The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Attempting to bring an earlier end to World War II, U.S. President Harry Truman made the fateful decision to drop a massive atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. On August 6, 1945, this atomic bomb, known as Little Boy, flattened the city, killing at least 70,000 people that day and tens of thousands more from radiation poisoning. While Japan  was still trying to comprehend this devastation, the United States dropped another atomic bomb. This bomb, nicknamed Fat Man, was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people immediately and another 20,000 to 40,000 in the months following the explosion. On August 15, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced an unconditional surrender, ending World War II. The Enola Gay Heads to Hiroshima At 2:45 a.m. on Monday, August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber  took off from Tinian, a North Pacific island in the Marianas, 1,500 miles south of Japan. The 12-man crew  was on board to make sure this secret mission went smoothly. Colonel Paul Tibbets, the pilot, nicknamed the B-29 the Enola Gay after his mother. Just before take-off, the planes nickname was painted on its side. The Enola Gay was a B-29 Superfortress  (aircraft 44-86292), part of the 509th Composite Group. In order to carry such a heavy load as an atomic bomb, the Enola Gay was modified: new propellers, stronger engines, and faster opening bomb bay doors. (Only 15 B-29s underwent this modification.) Even though it had been modified, the plane still had to use the full runway to gain the necessary speed, thus it did not lift off until very near the waters edge.1 The Enola Gay was escorted by two other bombers that carried cameras and a variety of measuring devices. Three other planes had left earlier in order to ascertain the weather conditions over the possible targets. The Atomic Bomb Known as Little Boy Is on Board On a hook in the ceiling of the plane, hung the ten-foot atomic bomb, Little Boy. Navy Captain William S. Parsons (Deak), chief of the Ordnance Division in the Manhattan Project, was the Enola Gays weaponeer. Since Parsons had been instrumental in the development of the bomb, he was now responsible for arming the bomb while in-flight. Approximately 15 minutes into the flight (3:00 a.m.), Parsons began to arm the atomic bomb; it took him 15 minutes. Parsons thought while arming Little Boy: I knew the Japs were in for it, but I felt no particular emotion about it.2 Little Boy was created using uranium-235, a radioactive isotope of uranium. This uranium-235 atomic bomb, a product of $2 billion of research, had never been tested. Nor had any atomic bomb yet been dropped from a plane. Some scientists and politicians pushed for not warning Japan of the bombing in order to save face in case the bomb malfunctioned. Clear Weather Over Hiroshima There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (Kyoto was the first choice until it was removed from the list by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released.3 On August 6, 1945, the first choice target, Hiroshima, was having clear weather. At 8:15 a.m. (local time), the Enola Gays door sprang open and dropped Little Boy. The bomb exploded 1,900 feet above the city and only missed the target, the Aioi Bridge, by approximately 800 feet. The Explosion at Hiroshima Staff Sergeant George Caron, the tail gunner, described what he saw: The mushroom cloud itself was a spectacular sight, a bubbling mass of purple-gray smoke and you could see it had a red core in it and everything was burning inside. . . . It looked like lava or molasses covering a whole city. . . .4 The cloud is estimated to have reached a height of 40,000 feet. Captain Robert Lewis, the co-pilot, stated, Where we had seen a clear city two minutes before, we could no longer see the city. We could see smoke and fires creeping up the sides of the mountains.5 Two-thirds of Hiroshima was destroyed. Within three miles of the explosion, 60,000 of the 90,000 buildings were demolished. Clay roof tiles had melted together. Shadows had imprinted on buildings and other hard surfaces. Metal and stone had melted. Unlike other bombing raids, the goal for this raid had not been a military installation but rather an entire city. The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima killed civilian women and children in addition to soldiers. Hiroshimas population has been estimated at 350,000; approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. A survivor described the damage to people: The appearance of people was . . . well, they all had skin blackened by burns. . . . They had no hair because their hair was burned, and at a glance you couldnt tell whether you were looking at them from in front or in back. . . . They held their arms bent [forward] like this . . . and their skin - not only on their hands, but on their faces and bodies too - hung down. . . . If there had been only one or two such people . . . perhaps I would not have had such a strong impression. But wherever I walked I met these people. . . . Many of them died along the road - I can still picture them in my mind like walking ghosts. 6 The Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki While the people of Japan tried to comprehend the devastation in Hiroshima, the United States was preparing a second bombing mission. The second run was not delayed in order to give Japan  time to surrender but was waiting only for a sufficient amount of plutonium-239 for the atomic bomb. On August 9, 1945, only three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, another B-29, Bocks Car, left Tinian at 3:49 a.m. The first choice target for this bombing run had been Kokura. Since the haze over Kokura prevented the sighting of the bombing target, Bocks Car continued on to its second target. At 11:02 a.m., the atomic bomb, Fat Man, was dropped over Nagasaki. The atomic bomb exploded 1,650 feet above the city. Fujie Urata Matsumoto, a survivor, shares one scene: The pumpkin field in front of the house was blown clean. Nothing was left of the whole thick crop, except that in place of the pumpkins there was a womans head. I looked at the face to see if I knew her. It was a woman of about forty. She must have been from another part of town I had never seen her around here. A gold tooth gleamed in the wide-open mouth. A handful of singed hair hung down from the left temple over her cheek, dangling in her mouth. Her eyelids were drawn up, showing black holes where the eyes had been burned out. . . . She had probably looked square into the flash and gotten her eyeballs burned. Approximately 40 percent of Nagasaki was destroyed. Luckily for many civilians  living in Nagasaki,  though this atomic bomb was considered much stronger than the one exploded over Hiroshima, the terrain of Nagasaki prevented the bomb from doing as much damage. The decimation, however, was still great. With a population of 270,000, approximately 40,000 people died immediately and another 30,000 by the end of the year. I saw the atom bomb. I was four then. I remember the cicadas chirping. The atom bomb was the last thing that happened in the war and no more bad things have happened since then, but I dont have my Mummy any more. So even if it isnt bad any more, Im not happy.- Kayano Nagai, survivor 8 Sources Notes 1. Dan Kurzman,  Day of the Bomb: Countdown to Hiroshima  (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986) 410.2. William S. Parsons as quoted in Ronald Takaki, Hiroshima:  Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb  (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995) 43.3. Kurzman,  Day of the Bomb  394.4. George Caron as quoted in Takaki,  Hiroshima  44.5. Robert Lewis as quoted in Takaki,  Hiroshima  43.6. A survivor quoted in Robert Jay Lifton,  Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima  (New York: Random House, 1967) 27.7. Fujie Urata Matsumoto as quoted in Takashi  Nagai, We of Nagasaki: The Story of Survivors in an Atomic Wasteland  (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1964) 42.8. Kayano Nagai as quoted in  Nagai, We of Nagasaki  6. Bibliography Hersey, John.  Hiroshima. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Kurzman, Dan.  Day of the Bomb: Countdown to Hiroshima. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986. Liebow, Averill A.  Encounter With Disaster: A Medical Diary of Hiroshima, 1945. New York: W. W. Norton Company, 1970. Lifton, Robert Jay.  Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima. New York: Random House, 1967. Nagai, Takashi.  We of Nagasaki: The Story of Survivors in an Atomic Wasteland. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1964. Takaki, Ronald.  Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.

