Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-1

The prompt means that generally speaking a scientists job is to discover new things but not to pursuit a threat to human life. Discovery is important but not costing human life. For example, what the Nazis did to prisoners was wrong to them.

Sometimes a threat to human life is tolerated when the scientific discovery can help many people at one time. Such a specific situation might be if a scientist thinks he has a cure for AIDS but needs to test it on people who are not HIV positive. In this case and others where humans might be helped, scientific discovery can be pursuit even if there's a threat to human life because maximum benefit might occur.

A scientific discovery can overtake a human life only in certain cases that occur when scientists can see benefits from their experiment. Such as if there's a cure for AIDS.

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-2

Scientific discoveries have always been important to the advancement of society. Every scientist is a kind of explorer trying to discover new truths about the natural world that can be applied to how we live. This is how we invented the light bulb and learned about space. This statement claims that scientific discoveries are important, but not so important that a threat to human life is caused. A threat to human life simply for the sake of exploring and discovering is intolerable.

Some research doesn't involve humans, like making better computers or inventing software. But in World War II, the Nazis experimented on live prisoners and used them like guinea pigs. The results were horrible. On the other hand, I believe there are situations in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. I think that patients suffering from terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS might be used in experiments. Maybe there is a new drug that works on rats in a laboratory but no one knows if it works on humans in a hospital bed. The drug might be a cure, if not for that patient then for another patient. The patient would die anyway, so why not try the new drug?

In general, I do not believe scientific discovery is worth a threat to human life. Scientists might be different about this issue, but what I think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life has to do with if a person's life is threatened. If a person is going to die from a terrible disease, then his life is not at risk

and an experimental treatment won't hurt him. It might even help him and if it doesn't help him, it might help science

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Sample-3

It is human nature to be curious, and it is the role of scientists in society to pursue the scientific truths lurking in nature. Centuries of scientific inquiry have resulted in the discovery of essential facts about our natural world, a deeper understanding of our place in the universe, and the practical application of scientific knowledge to every day life.

The statement in question raises an important issue in regards to scientific inquiry. How, exactly, does science and, in a larger context, society itself-make the determination as to what is ethical in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? Do the ends justify the means?

All reasonable people agree that the testing the Nazis did on unwilling subjects in concentration camps in World War II was despicable and immoral. Those ghastly experiments, carried out on prisoners who were hostages of Hitler's Fascist regime, are indefensible. No one volunteered to be in a concentration camp, so surely none of the subjects can be said to have participated willingly. Their lives were put at risk-or deliberately destroyed-without their consent. This was not science; this was madness. Some discoveries-one thinks of Thomas Edison in his laboratory, inventing the phonograph and the light bulb-are made without risking human life. But scientific inquiry often involves human beings-as explorers or subjects-whose lives are put in jeopardy to gain knowledge and advance the cause of civilization. Think of Ben Franklin, flying his kite in a thunderstorm. Think of explorers like Christopher Columbus or John Glenn, venturing into the unknown without regard for personal safety. And think of the brave individuals who participate in AIDS research. In order to test vaccines, healthy subjects are required. In order to test drugs to suppress or retard the advance of the disease, subjects who are already ill are needed.

This brings us to the central question implied by the statement: when is it ethical to risk a human life in order to discover scientific truths? The key is informed consent. It is essential that every person put at risk whether a willing explorer like an astronaut, a patient choosing a course of treatment, or a subject in a controlled experiment be fully informed of the known risks he or she faces. Scientists are not God, and human beings are not guinea pigs. Human life must be respected. Human beings are not disposable like paper cups.

Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country.

Sample-1

In a representative democracy, representatives are selected by the voters to convey their ideas and values in the government. These representatives are voted for by citizens according to their degree to which they will uphold these ides and values. Citizens would obviously not vote someone into office who believes in the opposite of the citizens on several issue. The representatives will be re-elected in the same manner; the degree to which the citizens ideas and values were upheld. It is not surprising that politicians will base their decisions on what will please the voters and not on what is best for the country. The politicians must maintain the popularity of the voters and the best method to achieve that is to please them with the actions made in governmental circles.

The politicians however are not merely carbon copies of the citizen's consensus opinions. The politicians will have opinions of their own and occasionally this may conflict with those of the voters. At this time the politicians may make an unpopular decision for what they feel is for the good of the country. One example is often seen with the petition of Nazi groups to march. While an exceptionally high majority of citizens would never want to see this march occur, many politicians would have no choice but to let the march preceede for the greater good, in this instance it is the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the constitution. From this ideal, much of this country was founded and it would by hypocritical to deny it to another group regardless of how unpopular this group was to the voters.

