Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 27

Since the early eighties we have been only too aware of the devastating effects of large-scale environmental pollution. Such pollution is generally the result of poor government planning in many developing nations or the short-sighted, selfish policies of the already industrialised countries which encourage a minority of the world’s population to squander the majority of its natural resources. While events such as the deforestation of the Amazon jungle or the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl continue to receive high media exposure, as do acts of environmental sabotage, it must be remembered that not all pollution is on this grand scale. A large proportion of the world’s pollution has its source much closer to home. The recent spillage of crude oil from an oil tanker accidentally discharging its cargo straight into Sydney Harbour not only caused serious damage to the harbour foreshores but also created severely toxic fumes which hung over the suburbs for days and left the angry residents wondering how such a disaster could have been allowed to happen. Avoiding pollution can be a fulltime job. Try not to inhale traffic fumes; keep away from chemical plants and building-sites; wear a mask when cycling. It is enough to make you want to stay at home. But that, according to a growing body of scientific evidence, would also be a bad idea. Research shows that levels of pollutants such as hazardous gases, particulate matter and other chemical ‘nasties’ are usually higher indoors than out, even in the most polluted cities. Since the average American spends 18 hours indoors for every hour outside, it looks as though many environmentalists may be attacking the wrong target. The latest study, conducted by two environmental engineers, Richard Corsi and Cynthia Howard-Reed, of the University of Texas in Austin, and published in Environmental Science and Technology, suggests that it is the process of keeping clean that may be making indoor pollution worse. The researchers found that baths, showers, dishwashers and washing machines can all be significant sources of indoor pollution, because they extract trace amounts of chemicals from the water that they use and transfer them to the air. Nearly all public water supplies contain very low concentrations of toxic chemicals, most of them left over from the otherwise beneficial process of chlorination. Dr. Corsi wondered whether they stay there when water is used, or whether they end up in the air that people breathe. The team conducted a series of experiments in which known quantities of five such chemicals were mixed with water and passed through a dishwasher, a washing machine, a shower head inside a shower stall or a tap in a bath, all inside a specially designed chamber. The levels of chemicals in the effluent water and in the air extracted from the chamber were then measured to see how much of each chemical had been transferred from the water into the air. The degree to which the most volatile elements could be removed from the water, a process known as chemical stripping, depended on a wide range of factors, including the volatility of the chemical, the temperature of the water and the surface area available for transfer. Dishwashers were found to be particularly effective: the high-temperature spray, splashing against the crockery and cutlery, results in a nasty plume of toxic chemicals that escapes when the door is opened at the end of the cycle. In fact, in many cases, the degree of exposure to toxic chemicals in tap water by inhalation is comparable to the exposure that would result from drinking the stuff. This is significant because many people are so concerned about water-borne pollutants that they drink only bottled water, worldwide sales of which are forecast to reach $72 billion by next year. Dr. Corsi’s results suggest that they are being exposed to such pollutants anyway simply by breathing at home. The aim of such research is not, however, to encourage the use of gas masks when unloading the washing. Instead, it is to bring a sense of perspective to the debate about pollution. According to Dr Corsi, disproportionate effort is wasted campaigning against certain forms of outdoor pollution, when there is as much or more cause for concern indoors, right under people’s noses. Using gas cookers or burning candles, for example, both result in indoor levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter that are just as high as those to be found outside, amid heavy traffic. Overcrowded classrooms whose ventilation systems were designed for smaller numbers of children frequently contain levels of carbon dioxide that would be regarded as unacceptable on board a submarine. ‘New car smell’ is the result of high levels of toxic chemicals, not cleanliness. Laser printers, computers, carpets and paints all contribute to the noxious indoor mix. The implications of indoor pollution for health are unclear. But before worrying about the problems caused by large-scale industry, it makes sense to consider the small-scale pollution at home and welcome international debate about this. Scientists investigating indoor pollution will gather next month in Edinburgh at the Indoor Air conference to discuss the problem. Perhaps unwisely, the meeting is being held indoors.

