Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so

important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-1

The prompt means that generally speaking a scientists job is to discover new things but not
to pursuit a threat to human life. Discovery is important but not costing human life. For
example, what the Nazis did to prisoners was wrong to them.

Sometimes a threat to human life is tolerated when the scientific discovery can help many
people at one time. Such a specific situation might be if a scientist thinks he has a cure for
AIDS but needs to test it on people who are not HIV positive. In this case and others where
humans might be helped, scientific discovery can be pursuit even if there's a threat to
human life because maximum benefit might occur.

A scientific discovery can overtake a human life only in certain cases that occur when
scientists can see benefits from their experiment. Such as if there's a cure for AIDS.

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so

important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-2

Scientific discoveries have always been important to the advancement of society. Every
scientist is a kind of explorer trying to discover new truths about the natural world that can
be applied to how we live. This is how we invented the light bulb and learned about space.
This statement claims that scientific discoveries are important, but not so important that a
threat to human life is caused. A threat to human life simply for the sake of exploring and
discovering is intolerable.

Some research doesn't involve humans, like making better computers or inventing software.
But in World War II, the Nazis experimented on live prisoners and used them like guinea
pigs. The results were horrible. On the other hand, I believe there are situations in which a
threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. I think that
patients suffering from terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS might be used in experiments.
Maybe there is a new drug that works on rats in a laboratory but no one knows if it works
on humans in a hospital bed. The drug might be a cure, if not for that patient then for
another patient. The patient would die anyway, so why not try the new drug?

In general, I do not believe scientific discovery is worth a threat to human life. Scientists
might be different about this issue, but what I think determines when the pursuit of
scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life has to do with if a
person's life is threatened. If a person is going to die from a terrible disease, then his life is
not at risk and an experimental treatment won't hurt him. It might even help him and if it
doesn't help him, it might help science

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so

important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-3

It is human nature to be curious, and it is the role of scientists in society to pursue the
scientific truths lurking in nature. Centuries of scientific inquiry have resulted in the
discovery of essential facts about our natural world, a deeper understanding of our place in
the universe, and the practical application of scientific knowledge to every day life.

The statement in question raises an important issue in regards to scientific inquiry. How,
exactly, does science and, in a larger context, society itself-make the determination as to
what is ethical in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? Do the ends justify the means?

All reasonable people agree that the testing the Nazis did on unwilling subjects in
concentration camps in World War II was despicable and immoral. Those ghastly
experiments, carried out on prisoners who were hostages of Hitler's Fascist regime, are
indefensible. No one volunteered to be in a concentration camp, so surely none of the
subjects can be said to have participated willingly. Their lives were put at risk-or
deliberately destroyed-without their consent. This was not science; this was madness. Some
discoveries-one thinks of Thomas Edison in his laboratory, inventing the phonograph and
the light bulb-are made without risking human life. But scientific inquiry often involves
human beings-as explorers or subjects-whose lives are put in jeopardy to gain knowledge
and advance the cause of civilization. Think of Ben Franklin, flying his kite in a
thunderstorm. Think of explorers like Christopher Columbus or John Glenn, venturing into
the unknown without regard for personal safety. And think of the brave individuals who
participate in AIDS research. In order to test vaccines, healthy subjects are required. In
order to test drugs to suppress or retard the advance of the disease, subjects who are
already ill are needed.

This brings us to the central question implied by the statement: when is it ethical to risk a
human life in order to discover scientific truths? The key is informed consent. It is essential
that every person put at risk whether a willing explorer like an astronaut, a patient choosing
a course of treatment, or a subject in a controlled experiment be fully informed of the
known risks he or she faces. Scientists are not God, and human beings are not guinea pigs.
Human life must be respected. Human beings are not disposable like paper cups.
Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on
what is best for the country.

Sample-1

In a representative democracy, representatives are selected by the voters to convey their

ideas and values in the government. These representatives are voted for by citizens
according to their degree to which they will uphold these ides and values. Citizens would
obviously not vote someone into office who believes in the opposite of the citizens on
several issue. The representatives will be re-elected in the same manner; the degree to
which the citizens ideas and values were upheld. It is not surprising that politicians will base
their decisions on what will please the voters and not on what is best for the country. The
politicians must maintain the popularity of the voters and the best method to achieve that is
to please them with the actions made in governmental circles.

The politicians however are not merely carbon copies of the citizen's consensus opinions.
The politicians will have opinions of their own and occasionally this may conflict with those
of the voters. At this time the politicians may make an unpopular decision for what they feel
is for the good of the country. One example is often seen with the petition of Nazi groups to
march. While an exceptionally high majority of citizens would never want to see this march
occur, many politicians would have no choice but to let the march preceede for the greater
good, in this instance it is the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the
constitution. From this ideal, much of this country was founded and it would by hypocritical
to deny it to another group regardless of how unpopular this group was to the voters.

While this is an extreme case of politicians displeasing the voters for the good of the
country, there exists a great range of "grey" area where politicians and voters do not meet
eye to eye. So what should be considered when making a decision to please the voters or
serve the nation? Fortunately, for the most part, the voters will also have the best interest
of the nation at heart but trouble can still arise. One major problem is the building of new
prisons or landfills. For most voters, there is no question that they are needed, but none of
the voters wants to see the prison or landfill wind up in their backyards. To deal with such
problems and still remain in good standing with the voters, the politicians must learn to
make concessions. For instance, the same district where a new prison is built, a new High
School and Industrial Park is set up to better education and increase jobs and the local
economy. A politicians must weigh the potential degrees of disfavor that they may incur
when determining whether to serve the nation at the risk of the voters. Politicians are
unable to please all of the voters all of the times, but by ensuring that unfavorable decision
are accompanied by many favorable ones, the politicians can balance on the treacherous
tightrope between serving their country and serving their voters.
Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

Sample-1

This statement suggests that a wealthy person has a significant stake in the formulation of
laws and policies, and that in order to maximize his or her own benefit from these laws and
policies, the politician must sacrifice the needs of other people. Unless all members of the
community share equally in the resources and potential profit from these resources,
politicians will have the responsibility of determining how resources, taxes, and wealth are
distributed. However, this is not to say that a person must choose to maximize his or her
benefits when taking part in political decisions. Ultimately, the decision to represent all
people fairly rests with the individual politician, each of whom has the potential to be fair or
unfair.

Wealth is not the only factor which might lead a politician to give unfair representation. A
person's race, sex, geographic allegions, and desire for power might influence a politician at
various times in her or his career. Indeed, a person who is significantly less then wealthy
might have as much at stake in an income tax law as a person who has money. Whether or
not the "poor" politician chooses to make policies with her own future in mind is just as
relevant as the same action undertaken by a wealthy person. If the individual politician
ignores her own stake in society, she might be acting irrationally.

The quality of "fairness" must be a relative and undefinable concepts in politics, requiring
that a politician try to be as fair as possible without hurting herself in the process. The
degress of fairness she chooses to exert is a subjective thing, and will probably be
disagreed upon by any two people.

Unfortunately, politicians must have a stake in the laws they create and destroy. Unlike
judges, who are supposed to look at each situation without a chance for personal loss or
gains, politicians can lose or gain substantially depending on how they act. The things they
stand to lose or gain include money, status, future power or employment, popularity, and
numerous other psychological and material things. Perhaps a measure of a good politician is
not how rich or how poor she is, but rather how important all these potential benefits are to
her. If she cares more for these things than the average person does, then she might not
represent people fairly.

Thus, whether a politician has a lot of wealth or very little, money can be a motivating
factor and can determine how she votes. The generalization about wealthy politicians can
just as easily be made about any politician who is concerned with money or other benefits.
However, it is hoped that once a person has "enough" material wealth his or her political
decision making will not be solely the result of trying to maximize future gains.
In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Sample-1

A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often
change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new
situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of
contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a
"free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their
needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the
political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring
of laws.

The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic
human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights
guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In
a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights
provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal
mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion
"free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.

