Whichcountry recently became the first in the world to ban disposable plastic cupsand plates? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Whichcountry recently became the first in the world to ban disposable plastic cupsand plates?

Answer: France

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Whichcountry recently became the first in the world to ban disposable plastic cupsand plates?....

QA->Whichcountry’s scientists have developed a bacteria-powered battery (bio-battery) ona single sheet of paper, which is capable ofpowering disposable electronics?....

QA->Uniforms of fireman have been coated with a plastic so as to make them flame resistant. Which is the plastic form?....

QA->Governmentof India has decided to print plastic currency notes. What type of plastic isthis?....

QA->AndhraPradesh government has initiated to construct Agri-Plastic Park in which citythat should have Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: A new paper published by Rochman and her colleagues in February, in the journal Ecology, sifts through past research on marine debris to assess the true extent of the environmental threat. Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris: Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real Often. Rochman says, scientists will wrap up a paper by speculating about the broader impacts of what they've found. Maybe their study has shown that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, for example, and the paper goes on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out. "But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats." Rochman says. "There wasn't a lot of information." Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013. Within each paper. they asked what threats scientists had studied-366 perceived threats in all and what they'd actually found. In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In most of the remaining cases. the working group found the studies too shoddy to draw conclusions from—they lacked a control group, for example. or used faulty statistics. Strikingly. Rochman says, only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits. The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams. scientists found. and stayed there for weeks—but didn't seem to stress out the shellfish. A lot of ocean debris is "microplastic," or pieces smaller than five millimetres. These may be the beads from a facial scrub. fibres shed by synthetic clothing in the wash. or eroded remnants of larger debris. Compared to the number of studies investigating large-scale debris. Roclunan's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits. There are also, she adds, a lot of open questions about the ways that ocean debris can lead to sea-creature death. Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations. And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean. None of that tells us how many birds or fish or sea turtles could die form plastic pollution or how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem. "We need to be asking more ecologically relevant questions." Rothman says. Usually, scientists don't know how disasters like oil spills or nuclear meltdowns will affect the environment until after they've happened. she says. "We don't ask the right questions early enough." But if ecologists can understand how the slow-moving disaster of ocean garbage is affecting ecosystems. they might be able to prevent things from getting worse.Which ONE of the following conclusions based on the examination of the hundred-odd papers on marine debris and its ecological impact by Rachman and her colleagues is NOT CORRECT?
...

MCQ-> In each of the question below are given four statements followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from three given statements disregarding commonly known facts.Statements:Some nails are plates. Some plates are disks. All disks are mirrors. All mirrors are tyres. Conclusions:I.Some tyres are plates. II.Some tyres are nails. III.Some mirrors are plates....

MCQ->In each of the following question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions. Taking the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts, read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follows the given statements.Statements:I. Some cups are plates. II. All spoons are blue. III. No plates are spoon.Conclusions:I. Some cups are not spoon. II. Some plates are not blue. III. Some cups are not blue. IV. Some blue are not plates....

MCQ->Statements: I. All cups are plates. II. All plates are red. Conclusions: I. All cups are red. II. All plates are cups. III. All red are plates....

MCQ->I. Some red are blue. II. Some blue are plates. Conclusions: I. Some red are plates. II. Some plates are red. III. Some plates are blue....