What does HEPA stands for ?

High Efficiency Particulate Air

High Energy Particulate Accumulator

High Efficiency Purification Air

High Efficiency Particle Absorber

What is the main function of the ionize section in the AAF kitchen ecology solutions?

Charging the particles positively

American Air Filter X ASLI Seminar 2025

THE BATTLE OF THE PHILIPPINE SEA Occured in the Philippine Sea and Marinas The battle engaged the bulk of thepagan American forces, and prevented the Japanese from reinforcing, their fleet in the •Marianas. •A month after, the Japanese LOST THEIR 4 best aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway, an island northwest of Pearl "Harbor. 1. The Batle of the Philipine Sea lasted just one day June 19- June 20 1944 3. is also called the "Marianas Turkey Shoot” The Battle of the Coral Sea The Coral Sea is Between New Guinea and Australia The Japanese Were Trying to Attack Australia! The U.S. Navy and the Japanese Navy Fought! Nobody Won! U.S. Was Able to STOP the Attack on Australia! (Victory!) The American fleet defeated the Japanese. American planes bombarded Japanese installation in Manila from the air. Air strikes were also carried out in the Visayas. Battle of Okinawa: Battle Details The attack on Okinawa took heavy toll on both sides of the fighting... The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. The Japanese may have lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought. The Americans also lost 36 ships. 368 ships were also damaged. 763 aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000 aircraft were lost. battle facts -the japanese launched fierce kamikaze attacks l-arge amouunts of civillian deaths -japanese soldiers using civilians as human shields Americans ended with more triumphs in the battles like in: General MacArthur and the Allies next turned to the Island of Iwo Jima The island was critical to the Allies as a base for an attack on Japan It was called the most heavily defended spot on earth Allied and Japanese forces suffered heavy casualties IWO JIMA American soldiers plant the flag ol the Island of Iwo Jima after their victory Battle of Leyte Gulf "Second Battle of the Philippine Sea". Time: October 23 - 26, 1944 during WW. Location: Leyte Gulf in Philippines (East coast), Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar, and Luzon. Largest naval battle in WWII. Leyte was secured and was liberated from the hands of the Japanese Americans decided to launch their attack in Leyte since the weak side of the Japanese fleet was in Visayas. Heavy bombing at the Leyte beaches cleared the way for the landing in Palo, Leyte. Leading the American troops were General Douglas MacArthur and President Osmeña, who took over after the death of President Quezon in Saranak Lake in New York. the battle for the liberation of manila The commonwealth government capital was transferred from tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. ON july 4, 1945, general macarthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines • The Commonwealth government capital was transferred from Tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. On July 4, 1945, General MacArthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines. Americans surprised the Japanese with the landing of troops in Lingayen Gulf in Pangasinan. • The Filipino guerillas had already cleared the area and neutralized many of the Japanese forces. The first target was the UST, which was used by the Japanese as a camp for civilian prisoners of war, and they were able to free them. • More than 1000 POWs from Bataan and Corregidor were also freed from the Bilibid Prisons. • The battle of Manila was recorded as the fiercest urban fighting in the entire Pacific War. WATERLOO DAILY COURIER-NEWSPAPER “PEACE! WAR ENDS; JAPANESE ACCEPT ALLIED TERMS. ON EMPEROR" On August 6, due to persistent refusal of Japan to yield, another atomic bomb was dropped in the shipbuilding city of Nagasaki. On August 15, V-J Day (Victory in Japan), Emperor Hirohito finally admitted defeat and on September 3, 1945 the document of surrender was signed on board of the U.S. battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. With the liberation of the Philippines, the Americar troops moved on to finally end the war in Asia. The Japanese cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Kure were bombed. In July 26, the allies demanded surrender but the Japanese continued to hold on to their belief that surrender is a dishonor. Atomic bomb was dropped on the populous city of Hiroshima, 60% of the city was destroyed. It was estimated that there were more than 80 000 people died on the spot and more than 37 000 suffered severe injuries. Today, the HIROSHIMA SHRINE serves as a reminder of th horrors of war and the need to preserve PEACE in the world. THE POSTWAR PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH-• Philippine Commonwealth resumed. Osmeña was confronted with a war - ravaged country with no financial resources for PROBLEMS • Poverty • Destruction of Properties • Unemployment • Price Increase • Hoarding • Graft and Corruption HINDRANCES -Rehabilitation of INDUSTRIES COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUND -RAILWAYS WERE DESTROYED THAT LED TO SLOW PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION -PCAU (Philippine Civil Affairs Unit) was established by MacArthur to provide emergency relief in areas liberated by the Americans. - It organized food distribution centers. CHALLENGES TO INDEPENDENCE • On April 30, 1946, the Philippine the US President. BIASED AGREEMENTS: Rehabilitation or the Tydings Act of 1946, passed by the US Congress, was approved by Commission • This Act created the US Philippine War Damage The Act also provided for the transfer of $100,000,000 surplus property of the United States to the Philippines. The Philippine Armed Forces received large quantities of valuable military equipment and supplies. BIASED AGREEMENTS: • The United States Congress offered $800 million for post World War Il rebuilding funds if the Bell Trade Act was ratified by the Philippine Congress Parity rights granting U.S. citizens and corporations rights to Philippine natural resources equal to (in parity with) those of Philippine citizens The Philippines used to celebrate its Independence Day on July 4, and not June 12, by virtue of the Truman Proclamation in 1946. In the early 1960s, however, the Philippine Historical Association lobbied to bring back June 12 as our Independence Day. In 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal issued a proclamation to make the change official. DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE • On July 4, 1946, the Americans granted independence to the Philippines.

