Summarize the two different camps of thought on the life cycle of Pfiesteria. Which set of arguments do you find more appealing? Defend your answer. How would you go about resolving this controversy? What studies and/or findings are needed to help in this process? Given there is an active controversy in the scientific community on the Pfiesteria life stages, should public policy decisions be made when the scientific community is not in agreement? What would happen if action on this problem were delayed until the controversy was resolved? What if action were taken without all the "facts" known?

answer; /// i do believe that the correct answer is (d) cooperative play; /// good luck

united states government;

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals