Sunnyside Drinking Water Project: Examining Chlorinated Disinfectant By-products, Resident Perceptions and Practices, and Municipal Responses in Securing Safe Drinking Water in the Town of Sunnyside NL \n
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Sunnyside drinking water project is a university-community partnership between researchers at the Environmental Policy Institute- Grenfell Campus and municipal leaders of the Town of Sunnyside. This project explores the persistent drinking water-related challenges facing Sunnyside, eastern Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), primarily through the viewpoint of local residents. These challenges include: threats to source water; effective water treatment, disinfection and distribution, including dealing with high levels of disinfectant by-products \n(DBPs) as a result of their current disinfection system; and developing strategies for addressing these issues. Many rural municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador face similar issues, which present a challenge to municipalities in ensuring residents access to clean, safe drinking water. \nThis report is structured through five main parts: \n1. Introduction: Community profile, project rationale and methodology; \n2. Sunnyside drinking water survey report: Analysis and discussion of the drinking water survey conducted in Sunnyside during the fall of 2014; \n3. Chlorinated disinfectant by-products and drinking water in Sunnyside: Literature review and discussion of the potential health impacts posed by DBPs in publically supplied water systems, policy responses and alternative technologies; \n4. Community Water Forum: Discussion of the results of the Community Water Forum presentations, which took place in Sunnyside in May 2015, and; \n5. Policy recommendations: Concluding thoughts and policy recommendations. \nOne issue that frequently arose over the course of the project is the lack of regulatory emphasis placed on federal water quality guidelines related to DBPs in NL. Arriving at an enforceable level, however, would require consideration of feasible technological solutions and/or significant increases in provincial investment into the water treatment systems of hundreds of small rural \ncommunities with high levels of DBPs. Until such time, increased public health education and support is needed for municipal leaders and the public at large. Thus, our main policy recommendation for the Government of NL is to develop and support a multi-faceted education campaign around the potential health impacts of DBPs, the role of chlorination in publicly supplied drinking water, and solutions and alternatives available in preventing and/or mitigating DBP impacts. Education (and research) is also needed on the environmental and social impacts of bottled water in the province, currently the most common drinking water source for Sunnyside residents. DBPs are a collective responsibility shared by residents, municipal and senior levels of government. Municipal governments share in the responsibility of educating their residents about the impacts of both DBPs and bottled water. Home-treatment technologies also offer an alternative for residents in reducing DBP exposure, particularly in the short-term. We are cautious in recommending this as a long-term solution due to issues of affordability and social equity, the need for proper maintenance, and difficulties finding appropriate systems. In general, \nwe argue that it is the responsibility of public institutions (i.e. the government) to ensure that the \nappropriate water systems are in place to deliver safe drinking water to residents.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».