Loading...
Dec of Independence Video Comprehension
QuizĀ by Alissa Cook
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
Exercise on 10th of Dec. 2018Eff..rs of ott.-PoFllat i What woLrld hoppen ro our colnrry i, it is ovetsp.pulored? When our counrry is ovā¬.-populdted, re @ ā¬xpā¬ri.nce rhā¬ foll.wirg: Food is our bdsic h@d. Whā¬n thā¬.Cs an ih.re.se ir populdtion it neans thar hore ,@d is iealed. It rheds ho .naJgh food, rrtrple irll srruggle wirh eddr othā¬r in ordeLro ā¬!'r- As o l!fllr, lhde rill be o f@d -- , ond ou, now]nert of on ihdiyiduol fron d c..tair - the move$eni o, on individudl our of o cerrain pla.e which help rā¬duce ihe populotion of th6t fr Arcihā¬. b.sic ned is w.ra. Wde. shorroge ocu.s when there is on ircreare of hu,nber of p@ple ro be $pptied. rn owr-popur.t d ore.s, woler is rdiorā¬d, Ir rEB rhoi supplies like ti,tWSS ond ,IWSI can'i $pply enoish worer. Do you hdve enough supply of sai.. in your oreo? Aside f.om food alld worer, shelier is olso ohe o, our inportant heeds. As the populoiion ihcre.!e!, building n.w hoLr!ā¬s or rheltā¬r is limit.i. To find solulion to this prcblā¬n, some goverihent og.ncies dnd orhs non{ovā¬Ihrehl offi.iofs (N6O) .onvefied sot@ ti.elields, du,np site. dnd nountcirlr inlo flbdivisions dnd relidentiols. Sut whot uould be ths effect o{ coMrtiig .i@fields to .6idā¬nri6l uits in our food supply? z , 2 Z Z :'", becouse there ore no enough space for prcpex garbage dkposol. ^s o rā¬sulr, sore peoPle lend to ihrow'their gorbdge onywh.fā¬. oorbdge baones brc{niry ond rursing ground of iEecrs and onidols ihot @se horm ro pe.ple. Dec.yiry garboge olso produces r,hpleaiant odor ard ehen burn if pmduces pois.nour qds @lled nelhohe As ihe populdtion incrā¬a3*, the 9d6.9e dso incraes. nris is T't ,,8 T H Wha you de living in on oa-populdi.d pla@, you moy oqaiae halrh prcblerns. Ir is be@@. the woi.r srpply is limit.d ihct will l..d you to poor hygi.ni. hobirs. In plo.4 like rhis, the surrouhdiigs naybe uniidy. o focrorthoi @uld oko cfFe.t your h4l'th. The common oilments rhot yd @uld oc$rire in ovesfDpllarā¬d ploces ore bEnchil is, o5l hnq. diqrrha and rube.culosis. 7,\ ,\\ \1" 6. Lnck of Herlrh sarvice llosi Pelple in 6n oM-populciā¬d 6ra 90 ro rubli. heilrh @trtas ond governhent hospirols be6u.e ii prcvides fr@ @Eulrorion oid los @sr rEdicdrions. A3 a ..suli, lhā¬sā¬ gow.nnenr dgā¬rciB b.@ne itud.4$re in mcetiig ihe n eds b..ou!ā¬ df ihsrfficiā¬nr funds. Lock of medicol personnel ,o odmaiisiā¬I is also s problen in mosr hosptols evā¬n rhere or. od.audtc supply of hedicire!. 7_ Do you how wlry rhe crimā¬ roiā¬ hexs ih becdurā¬ fiDre pe.ple o.e fnJrrctā¬d d@ ro sLfficiā¬.i naE io supp.rr their forniliG. ouf country inclY{ses? If is uh.mploymā¬ni dnd hdve no arinet .re u$dv grā¬{rer ia dn dq-popltdled ra whq. tl, , a, v, tlr I E. Air ard Watā¬r Pollutioh How dir be.o'nes pollutā¬d? I11ā¬ dir b@'nā¬s p.llurn be.4ne of rhe hormfolgoees thot ser. produ.4 by the fdcioriā¬s and vehicles. Itete {octories ond whi.l6 @ fuel ro run nochiB ond .JBin6. In ,hā¬ prc.ess, they give our Cdrboh Dioxide ond other ho.6ful gars.r such 6 Nittugei Oxide, Corbon l oioxide dnd Le.d iiio the oir. Do you know whot .ontdbute io ihe incrā¬asing number of whides qnd foctories? It is ihe inc.6e o, populdtion. As whdt I hove dis.!sse!, wirh a lihired sra.e 9@bd9e disposalie one of the problens thot .o!ld ise i, dh o!er-pop!,.tā¬d ploce. exn,jple ot thie orc rhosā¬ pelplā¬ livi,rg oh the raverside teid 'ro ,hrou, lheir gEr&ge Hde you seen 'th. P6si9 river or the Tulyahan river? Did you {ind it Whdr do you think i! ihe effā¬.t of ihis ih the.re4iures sho lives ih Ahothd f6do.s thal could.on rlbule to wdtd pollutioh dre oil s?ills, gorbqgā¬ fro,n boa, or ships ahd somā¬ ihdust.iol wosre. 9. Ite l@96f p4.enroge group. Individuols who orc this grclp. of olr popllarioh is compos.n of the working @pobla of s'rpporting ,heir fomilies nok !-up Though rhas group hol& the lojgeei percenroge of d. populaiion, rhis olso becomer one o{ oveFpopulored problā¬]ns bā¬4use there ore rc jobs awildble fo. oll of iha10. Erergy Shortdge ltere will be on energy shortdge iJ ihe populdtion incre63"l be.dise rhe d.,nand i. ā¬le.iriciry is high. Why is thai wh.n th. PoPqldion inclE.g, rhe d4ord in el4tricity is high? Ir B be.ouse there $,ould be 8to.e hdsat dnd blildirys to lighr ond nore el?riric oPPliohces ro run. rt.6rcznho!3.Ef+ed Whor is rhe grernho@ effā¬.r? In whoi say il c.uld offect c2 6re.hhG. effed is rhe wdrniltg of rhe drltlosphee. lvhen the 5un worft rhe.nrrh s1jrf.