Tuesday, May 6, 2008
In “ The Basics of Digital Television- AVS Forum”, the author states that, “DTV is a new all-digital system for transmitting, receiving, and viewing higher- quality television image and stereo (surround)) audio” (2004, para.1). The first television was made by Campbell-Swinton and Boris Rosing in 1907. Discoveries that still are in use today and is about to switch to digital sooner. Digital television means “television signals can be transmitted more efficiently, freeing up space for extra channels and services “ Let's Get Digital!” (2007, para.6). The conversion from analog to digital is a big issue even though people don't really know what it is about. It is going to take while before people really understand that and accept the conversion. According to C.P.Scott, “Well, it all goes back to a little invention by Paul Nipkow in 1984 consisting of a disk with holes spiraling into its center. I know it's hard to believe, but this little disk shaped the development of television. Engineers like Lohn Logie Baird and Charles Francis Jenkins,among others, used Nikpow's disk to create the first systems for scanning, transmitting, and receiving images in the 1920's. These guys created entire television systems based on mechanical image scanning and receiving. No cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) here.” After that, Electronic Television followed up and was broadcast in 1935. in 1953, the first color television was broadcast also and started to conquer the market. Today, people watch television worldwide and the developmentof televsion is still progressing. Digital television can be a bad solution for man because of the transition, the reception and the installation of the materials.
First, digital television can negatively affect poor people because of the transition. The transition from analog to digital is surely a good thing. However, how does this transition affect people's lives? We heard on television the commercial about the transition and the way it will affect poor people and how they are going to manage it. According to a survey by J.Fuson (2008, para. 3), “Confusion about the digital television transition will cost consumers a lot of money for equipment they may not want or need.” according to this survey, people are still confused about the digital transition and it will cost them a lot of money. The transition will just benefit the rich people because of their capacity to afford equipment. Furthermore, what about people who are not capable of affording it? We may think these people's standard of living is very dificulut for them to please themselves with such a thing. The government is giving away a coupon to help them, but do you think that they can afford to buy digital converters even though the government gives them coupons? The government's coupon is $40 dollars and what people must come up with is $20. The conversion is a big issue because everybody don't know about that. The transition to analog to digital is going to take a while before people really understand what it is really about. The government thinks that it will help us by having access of freeing up public station and for emergency services. The real problem is how it is going to affect the poor people. Even though the coupon help reduce the price, $20 dollars is a lot of money for the poor people. How can they survive with that? This transition will negatively affect them and they won't be able to afford it.
Next, digital television is bad because of the reception. The program about the digital television transition is stating while they are still on the workeep project. However, the implantation of digital television will be very difficult because of the bad signal that people will receive. According to R. Fuchgott (2008, para.1), “Nearly six million people with digital receivers may still lose TV signals when digital-only broadcasts begin next February, a new study says”. The transmission through space to earth is still imperfect because people will receive fewer channels and will lose their money. Even if people buy a new digital television, it still won't work. The digital transition project is not at its final stage and if the transition occurs, it will just benefit company owners that offer these services. The government should take time and make it stronger. There are many kinds of interference in the transition of digital television. According to Kathleen. Hurst, (2006, Q.6), “I’m sure you've all heard about how whenever it storms, people's satellite go out. Yeah, they weren’t lying. Not only does it go out during a storm, but sometimes even when a good wind blows, you can pretty much plan on finding something more constructive to do than watch TV”. The digital transition should not be used because digital televison is affected by cliffs, buildings, and weather. All these elements are factors that make the digital signal weak and the image disappear. So why does the government still want to make the transition? According to a Greg Tarr (2008, para.1), “(New York — Market research firm Centris has issued a study showing what it calls “serious gaps” in digital TV signal coverage across the country, which could interfere with the successful completion of the digital television transition on Feb. 17, 2009”. The centris make it clear for us to understand what is really going on. This surver is turned into a negative one where people will receive bad signal nationwide. According to Greg (2008, para.6), they think that the signal coverage is going to be very short according to their research and this will be cost them a lot of money. Signal is very important in the accomplisment of digital trasmission. Consumers should be satisfied by what reatilers are offering as a service. Thechnologist can fox that problem because they habe all the equipment and what they need to do so. It going to take time but they will. That's why digital signal is affected.
