Rendering № 11

The article published on the website of the newspaper "American Thinker" on October 24, 2012 is headlined "Environmental Protection:The Enemy of Green". The article carries a lot of commentaries of how he laws, regulations, and mandates designed to protect our environment may actually be harming it instead.

To emphasize the seriousness of the situation, the author of the article Anthony J.Ciani, writes that the new environmental challenges are almost imperceptible, and until the development of highly-advanced, highly-sensitive atomic mass spectroscopy systems, immeasurable. So, analyzing this situation, it is necessary to emphasize that to combat these nearly invisible and immeasurable problems, new regulations and mandates have gone into effect. On the other hand, these new regulations and mandates may actually be hindering our attempts in dealing with the more measurable and easily observed problems, as well as our economy.

F

or the better understanding of the situation, as well as the environmental issue on the whole, the author gives some general facts: The Earth is like a giant conveyor system. The inside is full of useful things and nastiness, which are emitted from holes in the ground as gases and solids in the form of volcanic ash and lava. It is also an open secret that pollution is caused by human activity when we dig up these resources and put them back on the surface of the Earth, faster than water and life can put them back inside.. Examining another aspect of the problem, Anthony J. Ciani points out that Sulfur dioxide which is one of the big nasties, responsible for smog, haze, and acid rain. As an evidence he writes the following: We hear very little about acid rain nowadays, but it still exists. We still emit one-third of the sulfur dioxide we did at the peak of the problem, and our sulfur recovery technologies are just about maxed out. The best solution to the problem the author sees in usage less fossil fuel, which means alternate energy sources or greater energy efficiency, which requires technology, but technology often has issues with those more invisible environmental problems.

Giving appraisal to the situation, it is essential to makes point about the new enemy of environmental protection ,in Ciani’s ,  toxic metals. Metals are purified from ores that are extracted from the ground. Many different metals tend to be found in the same ores. For example, lead and cadmium are usually found with zinc, and zinc may be found with copper. Much of that zinc (with lead and cadmium) was once part of living organisms, and was concentrated into ore deposits during metamorphic transformation of the limestone (calcium carbonate) that was created by those organisms. There are many many controversions about what has a radical crusade against toxic metals gotten humanity. From one point of view, one company wrote a proposal to the Department of Energy to investigate a way to make cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar cells more efficient. However, one reviewer said, "nothing with cadmium is any good." The proposal was not funded, probably beaten out by a shrimp treadmill, but at least that reviewer prevented all of that cadmium getting from our environment back into our environment. So, the author makes the conclusion that whether it is used to make solar cells or not, all of that cadmium comes as a byproduct of zinc smelting. It has to go somewhere.

According to the news studies, the limits on allowable toxic metals get even lower, and technology gets even more expensive. To lay stress on the situation, J. Ciani asks the rhetorical question, using some statistics: Did you know that about 70% of children and 50% of adults are calcium deficient? What have those studies actually been measuring?

As examples, the writer compares the situation in the USA and China - Many people think that businesses move to China for the cheap labor, but this is simply not the case. The difference is that China does not attack its businesses: the business of China is business. To start a factory in America, you need millions of dollars in lawyers and several years to get through all of the permitting and regulation issues. Meanwhile, all of the unskilled Chinese labor is more than qualified to run a clean shop, in China, if you choose to run a clean shop.

The report concludes his article with some suggestion about different solution of this topical problem such as getting rid of certifications and listening to the concerns of small businesses.

All in all, I completely agree with Anthony J.Ciani who fully describes the picture of the situation today. I think that environmental issues are our general problem and it is in our interests to find the ways to protect our planet, or to minimize the harm at least. It is getting more and more difficult with the growth of the population, scientific and technological advance and people’s growing needs, but we should realize that to dodging responsibility to protect the Earth leads to the irretrievable consequences and it probably would become the fatal mistake of humanity. 