Alexander Hamilton, a key figure in the founding of the United States, served as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. Aaron Burr, on the other hand, was the sitting Vice President under Thomas Jefferson at the time of the duel. The animosity between Hamilton and Burr was well-documented, stemming from political disagreements and personal slights over the years. The Duel Date and Location: The duel took place on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey, a common site for duels due to its less strict enforcement of anti-dueling laws compared to New York. Cause: The immediate cause of the duel was a series of letters and meetings between intermediaries after Hamilton allegedly insulted Burr at a dinner, which was later reported in a newspaper. Burr demanded an apology; Hamilton refused, leading to the challenge. The Event: On the morning of the duel, both men, along with their seconds and a doctor, rowed across the Hudson River to the dueling ground. The exact events are a matter of historical debate, but it is generally believed that Hamilton fired his shot into the air, adhering to a principle of honor without intent to kill. Burr, however, aimed directly at Hamilton, hitting him in the abdomen. Outcome: Hamilton was severely wounded and transported back to New York City, where he died the following day, surrounded by family and friends5. Aftermath Public Reaction: The news of Hamilton's death caused widespread grief and indignation. Angelica Schuyler Church, Hamilton's sister-in-law, expressed the communal sorrow in a letter, highlighting the shock and consternation that gripped the town5. Impact on Burr: Although Burr was never tried for the duel, his political career suffered greatly. He became a pariah in many circles and faced various legal and financial troubles in the years that followed. Historical Significance: The duel is often cited as a turning point in American political culture, highlighting the dangers of political rivalry and the need for civility in discourse. Conclusion The duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr remains a poignant reminder of the intense personal and political conflicts that shaped the early years of the United States. It underscores the tragic potential of unchecked animosity and the importance of reconciliation and dialogue in a democratic society.

