The main problem of the high amount

Alcoholism has always taken its toll on people, when they can stop controlling their habit, which would ultimately lead them to destruction in the form of alcohol abuse.   The people of Alaska are going through the same phase, and their rate of acceleration of the abuse is getting pretty much alarming.The main problem of the high amount of alcohol abuse in the state, can not only just be blamed at the people, but also should be blamed at the authority over them. Somehow the government’s function machinery seems too weak to handle the problem, and no proper steps have been taken till date that would help curb the problem.The relaxed laws, are the icing on the cake when it comes to the abuse in alcohol, as people have taken it for granted and know about the maximum punishment the state has to offer, when it comes to over drinking or to Alaska’s biggest problem, ‘underage drinking’; which is why the pathetic condition of the state in regards to alcoholism ca n be seen.Curbing the problem is not very easy, and steps have to be taken which have to be imaginative and out of the way category to put an end to the state’s meaningless alcoholism. More care can be given in counseling in schools, so that children from the age of 12 understand the bad effects of alcoholic abuse, and can learn to compete and to tackle the pressure of alcoholic parents and the pressures of the peer group to remain sober.Laws should be more vindictive when it’s coming to alcoholism in the state, and harsher punishments should be given than just monetary fines. People committing crime under the influence of alcohol, should be punished more strictly than compared to other states, as there is a serious rise in alcohol related crimes and felonies. More forces should be used to curtail smugglers providing illegal liquor in dry areas, as they have almost ruined the small rural areas of the state.A proposed solution to the problem would be that every person i n the state, should be given liquor permits, on the basis of compulsory psychological and physical tests, where his limit to alcohol would be based on the severity of his alcoholic problem, giving the government insights of severity of citizens along with getting sound demographic knowledge of alcohol abused areas.Since the beginning of civilization, man has always had tried to acquire a habit, that would keep him occupied and would make him content, at the cost of others. Strange as it may seem, man had developed the production of alcohol not too far after he understood the concept of still agriculture, and end of nomadic life also bought in an era of a time, where the concept of being in an inebriated state was realized.Alcohol has been introduced and has been cherished by all the civilizations that have come and that have been responsible for the development of mankind. Alcohol in those times, were used as medicine, God offerings, for nutrition purposes and was used for different sets of rituals and traditions that the natives followed apart from gratification.In today’s times, alcohol has become an integral part of our culture, and apart from beer and wine, which were the olden times favorite beverages, we have now options for the choicest of choicest drinks and cocktails available to us with great ease.Any pleasure activity that is done in control is well appreciated, but the problem occurs with an uncontrollable desire to continue doing pleasure activities, without understanding the consequences, and falling into the trap of addiction. This addiction trap, initial gains access to individuals, then groups, then large sections of the society, and finally it consumes an entire state, like the current condition of Alaska.  Alaska, is probably the best example of effects of alcohol abuse on a very large scale, and the whole state’s function is collapsing and the state output is being wastedon it residents, as the inhabitants of the state have reached a stage known as â€Å"disease of dependency†, because of high alcohol consumption.The problem with the state is it’s firstly very sparsely populated, and it suffers from a high percentage from the phenomenon of brain drain right after high school. Moreover in the winter the climate goes down berserk, and temperature can go down below -50 degree Celsius.This extreme cold also prompts the natives to drink more than the quota of an average American, and the natives love for alcohol has given the state an average of alcohol consumption more than double when compared to the national average for alcohol consumption.The report of the Alaska native federation stated the alcohol abuse has badly gripped the state of Alaska, and the entire state was heading for doom, as the effects of the alcohol were quiet drastic.

