Other historians find incongruity in the proposition that the very place where the vast number of the scholars that influenced the scientific revolution received their education should also be the place that inhibits their research and the advancement of science. In fact, more than 80% of the European scientists between 1450–1650 included in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography were university trained, of which approximately 45% held university posts. It was the case that the academic foundations remaining from the Middle Ages were stable, and they did provide for an environment that fostered considerable growth and development. There was considerable reluctance on the part of universities to relinquish the symmetry and comprehensiveness provided by the Aristotelian system, which was effective as a coherent system for understanding and interpreting the world. However, university professors still utilized some autonomy, at least in the sciences, to choose epistemological foundations and methods. For instance, Melanchthon and his disciples at University of Wittenberg were instrumental for integrating Copernican mathematical constructs into astronomical debate and instruction. Another example was the short-lived but fairly rapid adoption of Cartesian epistemology and methodology in European universities, and the debates surrounding that adoption, which led to more mechanistic approaches to scientific problems as well as demonstrated an openness to change. There are many examples which belie the commonly perceived intransigence of universities. Although universities may have been slow to accept new sciences and methodologies as they emerged, when they did accept new ideas it helped to convey legitimacy and respectability, and supported the scientific changes through providing a stable environment for instruction and material resources.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): The acceptance of new concepts and sciences by universities brought these ideas what?
Ah, so.. legitimacy and respectability

General Electric heavily contaminated the Hudson River with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) between 1947-77. This pollution caused a range of harmful effects to wildlife and people who eat fish from the river or drink the water. In response to this contamination, activists protested in various ways. Musician Pete Seeger founded the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and the Clearwater Festival to draw attention to the problem. The activism led to the site being designated by the EPA as one of the superfund sites requiring extensive cleanup. Other sources of pollution, including mercury contamination and sewage dumping, have also contributed to problems in the Hudson River watershed.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What designation did the EPA give to the site of GE's Hudson River pollution
Ah, so.. superfund

Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What are two groups called if no group homomorphisms are found?
Ah, so..
unanswerable