By the late 1800s, the Spanish were losing control of Cuba. Concerned about insurrection in the countryside, they moved rural Cubans to “reconcentration” camps where the Spanish claimed they would be better able to protect them. U.S. Consul-General Fitzhugh Lee forwarded the following account of the conditions of the camps to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State on November 27, 1897. Lee said the author of the note was “a man of integrity and character.” “[W]e will relate to you what we saw with our own eyes: “Four hundred and sixty women and children thrown on the ground, heaped pellet-mell as animals, some in a dying condition, others sick and others dead. . . . “There is still alive the only living witness, a young girl of 18 years, whom we found seemingly lifeless on the ground; on her right-hand side was the body of a young mother, cold and rigid, but with her young child still alive clinging to her dead body; on her left-hand side was also the corpse of a dead woman holding her son in a dead embrace. . . . “The circumstances are the following: complete accumulation of bodies dead and alive, so that it was impossible to take one step without walking over them; the greatest want of cleanliness, want of light, air, and water; the food lacking in quality and quantity what was necessary to sustain life. . . . From all this we deduct that the number of deaths among the reconcentrados has amounted to 77 per cent.” Source: Unsigned note that was included in a telegram sent by Fitzhugh Lee, U.S. Consul-General in Cuba, to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State November 27, 1897. consul-general: a government official living in a foreign country charged with overseeing the protection of U.S. citizens and promoting trade pell-mell: state of disorder accumulation: pile want: lack reconcentrados: the reconcentration camp prisoners; The following is an excerpt from Albert J. Beveridge’s speech, delivered September 16, 1898. Beveridge gave this speech while he was campaigning to become a senator for Indiana. The speech helped him win the election and made him one of the leading advocates of American expansion. “Fellow citizens, it is a noble land that God has given us; a land that can feed and clothe the world;. . . . It is a mighty people that he has planted on this soil . . . It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon his chosen people; . . .a history of soldiers who carried the flag across the blazing deserts and through the ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset. . . . “The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer: The rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government. I answer, We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we govern our children without their consent. “They ask us how we will govern these new possessions. I answer: If England can govern foreign lands, so can America. If Germany can govern foreign lands, so can America. . . . “What does all this mean for every one of us? It means opportunity for all the glorious young manhood of the republic, the most virile, ambitious, impatient, militant manhood the world has ever seen. It means that the resources and the commerce of these immensely rich dominions will be increased. . . . “In Cuba, alone, there are 15,000,000 acres of forest unacquainted with the axe. There are exhaustless mines of iron. . . . There are millions of acres yet unexplored. . . . It means new employment and better wages for every laboring man in the Union. . . .

Growing up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a small city surrounded by endless plains, I've found unexpected echoes of home in China's smaller towns — from the warmth of locals in Huaihua, Central China's Hunan province, to the quiet charm of Yangshuo, South China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. With an itch to see more of China's lesser-visited regions, I began planning a trip to the northwest with seven friends — five Americans, one Pakistani, one Zimbabwean, and one Colombian. We bought round-trip tickets from Shanghai to Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, for less than $120 each. From there, we planned to rent a car and drive to Xining in Qinghai, then on to Qinghai Lake, and finally to Lanzhou, Gansu. To make that possible, several of us applied for Chinese driver's licenses, a process that involved translating our US licenses into Mandarin and passing a short test on traffic laws. Within a day, we were licensed. As we piled into two rental cars in late March to begin our eight-day journey, it became clear that this wasn't just a road trip — it was the culmination of our four years in China, the Mandarin we had so diligently studied, and our ongoing effort to contribute to US-China people-to-people relations. Right away, we drew curious reactions. At the Yinchuan airport, taxi drivers offered us rides into the city, only to stare in astonishment when we told them we had rented cars. "You're driving? In China?" one driver asked, visibly surprised. It was a reaction we'd encountered multiple times during our trip, as foreign drivers are rare in China, especially in remote regions. In Yinchuan, we stocked up on snacks and adjusted to the chilly desert air. From there, we headed west, navigating wide highways framed by dramatic landscapes: arid plains, jagged mountains, and occasionally, a herd of sheep crossing the road. The vastness of the Northwest was humbling — and as someone who grew up on the wide-open prairies of South Dakota, it felt oddly familiar. One of the highlights of our trip was camping by Qinghai Lake, the largest saltwater lake in China. A few summers ago, Santiago Solano, one of my classmates from the US, cycled from Xi'an in Shaanxi to Urumqi in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region over the course of a month and met many kind strangers along the way. One of them was Geng San, a Tibetan lamb herder who managed a piece of land right next to Qinghai Lake and graciously invited us to camp there. "That's what China is — it's the people. The quiet generosity of an old Tibetan nomad who, years after we first met, still offered us a place to rest on his land," said Solano, who is also part of the group on this trip. But apparently, we underestimated just how cold it would be to camp next to Qinghai Lake in late March. It was deathly freezing. In preparation for the trip, we had ordered two tent kits and eight sleeping bags. However, when the temperature eventually dropped to — 10 C, all of us piled into the cars and turned the heaters on. So much for camping. From Qinghai Lake, we drove to Lanzhou, where we visited many food markets and tried every type of noodle on offer. Since we are college students, we rented a gaming hotel room — something I've only ever seen in China. At night, instead of attending local parties as we had before, we stayed in the hotel and gamed late into the morning. For me, the trip was as much about the journey as it was about the destinations. Driving through Northwest China gave us a unique perspective on the region's natural beauty and its people. At gas stations, shopkeepers greeted us with curiosity and kindness, often offering recommendations for nearby attractions. At roadside carts, we sampled local specialties, grabbing a quick skewer and a mango for the road. And at every stop, we were touched by the warmth and hospitality that make traveling in China so rewarding. As an American who has lived in China for several years, I'm often asked about my experiences here. Trips like this one remind me of the similarities between the two countries, despite their differences. Just as road trips are a quintessential part of American culture, they've become my favorite way to explore China. Whether it's driving through the rolling hills of South Dakota or the deserts of Ningxia, there's something universal about the freedom and camaraderie that come with having complete control over where you end up. Written by Charlie Howes, a 22-year-old American who has lived in China since 2019. He completed his final year of high school at Beijing No 80 High School and is currently studying at New York University Shanghai. He has founded a company in China focused on facilitating US-China trade and plans to continue living in Shanghai long term. He enjoys road trips, cycling around the world, learning languages, and meeting new people.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

