Talk:Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Water Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Untitled[edit]

Useful Sources: Lawrence County Alabama Quickfacts from the USare still exposedN.p., n.d. Thurs. 23 Feb. 2017. Morgan County Alabama Quickfacts from source.International. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Pillion, Dennis. "8 Alabama Drinking Water Systems Have Chemicals Linked to Cancer above Safe Levels, EPA Says." AL.com. N.p., 21 May 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Pillion, Dennis. "Daikin agrees to pay $5 million in Alabama drinking water contamination settlement." AL.com. N.p., 01 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Lawrence and Morgan county are two counties in Alabama that have had water pollutants introduced into their rivers and drinking system. The two main pollutants found in the water in these two counties have been Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and Perfluorooctanoic acid. There has been much controversy within the government between government officials of varying levels in which the alleged water pollution exists. User:calbrs17 Contribution: I will carefully examine the chemicals that is in the water system including Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and Perfluorooctanoic acid. By analyzing the effects of these chemicals, I will be able to see the impact it has on human beings living near the water system. In addition, I will be writing about unclean water system in Lawrence County and how it impacts the region's population. Through the population data and analysis in the Lawrence and Morgan Country region, we will be able to understand how environmental injustice comes into play when it comes to race. References "2013 Drinking Water Report - Citizens Energy Group." Citizens Energy Group. Citizens Energy Group, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. Andrews, David, and Bill Walker. "Drinking Water for 5.2 Million People Tainted by Unsafe Levels of PFCs." EWG. Environmental Working Group, 23 May 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. <http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/drinking-water-52-million-people-tainted-unsafe-levels-pfcs>. Conner, Kristen , and Chris Davis. "UPDATE: Water distribution delayed in Lawrence and Morgan Counties." WHNT.com. N.p., 07 June 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. Hansen, K. J., H. O. Johnson, J. S. Eldridge, J. L. Butenhoff, and L. A. Dick. "Quantitative Characterization of Trace Levels of PFOS and PFOA in the Tennessee River." Environmental Science & Technology 36.8 (2002): 1681-685. Web. Pillion, Dennis. "Alabama utilities scramble to address polluted drinking water after EPA health advisory." AL.com. Alabama Media Group, 23 May 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. I plan to be the main writer for the subtopic of Background about PFOS and PFOA and explain their health effects as a water pollutant. I will also work with my other team members to write about the environmental injustice related to PFOS and PFOA pollution in numerous Alabama water sources., specifically in the counties of Lawrence and Morgan. -Espmuser (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Some relevant sources: Loos, Robert, Bernd M. Gawlik, Giovanni Locoro, Erika Rimaciviute, Serafino Contini, and Giovanni Bidoglio. "EU-wide Survey of Polar Organic Persistent Pollutants in European River Waters." ScienceDirect, 26 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "DRINKING WATER: 100,000 in Ala. Warned to Avoid Contaminated Taps." Greenwire. E&E News, 3 June 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "DRINKING WATER: EPA Acts to Limit Teflon Chemicals." Greenwire. E&E News, 19 May 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "100,000+ People in Alabama Told Not to Use Tap Water Due to Chemical Contamination."RT International. N.p., 3 June 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Yawn, Andrew J. "Eight North Alabama Water Systems Contaminated with Man-made Chemicals." The Montgomery Advertiser. USA Today Network, 21 May 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Pillion, Dennis. "Daikin Agrees to Pay $5 Million in Alabama Drinking Water Contamination Settlement." AL.com. N.p., 01 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "Community Facts -Lawrence County, AL." American Fact Finder. U.S. Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. "New Suit Filed over North Alabama Water System." The Washington Times. The Washington Times, 12 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. Outline Background Introduction to the issue What the issue is with the water The people it affects The government’s vs citizen’s reactions Subtopics Health impacts of PFOS Health impacts of PFOA EPA Regulations Environmental Injustice in Lawrence County Environmental Injustice in Morgan County Government and Policy Response Companies’ Responses 3M Related Incidences[reply]

PEER REVIEW

HEllO! I will be reviewing this article.

Here are a few suggestions:

Add a lead section. This will help shape the overall structure and bolster the content. Additionally, this will allow the reader to understand the context before they read the whole article.
In general, the Background section could be longer/stronger. Also, it should have dates because there is no way of knowing if it is happening currently or happened in the past.
The grammar and general sentence structure could use some improvement in some areas. I made several very minor changes in grammar or spelling.
The last few sentences of both paragraphs for the "Effects of POA" section need citations.
The opening paragraph for Environmental justice issues needs a citation.
With regards to the following sentence: "There is a lack of Environmental justice in Lawrence County after looking at the difference in poverty levels and mean incomes. It is the Government's and their Policy's Response to the situation that classifies the Alabama water crisis as a situation of environmental injustice." I think this sentence has the potential to be very powerful. Perhaps clarify "Policy Response" or delve deeper into what environmental injustice is because I don't think the average reader will understand the importance of this paragraph.
The Government and Policy Response section would be a great place to add more information if you could find more.

Here are a few things I noticed were strong/great/effective:

Lots of sources! Although I did not check all of them, they seemed valid and worthwhile.
The writing style seems straightforward and clear, not too "smart" but still with authenticity.
Overall, there is a great amount of information. I don't know how much was already here and how much you have added, but I still must mention that it is a thorough and generally neutral article.
Lastly, the diverse sections and organization of them is wonderful. You touch many aspects of the situation and display it in an organized and logical way.

Laughiumfuntrate (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2:

Very well done, you guys! I found that all of the sections were neutral, which is great. However, you might consider adding more "opposing" information (i.e., government policies, what is being done about this situation, etc.). That said, this article seems very well researched, so maybe there isn't very much opposing information. All your sources seem to be within wiki guidelines and they are definitely abundant. I honestly don't see any huge areas in which you could improve; I would recommend looking it over a couple more times for typos (I did notice a few). Again, great job!BuCHanan76*~* (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)BuCHanan76*~*[reply]

Peer Review #3

I very much agree with my group-mates above. I think the article is incredibly detailed and provides a great depth of detailed information on the subject you are writing about. A few note: I didn't see a lead section. The "Background" section seems to be serving the role of a lead section, however I would probably edit and format it differently to better fit as a lead section. There are many places within the article that could use some language/wording adjustments in order to more unify the writing style and become more formal in the manner of other wikipedia articles. Additionally, I would be careful about drawing conclusions from your own observations without citing literature such as in the Environmental Justice section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnylev (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by California1990 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from GSI

• Great job so far! The article is well organized and has comprehensive information on the topic.

• Are there any maps or photographs you could include?

• Add more categories to the article if you can.

• I would recommend renaming the “Possible Effects of the Trump Administration” section as it sounds speculative.

• You’ve done a good job of linking to other articles, but be sure to also add links to your page into other articles.

• Keep up the great work! California1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter[edit]

Love the structure and quality of citations! I do think you need to add significant material on the EJ dimensions of this problem. I didn't see any mention of class or race after the intro paragraph. Are there EJ issues involved in this contamination and the other incidents you cite? if so, please document them. Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?

--EJustice (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a quote[edit]

A quick heads-up that I've removed a quote from the article (sourced from here) in this edit. The quote came from a lawsuit (presumably from a statement of claim), meaning that it's not necessarily based in fact. I have no objections to reinserting content of that nature if it is factual and sourced appropriately. /wiae /tlk 16:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. I added a statement in place of the quote that summarizes both sides' arguments and also acknowledges that the arguments are claims and thus not necessarily based in fact. Espmstudent (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]