Primary and secondary sources in terms of science can be described as information collected to target the scientific community and to target the rest of the population respectively. Environmental science is particularly special in the sense that when there is an environmental issue it has a tendency to affect a large part of the planet therefore becoming global news. As scientific studies are completed the newspaper companies and television networks want to publicize the newly found data in articles or interviews to attract readers and viewers. In just the first year of a new decade, the most devastating and controversial environmental disaster has already occurred arguably topping anything that could happen in the next nine years. The BP oil spill spewed over 180 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from the April 20, 2010 to the day it was officially sealed, September 19, 2010. On August 2, 2010 a scientific report, Testing Results Returning With High Levels, was issued by Wilma Subra, who is a chemist and environmentalist who sampled the toxicity levels of the vegetation, oysters, muscles, sandy soil, Blue crab and Fiddler crab along the Gulf of Mexico’s Louisiana coastline. A secondary source published on August 31, 2010 by The Online Magazine of the Institute of Southern Studies and written by Sue Sturgis entitled, Independent tests find oil spill contamination in Louisiana oysters and crabs, analyzed Wilma Subra’s report. The transformation of primary sources to secondary sources can lead to limitations as the articles become more reader friendly and less scientifically based.
The report by Wilma Subra is more research based. It includes statistics founds after doing studies on the various forms of life on Louisiana’s coastline. Because of this format, the publication’s strengths are the numbers which provide undeniable evidence that the oil spill has been destroying the environment in which it has leaked. In the case that a reader understands the idea that the report is a primary source visuals like, “the beach area contained a number of tar balls” (Subra 2010), may produce emotions within them that a secondary source would be incapable of. The report’s strength also may be seen as a limitation because not everyone is able to understand the significance of, “ the soil/sediment samples contained Carbon Disulfide, 2-Butanone (MEK), Toluene, 0.4 to 1.16% Hydrocarbons, and 20 to 40 PAH’s (49 to 189 mg/kg).” (Subra 2010) In other words, the writing style of the report does not appeal to the average person making it less likely that the severity of the issue will be understood on a global scale. The primary problem in this primary source is that the readability is lacking and therefore the message it is trying to send will not be heard by all.
The article by Sue Sturgis is something which targets the “average Joe”, she effectively translated the numbers and statistics of Wilma Subra into words that the greater public should be able to understand, widening the possible audience. A statement like, “hydrocarbon exposure has been linked to health problems including disorders of the nervous and immune systems, blood, liver, kidneys and lungs, as well as cancer” (Sturgis 2010) has science to back it up while easily explaining what a hydrocarbon is capable of doing to animals and further to the humans that may become exposed. The writing style of this article grabs the attention of the reader and makes them realize that even though it is the waters of the Gulf of Mexico which are being polluted, it may not be too long before their next seafood night negatively effects their health as she adds that “Some fisherman from Gulf states have raised concerns that the Gulf fishing bans imposed following the BP disaster are being lifted prematurely” (Sturgis 2010). Even though all the scientific terms and findings are not being expressed, the overall message is being heard by a wider range of people ultimately making the articles strengths overpower the limitations.
Through analysing the primary and secondary sources side by side on the topic of the hydrocarbons and other toxins in some animals and vegetation on Louisiana’s coastline it was easy to determine the strengths and limitations of both. For direct factual information the primary source by Wilma Subra was more successful because she collected first hand data which proved that the BP oil spill has potentially damaged the nearby eco systems and environments for years to come. In terms of readability and getting the message out to people that the oil spill has damaged the Gulf of Mexico and its surroundings to the point that eating seafood from there may be dangerous, the secondary source by Sue Sturgis is more effective. The secondary source uses the primary source’s information to project the idea that the United States government is aware of the health risks associated with the consumption of seafood from the Gulf yet still insists on lifting the fishing bans to benefit the wealth of the economy while the primary source has straight facts without opinion. The transition from primary sources to secondary sources can create limitations as the article's readability increases but the science behind it diminishes.
By: Jordan Sequeira
Works Cited
Sturgis, S. (2010). Independent tests find oil spill contamination in Louisiana oysters and crabs. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/08/independent-tests-find-oil-spill-contamination-in-louisiana-oysters-and-crabs.html
Subra, W. (2010). Testing Results Returning With High Levels. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://leanweb.org/news/latest/testing-results-returning-with-high-levels.html
No comments:
Post a Comment