Abbreviations in Science and Technology

Abbreviations in Science and Technology Abbreviations in Science and Technology Abbreviations in Science and Technology By Mark Nichol Because of the bewildering variety of abbreviations for scientific and technological terms and the inconsistency of treatment, writers and editors are advised to consult with publications like The Chicago Manual of Style or a handbook specific to a scientific discipline or to an industry to confirm standard modes of abbreviation for specific terms. This post provides an assortment of examples that demonstrate the seemingly chaotic nature of scientific and technological abbreviation. Abbreviations for scientific and technological terms generally do not use periods; an exception is physical dimensions for nonmetric quantities such as gr. for grain, qt. for quart, and bbl. for barrel and temporal abbreviations such as sec. (second), hr. (hour), and mo. (month). Note, too, that unlike abbreviations for physical dimensions, those for durations of time include an s when they are plural: â€Å"15 mins.,† â€Å"5 yrs.,† etc.). Abbreviations of metric units are almost invariably lowercased; an exception is mL for milliliter, so that a lowercase l is not confused for the numeral 1. The format of abbreviation of US units of measure is inconsistent. Sometimes, abbreviations may consist of the first two letters of a word (for example, mi. for mile); in other cases, the abbreviation may be formed from the first and last letters (as in yd. for yard). Rarely, an abbreviation of a foreign term is used, as with lb. instead of po. or pd. for pound, while the abbreviation oz. for ounce is based on the medieval Italian form onza. Just as these abbreviations are usually appropriate only for charts and tables, not for what is called running text (the prevailing content in a publication distinct from display copy- headlines, captions, and the like- and graphic elements such as charts and tables), symbols are usually avoided in running text, but the percentage symbol (%) is occasionally used there, especially in statistically dense content, as are symbols for minutes and seconds in time or distance. However, these should be style as primes (†²) and double primes (†³), although some publications use straight, or dumb, quotation marks ( or ) or even curly, or smart, ones (’ or †). Capitalization of scientific and technological terms is variable, sometimes even for terms in the same category. Just as the first letter for the abbreviation of tablespoon is capitalized to distinguish Tbsp. from the abbreviation for teaspoon (tsp.), Bps (for â€Å"bytes per second†) and bps (for â€Å"bits per second†) are distinguished by initial capitalization of the former but not the latter, and abbreviation of megabit and megabyte are distinguished as Mb and MB, though kilobit is abbreviated kb, while kilobyte is shortened to KB (or simply K). The first letter of the abbreviations for â€Å"kilobyte per second† (Kbps) and â€Å"megabyte per second† (Mbps) is also capitalized. Abbreviations of scientific units named for scientists have initial capitalization, though the spelled-out terms themselves are lowercased- for example, Bq (becquerel), Da (dalton), and J (joule). This is true of abbreviations of words based on surnames, such as F for farad (an abbreviation of Faraday) and V for volt (from Volta). And because the -bel in decibel is in honor of Alexander Graham Bell, that segment of the word for a unit of measurement of sound is capitalized in abbreviation to dB. Likewise, the first letter in Btu is capitalized because it stands for British. (The other letters stand for thermal and units.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:30 Synonyms for â€Å"Meeting†Deck the HallsPersonification vs. Anthropomorphism

Film Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Film Analysis - Essay Example Character The character in this film Bill A. Jones is one of those actors who you have most likely seen or heard, but he cannot quite place. In this film, Bill A. Jones has done a great job in this short film buy trying to express how every man feels about his life. As the main actor, Bill A. Jones has played a good role in this film he has a powerful stunt that he pulls up so as to bring out the best in this short film. His words are not the only thing that should be observed in the film. His facial expression also explains a lot in this film. At first he has a â€Å"don’t care† attitude whereby he doesn’t show even a little emotion in spite of the fact that the wife is nearly leaving him. When the wife later leaves him that is when the tone of his voice changes to a low and a soft one. Mark W. Gray has put more effort on this guy since he is the main character of this short film. His physical appearance means everything in this play. Play setting The character wakes up very early in the morning only to talk and talk and talk about his wife. He starts in the bedroom the later follows his wife everywhere until they meet in the kitchen where the wife cannot take it anymore. I think this play is trying to impress the vice versa of life. ... taking The individual taking this film has taken in such a situation that the film is self explanatory the angles of filming indicates that the film taker is a very intelligent person when it comes to filming. For instance, if the film is muted, one will probably guess what is going on in the film. This is the reason why I stated the film to be self explanatory. Second character (the wife) This character plays an important role in this film. She plays her part quite well thus perceiving a true woman deeds when she is annoyed. One will possibly think that this is a real life situation whereas it is a simple act. Mark W. Gray as the