systems for communities and regions. Often the companies operate as monopolies which can lead to unfair pricing practices.
If U.S. prices of gasoline and diesel energy increase to approximately $10 per gallon, it follows that irrigation costs will continue to escalate from the current $2.9 billion per year. Since vegetable and fruit crops return more per dollar invested in irrigation water than field crops, farmers may have to reassess the crops they grow. For example, in Israel 1000 liters of water from irrigation produces 79¢ worth of groundnuts and 57¢ worth of tomatoes, but only 13¢ worth of corn grain and 12¢ worth of wheat.
Conflicts over Water Use
The rapid rise in withdrawal of freshwater for agricultural irrigation and for other uses that have accompanied population growth has spurred serious conflicts over water resources both within and between countries. In part the conflicts over fresh water is due to the sharing of fresh water by countries and regions. Currently there are 263 transboundary river basins sharing water resources. Worldwide such conflicts have increased from an average of 5 per year in the 1980s to 22 in 2000. In 23 countries where data are available, conflicts related to agricultural use of water cost an estimated $55 billion between 1990 and 1997.
At least 20 nations obtain more than half their water from rivers that cross national boundaries, and 14 countries receive 70% or more of their surface water resources from rivers that are outside their borders. For example, Egypt obtains 97% of its freshwater from the Nile River, the second longest in the world, which is also shared by the Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zaire, Eritrea, and Uganda. Indeed, the Nile River is so overused that during parts of the year little or no freshwater reaches the Mediterranean Sea.
Conflicts over Water
Historically, the Middle East region has had the most conflicts over water, largely because it has less available water per capital than most other regions, and every major river crosses international borders. Furthermore, the human populations in these countries are increasing rapidly, some having doubled in the last 20 to 25 years, placing additional stress on the difficult political climate.
River Water Sources
The distribution of river water also creates conflicts between several U.S. states as well as problems between the U.S. and Mexico. California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Mexico all depend on Colorado River water. In a normal year, little water reaches Mexico, and little or no water reaches the Gulf of California.
Conserving Water Resources
Conserving world water must be a priority of individuals, communities, and countries. An important approach is to find ways to facilitate the percolation of rainfall into the soil instead of allowing it to runoff into streams and rivers. For example, the increased use of trees and shrubs make it possible to catch and slow water runoff by 10% to 20%, thereby conserving water before it reaches streams, rivers, and lakes. This approach also reduces flooding.
Maintaining crop, livestock, and forest production requires conserving all water resources available, including rainfall. Some practical strategies that support water conservation for crop production include: monitoring soil water content; adjusting water application needs to specific crops; applying organic mulches to prevent water loss and improve water peculation, through reduced water runoff and evaporation; using crop rotations that reduce water runoff; preventing the removal of biomass from land; increasing use of trees and shrubs to slow water runoff; and employing precision irrigation in water delivery systems, such as drip irrigation, that will result in efficient crop watering.
In forest areas, it will be necessary to avoid clear cutting and humans should employ sound forest management. Trees also benefit urban areas that have high rates of runoff. Since water runoff is rapid from roofs, driveways, roads, and parking lots, the water can be collected in cisterns and constructed ponds. Estimated runoff rates from urban area were 72% higher than areas with forest cover.
Given that many aquifers are being over drafted, government efforts are needed to limit the pumping to sustainable withdrawal levels or at the known recharge rate. Integrated water resource management programs offer many opportunities to conserve water resources for everyone, farmers and the public. By the way, i proud of support the best Drill Presses and the Best Woodworking books.
Cost of Water Treatment
Increases in pollution of surface and groundwater resources pose a threat to public and environmental health. Moreover, it lead to the contribution to the high costs of water treatment. Thus, it is further limiting the availability of water for use. Depending on water quality and the purification treatments used, potable water costs an average of 50¢/1,000 liters in the U.S and range up to $1.91/1000 liters in Germany. Appropriate water pricing is important for improved water demand and conservation of water.
Cost of Treating US sewage
The cost of treating U.S. sewage for release into streams and lakes ranges from 55¢/1000 liters for small plants to 30¢/1000 liters for large plants. Sewage effluent is relatively expensive and ranges in costs from $1.00 to $2.65 /1000 liters. All this data happen when properly treated to make it safe for use as potable water.
