Acid rain Essay Example for Free

Acid rain Essay Acid rain is a result of air pollution that is harmful to the environment, generally caused by fuels being burnt. When any type of fuel is burnt, many different chemicals are produced. These gases that are released react with the water in clouds, and the rain from these clouds is acid rain. This type of acid disposition can appear in many other forms besides just rain, such as sleet, snow, and fog (Editorial Board, 2013). There are several sources of pollution and many causes for acid rain. Though acid rain can be generated by volcanoes and decaying vegetation, it is mostly caused by man-made activities (Carper, 2012). The most polluting gases that cause acid rain are nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides (Yedjou, 2015). Different industrial processes contribute greatly to producing these harmful gases, such as the production of iron and steel, factories, chemical industries, and power stations. The burning of fossil fuels by these power-production companies and industries release sulfur into the air that combines with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide (Carper, 2012). Basicily anything that burns fuel, produce these polluting gases, such as the fumes that come out of a vehicles exhaust, or the heat we use to warm our homes. Acid rain greatly impacts the natural environment by polluting water sources, such as lakes and streams. In return this kills plants and fish, which negatively affects other animals and entire ecosystems. This type of acid disposition also damages soil and trees, and accelerates the decay of buildings and structures (Yedjou, 2015). Acid rain also affects human health by being inhaled into people’s lungs which increases premature death from heart and lung disorders, such as bronchitis and asthma (Carper, 2012). Though acid rain is not a major issue today, there are still steps that can be taken to help eliminate this issue. Acid rain can be carried great distances by wind direction, and the countries that produce it may not always be the ones most affected by it (Yedjou, 2015). So if these countries would be more considerate of their neighbors and where the acid rain they produce actually falls, then it could help to decrease this  pollution. Limiting the amount of sulfur and nitrogen oxides that are released into the atmosphere, cleaning up smokestacks and exhaust pipes, and using alternative energy sources can also help to mitigate the problem (Yedjou, 2015). Everyone can play their part in reducing acid rain by turning off appliances when not in use, turning off lights, reducing heating and air conditioner usage, and insulating their homes. Conserving resources is also extremely helpful, such as carpooling and using public transportation. References Carper, L. (2012). Fossil fuels: Environmental Effects. Retrieved from http://www.ems.psu. edu/~radovic/Chapter11.pdf Editorial Board. (2013). Environmental Science. Schaumburg: Words of Wisdom, LLC. Yedjou, C. (2015, March 09). Colorado Technical University. Live Chat. SCI201-11-213-6. Retrieved from http://ctuadobeconnect.careeredonline.com/p3aqzu14uuu/?launcher=fals fcsContent=truepbMode=normal

The Ethics Of The Media Essay -- essays research papers

The purpose of the media has become an ongoing question since the large amount of conflicts between the consumer and media. Why is the original purpose of the media so damn hard to figure out? It is time to confront this issue instead of blowing it off by saying, "We can never change the media, so why bother?" What kind of chickenshit statement is that?! If there are so many people with so much power, surely one of them realizes the downward spiral of the ethics of the media. I feel my sole purpose of this paper is to tell everyone my ideas and viewpoints on censoring the media.Ooooooo, censor. What a bad word that is when used in the same sentence with media. So many people believe censorship is a bad thing, but there is no other solution in stopping the "bad press." When I sit back and look at the stories about stories that are bad and offending to someone, I realize something needs to be done. The media is out of control. True, there are many informing and needed stories, but, my god, how many times a day to we need to hear and read about how much money O.J. Simpson has to pay the family of Ronald Goldman? We, as consumers, need to sit back and ask ourselves, "What was the point of hearing or reading that story?" Back to the censor issue. I, as an aspiring journalist, do not believe in total and complete censorship of the media, but also, as an aspiring journalist, I am embarrassed of some of the stories that are run, for instance, when t...

How effectively did the Soviet Union control Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1968?