producer has explained via the woman how the feminine gender cannot cope with the vice versa situation of them because this is a vice versa situation of portrayal of them. Normally wives love complaining and this is a thing that has been portrayed in many of them for many years now, little things turn out to be big issues. End transition The end transition of this film has portrayed the real meaning of this film; I think this film is the simplest film to explain how a woman can cope with a complaining husband. From the film, the film the wife leaves then taking husband when she realizes how annoying his husband is. If things alternated in a real life situation, things would turn out to be a disaster in life. Mark W. Gray tries to portray that the women cannot cope with a complaining husband. The pressure situated at this wife in this film is the same pressure the husbands in the world undergo when the wives starts complaining. What Mark W. Gray is trying to portray is that the women normally situate men in certain conditions which they cannot handle when situated into them. The funny part about this film is that the husband is not complaining

MOTIVATION Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

MOTIVATION - Essay Example They feel empty, nothing drives them. There are a number of things that Sue can do to work to increase her motivation. It would be a real shame if she simply stayed unmotivated throughout school as she would probably learn very little and also she would probably get poor grades. To begin with, Sue can try to visualize her future. She needs to set goals, but these are goals she should also be able to understand and to see in her mind's eye. She wants to get a good job in the business sector. She should think of herself in the future dressed up in a nice suit and sitting in a comfortable office with a mahogany floor. Then she should work backwards. How did get to this office? What did she have to do? How nice is her job?--does she like the money and power that come from it? What does she have to do to get there? These kinds of questions will focus Sue on the task at hand. She wants to get a job: so what is the best way to do that? She needs to be able to make a connection between her p resent abilities and her future goals. It may not be easy to do if she has a poor imagination or generally a very unambitious person, but it may be helpful in the long run. She can also look to the McClelland achievement theory for help. In this theory it helps to have harmonious relationships with others that will help her to feel more ambitious.

Editing my answer papres Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Editing my answer papres - Essay Example The warehouse was burgled and the company suffered a loss of $30,000. The insurance company claimed that the insurance policy did not cover burglary and therefore refused to pay. Duty of care was breached when Daniel failed to check the content of the insurance policy. When Quality Sofa expected to collect insurance it was faced the losses of 30,000 $ which affected its financial state, because he did not carefully check the statement and should be held liable for it. If Daniel is unaware of nature of insurance policies, because he is an accountant, it is no excuse to just sign the policy. He should have spent time and even requested legal advice if necessary not to be held liable in this particular case. As for his liability in duty of loyalty, he is liable for getting personal benefit by offering a client of Quality Sofa Bed a discount that not the company’s interest, but rather his own interest. If the client had approached Daniel as an individual, then he would not be held liable. Although Daniel should have disclosed that the warehouse that Quality Sofa and Bed purchased was his, he saved for Sofa and Bed 5,000 $ because the fair value was valued +5,000 $. In the specific incident he kept his self-interest aside and put the company’s benefit on the first place. Although Daniel did not technically breech his duty of loyalty in the warehouse incident, he definitely breeched his duty of care with the insurance contract and his duty of loyalty with the personal gain he benefited from. There were two violations of duties. I think that although he sold his warehouse for less than fair value and since he insisted on the directors to purchase his warehouse, he should have at least disclosed that he owned the warehouse or even restrained from voting. Since he already breached one duty of care and one duty of loyalty he can’t be considered a reliable director. Corporate governance has failed miserably to alert of send signals to everyone that

Impact of Inequality on Democracy

Impact of Inequality on Democracy Yannick Buitenhuis Inhoud Introduction Inequality r>g as a cause Limiting democracy. Conclusion Introduction Inequality is as old as mankind itself. Think of the difference between the Pharaoh versus the tomb builders; the Caesar versus the proletariat; the King and his nobles versus the peasants; The factory owners versus the labourers; and at the moment, between business(wo)men, CEO’s and (investments) bankers versus lower-income jobs. There has always been some sort of inequality. But how does this inequality between people emerge in the society of our modern history and how will it develop in the future? Capital in the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Piketty, both being praised as being criticised, focuses on this subject of growing inequality between people in our newest century and depicts the origin of this inequality since the beginning of the industrial Revolution. Piketty looks at the outcomes of the modern economical system and attempts to answer different questions considering this