Unit 6Keys for 1.3.1•We found elevated risks for colorectal and lung can cer with both meat types.•We observed borderli ne statistically sig nifica nt elevated risks for adva need prostate can cer with both red and processed meat in take,-•We found a positive associati on betwee n red meat in take specifically and can cers of the esophagus and liver, and a borderline significant positive association for laryngeal can cer.•Un expectedly, we found an inv erse associati on betwee n red meat in take and en dometrial can cer;…•We observed a suggesti on of an elevated risk for adva need prostate can cer with both meat types. •With regard to breast cancer, a pooled analysis of eight cohort studies found no associatio n with red meat intake;Keys for 1.3.22.1.1Cause: ironEffect: carc inogen esis2.1.31. Firstly;2.Furthermore;3. because of;4. can lead to;5. caus ing;6. cause;7. due to2.1.4 Notes into a Causal ParagraphThere are several factors to be take n into acco unt whe n study ing why some pla nts become weak or die. One reason is lack of water. Dryness in the soil causes the leaves to wilt, and may give rise to the death of the pla nt. On the other hand, too much water may result in the leaves droop ing, or beco ming yellow. Whilesunshine is necessary for plants, if it is too strong, the soil may be baked and the roots killed. However, if there is no light, the leaves will become pale and the stems thin. Consequently the pla nt may die.Keys for 2.2.1Examples of stre ngthe ning a claim:We observed borderline statistically significant elevated risks for…It len ds strong support to …We observed a stronger positive association for-We found a positive association betwee n red meat in take specifically and can cers of the esophagus and liver,…In con trast to our findin gs, childhood leukemia has been positively associated with in take of processed meats in a case-c on trol study.Examples of weake ning a claim:Our study suggestsa threshold effect for red meat in take on esophageal can cer risk,It is possible that the referent group had a smaller-than-expected cancer incidenee by chanee.We observed a suggestion of an elevated risk for adva need prostate can cer with both meat types.This could explain some of the inconsistencies in the literature as most previous studies have not specifically addressed adva need prostate can cer.Although breast can cer risk related to meat in take did n ot appear to differ by meno pausal status in our study, we had very few preme no pausal cases (n = 94) and lacked in formatio n on horm one receptor status for a large nu mber of cases.Associati ons betwee n saturated fat and can cer are likely to be related to en ergy bala nee in gen eral, whereas iron is thought to eon tribute to care inogen esis specifically by gen erat ing free radicals and in duci ng oxidative stress.An earlier start in data collect ion would have in creased the time n eeded to survey more participa nts. Ideally, the nu mber of participa nt would have bee n more eve nly distributed across gen der/year in population. A larger sample with diversity would have benefited our results.A decrease in the eonsumption of red and processed meatcould reduce the incidenee of cancer at multiple sites.Keys for 2.3In our study, zinc suppleme ntati on did not result in asig nifica nt reduct ion in overall mortality in childre n aged 1—8 mon ths in a populatio n with high malaria tran smissi on. However,there was a suggesti on that the effect varied by age, with no effect on mortality in infan ts, and amargi nally sig nifica nt 18% reduct ion of mortality in childre n 12 —8 mon ths of age (p=0045).・This effect was mainly a consequence of fewer deaths from malaria and other infections. Any effect on mortality in this trial was in addition to a possible effect of vitamin A supplementationKeys for 3.2Even though Arizona and Rhode Island are both states of the U.S., they are strikingly different in many ways. For example, the physical size of each state is different. Arizona is large, having an area of 114,000 square miles, whereas Rhode Island is only about a tenth of the size, having an area of only 1,214 square miles. Another difference is in the size of the population of each state. Arizona has about four million people living in it, but Rhode Island has less than one million. The two states also differ in the kinds of natural environment that each has. For example, Arizona is a very dry state, consisting of large desert areas that do not receive much rainfall every year. However, Rhode Island is located in a temperate zone and receives an average of 44 inches of rain per year. In addition, while Arizona is a landlocked state and thus has no seashore, Rhode Island lies on the Atlantic Ocean and does have a significant coastline.Keys for 3.3The following is taken from a discussion section of a research paper.DiscussionA thorough analysis of both ‘ worst ' and ‘best ' rankings shows that the onsite containment te leads to the best LCA result in the light of the taken hypotheses. Unlike other treatment techniques, onsite containment requires not only few materials (geosynthetics only) but also small-scale excavation works. Actually the more a technique includes heavy technical operations involving materials and equipment, the worse the result of LCA is. This is the case for bio-leaching and offsite landfilling, which include, on the one hand, setting up the bio-leaching device, the treatment of leachates with lime, disposal of waste and cleaning of the site, and on the other hand, removal of soil and the transportation of huge quantities of materials over large distances.As mentioned above, besides the LCA, it is necessary to take into account the ability of techniques to substitute for each other as well as the environmental burdens which may be associated with them.Viewed in this light, it is worth noticing that bio-leaching and offsite landfilling provide complete remediation of the site, contrary to other treatment techniques. Bio-leaching consists of a real onsite decontamination of the polluted soil, which enables bequeathing of a clean site to coming generations. Nevertheless, in addition to a bad LCA result, this emergent technique is still poorly known and its efficiency is not quite proven for large-scale applications as yet. As regards offsite landfilling, if the site is left usable without any risk, the huge quantities of non-stabilized waste, which have to be disposed of in landfill, may disturb the organization of local waste management. This point emphasizes the bad result of LCA.In return, if the favorable LCA result of onsite containment is due to light treatment operations, this very thing brings environmental issues up into the long term. Indeed, only setting-up of a water-resistance device entails onsite storage of huge quantities of non-stabilized soil, meaning that the initial problem is actually postponed, but not solved.As regards liming, which gives intermediate LCA results, an embankment of stabilized soil plays an important part in site rehabilitation. Indeed, in the absence of embankment, liming offers no chance of reuse for the whole site, whereas the site becomes partly reusable when an embankment of limed soil is achieved. However, stabilization provided by the liming technique is not reliable in the long term and it cannot be assured that the site will be safe for coming generations.To conclude, with the view to treating the site contaminated by sulfur in the short-term, the LCA has been a useful tool in determining the most environmentally friendly technique: onsite containment has been revealed to offer the best resource productivity.On the basis of these interesting results, it would be useful to take into account a wider range of environmental flows in order to get a more exhaustive inventory. And furthermore, a more conventional LCA format could be achieved by using impact categories (global warming, acidificati on •…)as in puts in the multicriteria an alysis, in stead of en vir onmeoWaS.Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)。