Energy and Place Project
Essential Questions:
1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Project Reflection:
I was assigned as a Moderator for this debate. I moderated for the motion of whether or not Natural Gas was a clean, reliable, economically friendly energy resource. I was very happy when I was assigned this position, specifically because I had always wanted to try out a leadership position within a project. Also because this is a very relevant and heated topic, so I wanted to get both sides of the story while not delving too deep into the bias and propaganda surrounding it. In general I'm a very opinionated person, specifically when it comes to energy and environmental resources. Taking a step back from all of that, and having to listen to both sides argue for or against the motion really widened my appreciation for both the pros and cons of Natural Gas.
Originally I was against fracking. I still think that there are so many reasons why fracking shouldn't be considered a reliable resource for America's energy. In the end though, I think it's inevitable that America as a nation will find a spot in the economy for Natural Gas. Although I think the the environmental impacts and effects that it has on the earth are an injustice, and that the risk of leaking methane is severe, I find that we will have no choice with the matter. It's already on the market, and it will most likely not be taken off unless some huge disaster occurs and a large amount of fear is placed in the public. I believe that there are regulations that can be created and upheld on a federal and state level. These regulations could help lessen the local environmental and community health impacts. It's really up to us though to make those regulations come into place, through community organizations and local media. Organized and peaceful protest. There are also materials and technology that can help prevent environmental impacts, as well as methane leaks.
What ultimately changed my mind on the matter though, was actually based on a personal feeling of futility. I personally think that Nuclear Energy is a resource that we don't quite have the technological capability to use yet. It's a brilliant long-term solution, and the science behind it is inspiring, but it also has very very very long term impacts on our earth. Natural Gas is indeed a short-term solution, but the environmental issues it creates can be solved with ideas that are already concrete and present within the dialogue of the present day society: such as regulations and better materials, more responsibility coming from the companies. There are small and direct changes we can make to the Natural Gas industry that can in turn create direct, large, and positive impacts. Natural Gas has been said to have the ability to sustain our energy needs for 20-150 years. Yes, we're still emitting carbon into the air, but it gives us a lot of time to refine our process of transportation, and it also gives us more time to develop the appropriate technology to use in concern to Nuclear energy. Who knows, maybe we won't have an Earth by then, but I'm coming to the realization that you can only make the best of present and near-future moments. Look to far forward and you may not get enough done in the present. Really, what I personally think needs to change are our consumption habits, not the industry. That's a whole different realm of discussion though...
While looking at the Group Compiled Research, the most convincing argument for Natural Gas is found on the first page of the document actually.
It states the following: "Fracturing allows for extended use in older oil and natural gas fields. It also allows for the production of oil and natural gas from formations that were once believed to be impossible to produce, such as common occurring tight shale structures. The fracking process overall provides better results when it comes to extracting the gas. This innovative tactic can be used on one location for a long period of time." I find this to be the strongest main argument for Fracking, as it mainly revolves around the "economic possibility" and reliability of the resource itself.
Whenever you get into the possible threats and dangers of extracting any sort of natural resource, the argument for it is immediately weakened by fear for possibility itself. So, the strongest argument against fracking lays in where the evidence can create validity out of the fear itself. There are multiple segments within the Group Compiled Research that can do this, but the strongest is the following: "One other major environmental concern is the production of green house gasses and increased temperature of the atmosphere. The natural gas produced from shale contains (methane, CH4) which creates greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere. Emissions from other on site producers such as truck traffic add to the overall emission. Also, when natural gas is produced on fracking sites or in power plants, it is converted into CO2 which also acts as a greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere." This passage displays doubt that fracking is the safest and most reliable way to create energy. The grandiosity of what's at stake, (that being our atmosphere), adds to the argument against it.
The following questions are ones I would be interested in researching further: How much energy does it take to drill down to the depth needed to recover the shale? Are there any ways to insure that the shale can produce quality and long-producing gas? How much natural gas is used in the production of natural gas compared to the consumption from the public and other industries? How are containment wells linked to small seismic activity? These are just a few questions that I asked while annotating the Group Compiled Research.
I did not intellectually engage through agreeing or disagreeing with various sides, but I was able to sit back and really observe their interactions. It's interesting because I found myself also wanting to engage in the debate in that way, as I had read through the whole entire packet and was well acquainted with both sides arguments.