While this is an extreme case of politicians displeasing the voters for the good of the country, there exists a great range of "grey" area where politicians and voters do not meet eye to eye. So what should be considered when making a decision to please the voters or serve the nation? Fortunately, for the most part, the voters will also have the best interest of the nation at heart but trouble can still arise. One major problem is the building of new prisons or landfills. For most voters, there is no question that they are needed, but none of the voters wants to see the prison or landfill wind up in their backyards. To deal with such problems and still remain in good standing with the voters, the politicians must learn to make concessions. For instance, the same district where a new prison is built, a new High School and Industrial Park is set up to better education and increase jobs and the local economy. A politicians must weigh the potential degrees of disfavor that they may incur when determining whether to serve the nation at the risk of the voters. Politicians are unable to please all of the voters all of the times, but by ensuring that unfavorable decision are accompanied by many favorable ones, the politicians can balance on the treacherous tightrope between serving their country and serving their voters.

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

Sample-1

This statement suggests that a wealthy person has a significant stake in the formulation of laws and policies, and that in order to maximize his or her own benefit from these laws and policies, the politician must sacrifice the needs of other people. Unless all members of the community share equally in the resources and potential profit from these resources, politicians will have the responsibility of determining how resources, taxes, and wealth are distributed. However, this is not to say that a person must choose to maximize his or her benefits when taking part in political decisions. Ultimately, the decision to represent all people fairly rests with the individual politician, each of whom has the potential to be fair or unfair.

Wealth is not the only factor which might lead a politician to give unfair representation. A person's race, sex, geographic allegions, and desire for power might influence a politician at various times in her or his career. Indeed, a person who is significantly less then wealthy might have as much at stake in an income tax law as a person who has money. Whether or not the "poor" politician chooses to make policies with her own future in mind is just as relevant as the same action undertaken by a wealthy person. If the individual politician ignores her own stake in society, she might be acting irrationally.

The quality of "fairness" must be a relative and undefinable concepts in politics, requiring that a politician try to be as fair as possible without hurting herself in the process. The degress of fairness she chooses to exert is a subjective thing, and will probably be disagreed upon by any two people.

Unfortunately, politicians must have a stake in the laws they create and destroy. Unlike judges, who are supposed to look at each situation without a chance for personal loss or gains, politicians can lose or gain substantially depending on how they act. The things they stand to lose or gain include money, status, future power or employment, popularity, and numerous other psychological and material things. Perhaps a measure of a good politician is not how rich or how poor she is, but rather how important all these potential benefits are to her. If she cares more for these things than the average person does, then she might not represent people fairly.

Thus, whether a politician has a lot of wealth or very little, money can be a motivating factor and can determine how she votes. The generalization about wealthy politicians can just as easily be made about any politician who is concerned with money or other benefits. However, it is hoped that once a person has "enough" material wealth his or her political decision making will not be solely the result of trying to maximize future gains.

In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Sample-1

A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a "free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring of laws.

The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion "free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.

In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems with existing regulations arise.

In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Sample-1

A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a "free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring of laws.

The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion "free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.

In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems with existing regulations arise.

During an interview, it is important to stay focused on the conversation so that you will understand everything that is being said. Using this information to write a compelling interview essay can be very stressful. But if you paid attention during the whole interview, you will have a better chance of writing a great essay. If you know what points you need to listen to and what to include in your notes, the whole processes will be easier. You can find some of this information by reading various interview essay examples.

Before you can write an interview essay you must conduct the interview. There are a few things you can do that will help you to have a successful interview, and to gather all of the pertinent information for your essay.

1. Be prepared for your interview. Create yourself an outline of your essay. Make a list of questions that you will need to ask in order to get the important information you need for your essay. Assign each question to one paragraph in your essay.

2. Begin your interview. Be friendly and create an atmosphere where the interviewee will feel comfortable. If you feel that your interview is going off track, gently guide it back on course. If you are unsure of what you heard, you can always repeat back the answer you think is correct and see if they correct you or agree with you. This is important because you want to take accurate notes, and do not want to write false information.

3. After you are finished with the interview, make sure you have everything in order, your notes and any recordings you may have taken. Then ask them if they will be available if you need to ask them any more questions.

The next step in this process is to take the information that you acquired during your interview and use it to write your essay. Here are some steps you can follow that can help you write a great essay.

1. Write down your thoughts on the interview while it is still fresh in your mind. Do not worry about writing your essay points at this point in time. This is the rough draft of your essay.

