Kind of pollution | Quizalize

MEANING OF POLLUTION Pollution is the release of harmful substances into the environment and making it unsafe for human and animals. TYPES OF POLLUTION 1. WATER POLLUTION: This is the release of harmful substances into bodies of water. Examples of water pollutants are urine, bathing, excretion from man and animals, dumping of refuse into the rivers, lakes etc. 2. AIR POLLUTION: This is the release of harmful substances into the atmosphere making it unfit to breathe in. Examples of air pollutants are : smoke of vehicles, smoke from industries, oil burning, smoke from firewood, dead animals etc. 3. NOISE POLLUTION: This is a kind of pollution from the constant loudness of music or rowdiness. It disturbs the mind and prevents people from sleeping, resting or reasoning properly. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE EFFECTS OF POLLUTION 1. It makes the water unfit for drinking 2. It causes dysentery, typhoid fever and cholera. 3. It causes sneezing, blood poisoning, cough and lung diseases. 4. It causes headaches and sleeplessness. 5. It makes the air dirty and bad for breathing into the body. CONTROL OF POLLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Refuse should be dump in a proper place 2. Industries should be located far away from where people live. 3. Modern toilets should be built. 4. Regular cleaning of the surroundings.

Create a vocabulary quiz for 10th grade EFL students at CEFR B1 level. For example: adequate means: 1. sufficient 2. more and more 3. not enough. Use all the vocabulary below and provide accompanying definitions per the example to create this vocabulary quiz. The vocabulary quiz must contain at least 226 questions including the following vocabulary: addition advance advanced advertising among other things analysis appear approach as at least average be responsible for something be responsible for doing something before besides can challenge chance change characteristic claim come after come first come last common complicated concern conditions conduct consequence considerable cope critic current decrease delayed deliberately demonstrate design destruction development disagreement disaster discovery dislike do doubt drop educate efficient emphasis enjoyable essay essentially even if even though event exactly except that exist extraordinary feature feedback figure financial finding findings flexible flood flu focus on somebody or something focus frequent fresh frighten from gain generate guidance hopefully ideal illness illustrate image in terms of something in actual fact in connection with something in that case in the meantime initial instruction intelligence interest introduce invest investigate just about just about keep on doing something kind of knowledge lack landscape likely limited little look at something low material mean means measure mention miss misunderstand more or less must naturally nature necessarily nevertheless not at all not only notice objective occasional official on the one hand on the other hand once others otherwise out of date participate particular past perform personality personally planet planning plant point of view policy pollution popular population prevent priority private probable produce profession professor proof proposed protest provided (that) psychology public purpose quality question question questionnaire react reasonable recommend recycle regard region regular relevant reliable rely on/upon sb/sth request research result review revise risk run out of rural salary sample seldom sense set up sth or set sth up significant skilled slight specialist specific still structure study supposed surface take advantage of sth thanks to somebody or something theory throw away throw out something throw something away throw out transport trash treatment unfortunately unhealthy unique united universe unknown unlike unlikely urban vary view visible vision volume whom wildlife within worthwhile would additional analyze analyst appearance on average change characterize complicate concerned concerning concerned with something consequently cope with something criticize criticism currently deliberate demonstration designer developing developed educated educator efficiency efficiently emphasize enjoyment existence existing figure out something finance flexibility frequency hopeful illustration initially intelligent interested in something investor investment investigation investigator limitation meaning occasionally old-fashioned participant participation particularly performance planned pollute prevention producer professional psychological psychologist publicly reaction reasonably recommendation regardless regarding regional relevance researcher resulting revision sensible set out something set something out significantly significance skillful slightly specialize specifically specify theoretical transportation unfortunate unity unite universal variation viewer

