Krillion Recorded answers
245 recorded answers
How to approach it
Work outward from the plainest reading of the prompt. Begin with the everyday problems most people would say first, because the scoring rewards volume as much as novelty: even familiar entries count, and a long list beats one clever pick. Then move through the media one at a time, the air, fresh water, the sea, the soil, the built environment, and ask what damages each. After that, switch from substances to processes: slow changes in chemistry, climate, hydrology and living communities. Finish with the specialist's shelf: industrial by-products, trace contaminants, habitat-specific disruptions and cross-border waste. Rarity is what separates the upper tier, so keep going past the obvious until the list runs dry, and write each answer as a short noun phrase.
Get a hint
Start with the medium that carries the harm: what we breathe, what we drink, what grows our food, and the living communities that hold those systems together.
A little more
Then push toward processes rather than substances: shifts in temperature, chemistry, water levels or species composition that unfold over decades and resist easy reversal.
One step further
Finally, go narrow and technical, the way a specialist would: contamination at trace concentrations, waste from a single industry, or damage confined to one kind of habitat.
Reveal answers 245
- Groundwater pollutionRare60points
- Habitat fragmentationRare60points
- Harmful algal bloomsRare60points
- Hazardous wasteRare60points
- Heavy metal pollutionRare60points
- Illegal dumpingRare60points
- Illegal fishingRare60points
- Illegal loggingRare60points
- Illegal wildlife tradeRare60points
- Indoor air pollutionRare60points
- Industrial wasteRare60points
- Insect declineRare60points
- Land degradationRare60points
- Lead pollutionRare60points
- Marine debrisRare60points
- Medical wasteRare60points
- Mercury pollutionRare60points
- MiningRare60points
- Nuclear accidentsRare60points
- Nuclear falloutRare60points
- Nuclear testingRare60points
- Nutrient pollutionRare60points
- Ocean dumpingRare60points
- Ocean warmingRare60points
- Open burning of wasteRare60points
- OverconsumptionRare60points
- OvergrazingRare60points
- OverhuntingRare60points
- Packaging wasteRare60points
- Particulate matterRare60points
- Permafrost thawRare60points
- Pesticide pollutionRare60points
- PFASRare60points
- Radioactive pollutionRare60points
- Resource depletionRare60points
- RoadkillRare60points
- Sewage pollutionRare60points
- Shark finningRare60points
- Slash-and-burnRare60points
- Smoke pollutionRare60points
- Soil pollutionRare60points
- Space debrisRare60points
- Textile wasteRare60points
- Thermal pollutionRare60points
- Urban heat islandRare60points
- Urban runoffRare60points
- Waste incinerationRare60points
- Wastewater pollutionRare60points
- Water overuseRare60points
- Wetland lossRare60points
Why these answers count
The scoring is a popularity curve turned upside down. Familiar, broad entries, the ones a hundred players type at once, settle near the bottom of the band, while specificity pulls an answer upward. That is why a single industrial by-product named precisely, nurdle pollution, sat alone at 100 points, and why the long 85-point shelf is crowded with answers that a general reader would not reach in the first minute: acid mine drainage, ammonia pollution, fatbergs, ghost nets. These are still recognisable problems, not obscure jargon; they simply require one extra step of recall. Answers that stopped at the level of a whole medium or a general trend scored lower because hundreds of players found them, so the reveal had already spent their novelty. The practical lesson is that the grader rewards a narrow label on a real phenomenon far more than a sweeping one, and that a specific mechanism or waste stream is worth more than the category it belongs to.