Consider these versions of the war of the worlds. excerpt 1, from h. g. wells's novel the war of the worlds: i think everyone expected to see a man emerge—possibly something a little unlike us terrestrial men, but in all essentials a man. i know i did. but, looking, i presently saw something stirring within the shadow: greyish billowy movements, one above another, and then two luminous disks—like eyes. then something resembling a little grey snake, about the thickness of a walking stick, coiled up out of the writhing middle, and wriggled in the air towards me—and then another. excerpt 2, from howard e. koch's script for orson welles's radio adaptation: phillips: ladies and gentlemen, this is the most terrifying thing i have ever witnessed . . wait a minute! someone's crawling out of the hollow top. someone or . . something. i can see peering out of that black hole two luminous disks . . are they eyes? it might be a face. it might be . . (shout of awe from the crowd) phillips: good heavens, something's wriggling out of the shadow like a gray snake. now it's another one, and another. they look like tentacles to me. which statement best describes the difference between these versions? the radio adaptation shares more factual information than the novel. the radio adaptation shares more humorous insight than the novel. the radio adaptation is more frenzied than the novel. the radio adaptation is more cheerful than the novel.

many were disgusted, nauseated and shook their heads with disapproval upon finding out about the recycling of water process. however, they do not seem to understand that this process actually saves water.

although individuals may argue that it is unhealthy, and or unsafe to drink water that is "from toilet to tap" , the water is 100% safe to drink and involves forcing the water across a membrane, which "removes   any impurities, including viruses, pharmaceuticals and dissolved minerals" , according to paul rozin, a psychology professor who studies revulsion.

i agree that that the thought of drinking water that once ran through someones kitchen sink isn't quite appealing, but recycled wastewater is safe to drink. it also saves water. "the city produces nine million gallons a day" claims russell schreiber, the city’s director of public works.

recycled waste water has absolutely no health concerns whatsoever. when wastewater goes into a system, it's absorbed back into the ground. thus, it goes into a sewer system, then goes through a treatment process that removes contaminants before being released. nonetheless, there is no problem in drinking water that has been recycled.

"in drought-ed california, there are six state agencies that use wastewater that comes from an intellectual property source," according to the university of california, riverside. studies show that this water is completely safe to drink, however, it still doesn't mean people are going to happily pour it in a water glass.

researchers hope it "may make consumers more amenable to drinking recycled wastewater," extraordinarily, women who have a higher "disgust reaction" and make most consumer purchasing decisions.

c hydrophobia is the answer