Secondary sources are papers or articles that retell information obtained elsewhere. This information is normally obtained from studies published in original journals, letters etc. These are called primary sources. What typically tends to happen is that facts taken out of the primary sources are falsely replicated or exaggerated by the authors of the secondary sources. The problem being that the general population only sees the secondary sources, whether it be in a newspaper, magazine or something similar. This gives the public a false image of the truth and although it may make for a better news article, that does not justify the action of supplying the public with inaccurate facts.
This blog contrasts primary and secondary sources of an example story on pollution and human cardiovascular health. In 2009, Dr. Robert A. Silverman of the Long Island Jewish Medical Centre along with his colleagues conducted a study on the link between ambient air pollutants and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases in New York City. This study paired with data from 33 US Environmental Protection Agency pollution sensors around New York City made a link between these two factors plausible. The study focused on fine ambient particles with a molecular diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometres. These particles included ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Silverman and his team found that with warmer weather the concentration of these particles would increase as well as the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases. This data implied a link between the two, but did not solidify one.
The study was accepted by The Journal of Epidemiology on June 10th 2010. On September 21st 2010 an article entitled 'Cardiac Arrest Caused by Air Pollution' was published by the website topnews.us. The title in itself is the first inaccurate statement and an exaggeration of the study, as it never once indicated that cardiac arrest was indeed caused by pollution, only that it may be. The article begins by stating that "the rising rates of pollution increase the number of people going through cardiac arrest" (topnews.us, 2010), which is not a fact included in the original paper either, the study did not find a dependency of cardiac arrest on pollution. This is made quite clear in the original which actually reads "the relation between pollution and sudden death from cardiac arrest has not been established" (oxfordjournals.org, 2010). The statement made by the news article author was yet another inflation of the original papers facts. These inaccurate statements help to clarify how reliable secondary sources really are.
Along with providing inaccurate information to the public, the news article also failed to include some of the key facts from the original paper. This act however is not nearly as serious as misleading readers, as they will only be uninformed and not wrongly informed. For instance the original told how studies have only proven that there is a link between cardiovascular health (not cardiac arrest) and air pollution. Furthermore, only certain ambient particles were linked with effects on cardiovascular health, while other pollutants have a much weaker effect. The author failed to present these facts in the news article. This may not paint a false image of the truth but it does indeed paint an incomplete one.
Although the article does portray the typical style of a secondary source by including distorted as well as missing facts, it is not all bad. It does provide the public with a window into the scientific world, and although this window may be tinted, the reader can still draw important facts out of it. For example it does make the public aware that there is a link between the cardiovascular health of citizens and the pollution they create. It also provides accurate data on the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests suspected to be related to pollution from 2002 to 2006. In both sources this number is 8 216 cases in New York City alone.
In terms of this study and article, one could look at the pros and cons. The cons being, as stated above, that the public is reading exaggerations of the facts. This might result in unnecessary actions of the public such as relocating to avoid pollution and cardiac arrest or whatever they see a fit response to what they have read. As for pros there are a couple. The readers of the article could respond to the inflated facts in a positive way to the environment. For instance they might decide to go 'green' and help to reduce emissions, which would benefit the health of the environment and in turn, if a link between cardiac arrests and pollution is definite, the health of the public. Also, hopefully the readers of the article will pick up from and pay attention to the concluding statements, which include a quote from Dr. Silverman saying, "We need to figure out ways to combat air pollution and decrease the number of high-pollution days"(topnews.us, 2010).
Sources:
oxfordjournals.org, American Journal of Epidemiology. Dr. Robert A. Silverman, 2010. "Association of Ambient Fine Particles with Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in New York City".http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/20/aje.kwq217.abstract?sid=9ff950ba-85d1-4f24-abc5-32e0ef22a8c8
topnews.us, Jayden Roberts, 2010. "Cardiac Arrest Caused By Air Pollution, Study". http://topnews.us/content/226381-cardiac-arrest-caused-air-pollution-study
No comments:
Post a Comment