Deep Sea Microbe That Can Degrade Oil

Blog Assignment 1
Pascal Tuarze
To General Public
ENVS*1020 F10 (01-06)
23/09/2010

Deep-Sea Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-degrading Bacteria (Primary)
Vs
Deepwater Oil Plume in Gulf Degraded by Microbes (Secondary)

I chose to do my blog on what is happening to the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. What I came up with was a news article that states that natural deep sea microbes degrade the hydrocarbons of oil. This is a great alternative to putting potentially harmful dispersants into the deep-sea where the effects have not been studied thoroughly.

First I will be determining the strength of claims in the report (primary source):

They claim: “Here, we report that the dispersed hydrocarbon plume stimulated deep-sea indigenous y-proteobacteria that are closely related to known petroleum-degraders.” (1)

To make this statement credible they would have to explain several aspects of their research such as what types of samples they tested, how they tested them and how they found they were similar. In the report, the researchers tested samples with the PhyloChip; a brand new technology. The PhyloChip is a DNA-based microarray which, according to researchers can detect up to 50 000 different types of bacteria. This is very crucial information that helps solidify their hypothesis. The direct quote taken from the report is: “In plume samples, PhyloChip analysis revealed 951 distinct bacterial taxa … but only 16 distinct taxa that were significantly enriched in the plume relative to non plume samples… nearly all these enriched taxa have representatives that are known to degrade hydrocarbons”. (1) This information I find incredibly important because the test shows us that microbes are indeed related to known petroleum degraders. In the given report, figures that are significant include the microbial cell densities and composition. The direct data from the report includes: “(5.51+or – 0.33*10^4 cells/ml) in the plume and (2.73+ or – 0.05*10^4 cells/ml) outside of the plume”.(1) These two densities are significantly different making their claim stronger; microbe’s densities and composition change when they come in contact with oil. This means that there is a reaction occurring when the microbes contact petroleum. I feel that the original claim has been supported with sufficient data to make it viable. I would choose not to reject this hypothesis, but there is a need for more samples and tests to be done to make it an even stronger claim.


There was an image portraying the microbe that changes when it comes in contact with hydrocarbons of the oil but would not load to blooger site. Description of picture found just below this paragraph.

Analysis with Berkeley Lab's phyloChip revealed the dominant microbe in the dispersed Gulf of Mexico oil plume was a new species, closely related to members of Oceanospirillales family. (Credit: Terry Hazen group) This Diagram shows that a new strain of microbe is formed when it comes in contact with oil


“At most locations where the plume was detected there was a slight decrease in oxygen concentration indicative of microbial respiration and oxygen consumption as would be expected if the hydrocarbons were being catabolised”. (1)

This statement is harder to “prove” because of variation of concentrations in the ocean. In the report the researchers discovered that the samples taken differed. “In the area of the oil plume the sample had a concentration of 59% of saturated oxygen, whereas they found a concentration of 67% outside of the plume area”. (1)This in itself is not a strong claim because there is the possibility that there is less oxygen in one part of the sea compared to another. The researchers back up their theory by mentioning that for these microbes to work at a fast rate, they need iron to catabolise hydrocarbons. Iron is not found in great quantity in salt water. I feel this is the reason there is not such a dramatic drop in oxygen concentration in the plume area. When there is a lack of a chemical in a reaction it slows down the reaction or limits it to a certain degree. According to the researchers, if there were an oil spill in deep fresh water the microbes would degrade hydrocarbons much quicker, due to the greater iron content. In the process they would also use a lot more oxygen. If these microbes use a great quantity of oxygen in the water it would create dead zones, where too much oxygen has been removed from the water to sustain life.

Secondly I will be determining the strength of claims in the News Article (secondary source):

“In addition, frequent episodic oil leaks from natural seeps in the Gulf seabed may have led to adaptations over long periods of time by the deep-sea microbial community that speed up hydrocarbon degradation rates in adaptations” (2)

This statement has not been tested in anyway; the researchers have just made a theory for the reason why the microbes are able to degrade oil. Their theory is that the microbes adapted over time because of previous contact to natural leaks. I feel this claim does make sense but does not have sufficient data to make it a strong claim.