Purifying and reducing the number of polluting microbes in water, as measured by the BOD (biological oxygen demand), is energy costly. Removing 1 kg of BOD requires 1 kWh. In this process, most of the cost for pumping and delivering water is for energy and equipment. Delivering 1 m3 (1,000 liters) of water in the U.S. requires the expenditure of about 1.3 kWh. Excluding only the energy for pumping sewage, the cost and amount of energy required to process 1000 liters of sewage in a technologically advanced wastewater treatment plant is about 65¢. It also requires about 0.44 kWh of energy. Looking to the future, the costs of water treatment and the energy required to purify water will increase.
On the Ocean
Dependence on the oceans for freshwater has major problems. When brackish water is desalinized, the energy costs are high. It ranges from 25¢ to 60¢/1000 liters. This figure appears when seawater desalinization ranges from 75¢ to $3/1000 liters. In addition, transporting large volumes of desalinized water adds to the costs.
Loss of Biodiversity
Natural diversity of species is essential to maintaining a quality environment, as well as productive agriculture and forestry. The water required to keep natural ecosystems, especially the plants, functioning has been appropriately termed green water. By the way, i proud of support for the best Makita drill, the best drill bits and wood level, and it also have a good discount for you. Use it or lose it, it is your choice.
The biodiversity of all species throughout the world is adversely affected when water resources are reduced and/or polluted. Thus the drastic drainage of more than half of U.S. wetlands that contain 45% of our federally endangered and threatened species. And it has seriously disrupted these ecosystems. In 2002, approximately 33,000 salmon perished in the Klamath River when farmers were allowed to withdraw increased volumes of water for irrigation.
Effect of Climate Change on Water Availability
Estimates of water resources and their future availability can only be based on present world climate patterns. The continued loss of forests and other vegetation plus the accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxides in the atmosphere are projected to lead to global climate change. Over time, such changes may alter present precipitation and temperature patterns throughout the world. With major shifts in water availability, future agricultural, forestry, biodiversity, and diverse human activities will be impacted.
Pear farmers in the Rogue Valley of Oregon use significant amounts of the water before it reaches the Klamath Lake. Those leave only 616 million m3 of water per year for wildlife and other farmers downstream. Similarly, over pumping and upstream removal of water have reduced biodiversity in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande River. The major alteration of the natural water flow in the lower portion of the U.S. Colorado River has been responsible for 45 species of plants and animals to be listed as federally endangered or threatened.
For example, if as projected, California experiences a 50% decrease in mountain snowpack due to global warming. As a result, this would change both the timing and intensity of seasonal surface water flow. In contrast, Canada might benefit from warming with extended growing seasons, but even this region eventually could face water shortages. If, as projected, the annual temperatures in the U.S. Corn-Belt rise 3 to 4 degrees C, rainfall might decline by about 10%, evaporation rates from the soil may increase and limit corn production in the future.
Effect of Environmental Change on Water Availability
The predicted global warming, along with increased human food requirements can be expected to alter. Hence, it probably increases world irrigation needs by 30% to ensure food security. Other serious impacts of global warming could increase deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. All of these major changes suggest the reduction of water availability for humans. Likewise for all other living organisms and also for crop and forest production as a result.
Availability of Water Resources
Closely associated with the overall availability of water resources is the problem of water pollution and human diseases. At present, approximately 20% of the world’s population lack safe drinking water, and nearly half the world population lack adequate sanitation. This problem is acute in many developing countries that discharge an estimated 95% of their untreated urban sewage directly into surface waters. For example, of India’s 3119 towns and cities, only 8 have full wastewater treatment facilities. Downstream, the untreated water is used for drinking, bathing, and washing, resulting in serious human infections and illnesses.
Overall, waterborne infections account for 90% of all human infectious diseases in developing countries. Lack of sanitary conditions contributes to approximately 12 million deaths each year, primarily among infants and young children. Flooding accounts for about half of the major disasters affecting humans each year.
Approximately 40% of U.S. fresh water is deemed unfit for recreational or drinking water uses because of contamination with dangerous microorganisms, pesticides, and fertilizers. In the U.S., waterborne infections account for approximately 940,000 infections and approximately 900 deaths each year. In recent decades, more U.S. livestock production systems have moved closer to urban areas, causing water and foods to be contaminated with manure. In the U.S., the quantity of livestock manure and other wastes produced each year are estimated to be 1.5 billion tons. Associated with this kind contamination, the Communicable Disease Center reports that more than 76 million Americans are infected each year with pathogenic E. coli and related food-borne pathogens, resulting in about 5,000 deaths per year.