Finally, we should use digital television because of the installation is difficult. Digital televisiion installation is difficult to fix in a way that when your cable has a problem, it is difficult to fix. The company that offers this service takes time to repair your direct television cable. The repair time is quite long and human beings are people that are never satisfied. According to Kathleen.Hurst (2006, Q.7), '' One of our Direct TV boxes went out one night, and we called the satellite company, they did try to help us over the phone, but after the failed attempts to helps us via the phone, they told us they would send someone out. We were OK with this until they told us it would be a few days until they could make it out. Why would it take so long for them to come out, for the amount we're expected to pay, we should have had someone here the next morning, but i guess that's not how it works''. Their engineers are not well trained to take care of troubleshooting problems that occurs with their systems. They should really try give a better service and a well trained engineers that can be ready for any kind of problems. Today's world need more accuracy and less failure.
Opponents argue that digital television is a good thing and we should use it. They say that digital television gives more options for viewers. According to Harry,J (2007, para.2), '' Digital TV means television signals can be transmitted more efficiently, freeing up space for extra channels and services.'' Next, it offers us better clarity of images and pictures, and a better sound stereo quality. However, their argument is not revelant; people should not rely on these arguments because they should look at the other side of the table. Digital television has many disadvantages that block it from working efficiently. Among these factors, digital television is mostly affected by hills, storms and buildings. Thus, digital television offers more resolution but still has the counter side that makes it weak.
In conclusion, technology is a very good thing that occurs in our century. The 21st century is based on and relies on technology. But do we have to accept anything that comes from the world technology? We have the choice to choose and express our opinion no matter what. Digital television have many disadvantages that the government should be concerned about before taking any steps and regretting it later. All these points that we mentioned are effective problems of digital television, and we have to take them into consideration. The government should provide a good solution to these problems since we already know the weak point of the digital television transition.
Furchgott,R. (2008, Feb.11). Many obstacles to Digital TV Reception, study says. The New York Times. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from www.nytimws.com/2008/02/11/technology/analog.html
Fuson,J. (2008, Jan.30). 74 of consumers who knows about Digital Tv Transition have Major Misconfusions, Consumers Reports Surveys Finds. Nonprofit Publisher of Consumer Reports. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from www.consumersunion.org?pub/core_telecom_and_utulities
Galvin,N. (2007, May.21). Can we live without digital technology?. Fairfax Digital. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from www.theage.com.am/news/technology/can-we-live-without-digital-technology
Hurst,K. (2006, Sept.11). 10 Reasons why you should not buy Direct Direct Tv. AC/ The people's Media Company. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com?article/57904/10_10_reasons_why_you_should_not_buy_direct.htlm
Putman,P.H. (2008, March.24). The basics of Digital television.AVS Forum. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from www.avsforum.com/hdtv.fag
Scott,C.P. (n.d.). TV Grows Up.PBS Mag. Retrived April 09, 2008, from http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/tv_grows_up/
Wales,J.H. (2007, July. 8). Let's Get Digital! Western Mail and Echo LTD. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
(2006, Nov. 13). Quick Guide: Digital swicthover. BBC News. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5239316.stm
Monday, April 28, 2008
Wikipedia should not be used because it is not reliable. According to J.Wolverton (2007, para.9), “launched Jan, 15 2001, it is already the ninth most popular web site in the United States, according to Alexa Internet, a company that monitors web traffic". Wikipedia is among the famous web sites in the United States and is really popular. However, all the information or articles that are conveyed into Wikipedia are irrelevant. Many people are complaining about the accuracy of the information if it comes from Wikipedia. Many colleges and schools are banning Wikipedia from their list because the accuracy about the information is not right. According to M.Byers(2007, para. 1), “Middlebury College, a prestigious liberal arts school in Vermont, recently announced that its history department had banned the citation of Wikipedia for history papers and exams”. Wikipedia has become a real phenomenon that many critics have complained about.