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games. Part 3

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games. Part 3

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games. Part 2

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games. Part 2

Rendering 10

The article published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times" on November 2, 2012 is headlined “Pennsylvania Report Left Out Data on Poisons in Water Near Gas Site”. The article reports at length that  Pennsylvania officials reported incomplete test results that omitted data on some toxic metals that were found in drinking water taken from a private well near a natural gas drilling site, according to legal documents released this week. Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that the documents were part of a lawsuit claiming that natural gas extraction through a method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and storage of the resulting wastewater at a site in southwestern Pennsylvania has contaminated drinking water and sickened seven plaintiffs who live nearby.

The author of the article ,Jon Hurdle, points out that a scientist for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection testified that her laboratory tested for a range of metals but reported results for only some of them because the department’s oil and gas division had not requested results from the full range of tests. Giving appraisal to the situation, it is also interesting to emphasize that the scientist, Taru Upadhyay, the technical director of the department’s Bureau of Laboratories, said the metals found in the water sample but not reported to either the oil and gas division. Then, the writer quotes the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry which affirms that copper, nickel, zinc and titanium, all of which may damage the health of people exposed to them, thus emphasizing the importance and seriousness of the situation. Analyzing the opposite point of view, the author cites Ms. Upadhyay who said that the bureau did not arbitrarily decide to withhold those results. There are a lot of other comments on this problem - John Carson, a water quality specialist, testified in a separate deposition that he had received no training in what metals are found in the fluid used in fracking. Critics say that fracking contaminates public water supplies. There is every reason to believe that officials keep something back according to Kendra Smith, a lawyer for Loren Kiskadden.

Analyzing the previous grief experience, when water was tested by the Environmental Protection Department, and the department purposely avoided reporting the full results of its tests of Mr. Kiskadden’s water in June 2011 and January 2012, there are indications of proof Mrs. Smith’s case. The write expresses her point of view further: “Testimony of Ms. Taru Upadhyay was quite alarming. She revealed what can only be characterized as a deliberate procedure” by the oil and gas division and the Bureau of Laboratories “to withhold critical water testing results.” Jon Hurdle writes Kevin Sunday’s opinion, a spokesman for the department, who comes out against Mrs. Smith’s statement, saying that she had failed to substantiate her “outrageous contention” that the department omitted key markers in tests for substances that typically occur in water samples from drilling in the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation rich in natural gas. The reporter stresses the importance of Mr. Sunday’s point of view, thus expressing the officials’ position – they wanted to see only the results they deemed relevant to determining whether drinking water was being contaminated by Marcellus Shale gas drilling and production. 

In this connection, it’s worth while mentioning the fact how it’s important to find the truth as well as find the solution of such problem - Mr. Kiskadden lists health complaints — including nausea, bone pain, breathing difficulties and severe headaches — that he says are consistent with exposure to “hazardous chemicals and gases through air and water.” Analyzing the situation, it is interesting to note that companies like Range Resources insist that chemicals used in fracking cannot enter public water sources because they are insulated from aquifers by multilayered steel and concrete casings and are deployed a mile or more underground beneath thousands of feet of impervious rock.

The author concludes the article with the fact that the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, said that the state lab had been endorsed as “well-managed, efficient and highly functional” by the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

As for me, the article has helped me to understand more deeply how it is important to solve this problem both for us and for the future generations. Analyzing the article, I am shocked by the fact of how the water is polluted with different substances which may simply harm or even destroy your health. I bilieve that it’s better to gather and do all out best to find the most suitable and efficient way to prevent the water pollution, instead of arguing and blaming each other. We should remember that we all live in the global village and we extremely depend on the environment and its changes, and thus, taking care about it, or just not harm it is the key to our future on this planet. 