The incidence of schistosomiasis, which is also associated with contaminated freshwater, is expanding worldwide and each year infects more than 200 million people and currently causes an estimated 20,000 deaths per year. Its spread is associated with an increase in habitats, including the construction of dams and irrigation canals suitable for the snail intermediate-host population and accessible for humans to come in contact with the infected water . For example, construction of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt and related irrigation systems in 1968 led to an explosion in Schistosoma mansoni in the human population; increasing from 5% in 1968 to 77% of all Egyptians in 1993. In 1986, the construction of a dam in Senegal resulted in an increase in schistosomiasis from zero per cent in 1986 to 90% by 1994.
Mosquito-borne malaria is also associated with water bodies. Worldwide this disease presently infects more than 2.4 billion people and kills about 2.7 million each year. Environmental changes, including polluted water, have fostered this high incidence and increase in malaria. For instance, deforestation in parts of Africa exposes land to sunlight and promotes the development of temporary pools of water that favor the breeding of human-biting, malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, Anopheles gambiae. In addition, with many African populations doubling every 20 years, more people are living in close proximity to mosquito infested aquatic ecosystems. Concurrently, the mosquito vectors are evolving resistance to insecticides that pollute their aquatic ecosystems, while protozoan pathogens are evolving resistance to the over-used antimalarial drugs. Together these factors are reducing the effectiveness of many malaria control efforts.
Transmitted via Air
Another serious water-borne infectious disease that can be transmitted via air, water, and food, is tuberculosis. At present, approximately 2 billion people are infected with TB with the number increasing each year.
In the Worldwide
Presently, worldwide about 2 billion people are infected with one or more helminth species, either by direct penetration or by use of contaminated water or food. In locations where sanitation is poor and overcrowding is rampant, as in parts of urban Africa, up to 90% of the population may be infected with one or more helminthes.
In addition to helminthes and microbe pathogens, there are many chemicals that contaminate water and have negative impacts on human health as well as natural biota. For example, an estimated 3 billion kg of pesticides are applied worldwide each year in agriculture. USEPA also allowed the application of sludge to agricultural land and this sludge is contaminated with heavy metals and other toxics. Many of these agricultural chemicals, including nitrogen fertilizer, contaminate aquatic ecosystems by leaching and runoff and result in eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems and other environmental problems. Worldwide, pesticides alone contribute to an estimated 26 million human poisonings and 220,000 deaths each year.
With rainfed crops, salinization is not a problem because the salts are naturally flushed away. But when irrigation water is applied to crops and returns to the atmosphere via plant transpiration and evaporation, dissolved salts concentrate in the soil where they inhibit plant growth. The practice of applying about 10 million liters of irrigation water per hectare each year, results in approximately 5 t/ha of salts being added to the soil. The salt deposits can be flushed away with added fresh water but at a significant cost. Worldwide, approximately half of all existing irrigated soils are adversely affected by salinization. Each year the amount of world agricultural land destroyed by salinized soil is estimated to be 10 million hectares.
In addition, drainage water from irrigated cropland contains large quantities of salt. For instance, as the Colorado River flows through Grand Valley, Colorado, it picks up 580,000 tons of salts per year. Based on the drainage area of 20,000 ha, the water returned to the Colorado River contains an estimated 30 t/ha of salts per year. In Arizona, the Salt River and Colorado River deliver a total of 1.6 million tons of salt into south-central Arizona each year.
Waterlogging is another problem associated with irrigation. Over time, seepage from irrigation canals and irrigated fields cause water to accumulate in the upper soil levels. Due to water losses during pumping and transport, approximately 60% of the water intended for crop irrigation never reaches the crop (Wallace, 2000). In the absence of adequate drainage, water tables rise in the upper soil levels, including the plant root zone, and crop growth is impaired. Such irrigated fields are sometimes referred to as “wet deserts” because they are rendered unproductive. For example in India, waterlogging adversely affects 8.5 million hectares of cropland and results in the loss of as much as 2 million tons of grain every year. To prevent both salinization and waterlogging, sufficient water along with adequate soil drainage must be available to ensure salts and excess water are drained from the soil.