Cleopatra and Octavia Essay

Examine the contrast between Cleopatra and Octavia. How do they embody different aspects of womanhood and how is this opposition useful in developing the themes and actions of the play? How might the distinction be given different emphases in performance? Antony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare’s most dramatic plays; however it has not been staged nearly as many as plays such as Hamlet or Macbeth because it is such a hard play to produce due to its enormous variety of content. However the mere strength of the characters within the play creates intense tragic possibilities, despite the difficulties that may be faced in production. Cleopatra and Octavia are contrasting characters in the play Antony and Cleopatra. Each embodies different aspects of womanhood; each is a model of the qualities that should be seen from the country and culture they belong to. The play centres around the contrast between the lavishness of Egypt with the lineal qualities of the Roman Empire. Egypt is a country of luxurious feasts where eight wild boars are roasted for a breakfast for twelve people (2. 2. 189-90) and parties; it is a very sexualised place whereas Rome is a country characterised by politics, scenes of intellectuals and battles, thus the lives and loves of a Roman stand in opposition to the lives and loves of an Egyptian. Cleopatra is a symbol of Egyptian luxury, passion and lust she is a highly sexualised woman and is not afraid or embarrassed to show this; this is shown in her sexual innuendo in reference to Antony’s war horse: ‘Happy horse, to bear the weight of Antony! ‘ Her own language often betrays her own sexual nature this can be seen where Cleopatra speaks to the Messenger from Rome: Ram thou thy fruitful tidings in mine ears, that long time have been barren. (2. 5. 23-24) Egypt is a place dominated by strong-minded mature female sexuality thus making this play one of Shakespeare’s remarkable works due to its attitude to female sexuality as something natural, beautiful and open. Although Cleopatra is described by some in the play as nothing more than a gypsy slut: ‘to cool a gypsy’s lust’ (1. 1. 9) we understand from the differences between Egypt and Rome and their understandings of each other, that Cleopatra embodies Egypt and all it stands for and so can’t be controlled or categorised as a Roman can be. Cleopatra allows men who have grown up in a world where expressing sexual ideas and fantasies is frowned upon, such as that of the view of Puritans in the time in which Shakespeare would have been writing this play; to contact their emotional centres and celebrate erotic possibilities. Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare’s most complex and elaborate female characters; he derives his information about her directly from Plutarch’s portrait of her and the reputation she left behind. Cleopatra is a mixed character and has sudden switches of behaviour from one mood to another, for instances the arrival of a messenger from Rome telling Cleopatra of Octavia, Antony’s new bride. Cleopatra harasses the messenger for news, and is violent and abusive to him as she hasn’t heard what she wants to, once her servants have calmed her down she feels remorseful and sorry for her actions that were must unlike a royal action should be. Cleopatra is a irrational and irratic character who often reacts to menial things, however this can be seen as her way of reacting to the fear of losing what she knows: Egypt and Antony. Her fear for losing and her sense of insecurity is seen through her jealously, that Shakespeare presents clearly in her wish to know what Octavia looks like, she is driven by these uncontrollable passions she feels towards Antony. Her feelings of insecurity are not settled by Antony, and his treatment of both his wives Octavia and Fulvia doesn’t settle her fears but instead gives her little cause for complacency, ‘Now I see, I see, In Fulvia’s death how mine received shall be. ‘ (1. 3. 66) Cleopatra is both seductive and somewhat repellent and it is this mix that makes her such a mysterious and puzzling mixture. Even Antony on occasions doesn’t know how she will react and can’t predict her actions or behaviour either. Antony loves Cleopatra because he wants to, not for any political reasons; there is nothing or any reason why he should love Cleopatra, it is merely his choice. Our deep understanding of Cleopatra’s charm and enchantment comes from the descriptions we are given of her; many of which are taken directly from The Life of Marcus Antonius in Sir Thomas North’s translation of the Roman historian Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (1579). Here Cleopatra is compared to Venus, the goddess of Love. Shakespeare has taken North’s basic ideas and developed them to a point that the beauty of Cleopatra is seen almost as supernatural. It is these descriptive speeches of Cleopatra that help the audience to understand the infatuation that Antony and others before, have had with Cleopatra: For the person of herself: She was laid under a pavilion of cloth of gold of tissue, apparelled and attired like the goddess Venus (North) It is this beauty that Cleopatra relies on to win over men; she feels herself to be the human incarnation of Isis: ‘Now from head to foot I am marble constant. Now the fleeting moon no planet is of mine’ (5. 