Question 1 In preparing my speech, I need to have an outline of the facts and related information that will explain what genetically engineered soil bacterium; its nature and what are its hazards to the environment and the heath of the people - Ecological Coursework introduction. I will also look into the background of the company that has offered the product. I will include in the speech the facts that genetically engineered soil bacterium is in fact environmentally unhealthy and that based on reliable studies, such starter bacteria are definitely not advisable. Genetically engineered soil bacterium has proven to be a biological monster.
The Oregon State University found out after their experiment that the genetically engineered bacterium can kill all terrestrial plants. I will stress that the main point of my argument is that the genetically engineered soil bacterium should not be allowed to be used as a solution to the problem. Another point to stress is that this method will cost much for the city and it could not have happened if the Council has previously done a thorough study on the construction of the playground and the park before it was pushed through.
More Essay Examples on Ecology Rubric
There was a clear hidden agenda on both projects; that is, on the construction of the playground and the proposal of an easy solution. The Council could have been and should have been knowledgeable of the fact that the site is not fitted for the construction of such playground, so as the engineer who has designed the project. Because they have personal interest, that is probably a political and financial gain on the project, they would have to push through with it regardless of the future problem that will arise from it.
Another point is that the problem should not have been assessed as simple as having a 2-day solution. There are clear manifestations of junk science here: an offer of simple solution to a complex problem and a recommendation of a product for a quick fix for the purpose of selling a product. Question 2 Opossum shrimps have been proven to play a vital role in the food chain on marine life. These so-called Mysids were introduced to the lakes to serve as food for the other fish species such as salmon, trout, sculpins and other fish.
They feed primarily on phytoplankton and were proven to be not competitive to native young fish for food. With these facts therefore, it is clear that the opossum shrimps are not to be blamed on the clouding of the water on Lake Tahoe. Another thing that is clear is that the developers are just pointing fingers to get out of the mess they have created. Housing projects and the construction of other establishments, especially on coastal areas, are major contributors of water pollution.
Industrial wastes that are carried and are usually carried into the water brings about fast contamination of the water resources. Development activities such as the construction and operation of beach resorts are major causes of water pollution. With these, the opossum shrimps should be out of the issue. The facts that the government allows such development projects and failed to monitor their environmental impacts are political and economic agenda hidden behind these projects.
Science must serve and guard and guide to a healthy and balance ecology. The government guided by science must use its power in making and implementing laws that will maintain a healthy environment. Economics on the other hand must be the one providing the resources in order for science and politics to carry out its plans. The sad thing that is happening is that these institutions use their powers to carry out personal motives for the benefit of the few.
Taxpayers should not let this happen and have their taxes be used against their safety and the environment, instead of having these taxes be used for the benefit of us all. Question 3 A. The statement is true and has targeted the main point. It is true that educated people have the ability and are expected to have that ability to recognize junk science. Their education should have equipped them with enough knowledge of how common things and everyday activities affect each major player on earth: the human beings, the other living organisms and the environment as a whole.
That knowledge, however, becomes useless when their personal interests are already involved. Managing a golf course entails forest and soil degradation water and air pollution due to the chemicals used in the maintenance of the area, and of course the destruction of the natural habitats of the affected forest and land area. But because managing a golf course as means a lot of money, educated people can sacrifice environmental concerns for financial gain.
The government knows that the establishment of factories in the coastal areas will definitely bring about air and water pollution, but because it as means more revenue for the city, they will issue the permits as fast as they can. Cigarettes and alcohol are definitely bad for heath but the government cannot definitely ban the manufacture of these products because these companies play a big part of the government’s revenue generation. These are but few of the evidences that educated people can truly embrace junk science for their own sake.
They use their education to hide what the public needs to know. B. I totally disagree with the assertion because educated people are not at all illiterate about science. Their education gave them all the access to at least know the basics of science and how to recognize them. They can recognize the hidden agenda on every proposal research and study results relative to seeking a solution to environmental problems. It is only when these educated people accept such ideas and set aside environmental concerns for their self interest that they become naive and sound illiterate.
Question 4 Non-scientists understand Water Quality Index as when you say from a range of zero to 100, where 100 means an excellent water quality. But the bases for rating water Lakes, which includes nitrates content, ph, chlorophyll, phosphorus, alkalinity, temperature and others, are left to the knowledgeable. The problem with the Water Quality Index proposed by the consultant as Ore Lake is that he claimed it to be unique as it was designed by him, when in fact such index is used generally by scientists.
The consultant did not disclose his bases for his findings and the probable causes of the high nitrogen content. As mentioned, nitrogen content should not be the only basis for the tests but other parameters also. The design for the LWQI by the consultant should be in agreement with several scientists who have advanced knowledge on the matter. Reliance on the study results of a single consultant is doubtful so recommendation should come from several experts opinions.