I compared the two articles “Small Fish Detect Big Problems” The article is related to the environment because it is about bluegill fish and how they can be used to ensure that humans have safe water to drink. I read the two articles and they both spoke about the bluegill fish and how they are being used to identify changes in water and the cleanliness of the water. They both speak about how the bluegill fish change their behavior when the quality of the water they swim in changes. The primary source article and the secondary source article are very similar and have only a few different distinctions.
The secondary source uses all of the same quotes that were used in the original source. It only added a couple of lines that I feel were added to single out the most important facts of the original article. The secondary source added that the bluegills are being used to detect agricultural and industrial spills that would contaminate water supplies. It also identified that the fishes behavior and breathing patterns would react quickly to any changes in the environment. The secondary source also added that electrodes are also added to the water in the tanks the fish are in and in another water supply nearby. The electrodes are what signal the alarms if conditions inside the tank change from their original state. I feel these are added to the secondary source to attract readers to the page and show the more important and interesting facts that are in the article.
The original source was completely used in the secondary passage. The secondary page used all the same lines as the original and in the same order. The original had no factors that differed from the secondary source. The secondary source was a more intriguing version of the original. The original was also less formal then the secondary source. The secondary source quoted the same people as the original however they would add that the person who said the quote had a “PhD” or they would add “Dr” to the names. The original would be less formal and just say the persons name and not add anything to it. For example the original had "The fish system is a common sense, logical way to monitor for water quality," Shedd says, helping to keep their water -- and yours -- safe.” However the secondary source adds “Dr. Shedd”. This is to make sure the original experimenters get the respect they deserve but the original is much less formal as they just name the writer’s names and whoever else contributed to the experiment of bluegill fish, without addition of credentials.
Both articles seemed to have their share of limitations and strengths. The original was more direct and told more about why they were performing the tests with bluegill and how it affected us humans. Expressing the importance of safe water and how the bluegill react very quickly to the changes in the water they swim in. This was to help express how important the experiment of bluegill fish was. They also assured that the fish are never hurt or injured. To protect the fish, each fish is replaced with a newer, younger fish after spending three weeks monitoring water supplies (Shedd 2007) This is important to make sure that animal activists do not feel the experiment is harming innocent animals. The secondary article adds many facts as well to help explain the topic more so. They have a background section on bluegill fish. They also go more in depth to how the whole process works by explaining what the biomonitoring system looks like. It also gives a small info box on bluegill explaining it more generally as a fish and not as much as an experiment tool.
The bluegill fish is also much more then just a good way to test water. The bluegill is a freshwater fish and is also a member of the sunfish family. It is native to North America and is also the state fish of Illinois. The bluegill is also very sedentary so they are perfect for experimenting with. The experiment uses eight bluegills and each are in piped-in water. The fish are monitored with electrodes and if six become distressed, the system alerts an alarm, and takes samples, and alerts the people working on the project. The whole project costs between $45, 000 to $110,000. The original article is very much more direct and does not include the explanation of the fish but the secondary article gives a brief and lengthier description of the fish and the whole project. I think they add the extra info to help readers understand the article more easily. By feeding the readers information that they may not know about that is in the original article.
The two articles about the bluegill fish were very similar with only a couple lines added to the secondary source. Both articles were very interesting and very similar. The primary source was more to the point and straightforward explaining what they did and how they are doing it. The second article was more about how the bluegill fish functions in the water and activates the alarms to alert humans of the problems. The two articles have many similarities that I feel is natural because they are each about the same original idea. This article was very informative and explained how the bluegill fish can be very important to humans by insuring the water we as humans drink is safe. If it does become contaminated we will know by the bluegill fish’s reaction to water change and the change in behavior of the bluegill fish. This article is important to show that the environment and the animals are important to helping humans.
There is also an interesting short video to watch, in the “Science Daily” article of “Small Fish Detect Big Problems.”
By: Tashi Nanglo
Works Cited
"Small Fish Detect Big Problems." Discoveries and Breakthroughs. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sep 2010. http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/17028_full.html
"Small Fish Detect Big Problems." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sep 2010.
"Small Fish Detect Big Problems." Science Daily. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sep 2010.
Original : http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/17028_full.html
Secondary : http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0303-small_fish_detect_big_problems.htm
This article was from 2007. It was approved by Jonathan Newman.
No comments:
Post a Comment