Second, Wikipedia should not be used because of the privacy of the information. What makes Wikipedia worst today is the copyright of the information. Most of the articles and the information on wikipedia are not true and irrelevant. Wikipedia has become an open library where everybody can post anything they want. According to J.Lengel (2006, para.1), “Anyone can post anything they want on the web”. Many professors do not recommend students to use Wikipedia as a source because of the reliability of their information. If anybody can post anything on Wikipedia, then the copyright of the information is not revealed and can’t be taken into consideration because we don’t know where this information comes from. People have been hijacking Wikipedia because it was available online. Therefore, Wikipedia is public site that allows anybody to do whatever he or she wants with.
Finally, Wikipedia should not be used because of the copyright. Everybody can post anything they want at anytime on Wikipedia and there is no chance that you can verify the accuracy of the information. Teachers refuse students use it because they might be accused of plagiarism. It offers a lot of information but where are the sources to verify this information? The copyright of information is important because it helps determine who is the author of those articles or that information. Wikipedia does not offer all these but just gives you information. That what makes Wikipedia a really weak encyclopedia that we should not use as a source.
In conclusion, we should not use Wikipedia, even though it offers us a lot of choices and gives us a lot of information. It is not reliable, and we have many critics that go in toward that site.
Byers, M . (2007, March 08). Controversy over use of Wikipedia in academic papers arrives at Smith. Sophian, Smith College. Retrieved April 23,2008, from http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/03/08/news/Controversy.Over.Use.Of.Wikipedia.In.Academic.Papers.Arrives.At.Smith-2765409.html
Lengel, J. (2006, Feb 07). Auhtority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved April 23,2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/articles.shtml?ID=12"
Wolverton, J. (2007, Jan.22). Wikipedia Wisdom. Valley Vanguard. Retrieved April 23,2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/114"
Monday, April 14, 2008
In the New York Times Newspaper by R. Furchgott (2008, February 11) in “Many obstacles to Digital TV Reception, study says”, the author wrote about how digital television reception is affected. The Centris, which is a company based in LA said that many people will be unsatisfied because when they will switch to the digital television; the signal will be weak. The author also compares digital television and analog television by saying that analog is better than digital because the reception of analog television is better than digital and even predicts that most of the people will receive fewer channels than they do now because of the bad reception. The main problem discussed in this article was the dissatisfaction of people when they switch to digital. We should not switch to digital television because it can affect the economy, education and the environment.
We should not switch to digital because it can affect the economy. It affects the economy in the way that many people will switch to digital in this coming February 2009. The problem will be the reception as we already know, and they will receive fewer channels than ever. People will be unhappy, unsatisfied and they will lose their money in some other way. The problem will be nationwide, they are still working on it, and there is no solution for the moment. Digital television is most affected by hills and buildings. In the United States, there are too many buildings and it can be very bad for the reception.
Next, we should not switch to digital television because it can affect education. Education will be affected because there will be more channels and more programs. Children will tend to watch restricted programs even though their parents block them with parental control. Children are clever these days, and if they watch these kinds of programs, it will be bad for their education. Then, we will have a growing population with a big problem that society will face in the future. Allowing more channels means allowing bad education. Parents are responsible for the education of their children, but if they fail who will follow them? So that’s why we should not switch to digital television because it is part of the problem, and we have to face it if we do not do anything.
Finally, we should not switch to digital television because it can affect the environment. It can affect the environment in a way that people that supply these services know that the signal is affected by hills and buildings. If they want a hundred percent efficient work, they will have to cut trees and destroy the environment. Trees are meant to protect us from sun radiation. We have to protect the environment, because it is our treasure and we have to take care of it. Digital television is a good thing and it is a fact but they have to look on the other side and see how they can figure out a way to save the environment.
Digital television is a marvelous progress of technology. But technology also has his disadvantage and we have to manage and know how to deal with it.
Besides technology, we have to look at how people will feel because of the bad signal they will receive.
Furchgott R. (2008, Feb 11). Many obstacles to digital TV reception,
Study says. The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from
Monday, March 31, 2008
EAP 2 Writer’s Worshop
Advantages of Digital TV
In the Boston Globe newspaper by N.Bowie (2007, June 11) in “Bridging the digital TV gap”, the author wrote about the switching of Analog TV to Digital TV. The author gave an explanation of why we have to switch from analog to digital, because it is the new standard of the government. This new policy will take effect soon in 2009 and people using analog will have to obey the rule and buy Digital TV. We should use Digital TV, because it gives more channels, high resolution of images and better sound quality.