Wool is part of Britain’s history and heritage, more so than any other commodity ever produced in that country. It was made into cloth there in the Bronze Age, which began about 1900 BC. By the time the Romans invaded in 55 BC the Britons had developed an appreciation for the fineness of British woolen cloth. Although Saxon invasions in the fifth century nearly destroyed the industry, it is known that in the eighth century Britain was exporting woolen fabrics to continental Europe, and after the arrival of the Norman conquerors in 1066 the industry expanded. By the twelfth century, wool was becoming England’s greatest national asset. Cloth making was widespread, particularly in the large towns of southern and eastern England, nearest to France. But the greatest wealth came from exports of raw wool. Kings and their ministers welcomed the revenue that resulted from exports and export taxes - and also the power it gave to the king, who could grant or withdraw permits for the wool towns and for the industry. Trade associations, known as ‘guilds’, were founded to guarantee good work by experienced weavers (people who produce cloth from woolen threads), and were powerful for hundreds of years. The peak of cloth production was reached in the thirteenth century. Then the wool trade declined for a long period because of political conflict. In 1331, King Edward III encouraged master weavers from Flanders (an area of present-day Belgium) to settle in England. These Flemish weavers and their descendants were to play a part in the final development of English cloth. The export trade in raw wool recovered and the first half of the fourteenth century was a time of prosperity for English wool farmers. But it was overshadowed by a long war with France (export taxes on wool were one of the principal means of financing the war) and by bubonic plague (the Black Death), which in 1349 caused devastation: in many villages as much as three-quarters of the population died. This led to an increase of the sheep flocks, for there were not enough people left to cultivate the land for arable crops. Despite setbacks, raw wool exporting expanded, and so also did manufacturing of wool fabrics. This was becoming both specialized and localized. The area of England known as the West Country had three advantages - extensive sheep pastures, a supply of soft water for washing, scouring and dyeing wool, and water-power to drive machinery. Similarly, the hills of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the north of England had soft water and fast running streams. Water from the latter could be used to drive mills for ‘fulling’, a shrinking process which makes the fabric firmer and its surface more compact. In East Anglia there was soft water, but no hills or fast-running streams to provide power for fulling mills. Instead, East Anglia used the long, fine wool from its native sheep breeds to produce a cloth which did not require the fulling process. This was the type of cloth which is now called ‘worsted’, after the village of Worstead. For four hundred years East Anglia dominated the worsted trade, with skills inherited from the Flemish settlers of 1331. English cloth quickly achieved an international reputation. From being primarily a raw wool exporter, the country became in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a manufacturer and exporter of cloth. At the end of the fifteenth century, it was said that England was largely a nation of sheep farmers and cloth manufacturers. The next two centuries saw continued expansion of the industry despite conflicts at home and abroad. In the sixteenth century, French weavers, persecuted for their Protestant religion, sought refuge in England and took their skills with them. England began to surpass Flanders in woolen manufacture: by the end of the seventeenth century it comprised two-thirds of the value of its exports. Radical changes lay ahead, in the geographical location of the industry, in labor use and in manufacturing processes. By 1770, output of worsted from Yorkshire equalled that of East Anglia, and its cloth manufacturing district began to take shape with the expansion of major towns: Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield. The Industrial Revolution of 1750-1850 also brought change. It led the way for new inventions stemming from the Lancashire cotton industry, to mechanize and speed dramatically the processes of spinning and weaving. Manufacturing methods, unchanged since the revival of the trade in the fourteenth century, were now superseded. Mechanization had been opposed in the past and it was again. The widespread unrest of 1812 led to the destruction of equipment by bands of rioters, who feared they would lose employment. But machinery won the day. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the older areas such as East Anglia, where opposition had been most bitter, permanently declined. They were overtaken by Yorkshire, where machinery was more readily accepted. The younger industry jumped ahead and never lost its lead, supported by abundant supplies of inexpensive coal to generate steam and, later, electrical power. Other specialized types of manufacturing developed in Scotland, famed for its tweeds (a range of coloured woolen cloth with characteristic designs), and in the West Country, which focused on the production of high-quality, woolen carpets.