Because more than 99% of world food supply comes from the land, an adequate world food supply depends on the continued availability of productive soils. Erosion adversely affects crop productivity by reducing the availability of water, diminishing soil nutrients, soil biota, and soil organic matter, and also decreasing soil depth. The reduction in the amount of water available to the growing plants is considered the most harmful effect of erosion, because eroded soil absorbs 87% less water by infiltration than uneroded soils. Soybean and oat plantings intercept approximately 10% of the rainfall, whereas tree canopies intercept 15% to 35%. Thus, deforestation increases water runoff and reduces water availability.
Water Runoff Rate Compared to Rainfall Rate
A water runoff rate of about 30% of total rainfall of 800 mm/yr causes significant water shortages for growing crops, like corn, and ultimately lowering crop yields. In addition, water runoff, which carries sediments, nutrients, and pesticides from agricultural fields, into surface and ground waters, is the leading cause of non-point source pollution in the U.S. Thus, soil erosion is a self-degrading cycle on agricultural land. As erosion removes topsoil and organic matter, water runoff is intensified and crop yields decrease. The cycle is repeated again with even greater intensity during subsequent rains.
Increasing soil organic matter by applying manure or similar materials can improve the water infiltration rate by as much as 150%. In addition, using vegetative cover, such as inter-cropping and grass strips, helps slow both water runoff and erosion. For example, when silage corn is inter-planted with red clover, water runoff can be reduced by as much as 87% and soil loss can be reduced by 78%. Reducing water runoff in these and other ways is an important step in increasing water availability to crops, conserving water resources, decreasing non-point source pollution, and ultimately decreasing water shortages.
Planting trees to serve as shelter belts between fields reduces evaporate transpiration from the crop ecosystem by up to 20% during the growing season, thereby reducing non-point source pollution, and increases some crop yields, such as potatoes and peanuts. If soil and water conservation measures are not implemented, the loss of water for crops via soil erosion can amount to as much as 5 million liters per hectare per year.
Water Use Livestock Production
The production of animal protein requires significantly more water than the production of plant protein. Although U.S. livestock directly use only 2% of the total water used in agriculture, the water inputs for livestock production are substantial because water is required for the forage and grain crops.
US livestock to Worldwide
Each year the total of 253 million tons of grain are fed to U.S. livestock requiring a total of about 250 x 1012 liters of water. Worldwide grain production specifically for livestock requires nearly 3 times the amount of grain that is fed U.S. livestock and 3 times the amount of water used in the U.S. to produce the grain feed.
Animal products vary in the amounts of water required for their production. For example, producing 1 kg of chicken requires 3,500 liters of water while producing 1 kg of sheep requires approximately 51,000 liters of water in order to produce the required 21 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage to feed these animals. For open rang-eland, from 120 kg to 200 kg of forage are required to produce 1 kg of beef. This amount of forage requires 120,000 liters to 200,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef. Beef cattle can be produced on rang-eland, but a minimum of 200 mm per year of rainfall are needed.
U.S. agricultural production is projected to expand in order to meet the increased food needs of a U.S. population that is projected to double in the next 70 years. The food situation is expected to be more serious in developing countries, such as Egypt and Kenya, because of rapidly growing populations. Increasing crop yields necessitates a parallel increase in freshwater utilization in agriculture. Therefore, increased crop and livestock production during the next 5 to 7 decades will significantly increase the demand on all water resources, especially in the western, southern, and central United States, as well as in many regions of the world with low rainfall.
Water from different resources is withdrawn both for use and consumption in diverse human activities. The term use refers to all human activities for which some of the withdrawn water is returned for reuse, e.g., cooking water, wash water, and waste water. In contrast, consumption means that the withdrawn water is non-recoverable. For example, transportation of water from plants is released into the atmosphere and is considered non-recoverable.
Human Water Usage
The water content of living organisms ranges from 60% to 95%; humans are about 60% water. To sustain health, humans should drink from 1.5 to 2.5 liters of water/person/day. In addition to drinking water, Americans use about 400 liters water/person/day for cooking, washing, disposing of wastes, and other personal uses. Compare this amount to the 83 other countries that report an average below 100 liters/person/day of water for personal use.
In the US to The World
Currently the U.S. freshwater withdrawals, including that from irrigation, total about 1,600 billion liters/day or about 5,700 liters of water/person/day. Of this amount about 80% comes from surface water and 20% is withdrawn from groundwater resources. Worldwide, the average withdrawal is 1,970 liters/person/day for all purposes. Approximately 70% of the water withdrawn is consumed and is non-recoverable worldwide.
