PLZ HELP Would you consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to science or pseudoscience, based on the information provided in the article? Provide two examples to support your answer.

I would consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to pseudoscience than science because the work described in the article mostly lacks process and is subjective. In the article, people looking for evidence of ghosts do not set up controlled experiments with repeated trials. Instead, they take several measurements and make guesses about what might be causing the results they see. The people in the article also base conclusions on observations such as feeling a "heavy presence” or a "sudden chill.” These are subjective observations.

Explanation:

the answer is minerals.

one negative thing it that it can kill water animals. another negative thing is it can cause the destruction of ecosystem. one way water pollution can be reduced is to conserve energy.