@, sone of rhe h@r goā¬J bo.k ro rhe ornos?herc. Air an the dtnDsphere which is C@boi Dioxid. ,rops ihe heot 6hd it mok6 the a.th very worm. As ihe populdtion coniinuou!|,l gtol4 , the gt@rl$use etfe.t b@res no.e visible. Ir is becaosu ,hera ore mo.e focrories snd whicl.s iha, produce wdstā¬s ond fuma5 which cduses more C{.bo. Diodde ir the ormosphere. As a rcsutt, ,herc eiould be nore h4, ,rop in the ornosphere uhich osk6 th. @ih nuch wornerIf this will hoppen continuously, ,hā¬ fish ih thā¬ ocah *ill diā¬, ricerields/f@mlands will dry too due to lhā¬ wcm clitnole 12. Destruction of rhe Ozone Loyer A5 whot you hove l@med lrheh you de in v5-6, rhot the qzore ldver is 'the proiecrive loyā¬. of the olnosPhdā¬. ft protects us {rom the homful effects of ultrdviolei rays of the su. Do you khow ,hot our Ozore lolā¬t q4. dQ4tt\!ci.d? Il olreadY hod holes lhai dllow the ulrroviolet rdys to .4dt ihe @rrh. How do6 this hdpPei? Does th. in rc$e of poPuldioh h@ā¬ sonething 'to do tr,lh ir? Yes, rhe I6i grov/irts PoPuldiion .odribuied o lot be@use 6 th' populotion incre3es, rhe u5e of refrigerd'tors, dā¬rosol lProvs 6nd pl4srics 6bo ihcre&s6. The sid producls coiiojn chemicol called Chlorofluorocdrbons (CFCS) which is mix wafh ihe dir in ihe ormosPherā¬. As o resulr. ihe hcrmfirl chernicol rā¬oches the Prolectiw ldver dnd lhrowh. hole in {hid ult@iolzi cahders aid cai4.ct3 ,F.*Y.iis hi!586$qā¬9.7,- Ho$ doas dcid rdin form? Is cid roii hdmful ro rEn? In the prcvious dis.ussions, yodtā¬ t.onā¬d rhd more vel .1e3 dnd fdctoriā¬s orā¬ necded fo het the iii:.e.siry number o{ P@Pla. Lefs now fihd af hd f@tot.iā¬s dnd vehicle! .ontribure in the forrEtion of ocid When foctories 6nd whi.ler give off woste gd..3 ,hot will ,nix on lhe noisture i. rhe oir, it will ihen Produ.e sulPhu.i. ocld dnd Nitri. o.id. 'Ihe clol,Jd folb will ,hā¬h obsorb rhese ccids ond ehei ihe clold f.lls os .oin, ih. ccid is ahady Pdrr of itU/ha d.id ftin falls oh lok"!, ,46 or ocan ihā¬ fish sill die d.d if h fdlls oh fopnlonds,lhe pldni. together oith the soil B desrroyed. When you inhole dir with Niiric acid, your blood will los. irs @pobilily io fonspori Oxygā¬h to your diffā¬.ai bodY Po.i3. ScieniisB include other rorns oJ dcidic prā¬cipiigrion. Thesā¬ drc nisi, Do you krcw ihot Nuclerr power slotionr Use .adiodctive ,ndie.ials in producirE fuels, yet, rhey do and those .odioactiw rndlqlotE gi\e otf radio'ting en.rgy thoi is harmrul 'to livirq thilEs. wlren rodiotion enlert ihe body ot living things it {ill srq rhere for o lorg ,eriod of ri'ne. Exonple fhe rodiqtion vG srilled to the c.m. Then rhe @rn will be aie by rhe chicken, the .odiotion o the c.rn 'rill also 'tronsfā¬r to the chi.kā¬n. Wha on individuol als ihe nat of the chickeh sith mdiarion, helshe rill .ko oblorb ihe rodi@.tirc mtaid that will destrcy hB/her .ā¬lls ond ruket hnn/hd si.r. Over-populoiion .on leld to food shoridgā¬, wdter shorroqe, housiB problā¬ms, qdrbogā¬ problā¬rs, lock of halrh sdi.e. tisa ol clit@ rote, oir ond woiā¬r pollution, uhanpl6ynat, eiergy 5horr69e, grenhoq3ā¬ efreci, desrruction o( th. ozo@ lat/e?, rci.l roi. olld e.lā¬d. wattaāThereās No Such Thing as Sound Scienceā 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 āmeasuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.ā Similarly, Trumpās pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nationās climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that āglobal temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.ā Kathleen Hartnett White, Trumpās nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we āneed to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural roleā 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 thatās 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 āopen scienceā reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a āreproducibility crisisā that has struck some fields of science.1 But theyāre 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 āsound science.ā Scienceās virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the āopen scienceā movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of āsound scienceā have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. āOur criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,ā said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. āThatās a fundamental difference ā weāre critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.