In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law
stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be
stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's
constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws
to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the
laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing
a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the
constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating
certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws
governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be
spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car
parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems
with existing regulations arise.
In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Sample-1

A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often
change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new
situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of
contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a
"free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their
needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the
political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring
of laws.

The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic
human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights
guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In
a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights
provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal
mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion
"free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.

In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law
stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be
stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's
constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws
to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the
laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing
a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the
constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating
certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws
governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be
spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car
parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems
with existing regulations arise.
During an interview, it is important to stay focused on the conversation so that you will
understand everything that is being said. Using this information to write a compelling interview
essay can be very stressful. But if you paid attention during the whole interview, you will have a
better chance of writing a great essay. If you know what points you need to listen to and what to
include in your notes, the whole processes will be easier. You can find some of this information
by reading various interview essay examples.

Before you can write an interview essay you must conduct the interview. There are a few things
you can do that will help you to have a successful interview, and to gather all of the pertinent
information for your essay.

1. Be prepared for your interview. Create yourself an outline of your essay. Make a list of
questions that you will need to ask in order to get the important information you need for
your essay. Assign each question to one paragraph in your essay.
2. Begin your interview. Be friendly and create an atmosphere where the interviewee will
feel comfortable. If you feel that your interview is going off track, gently guide it back on
course. If you are unsure of what you heard, you can always repeat back the answer you
think is correct and see if they correct you or agree with you. This is important because
you want to take accurate notes, and do not want to write false information.
3. After you are finished with the interview, make sure you have everything in order, your
notes and any recordings you may have taken. Then ask them if they will be available if
you need to ask them any more questions.

The next step in this process is to take the information that you acquired during your interview
and use it to write your essay. Here are some steps you can follow that can help you write a great
essay.

1. Write down your thoughts on the interview while it is still fresh in your mind. Do not
worry about writing your essay points at this point in time. This is the rough draft of your
essay.
2. Organize your information. Reread your notes or listen to the recordings again. The
intention of the interview should be included in your opening paragraph. Make a quick
list of essay points that you want to cover. Add these points with the rough draft and you
have the beginnings of your essay.
3. Create your essay. Take everything you have done so far and clean it up and make it look
“pretty”. Make sure to focus on good grammar, and smooth transitions. Make sure you
have not overstated anything in the essay. And make sure you identify the source of the
information.
4. Have someone else read your essay. Get their honest opinion of it, and ask if there is
anything that needs to be changed.

By reading some interview essay examples you can see what you need to include in your essay.
And can give you a few ideas of what types of questions to ask, and what information is
considered “important”.
Global Warming: A Deadly Threat for Human Life

Global Warming refers to the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere.
Human activity contributes to this change through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Over
time, this increase may be sufficient to cause climatic change, including raising sea levels, altering
precipitation patterns and changing water supplies and crop yields. It is also an increase in the near
surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of
natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result
of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists generally agree that the Earth's surface has
warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 140 years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature and that
increased concentrations of sulfate aerosols have led to relative cooling in some regions, generally over
and downwind of heavily industrialized areas. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the
result of natural influences, but the term is today most often used to refer to the warming some
scientists predict will occur as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The
usual method to research about this phenomenon is to measure the surface-air temperature over time.
Some people blame the nature for the temperature increase while other points at human causes, such
as our cars, industries that pollutes the air with Carbon Dioxide and farmers in the third world that
pollutes the air with methane gas. Both Carbon Dioxide and Methane are Greenhouse gases. Since the
late 19th century, we have experienced a rise in average global temperatures approximated between
0.6C and 0.2C.

Global Warming is an increase in the average temperature of

the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase
sufficient to cause climatic change.

