English has always been my weakness. This may be due to the fact that I am born in a Chinese-speaking environment and thus I spend very little effort and time on improving it. For this post, I will be writing about the foundation of English, the grammar.
Incorrect: The biggest advantage of nuclear power plant is that……of time without the production of pollution such as carbon dioxide.
Correct: pollutions such as carbon dioxide
The above mistake was a common grammar problem which is the singular and plural form. In this case the plural form should be used since the pollution is not only referring to a singular subject.
Incorrect: Nuclear power plant is one of such example.
Correct: one such example.
In this case, the word “of” is reluctant since the correct statement will fully expressed the same meaning as the incorrect one.
Incorrect: throughout the day and it’s more..
Correct: its more
This is a common mistake make by many. “Its” is the short form of it is but it’s is normally referring to something that belongs to the subject. One such example is “it’s fur”.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
eportfolio 5
The group I have chosen to summarize for this e-portfolio post is Alvin’s group and the question they have chosen is whether their home country support Kirchhoff’s claim that collaborative effort by industry, academia, and government will promote the use of green chemistry technologies that are necessary to achieve a sustainable society and why.
I think the way they use to approach the problem was very unique. Instead of assigning different roles of perspective and look at the issues from different point of view, they split up the question into little parts and have each speaker talk about the definition and their perspective. I find it to be extremely interesting and useful as it tends to explain very clearly to the audience the questions and their point of view.
First up, we have Alvin as the moderator, introducing the questions, members and their way of approach. Soon after, we have Shao Yi explaining to us about the term green chemistry. He gave the definition of green chemistry as a sustainable chemistry in which the design and production reduces the use of dangerous material or chemical. He soon gave some examples of the hazardous chemical such as CFCs and fossil fuel. Also, difference between green chemistry and green technology was pointed out by him. Thereafter, he went on introducing biocatalyst, an example of green chemistry, and he explain how it help the environment, for example, replacing organic solvent, lowering temperature needed for certain processes.
Up next, we have EE Ming to explain to us what a sustainable society is. A sustainable society in his term is to maintain the state of high quality of life while working within the limits of Mother Nature, a society of just and equality and where everyone gets opportunity to reach to their potential. He went on to talk about Singapore and compare and contrast with his ideal sustainable society. Some of the similarities are that Singapore has a high quality of living, multi-racial, just and equal and plenty of chances for people to strive for the best. However, in his view, Singapore has not reach the standard of a sustainable society due to its lack of natural resources, lack of usage of green chemistry and there is more work to be done for Singapore.
Lastly, we have Sean to talk about how the three different parties (the government, industry and the academia) can work together in achieving a sustainable society. In his view, the government should act like a middle man, they should send talents and scouts to learn more knowledge and technology and transfer the knowledge to the academia to let them research and develop on it. Once research is done, the academia will feedback to the government and the government will pass down the policy to the industry, lastly the industry should feedback to the government and in a way, this act like a cycle until sustainable society is achieved. However, this method has a few disadvantages as there are too much government control, the industry will not be able to carry out their own research and development which will slow the progress towards sustainable society. Also, the government will tend to focus on immediate issues such as financial crisis and in turn will again slow the whole progress.
Alvin went ahead to conclude their group discussion and agree that collaborative effort by industry, academia, and government will promote the use of green chemistry and go towards a sustainable society. However, the process would be slow and enduring ones. One day, I would hope to see that my country reach the stage of sustainable society through the use of green chemistry. Till then, we should do our part in achieving this.
I think the way they use to approach the problem was very unique. Instead of assigning different roles of perspective and look at the issues from different point of view, they split up the question into little parts and have each speaker talk about the definition and their perspective. I find it to be extremely interesting and useful as it tends to explain very clearly to the audience the questions and their point of view.
First up, we have Alvin as the moderator, introducing the questions, members and their way of approach. Soon after, we have Shao Yi explaining to us about the term green chemistry. He gave the definition of green chemistry as a sustainable chemistry in which the design and production reduces the use of dangerous material or chemical. He soon gave some examples of the hazardous chemical such as CFCs and fossil fuel. Also, difference between green chemistry and green technology was pointed out by him. Thereafter, he went on introducing biocatalyst, an example of green chemistry, and he explain how it help the environment, for example, replacing organic solvent, lowering temperature needed for certain processes.
Up next, we have EE Ming to explain to us what a sustainable society is. A sustainable society in his term is to maintain the state of high quality of life while working within the limits of Mother Nature, a society of just and equality and where everyone gets opportunity to reach to their potential. He went on to talk about Singapore and compare and contrast with his ideal sustainable society. Some of the similarities are that Singapore has a high quality of living, multi-racial, just and equal and plenty of chances for people to strive for the best. However, in his view, Singapore has not reach the standard of a sustainable society due to its lack of natural resources, lack of usage of green chemistry and there is more work to be done for Singapore.