Review №3

The Pelican Brief (1993)

Cast: 

Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sam Shepard, John Heard, William Atherton, John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci

Director:

Alan J. Pakula

Release date  - December 13. 1993

Country - United States

Synopsis
After two Supreme Court judges are assassinated, bright young law student Darby, comes up with a conspiracy theory that is worringly accurate. Soon the government are after her and her mentor, Professor Thomas Callahan, breaking into houses and blowing up cars. Her only hope in exposing the truth and staying alive, lies in investigative reporter Gray Grantham

Main characters

Darby Shaw – a low student

Thomas Callahan – a low professor

Gavin Verheek – Callahan’s friend at FBI

Gray Grantham – a political reporter

Khamel – a contract killer

Curtis Morgan -  a lawyer in the oil and gas division of White & Blazevich in Washington

Based on the John Grisham novel, THE PELICAN BRIEF is a movie written for the screen, produced and directed by Alan J. Pakula (All the President's Men) in 1993.

Direction

Alan Pakula is the real professional in directing such kind of movies. “The Pelican Brief” is considered to be the most successful film adaptation of Grisham’s novel and I think it is mainly director’s service.  Pakula’s particular style and specific way to tell the story has made the film is worthy of 141 minutes of your time.  In this movie, Pakula centers on showing how important a sheer force of will is in uncovering conspiracies. I think that even if the less known actors played in it, the movie would still have become a hit and so highly appreciated thanks to director Alan Pakula & his team.

Writing:

The main thing I dislike in the film is the standard and sometimes too long dialogues. (I don’t mean it’s worse than the typical American silly comedies with only drunk and love scenes, but the dialogs were really too boring!) So, I can’t say that I don’t know which would happen next second. Although the storyline is fairly straightforward by complication with numerous dialogues on philosophical themes characters and who often were hard to distinguish from each other, the film is not consider to be dull. It's a good example, racy thriller with a lot of suspense. There're many heart-beating moments (like the explosion of professor’s car). It’s full of different themes which I believe will not be outdated, and the way they are played on makes the film so topical in spite of the fact it is about 20 year old. There is the type of movies which tend to be seen when I am doing 100 hundred other things at the same time. Undoubtedly, this film is out of this group. Not anyone like this writing, but it doesn’t mean that something wrong with it. Probably those people simply have a long way to go before he begins to understand this writing. (including myself partly).

Editing:

The film was released in 1993, so it explains the absence of the computer-generated graphics with numerous explosions, inconceivable shootings and pursuits. However, I think it’s the great advantage of this movie. Everything is based on the skills of the director (I’ve mentioned about it above) and the main actors. Although Julia Roberts is always associated with “Pretty Woman”, she played this role brilliantly too. Today’s films extremely depend on the computer-generated graphics and I think it is one of the major key of their popularity. “The Pelican Brief” is the example of the film with breath-taking episode made only thanks for the brilliant performing skills of the actors. The quality of the editing is out of the question because almost every episode, whether it is about pursuits or just conversation makes you think and come to your own conclusion. Peaceful scenes (if I may call them so because even they arouse the nervous tension) are changed into scenes of pursuits or Robert’s attempt to hide herself from the contracted killer. Especially the scene she meets with as she believes Verheek (with Khamel in fact).

Costume design: 

There is not anything unusual in it. The film is not historical one, so it is OK. However, some Robert’s clothing, especially after her lover’s killing reflect her emotions, anxiety and help to express all these in addition to her facial expression and gestures, I’d like to mention also about the fact that sometimes the clothing are so unremarkable and alike that it was problem to me to distinguish who was who.

Set design:

As I have already written, the film is mainly supported by the director’s skills and actor’s performance.  Many scenes disclose different problems through the place it happened and emotions of people this or that events involved. For example, the scene when Callahan is killed by a car bomb impressed me most though Robert’s emotions. The controversy between the seriousness of the issue and atmosphere surround is also the characteristic feature of the set design of “The Pelican Brief”. For example President playing with his dog and at the same time dialog about the danger on his reputation because of this scandal around killing of two judges, strained Robert’s meeting with Verheek (Khamel) in the crowd of the merry, light hearted people and others. Although Pakula tries to tell about the theme mainly through conversation or monologues, unmistakably, he uses set design thus attracting of viewer’s attention both visually and orally.

