Answer:Works well when change is continuous and predictable
Explanation:Chaos theory is all about unpredictable changes and surprises.
Chaos is based on nonlinear unpredictable events. It allows us to open to unexpected possibilities.
Most scientific theories are based on the things that are consistent and can be predicted like gravity and chemical reactions but Chaos theory takes us to unpredictable things like Weather, turbulence, stock market and other things that can't be predicted.
It appreciate the fact that even chaos can bring order and we should be open up and allow our creativity to take us to the unknown places
People who hold religious ideas that oppose accepted church teachings . Heretics
The partner is experiencing Erikson’s theory of intimacy. Erikson understood it was important that individual
grow close, dedicated relationships with other persons. These emotionally
intimate relations as people arrive maturity play the serious role in the intimacy
versus isolation stage. Such relationships are frequently idealistic in nature,
but Erikson supposed that close friendships were also significant. Erikson labelled
intimate relationships as those considered by closeness, honesty, and love. In this
case that is the opening up of the partner to other person.
Answer:
Social Issues and Community Interactions
This chapter examines social issues involved in the siting and operation of waste-incineration facilities (such as incinerators and industrial boilers and furnaces), including possible social, economic, and psychological effects of incineration and how these might influence community interactions and estimates of health effects. Issues with respect to perceptions and values of local residents are also considered. In addition, this chapter addresses risk communication issues and approaches for involving the general public to a greater extent in siting and other decisions concerning incineration facilities. The committee recognized at the outset of its study that the social, economic, and psychological effects for a particular waste-incineration facility might be favorable, neutral, or adverse depending on many site-specific conditions and characteristics. However, the current state of understanding for many issues considered in this chapter is such that little or no data specific to waste incineration were available for analysis by the committee. In such cases, the committee identified key issues that should be addressed in the near future.
The social, psychological, and economic impacts of incineration facilities on their locales are even less well documented and understood than the health effects of waste incineration. When environmental-impact assessments are required for proposed federal or state actions, they typically must include socioeconomic-impact assessments, but the latter are often sketchy at best. They also might be given short shrift in the decision-making process (Wolf 1980; Freudenburg 1989; Rickson et al. 1990). Furthermore, these socioeconomic assessments attempt to be prospective—that is, they assess the likely effects of proposed actions. Little research has been done to evaluate systematically the socioeco-
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Social Issues and Community Interactions." National Research Council. 2000. Waste Incineration and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5803.×
Add a note to your bookmark
nomic impacts of controversial waste-treatment or waste-disposal facilities that have been in place for several years or more (Finsterbusch 1985; Seyfrit 1988; English et al. 1991; Freudenburg and Gramling 1992). Moreover, the committee is not aware of any studies of the effects of removing an established incinerator. One reason for the lack of cumulative, retrospective socioeconomic-impact research is the lack of sufficient data. Although incineration facilities must routinely monitor and record emissions of specified pollutants, health-monitoring studies before or after a facility begins operation are only rarely performed, and periodic studies of the socioeconomic impacts of a facility over time are virtually nonexistent, partly because of methodological problems (Armour 1988) and the absence of regulations that necessitate continued monitoring of socioeconomic impacts.
Explanation:
