" BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) -- A truck coming down a hill plowed into rescue workers and gawkers at the site of an earlier collision -- a double accident that killed least 25 people and injured 87, police said Wednesday.
The first crash occurred when one truck tried to pass another on a curve and smashed into an oncoming bus with about 20 people aboard, said highway police spokesman Adrian Fiamoncini. Six people on the bus and the truck driver were killed.
"It was a serious accident, but everything was under control," Fiamoncini said. But about 90 minutes later, "all of a sudden, for no reason another truck arrived and ran everybody over, firefighters, police, people who stopped at the scene," Fiamoncini said.
He said it was still unclear why the other truck failed to stop but said it might have lost its brakes.
The second accident killed 18 people, including three firefighters and a policeman, he said. The driver of the second truck was hospitalized under police custody.
Fiamoncini said many of the injured remained in serious condition and that rescue workers were looking for other victims."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/10/10/brazil.accident.ap/index.html
This article is frankly astonishing. I don't know how it's possible for one truck to kill 18 people and injure about 67 in the blink of an eye. The article said that the first collision killed 6, which is a lot of people, and then that number triples? Wow.
It said that 87 people were injured. How is that possible? There were 14 people on the bus who were injured, meaning that 73 people were hit in the crowd. How does that happen? "He said it was still unclear why the other truck failed to stop but said it might have lost its brakes." How do you look away from the road and let your truck plow into a crowd of people. If your brakes went out, wouldn't you turn your truck to hit a wall, or a car or anything other than a bunch of people. And above it all, the driver who hit all the people is just in the hospital, he didn't even die. I don't know what to think.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tap water vs. Reclaimed Water
I feel guilty because I haven't posted in a while, but I'm back in action. Yeah!
But seriously.
We found some some differences in our sources. One source said, "Reclaimed water costs $3.28 per thousand gallons, which is currently about $2.05 less than water from an irrigation connection..."
But the EPA said this, "On average, tap water costs are slightly more than $2 per 1,000 gallons..."
We're not quite sure who to listen to, but we'll definitely do some more research. The EPA is generally a good source though, considering that they are the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet another Source we found, that I think will be the one we listen to above all, would be on the City of San Diego website. What it states goes as following, "The cost for recycled water is .80 cents per hundred cubic feet (HCF) of water, which is equal to 748 gallons. This is a tremendous deal when compared to the current potable water rate which is about $1.91 per HCF."
Reclaimed water is extensively treated as to minimize the harmful effects on humans. The City of San Diego's website says that, "Recycled water is the end product of a three-stage treatment process in which municipal wastewater is settled out, biologically oxidized, clarified, chemically coagulated, filtered and disinfected. The resulting water is clear and colorless. Although recycled water may have a slight chlorine smell, it is visibly indistinguishable from tap water to the human eye."
It is mandatory that Recycled water be marked with signs saying things like "We are conserving our most valuable resource by irrigating our landscaping with recycled water," or, "Caution - Do Not Drink."
http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/images/chart_chemicalsdetected3.gif
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/30th/factsheets/pdfs/fs_30ann_dwsrf_web.pdf
http://www.townofcary.org/depts/pwdept/wessexwat.htm
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/water/wattap.html
Total winner website;
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/faq.shtml
But seriously.
We found some some differences in our sources. One source said, "Reclaimed water costs $3.28 per thousand gallons, which is currently about $2.05 less than water from an irrigation connection..."
But the EPA said this, "On average, tap water costs are slightly more than $2 per 1,000 gallons..."
We're not quite sure who to listen to, but we'll definitely do some more research. The EPA is generally a good source though, considering that they are the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet another Source we found, that I think will be the one we listen to above all, would be on the City of San Diego website. What it states goes as following, "The cost for recycled water is .80 cents per hundred cubic feet (HCF) of water, which is equal to 748 gallons. This is a tremendous deal when compared to the current potable water rate which is about $1.91 per HCF."
Reclaimed water is extensively treated as to minimize the harmful effects on humans. The City of San Diego's website says that, "Recycled water is the end product of a three-stage treatment process in which municipal wastewater is settled out, biologically oxidized, clarified, chemically coagulated, filtered and disinfected. The resulting water is clear and colorless. Although recycled water may have a slight chlorine smell, it is visibly indistinguishable from tap water to the human eye."
It is mandatory that Recycled water be marked with signs saying things like "We are conserving our most valuable resource by irrigating our landscaping with recycled water," or, "Caution - Do Not Drink."
http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/images/chart_chemicalsdetected3.gif
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/30th/factsheets/pdfs/fs_30ann_dwsrf_web.pdf
http://www.townofcary.org/depts/pwdept/wessexwat.htm
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/water/wattap.html
Total winner website;
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/faq.shtml
Monday, October 1, 2007
Script final Draft
RG, Matt, Lishane
Spencer Pforsich
Humanities
20 September 2007
“Agricultural Chemicals” Script
Chemicals, natural and man-made, are used in agriculture for many reasons. Things such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides have evolved greatly over the years. Most of our modern day world now relies on these chemicals in some way. Merriam Webster defines a fertilizer as; a substance (manure or a chemical mixture) used to make soil more fertile. The EPA describes a pesticide as; any substance or mixture of substances intended for: preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Agricultural chemicals are vital to the Earth but they affect the environment as well.
Fertilizers are incredibly important to farming and the growing of crop. For a plant to develop, it needs a few chemical elements. Oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, also known as water and air, are essential. Potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen are macronutrients that plants also need to grow. These are the three most common elements that you find in packaged fertilizers. The only source of nitrogen in soil comes from dead plants. Manure, a very natural fertilizer adds nutrients to the ground, which in turn, helps plants and contributes to the circle of life. Other chemicals that plants need are almost always found in the soil. If nutrients are hard to obtain, the plant will not grow.