We should use Digital TV because it gives more channels. According to (2006, Nov 13, para 1), “Digital TV means television signals can be transmitted more efficiently, freeing up space for extra channels and services”. Digital tv can offer more channels than the Analog Television because it works by transmitting signals through the space. Then it offers more channels than the old system. The old system only offer 5 or 6 channels and do not receive signals through space. Another reason digital television is better than analog television is that it offers 30 more channels than the old system and people can enjoy watching television again. The use of digital television in the near future will be a great improvement in technology and the government or the Homeland can use this system to protect their country.
We should use Digital Television because it can give better clarity and resolutions of images. Digital Television can offer clarity and resolutions of images because first, it is transmitting through space. The transmission through space means it offers a better quality of images because it is by satellite and there is no interference. But the transmission with analog television does because there is interference and the clarity and the resolutions of images are not always good. To be able to have clarity and resolutions of images means more pixels on the television. A pixel is a basic unit of the composition of an image on a television screen. Most of today’s television uses more pixels to display a best quality of image and a best resolution of image. That’s why digital television work better on plasma television than analog television because it has more pixels. A pixel also means transmitting images at a higher definition.
We should use Digital TV because it can offer a better sound quality. Better sound quality means when you hear or listen to the sound on your screen, there is no crashing stuff and it is clear. One benefit from digital television in sound quality is that the quality of the sound equals the quality of a DVD. It is a great thing because you will be able to enjoy features at a higher rate of transmission and can even see how digital television is powerful. Digital television is the best thing that we will have in our common future.
Digital television is a big issue that people are worried about. They have to follow the law because it will help secure public and emergency stuff. I think digital television will be better because there is no use creating new technology if you do not use it. People should be able to use at hundred percent what they create and offer it to the public if they are. Poor people that cannot afford it, the government even offers help for poor people to afford it. According to the Federal Communications Commission (2008, para 2) “Congress mandated the conversion to all-digital television broadcasting, also known as the digital television (DTV) transition, because all-digital broadcasting will free up frequencies for public safety communications (such as police, fire, and emergency rescue). Also, digital is a more efficient transmission technology that allows broadcast stations to offer improved picture and sound quality, as well as offer more programming options for consumers through multiple broadcast streams (multicasting). In addition, some of the freed up frequencies will be used for advanced commercial wireless services for consumers.”
Bowie, N. (2007, June, 11). Bridging the digital TV gap. The Boston Globe, PA.11. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Federal Communications Commission ( 2008, Jan 3). “DTV” is coming (and sooner than you think). (2008, Jan 3). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved March 26,2008, from
Quick guide: Digital switchover What is digital TV? (2006, Nov 13). BBC News. Retrieved March, 26, 2008, from
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
EAP 2 Writer’s Workshop
Should we allow freedom of speech or restrain it?
In the BBC News article by Jo Twist (2005), “Controversy blights UN net summit”, the author wrote about how governments can control the Internet. This summit took place in Tunis. China’s vice president was arguing about to putting restrictions online for the internet. This summit was a big issue because people that represented each country all over the world were trying to help the less developed countries in some ways. They realize that there wasn’t enough funds to help the poor countries benefit and have access to free information on the internet. We should have freedom of speech because it can help prevent war, increase knowledge and allow the discovery of the truth.
We should have freedom of speech because it can help prevent war in a country. Freedom of speech is very useful in today’s world because in a country where they do not have this system of free speaking, the country is usually under a dictatorship system. It means people are not allowed to express their feelings. People are terrified, and it brings war and revolt in the country. For example in North Korea, they still on a dictatorship system and it is not really easy for them and their population. But a country where they have this system where people can express their opinions and their feelings, the country is opened to democracy. It can help prevent war in a way that people will not revolt against the government or nobody, the country will be at peace and people will understand each other through talking. For example, in Chile, they are still running a dictatorship system and tensions are rising in the country, because people are feeling locked up and want freedom. In today’s world we can not do anything without speaking; that’s why freedom of speech is important in preventing war.
