× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
savvy1103 savvy1103
wrote...
Posts: 1
Rep: 0 0
8 years ago
I'm really new to AP Bio & it's already killing me. In Campbell's 9th Edition, the chapter 2 write about a theme asks While waiting at an airport, Neil Campbell once overheard this claim: "It's paranoid and ignorant to worry about industry or agriculture contaminating the environment with their chemical wastes. After all, this stuff is just made of the same atoms that were already present in our environment." Drawing on your knowledge of electron distribution, bonding, and the theme of emergent properties, write a short essay (100-150 words) countering this argument.

How do I answer this? I don't need an essay, I just need help understanding the answer. I'm aware that there's another post with a similar topic, but I have no means to subscribe and see the answer, which sucks. Thanks so much!
Read 6082 times
3 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
Valued Member
Educator
8 years ago
The fact that all substances in our environment are made up of a limited group of elements does not diminish the reality that the impact of these elements is dependent on three things: the properties of the substance (which changes as elements are combined); the location of the substance; and the concentration of the substance. A small quantity of HCI in our stomach is good; a large quantity of HCI on our skin is very bad.

Just as our bodies are sensitive to these variables, so is our environment. The complexity and relationship between the many parts of our environment are only beginning to be understood, but industrial agriculture has proceeded in the past several decades without regard for the long-term (and long-distance) effects of chemical waste. For example, synthetic fertilizers may appear to be beneficial in increasing crop production in the factory farms of the American mid-west. This fertilizer is composed of nitrogen and phosphorus, elements that are naturally occurring and are needed for healthy plant growth.

If the benefits are measured only locally, synthetic fertilizer may appear harmless. However, the run-off from these chemicals enters the Mississippi River and over the years has concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico in such quantities that there is a "dead zone" that is the size of New Jersey. The same chemicals that promote growth of our food crops also allow algae to flourish. The decomposition of the excess algae results in water that is toxic to other aquatic life forms. No fish or shellfish can survive in the Gulf dead zone, which is currently over 800 square miles and growing every year. This is just one example of the impact of agricultural chemicals that may be beneficial in one part of the enviroment, but deadly in another.
wrote...
8 years ago
It isn't the elements but how they are connected that often determine their effects. Methanol for instance is toxic while ethanol is not.

Na is violently reactive but when bound to Cl we consume it as salt . . . Reactions may not alter the proportion of elements but it changes their bonds.

For instance combustion (in cars).

Carbon and oxygen form carbon monoxide which is not good. Same molecules . . . but big change.
wrote...
8 years ago
To say something like that means that this person doesn't understand chemistry.
Some elements like carbon , hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen form many useful things as carbohydrates and fertilizers
They also can form harmful things according to the reaction and the quantities like DDT
Tell him to read introduction to organic chemistry
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  887 People Browsing
 107 Signed Up Today
Related Images
  
 207
  
 43
  
 880
Your Opinion
What's your favorite funny biology word?
Votes: 156