ā Calls to base public policy on āsound scienceā seem unassailable if you donāt know the termās 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 āsound science.ā In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to ādiscredit the EPA report,ā āprevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bansā and āproactivelyā 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 itās sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, itās 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. āScience is a process rather than an answer,ā said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. Itās not entirely correct to say that āthis study proves this fact,ā Ledgerwood said. āWe should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.ā The tobacco industryās 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. āDoubt is our product,ā wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt āis the best means of competing with the ābody of factāā and āestablishing a controversy.ā These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that theyāve 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. Itās also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to āinstall uncertaintyā about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Itās industry-funded groupsā late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didnāt want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPAās scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administrationās EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants arenāt pushing for knowledge, theyāre practicing what Proctor has dubbed āagnogenesisā ā the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isnāt simply the absence of knowing something; itās a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who donāt want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. āItās really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?ā said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, āyou can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.ā 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. āGridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,ā said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary āMerchants of Doubtā (based on the book by the same name). Moranoās site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. āWeāre the negative force. Weāre just trying to stop stuff.ā 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 āquality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of informationā 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. āIt was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it ā that should tell you a lot about the real goals,ā Levy said. But whatās most telling about the Data Quality Act is how itās 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 āTrojan horseā law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smithās 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 canāt 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 itās not so simple. āThereās a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but itās all a matter of degree,ā said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. āThere is no perfect study.ā Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially āa way of saying, āWe donāt want to use evidence for our decision-making,āā Nosek said. Most scientific controversies arenāt 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. āWhile 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 āthe factsā are.ā Whatās needed in these cases isnāt more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. āAs 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,ā Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettesā 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 isnāt about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book āMerchants of Doubt,ā 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. āNone of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,ā 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 ā 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 canāt tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold ā those are value judgements that only humans can make.DecDec. 9, 2021: Spanish II (2C/3A/3B)DEC ENGLISH SESSION 3Dec. 7, 2021: Spanish II (1A/1B/3B)Dec'19