what are 2 benefits of natural resources?2 benefits that makes sense?
362887
Economical vibrancy and self reliability as a nation
636084
The main benefit is that it produces huge amounts of energy for a smaller mass of fuel than many power sources, while not polluting the environment as badly.\nRisks include the left over waste fuel is radioactive and dangerous to all life for Millions of years until it comletes its transformation into lead. That and when the blow they BLOW taking out miles of land and releasing radiation clouds that travel with the wind. As a side note the French Nucleur power plants are mainly on the north shore facing england. If they blue the mainly northern winds would force radiation clouds over britain not france. Chenobyl is the best example of a nucleur accident and is still of limits after many many years, due to lingering radiation being deadly.
722332
An effort buy a group of people or a government to protect, very old, large, dense forests.    Protecting them from disease, man's progress etc.\n\nSo you have a place to go and enjoy nature....without spawling apartment complexes everywhere.\n\n\nKick off your shoes and go run through the woods!  Enjoy!
832178
Advantages:\n* You get to know more about the world around you.\n* More species would be discovered.\n* More scientists on the planet Earth.\n* More subjects for you to study in school.\n* More technology for our convenience.\n\nDisadvantages:\n* Scientists die in labs because of accidents.\n* Too many species to keep track of.\n* Animals disturbed from habitats.\n* Plant species taken from environment.\n* Rare species threatened.
16346
Health Benefits\n\n♥ ANTIOXIDANTS\n\n♥ CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH\n\n♥ CANCER\n\n♥ AGING
732271
Benefits of GIS\n\nhttp://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/01-02-wt2/www/A_Kolachala/Benefits_of_GIS.htm\n\nhttp://www.fgdc.gov/framework/handbook/benefits\n\nhttp://www.esri.com/showcase/roi/benefits.html
559803
One benefit is that they create more land in some cases, as in Hawaii. The lava pours into the ocean, cools, and eventually become productive land.
1081019
First, the compensation is very good. Second, the environment is a nice place to work with and the most important the employer, the more the employer give motivations to their employees the more the employees will stay in thier company. Got it.
869323
How can the energy balance be maintained in the environment with minimal depletion of the natural resources and while conserving flora and fauna.
711786
Nature is the best, it's a lot better than the rest!\nIf you want to breath some fresh air, \nbe sure to care!\n(about the environment)\nyeaaahhh!!!!\npegasus rules!!
697444
Advantages\n\nCan use when there is a scarce of electricity\nJobs for lot of people\nCan use in major research activities\n\n\nDisadvantages\n\nVery Dangerous if leaked\nCan cause thousands of human loss if handled incorrectly\nMay bore new types of diseases if leaked\nNeighbourhood people are always at risk\nNeed a large area to construct\nLot of people need to be on site for maintenance\nThreats from other countries if used inappropriately\n\nBYE
182564
Some resources we use are renewable and some are not. True renewables include energy sources like wind and solar. Sort-of renewables include water, food and firewood. Although these can be tapped or grown to satisfy demand, aquifer draw-down and soil erosion can limit how great a load can be sustained. All material resources need to be used wisely, not wastefully, since most resource use usually entails waste products, expense and disposal of unused material. Nonrenewables can be either reclaimable, like metals, or expendable (nonreclaimable) like petroleum. A reason for special care in consumption of expendables is that the supply is limited. Once used up, they're gone for good. \nReclaimables: In the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence, seismic and erosive action changed the distribution of materials in it; many valuable minerals became concentrated into a small number of areas, making them far more practical to extract than if they were more uniformly distributed. This fortunate situation is a one-time happening; if we throw them away they become widely dispersed, so when the concentrated sources run out, we either lose them or we have to collect them some time later at great expense. This is is why we need to recycle aluminum and many other metals including copper, lead, zinc, titanium and even iron. You'd think we'd keep pretty careful control of the more expensive stuff like gold, silver and platinum, but surprisingly a little of that still gets tossed (but less than used to be). Actually aluminum is abundant and not hard to find, but it takes a lot of energy to extract it from its ore, so reclaiming it pays too. \nExpendables: The petroleum we are using up today took many millions of years to form. At the current consumption rate we will use up all the petroleum we can get in 45 years (ref.). After that, we have to have figured out an alternative or we are in deep muck. Currently we have no practical alternative, especially for mobile, "go anywhere anytime" uses like cars. Hydrogen sounds good on the surface, but the only practical way to mass-produce it is from petroleum, losing energy as we do! So if we can postpone that moment of awful truth by conserving fuel now, we have a better chance of developing a true alternative. I hope you're on the side of the future. Your children will thank you.
