Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not:
1.Using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
2. Controlled burning off (reduction burns)
3. Food additives and preservatives in foods and drinks.
4. Plastic shopping bags.
(5 marks)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
*Hey sir, is this what the question is asking??*
ReplyDelete3)Food additives are used to either preserve or make food taste and look better. Every processed food has additives in some form but consumers must realise that basically it's thesse additives are chemiclals that are not healthy to our body. Even though these addtives are added in small amounts, eating too much food with these additives pose a health risk.
The government must consider whether it is necessary to add these additives (e.g. adding food colouring to chocolate -MMs)and if it is unnecesary then they should'nt be used as these additives could (over time) increase body mass and increase the chances of getting certain cancers. They can also increase the level of information provided to consumers so that they can make better choices.
Monique
Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not.
ReplyDelete1.Using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
If nuclear power was to be used rather than fossil fuels, then several factors would need to be taken into consideration.
Radioactive waste is a big, and still unsolved problem of using nuclear power. Radioactive waste is extremely dangerous and needs to be looked after.
Also, nuclear powerplants are always risky. The risk is small, but it is always there, and if there were many powerplants around the world, the risk of a disaster would be larger.
Nuclear powerplants use uranium, which is a scarce resource. Uranium is non-renewable and we cannot rely on it for very much longer.
Nuclear waste can be the target for terrorist attacks which could potentially bring catastrophic effects to the world. And nuclear waste can be turned into nuclear weapons which could also be disastrous.
However, using nuclear powerplants has some advantages.
Nuclear powerplants can generate a lot of electricity.
Nuclear powerplants do not produce a lot of air pollution and do not release much CO2. Therefore they contribute little to global warming, unlike fossil fuel combustion.
The technology for nuclear powerplants is already available, it does not have to be developed.
Howev
1.Using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
ReplyDeleteThe problems with using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels are things such as waste management, health risks and wrong use.
Nuclear waste would need to be stored in a very safe, secure place that has no earth movement and will not leak causing damage to the environment and the people near the area. Nuclear power is a very dangerous thing so the waste would need to be in a place where there is no access to by unwanted people so that no one could use it was a threat towards Australia by blowing it up etc.
Health risks - if a power plant is to fail it may leak and cause great damage and pollution to the surrounding areas.
People would have to leave there homes incase there is a problem which would affect them.
Crops and waters can be infected causing them to become poisonous and dangerous for people to eat and drink. Events such as Grenoble occurred and effected many peoples lives.
Nuclear power could also get into the wrong hands and be used for bad instead of good.
Nuclear weapons can be created and nuclear bombs which would lead to even worse events occurring.
and terrorist threats and attacks in Australia.
though there are many advantages from using nuclear power such as: -Cheaper to use.
-better use than nuclear weapons
-cleaner for the environment
-much less of it is needed to produce the same amount of energy as fossil fuels creating less greenhouse gases and pollution in the world.
yeah i have no idea what I'm talking about =]
Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not:
ReplyDelete4. Plastic shopping bags.
Plastic shopping bags are almost common to all residential areas and local or big shopping department. But plastic shopping bags must be reduce as it is harmful in many ways.
One of the main reason why plastic bag shouldn't be used is because plastic bags never decompose, in other works they never break down. So it is basically stored in earth soil or where they trash rubbish forever.
Second reason is that it is harmful to wildlife creatures and young children who don't know what plastic bags do. Most harmful victims are the sea creatures such as sea turtles as the plastic bags gets wet and attaches to the animals which will eventually choke them to death or suffocate them. Children is also vulnerable to hazardous plastic bags as they are too young to know what it'll do to them.
Last but not least, plastic bags releases toxic chemicals which could cause cancer. Burning a plastic bag would cause this toxic fume to be released. That is why all waste management centre buries plastic bags, not burn them.
However plastic bags can be recycled and reused so it is very convenient.
Australia is trying to improve the environement by providing supermarket retail shopping bags (the green bag in woolworths is one example) since plastic bags are recorded in the top ten rubbish items in 2006
for more information visit: http://www.cleanup.org.au/au/LivingGreener/plastic-bag-facts.html
not really sure if this is right coz im talking about what we have to choose not arguments for and against but...
ReplyDeleteSelect ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not:
1.Using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
When we are thinking about using nuclear power as a source of electricity instead of fossil fuels, there are a number of choices that we need to consider.
The first choice we need to make is whether it is worth the risk. While Nuclear power is much cleaner than fossil fuels, releasing no greenhouse gases and therefore not contributing the enhanced greenhouse effect, but it is also very dangerous. Nuclear energy is produced by nuclear reactions, which also cause nuclear waste, making it very dangerous. This means that it can be very detrimental to the health of people. A disaster, like the Chernobyl disaster, can effect the health of many generations to come. Fossil fuels, however, are bad for the environment but are not radioactive, and are therefore less detrimental to our health.
If we do decided to switch to Nuclear power we need to choose where to place the nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants are very radioactive, and therefore very dangerous. This means that practically no one wants to have a nuclear power station near them, as it would damage their health. This being considered it would be very hard to switch to nuclear energy.
Considering the choices we have to make, it would be very hard to make a switch to nuclear energy.
Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not:
ReplyDeleteA) The scientific advantage of Nuclear energy over fossil fuels to generate electricty.
