Is It Worth The Risk To Climb Mt. Everest?
Many people dream of climbing Mt. Everest, but many have have been killed on the 29,000 ft mountain. So is it really worth the risk to climb Mt. Everest?
I believe that it is not a good idea because Mt. Everest is almost 5 miles high, that's the cruising altitude of a plane. Also there are very large ice blocks that sometimes do fall and crush people. Camp III is perched on a ledge halfway up the face of the mountain which is dangerous because there could be an avalanche. You can also get altitude sickness because you are so high up. Camp 4 at 26,000 ft is called the death zone because you have to travel very slowly because of the altitude. As high up as Everest you can hardly breath without and oxygen maskNear the end climbers face one of the more difficult challenges, The Knife Edge Ridge. 1 slip on that thing can result in falling thousands of feet to certain death. Once they reach the summit they spend little time there since they have to get back before the sun goes down.
I believe that Everest is very dangerous. Although once climbers reach the summit they feel extremely accomplished, I believe it wouldn't've been worth the risk.
This image gives two reasons why it isn't worth the risk to climb Mt. Everest.
How has black gold helped to shape a region? Oil (Black gold) has helped to shape a region in many ways. One way that oil has helped shape a region is that it gives people a lot of money. Oil is extremely valuable in most places because it is so expensive and it can help people make a lot of money. This helps shape a region because a lot of people seeking money would come here.
In addition some oil sellers would use the money to build buildings, houses, oil reserves etc. Most oil sellers would get enough money to build oil reserves where they can store all their oil that they get instead of going back out to find more of it a lot. They might also use the money to build cities, towns, schools, buildings and more. This helps shape a region because people have somewhere to live.
There are many ways that oil has helped shape a region such as the two examples above. That said we should use our oils wisely so it doesn’t become crude oil or so we don’t run out of it.
I chose this photo because it is Of oil and that is what my paragraph is about.
How do people adapt to living in a desert region? One way that people adapt is they live by an oasis. Living by an oasis can benefit people because the oasis provides raw materials.
Oasis’s attract animals which people can hunt and eat. People can also bathe in the oasis to stay clean. Trees also grow near oasis’s so there be shade so people wouldn't overheat in the sun. Fruit grows near oasis’s as well. But when the oasis is in a drought, everyone has to leave and find a new oasis. Another way people adapt is they wear loose clothing all around their bodies to stay cool. They fully cover their bodies in a hot desert so they don't get burned. They wear the loose clothing so they don't overheat since the loose clothing lets air in. There are many interesting ways that people adapt to a desert region. Theses are just a few of them.
I chose this photo of the Sahara desert because it shows how hot it is and how much people have to adapt to it.
What forces work for or against supranational cooperation among nations? Within supranational cooperation, there are often centrifugal forces that divide nations. Wealthier people in Western Europe worry about losing jobs to EU citizens that will work for less. This means that the wealthier people (from Western Europe) are worried that people from the EU will take their jobs because the EU members are willing to work for less money. This is an example of a centrifugal force. Also, there could be more than 20 languages spoken. If there are more than 20 languages spoken in the EU everyone would be struggling to understand one another which could be difficult because the EU is about working together. This is another example of a centrifugal force. Although the EU sounds great there are still lots of things to be worked out such as the examples above.
I chose this image because it is the flag that symbolizes the European Union.
What do you think is the most effective style of government? The most effect style of government would be a direct democracy. Direct democracy is the most effective style of government because the citizens can vote for the laws that they want. In other governments one person makes all the laws and the citizens have no say. In addition to voting for laws, the citizens also have the right to vote for the candidate who they want as president, senator, etc. In a monarchy people have no say in who they want to rule. It is all by blood. So a direct democracy definitely seems to be the a lot more effective than a monarchy or a representative democracy. Hopefully this paragraph shows that a direct democracy is the most effective style of government
I chose this image because it shows a direct democracy meeting and that is what my paragraph above is about.