Intellectual Impairment in School-Age Children Exposed to Manganese from Drinking Water

In the article Intellectual Impairment in School-Age Children Exposed to Manganese from Drinking Water (2010), the claim is that manganese found in drinking water can pose a health risk to children drinking it. The article was based on research done by a team of researchers lead by Maryse Bouchard, a researcher from the University of Quebec. The experiment targeted communities in Quebec that are known to have high levels of manganese within their drinking water supply. It was carried out by estimating the amount of manganese ingested by drinking water and food prepared with the water. The estimates were based on surveys that the families filled out explaining how much they had drank and what they had prepared with the water based on 3D models they were given so there was no confusion as to how much water was used to prepare and or still present in the foods. After a certain time period the children that were tested to see exactly how much manganese was present within their bodies. Following those tests they were given an IQ test, and the results were compared against those who had a lot of manganese and those with very little manganese present within their bodies.

The article makes the same assumptions as the journal written, both papers suggest that having too much manganese is detrimental to the brain functioning at normal capacity. Some 362 children between the ages of 6-13 were tested, and those that had a large amount of manganese within their system scored 6.7 points less than those without a large amount of manganese. If anything the journal misrepresents the effects of the manganese, since the scores of the IQ tests are not affected until they adjust them to take into account age, schooling, parental affects, and so on. Both the journal and the article go on to address the fact that the amounts of manganese found within the children are below the advised limit by Health Canada, meaning that our health regulations are in need of drastic changes in order to protect the health of children within areas that contain large amounts of manganese within their drinking water.

I found the secondary article on the Science Daily website, which displays research articles from Universities and Research Centers around the world. The article was written by the Science Daily staff in order to simplify the journal released by Maryse Bouchard because of its everyday application. The article describes who was involved in the study and the process in which the study was conducted with very little detail. It then went on to discuss the implications of the study because of the implications that arise from the researchers findings. During this discussion it suggested ways to deal with high levels of manganese within drinking water. The staff of Science Daily could not include all of the detail which was present with the primary source because of the audience they write for. Due to this the article consisted of language that could be understood by all that would not normally understand the primary source.

Since the secondary article is reduced to suit the understanding of an average person, there are many limitations to what the staff at Science Daily can include. The primary article was able to include tables, graphs, and scientific language. As the secondary was not able to include aids like this to help describe and prove that manganese effects the development of children’s intelligence. Other limitations to the secondary article are the size, and presentation. The size and presentation of a website are very different from that of a scientific journal. Websites are written to be viewed by a large audience with many different levels of education, as scientific journals are written with the understanding that those viewing it will have some sort of level of education that will lead the reader to be able to understand what is being said within the journal. With this in mind, secondary articles are limited to very little detail, except for the information needed to make it clear what is being done in the experiment, and the primary source can go into as many complexities, graphs, and pictures as it needs to in order to prove its hypothesis.

The primary article (Intellectual Impairment in School-Age Children Exposed to Manganese from Drinking Water) shows that there is a direct correlation between the levels of manganese found in children’s drinking water and the decrease in IQ scores. The article includes graph and charts that show the amount of manganese found in a hair sample and the drop in IQ score. The article is able to use more specific references to the data and research found within the journal. The primary article doesn’t encounter any limitations, unlike the secondary. This allows the authors to prove their point by referring to specific evidence found within the experiment, thus proving their thesis.

This graph shows the IQ scores dropping as the amount of manganese found within the drinking water increases. The primary source uses this graph and many others to help prove that the amount of manganese found within drinking water does have a direct effect on the IQ of children that ingest it. Unlike the secondary source since it is used more to inform the audience, rather than prove that it is true.

In conclusion both the primary and secondary source, stress the fact that manganese is detrimental to the intelligence of young children. Though the secondary article is a condensed form of the primary source, it still correctly informs its audience. So does the primary article, though it has no limitations that would hinder the researchers’ ability to prove their thesis. The primary article was found at http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002321

The secondary source can be found at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100920074013.htm.