Oh the humanities side of things has totally affected my position and my opinion on fracking. But in subtle ways. This whole subject is so touchy, and it's difficult to approach. Which is where the importance of doing it as a project lays. See there are two conflicting sides to me, and with each Humanities and Science interplay. One side of me says that fracking should not be continued with for the following reasons: 1) The impact on the environment is one that's too severe to repair or justify 2) We cannot depend on the future development of technology for present issues, we need to find solutions that work in the now 3) We also cannot depend on the development of future regulations, whether they're made by the government or someone else 4) How on earth are we supposed to trust that those regulations are being set in place if the companies aren't in public light? It's a general assumption that these companies have sway in media and government, so how can we trust them?
So that's one side, the other side is comprised of this: 1) We don't really have a choice, Natural Gas has already been introduced into the market. It can't be taken off 2) There's too much prospective money for the government or gas companies to ignore 3) Renewable energy is not dependable or reliable, so that leaves nuclear energy or natural gas, and out of the two natural gas is much preferred 4) This is because there are regulations that can be set in stone that would help lesson environmental and community health impacts. In conclusion, fracking should be allowed to continue on, yet regulations should be put in place and close observation should be kept on the companies doing the fracking.
A couple aspects that well, I thought, was that I didn't stammer and the transitions were relatively smooth. I was able to come up with questions for each side when the debate wasn't going anywhere, and I was also able to engage the audience within the debate by opening it up for questions. I would have liked to make a more impactful introduction, and I wish I hadn't gotten everyone's names mixed up. I don't know how that happened, but I attempted at correcting myself multiple times with as much grace as possible. The debate wasn't super passionate and the rebuttals that they had for each other weren't as convincing as I'd expect, but that was out of the realm of my control. I totally forgot to get a timer, and so I had to base time strictly on intuition. Lastly, I wish I hadn't given as much time to the parents for questions as well. I think that took quite a bit of time out of possible back-and-forth debating.
Originally I was against fracking. I still think that there are so many reasons why fracking shouldn't be considered a reliable resource for America's energy. In the end though, I think it's inevitable that America as a nation will find a spot in the economy for Natural Gas. Although I think the the environmental impacts and effects that it has on the earth are an injustice, and that the risk of leaking methane is severe, I find that we will have no choice with the matter. It's already on the market, and it will most likely not be taken off unless some huge disaster occurs and a large amount of fear is placed in the public. I believe that there are regulations that can be created and upheld on a federal and state level. These regulations could help lessen the local environmental and community health impacts. It's really up to us though to make those regulations come into place, through community organizations and local media. Organized and peaceful protest. There are also materials and technology that can help prevent environmental impacts, as well as methane leaks.
What ultimately changed my mind on the matter though, was actually based on a personal feeling of futility. I personally think that Nuclear Energy is a resource that we don't quite have the technological capability to use yet. It's a brilliant long-term solution, and the science behind it is inspiring, but it also has very very very long term impacts on our earth. Natural Gas is indeed a short-term solution, but the environmental issues it creates can be solved with ideas that are already concrete and present within the dialogue of the present day society: such as regulations and better materials, more responsibility coming from the companies. There are small and direct changes we can make to the Natural Gas industry that can in turn create direct, large, and positive impacts. Natural Gas has been said to have the ability to sustain our energy needs for 20-150 years. Yes, we're still emitting carbon into the air, but it gives us a lot of time to refine our process of transportation, and it also gives us more time to develop the appropriate technology to use in concern to Nuclear energy. Who knows, maybe we won't have an Earth by then, but I'm coming to the realization that you can only make the best of present and near-future moments. Look to far forward and you may not get enough done in the present. Really, what I personally think needs to change are our consumption habits, not the industry. That's a whole different realm of discussion though...
While looking at the Group Compiled Research, the most convincing argument for Natural Gas is found on the first page of the document actually.
It states the following: "Fracturing allows for extended use in older oil and natural gas fields. It also allows for the production of oil and natural gas from formations that were once believed to be impossible to produce, such as common occurring tight shale structures. The fracking process overall provides better results when it comes to extracting the gas. This innovative tactic can be used on one location for a long period of time." I find this to be the strongest main argument for Fracking, as it mainly revolves around the "economic possibility" and reliability of the resource itself.
