We tend to think of water in terms of a particular purpose: is the quality of the water good enough for the use we want to make of it? Water is fit for our own use but may be unfit for another’s. We may, for instance, trust the quality of lake water enough to swim in it, but not enough to drink it. Along the same lines, drinking water can be used for irrigation, but water used for irrigation may not meet drinking water standards. It is the quality of the water, which determines its uses.

             There are many causes for water pollution but two general categories exist: direct and indirect contaminant sources.
             Direct sources include sewage outfalls from factories, refineries, waste treatment plants etc. that emit fluids of varying quality directly into urban water supplies. In the United States and other countries, these practices are regulated, although this doesn’t mean that pollutants can’t be found in these waters.
             Indirect sources include contaminants that enter the water supply from soils/groundwater systems and from the atmosphere by means of rainwater. Soils and ground waters contain the remains of human agricultural practices (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) and improperly disposed of industrial wastes. Atmospheric contaminants are also resulting from human practices (such as gaseous emissions from automobiles, factories and even bakeries.
             Contaminants can be broadly classified into organic, inorganic, radioactive and acid/base. Examples from each class and their potential sources are too numerous to discuss in great detail in this paper.
             The effects of water pollution are varied. They include poisonous drinking water, poisonous food animals (due to these organisms having bioaccumulated toxins from the environment over their life spans), unbalanced river and lake ecosystems that can no longer support full biological diversity, deforestation from acid rain, and many other effects.

  Human interference with our environment is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening due to our population growth. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The way to these policy changes is in the

             “Deep Ecology” ecosophy (110). Deep ecology is a philosophical way of looking at our environmental problems that was founded in 1972 by Norwegian Arne Naess, a former head of the philosophy department at the University of Oslo. Naess’ writings show us what is wrong with the world and give us a blueprint by which we can bring about change. In its most basic form, deep ecology is a necessary wisdom, requiring humans to see themselves as part of the bigger picture. That picture is our sacred relationship with Earth and all beings.
             Many believe overpopulation, the greenhouse effect, global warming, and loss of habitat are no cause for alarm. Some, in fact, claim media and politicians perpetuate the hysteria regarding our environmental decline because they have something to gain by painting such a bad picture. Countless studies I have read or am personally involved with, however, have convinced me these problems are real and can be resolved if the following are supported:
             1. Continued inquiry into the appropriate human roles on our planet.
             2. Root cause analysis of unsustainable practices.
             3. Reduction of human consumption.
             4. Conservation and restoration of ecosystems.
             5. A life of committed action for Earth. (Oslo 1973)
             The solution to our ecosystem mess is through the principles Dr. Naess has developed. These principles begin with a statement that all life, human and nonhuman, has intrinsic value. This means everything about life is valuable, including individuals, cultures, species, habitats, and populations.

 Life is a precious element to a broad range of creatures. When a chemical toxin invades life’s environment, we should all be concerned. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of chemical compounds that are invading and polluting the environment. They cause severe health problems in humans and affect many creatures in nature. Scientist found high PCB levels in two orca whales that washed up dead last February near the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Ko, 2002). The United States Environmental Protection Agency claims they are quick to act on all PCB discoveries, but it may be too late. There are some remedies to remove PCBs from the environment, but it doesn’t take care of the entire problem.

             Polychlorinated biphenyls are a group of chemicals compounds that have no molecular breakdown. They were used by the industrial manufacturing industry between 1930-1970. They were primarily used as electrical insulators in transformers and other electrical equipment. They were also used in a variety of products such as: power saws, typewriters, cereal boxes, and bread wrappers (Heimlich, 2002). They were released into the environment during their use by smokestacks, leakage of old equipment, leaching from landfills, and other polluted sediments. In 1976 after growing concerns and findings of high levels of PCBs in the environment; Congress banned all uses including the processing and distribution of PCBs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002).
             These chemicals have filtered into every aspect of the environment. It has seeped into the soil and been carried down streams into our oceans. The toxic effects of PCBs include the death of animals, low growth rate in plants, and severe health problems in humans (Heimlich, 2002). According to an EPA study that was completed in 1987; chronic exposure to PCBs can cause cancer .