Water in Crop Production
Plants require water for photosynthesis, growth, and reproduction. Water used by plants is non-recoverable, because some water becomes a part of the plant chemically and remainder is released into the atmosphere. The processes of carbon dioxide fixation and temperature control require plants to transpire enormous amounts of water. Various crops transpire water at rates between 600 to 2000 liters of water per kilogram of dry matter of crops produced. The average global transfer of water into the atmosphere from the terrestrial ecosystems by vegetation transpiration is estimated to be about 64% of all precipitation that falls to Earth.
The minimum soil moisture essential for crop growth varies. For instance, U.S. potatoes require 25% to 50%, alfalfa 30% to 50%, and corn 50% to 70%, while rice in China is reported to require at least 80% soil moisture. Rainfall patterns, temperature, vegetative cover, high levels of soil organic matter, active soil bio ta, and water runoff all effect the percolation of rainfall into the soil where it will be used by plants.
The water required by food and forage crops ranges from 600 to 3,000 liters of water per kilogram (dry) of crop yield. For instance, a hectare of U.S. corn, with a yield of approximately 9,000 kg/ha, transpires about 6 million liters per hectare of water during the growing season, while an additional 1 to 2.5 million liters/ha of soil moisture evaporate into the atmosphere. This means that about 800 mm (8 million liters/ha) of rainfall are required during the growing season for corn production. Even with 800 to 1,000 mm of annual rainfall in the U.S. Corn-Belt region, corn frequently suffers from insufficient water during the critical summer growing period.
Hectares’s Required Water
A hectare of high yielding rice requires approximately 11 million liters/ha of water for an average yield of 7 t/ha (metric tons per hectare) (Snyder, 2000). On average, soybeans require about 5.8 million liters/ha of water for a yield of 3 t/ha. In contrast, wheat that produces less plant biomass than either corn or rice, requires only about 2.4 million liters/ha of water for a yield of 2.7 t/ha. Note, under semi-arid conditions, yields of non-irrigated crops, such as corn, are low (1 to 2.5 t/ha) even when ample amounts of fertilizers are applied.
World agriculture consumes approximately 70% of freshwater withdrawn per year. Approximately 17% of the world’s cropland is irrigated but produces 40% of the world’s food. Worldwide, the amount of irrigated land is slowly expanding, even though initialization, water logging, and situation continue to decrease its productivity. Despite a small annual increase in total irrigated areas, the per capital irrigated area has been declining since 1990, due to rapid population growth. Specifically, global irrigation per capital has declined nearly 10% during the past decade, while in the U.S. irrigated land per capital has remained constant at about 0.08 ha.
Irrigated Crop in The US
Irrigated U.S. agricultural production accounts for about 40% of freshwater withdrawn, and more than 80% of the water consumed. California agriculture accounts for 3% of the state’s economic production, but consumes 85% of the water withdrawn.
Energy Use in Irrigation
Irrigation requires a significant expenditure of fossil energy both for pumping and delivering water to crops. Annually in the U.S., we estimate that 15% of the total energy expended for all crop production is used to pump irrigation water. Overall the amount of energy consumed in irrigated crop production is substantially greater than that expended for rained crops. For example, irrigated wheat requires the expenditure of more than 3 times more energy than rainfed wheat. Specifically, about 4.2 million kcal/ha/yr are the required energy input for rained wheat.On the other hand, irrigated wheat requires 14.3 million kcal/ha/yr to apply an average of 5.5 million liters of water.
Delivering the 10 million liters of irrigation water needed by a hectare of irrigated corn from surface water sources. It requires the expenditure of about 880 kWh/ha of fossil fuel. In contrast, irrigation water must be pumped from a depth of 100 m. It leads to the energy cost increases up to 28,500 kWh/ha. In other word, it is more than 32 times the cost of surface water.
Cost of Irrigation
The costs of irrigation for energy and capital are significant. The average cost to develop irrigated land ranges from $3,800/ha to $7,700/ha. Thus, farmers must not only evaluate the dollar cost of developing irrigated land. Moreover, they must also consider the annual costs of irrigation pumping. For example, delivering 7 to 10 million liters/ha of water costs from $750 to $1,000. About 150,000 ha of agricultural land have already been abandoned in the U.S. due to high pumping costs.