and the global dynamics of the distribution of income and wealth on the basis of historical and comparative data, and a theoretical framework (The Economist, 2014; Piketty, 2014, p. 8). Piketty’s outcomes resulted in the following question: Why does inequality grow and how can it affect democracy during the beginning of the twenty-first century? First of all, inequality is discussed and a personal opinion on the subject is given. Subsequently, this paper discussed the work of Piketty on the basis of the introduction of his book. And as last, the relationship between the outcomes of Piketty’s work and the future of democracy is discussed. This all resulted in a conclusion, which links back to the central question. Inequality As mentioned earlier, inequality is not new in our world, and it will not fully disappear. A world without inequality is a utopian view. Inequality can only increase or decrease, but if it becomes centrifugal in one direction, then it becomes a problem and the cause of others. Inequality does not only have an economical dimension, and inequality in these different dimensions can go hand in hand. Economic inequality can for instance lead to other forms of inequality, like social inequality, inequality in opportunity or health. Furthermore, it can come hand in hand with psychological effects (Judge Paterson, 2001, p.6; Scanlon, 2014; Wilkinson, 2011). Other factors that come into play with inequality are the power relations between different actors (Flint Taylor, 2011, pp. 28-32, 40-41). Scanlon (2014) argues that wealthy people in a society where wealth is unequally distributed often end up in control of many aspects of the lives of poorer people. He gives an example of how ownership of a public media outlet can give control over the view of people about themselves, others and society. In the words of Jean Daudrillard, a hyperreality can be created in which one can create an image of the reality for others (Valkenberg, 2012, p. 53). But this can also be applied to the creation of opportunity. Thus, inequality can give some people an undesirable degree of control over others. Inequality is already something in itself, but it makes a difference if this inequality is justified or not. But how and when do you qualify inequality as justified? And where do you draw the boundary between justified or unjustified? This does not have to discourage. Wilkinson (2011) reasons that our mutual inequality and in which interrelation we stand against each other are key factors determining the average wellbeing of societies. So, to strive for less inequality in our society is a noble goal. But how and why does this inequality grows? To find an answer the work of Piketty will be consulted. r>g as a cause Piketty takes a new path with his work concerning economics and the question about unequal wealth distribution among people in societies and its evolution over the long term since the nineteenth century. He uses a clear and logical way of reasoning which is based on a large database, clarified in his introduction. This section will discuss Piketty’s work. The discussion will focus around his findings, and mainly on his idea of r>g. A remark must be made: the discussion limits itself to the introduction of the book, so not his whole work will be discussed. Piketty (2014, pp. 9-12) looks at a longer time span and different time periods to find developments in history. Thereby, he finds some vital insight in two principles of David Ricardo and Karl Marx to understand the twenty-first century. This insight contributes to the acknowledgement of two types of forces, those of convergence and those of divergence. The forces of convergence can become overwhelmed by forces of divergence, pushing towards greater inequality. The most destabilizing forces of divergence are the ones related with the process of accumulation and concentration of wealth when growth (g) is weak and the return on capital (r) high. Piketty formulates this in a short ‘formula’ which makes the situation synoptic: r>g. A situation where risk of divergence is high, because inherited wealth will grow faster than output and income and the concentration of capital can reach extremely high levels (Piketty, 2014, pp. 20-23). This all leads to greater inequality, which can reach levels â€Å"incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies† (Piketty, 2014, p. 23) contradicting the work of Simon Kuznets and his Kuznets curve, an idea that has long dominated economists (Piketty, 2014, pp. 12-15). Limiting democracy Previously addressed by Piketty was that: inequality can reach levels incompatible with our democracy. But Piketty does not give attention to this relation in his introduction. In this part, the relation between Piketty’s outcomes and the future of democracy will be discussed. How can growing inequality affect democracy? In my opinion, democracy can certainly be affected by growing inequality between people. First, when too much inequality arises can mean that lot of social-economic conflict will stay in the social order. This will be politically expressed in a continuous struggle to eradicate the felt political deficit. Democracy in a fast changing society asks for continuous energy to keep democracy with the current demands. This cannot be reached, because the conflicts are constantly demanding time to be removed. Secondly, in relation with the first point, growing inequality, its social-economic conflicts and the felt political deficit can result in discontent, loss of faith and disillusionment under (a growing group of) people (Caryl, 2014). Democracy cannot fully function without a majority supporting it and its policies. A demand of change will be dominate the public opinion. In a certain way it can be seen as