  Several factors in Great Britain during the Victorian age came together to form numerous problems. One problem among many was the issue of the environment. The new technology of the Industrial Revolution caused many problems for the Britainÿs environment.

             With the new gigantic machines at work in the city, workers were unable to work at home anymore. They were required to work in the city. This was also done so the masters of the factories could keep the workers under a tighter schedule. The new machines caused an enormous amount of pollution in the city. The air was smoggy, and the air had the acrid smell of burnt fossil fuels. The workers were forced to breathe in smoggy air, which often made them queasy, or very sick. This environmental problem greatly contributed to the outbreak of illness in Great Britain. Another factor which contributed to the disease outbreak was the close quarters they worked in. The limited space in the factories restricted the size of the workerÿs working area. This problem allowed the disease to spread like wildfire. Several disease outbreaks occurred, none of which were beneficial to the environment. It is almost certain that the diseases spread to animals who werenÿt immune to it. This would have weakened the food web.
             Many changes in Britain caused a domino effect, damaging the environment, spreading the disease to people, and also, as technology developed, more accidents happened. The Industrial Revolution caused many changes, positive and negative, and had a substantial effect on the environment of Great Britain. Several cities almost grew overnight in Britain in the 1700’s. One example of this is the city Manchester. This city grew so quickly because of several features of the area. One major factor was the amount of coal in the area. The coal was the main power source for the engines and machines of the Revolution.

 Our genes makes us unique and they influence our personality. People born with certain traits can deal with stress and emotions better than people that lack that trait. For example a person born with the trait of calmness can deal with stressful situations better than a person born with the trait of nervousness can. The body and mind is one. What happens to one affects the other. It has been know that people who manage stress better usually have better health. Good health is an important aspect of quality of life. Healthier people are also happier, more socially active, and more satisfied with life. The genes is the only factors that makes individuals unique and we have no control over our genetic make up, but our environment can dramatically influence our personality and over all health. Given a perfect environment (what ever might be) humans might live happier for a very long time. The relative impact of genes and environment can be assessed by studying twins as well as by looking at the longevity of immediate ancestors.

             I read an article an MSN that deal with the notion of genes vs environment. The article was about a major study of identical twins and fraternal twins. The study was to see whether the twins died closely together. If those with the same genes died closely together while those with different genes did not, then that would support a genetic influence. The influence of the environment is assessed by comparing those living under the same and different environment. If those from the same environment died close together while those from different environments did not, then that would support an environmental influence. The finding of the study suggest that longevity is largely determined by environmental factors
             with 66% variance due to environment an 34% due to genetics. Hmmm! Well, all I can say is that gender, race are genetic factors are beyond our control

  Man is a product of his environment. This has held true since the beginning of man’s existence. In the short story “The Broken Globe” by Henry Kreisel, it especially holds true. Man’s beliefs can be attributed to the environment around them.

             The protagonist in this story, Nick Solchuk, grew up in an uneducated farming environment. Yet, he fought off his father’s attempts to cantain him within that environment. Nick would sneak off to school, against his father’s wishes, to create a new environment for himself. In his new environment, Nick became educated. In the process of his new founded education, he became the opposite of his father. Nick eventually became a successful geophysicist from the environment that his own father had tried to deny him.
             Nick’s father grew up in the same environment as Nick, minus the education. His beliefs were firmly rooted in religion, and what he saw with his own eyes. He believed that the sun moved around the earth. “The earth for him was the centre of the universe, and the centre was still. It didn’t move. The sun rose in the East and it set in the West, and it moved perpetually around a still earth.”(pg 51). Still, the question must be asked; If Nick’s father had grown up with an education, would he still hold the same beliefs as he does? The answer is almost assuredly no. Environment can have that profound an impact that it can alter a man’s view of the world. Another important question musr be asked; If Nick had grown up in the environment that his father had wanted, would he still have become a successful geophysicist? No one in their right mind can answer yes to that question. If the roles were reversed, it is very possible that Nick could have been a religious farmer, and his father a successful geophysicist.