2. 237-240) and therefore men are captivated by her and become addicted by the strange power of Cleopatra’s attractiveness. It is said by some that Cleopatra used her beauty and her body to gain what she needed and what she felt was needed for Egypt, as Hughes-Hallet observed: She captivates Antony and then uses her power over him to demand the Kingdoms of Syria and Arabia. (Hughes-Hallet, 165) Cleopatra is portrayed as a strong leader of Egypt and in this respect has similarities with Elizabeth I who was on the throne of England through Shakespeare’s early life. She like Cleopatra was a dominant figure and felt she embodied Britain as Cleopatra embodied Egypt. How unlike Cleopatra, Elizabeth I was prepared to listen and take advice from others who were experts in the field in question; this resulted in her defeating the Spanish Armada. Unlike Cleopatra who although demanded to be treated as a general upon the war field refused to listen to advice which resulted in awful consequences and subsequently the lose of life for her and Antony. Rome is a place where the need for order and discipline is the norm; there isn’t room amongst the Politics and duties for sensuality and pleasure like in Egypt. It is this that causes Antony to be torn ‘between the military honour and familial duty of Rome and the sensuality and luxurious life-style of Egypt. ‘ Rome is a predominantly male society which women have no say; it is associated with action, mainly military and political action. Charney describes it as ‘ a place of conference tables, armour, political decisions and hard materials objects ‘ (102) Octavia is a model of Roman qualities, of obedience and duty. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, her role is reduced greatly in comparison to that of the Octavia described in Plutarch’s version. In this version she is seen as more of an independent figure rather than one completely dominated by male relations as portrayed by Shakespeare. By moving Octavia into background Shakespeare allows a greater contrast between Octavia and Cleopatra, thus highlighting the great differences of lives in Egypt and lives in Rome. Plutrach wrote of Octavia’s domestic virtues, whereas in Shakespeare’s play Octavia is ridiculed especially by Cleopatra as seen in act 3 scene 3 Messenger: Madam, I heard her speak; she is low-voiced Cleopatra: That’s not so good. He cannot like her long.

Effects of Nitrogen on Pea Plants

EFFECTS OF NITROGEN FIXING PEA PLANTS (Pisum sativum) ON GROWTH OF CORN (Zea mays)? Introduction Interactions among plant species, particularly negative ones, have been a concern in agriculture (Levene 1926, Russell 1961). Novoa (1981) suggested that it would be advantageous to rotate certain crops by season, grow certain crops together, or avoid growing certain crops on the same land. Observations indicated that some crops require specific types of nutrients in contrast to other crop species, and plants within the Legume Family actually â€Å"fix† nutrients, for example nitrogen, within surrounding soils.Nitrogen is a key plant nutrient, and has been shown to be both increase plant growth and development (Russell 1961), but is often deficient in many western U. S. soils (Novoa 1981). Thus Legumes could provide high community trophic â€Å"service† (Aprison et al. 1954, Hiroshi 2010). The common pea plant (Pisum sativum), a member of the Legume family, and a robust dico t flowering plant (i. e. , an Angiosperm) native to the western U. S. , enjoys a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria (Hiroshi 2010).These bacteria grow inside nodules located on the roots of pea plants and convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into ammonia (NO3-), which is a molecular form the pea plant, and neighboring plants, can use for numerous physiological functions (including production of DNA, proteins, and plant hormones (Russell 1961, Novoa 1981, Hiroshi 2010). It has become a common practice to rotate crops within fields, alternating Legumes with various other plant species to maintain high soil nitrogen levels.Our research was conducted in the BIO170 Lab (107 Lewis Hall, Montana State University [MSU]), and was focused on potential effects of pea plants on the growth and development of corn (Zea mays). Our objective was to vary growth environments, with some plants of different species type grown in close proximity, under