In addition, we should have freedom of speech, because it can increase knowledge. If we have a country based on democracy and people are allowed to express themselves, then it could bring a good understanding of people having access to information. People will be able to have access to information anywhere in the world and gain knowledge by themselves. Having most of the population well educated is a gain for a country because development will take place and the country will be able to spread itself with an increasing economy. Knowledge is something that you acquire with experience; it is important to have knowledge because the future will rely on the experience that you have and what you are able to offer to the society. For example, Benin, my country, is a democratic country where everybody has the right to express their opinion. Even if my country is a less developed country, we are still developing because our population is getting instructed and basically our economy is increasing. So that’s why knowledge is important to a country to get developed and access to information will surely help people acquire it by themselves.
Finally, we should have freedom of speech because it can allow the discovery of the truth. According to Charles Bralaugh (2002, para 2), “without free speech no search for the truth is possible….no discovery of truth is useful…Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech…” Discovery of the truth means finding the truth through freedom of speech. For example at a court when judges try to find the truth when there is a murder, they use to find the truth through speaking and by analyzing facts. Without those two elements, they will not be able to judge anyone if any case comes to them. Truth is important in our society and people who are on the bad side and always commit crime are forced to tell the truth. The discovery of the truth also goes along with freedom of speech. Our society is based on truth and you can not fool the law because it is already established and we have to follow it. It is also the gain of our civilization; it is how we see the perception of truth and the critical thinking of what make sense. The discovery of the truth is a continuous process that never ends up but it is also the result of logic because without logic you can not find the truth.
Freedom of speech is very important in today’s world. It shows how humans can express their feelings and their emotion and what makes humans very particular. I think the less developed country should benefit from the access to the Internet without restriction. The gap between the poorer country and the rich country does not have to be a problem for the less developed countries because it is with free initiative and free access to technology that the less developed countries will develop themselves.
Bradlaugh,C. (2001, Nov.22). Campus Needs True Free Speech. Watch in the Media. Retrieved March 24 2008, from http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/363
Twist, J. (2005, November 18). Controversy blights UN net Summit. BBC News Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm
Monday, March 3, 2008
Soil Erosion, Contamination and Fertility
I choose this topic because I consider that soil is the first thing that
appear on the earth before humans start colonizing each other and
take possession of it.
Soil erosion, contamination and fertility is a general problem
that any country face today. Soil is “ a complex mixture of inorganic
materials ( clay, silt , pebbles, and sand), decaying organic matter,
water, air, and billions of living organisms” ( “ Soil : The base of life”,
1994, para.1). Then soil erosion is “ the movement of soil
components, especially surface-litter and topsoil, from one place to
another” ( “Soil Erosion”, 1994, para.1). We have two main agents of
erosion which are flowing water ( by far the major cause of erosion)
and wind. According to Leopold ( 1949), land is not only made of soil
but also by a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils,
plants and animals. According to a group of scientists ( OMAFRA
Staff; G. Wall - Ontario Institute of Pedology; C.S. Baldwin -
Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology; I.J. Shelton - Ontario Institute of Pedology),( 2003), soil erosion is one form of soil
degradation that goes with soil compaction, low organic matter, loss
of soil structure, poor internal drainage, salinisation , and soil acidity
problems and soil erosion maybe a slow process that is relatively
unnoticed. Soil contamination occurred because of irrigation and it
contains dissolved salts. When the dry season start most of the water
evaporates and leave salts behind such as sodium chloride in the
topsoil. The accumulation of these salts is called salinization and
stunts crops growth, lowers yields and eventually kills crop plants and
ruins the land. Another problem with irrigation in some areas is water
logging which means farmers apply a heavy amount of water to leach
salts deeper into the soil. Water accumulates underground and saline
water envelops the roots of plants and kills them (“Environment :
Problems and Solutions”, Miller (1994), “ soil contamination by
excess salts and water, para.1,3). Soil fertility is when people apply fertilizers to the soil. It restores partially plants nutrients lost by
erosion, by crops harvesting, and by leaching when water flows
through soil layers, (“Environment : Problems and Solutions”, Miller
(1994), “ maintaining and restoring soil fertility“, para.1). There is
many kind of fertilizers that farmers can use to fertilize the soil which
are Animal manure, green manure, and compost.