"Global Warming"

Humans' are to blame for global warming. They have

contributed in many different ways such as burning natural
gases, coal and oil making CO2. Deforestation; taking trees and
cutting them down. Also population growth is affecting it to.
Burning natural gases, coal and oil is producing masses of non-
used CO2. This is resulting in the melting of the arctic ice and
leaving polar bears and other arctic animals without a home.
For example the glacier national park, in Montana, now has
only 27 glaciers, compared with 150 in 1910 that is not very
many. Carbon dioxide (CO2) heats the air and the water
causing the earth to heat up and resulting in melting the arctic
ice. Some scientists believe that the ocean warming is resulting
in increased CO2 and not the other way around. This theory is
based on the idea that there is CO2 trapped in the ocean and as
the temperature rises and the water evaporates the CO2 is
released therefore causing the melting of the ice burgs.
Deforestation is affecting global warming because breath out
O2 (oxygen) and breath out CO2 (carbon dioxide). So if there is
a shortage of trees that are not going to breath in our CO2 then
were stuck with more carbon dioxide in our plant resulting in
the air warming up because of the over load of CO2. Leading
scientists think that we are contributing to global warming by
deforesting areas of our earth which is not only killing innocent
animals but can and probably will kill us if we keep polluting.
Population growth is also affecting global warming in a bad
way. More people means more cars, more cars means more
fossil fuels burnt, more fossil fuels burnt means more pollution
which pollution contains many green house gases such as
hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs ), per fluorocarbons (PFCs )and
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) which are results exclusively from
human industrial processes. Leading scientists believe that we
are contributing to global warming in a big percentage by
reproducing
To sum up we are causing global warming in a bad way by
burning natural gases, coal and oil concluding in heating up the
water and melting the ice burgs. Deforestation means less
oxygen and more carbon dioxide. While population growth is
affecting it by manufacturing more cars and factories. Leading
scientists' believe that we are the cause of global warming...

World Pollution
Summary: Pollution is becoming closer to put life on the verge of death. It has
killed many lives already. Technology has been the responsible one for most of
the Pollution that exists today.

gPollution, contamination of Earthfs environment with materials that interfere

with human health, the quality of life, or the natural functioning of
ecosystemsh (Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 March 2006). Even though so me
pollution across the whole world is caused by the forces of nature (animal
waste, animal release of gases, volcanic eruptions, etc.), the majority comes
from every-day human activities and technology. Human contamination of Earth
can take many forms such as Air Pollution, Water Pollution, Soil Pollution, Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste, and Noise Pollution. These harmful actions have
changed Earth, and they continue to do so today. Although pollution has
harmful effects, it has provided us the life we have today; without it, we
wouldnft be here were we are. Pollution is a life killer, but also a life saver.
Pollution: Promise, Problem, or Progress?