Whenever you get into the possible threats and dangers of extracting any sort of natural resource, the argument for it is immediately weakened by fear for possibility itself. So, the strongest argument against fracking lays in where the evidence can create validity out of the fear itself. There are multiple segments within the Group Compiled Research that can do this, but the strongest is the following: "One other major environmental concern is the production of green house gasses and increased temperature of the atmosphere. The natural gas produced from shale contains (methane, CH4) which creates greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere. Emissions from other on site producers such as truck traffic add to the overall emission. Also, when natural gas is produced on fracking sites or in power plants, it is converted into CO2 which also acts as a greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere." This passage displays doubt that fracking is the safest and most reliable way to create energy. The grandiosity of what's at stake, (that being our atmosphere), adds to the argument against it.
The following questions are ones I would be interested in researching further: How much energy does it take to drill down to the depth needed to recover the shale? Are there any ways to insure that the shale can produce quality and long-producing gas? How much natural gas is used in the production of natural gas compared to the consumption from the public and other industries? How are containment wells linked to small seismic activity? These are just a few questions that I asked while annotating the Group Compiled Research.
I did not intellectually engage through agreeing or disagreeing with various sides, but I was able to sit back and really observe their interactions. It's interesting because I found myself also wanting to engage in the debate in that way, as I had read through the whole entire packet and was well acquainted with both sides arguments.
Oh the humanities side of things has totally affected my position and my opinion on fracking. But in subtle ways. This whole subject is so touchy, and it's difficult to approach. Which is where the importance of doing it as a project lays. See there are two conflicting sides to me, and with each Humanities and Science interplay. One side of me says that fracking should not be continued with for the following reasons: 1) The impact on the environment is one that's too severe to repair or justify 2) We cannot depend on the future development of technology for present issues, we need to find solutions that work in the now 3) We also cannot depend on the development of future regulations, whether they're made by the government or someone else 4) How on earth are we supposed to trust that those regulations are being set in place if the companies aren't in public light? It's a general assumption that these companies have sway in media and government, so how can we trust them?
So that's one side, the other side is comprised of this: 1) We don't really have a choice, Natural Gas has already been introduced into the market. It can't be taken off 2) There's too much prospective money for the government or gas companies to ignore 3) Renewable energy is not dependable or reliable, so that leaves nuclear energy or natural gas, and out of the two natural gas is much preferred 4) This is because there are regulations that can be set in stone that would help lesson environmental and community health impacts. In conclusion, fracking should be allowed to continue on, yet regulations should be put in place and close observation should be kept on the companies doing the fracking.
A couple aspects that well, I thought, was that I didn't stammer and the transitions were relatively smooth. I was able to come up with questions for each side when the debate wasn't going anywhere, and I was also able to engage the audience within the debate by opening it up for questions. I would have liked to make a more impactful introduction, and I wish I hadn't gotten everyone's names mixed up. I don't know how that happened, but I attempted at correcting myself multiple times with as much grace as possible. The debate wasn't super passionate and the rebuttals that they had for each other weren't as convincing as I'd expect, but that was out of the realm of my control. I totally forgot to get a timer, and so I had to base time strictly on intuition. Lastly, I wish I hadn't given as much time to the parents for questions as well. I think that took quite a bit of time out of possible back-and-forth debating.
Moderator Introduction and Transitions: |
Debate Videos Part 1 and Part 2 |
Science of Materials Project
A Fateful History: How the Invention of Vulcanized Rubber Led to Vietnam’s Independence
-Emily Wieser
In the long history of how evolving materials affect the world, the invention of vulcanization prominently stands out. The worldwide development of vulcanized rubber in the industrial revolution led to a chain of events that ended in the Vietnamese Revolution against the oppressive power of Colonial France.
Rubber or Polyisoprene was first recognized as a material by Mesoamerican tribes, who used it as a basic commodity for things such as rubber balls for pastime games. These balls have dated back between 1600 and 1200 B.C, indicating the ancient use of rubber. As European explorers ventured into these regions of the world and became curious as to its daily use in the lives of the natives and it’s materialistic potential, they brought it back to the Western world. Yet rubber, in its latex form, has properties such as limited thermal resistance that made it sticky during hot European summers or hard and brittle during the winter. This made it impractical to scientists and inventors at the time.