 Conserving energy is important, since the world will not be able to

             depend on nonrenewable resources in the future. Nonrenewable resources
             are resources that cannot be replaced such as natural gas, coal, and oil.
             Conserving energy will lessen the need for nonrenewable resources, which
             will be beneficial to the environment, by helping to preserve more natural
             environments. Energy allows humans to live comfortable lives by powering
             our modern day conveniences. Automobiles and electricity are two common
             items that are dependent on a steady stream of energy. Energy consumption
             around the world has been on an increasingly uphill climb, for many years
             now. Society needs to work towards understanding and utilizing renewable
             resources because nonrenewable resources are depleting, which will
             eventually lead to zero resources for energy.
             Nonrenewable and renewable are words used to define various natural
             resources. A renewable resource is a natural resource that when used can be
             replace such as wind, trees, and water. Renewable resources are highly
             sought out because of their ability to reproduce, when more is needed.
             Renewable energy is viewed as safe for the environment, when compared to
             the hazards of nonrenewable resources.
             Nonrenewable resources are found in chunked amounts, and are used up
             more rapidly than the replacement rate. Although there are nonrenewable
             resources found in nature, these are deemed more harmful to the environment
             than renewable resources. Nonrenewable resources are non-replaceable as
             soon as these are used, which makes these an unfavorable source of energy
             when compared to the benefits of renewable resources.
             Conserving energy helps the environment and can help people save
             money. An action such as turning off a light contributes to conserving
             energy. 

  There are many humans in the world today that believe that all animals have rights and that the human population is slowly destroying the environment around us. Still there are the others that don’t care about the environment and take what ever they want without thinking about the consequences about their actions. These are the radicals of both groups, there is a medium though. They believe, as I do, that it is okay to take from the environment but we must also give some back so that there is enough resources to continue to live.

             As I see it, the environment is starting to disappear quicker than it use to. Now more trees are being torn down, species and their homes are being lost, so that there is enough homes for everyone to live in. Every year the population grows closer and closer to the earths carrying capacity. We take so much from the environment that we seem to lose sight that sooner or later we will run out of supplies to live on. Do humans have an obligation towards nature? I would have to say yes. Many Americans love to go outdoors, ski, hunt and many other activities, but what they don’t realize is that it cuts down on the abundance of the environment. I believe that the government is doing a great job of how they limit hunters, with the amount of animals that can be hunted, the different animals, how many hunters there can be in a certain spot and hunting seasons.
             Stated on the other side of the grading sheet it says that the natives and other cultures have beliefs that nature is a living thing and that they must respect it if they want to gather more of it. I believe that if more communities lived like this that there would be more respect for nature and that we wouldn’t be in such a bind on how much a certain person can use during a day.

  The debate over the importance of nature verses the importance of nurture, has been going on since the beginning of modern science. Both sides of the argument have undeniably good points proving that one is superior to the other. But after reviewing the facts you can see that both nature and nurture have a great impact in shaping our personality.

             Of course, nature can only go so far, because it is unalterable. The environment around a person, on the other hand, is ever-changing offering more opportunity for growth and variation. Eventhough the environment is ever-changing, and we are constantly being exposed to new learning tools, one cannot deny our genetic makeup and how it determines are physical and mental capabilities. Our heredity plays an important role in which we become. For example, if a child has the genetic makeup to excel in athletics, then the child will excel more than that of a child that does not have the genetic makeup to excel in athletics. Then again, if a child’s parents or ‘nurture’ supports the child that does not have an genetic makeup to excel in athletics then it is possible for the child with the superior genetic makeup in athletics to fall behind the child that does not. Just as nature may give us an edge in a particular area, without nurture, that particular area will never be performed to its greatest ability. So despite the obvious influence that genes take on our ability to perform some task, the parental guidance has an unbelievable influence.
             The environment surrounding a person is a very real and very important factor in a child’s personality and views. The same baby raised in two different environments will turn into two extremely different people. Sometimes the environment is downplayed a lot, because some assume that once a ‘bad seed’ is born it cannot be changed.