<a
href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/bookrags.oao/products/students;s1=prod
ucts;s2=students;section=index;url=products_students;k w=;topic=essays-
2006/6/3/145036/2547;title=;test=;bkr=ad;pos=1;expand=0;dcopt=;sz=300x
250;tile=4;ord={pgran d}?" target="_blank"><img
src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/bookrags.oao/products/students;s1=products
;s2=students;section=index;url=products_students;kw={ keywords};topic=ess
ays-
2006/6/3/145036/2547;title=;test=;bkr=ad;pos=1;expand=0;dcopt=;sz=300x
250;tile=4;ord=720902573? " width="300" height="250" border="0"
alt=""></a>
There are numerous disputes whether Pollution is a Promise or a Destroyer. For
example, quote gPollutionchas a dramatic effect on natural resources (Grolier
Online, 15 March 2006)h is a pro for pollution. There are also cons for
pollution, such as in quote, gcour economy is also as bit as fragile as Earth,
perhaps you (we) should think before stating such sensational claims!
(Emmerich, 2004)h. If it wasnft for Pollution, we wouldnft have a strong,
wealthy economy in the United States of America. We wouldn ft have the mas s
production of cars, computers, electronical devices, power, clean water, sewage
lines, etc. The world wouldnft be modern as it is today without pollution;
making the world as it was when tribes and minor civilizations roamed the
Earth. Nevertheless, Pollution is simultaneously endangering life in Earth.
gMoreover, because of the complex relationships among the many types of
organisms and ecosystems, environmental contamination my have far-reaching
consequences that are not immediately obvious or that are difficult to predict
(Comptonfs by Britannica, 15 March 2006)h. With Pollution in existence,
Earth is becoming unbalanced; sooner or later causing dramatic changes in its
surface. For example, the Ozone Layer, the gsheeth that protects life from
the harmful radiation from the Sun, is being destroyed by the harmful air
pollution from cities. Without an Ozone Layer, the Sun will slowly kill life on this
planet, causing cancer, mutations, and other diseases. Although pollution is
gtwo-faceh, it is also becoming a progress. Thanks to technology, scientists
and engineers have been coming out with ideas to reduce pollution from the
industry, commerce, residential, and cars (Grolier Online, 15 March 2006).
Air Pollution
Air Pollution has co-existed with Earth since the first humans began to use fire
to cook, heat, and agriculture. Even though humans long before polluted
Earthfs atmosphere, it was a crisis. Air Pollution became a major problem in
the 18th and 19th centuries during the Industrial Revolution, and is still
continuing today. Air Pollution mainly comes from cars, trucks, airplane engines,
industrial zones, indoors, etc. The utmost challenge caused by Air Pollution is
Global Warming, gan increase in Earthfs temperature due to the buildup of
certain atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxideh (Hart, 2006). The effect of
Global Warming is the rising temperature of Earth. Also, the Greenhouse Effect,
caused by Global Warming, has reduced the getaway of heat and has stalled the
blocking of radiation coming from the Sun. gBecause of this Greenhouse
Effect, average global temperatures are expected to rise 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius
degrees by the year 2100 (Comptonfs Britannica, 15 March 2006)h. If
humans would have never polluted Earthfs skies, we would have never had
massive manufacturing, industry, and trade, and commerce, thus weakening all
economies of the world.
Water Pollution
Water Pollution, like Air Pollution, mainly started when the Industrial Revolution
sparked. Sewage, industrial wastes, agricultural chemicals, etc. are the
foremost causes of Water Pollution. Another cause now known is the transition
of Air to Water Pollution. This happens when smog, dirt, haze, and other
Greenhouse gases are washed up and end in the ocean. Water Pollution has
been a growing problem still due to excessive water consumers. The EPA (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency) reported in 1995 that 37% of the United
Statefs lakes and estuaries, 36% of its rivers are just too polluted for basic
uses such as fishing or swimming all year long (Hart, 2006). This shows a
dramatic up rise of water pollution, not counting the world. If humans would of
never polluted water, we would have never had fresh drinking water and
sewage lines. Also, we would have never had hydroelectricity power. Water
Pollution is strongly influenced by Air Pollution, making it the gmotherh of all
pollutions.
Soil Pollution
Soil is a very important compound in Earth. gSoil is a mixture of mineral,
plant, and animal materials that for during a long process that my take
thousands of years (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006)h. It is very hard to
imagine how to pollute soil, but not for farmers. Soil Pollution happens when
salts, pathogens, radioactive materials, and toxic chemical compounds build up
on soil (Hart, 2006). The result can be endangering due to the fact that this
pollution mainly affects the Flora Kingdom. Degraded soil stops plant growth
and stimulates erosion. Mainly, farmers and agricultural sites are the main
pollutants. They treat soil with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides
which interferes the soil process. Also, these chemicals kill useful organisms
such as bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms (Hart, 2006). If this
continues, it will result in total crop failure. Soil Pollution problems occur today
in the Imperial Valley, the Indus Valley, and the Nile Valley. If humans would
have never polluted the soil, we would have never had massive flow of fruits