To solve this problem, the chemical composition of the polyisoprene is altered in an application process called vulcanization. Charles Goodyear, (1800-1860) is generally credited as the first man to come up with the basic concept of vulcanization, and was recognized in being successful at concluding the process in 1841. It’s debated whether he or Thomas Hancock, an engineer and scientist of the same period, was the first to patent the invention. In Goodyear’s autobiography, Gum-Elastica, he describes his discovery in third-person: “He was surprised to find that the specimen [rubber], being carelessly brought into contact with a hot stove, charred like leather...He directly inferred that if the process of charring could be stopped at the right point, it might divest the gum of it’s native adhesiveness throughout, which would make it better than the native gum...” (Goodyear)
Vulcanization, named after the Roman god of fire Vulcan, is an irreversible chemical process that involves using heat and additives such as sulfur to produce more durable materials out of rubber. The sulfur is used as a reactant to form cross-links between individual polymer chains in the rubber. Rubber, as a polymer, has a microstructure that’s composed of long, individual, and free moving macromolecules. By adding sulfur, chains begin to cross-link in the process of polymerization and prevents the molecules from moving independently. This results in elastic deformation: a material that has the ability to be stretched and deformed under stress yet return back to it’s original shape afterwards. The cross-linking in the microstructure insures this.
The discovery of vulcanized rubber revolutionized the industrial world and affected its development in tremendous ways. Previously, leather soaked in oil was used as a common way to seal small gaps between moving parts of machines. Yet it only worked at a level of moderate pressure and generated extra friction when packed tightly between spaces. Substituting leather with the vulcanized rubber increased production monumentally. It also contributed to material improvements in conveyer belts, shoe soles, and car tires.
With the industrial boom that was created from the discovery, many countries’ economies strengthened and the demand for rubber increased dramatically. During this time, Colonialism was at a popular height among the governing industrial powers of the world, (Europe and America.) Rubber was a vital part of their success and, as described by author Dan McNichol, “became an issue of national security for some countries...[a] highly critical component from an industrial standpoint...” (Vulcanized) Just as how the U.S is presently dependent on oil from other countries, rubber became so necessary in sustaining economic fortune that it’s supply became strategically vital.
All things related to the vulcanization of rubber increased in value as a new commerce was born. This means that the establishment of rubber plantations, rubber trees, and the need for maximized labor. The process it took to extract rubber was highly intensive as well. The implications are described by James Meigs, the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, perfectly: “The craze for rubber led to a great deal of environmental damage and human oppression. As some of these colonies were organized around rubber extraction, and were run in the most brutal fashion possible, and it lead to some of the worst excesses of the Colonial Period.” (Vulcanized)
Rubber trees and plants can grow in almost any tropical climate and can widely adapt to the various environments. South America, Africa, and Asia were the main harbors of rubber plantations whereas the dry and cold climates of America and Europe proved to be unsustainable.
After World War I, the French Colonial Government (FCG) took control over Vietnam. Starting in the 1920’s, the FCG procured extensive areas of natural forestland and sold it to corporations. Capital became available to create roads and deforest land for the cultivation of rubber seedlings and saplings. In the southern part of Vietnam called Cochinchina, it is estimated more than 30,000 laborers from Tonkin were recruited to work in one of the twenty-five French colonial rubber plantations. This one specific plantation, named Phu Rieng, was owned by the Michelin Company and was the largest producing.
One of Phu Riengs’ laborers was Tran Tu Bihn, born in a village named Tieu Dong. He was known as a brilliant student but was expelled from seminary school for instigating a protest against French colonialism at an esteemed professors funeral. With his family using up all of their money for his education, Tu Bihn had to turn to labor for a livelihood.
In his autobiography, The Red Earth: A Vietnamese Memoir of Life on a Colonial Rubber Plantation, he describes Phu Rieng as, “hell on earth.” (Tran 2) In 1927, the supervisory staff of the plantation recorded the death rate to be 17 percent, but cannot be accurately accounted for because of various corruptions within the economic colonial system. On February 3rd, 1930, Tu Bihn led 13,000 laborers into rebellion to protest the slave-like conditions. They were able to occupy the local administration and had control for four days, in which they arrested the French plantation supervisor and forced him to consent to improve working conditions.
The revolt was quickly repressed, as the French Colonial Government worried that the movement would spread, and sent local soldiers to neutralize the area. Tu Bihn was sent to prison on the notorious island of Con Dao for five years, where he met communist revolutionary leaders of Vietnam including Ton Duc Thang and Pham Van Dong. During his time spent there he familiarized himself with the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the surrounding ideologies of communism, and nationalism. Eventually, in 1945, Vietnam became an independent nation via the August Revolution with Tu Bihn contributing as one of the military main leaders, and successfully maintained independence till the Vietnam War in 1956.