“Results in the Science paper are based on the analysis of more than 200 samples collected from 17 deepwater sites between May 25 and June 2, 2010”(2)

In the news article they mention that the researchers are basing their calculations on samples from 17 deepwater sites across the Gulf of Mexico between 25 May 2010 and 2 June 2010. This holds true in the report it clearly states the same information that is presented in the news article, making the claim a strong one.

In conclusion about the strength of claims of both sources:

The Science News (secondary source) does not manipulate or seem to neglect facts from the report (primary source) so they are, in fact, quite similar. All the points that were described in detail in the report were condensed in the secondary source, but it still contained the important data. It seems as though there is no bias on the subject, which is uncommon in secondary sources due to emotion of the author rewriting the information to their own preference. In this case it seems as though the author of the news article is just duplicating and simplifying the information for the public.

The sources limitations:

The limitation of each source would be the lack of the research in the field of deep sea microbes degrading hydrocarbons. There has been a minimal amount of research done on the subject. In this particular research expedition they had approximately one week to take samples. They also had two teams on separate boats to collect data. I believe this not enough samples and could harm the validity of their research. Once they were at the lab they were able to take tests with top-of-the-line equipment such as the PhyloChip, thanks to the 500 million dollars “generously donated” by BP.

The format and language:

You could also compare the format and language between the primary source and the secondary source. The format alone of the news article makes it much more appealing to read due to the placement of the illustration and the font size. The report is very bland to look at with the illustrations in the middle of the document and with no font changes. The language is also different; in the news article the scientific terms are kept to a minimum, while in the report, all scientific terms and data are put in to solidify their hypothesis. It is apparent that they are written for two separate audiences. The news article is for the public who have an interest in what is going to happen to the oil in the Gulf. The report is for researchers in that field who accept that hypothesis and try to build on it or for those who try to reject it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the claims are strong in both sources with very few exceptions in the news article. There is a limit to the source of information due to the lack of studies in that field; however they do have sufficient results to prove that microbes degrade hydrocarbons. Finally, the format and language between the two are, in turn, noticeably different. The report is meant for researchers who are up to date on all the terms and data and the news article is meant for the public.


Bibliography

Deepwater Oil Plume in Gulf Degraded by Microbes, Study Shows." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. Web. 24 Sept. 2010. . Reference (2)

"Defining Primary and Secondary Sources - Toolkit - The Learning Centre - Library and Archives Canada." Defining Primary and Secondary Sources. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. .

"Science Express." Deep-Sea Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-Degrading Bacteria. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. . Reference (1)

Louisiana Coastal Contamination That Will Make You Sick to Your Stomach: Primary vs. Secondary Sources

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

Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo, Antarctica

Recently, a study was conducted on how the research facility in Antactica was effecting the environment around the facility. The study, Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo was conducted by M.C. Kennicutt, A. Klein, P. Montagna, S. Sweet, T. Wade, T. Palmer, J. Sericano, and G. Denoux. The study looked at the concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and certain metals in the soil and the surrounding sea floor. The concentrations that were found were due to the research that was already being conducted at the McMurdo's station. The results turned out to show that there were high concentrations in these surface soils and in the sea floor. These conentrations are linked to the research area (sewage drainage and fuel spills --refer to Figure 1). The concentrations do not have much of an affect on the organisms in the soil, although spills that are let out into the sea reduce the quality of the sea floor. The study came to the conclusion that further monitoring should be conducted around the McMurdo science facility.

Figure 1: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Spills

The primary source of information is the research that was gathered, along with the conclusion and a summary of an experiment that was conducted in the Antarctic. This journal is the primary source of the article Antarctica: Footprints in the Ice, which is the secondary source to this comparison. This article summarizes and interprets the primary source's information in a way that is friendlier to the audience. The two articles have many differences that distinguish from one another, such as the intended reader and the structure of the two articles.

