I read this background article the other day: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided." I am facing a new situation today: Michael and Robert are scientists who work in a nuclear reactor facility. Michael was replacing a fuel rod in the nuclear reactor when a small explosion happened, causing Michael to be exposed to high doses of radiation in a short period of time. Robert was in the adjacent room when the explosion happened, and as a result he only suffered low doses of radiation. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who is more likely to experience internal organ failure?
----
Answer: Michael

I read this background article the other day: When soil is flooded, hypoxia develops, as soil microorganisms consume oxygen faster than diffusion occurs. The presence of hypoxic soils is one of the defining characteristics of wetlands. Many wetland plants possess aerenchyma, and in some, such as water-lilies, there is mass flow of atmospheric air through leaves and rhizomes. There are many other chemical consequences of hypoxia. For example, nitrification is inhibited as low oxygen occurs and toxic compounds are formed, as anaerobic bacteria use nitrate, manganese, and sulfate as alternative electron acceptors. The reduction-oxidation potential of the rhizhosphere decreases and metal ions such as iron and manganese precipitate. Aerenchyma is a modification of the parenchyma. I am facing a new situation today: John is a soil scientist. He has been studying the lands near Mississippi delta. He noticed cases of hypoxia in that are. He labeled that study as case A. To compare that to other areas he visited Arizona. There he didn't see any occurrence of hypoxia. He labeled that case as case B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which case would more likely see formation of toxic compounds, case A or case B?
----
Answer: case A

I read this background article the other day: Rain dissolves fertilizer in the soil. Runoff carries it away. The fertilizer ends up in bodies of water, from ponds to oceans. Nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water. Since there is a lot of nitrogen, it causes algae to grow out of control. Pictured below is a pond covered with algae ( Figure below ). Algae use up carbon dioxide in the water. After the algae die, decomposers break down the dead tissue. The decomposers use up all the oxygen in the water. This creates a dead zone. A dead zone is an area in a body of water where nothing grows because there is too little oxygen. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ( Figure below ). The U.S. states outlined on the map have rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico. The rivers drain vast agricultural lands. The water carries fertilizer from these areas into the Gulf. I am facing a new situation today: Bobby and Kenny are two prolific farmers from Arkansas who have ponds located down stream from their farm sites. Bobby recently received a large order of potatoes from a neighboring city. Because of this order, Bobby has dramatically increased the amount of fertilizer he is using on his farm. Kenny mainly grows tomatoes, which are not in season right now, so his use of fertilizer is currently low. Over the past month there has been a large amount of rain falling on both Bobby and Kenny's farms. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who will cause more carbon dioxide to be used in the ponds near their farm?
----
Answer:
Bobby