In the history of the world, it can be recognized that the developments of materials, such as the vulcanization of rubber, can trigger not just a technological, industrial, and economic boom, but also impact life in a way that can either lead to the demise, or uprise of a society, such as the August Revolution. In this age of ever advancing material technology, the exploitation of humans and its consequences must always be a pressing matter in the minds of the creators and consumers.
*To see my sources and credit for photos, click the link below...
Visual Credit and Bibliography...
-Emily Wieser
In the long history of how evolving materials affect the world, the invention of vulcanization prominently stands out. The worldwide development of vulcanized rubber in the industrial revolution led to a chain of events that ended in the Vietnamese Revolution against the oppressive power of Colonial France.
Rubber or Polyisoprene was first recognized as a material by Mesoamerican tribes, who used it as a basic commodity for things such as rubber balls for pastime games. These balls have dated back between 1600 and 1200 B.C, indicating the ancient use of rubber. As European explorers ventured into these regions of the world and became curious as to its daily use in the lives of the natives and it’s materialistic potential, they brought it back to the Western world. Yet rubber, in its latex form, has properties such as limited thermal resistance that made it sticky during hot European summers or hard and brittle during the winter. This made it impractical to scientists and inventors at the time.
To solve this problem, the chemical composition of the polyisoprene is altered in an application process called vulcanization. Charles Goodyear, (1800-1860) is generally credited as the first man to come up with the basic concept of vulcanization, and was recognized in being successful at concluding the process in 1841. It’s debated whether he or Thomas Hancock, an engineer and scientist of the same period, was the first to patent the invention. In Goodyear’s autobiography, Gum-Elastica, he describes his discovery in third-person: “He was surprised to find that the specimen [rubber], being carelessly brought into contact with a hot stove, charred like leather...He directly inferred that if the process of charring could be stopped at the right point, it might divest the gum of it’s native adhesiveness throughout, which would make it better than the native gum...” (Goodyear)
Vulcanization, named after the Roman god of fire Vulcan, is an irreversible chemical process that involves using heat and additives such as sulfur to produce more durable materials out of rubber. The sulfur is used as a reactant to form cross-links between individual polymer chains in the rubber. Rubber, as a polymer, has a microstructure that’s composed of long, individual, and free moving macromolecules. By adding sulfur, chains begin to cross-link in the process of polymerization and prevents the molecules from moving independently. This results in elastic deformation: a material that has the ability to be stretched and deformed under stress yet return back to it’s original shape afterwards. The cross-linking in the microstructure insures this.
The discovery of vulcanized rubber revolutionized the industrial world and affected its development in tremendous ways. Previously, leather soaked in oil was used as a common way to seal small gaps between moving parts of machines. Yet it only worked at a level of moderate pressure and generated extra friction when packed tightly between spaces. Substituting leather with the vulcanized rubber increased production monumentally. It also contributed to material improvements in conveyer belts, shoe soles, and car tires.
With the industrial boom that was created from the discovery, many countries’ economies strengthened and the demand for rubber increased dramatically. During this time, Colonialism was at a popular height among the governing industrial powers of the world, (Europe and America.) Rubber was a vital part of their success and, as described by author Dan McNichol, “became an issue of national security for some countries...[a] highly critical component from an industrial standpoint...” (Vulcanized) Just as how the U.S is presently dependent on oil from other countries, rubber became so necessary in sustaining economic fortune that it’s supply became strategically vital.
All things related to the vulcanization of rubber increased in value as a new commerce was born. This means that the establishment of rubber plantations, rubber trees, and the need for maximized labor. The process it took to extract rubber was highly intensive as well. The implications are described by James Meigs, the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, perfectly: “The craze for rubber led to a great deal of environmental damage and human oppression. As some of these colonies were organized around rubber extraction, and were run in the most brutal fashion possible, and it lead to some of the worst excesses of the Colonial Period.” (Vulcanized)
Rubber trees and plants can grow in almost any tropical climate and can widely adapt to the various environments. South America, Africa, and Asia were the main harbors of rubber plantations whereas the dry and cold climates of America and Europe proved to be unsustainable.