In 1945, it was very important that Stalin gained control over his sphere of influence; WW2 had come to an end, and the future of the Soviet Union was at an unstable point. From 1945-8 Stalin used a series of ‘salami' tactics to gain control over the Eastern European countries. This would involve setting up communist parties within a country, winning a coalition government, and ultimately, taking over to run a full communist regime. This was effective in the sense that Stalin, in the space of three years, was able to takeover seven different countries. However, out of these, only one country – Albania – allowed the takeover without any opposition, the other countries gave more of a struggle. There was obviously some backlash against Stalin's actions, as they did not run smoothly, and this is why he probably had to use more severe tactics when trying to take control over Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria (1945), Stalin had all opposing party members executed, and was only then able to take full control. After this, Stalin had no problems gaining power over such countries – without further opposition, as the same techniques were used in Poland and Czechoslovakia two to three years later. This shows that Stalin did not want to give way to chance, seeing what would happen in each country gradually, by using the minimum force needed. He wanted to be sure of total control, and therefore used the necessary tactics to succeed – it appears that the most extreme were the most effective. Stalin was able to keep such a tight ‘following' due to the fear and propaganda that followed his infamous Red army. He had placed them within his sphere as a warning to the people. If they opposed, they would be dealt with by the Red Army through means of ‘re-education'. They kept an eye over the people, and crushed any sort of uprising. This would have been a deterrent enough for anybody looking to rebel against communism. This proved to be effective as there are no real incidences where the Red army have been called in to sort out a situation (apart from in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but that was under different circumstances). When Stalin saw the lure of the Marshall Plan, he definitely felt under pressure to counteract this – coming up with Comecon 1949. This shows he was desperate, as firstly, this goes against communist views, as the idea was to send money to communist countries to aid them in their economic process. This was a bribe, nonetheless; but it worked. No countries already within the control of the Soviet Union left the sphere – if they were tempted by money, they could still have it, and Stalin would still have control. They only probably stayed with Stalin out of the fear of the consequences, and therefore this tactic was successful due to previous attempts of control, mainly because of the Red Army. Stalin finally dies in 1953, and Khrushchev takes over. He introduces a new relaxed policy, and looks to ‘de-Stalinise' Eastern Europe, hoping to promote better relations with the West. Subsequently, other countries within the sphere wanted a more liberal government, and started to rebel. This shows that Stalin himself, along with his attitude and thinking, was an effective way to keep control over Eastern Europe. he was not a liberal man, he insinuated fear and death throughout the people, who dared not oppose. Now that there is a more liberal leader in office, the people feel this is the opportunity they need to express their feelings. What Khrushchev may have done wrong, was to initiate an ‘instant' change, which could not be done on a large scale in regards to the whole of Eastern Europe at one given time. Stalin was effective in what he did, as he used gradual changes to implant his policy. 1953 also saw riots in Czechoslovakia, where people where burning Soviet flags and demolishing Stalin statues – this was an obvious attack on Soviet power. However, the riots were quickly put down by the Red army, but the consequences were not great ones, and therefore encouraged strikes in East Germany to occur. East Germans aired their grievances about wage cuts, but the Red army was called in to crush all uprising. 400 people were killed; Khrushchev was reverting back to Stalin's old methods, however people were not put off, as there are further problems in Hungary in 1956. Does this mean that the Red Army were no longer feared, or was there a change in attitude from the people? A level of both, most likely, but why? This leads back to Stalin and fear that he as an individual imposed on the countries. Khrushchev did not have that same effect, and from then on, people were more open to oppose him, knowing they could probably get away with a lot more. There was also a problem with East Germany, and how the collapse of it could have been crucial, in terms of ‘winning' the Cold War. Germany had been one of many significant factors in the Cold War, and a collapse in Germany would mean a collapse in Soviet power if the West were to reclaim it. This might have been a short term cause for the Warsaw Pact in 1955 – the Soviet's version of NATO – this not only gained support against the West, but also helped to unite a dividing sphere. This does not prove to be of any worth (at this time) as in the following year, Hungary has a revolution. There main aim was to get rid of Rakosi – a mini Stalin – through mass demonstrations, which later turned into street fighting. Oddly, Khrushchev introduces Nagy as the new leader of Hungary, instead of sending in the Red army. Was it now that he realised that the Red army did not have so much of an effect that it used to? This is the first time compromising had been used, but quickly backfired. Riots continued, and Nagy had declared Hungary would be leaving the Warsaw Pact. The S.U. was looking at losing control over one country, and sure enough, others would follow. The Soviets again, reverted back to trusted methods, calling in the Red Army to crush all uprising – killing Nagy in the process. The exact same happened with Czechoslovakia in 1968. It now seems that from 1945-68, there were times when the Soviet had complete control over Eastern Europe, and others, quite the opposite. Stalin had realised that in order to have control, he would have to use extreme tactics – the fear of the Red Army, propaganda etc. He also knew that with complete control, there was no edge way for choice or compromise with the people. This is where Khrushchev went wrong, expecting to have complete control when he gave individual countries more power. Knowing of such a relaxed attitude, the people then took advantage of this, and were no longer scared of the repercussions, as there is uprising after uprising under Khrushchev's rule. By the mid-50's effective control is on its way to becoming highly non-existent.