and vegetables. Also, with the chemicals farmers use, it assures quality of
vegetables and fruits.
Solid Waste
Solid Waste troubles everyday life. Garbage, paper, plastics, metals, wood and
synthetic materials fall into the category of solid waste (Encyclopedia Britannica,
2006). The reason why Solid Waste is a common problem is because the
average American dumps 4lbs. of garbage, paper, plastics, etc. away. Many
towns and cities deals with Solid Waste by creating a landfill; some use
Incinerators to burn the trash. Although burning seems more convenient, it
actually produces gdangerous concentrations of hazardous materials such as
heavy metals and toxic compoundsh (Hart, 2006). The best way to get rid of
Solid Waste is use a method called Composting. In the process of Composting,
Solid Waste collectors use natural biological progression to swiftly decompose
garbage. Solid Waste is a necessary in life. All living organisms have to produce
some kind of waste and it has to be collected to be taken elsewhere.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste can be on any form; solid, liquid, or gas (Hart, 2006).
Hazardous Waste is the most deadly because it can harm or kill animals,
humans, plants, and environments. The wastes that fall into this category are
toxic chemicals, flammable substances, radioactive substances, industrial
wastes from chemical plants and nuclear reactors, agricultural wastes (such as
pesticides and fertilizers), medical wastes, and residential wastes (such as toxic
paints, solvents, etc.) (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). If expose to humans,
Hazardous Wastes can give nervous system disorders, birth defects, cancer, or
death (Hart, 2006). If Hazardous Wastes are exposed to the environment, they
can immediately taint air, water, and soil for a large-scale of time. One example
of one of the worst disasters cause by Hazardous Wastes took place in 1986,
when a nuclear reactor exploded near Chernobyl, Ukraine. Even though this
calamity only killed 31 people and evacuated 200,000 people, this explosion
showed its strength when it shot a plume of radioactive material to Earth fs
atmosphere; Norway and the United Kingdom where contaminated (Hart,
2006). Even though Hazardous Waste is eradicator, it has helped with the
technologies of today, further expanding the knowledge of Space Exploration.
Noise Pollution
Noise Pollution exists in most urban areas and densely populated places. Noise
Pollution has risen since the early Industrial Revolution, making it
uncomfortable to live. Noise Pollution can include industrial machinery, traffic,
airplanes and unwanted noise/sounds (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). Although
Noise Pollution is not a killer, it can greatly disturb life in environment and
humans themselves. The effects of Noise Pollution are the loss of hearing,
disruption, high blood pressure, anxiety, and lost efficiency. Living without
Noise Pollution is living without cars, power and music, making life harder.
Pollution¨ (Air, Water, Soil, Solid, Hazardous, Noise) Clean Act
All these pollutions mentioned earlier have changed the face of Earth, and the
way of life. Although humans are continuing to pollute, many nations, including
United States of America, have taken actions to reduce disastrous results. In
the United States, the government enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970. gThis
law requires that the air contain no more than specified levels of particulate
matter, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, ozone, and various toxic substancesh (Hart, 2006). Also, the
United States established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stricken
standards that apply where the air is clean to avoid traveling of pollution from
dirty areas. Technology has been helping make the skies clearer. Nowadays we
have hybrid cars, and scientists are trying to create a new power plant called
Fission Power Plant that will not generate waste; it will get its energy from the
division of atoms. The United States of America also got serious when they
enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972. The goal for this act was to, gend all
pollution discharges into surface waters, such as lakes, rivers, streams,
wetlands, and coastal watersh (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). Technology is
helping make the waters clearer. There is now Water Treatment Plants that
filter all water using reverse osmosis process; and Desalinization Water Plants.
Also, the United States has passed the SWDA and TSCA to regulate and manage
Hazardous Wastes (Hart, 2006). Even though there is not that much technology
to help clear Hazardous substances, technology is making alternatives, such as
instead of a Nuclear Power Plant, itfs providing a Fission Power Plant. Last but
not least, the United States of America established the Federal Aviation
Administration to reduce and control the noise from airplanes. Technology is
advancing everyday, providing new engines and new ways to evolve. Even
though technology caused most of the pollution, now, itfs helping eliminate
pollution (Comptonfs by Britannica, 2006).
Conclusion
Pollution is a life killer, but also a life saver. It fs true that Pollution has made
some disastrous effects. Pollution is becoming closer to put life on the verge of
death. It has killed many lives already. Technology has been the responsible
one for most of the Pollution that exists today. Albeit, technology has been
evolving to make this world a better place. Nowadays, technology is being
cleaner to conserve Earth. Also, it has been cleaning Earth (water treatment
plants, air purifiers, etc.). Technology will progress over the years to make
Earth a healthier living experience.