The only similarity that the two articles have is that they address the same topic, although, this is not a bad thing. If both the primary and secondary articles were to be that similar, then the purpose of the secondary article is defeated, which is to summarize, omit certain parts, and turn the primary source into something that is much more reader-friendly. An example of this is that the sample and data collection methods that are explained in the primary source are not even brought up in the secondary article. This is because the majority of people are interested in the subject, not the method or process. Another example is that the primary article uses many scientific terms, such as 'anthropogenic'. The author of the secondary article only uses this word after describing it as 'man-made disturbances', which is essentially what anthropogenic means; derived from man. The level of reading is lowered, therefore, it does not require exstensive knowledge on the subject. The use of chemical names is also omitted for the most part. For example, in the primary source, petroleum hydrocarbons and other kinds of hydrocarbons are mentioned, along with various kinds of metals. The secondary article condenses it to just hydrocarbons and metals. This is because the names of multiple chemicals do not mean anything to the reader. If the author was to name every chemical, the reader may become lost, and then lose interest. To maintain the reader's interest, the author interviewed one of the scientists involved in the experiement.

M. Kennicutt was interviewed, where he further explained the study to the author of the secondary article. This gives the author a much better idea of the study and therefore a much better interpretation, and in doing so, the article they write is much more accurate and has less chance of being misenterpretted. Although, the author does not seem to focus on the actual conclusion of the study; being that further monitoring is required in this area (McMurdo science facility). The author seems to have come to the conclusion that the study shows definite evidence of hydrocarbon pollution, and action is being taken to reduce this.

The two articles have two very different styles. The primary source is a report on an experiment/study, while the secondary source is an article summarizing and explaining that report. The primary source has a definate structure to it. There is an abstract, which is a basic overview of the study, and then there is an introduction, experiemental section (describing the method and the data that was gathered), and then there is a section for results and explanation. In this part of the report, the data is analyzed and conclusions are made. A summary is then given to recap the purpose, results, and conclusion of the report. This primary source of information is meant for publishing, and people who are possibly doing other research or projects on the subject. The secondary article, on the other hand, is a much more condensed version, allowing readers with limited knowledge on the subject to comprehend. There is an introduction, a brief summary, and conclusion. This is all the article needs in order for a casual reader to enjoy (this article is meant for readers with a general interest in the subject).

Written by Oliver Moir

Student ID: 0720140

Work Cited

Primary Source

M.C. Kennicutt, A. Klein, P. Montagna, S.Sweet, T. Wade, T. Palmer, J. Sericano and G. Denoux. (2010) Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo. Evironmental Research Letters. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034010/fulltext

Secondary Source

L. Kalaugher (2010) Antarctica: Footprints in the Ice. Environmentalresearchweb. Retrieved from http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/43778

Truth or Scientific Overestimation: The Impact of Climate Change on the Himalayan Glaciers

Truth or Scientific Overestimation: The Impact of Climate Change on the Himalayan Glaciers
Environmental Science
Thursday September 23, 2010

