The following appeared as an editorial in a health magazine.

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."



This editorial presents the effect of Cormium 5, an industrial by-product, on the health of local residents. Further considering this substance to be the major reason for disorders like allerges and skin rashes, it suggests that the drinking fountains in public buildings should be replaced with bottled-water coolers. At first glance, the argument given and suggestion derived from there seems to be effective but an in depth analysis of this article presents some flaws in it.

First of all, the article doesn't explain what are the parameters considered in the preileminary study conducted for the effects of Cormium 5. It may possible that the allergies and skin infections are result of some other harmful substance present in water which was not taken care during study. Secondly in which environmental conditions this study has been conducted. Skin infections and allergies may rise due to environmental changes also.

Further it states that, the presence of Cormium 5 is found in drinking water samples collected from several areas but it never specifies the percentage of cormium 5 present in samples and beyond what percentage consumption of Cormium 5 is harmful for human beings since in the first line it states that the substance is harmless.

Also it suggests that since removing cormium 5 from water is costly, therefore bottled water coolers should be used. It fails to explain the overall expenditure for installing these bottled-water coolers and making them operational. It is very likely that this activity may cost much more than removing cormium 5. Also it states that the cost for purification is unbearable for local communities but since this is a subject of social health, therefore a financial support from goverenment and industry can also appear.

In conclusion, the arguments given in the article to adopt a new system of bottled water coolers will be more realistic and convining if it was supported with statistical data like percentage of cormium 5 present in water, the environmental conditions in which the study is conducted and the financial benefits of bottled water coolers over purification of water