With global warming many goverments are seeing nuclear energy as a possible new area for electricty. But the things that we have to considers is as follows
If we use nuclear they may have a huge damaging effect on the enviroment - its like the caine toad problem we introduced it to solve anouther problem and look what happened.
An uncontrolled explosion of a nuclear power plant can realise 10 times the radiation of the hiroshima bomb, which can effect the whole of a state or country if the contamination is not controlled in the present as well as effecting future generation.
The cost of removing waste would also have to be taken into consideration. the waste wold have to be burried in a large empty area which would not effect the population. where as solar or hypro energy does not need to be diposed of and solar panels can be installed on houses and do not need a plant to create the energy.
the only positive i can see is that using nuclear energy would mean that the government would still have complete control on energy.
Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not:
ReplyDelete2. Controlled burning off (reduction burns)
Controlled burning can be both helpful as well as disasterious for the australian environment, as well as the health of those close to the affected area.
As back burning can prevent bush fires from being created as well as continuing to burn, they can also become out of control if not taken seriously. If weather conditions are not taken into consideration then these fires can leap out of control and create more harm then good.
Also, the homes that are located near these sites could be badly affected,whether kept in control or not. If they are kept in control, then smoke inhalation can become a problem for those that are really close to the controlled burning sites. But if the burning becomes out of control, it could spell disaster for those on the forefront, and could result in the loss of homes or even death.
Also burning the bush so that it doesn't catch fire, seriously damages the environment. Even though it prevents a bigger disaster from happening, it destroys the many habitats of the natural fauna and flora that lives there.
Having this extra smoke in the atmosphere can also damage our already weakening ozone layer. This can then lead to more severe problems within the earth's atmosphere, and increase the effect of global warming. However, if these back burnings are kept in control then it could prevent the amount of carbon pollution in the atmosphere already, creating the perfect catch 22.
No matter whether it is done or not, there are many pro's and con's to controlled burning and the issue shouldn't be taken lightly.
DONE :P
1. If nuclear power was used intead of fossil fuels everyone will have to consider the effects that it might have on their life style. The advantages of nuclear power is that it's cheaper than fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteEven though it's cheaper, it's not the smartest option becasue of all the risks involved. With nuclear power there is the radioactive waste that is in need of disposal. This is a problem that has not been solved yet, now they place the uranium in concrete boxes and drop them in the middle of the ocean where they might crack due to the pressure.
There is also the risk of another Chernobyl happening, which could possibly have a more damaging effect then in 1986. If another disaster like this happened, there will be more deaths, cancer and uncurable diseases. Also there will be food supplies that are radioactive that will spread even more radiation across the country where the plant was built.
When using nuclear power plants, you run the risk of having the plant as a target for terrorists. If they blow up a nuclear power plant, there will be an expolsion, probably, even bigger then that of Chernobyl. This will not only cause distress for the targeted country, but also the rest of the world.
With just these three points about nuclear power plants over fossil fuels shows that, even though fossil fuels create carbon pollution, they are safer to use then nuclear power. These may be cheap options, but the best option is renewable energy.
Select ONE of the scientific advances below, and discuss the choices that need to be considered with respect to using them or not.
ReplyDelete1.Using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Nuclear energy is energy in the nucleus (core) of an atom.
Uranium is non-renewable and it is a common metal found in rocks all over the world. Nuclear plants use U-235. This kind of uranium is used as fuel because its atoms are easily split apart. The amount of waste that nuclear power plants leave behind needs to be considered. Nuclear waste output is 100,000 less than fossil fuels, but it is much more radioactive. The nuclear waste needs to be stored for long periods on time and can be dangerous to people’s health.
The nuclear plants would need to have very high safety standards to stop any accidents happening in the plant like the Chernobyl accident.
Nuclear waste has to be isolated from the environment and humans for about 100,000 years before it decays to safe levels. There need to be more effective ways to store the nuclear waste.
Nuclear power plants have the ability to be used for bad not for good, they can be used to make weapons.
However there are advantages to Nuclear power, it costs the same as coal and is therefore not expensive to make. It doesn’t produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Due to the effects nuclear waste has on the environment and humans it shouldn’t be considered yet. When there are more effective ways of getting rid of the waste then it should be used. Even though it would fix the greenhouse gas problem we would just be creating another. At this point in time the health risks to humans are too high.
When producing and using plastic bags, several choices have to be made.
ReplyDeleteThe first is the manufacturing of the product. It has to be made out of crude oil and the technique in creating them may not be as cost affective as creating and selling reusable bags. It would also have to be decided how they are made (e.g. design, thickness, type of plastic, etc).
The second choice would be deciding on how to dispose of plastic bags. Should they be strong enough and aesthetically pleasing enough to be reused repeatedly or should they be used once than disposed of. If they were to be only used once, are they to be recyclable or is there an easy way to dispose of them without harming the environment. The common plastic bag takes thousands of years to decompose and if burnt, the plastic releases toxic chemicals which may cancer (thanks James).
The third choice is if the wider public are to be trusted with disposing of them safely. Many plastic bags are dumped unceremoniously into lakes, rivers, etc, killing wildlife when they get caught in the bags. The clear plastic chokes them, causing the victim to suffocate.
The final choice is whether, after all of this, it is still cost affective. As plastic bags are usually given free when products from a shop are purchased, is it really cost affective to produce them in the first place, as many plastic bags become littered in the local area anyway.