Both the reading and the lecture talk about ways to reduce the salinity from the lake in order to save the fish population. The reading proposes three ways that can help desalinate the lake's water. However, the lecture disputes the ideas given in the passage. The professor said that it will be great if we can stop water's salinity and save the fish, but those methods proposed by the author of the passage are unrealistic or not practical.
To begin with, the author of the reading said that first choice is to remove the salt from the water in specific facilities for desalination. He said that water can be heated, evaporate into steam, then cooled down and return into the lake leaving the salt behind. This particular idea was challenged by the professor. She said that water evaporation will cause other health issues. When water evaporates, besides the salt it can leave behind other toxic chemicals that can be harmful for people's life. for example, she said it can leave selenium, and if people will breathe it it can be so dangerous for their health.
Furthermore, the reading part suggested that they can bring ocean water inside the lake to dissolve the salt. Yet, the lecture does not agree with this proposal. It said that bringing water inside the lake requires pipelines and they are so expensive to build considering the long distance of 100 000 kilometers, and the government may not have enough founds to support this.
Finally, the author of the passage said that one solution can be controlling the water's salinity by constructing walls that can help separate the water in couple sections. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes this proposal. She said that the walls are unlikely to work for long time. She said that if an earthquake may occur it will destroy the walls and the water will be mixed again.
Both the
reading
and the lecture talk about ways to
reduce
the salinity from the
lake
in order to save the fish population. The
reading
proposes three ways that can
help
desalinate the lake's
water
.
However
, the lecture disputes the
ideas
given
in the passage. The professor said that it will be great if we can
stop
water's salinity and save the fish,
but
those methods proposed by the author of the passage are unrealistic or not practical.
To
begin
with, the author of the
reading
said that
first
choice is to remove the
salt
from the
water
in specific facilities for desalination. He said that
water
can
be heated
, evaporate into steam, then cooled down and return into the
lake
leaving the
salt
behind. This particular
idea
was challenged
by the professor. She said that
water
evaporation will cause other health issues. When
water
evaporates,
besides
the
salt
it can
leave
behind other toxic chemicals that can be harmful for
people
's life.
for
example, she said it can
leave
selenium, and if
people
will breathe
it it
can be
so
dangerous
for their health.
Furthermore
, the
reading
part suggested that they can bring ocean
water
inside the
lake
to dissolve the
salt
.
Yet
, the lecture does not
agree
with this proposal. It said that bringing
water
inside the
lake
requires
pipelines and
they are
so
expensive to build considering the long distance of 100 000 kilometers, and the
government
may not have
enough
founds to support this.
Finally
, the author of the passage said that one solution can be controlling the water's salinity by constructing walls that can
help
separate the
water
in couple sections.
On the other hand
, the lecturer opposes this proposal. She said that the walls are unlikely to work for long time. She said that if an earthquake may occur it will
destroy
the walls and the
water
will
be mixed
again.