120192
the first site talks about forests and minerals. the second is about the economy.
1041773
to balance the ecosystem
142694
Advantages:\n\nFuel is cheap. Unlike other types of electricity generation only a tiny proportion of the cost of generating nuclear power is in the actual fuel burned. \n\n\nFuel is very easy and cheap to transport. A coal or gas power station will burn tonnes of fuel every day. A nuclear power station will burn only a few grams. Because so little fuel need sot trannsported the amount of auilliary grenhouse gas pollution form transport is almost nil, as opposed to thousands of tonnes a year from coal or gas transport.\n\nSafe. Coal or gas power is a highly dangerous way to generate gas. In the US alone dozens of people are killed each year mining and transporting coal and gas for power generation and hundreds more die as a result of the pollutants these stations produce. If the same amount of power were generated using nuclear stations fewer than 10 people would die. \n\nAccidents in nuclear power generation is also far less likely to result in a loss of life. Chernobyl was the worst accident ever in the history of nuclear power generation and killed less than 50 people. There have been numerus mine accidents in the US that have killed more than 10 people at a time.\n\nUnder safety I will also include the very low levels of radioactivity released. In the US alone around 10 people a years are killed by radioactive materials released by coal power stations. Nobody in the US has ever been killed by radioactive material from nuclear power stations. Fewer than 100 people have been killed by the radioactive material released by nuclear power stations in the last 50 years in the entire world. \n\n\nNon-polluting. Aside from making nuclear power generation very safe the almost total lack of unintentional pollutants is a major environmental bonus for nuclear power. Nuclear power stations contribute just 1/100, 000th of the amount of greenhouse gas as a coal or gas plant generating the same power.\n \nAbundant fuel. The world has about enough liquid rude oil to practically last about another 100 years at current consumption and extraction rates. Coal will see us through another 400 years if we sue it as an oil supplement. We have sufficient fissionable material available to provide 10, 000 years of nuclear power even if we abandon coal and oil altogether and get ALL our energy from nuclear power.\n\n\nDisadvantages\n\nWaste disposal. This is the biggest problem. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive material that takes thousands of years or longer to become safe. Until it does decay to a safe level it has to be stored where it can’t contaminate the water supply or stolen by people who want to use it as a poison. That requires either the construction of expensive containment facilities or the permanent lockdown of decommissioned stations so the material can be stored on site.\n\nStations are relatively expensive to build. Due to pressure from environmental lobby groups nuclear power stations are more heavily regulated than any other industry, far more heavily regulated than coal power stations or even coal mines and far more heavily indicated than the statistical danger warrants. IN addition any proposed nuclear power station will be the target of protests, endless legal challenges and direct acts of sabotage from ‘environmentalists’. Those factors make it far more expensive to build a nuclear power station in the US than to build a coal or gas station.\n\nPortability. Nuclear power requires nuclear reactors, big nuclear reactors. That means they are restricted to use in large ocean going vessels, trains and as stationary electrical generators. You can’t use nuclear power to directly power cars, trucks, and airplanes. That means that nuclear power can never directly replace a large amount of US fossil fuel use. The issue of portability can be offset somewhat by using nuclear electricity to convert plant material or even air and water into petroleum, but doings o is fairly expensive.
560742
Advantages: Improved crop yield with better nutrition of the food, curing diseases, preventing diseases.\n\nDisadvantages: For crops, the economic reality is that we produce too much food as it is.  America has an ENORMOUS amount of surplus food. Better nutrition? Nice idea but farmers want to grow more, not better.
873400
Benefits, hours, schedule, etc. \n\nThose are easy! :-)