Which statement about the studies by mary power and colleagues on California rivers is true?

Which statement about the studies by mary power and colleagues on California rivers is true?

This article is not a polemic, but it’s certainly a review of some papers and research by Mary Power and colleagues on the California rivers. The report concludes that California’s two largest rivers–the Sacramento and the Delta–have for most of the history of human existence in California and that there’s no way to get to the source of those pollutants. What are the conclusions then?

My conclusion is that California’s


My conclusion is that California’s rivers have had pollution to an unusual degree for the extended period that they have existed. The decision is that we can’t get the water that runs through those rivers back to where it came from and that we need to take another route. The conclusion is also that we cannot allow any pollutants to go downstream with our water, which would mean that from the time. Finally, I decide that we have to change what we do about pollution in our rivers, and we need to do that now. Let’s look at the studies by Mary Power and colleagues on the California rivers.

In the first study, Power


In the first study, Power and her co-workers looked at sediment levels in the Delta. These sediment levels show what the water level has been throughout the history of human life in California. They found that sediment levels on the Delta were very high before humans arrived and then slowly declined over the centuries. They found that the decline of sediment was not merely due to the changing water level. Instead, there was evidence that sedimentation was being driven by changes in weather patterns, including El Nino events, and by changes in wind patterns.

The second study is more like a critique.


The second study is more like a critique. There were questions raised about the first study’s conclusions, and Power and her co-workers provided answers to some of these questions.


Also, they explained their methodology and explained why they don’t believe other studies support their conclusions. They said that they did not include the Delta’s tributaries in the course and did not consider water temperature changes. As an explanation for sedimentation. Also, they said that their data is not consistent across different sediment layers and that they didn’t look at changes in precipitation and runoff either because of the considerable variation in the.

What does that leave me?


What does that leave me? A study that doesn’t clearly say one thing about the paper’s conclusions and a decision that’s not quite so clear. But if I want to conclude that we need to consider using alternative means of delivery for our water and that we need to change our practices as far as the distribution of water, then I think that this study gives me the right message.

Such studies and research are essential


Such studies and research are essential, and they are necessary. But they cannot answer the question that should. Why do these rivers get polluted with so much pollution over so long a period?

We need to get serious about tackling this problem. We need a new way of getting water from places like Lake Mead and Lake Huron, and we need to take our current water distribution methods seriously.

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top