 The environment is an extremely important factor in determaing the developement of a civilization. It can help advance a civilisation or impede it. In ancient Africa, the environment affected the different civilivations, such as the Sahel, the Wagado Empire and the Mbuti of the Ituri Forest. The environment uopn many aspects of these and other civilisations, such as agriculture, technology, trade, daily life and even sometimes the physical appearence of the people in the civilisation were greatly affected by their environment.

             The Sahel, which was located in West Africa and south of the Sahara Desert, was affected by its environment. In ancient times, the climate of the climate of the Sahel was not so hot and dry, it allowed the people of the civilisation to cultivate the land and gro crops. There was a wet season, most of the crops would grow and a dry season, when the winter crops would grow. The lands of the Shael were covered with natural grasses, which was great for raising cattle, sheep and goats. the manure that was produced by these animals would then help enrich the soil. Some of the lands of Sahel had iron deposits, which helped advanced their technology. Iron spears ,swords ans hoes were developed. The iron weapons helped the Sahel protect itself and the tools helped with agriculture. Iron objects were alos valueable, so they were used to of retrading and helped the people of the Sahel become skilled traders. The environment helped advance the ancient civilization known as Sahel.

  The greenhouse effect, nuclear contamination, toxic chemicals, oil spills, air pollution, water pollution: these are all issues that affect every single living being on this planet we call home. The environment and issues pertaining to the environment apply directly to the entire world. Greenpeace, an international environmental organization that is dedicated to preserving the earth’s natural resources, addresses these numerous environmental issues through peaceful campaigning and demonstrations.

             Members of the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee” founded Greenpeace in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1971. The “Don’t Make a Wave Committee” was a small group opposed to nuclear weapons testing by the United States military in Alaska. Later, the committee changed its name to Greenpeace to echo its greater goal of creating a green and peaceful world. Greenpeace has more than forty offices in 30 countries with its headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands. It is a growing organization that has dedicated a lot of time and manpower to making this world a better and safer place for its inhabitants. Through peacefully lobbying and demonstration, Greenpeace has affected change for the better and, hopefully, will continue to do so in the future. The main issues that Greenpeace concerns itself with include climate changes, toxic chemicals, and nuclear disarmament and contamination.
             Greenpeace has acknowledged that one of the greatest threats to the planet is global climate change. Scientists and governments alike have all established that the problem is serious and real. In 1997, industrialized countries agreed at the climate summit in Kyoto to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases they pump into the atmosphere.

  It is now the second millennium and technology has advanced tremendously throughout the years. And continues to do so as well. New and improved products and gadgets need batteries to conduct its purpose. Company’s such as Battery Solutions states that the demand for batteries in the U.S. is projected to increase 5.8% every year through 2002. Battery Solutions claim that in 1998 there were over three billion industrial and household batteries sold in the United States alone. This demand for batteries will continue, as long as technology advances. It is a known fact that batteries power much of the equipment we use everyday for work or play. Telephone, laptops, radios, cars, and scores of other devices are all made portable with batteries. But what do you do with a battery after it runs down, or a rechargeable battery won’t recharge? Many consumer would simply toss them into the garbage, not knowing what harm battery waste can do. All used batteries are hazardous waste. So they should be recycled and disposed correctly.

             Batteries come in many shapes in sizes and several types. Batteries are identified in two different categories. The two types are primary batteries and secondary batteries. Primary batteries are batteries that have the same plate-active material as secondary types. However, these batteries are constructed so that only one continuous or intermittent discharge can be obtained. Types of primary batteries are alkaline, lithium, carbon-zinc, mercury, silver, and zinc batteries. Primary batteries are usually used for portable low-power appliances. Alkaline, Lithium, and carbon-zinc batteries are used for similar things such as radios, cameras, appliances, toys, and flashlights. Mercury, silver, and zinc batteries are used for smaller objects like hearing aids, pagers, calculators, and watches.