There will always be a divide between experimental scientific predictions and the here and now. There will always be the scientists versus the politicians and those who utilize the research we often mistake for the ultimate truth. Such is the basic difference between the article and the research report I will be comparing. The secondary source in this case study is based upon the point of view of a writer who cited the primary source in accompaniment to reports from the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (IPCC); the primary source being strict evidence and research presented by an Indian scientist and researcher by the name of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Chaujar. His 6 page report was strategically called ‘Climate Change and its Impact on Himalayan Glaciers’. It was the classic comparison between politics being based on what was at the time believed to be ‘proven scientific fact’, and the strict evidence that was later proven false.
The secondary source was presented in an article posted on a website by the name of “Celcias”, by one of its senior editors, Keith Schneider. It was titled ‘70% of Himalayan Glaciers Gone By Next Century, Studies Say’. Schneider strongly supported the idea that the statements of the IPCC earlier this year based on scientific research had been wrong. He made it clear that the IPCC had over-estimated the effect of climate change on the receding Himalayan glaciers, and the general Tibetan Plateau area. The reports they published had supported the idea that the glaciers would be extinguished by approximately 2035. As it was later proven, this estimate was quite over-reaching. Although Schneider came across as being fairly unbiased, there is a general flow to his opinions, in that he criticises the IPCC for being too forward and for trusting such ‘proven’ scientific fact to be wrong. In contrast, Dr. Ravinder Kumar Chaujar of the ‘Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology’ presents a strictly unbiased report of those facts that Schneider used in his article. Chaujar is very persuasive but uses only researched facts and not creative writing. He strongly supports the idea that though the scientists who predicted the glaciers to be gone by 2035 were wrong, they weren’t all that far off. He attempts to prove that the consequences of our actions on the glaciers will start to appear sooner than we think, and that a good portion of the glaciers will be gone by 2070. There are only 35 years between that and the recent predictions, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a microscopic length of time. His proof is in the strength of his scientific and mathematical findings. He is at the heart of the issue, researching the glaciers on-site and strongly believes that there is more to the story than just the receding of the glaciers.
As with any article, Schneider’s word usage was used to portray a certain side to the story more than another, and his belief. In contrast, Chaujar’s was strictly analytical, not intended to be convincing. His findings were the evidence enough to support his writing. For example, Schneider’s work includes words such as ‘ecological catastrophe’ in reference to the (predicted) future turns the glaciers will take. It indicated a strong opinion in the invalidity of current beliefs and that the IPCC had underestimated the issue in their recently published findings.
Luckily enough, Chaujar’s findings did thus support in part Schneider’s beliefs. Chaujar’s report stated that though there was significant evidence of the receding of the Himalayan glaciers recently, there was also evidence of the opposite. He took into account more than just the glacial studies, and included information about lichen, moss, moraines and numerous biological aspects of the area that are major factors in the study and rate of glacier depletion. He discovered that in addition to the receding, they have, over the past few hundred years, changed, morphed and grown in certain areas. Chaujar studied the ancient runes and monuments which, in places, supported the growth and decline in the glaciers, while in others proved that glaciers had not existed in that area at the time. Some of the monuments concluded that glacier depletion had only begun 258 years ago (Chajuar, pg 3). This supports Schneider’s beliefs about carbon emissions having a large impact – thus global warming. Schneider specifically states that sceptics were quick to criticise the IPCC on jumping to conclusions, using this as evidence that science may be wrong about global warming. Chaujar’s findings not only support the idea of global warming, but help to moderate the growing arguments between the sceptics and the scientists. Schneider simply illustrates the fact that science may have been off, but they were not wrong. Both authors support the idea of climate change, though on different levels. Out of all of the information, Schneider specifically included statistics of temperature increase in the Himalayan area, which were a major part of Chaujar’s research. Both thought it important to include the fact that in the last 30 years, the temperatures in the general area had increased by 0.8°C, and that average snow accumulation has dropped from 2,000 kilograms per square kilometre to about 1,500 (Schneider, pg 1). The difference in their reports lies in the opinions. Chaujar is analytical; he proves the existence of climate change and its effect on glaciers by showing evidence from both sides, having included the mini glacial ages occurring in the middle ages and how they tapered off into glacial recession. Schneider is using these specific points to prove the existence of climate change and to prove that the IPCC may have been hasty, but science still does reign, though he doesn’t use evidence of the contrary.
Schneider, though writing in an unbiased manner, doesn’t support the idea that climate change doesn’t exist, and that is the major limitation to his writing. This is evident in that he didn’t include Chaujar’s points in evidence of glacial shifting and growing (though they are still, in net, much less than that which is receding). He could have used Chaujar’s opposing points to thus further prove his point by comparison. Any limitations to Chaujar’s work would be his lack of a conclusion. He stated enough evidence to have convinced a reader of one point of view, but the findings seemed inconclusive as to his own personal conclusions. Even scientists are biased and have preferences and beliefs. On the contrary, though that may have been a limitation to Chaujar’s work, he did include the impacts of other factors excluding global warming to aid in the research. That makes for a good study, and made his work a very useful primary source. I see it as being useful to both sides of the argument.
Personally, I believe climate change is a major factor in the receding of the Himalayas and global glaciers which are devastation not only local communities, but the oceans and the world on a grand scale. I support the conclusions of both of these authors.