2. Organize your information. Reread your notes or listen to the recordings again. The intention of the interview should be included in your opening paragraph. Make a quick list of essay points that you want to cover. Add these points with the rough draft and you have the beginnings of your essay.

3. Create your essay. Take everything you have done so far and clean it up and make it look “pretty”. Make sure to focus on good grammar, and smooth transitions. Make sure you have not overstated anything in the essay. And make sure you identify the source of the information.

4. Have someone else read your essay. Get their honest opinion of it, and ask if there is anything that needs to be changed.

By reading some interview essay examples you can see what you need to include in your essay. And can give you a few ideas of what types of questions to ask, and what information is considered “important”.

Global Warming: A Deadly Threat for Human Life

Global Warming refers to the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Human activity contributes to this change through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Over time, this increase may be sufficient to cause climatic change, including raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns and changing water supplies and crop yields. It is also an increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists generally agree that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 140 years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature and that increased concentrations of sulfate aerosols have led to relative cooling in some regions, generally over and downwind of heavily industrialized areas. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is today most often used to refer to the warming some scientists predict will occur as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The usual method to research about this phenomenon is to measure the surface-air temperature over time. Some people blame the nature for the temperature increase while other points at human causes, such as our cars, industries that pollutes the air with Carbon Dioxide and farmers in the third world that pollutes the air with methane gas. Both Carbon Dioxide and Methane are Greenhouse gases. Since the late 19th century, we have experienced a rise in average global temperatures approximated between 0.6C and 0.2C.

Global Warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.

"Global Warming"

Humans' are to blame for global warming. They have contributed in many different ways such as burning natural gases, coal and oil making CO2. Deforestation; taking trees and cutting them down. Also population growth is affecting it to.Burning natural gases, coal and oil is producing masses of non-used CO2. This is resulting in the melting of the arctic ice and leaving polar bears and other arctic animals without a home. For example the glacier national park, in Montana, now has only 27 glaciers, compared with 150 in 1910 that is not very

many. Carbon dioxide (CO2) heats the air and the water causing the earth to heat up and resulting in melting the arctic ice. Some scientists believe that the ocean warming is resulting in increased CO2 and not the other way around. This theory is based on the idea that there is CO2 trapped in the ocean and as the temperature rises and the water evaporates the CO2 is released therefore causing the melting of the ice burgs.Deforestation is affecting global warming because breath out O2 (oxygen) and breath out CO2 (carbon dioxide). So if there is a shortage of trees that are not going to breath in our CO2 then were stuck with more carbon dioxide in our plant resulting in the air warming up because of the over load of CO2. Leading scientists think that we are contributing to global warming by deforesting areas of our earth which is not only killing innocent animals but can and probably will kill us if we keep polluting.Population growth is also affecting global warming in a bad way. More people means more cars, more cars means more fossil fuels burnt, more fossil fuels burnt means more pollution which pollution contains many green house gases such as hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs ), per fluorocarbons (PFCs )and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) which are results exclusively from human industrial processes. Leading scientists believe that we are contributing to global warming in a big percentage by reproducingTo sum up we are causing global warming in a bad way by burning natural gases, coal and oil concluding in heating up the water and melting the ice burgs. Deforestation means less oxygen and more carbon dioxide. While population growth is affecting it by manufacturing more cars and factories. Leading scientists' believe that we are the cause of global warming...

World Pollution

Summary: Pollution is becoming closer to put life on the verge of death. It has killed many lives already. Technology has been the responsible one for most of the Pollution that exists today.

gPollution, contamination of Earthfs environment with materials that interfere � �with human health, the quality of life, or the natural functioning of ecosystemsh �

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 March 2006). Even though some pollution across the whole world is caused by the forces of nature (animal waste, animal release of gases, volcanic eruptions, etc.), the majority comes from every-day human activities and technology. Human contamination of Earth can take many forms such as Air Pollution, Water Pollution, Soil Pollution, Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste, and Noise Pollution. These harmful actions have changed Earth, and they continue to do so today. Although pollution has harmful effects, it has provided us the life we have today; without it, we wouldnft be here were we are. Pollution� is a life killer, but also a life saver.

Pollution: Promise, Problem, or Progress?