My impression

It's a nice movie in spite of the fact it was sometimes too difficult to understand for me. I explain it by the fact I have not attained its level yet. I consider this movie as well-made thrilling investigation politic law story. I believe it is also worth visiting because it raises all problems we usually discuss in out Speech practice lesson  - mass media, corruption in the highest levels of authority, assassination, and the environment. I expected to see film which would be more close to the theme of environment, but what I see has  lived up to my expectations by such high level performance and the wide range of problems raised in it. If you like tension and you are ready to spend 141 minutes more working mentally rather than relaxing, this film is really good choice.

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games

Individual Reading. The Patriot Games. 1 Part

Rendering № 9

The editorial published on August 10 is headlined "Global Warming Is Here to Stay”. The article carries a lot of comments on the today’s situation of environment in our world. The author, Eugene Robinson, tries to convince the readers in the importance of this problem through his writing. The article takes a critical view of the environmental changes and their possible consequences. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, July was indeed the hottest month in the contiguous United States since record-keeping began more than a century ago. That distinction was previously held by July 1936, which came at the height of the Dust Bowl calamity that devastated the American heartland. Analyzing the situation, it’s necessary to emphasize that the average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees -- a full 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20th-century norm for July. This follows the warmest 12-month period ever recorded in the United States, and it continues a long-term trend that is obvious to all except those who stubbornly close their eyes: Of the 10 hottest years on record, nine have occurred since 2000. Giving appraisal of the situation, the author of the article cites Harsen’s opinion, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summed it up in a piece he wrote for The Washington Post last week: "The future is now. And it is hot." Hansen wrote that when he testified before Congress in 1988 and painted a "grim picture" of the consequences of climate change, he was actually being too optimistic. His projections of how rapidly temperatures would rise were accurate, he wrote, but he "failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather." Summing Harsen’s statements up,  Eugene Robinson writes that scientists are finally asserting a direct connection between long-term climate trends and short-term weather events. This was always a convenient dodge for climate change deniers. There might be a warming trend over decades or centuries, they would say, but no specific heat wave, hurricane or hailstorm could definitively be attributed to climate change. The article consists of many other Harsen’s comment on this burning issue - "To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change," Hansen wrote. "The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change." It’s also every reason to believe that the odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills. There are indications that the other escape hatch for deniers is the question of why the Earth's atmosphere is warming. In this connection it’s worth while mentioning the fact that What we're witnessing is due to natural processes -- perhaps some long-term cycle we are too feeble to comprehend. You can't prove that human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, is to blame.  Giving more essential details for the better understanding of the issue, Eugene Robinson refers to the statistics - between 2007 and 2010, the percentage of U.S. adults who believed human activity contributed to warming declined from 60 percent to 48 percent. It’s very hard to predict the course of events in the future, but physicist Richard Muller, who heads the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, wrote that he and his team tried correlating the observed warming with phenomena such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions. "By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he wrote. The deduction of Muller’s observation is that the more we burn, the faster the atmosphere will warm. And the crazier the weather will get. The author concludes the article that we can't do anything about the greenhouse gases we've already spewed into the atmosphere, but we can minimize the damage we do in the future. We can decide what kind of environment we leave to our grandchildren.

As for me, I completely agree with Eugene Robinson’s conclusion. The future of our children is in our hands. We should realize what kind of environment will be  depends on us, on every person in the world. It’s better to think of about it nowadays and launch some initiatives to create the alternative sources of energy as well as the ways to protect our environment. Undoubtedly, the scientific and technological advance is good and very profitable, but it is not the reason to forget or even ignore about the flora and fauna and their condition. If you are not ready to help to take care of our planet, please, don’t prevent other people to do it.  Of course, it is easier to follow the expression “that has nothing to do with me, it is no business”, but we all are responsible for the future of our children.