the same conditions, and other treatments with single plant species, thus allowing us to address the primary research questions: Will the presence of pea plants, in close proximity to corn, positively affect corn shoot height, root length, shoot mass, and overall seedling growth ate? We formulated the primary research question into the following formal hypotheses: H1: pea plants grown in close proximity to corn plants will increase the height of the corn plants; H2: pea plants grown in close proximity to corn plants will increase the root length of the corn plants; H3: pea plants grown in close proximity to corn plants will increase the shoot mass of the corn plants; and H4: pea plants grown in close proximity to corn plants will increase the seedling growth rates of corn plants. For each stated research hypothesis (i. e. H1 thru H4), the null (H0) hypothesis was: the presence of pea plants growing in close proximity to corn plants will have no effect on the corn plant response variables (i. e. , shoot height, root length, shoot mass, and overall seedling growth rate). The explanatory, or treatment variable, in all cases, was presence or absence of a pea plant within the growth cells of our measurement units (see below). Methods The plant experiments were conducted in Lewis Hall, room 107, on the campus of Montana State University. The lab’s room temperature is typically 65 to 70 degrees F (celsius scale thermometer).We set up our experiment in the NW corner of the lab on the counter. We used three polyurethane growth trays (Carolina Biological Supply Company, Savannah, GA), where each tray contained 36 cells 15cm X 10 cm X 10 cm (depth). Each cell was filled with organic soil to the rim of the cell (soil type: Sunshine Mix; Plant Growth Center, MSU). Each growth tray was divided into two sections, with 18 cells containing two corn plants; and 18 cells each containing one Alaska variety pea plant and one corn plant; for a total of 108 corn plants alone and 54 corn plants grown with pea plants.A ll seeds were also obtained from Carolina Biological Supply Company. The trays were placed under full spectrum UV grow lights (also from Carolina Supply Co. , Model: XPV-230 Lum. ), and received 12 hours of light per day (using a light timer [Home Depot: Model ISZ210/120). We planted seeds at 0. 5 inch depth, and maintained moist (but not â€Å"wet† or muddy) soil for 3 days, or until the onset of germination. We used tap water, with approximately 50 ml per growth cell each morning and evening during germination. After germination, we reduced watering to 50 ml once per day, typically in the late afternoon (to acilitate overnight availability of water per cell and prevent drying). After 10 days, when seedlings were well established, we increased daily water to 100 ml per cell. After 2 weeks of seedling growth, we began measuring the response variables, including height of shoot (soil level to apical tip) using a standard metric ruler, and the Precision Balance (room 106) to me asure mass to the nearest 0. 01 grams. We compared height, and mass using mean values per treatment, including the standard deviation to assess variation. We used percent growth per week as an estimate of growth â€Å"rate†.Roots were washed, and then dried, prior to mass measurement. Results The average shoot height (Fig. 1) of corn grown in close proximity to pea plants, compared to the height of the corn grown alone, indicated that pea plants may have increased the height of neighboring corn. At the end of three weeks, the average height of corn grown with peas was 35. 4 cm, whereas corn plant grown alone reached an average height of approximately 33 cm, which represented a 6. 78% difference between treatments (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Average height of corn plants grown in Lewis Hall Lab 107 (MSU).The upper line was on the graph shows the height of corn grown with peas. The lower line represents the corn grown alone. Figure 2. Shows average root mass (dry weight) of corn in the two treatments, i. e. , with or without the presence of Pea Plants. The average mass of the corn grown with peas was 1. 2 grams while the average mass of the corn alone was 1. 07 grams. This represents a 10. 8% difference between treatments (Fig. 2). Figure 3. Average root length of corn plants between treatments. Our observation result also showed that average root length for corn grown with peas was 11. 5 cm and the length for corn grown alone to be 9. 69 cm, a 16. 8% difference between treatments. Figure 4 shows germination rates for the two treatments, with 37% increase per week for corn grown with peas, slightly higher than the corn grown alone (35. 2%). Table 1 shows the various percent differences between the two treatments, and in each contrast, the values for corn grown with peas was greater than corn grown alone. Discussion Overall, in summarizing our key results, we observed corn grown with peas showed a trend of 6. 78% taller and 10. % heavier than corn grown alone. We also observed the roots of corn grown with peas were on average, 16. 8% longer than the roots of corn grown alone. Finally, we found that the corn grown with peas had a 4. 86% higher germination rate than corn alone. Figure 4. Average germination rate of corn plants estimated between treatments. Table 1. Percent difference between the treatment, showing increases in all variables in treatment with both plants together. Height6. 78% Mass10. 80% Root length16. 80% Germination rate4. 86% Our results, reviewed together (e. . , Table 1), strongly suggested that our ideas concerning facilitation were correct, and supported our research hypotheses that corn grown with peas would be taller, heavier, have longer roots, and have a higher germination rate than corn grown alone. Upon reflection, we believed that it made sense that the corn grown with peas tended to outperform the corn grown alone for the variables we tested, because clearly nitrogen is an essential component of chlorophyll (Tam 1935), amino acids, ATP, and nucleic acid (Levine 1926).Since pea plants are nitrogen fixers, their presence increases the amount of usable nitrogen in the soil. Thus, the corn grown with the peas would have had more nitrogen available to it to aid in the production of chlorophyll, amino acids, ATP, and nucleic acid, all of which probably aided the corn growth, mass, and also the higher germination rate (percent) that we observed.Furthermore, our results tend to agree with other research findings, for example a study presented at the 2010 World Congress of Soil Science found that corn rotated with soy, also a nitrogen fixer (Aprison 1954), tended to grow taller and have higher yields than corn rotated with corn (Yin 2010). Another study found that along with the correct row spacing and plant density, corn plants grew best when given moderate levels of nitrogen (Cox 2000).Further, a study done in Europe noted that nitrogen deficiency in plants tended to inhibit plant growth and rate s of photosynthesis (Zhao 2005, Bradshaw et. al 2010, Cox et al. 2010). The positive effects nitrogen has on plants are well documented and have been studied for decades, but we think our replications of pea plant facilitated growth were well worth the efforts, and also allowed us to see first-hand, how experiments can be powerful tools for learning and for confirmation of research ideas.It is well known by both plant scientists and amateur backyard gardeners that plants need nitrogen to grow to their full potential, so perhaps our work offered little new information, but it was still quite fascinating to conduct the research, learn the steps of the scientific process, and apply them ourselves, rather than simply read about experimentation. Those wishing to grow corn, or other important, or popular house plants, might use our outcomes to enhance growth production of desired species. Literature Cited Aprison, M. H. , W. E. Magee, and R. H. Burris. 954. â€Å"Nitrogen Fixitation by E xcised Soybean Root Nodules. † Journal of Biological Chemistry 208 (1954): 29-39. Bradshaw, A. D. , M. J. Chadwick, D. Jowett, and R. W. Snaydon. 1964. â€Å"Experimental Investigations into the Mineral Nutrition of Several Grass Species: IV. NitrogenLevel. † Journal of Ecology 52. 3 (1964): 665-76. Cox, William J. , and Debbie J. R. Cherney. â€Å"Row Spacing, Plant Density, and Nitrogen Effects on Corn Silage. † 2000. Argonomy Journal 93. 3: 597-602. Kunstman, James L. , and E. Paul Lichtenstein. â€Å"Effects of Nutrient Deficiencies in CornPlants on the in Vivo and in Vitro Metabolism of [14C]diazinon. † Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 27. 4 (1979): 770-74. Levine, P. A. â€Å"On the Nitrogenous Components of Yeast Nucleic Acid. † Journal of Biological Chemistry 67 (1926): 325-27. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. Novoa, R. , and R. S. Loomis. â€Å"Nitrogen and Plant Production. † Plant and Soil 58 (1981): 177-204. Russell, Edward J. Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. 8th ed. [London]: Longmans, 1961. Open Library. Tam, R. K. , and O. C. Magistad. 1935. â€Å"Relationship Between Nitrogen Fertilization And Related post: Disadvantages of Plants Living on LandChlorophyll Content In Pineapple Plants. † Plant Physiology 10. 1 (1935): 159-68. Yin, Xinhua, Angela McClure, and Don Tyler. 2010. â€Å"Relationships of Plant Height and Canopy NDVI with Nitrogen Nutrition and. † Lecture. World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane. 1-6 Aug. 2010. International Union of Soil Sciences. Zhao, D. , K. Reddy, V. Kakani, and V. Reddy. 2005. â€Å"Nitrogen Deficiency Effects on Plant Growth, Leaf Photosynthesis, and Hyperspectral Reflectance Properties of Sorghum. † European Journal of Agronomy 22. 4 (2005): 391-403.