After World War I, the French Colonial Government (FCG) took control over Vietnam. Starting in the 1920’s, the FCG procured extensive areas of natural forestland and sold it to corporations. Capital became available to create roads and deforest land for the cultivation of rubber seedlings and saplings. In the southern part of Vietnam called Cochinchina, it is estimated more than 30,000 laborers from Tonkin were recruited to work in one of the twenty-five French colonial rubber plantations. This one specific plantation, named Phu Rieng, was owned by the Michelin Company and was the largest producing.
One of Phu Riengs’ laborers was Tran Tu Bihn, born in a village named Tieu Dong. He was known as a brilliant student but was expelled from seminary school for instigating a protest against French colonialism at an esteemed professors funeral. With his family using up all of their money for his education, Tu Bihn had to turn to labor for a livelihood.
In his autobiography, The Red Earth: A Vietnamese Memoir of Life on a Colonial Rubber Plantation, he describes Phu Rieng as, “hell on earth.” (Tran 2) In 1927, the supervisory staff of the plantation recorded the death rate to be 17 percent, but cannot be accurately accounted for because of various corruptions within the economic colonial system. On February 3rd, 1930, Tu Bihn led 13,000 laborers into rebellion to protest the slave-like conditions. They were able to occupy the local administration and had control for four days, in which they arrested the French plantation supervisor and forced him to consent to improve working conditions.
The revolt was quickly repressed, as the French Colonial Government worried that the movement would spread, and sent local soldiers to neutralize the area. Tu Bihn was sent to prison on the notorious island of Con Dao for five years, where he met communist revolutionary leaders of Vietnam including Ton Duc Thang and Pham Van Dong. During his time spent there he familiarized himself with the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the surrounding ideologies of communism, and nationalism. Eventually, in 1945, Vietnam became an independent nation via the August Revolution with Tu Bihn contributing as one of the military main leaders, and successfully maintained independence till the Vietnam War in 1956.
In the history of the world, it can be recognized that the developments of materials, such as the vulcanization of rubber, can trigger not just a technological, industrial, and economic boom, but also impact life in a way that can either lead to the demise, or uprise of a society, such as the August Revolution. In this age of ever advancing material technology, the exploitation of humans and its consequences must always be a pressing matter in the minds of the creators and consumers.
*To see my sources and credit for photos, click the link below...
Visual Credit and Bibliography...
The chemistry of materials shape our past, present, and future in many ways. There are extraordinary advancements within technology based on discoveries we’ve made within materials science, but there’s definitely a dark side to compare to the light of invention and discovery. I recently came across an article in National Geographic about the silicon mines in Congo. Silicon is an element we use in creating chips for our computers, phones, ipads, etc. Congo specifically is very rich in silicon but there is such extreme poverty and corruption it’s turned into a really horrific situation. Warlords own many of the mines; there are child soldiers and violent activity such as rape and murder throughout the villages surrounding the mines. So it made me think, where are all of these materials coming from? Materials that we use every single day, things that are perceived as a commodity in the more wealthy countries...
So not only should we consider how technology changes our lives on the level of success, invention, and efficiency but also consider its effects on humanity and the environment. Having the awareness of what has occurred in the past, what it’s doing now, and possible consequences in the future can help prevent injustices like the one occurring in Congo.
The structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic levels determine a material’s properties through it’s specific chemical composition. Things such as chain-length on the macromolecule level can determine element or materials strength in things such as strength, flexibility, and brittleness. You can determine a molecules level of reactivity based on the amount of electrons and nuclear radius that’s dependent on the atomic level. These are a few examples of how the composition of a material can really affects its purpose and use in the human world. Based on reason of deduction, inference, and what you can learn on these material levels, there are incredible things that you can find within our everyday lives that have significant and understated qualities to them.
So not only should we consider how technology changes our lives on the level of success, invention, and efficiency but also consider its effects on humanity and the environment. Having the awareness of what has occurred in the past, what it’s doing now, and possible consequences in the future can help prevent injustices like the one occurring in Congo.
The structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic levels determine a material’s properties through it’s specific chemical composition. Things such as chain-length on the macromolecule level can determine element or materials strength in things such as strength, flexibility, and brittleness. You can determine a molecules level of reactivity based on the amount of electrons and nuclear radius that’s dependent on the atomic level. These are a few examples of how the composition of a material can really affects its purpose and use in the human world. Based on reason of deduction, inference, and what you can learn on these material levels, there are incredible things that you can find within our everyday lives that have significant and understated qualities to them.