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/bookrags.oao/products/students;s1=products;s2=students;section=index;url=products_students;k w=;topic=essays-2006/6/3/145036/2547;title=;test=;bkr=ad;pos=1;expand=0;dcopt=;sz=300x250;tile=4;ord={pgran d}?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/bookrags.oao/products/students;s1=products;s2=students;section=index;url=products_students;kw={ keywords};topic=essays-2006/6/3/145036/2547;title=;test=;bkr=ad;pos=1;expand=0;dcopt=;sz=300x250;tile=4;ord=720902573? " width="300" height="250" border="0" alt=""></a>

There are numerous disputes whether Pollution is a Promise or a Destroyer. For example, quote gPollutionchas a dramatic effect on natural resources (Grolier � �Online, 15 March 2006)h is a pro for pollution. There are also cons for pollution, �such as in quote, gcour economy i� � s also as bit as fragile as Earth, perhaps you (we) should think before stating such sensational claims! (Emmerich, 2004)h. If �it wasnft for Pollution, we wouldnft have a strong, wealthy economy in the � �United States of America. We wouldnft have the mas� s production of cars, computers, electronical devices, power, clean water, sewage lines, etc. The world wouldnft be modern as it is today without pollution; making the world as it� was when tribes and minor civilizations roamed the Earth. Nevertheless, Pollution is simultaneously endangering life in Earth. gMoreover, because of the �complex relationships among the many types of organisms and ecosystems, environmental contamination my have far-reaching consequences that are not immediately obvious or that are difficult to predict (Comptonfs by Britannica, 15 �March 2006)h. With Pollution in existence, Earth is becoming unbalanced; �sooner or later causing dramatic changes in its surface. For example, the Ozone Layer, the gsheeth that protects life from the � � harmful radiation from the Sun, is being destroyed by the harmful air pollution from cities. Without an Ozone Layer, the Sun will slowly kill life on this planet, causing cancer, mutations, and other diseases. Although pollution is gtwo-faceh, it is also� � becoming a progress. Thanks to technology, scientists and engineers have been coming out with ideas

to reduce pollution from the industry, commerce, residential, and cars (Grolier Online, 15 March 2006).

Air Pollution

Air Pollution has co-existed with Earth since the first humans began to use fire to cook, heat, and agriculture. Even though humans long before polluted Earthfs �atmosphere, it was a crisis. Air Pollution became a major problem in the 18th and 19th centuries during the Industrial Revolution, and is still continuing today. Air Pollution mainly comes from cars, trucks, airplane engines, industrial zones, indoors, etc. The utmost challenge caused by Air Pollution is Global Warming, gan increase in Earthfs temperature due to the buildup of certa� � in atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxideh (Hart, 2006). The effect of Global Warming is the �rising temperature of Earth. Also, the Greenhouse Effect, caused by Global Warming, has reduced the getaway of heat and has stalled the blocking of radiation coming from the Sun. gBecause of this Greenhouse Effect, average �global temperatures are expected to rise 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees by the year 2100 (Comptonfs Britannica, 15 March 2006)h. If humans would have never � �polluted Earthfs skies, we would have� never had massive manufacturing, industry, and trade, and commerce, thus weakening all economies of the world.

Water Pollution

Water Pollution, like Air Pollution, mainly started when the Industrial Revolution sparked. Sewage, industrial wastes, agricultural chemicals, etc. are the foremost causes of Water Pollution. Another cause now known is the transition of Air to Water Pollution. This happens when smog, dirt, haze, and other Greenhouse gases are washed up and end in the ocean. Water Pollution has been a growing problem still due to excessive water consumers. The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) reported in 1995 that 37% of the United Statefs lakes and �estuaries, 36% of its rivers are just too polluted for basic uses such as fishing or swimming all year long (Hart, 2006). This shows a dramatic up rise of water pollution, not counting the world. If humans would of never polluted water, we would have never had fresh drinking water and sewage lines. Also, we would have never had hydroelectricity power. Water Pollution is strongly influenced by Air Pollution, making it the gmotherh of all pollutions.� �Soil Pollution

Soil is a very important compound in Earth. gSoil is a mixture of mineral, plant, �and animal materials that for during a long process that my take thousands of years (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006)h. It is very hard to imagine how to pollute� soil, but not for farmers. Soil Pollution happens when salts, pathogens, radioactive materials, and toxic chemical compounds build up on soil (Hart, 2006). The result can be endangering due to the fact that this pollution mainly affects the Flora Kingdom. Degraded soil stops plant growth and stimulates erosion. Mainly, farmers and agricultural sites are the main pollutants. They

treat soil with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides which interferes the soil process. Also, these chemicals kill useful organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms (Hart, 2006). If this continues, it will result in total crop failure. Soil Pollution problems occur today in the Imperial Valley, the Indus Valley, and the Nile Valley. If humans would have never polluted the soil, we would have never had massive flow of fruits and vegetables. Also, with the chemicals farmers use, it assures quality of vegetables and fruits.

