Suppose you were near a site with mercury pollution and were told ...

[jasdeep_brar]

Suppose you were near a site with mercury pollution and were told that a plant could take mercury up, but that it would emit mercury vapor. Would it be worth planting these plants? Why or why not? (This is an expected phenomenon.)
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Not much possibility remains to increase use of mill residues of forest products, but much remains to be gained from use of logging residues.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[fdliggud]

Answer to Question 1

This is an interesting discussion question because it raises the question of give
and take in pollution reduction. It cannot actually be answered without further information,
as is typical of science.
Among some of the questions it would be wise for us to consider before answering such a
question as posed above are:
What is the concentration of vapor in local air?
What proportion of remediated mercury appears as vapor?
Would repeated plantings lead to progressive reductions despite the emission of the
mercury vapor?
Will the vapor spread the pollution more widely?
Note that these are experimental questions, and cannot be answered without measurements,
another hallmark of science.

Answer to Question 2

According to Table 23.3, mill residues are already being well-tapped for energy.
Roughly 60 of this resource is being used. With the exception of thinnings, residential
wood fuel, bagasse, and food-processing wastes, few other sources of biomass are so well
exploited. For logging residues, the number is under 30. A more accurate sentence might
be Compared to the opportunities for increasing biomass energy utilization from logging
residues, increases from mill residues are less likely to be found.