a pendulum, it cannot keep going in one direction, at a certain point it needs to swing back. Thus, in my eyes, democracy cannot work in its optima forma during a time of growing inequality. Conclusion First of all, inequality is not new, but its level can change over time because of forces of convergence and divergence. It is not limited to one dimension and these dimensions of inequality can sometimes go hand in hand. A certain relation between inequality and power relations was also found, possibly resulting in uneven control. The question that was asked in the introduction was as follow: Why does inequality grow and how can it affect democracy during the beginning of the twenty-first century? During the discussion of Piketty’s work the cause of growing inequality during the beginning of the twenty-first century was found. Piketty showed with his idea of r>g that in a time with slow growth and the return on capital high, inherited wealth grows faster than output and income, resulting in more inequality. So, rich people can get even more rich and faster than people with a lesser fortune. As last, democracy cannot work properly when inequality keeps growing. First, because the social-economic conflicts resulting from inequality demand time to be remove, so less time can be spend on the current and changing demands of democracy. Secondly, discontent, loss of faith and disillusionment in the current democracy can prevail under people, resulting in less support and a demand for change. So, resulting from this, one could argue that when inequality in the twenty-first century keeps growing, the current democratic system comes to stand under pressure. References Caryl, C. (2014), Economist Debates Democracy: are worries about the health of democracy today overblown? http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/1055. Last used on: 21 September 2014. Economist, The (2014), The Economist explains: Thomas Piketty’s â€Å"Capital†, summarised in four paragraphs. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains. Last used on: 18 September, 2014. Flint, C. Taylor, P. (2011), Political Geography: World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Sixth Edition. pp. 28-44. Judge, K. Paterson, I. (2001), Poverty, Income Inequality and Health. Treasury Working Paper Series 1 (29), pp. 1-64. Leeds Gate (2013), Climbing the social ladder – how about even being on the ladder? http://www.leedsgate.co.uk/2013/11/18/climbing-the-social-ladder-how-about-even-being-on-the-ladder/. Last used on: 18 September, 2014. Piketty, T. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University. pp. 8-22. Scanlon, T.M. (2014), The 4 Biggest Reasons Why Inequality is Bad for Society. http://ideas.ted.com/2014/06/03/the-4-biggest-reasons-why-inequality-is-bad-for-society/. Last used on: 21 September 2014. Valkenberg, S. (2012), De 20 Beste Ideeà «n van de Filosofie. Filosofie Magazine 20(7-8), pp. 27-57. Wilkinson, R. (2011), How Economic Inequality Harms Societies. https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson. Last used on: 21 September 2014. 1

United Nations Millennium Goal Essay -- World Issues, Interventions

Target C of the seventh United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to ‘halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation’ (UN, 2000). With our current model of sanitation, the flush toilet, we are simply unable to provide sanitation to everyone as the flush toilets are grossly inefficient, requiring large amounts of water and sewer infrastructure to function, two things increasing hard to possess in the developing world (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011). This lack of possession leads to defecation and urination into unsafe sources, such as nearby streams and rivers which also provide drinking water for these people. The unsafe urination and defecation increases the incidence of fecal-oral contamination and occurrences of other communicable diseases. It also forces the poor villagers to walk farther in search of uncontaminated water sources. Interventions and the redevelopment of the sanitation system can bring about many positive changes in developing countries where present knowledge and present development of sanitation is poor. Optimum benefit from water sanitation interventions can be achieved if the communities are made aware of the links between hygiene practices, poor sanitation, polluted water, and disease (UNHRC, 2011). The redevelopment of the sanitation system is essential for the third world countries; however, the global community must overcome challenges before implementation to ensure lasting success. The redevelopment of the sanitation system, particularly the reinvention of the toilet is an efficient and significant way of improving health and hygiene, and women’s education and personal safety. Currently, 40% of the world’s populati... ...blem of implementation by spending more money on education and actual procurement of the reinvented toilets rather than the administration. It is great to take the increased education of the developing country to our advantage by using the school children to spread the message about sanitation to their families and deep into their communities. School Environment and Sanitation and Rural India states that â€Å" The best way to break bad practices is to cultivate good practices and childhood is the best time for that as children are receptive to all influences† (Majra and Gur, 2010). From these two suggestions for implementation, it seems very logical that the global community should focus on providing access to proper sanitation facilities at schools and on providing water, hygiene, and environment education at primary schools to further spread the reinvented toilet.