The Story of the Statue Introduction. The Statue of Liberty is the tallest statue in the United States. It can be seen from far away. Where did such a big statue come from? A Gift from France. In 1865, a man in France wanted to help America celebrate its 100th birthday. He said France should give America a gift. The gift was the Statue of Liberty. First, the United States and France found a place to put the statue. They decided to put it on an island near New York. Building the Statue. The United States built the base for the statue. France built the statue itself. It had to look good and last a long time. The inside was made of iron. The outside was made of copper. The statue was put together, but it was too big to move in one piece. So it was taken apart again! The pieces were sent to America on a big ship. The statue was finally done in 1886. The president of the United States spoke at a big celebration. Big and Green. The Statue of Liberty now looks like a big green woman. It weighs as much as 115 cars. It is as tall as a 30-story building with the base. The statue started out the color of a new penny. Over the years, the air turned the copper green. What the Statue Means. The Statue of Liberty is a work of art. It is also a sign of friendship. It has welcomed many people who have moved to the United States. The Statue of Liberty also has special meaning. The torch in its right hand stands for freedom. The tablet in its left hand has July 4, 1776, written on it. The United States became its own country on this date. Visiting the Statue. Many people from around the world visit the Statue of Liberty each year. They come to see the statue that stands for freedom.

Model Rockets Liftoff! Three... two... one... liftoff! A model rocket shoots into the sky. The rocket can fly up to 1,500 feet (457 m) high! Watching these small rockets fly can be fun and exciting. Model rockets aren't just for fun, though. They also teach us about science and space. The History of Rockets. People in China invented rockets about eight hundred years ago. They filled tubes with gunpowder and shot them at their enemies. Later, scientists built rockets that could go into space. Starting in the 1950s, people began building model rockets for fun. Parts of a Model Rocket. A model rocket kit comes with all the parts a rocket needs. A model rocket's body is a long tube made of cardboard or plastic. The nose cone fits into the top of the tube. The size and shape of a rocket's body and nose cone can change how it flies. Fins help the rocket fly straight. The engine burns fuel to push the rocket into the air. A parachute helps the rocket fall safely back to Earth. People like to make their rockets look great. Many people paint their rockets with different colors and designs. Every rocket is one of a kind! At the Launchpad. The only place to launch a rocket is in an open space. The launch area needs to be far away from people and buildings. A large field or a playground is a good spot. First, set up the launchpad. Place the rocket over the guide wire on the pad. The guide wire keeps the rocket pointing straight up. A girl connects the wire that will allow the controller to start the rocket engine. when it lifts off. Connect the launch controller to the rocket engine. Then step back and press the button on the controller to start the engine. Whoosh! The rocket flies up and away. Clubs and Competitions. People who fly model rockets often join model rocket clubs. Schools or hobby groups can have information about model rocket clubs. A science center or museum might have a model rocket club, too. Many people enter model rocket competitions. They set off rockets and see which one flies the highest and the fastest. Model rocket competitions are held all over the world. In the United States, students between twelve and eighteen can enter the Team America Rocketry Challenge. Every spring, one hundred teams compete to become the best in the country. The winners go on to compete against other teams from around the world. Model rockets are a fun way to learn about science. Who knows how high a model rocket can take your imagination?

Related quizzes

Related quizzes