Solid Waste

Solid Waste troubles everyday life. Garbage, paper, plastics, metals, wood and synthetic materials fall into the category of solid waste (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). The reason why Solid Waste is a common problem is because the average American dumps 4lbs. of garbage, paper, plastics, etc. away. Many towns and cities deals with Solid Waste by creating a landfill; some use Incinerators to burn the trash. Although burning seems more convenient, it actually produces gdangerous concentrations of hazardous materials such as �heavy metals and toxic compoundsh (Hart, 2006). The best way to get rid of �Solid Waste is use a method called Composting. In the process of Composting, Solid Waste collectors use natural biological progression to swiftly decompose garbage. Solid Waste is a necessary in life. All living organisms have to produce some kind of waste and it has to be collected to be taken elsewhere.

Hazardous Waste

Hazardous Waste can be on any form; solid, liquid, or gas (Hart, 2006). Hazardous Waste is the most deadly because it can harm or kill animals, humans, plants, and environments. The wastes that fall into this category are toxic chemicals, flammable substances, radioactive substances, industrial wastes from chemical plants and nuclear reactors, agricultural wastes (such as pesticides and fertilizers), medical wastes, and residential wastes (such as toxic paints, solvents, etc.) (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). If expose to humans, Hazardous Wastes can give nervous system disorders, birth defects, cancer, or death (Hart, 2006). If Hazardous Wastes are exposed to the environment, they can immediately taint air, water, and soil for a large-scale of time. One example of one of the worst disasters cause by Hazardous Wastes took place in 1986, when a nuclear reactor exploded near Chernobyl, Ukraine. Even though this calamity only killed 31 people and evacuated 200,000 people, this explosion showed its strength when it shot a plume of radioactive material to Earthfs �atmosphere; Norway and the United Kingdom where contaminated (Hart, 2006). Even though Hazardous Waste is eradicator, it has helped with the technologies of today, further expanding the knowledge of Space Exploration.

Noise Pollution

Noise Pollution exists in most urban areas and densely populated places. Noise Pollution has risen since the early Industrial Revolution, making it uncomfortable

to live. Noise Pollution can include industrial machinery, traffic, airplanes and unwanted noise/sounds (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). Although Noise Pollution is not a killer, it can greatly disturb life in environment and humans themselves. The effects of Noise Pollution are the loss of hearing, disruption, high blood pressure, anxiety, and lost efficiency. Living without Noise Pollution is living without cars, power and music, making life harder.

Pollution¨ (Air, Water, Soil, Solid, Hazardous, Noise) Clean Act�All these pollutions mentioned earlier have changed the face of Earth, and the way of life. Although humans are continuing to pollute, many nations, including United States of America, have taken actions to reduce disastrous results. In the United States, the government enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970. gThis law �requires that the air contain no more than specified levels of particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, ozone, and various toxic substancesh (Hart, 2006).� Also, the United States established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stricken standards that apply where the air is clean to avoid traveling of pollution from dirty areas. Technology has been helping make the skies clearer. Nowadays we have hybrid cars, and scientists are trying to create a new power plant called Fission Power Plant that will not generate waste; it will get its energy from the division of atoms. The United States of America also got serious when they enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972. The goal for this act was to, gend all �pollution discharges into surface waters, such as lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal watersh (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006). Technology is �helping make the waters clearer. There is now Water Treatment Plants that filter all water using reverse osmosis process; and Desalinization Water Plants. Also, the United States has passed the SWDA and TSCA to regulate and manage Hazardous Wastes (Hart, 2006). Even though there is not that much technology to help clear Hazardous substances, technology is making alternatives, such as instead of a Nuclear Power Plant, itfs providing a Fission Power Plant. Last but �not least, the United States of America established the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce and control the noise from airplanes. Technology is advancing everyday, providing new engines and new ways to evolve. Even though technology caused most of the pollution, now, itfs helping eliminate �pollution (Comptonfs by Britannica, 2006). �Conclusion

Pollution is a life killer, but also a life saver. Itfs true that Pollution has made �some disastrous effects. Pollution is becoming closer to put life on the verge of death. It has killed many lives already. Technology has been the responsible one for most of the Pollution that exists today. Albeit, technology has been evolving to make this world a better place. Nowadays, technology is being cleaner to conserve Earth. Also, it has been cleaning Earth (water treatment plants, air

purifiers, etc.). Technology will progress over the years to make Earth a healthier living experience.