In my paper, I plan on writing about soil erosion and how soil is
infected by the agent of soil erosion and how fertilizers works on soil
restoration. I also plan to write about how to reduce soil erosion, and
I’ve found many articles talking about the causes , effects and
solutions about soil erosion, contamination and fertilizer.
I still need to find how fertilizer is commercial and the effect that I
can have on human being .
Omafra staff,Wall. G,Ontario Institute of Pedology, Baldwin. C.S, Ridgetown college of Agricultural Technology, Shelton, I.J, Ontario Institute of Pedology ( 2003) . Soil erosion - causes and effects. FACTSHEET magazine. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
This article gives information about the causes and effects of soil erosion and how to reduce it.
Leopold, A. ( 1949). Soils quotations, Natural Resources Conservation Services Articles. Retrieved February 13, 2008 , from
http://www.soils.usda.gov/education/resources/k_12/quotes/ This site provide quotes about the living existence of soil.
Do you want to eat cloned food? In the Newsweek Web Exclusive by Fred Gurtel 2008, “Would You Like Fries with Your Clone?” the author gives explanation about the government legislation about food products from clones livestock. He shows us how in the text how the two government were arguing about clone food, “the U.S Food and Drug Administration issued a report declaring that cloned livestock was safe to eat” (para 1). Also he tell us how U.S government takes a big step allowing cloned meal and milk on the dinner table. However
It is clear that the author’s opinion is yes to cloned animals and livestock. And both government should take a real precaution about cloned animals and what derived from them because its can possibly affect human being, be against nature and create diseases.
First of all, possible health problems can occur if a human being eats cloned food. Side effects that can happen after eating cloned food may include mental problems. No medication is yet available for the side effects after eating cloned food. In “Would You Like Fries with Your Clone” the Union of Concerned Scientists states that “ Although successful clones may appear normal, the possibility remains that some may harbor subtle genetic defects that could impair their health or make them unsafe for consumption” (2008, para7) as an example of scientist preoccupation of cloned food safety. It means cloned food is not safe according to the union of scientist. According to an article on the Press Releases, “ A December 2006 people who ate cloned food was polled by the Initiative found that 64% of those polled were uncomfortable with animal cloning, with 43% saying that cloned food is unsafe, while another 36% felt unsure about cloned food safety” ( Mendelson & Kimbrel, 2006, para 5).a general opinion about cloned safety was given by this article that people are really worried about clone food and cloned food is not really secure to eat and we as human being should be warned about cloned foo
Next, cloned food can be against nature. If human knows how to clone animals and produce their food, it means that we can also clone human and it is against nature and religious purpose. People who believed in religion and God may not agree with cloning food because it goes against their religion, their belief and what their live for. In addition to this, the cloned animal and his food derive will never be perfect as God created and it goes against nature. Another example is the mutation problem that cloned food will have when they will be produced. According to this article “Is It Safe To Eat Cloned Food” the report state that “Reports of abnormalities, higher disease susceptibility and early deaths of clones have prompted many of the concerns about using their milk and meat. Some of these abnormalities result from slight changes that occur when the DNA from the cow to be cloned is being read and translated by the egg cell from another cow into which it is implanted — even if clones are genetic replicas, they aren't quite identical to the original donor'' (2008, para 6-8). This example show how there is some mutations and abnormalities problems in the process of cloning food.Everything is related to this world and what you create is what you recieve, this is the law of Alchemie. So the fact that human can clone food and maybe human is against nature.
The U.S Food and drugs Administration should revise the cloned food stuff and think twice before authorizing people to eat it and ban it from the market. Cloned food is very bad to human and we have to consider some real problems according to the facts that we already have in our records. Today’s world is going at a faster rate and we have to measure our action due to the present and see the effect in the coming future.
Briggs, H. (n.d.). Fresh warning over cloning dangers. BBC news. Retrieved February 27,2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Mendelson, J. & Kimbrell, a. (2006,December 28.). Despite lack of science and trong public concer, FDA okays Food From cloned Animals. Press Releases.Retrieved
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloning PR12 26 06.cfm
Thompson, A. (2008, January 10). Is It safe To Eat Cloned Food. FOXNEWS. Retrieved