Lastly, we have Sean to talk about how the three different parties (the government, industry and the academia) can work together in achieving a sustainable society. In his view, the government should act like a middle man, they should send talents and scouts to learn more knowledge and technology and transfer the knowledge to the academia to let them research and develop on it. Once research is done, the academia will feedback to the government and the government will pass down the policy to the industry, lastly the industry should feedback to the government and in a way, this act like a cycle until sustainable society is achieved. However, this method has a few disadvantages as there are too much government control, the industry will not be able to carry out their own research and development which will slow the progress towards sustainable society. Also, the government will tend to focus on immediate issues such as financial crisis and in turn will again slow the whole progress.
Alvin went ahead to conclude their group discussion and agree that collaborative effort by industry, academia, and government will promote the use of green chemistry and go towards a sustainable society. However, the process would be slow and enduring ones. One day, I would hope to see that my country reach the stage of sustainable society through the use of green chemistry. Till then, we should do our part in achieving this.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
e portfollio 4 (rush work)..
Thanks to Qi wen for reminding me to do this blog entry. I have completely forgotten about this due to preparation for mid-term. I apologies for doing this entry too late and too rush.
Our group have chosen genetic engineering as our round-table discussion and I would be in charge of handling the public or government point of view as to why they would reject or only apply it to a certain extend.
The first article I have chosen is from The Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, titled genetic engineering: A caution approach (http://istpp.org/genetic_engineering.html). In this article, the author is telling us that little is known about genetic engineering such as genetic surgery. The danger post by these surgeries and how our genes in the body might react of foreign genes is too profound and unknown to us. It went on to urge us to be wary against the dangers of irreversible gene pollution and we should be monitoring such development closely. Some problems and scientists views were written and the author wrote about what the government has failed to do and proceed on with a case study. Some environment concerns caused by the usage of genetic engineering such as the imbalances in our environment and ecosystem caused by herbicides are also discussed. He ended off by encouraging us to put our safety first and to build a society that upholds the integrity and dignity of life for us all. I feel that the article is useful in spreading the message of safety to us, we should be wary of what we do with our body, food and the environment.
1)mandatory-required, necessary
2)radical-fundamental, basic
3)frailties-weakness, flaw
4)Touted-generally agreed upon
5)assert-insist, declare, maintain
The second article I have chosen is an article about The New Zealand government stand towards genetic modified (GM) food. Title of the article is GM debate will continue (http://www.terranature.org/gm.htm) and the article mainly speak about the government and the world public reaction towards GM. New Zealand went ahead with GM believing that going towards GM could help them stay competitive in the world markets although a large percentage of New Zealander’s want the ban on GMOs to continue. The public feel that the government is going against the well-known “clean and green” New Zealand brand; some statistics is shown by the author to show how the world will react to New Zealand’s decision. The article went on to talk about the reason for opposition to GM and talk about how severely the ecosystems will be affected and ended off accusing that the government went on blindly ahead with GM. I feel that the article is much related to the topic we are discussing, it shows how at times government went on with certain decision to maintain competitive and ignored the public feelings and views.
1)moratorium-suspension
2)sterile-unproductive, clean
3)acutely-sharply
4)pollination-the enrichment of land
In conclusion, after reading these two articles, I feel that different groups of people might take a different stand towards GM and this is very much dependant on their area of focus at the certain point.
Our group have chosen genetic engineering as our round-table discussion and I would be in charge of handling the public or government point of view as to why they would reject or only apply it to a certain extend.
The first article I have chosen is from The Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, titled genetic engineering: A caution approach (http://istpp.org/genetic_engineering.html). In this article, the author is telling us that little is known about genetic engineering such as genetic surgery. The danger post by these surgeries and how our genes in the body might react of foreign genes is too profound and unknown to us. It went on to urge us to be wary against the dangers of irreversible gene pollution and we should be monitoring such development closely. Some problems and scientists views were written and the author wrote about what the government has failed to do and proceed on with a case study. Some environment concerns caused by the usage of genetic engineering such as the imbalances in our environment and ecosystem caused by herbicides are also discussed. He ended off by encouraging us to put our safety first and to build a society that upholds the integrity and dignity of life for us all. I feel that the article is useful in spreading the message of safety to us, we should be wary of what we do with our body, food and the environment.
1)mandatory-required, necessary
2)radical-fundamental, basic
3)frailties-weakness, flaw
4)Touted-generally agreed upon
5)assert-insist, declare, maintain
The second article I have chosen is an article about The New Zealand government stand towards genetic modified (GM) food. Title of the article is GM debate will continue (http://www.terranature.org/gm.htm) and the article mainly speak about the government and the world public reaction towards GM. New Zealand went ahead with GM believing that going towards GM could help them stay competitive in the world markets although a large percentage of New Zealander’s want the ban on GMOs to continue. The public feel that the government is going against the well-known “clean and green” New Zealand brand; some statistics is shown by the author to show how the world will react to New Zealand’s decision. The article went on to talk about the reason for opposition to GM and talk about how severely the ecosystems will be affected and ended off accusing that the government went on blindly ahead with GM. I feel that the article is much related to the topic we are discussing, it shows how at times government went on with certain decision to maintain competitive and ignored the public feelings and views.
1)moratorium-suspension
2)sterile-unproductive, clean
3)acutely-sharply
4)pollination-the enrichment of land
In conclusion, after reading these two articles, I feel that different groups of people might take a different stand towards GM and this is very much dependant on their area of focus at the certain point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)