What Are Sedimentary Rocks

Sedimentary rocks are the second great rock class. Whereas igneous rocks are born hot, sedimentary rocks are born cool at the Earths surface, mostly under water. They usually consist of layers or strata; hence they are also called stratified rocks. Depending on what theyre made of, sedimentary rocks fall into one of three types. How to Tell Sedimentary Rocks The main thing about sedimentary rocks is that they were once sediment — mud and sand and gravel and clay — and were not greatly changed as they turned into rock. The following traits are all related to that. Theyre generally arranged in layers of sandy or clayey material (strata) like those youll see in excavations or a hole dug in a sand dune.Theyre usually the color of sediment, that is, light brown to light gray.They may preserve signs of life and surface activity, like fossils, tracks, ripple marks and so on. Clastic Sedimentary Rocks The most common set of sedimentary rocks consists of the granular materials that occur in sediment. Sediment mostly consists of surface minerals  Ã¢â‚¬â€ quartz and clays — that are made by the physical breakdown and chemical alteration of rocks. These are carried away by water or the  wind and laid down in a different place. Sediment may also include pieces of stones and shells and other objects, not just grains of pure minerals. Geologists use the word clasts to denote particles of all these kinds, and rocks made of clasts are called clastic rocks. Look around you at where the worlds clastic sediment goes: sand and mud are carried down rivers to the sea, mostly. Sand is made of quartz, and mud is made of clay minerals. As these sediments are steadily buried over geologic time, they get packed together under pressure and low heat, not much more than 100 C. In these conditions the sediment is cemented into rock: sand becomes sandstone and clay become  shale. If gravel or pebbles are part of the sediment, the rock that forms is conglomerate. If the rock is broken and recemented together, it is called breccia. Its worth noting that some rocks commonly lumped in the igneous category are actually sedimentary. Tuff is consolidated ash that has fallen from the air in volcanic eruptions, making it just as sedimentary as a marine claystone. There is some movement in the profession to recognize this truth. Organic Sedimentary Rocks Another type of sediment actually arises in the sea as microscopic organisms — plankton — build shells out of dissolved calcium carbonate or silica. Dead plankton steadily shower their dust-sized shells onto the seafloor, where they accumulate in thick layers. That material turns to two more rock types, limestone (carbonate) and chert (silica). These are called organic sedimentary rocks, although theyre not made of organic material as a chemist would define it. Another type of sediment forms where dead plant material builds up into thick layers. With a small degree of compaction, this becomes peat; after much longer and deeper burial, it becomes coal. Coal and peat are organic in both the geological and the chemical sense. Although peat is forming in parts of the world today, the great beds of coal that we mine formed during past ages in enormous swamps. There are no coal swamps around today  because conditions do not favor them. The sea needs to be much higher. Most of the time, geologically speaking, the sea is hundreds of meters higher than today, and most of the continents are shallow seas. Thats why we have sandstone, limestone, shale and coal over most of the central United States and elsewhere on the worlds continents. (Sedimentary rocks also become exposed when the land rises. This is common around the edges of the Earths lithospheric plates. Chemical Sedimentary Rocks These same ancient shallow seas sometimes allowed large areas to become isolated and begin drying up. In that setting, as the seawater grows more concentrated, minerals begin to come out of solution (precipitate), starting with calcite, then gypsum, then halite. The resulting rocks are certain limestones, gypsum rock, and rock salt respectively. These rocks, called the evaporite sequence, are also part of the sedimentary clan. In some cases, chert can also form by precipitation. This usually happens below the sediment surface, where different fluids can circulate and interact chemically. Diagenesis: Underground Changes All kinds of sedimentary rocks are subject to further changes during their stay underground. Fluids may penetrate them and change their chemistry; low temperatures and moderate pressures may change some of the minerals into other minerals. These processes, which are gentle and do not deform the rocks, are called diagenesis as opposed to metamorphism (although there is no well-defined boundary between the two). The most important types of diagenesis involve the formation of dolomite mineralization in limestones, the formation of petroleum and of higher grades of coal, and the formation of many types of ore bodies. The industrially important zeolite minerals also form by diagenetic processes. Sedimentary Rocks Are Stories You can see that each type of sedimentary rock has a story behind it. The beauty of sedimentary rocks is that their strata are full of clues to what the past world was like. Those clues might be fossils or sedimentary structures such as marks left by water currents, mud cracks or more subtle features seen under the microscope or in the lab. From these clues we know that most sedimentary rocks are of marine origin, usually forming in shallow seas. But some sedimentary rocks formed on land: clastic rocks made on the bottoms of large freshwater lakes or as accumulations of desert sand, organic rocks in peat bogs or lake beds, and evaporites in playas. These are called continental or terrigenous (land-formed) sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks are rich in geologic history of a special kind. While igneous and metamorphic rocks also have stories, they involve the deep Earth and require intensive work to decipher. But in sedimentary rocks, you can recognize, in very direct ways, what the world  was like in the geologic past.