Improving one’s physical appearance is the primary concern, of all people from all walks of life. Not only the party goers, career-oriented, or the celebrities but also ordinary people like us. So one must be careful in choosing the kind of cosmetic products that will not cause any harmful effects to their health as well as the environment. Objectives: Pretest: Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 43 Cosmetics are products used to beautify, clean or protect the skin, hair, and other parts of the body. Examples of these are make-up, gel, hair spray, and hair dye. Prolong usage of these products will be harmful for your health as well as the environment. What are cosmetics? Cosmetics refer to any preparation intended to beautify the human body, more specifically the face. Make-up preparations – are formulated with covering creams that are skin toned and dense in texture to hide or conceal skin blemishes. Hair spray - is a liquid preparation in an aerosol or other spray container use for holding the hair in place. Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 44 Hair dye - is a hair coloring matter use to give hair a new color. Gel - a semi rigid or a dispersion of a solid with liquid as in jelly or glue, use to hold the hair in a specific style. Now, take note of the different components commonly found in hair spray. a. Aerosol – is a substance sealed in a container under pressure, with a device for releasing it as a fine spray. Components of aerosol: 1. propane gas - means colorless, flammable gas. 2. butane gas - is the most dangerous substance because it contains carcinogen 3. carcinogen - is a substance that causes cancer. Are you aware of the Global Warming? Do you feel the heat of the sun becoming more intense, especially during summer time? It is due to the continuous depletion of the Ozone Layer. And the depleted ozone layer is caused by aerosol, CFCs (chlorofluorocarbon) and air pollution. The presence of CFCs in the atmosphere can destroy millions of ozone molecules. The destruction of the ozone molecules can cause black hole on the ozone layer which allow the ultraviolet radiation to pass through it down to earth’s surface. Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 45 Ultraviolet rays coming from the sun penetrates the earth causing us harmful effects. Exposure to the unabsorbed ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer. b. CFC - chlorofluorocarbon is a combination of the following components: 1. chlorine - it is a poisonous gas that is highly irritating to the respiratory organ. 2. Fluorine – a toxic gas that occurs with the combination of fluorite, enyolite and other minerals. 3. carbon atoms The above mentioned chemicals do not combine easily with other substances and only vaporize at low temperature. An excessive use may destroy the ozone layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays of the sun.

Create a multiple choice test (10 questions with answers) from the following text: The Environment The environment is the combination of forces and conditions that surround and influence living and non-living things. Human beings’ environment includes such factors as temperature, food supply and other people that surround them. A plant’s environment may be made up of soil, sunlight, and animals that will eat the plant. A rock’s environment may be made up of seaweed, water and fish. Non-living environmental factors, such as temperature and sunlight, make up the abiotic (non-living) environment. Living organisms such as seaweed and food, make up the biotic environment. Both the abiotic and biotic environments interact to make up the total environment of living and non-living things. Ecology Ecology studies the relationships between living things and their environment. No living thing, plant or animal, lives alone. Every living thing depends in some way upon certain other living and non-living things to survive. The study of ecology increases our understanding of the world and all its creatures. This is crucial because humanity’s survival and well-being depend on relationships that exist on a world-wide basis: changes in distant parts of the world affect us and our environment. One concern of ecologists is the rate at which we are using up natural resources such as coal, gas, and oil. Along with scientists, they are searching for ways to use sunlight and atomic energy for fuel and power as alternative energy sources. Ecology also studies how many living organisms there are on Earth and how they are distributed. It also considers non-living physical factors of the environment, for example the presence of water, as these can influence where organisms decide to live. It is also important to know which organisms share the same environment, as they may need each other to survive. This kind of information helps ecologists to conserve our natural world, protecting the habitat of animals that are in danger of extinction, or trying to reduce pollution and global warming. Ecosystems Ecosystems are biological communities of all living things like plants, animals and organisms in a specific area that interact with each other and with the non-living forms present in their environment. They are the foundations of the biosphere and determine the health of the entire planet’s system. A biosphere is a global ecosystem, containing many different kinds of ecosystems.

“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.

Kind of fruits

KIND OF FRACTIONS PART 2

Kind of the Wind

Related quizzes

Related quizzes