A pesticide is any substance or mixture that is intended for preventing, destroying and repelling any pests. In simple terms, they kill bugs. Pesticides are used very frequently in farming and agriculture, but also in the home. It’s hard to go through the cabinet under someone’s sink and not find a can of Raid or Bug B Gone. Farmers use them because bugs eat their crops, while the average person just uses them to keep ants and other household pests away. Most pesticides do their work by changing or altering the Metabolism of their target, resulting in its death. Others like pest repellants aim to sort of scare the pests away, or rid the house of them without necessarily killing anything.
Most pesticides contain their own unique blend of different chemicals to do their job. That could mean that one company uses its own ingredients, or just uses different measurements of another’s. With some 70,000 different chemicals that are available, one could surmise that there is no shortage of pests. Many countries have trouble keeping track of all of these pesticides; about 1,500 new ones are released each year. This poses a problem because if a country is planning to make sure each one doesn’t pose a serious risk to the environment, they’ve got plenty of work to do.
Most pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides that are on the market today do little or no damage to non-target organisms, but there are always a few. Agent Orange was an Herbicide that was heavily used during the Vietnam War to defoliate trees, and it did a good job at it, but years later we’ve seen outrageous after effects and insane birth defects. But with pesticides and all of their complex ingredients, coupled with their designed function, to kill pests, it’s almost obvious that they would pose a threat to other things. Many pesticides are harmful to water dwelling animals, because of their sensitive skin and the fact that if it rains, the chemicals can be washed off of plants and right into the pond, river, lake or sea that the animals are living in. The effect on frogs has been well documented.
One study showed that when Roundup, a common household chemical, was used on Algae, it was more harmful to tadpoles and frogs in the water than it was to the algae. In fact, it actually helped the algae grow, because without the tadpoles eating it, it was left to flourish.
Interview………………..
In Conclusion, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are definitely great for world economy and for short-term survival, but should be used in great moderation and with great precaution. Otherwise, harm is rapidly approaching, because if these dangerous chemicals are used improperly or without proper testing, the future doesn’t seem too bright. The world needs to realize that although these chemicals are important now, we should be working toward a more organic agricultural system, we need to be farming foods that don’t harm the environment. We need to realize that we’re on this planet together, and if we screw it up, there are no second chances.
Spencer Pforsich
Humanities
20 September 2007
“Agricultural Chemicals” Script
Chemicals, natural and man-made, are used in agriculture for many reasons. Things such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides have evolved greatly over the years. Most of our modern day world now relies on these chemicals in some way. Merriam Webster defines a fertilizer as; a substance (manure or a chemical mixture) used to make soil more fertile. The EPA describes a pesticide as; any substance or mixture of substances intended for: preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Agricultural chemicals are vital to the Earth but they affect the environment as well.
Fertilizers are incredibly important to farming and the growing of crop. For a plant to develop, it needs a few chemical elements. Oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, also known as water and air, are essential. Potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen are macronutrients that plants also need to grow. These are the three most common elements that you find in packaged fertilizers. The only source of nitrogen in soil comes from dead plants. Manure, a very natural fertilizer adds nutrients to the ground, which in turn, helps plants and contributes to the circle of life. Other chemicals that plants need are almost always found in the soil. If nutrients are hard to obtain, the plant will not grow.
A pesticide is any substance or mixture that is intended for preventing, destroying and repelling any pests. In simple terms, they kill bugs. Pesticides are used very frequently in farming and agriculture, but also in the home. It’s hard to go through the cabinet under someone’s sink and not find a can of Raid or Bug B Gone. Farmers use them because bugs eat their crops, while the average person just uses them to keep ants and other household pests away. Most pesticides do their work by changing or altering the Metabolism of their target, resulting in its death. Others like pest repellants aim to sort of scare the pests away, or rid the house of them without necessarily killing anything.
Most pesticides contain their own unique blend of different chemicals to do their job. That could mean that one company uses its own ingredients, or just uses different measurements of another’s. With some 70,000 different chemicals that are available, one could surmise that there is no shortage of pests. Many countries have trouble keeping track of all of these pesticides; about 1,500 new ones are released each year. This poses a problem because if a country is planning to make sure each one doesn’t pose a serious risk to the environment, they’ve got plenty of work to do.
Most pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides that are on the market today do little or no damage to non-target organisms, but there are always a few. Agent Orange was an Herbicide that was heavily used during the Vietnam War to defoliate trees, and it did a good job at it, but years later we’ve seen outrageous after effects and insane birth defects. But with pesticides and all of their complex ingredients, coupled with their designed function, to kill pests, it’s almost obvious that they would pose a threat to other things. Many pesticides are harmful to water dwelling animals, because of their sensitive skin and the fact that if it rains, the chemicals can be washed off of plants and right into the pond, river, lake or sea that the animals are living in. The effect on frogs has been well documented.
One study showed that when Roundup, a common household chemical, was used on Algae, it was more harmful to tadpoles and frogs in the water than it was to the algae. In fact, it actually helped the algae grow, because without the tadpoles eating it, it was left to flourish.
Interview………………..
In Conclusion, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are definitely great for world economy and for short-term survival, but should be used in great moderation and with great precaution. Otherwise, harm is rapidly approaching, because if these dangerous chemicals are used improperly or without proper testing, the future doesn’t seem too bright. The world needs to realize that although these chemicals are important now, we should be working toward a more organic agricultural system, we need to be farming foods that don’t harm the environment. We need to realize that we’re on this planet together, and if we screw it up, there are no second chances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