 In today’s world, humans are in a very relaxed cycle: they eat, they watch television, they sleep. What most people do not realise are the health risks they are taking every day when they do their daily tasks. Humans are becoming more and more reliant on machines to do simple activities, such as changing the channel or traveling. I agree that technology does make activities uncomplicated, and genuinely makes life easier, but how can a person stay physically fit and healthy when he/she does nothing himself/herself? In Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, many environmental issues are discussed. Among the issues, Quinn talks about technology and how humans believe it to be a turning point in society, but will eventually lead to the downfall of humans.

             People are at great risk to their health with the advancements in technology. Not only have individuals fabricated new ways of entertainment, but have built factories, which pollute the air they breathe and water they drink. In Ishmael, Quinn tells of man trying to fly; when man fails, he does not just simply give up and wait to fly, but creates a new way, that is not fool-proof. Humans will do anything to make life easier, but for no reason than to make life easier. But is this really making life relaxing? People still have to go to work, still have to breathe in polluted air, and other such effects, all of which may be hazardous to their health. Humans keep creating objects that are harmful to the environment, and they call this “technology.” Well, this may be “technology,” but obviously citizens do not see that it is taking control of their lives. Most technology is for luxury and entertainment, while a select few fabrications are necessities, (airplanes, food machines, etc.). People really need to stop relying on artificial intelligence for simple tasks. 

The world’s population has grown more in the last 50 years than it haddone in the previous 4 million years[1]. This quantum leap in the human population has put severe strains on the finite resources and the fragile
environment of our planet. What is more, the present rate of the galloping population growth shows no signs of slowing down, especially in the developing countries. Such a high rate of growth is clearly unsustainable and needs to be controlled before the runaway human population proves to be the ultimate undoing of the human race itself. In this essay I shall discuss why the population growth is such a serious problem and the effect  it is having on the earth’s environment. Debate about the effects of population growth has raged ever since, Thomas Malthus, a British intellectual wrote his famous Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus contended that the tendency for  the population was to grow exponentially while food supplies could only grow arithmetically. His theory meant that the human population was destined to outstrip the global food supplies that would eventually lead towidespread starvation and disease. This has clearly not happened[2] so far, mainly because Malthus had not foreseen the extent to which technology, farming techniques and the Green Revolution’ would increase food production. (Hardaway 1188) Despite adequate availability of food in the world as a whole, the WHO reports that as many as 19,000 people (mostly infants and children) die each day from hunger and malnutrition. (Quoted by Brown et al, 6) The difference in the situation predicted by Malthus and the present scenario is that large numbers of people starve, not due to shortage of food, but due to poverty. It is arguable, of course, whether poverty too is the result of over-population. 

 Today’s physical fitness environment is a far cry from where it was just a few short years ago. In fact, Americans have always been health conscious, and that line of thinking has only gotten stronger as more information has become available through various media, including the internet, and television.

             Not only has the proliferation of information been a huge benefit for the average American, but other areas have benefited as well, including the studies that have been perpetuated to fulfill that need for information.
             One such study showed that “age-adjusted all cause mortality rates declined across physical fitness quintiles from 64.0 per 10,000 person-years in the least-fit men to 18.6 per 10,000 person-years in the most-fit men (slope, -4.5). Corresponding values for women were 39.5 per 10,000 person-years to 8.5 per 10,000 person-years (slope, -5.5).” (Blair 1989)
             With provable results such as the ones provided by this study, many individuals are attempting to stave off the inevitable, while ensuring a longer and healthier lifestyle by eating healthier foods, consistent exercising while at the same time passing on those habits to the younger generation.
             Schools are also looking to provide a healthier environment for that younger generation by providing more, and healthier choices for the students in the lunchrooms, more and more vigorous physical education classes, and a more supportive attitude towards after-school physical sports programs. Many school systems are looking to provide not only physical education programs but also exercise programs for those not necessarily physically inclined.
             There is a big difference between physical education, physical activity and exercise as portrayed by a recent study that showed; “Physical activity in daily life can be categorized into occupational, sports, conditioning, household, or other activities.