People , placed and Environment portolio Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

People , placed and Environment portolio - Essay Example The relationship of people with their environment is not same in all places. Some places & its environment are harsh for human sustainability whereas some places are most suitable for living. This Portfolio is an endeavor to portray the relationship of people of different places with their environment, with the shift in their location. The places vary from Asian countries like Tibet to countries in the American continent like USA. It depicts the way in which the environment determines the different aspects of their life like population growth, nourishment & economic development of the whole community etc. It describes how people are in different types of relationship with the environment & the way their dependency, wellbeing, etc. varies with the change in location. In the present age, human beings have started to affect the environment enormously through their actions. The environment is harmed considerably by the actions of people. But the harm the environment suffers, through the actions of people varies from place to place. Fig. 1 Nomads of Tibet Fig. 2 People of New York City Fig. 3 People in Sahara desert Fig. 4 Earthquake in Sumatra Fig. 5 â€Å"Java Rice Paddy Workers† Fig. 6 People in Sumatra In Fig. 1 the image of a Nomad of Tibet is given. The population of the area is low due to its rugged relief, creating obstacles in the construction of roads, railways & communication (Richabraj). The nomads come out in the warm weather & roam in mountain pastures with their herds of yaks and sheep. In the cold weather they go to Lhasa, the capital of Tibet for many reasons (Tibetan Nomads: A focus on the Tibetan culture). Thus, this people completely depend on nature for their survival. In Fig. 2 we can see an image of New York City, a highly industrialized city of a developed country. Environment is most suitable in all aspects due to its location. But unlike the developing countries the city causes pollution & thus harms the environment. In Fig. 3 we can see the inhabitants of Sahara Desert, which has a population of only 2.5 million despite its area of 3.5 million. It has one of the harshest environments. The majority of the population being Nomads move from place to place in search of better living conditions (The Living Africa: The People). In Fig. 4 we can see people in Sumatra trying to rescue survivors from a house destroyed by earthquake. These people are tormented by the environment through its natural disasters. Yet, the desire for survival impels these people to fight with the environment. In Fig. 5 we can see workers in Java Island of Indonesia. The Java islands of Indonesia have fertile soil, as such agriculture flourished, making the area densely populated (Richabraj). Thus the environment is perfectly suitable for human beings over here & less industrialization does not allow the environment to be harmed. We can call this a healthy relationship of people, place & environment. In Fig. 6 we can see migrating people of S umatra. Due to the environmental conditions they are forced to migrate in search for a better place. They don’t harm the nature by themselves but instead they are being ruled by the forces of nature. Works Cited Richabraj. â€Å" Elaborate relationship between man and environment?† Wikianswers.com. N.d. Web. 25th Feb 2011. â€Å"Tibetan Nomads: A

Shipboard Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Shipboard Management - Essay Example When the ship is tilted the life boats cannot be released, so the warning system must alert passengers before the tilt takes place. In this condition the passengers did not understand the advantage of taking life rafts and use the life vests on the ship. By the time they understood the situation is out of control. The life rafts were not easy to use and board. They over turned when used by the passengers. It is difficult to assemble them by the people on board. This did not ensure any protection to passengers at the time of accident The supervision regarding the safety measures was not up to mark as some rafts were checked repeatedly and some were left without checking. This caused the destroying the roofs of the rafts for identification by the rescue helicopters. As there are many people to be rescued the number of helicopters did not comply with the need. They were over crowded. The number of rescue crew that came with the helicopters was not enough when compared to the number of p eople to be rescued. The investigation through the video tapes revealed the bow door failure. The failure was due to separation of it from the ferry. The ramp and screen of the bow were damaged and there is no supervision regarding it. This disturbed normal safety measures implementation. The video monitoring that should be done was limited to some part of the vessel only and the bow door and the adjacent parts were not monitored by it. The monitoring of the video was up to that extent only that it is useful after the accident to estimate that up to how much extent and in how much time the water entered the vessel. 1 The crew in operation also did not know about these lapses. Had they know it, they might have reversed the ship which could have avoided the accident by sinking in deep water. This reveals the communication gap between the administration of the ship and crew in operation. After this a joint agreement between different states took place to influence and amend the administrative issues regarding the prohibition of inspection. Not only did the investigations about the sinking of the vessel, the investigation set a stage for enacting further safety measures on board of every vessel. The commissioner for wrecks, Mr Justice Sheen stated that it was the duty f the officer loading the main vehicle deck to see that the bow doors were safe and secure before leaving the harbour. Not only in this case the commissioner found after this investigation that this safety instruction was regularly violated by number of managements of the ship and other officers who monitor the loading of vehicle deck. In this particular case it was found that the officer left the responsibility of closing the bow doors to his assistant. This comes under the violation of standing instructions. The commissioner criticized the ship management company regarding the violation of safety measures and stated the need of considering the strict compliance to the safety measures. When the above statement of commissioner was considered the main responsibility of the disaster lies with the chief officer, his assistant and senior master who was responsible for the monitoring of implementation of the safety measur