Fresh water...Which statement is true?

Question

1) Fresh water is in short supply, we´d better start saving it.
2) We could use sea water for applications like toilet flushing, thus save many gallons of water every day worldwide.
3) Governments should start to invest on dessalination plants and on how to use polar ice for domestic use.
4) It´s easier (and cheaper) to ask the population to save water than to invest in filtering plants.
5) The water is not going anywhere, it just takes time to go through its cycle and come back to us.

Of course if there´s another theory, be my guest...

Answer 1

I would choose choice "3 or 5"....although choice five is not as optimal as choice 3...

Of the 35 million km^3 of freshwater on earth, about 24.4 million km^3 are locked up in the form of glacial ice, permafrost, or permanent snow. Groundwater and soil moisture account for 10.7 million km^3. Freshwater lakes and marshlands hold about 0.1 million km^3. Rivers, the most visible form of fresh water account for 0.002 million km^3 or about less than 0.01% of all forms of fresh water.

The major source of fresh water is evaporation off the surface of the oceans, approximately 505 000 km^3 a year. Another 72 000 km^3 evaporates from land surfaces annually. Approximately 80% of all precipitation (about 458 000 km^3) falls on the oceans, the remaining 20% (119 000 km^3) falls over land. The difference between precipitation onto land surfaces and evaporation from those surfaces is runoff and groundwater recharge – approximately 47 000 km^3 per year.
----------------------------------------
Check the first link to find about water availability vs. population...

Answer 2

These options are all subjective, so it's hard to call them true or false. #1 is partly true (supplies of fresh water are diminishing), but you need to elaborate on "saving it." Hoarding it won't solve any problems, but conservation via decreaded usage would be beneficial.

#2 seems plausible, but I don't know for sure.

#3 is also reasonable. Desalinization is very energy-intensive, though, so it's not a cure-all solution. Collecting polar ice is probably also very expensive.

#4 is certainly true, but how do you enforce it? You'll start to run into major resistance when you tell people how they can and cannot use their water. And simply requesting that people conserve is not very likely to have an effect.

#5 is also true, nevertheless, we still collect water at a rate faster than our sources are replenished.

Answer 3

1) True. With all the water catchment areas depleting fast in the name of progress and development.
2) True but is it feasible to pipe sea water to towns located thousands of miles inland?
3) True but how many governments are that rich to invest in plants and if we were to use polar ice, well, likely earth would become like Mars in the next 100 years.
4)True and it is also easier said than done.
5) True that the water is not going anywhere but it may not necessary come back to us in its cycle. It may end up in the sea or in the desert and got trapped in the water table below.

Answer 4

I agree with all your statements, however, Its not really EASY to ask pople to conserve water. It had been an environmental concern for ages, but still, most water supply end up being wasted.
There are still many locales in the world where fresh water supply is scarce. People are paying for clean, potable water and if this environmental concern continues, in 20 years, clean water may only be accessible to those who could afford it.

Answer 5

I'll choose 5.

No. 4 can be true if all coorporate...

But for urban cities or small countries with large population and few or no natural resources, building desalination plant is one of the best solution.

Answer 6

I would go with 3, but leave out the polar ice. We really don't want to touch that.

-Dio

Answer 7

Of the five choices, I'd have to pick what's behind door number 5.

Answer 8

5. However, we are using it up at a rate that far exceeds it coming back to us in a timely fashion.

Answer 9

I'd say:
4)
2)

Answer 10

all true to a degree, but in varying degrees of "urgency" or depth