The Large Quantity
The large quantities of energy required to pump irrigation water are significant considerations. The causes both from the standpoint of energy and water resource management. For example, approximately 8 million kcal of fossil energy are expended. It is all for machinery, fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, and partial (15%) irrigation. This figure also to produce one hectare of rained U.S. corn. In contrast, if the corn crop were fully irrigated, the total energy inputs would rise to nearly 25 million kcal/ha (2,500 liters of oil equivalents). In the future, this energy dependency will influence the overall economics of irrigated crops. Similarly, they will also be the selection of specific crops worth irrigating. While a low value crop, like alfalfa, may be uneconomical, other crops might use less water plus have a higher market value.
The Efficiency Varies
The efficiency varies with irrigation technologies. The most common irrigation methods, flood irrigation and sprinkler irrigation, frequently waste water. In contrast, the use of more focused application methods. For instance, such as “drip” or “micro-irrigation” have found favor because of their increased water efficiency. Drip irrigation delivers water to individual plants by plastic tubes and uses from 30% to 50% less water than surface irrigation. In addition to conserving water, drip irrigation reduces the problems of initialization and water-logging. Although drip systems achieve up to 95% water efficiency, they are expensive. Moreover, they may be energy intensive, and require clean water to prevent the clogging of the fine delivery tubes.
Of the estimated 1.4 x 10 18 m 3 of water on the Earth, more than 97% is in the oceans. Approximately 35 x 1015 m3 of the Earth’s water is freshwater, of which about 0.3% is held in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The remainder of freshwater is stored in glaciers, permanent snow, and groundwater aquifers. The earth’s atmosphere contains about 13 x 1012 m 3 of water, and is the source of all the rain that falls on earth.
Quantity of Evaporation
Yearly, about 151,000 quads (quad = 1015 BTU) of solar energy cause evaporation and move about 577 x 1012 m3 of water from the earth’s surface into the atmosphere. Of this evaporation, 86% is from oceans. Although only 14% of the water evaporation is from land, about 20% (115 x 1012 m3 per year) of the world’s precipitation falls on land with the surplus water returning to the oceans via rivers. Thus, each year solar energy transfers a significant portion of water from oceans to land areas. This aspect of the hydro-logic cycle is vital not only to agriculture but also to human life and natural ecosystems.
Availability of Water
Although water is considered a renewable resource because it depends on rainfall, its availability is finite in terms of the amount available per unit time in any one region. The average precipitation for most continents is about 700 mm/yr (7 million liters/ha/yr), but varies among and within them. In general, a nation is considered water scarce when the availability of water drops below 1,000,000 liters/capita/yr. Thus Africa, despite having an average of 640 mm/yr of rainfall, is relatively arid since its high temperatures and winds that foster rapid evaporation.
Regions that receive low rainfall (less than 500 mm/yr), experience serious water shortages and inadequate crop yields. For example, 9 of the 14 Middle Eastern countries (including Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) have insufficient rainfall.
Substantial withdrawals from lakes, rivers, groundwater, and reservoirs used to meet the needs of individuals, cities, farms, and industries already stresses the availability of water in some parts of the U.S. When managing water resources, the total agricultural, societal, and environmental system must be considered. Legislation is sometimes required to ensure a fair allocation of water. For example, laws determine the amount of water that must be left in the Pecos River in New Mexico to ensure sufficient water flows into Texas.
Ground Water Resources
Approximately 30% (11 x 1015 m 3) of all freshwater on Earth is stored as groundwater. The amount of water held as groundwater is more than 100 times the amount collected in rivers and lakes. Most groundwater has accumulated over millions of years in vast aquifers located below the surface of the earth. Aquifers are replenished slowly by rainfall, with an average recharge rate that ranges from 0.1% to 3% per year. Assuming an average of 1% recharge rate, only 110 x 1012 m3 of water per year are available for sustainable use worldwide. At present, world groundwater aquifers provide approximately 23% of all water used throughout the world. Irrigation for U.S. agriculture relies heavily upon groundwater, with 65% of irrigation water being pumped from aquifers.
Population growth, increased irrigated agriculture, and other water uses are mining groundwater resources. Specifically, the uncontrolled rate of water withdrawal from aquifers is significantly faster than the natural rate of recharge, causing water tables to fall by more than 30 m in some U.S. regions. The overdraft of global groundwater is estimated to be about 200 x 10 9 m 3 or nearly twice the average recharge rate. For example, the capacity of the U.S. Ogallala aquifer, which underlies parts of Nebraska, S. Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, has decreased 33% since about 1950. Withdrawal from the Ogalla is 3 times faster than its recharge rate. Aquifers are being withdrawn more than 10 times faster than the recharge rate aquifers in parts of Arizona.