A Many scientists believe that socialization takes a long process, while compliance is the outset of it. Accordingly, compliance for the education of children is the priority. Motivationally distinct form of child compliance, mutually positive affect, and maternal control, observed in 3 control contexts in 103 dyads of mothers and their 26-41-month-old children, were examined as correlates of internalization, assessed using observations of children while alone with prohibited temptations and maternal ratings. One form of compliance (committed compliance), when the child appeared committed wholeheartedly to the maternal agenda and eager to endorse and accept it, was emphasized. Mother-child mutually positive affect was both a predictor and a concomitant of committed compliance. Children who shared positive effect with their mothers showed a high level of committed compliance and were also more internalized. Differences and similarities between children’s compliance with requests and prohibitions (“Do” vs. “Don’t” demand contexts) were also explored. Maternal “Dos” appeared more challenging to toddlers than the “Don’ts.” Some individual coherence of behavior was also found across both demand contexts. The implication of committed compliance for emerging internalized regulators of conduct is discussed. B A number of parents were not easy to be aware of the compliance, some even overlooked their children’s noncompliance. Despite good education, these children did not follow the words from their parents on several occasions, especially boys in certain ages. Fortunately, this rate was acceptable, some parents could be patient with the noncompliance. Someone held that noncompliance is probably not a wrong thing. In order to determine the effects of different parental disciplinary techniques on young children’s compliance and noncompliance, mothers were trained to observe emotional incidents involving their own toddler-aged children. Reports of disciplinary encounters were analyzed in terms of the types of discipline used (reasoning, verbal prohibition, physical coercion, love withdrawal, and combinations thereof) and children’s responses to that discipline (compliance/noncompliance and avoidance). The relation between compliance/noncompliance and type of misdeed (harm to persons, harm to property, and lapses of self-control) was also analyzed. Results indicated that love withdrawal combined with other techniques was most effective in securing children’s compliance and that its effectiveness was not a function of the type of technique with which it was combined. Avoidant responses and affective reunification with the parent were more likely to follow love withdrawal than any other technique. Physical coercion was somewhat less effective than love withdrawal, while reasoning and verbal prohibition were not at all effective except when both were combined with physical coercion. C “Non-compliant Children sometimes prefer to say to directly as they were younger, they are easy to deal with the relationship with contemporaries. When they are growing up. During the period that children are getting elder, who may learn to use more advanced approaches for their noncompliance. They are more skillful to negotiate or give reasons for refusal rather than show their opposite idea to parents directly.” Said Henry Porter, a scholar working in Psychology Institute of UK. He indicated that noncompliance means growth in some way, may have benefit for children. Many Experts held different viewpoints in recent years, they tried drilling compliance into children. His collaborator Wallace Friesen believed that Organizing a child’s daily activities so that they occur in the same order each day as much as possible. This first strategy for defiant children is ultimately the most important. Developing a routine helps a child to know what to expect and increases the chances that he or she will comply with things such as chores, homework, and hygiene requests. When undesirable activities occur in the same order at optimal times during the day, they become habits that are not questioned but done without thought. Chances are that you have developed some type of routine for yourself in terms of showering, cleaning your house, or doing other types of work. You have an idea in your mind when you will do these things on a regular basis and this helps you to know what to expect. In fact, you have probably already been using most of these compliance strategies for yourself without realizing it. For children, without setting these expectations on a daily basis by making them part of a regular routine, they can become very upset. Just like adults, children think about what they plan to do that day and expect to be able to do what they want. So, when you come along and ask them to do something they weren’t already planning to do that day, this can result in automatic refusals and other undesirable defiant behaviors. However, by using this compliance strategy with defiant children, these activities are done almost every day in the same general order and the child expects to already do them. D Doctor Steven Walson addressed that organizing fun activities to occur after frequently refused activities. This strategy also works as a positive reinforcer when the child complies with your requests. By arranging your day so that things often refused to occur right before highly preferred activities, you are able to eliminate defiant behavior and motivate your child’s behavior of doing the undesirable activity. This is not to be presented in a way that the preferred activity is only allowed if a defiant child does the non-preferred activity. However, you can word your request in a way so that your child assumes that you have to do the non-preferred activity before moving on to the next preferred activity. For example, you do not want to say something such as, “If you clean your room we can play a game.” Instead of the word your request like this, “As soon as you are done cleaning your room we will be able to play that really fun game you wanted to play.” E Psychologist Paul Edith insisted praise is the best way to make children comply with. This is probably a common term you are used to hearing by now. If you praise your child’s behavior, he or she will be more likely to do that behavior. So, it is essential to use praise when working with defiant children. It also provides your child with positive attention. However, it is important to know how to praise children in a way that encourages future automatic reinforcement for your child when doing a similar behavior.