Similar problems exist throughout the world. For example, in the agriculturally productive Chenaran Plain in northeastern Iran, the water table has been declining by 2.8 m/year since the late 1990s. Withdrawal in Guanajuato, Mexico, have caused the water table to fall by as much as 3.3 m per year. The rapid depletion of groundwater poses a serious threat to water supplies in world agricultural regions especially for irrigation. Furthermore, when aquifers are mined, the surface soil area is prone to collapse, resulting in an aquifer that cannot be refilled.
Stored Water Resources
In the U.S., many dams were built during the early 20th century in arid regions in an effort to increase the available quantities of water. Although the era of constructing large dams and associated conveyance systems to meet water demand has slowed down in the U.S, dam construction continues in many developing countries worldwide.
Given that the expected life of a dam is 50 years, 85% of U.S. dams will be more than 50 years old by 2020. Prospects for the construction of new dams in the U.S. do not appear encouraging. Over time, the capacity of all dams is reduced as silt accumulates behind them. Estimates are that 1% of the storage capacity of the world’s dams is lost due to silt each year.
We conducted classroom observations from October to April, observing a total of 55 classes one or two times each. In addition, we observed lunchrooms and hallways at two sites. These observations lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, for a total of about 73 hours of observation data collected. We followed a non intrusive, hands-off, eyes-on approach and generally did not participate in classroom activities. We took field notes during observations to describe the classroom environment; classroom procedures; the teachers’ instruction; learning activities; materials used; and interactive patterns among students and between students and teachers.
Part of Research
Moreover, we also took note of interactions between teachers, since teachers co-taught some of the integrated classes common in the NT model. We wrote as much as possible of what we saw and heard during observations and included some of our own reflections or interpretations as memos written during or shortly after observations. We also met weekly to share our notes and memos so that all team members had a more complete view of what was happening at each school.
We conducted formal interviews with 16 teachers and 7 directors (i.e., principals). We recruited teachers for interviews through snowball sampling, whereby we asked directors to provide the names of two or three teachers they thought should be interviewed. Directors did not always suggest teachers they expected to say complimentary things about the model or who were implementing the model with high fidelity.
Instead, most were interested in learning from teachers they believed had not bought into the model or were not implementing the model fully. Because the data was collected in the context of an evaluation, the directors had an interest in learning how they might modify their practice and/or provide further supports and professional development to better meet teachers’ implementation needs.
How we do it?
We then invited the teacher’s directors recommended to participate in an interview, although not all consented. Therefore, the directors did not know exactly who participated among those they suggested. Next, we asked all the teachers that the directors had recommended for an interview to provide the names of additional teachers they thought we should speak with in order to gain an understanding of implementation at that school. The teachers who participated in interviews represented a sample of different content areas: two science teachers, five English teachers, four mathematics teachers, three modern languages teachers, and two business teachers. Almost half of the teachers we interviewed were mathematics or modern languages teachers, which was the result of a focused recruitment effort in response to specific partner needs as described above.
The number of interviews conducted was also limited by the time frame and budget for the evaluation. We interviewed two to three teachers from each school over the phone or at school. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes, for a total of about 10 hours of interview data. We followed a semi-structured protocol that enabled the evaluation team to compare similarities and differences between stakeholder expectations of the NT model and their experiences in it. Sample interview items included “Describe teacher collaboration at your school” and “Describe the leadership structure at your school.” We audio-recorded the interviews and transcribed them verbatim.
In order to analyze the data that we had collected for the New Tech implementation evaluation, we gathered all of the data documents, including observation field notes and interview transcripts. We read through all of these in order to obtain an overall understanding of what we had collected. After this preliminary reading, we reviewed the Degrees of Democracy Framework and began creating a list of possible codes, including the code examples.
Next, we utilized the NVivo data analysis software program to assign specific codes to data excerpts within the observation field notes and interview transcripts. After completing initial coding, we pulled the data we assigned to each code, and read through it, comparing the data to the descriptions of holistic democracy embedded in the Degrees of Democracy Framework. Once this reading was complete, we recorded some data in order to refine our analysis.
To check the validity of our analysis, we shared the analysis documents with the evaluation team members for peer editing because they were most familiar with the NT model, the data collection methods, the school sites, and the participants. We also shared my analysis with Philip Woods, one of the authors of the Degrees of Democracy Framework, for peer editing.