Chaujar, Dr. Ravinder Kumar. "Climate Change and its Impact on Himalayan Glaciers."
Think To Sustain. Current Science, 29/05/2010. Web. 23 Sep 2010.
.

Picture: Panoramic View of the Chorabari Glacier http://thinktosustain.com/ContentPageCaseStudy.aspx?id=%20278

Schneider, Keith. "70% of Himalayan Glaciers Gone by Next Century, Studies Say."
Celsias. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sep 2010. himalayan-glaciers-gone-next-century-studies-sa/>.

Popular Pesticide Induces Sex Changes in Frogs

In March of 2010, the results of a three yearlong study was released online in the peer-reviewed American journal, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). The article, Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs, reviewed the results of a study on the effects that a popular pesticide, atrazine, had on the reproductive systems of mature male African clawed frogs. This study was conducted using concentrations of atrazine well below the standards for safe drinking water set by both Health Canada (5.Oppb) (Mittelstaedt 2010) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (3.0ppb) (Hayes et al. 2010). The frog larvae were reared in an atrazine ethanol solution (2.5ppb) from hatching, through metamorphosis and throughout their adult life until the study was completed (Hayes et al. 2010). As suggested by the title of the article many of these frogs suffered a chemically induced sex change as a result of the pesticide. Shortly after these findings were published in the PNAS journal, a writer, Martin Mittelstaedt, published a review in The Globe and Mail called Weed killer can turn male frogs into females, study finds. The following will serve as an insight into the variances between the two articles, paying particular attention to how each author uses considerable detail to emphasize what they believe are crucial components in the study. And what the authors believe are the limitations on inferences that can be taken from the results.

One of the first noted differences was the stress Hayes put on the role of atrazine in North America and the potential dangers it poses. Mittelstaedt’s article merely states that atrazine is a “weed killer widely used on corn fields in Canada” (Mittelstaedt 2010) this does not provide enough background for the reader to make an assumption as to the populations this chemical is effecting. Whereas, Hayes expresses in detail the mass scale of the population that is being effected stating that it is the most common pesticide contaminant of ground and surface water (Hayes et al. 2010). He goes on to explain that it is especially dangerous because of its ability to be transported thousands of kilometers away from its source by rainclouds. Clouds which annually precipitate more then half a million pounds of chemical in the United States alone (Hayes et al. 2010). By providing numerical data Hayes is able to strongly stress, in reality, just how widespread this chemical, as well as its harmful effects, are. Thus providing the reader with enough information to grasp the true extent of the potential problems.

Similarly, Mittelsaedt’s article lacks crucial details about the findings of the study, he merely states that atrazine induces sex changes in frogs (Mittelsaedt 2010) when in fact, the pesticide had a very wide variety of harmful effects. The primary article includes details of these effects and how they may effect the natural frog population in the future. Firstly, (Hayes et al. 2010) state that sperm counts and fertility rates were significantly reduced by the chemical. Secondly, that the atrazine-exposed frogs were unable to compete for amplexus with the unexposed frogs because of decreased testosterone levels and an apparent inability to identify the female attractant hormone (Hayes et al. 2010). Shown in the diagrams below, which were included in Hayes’ article, is a visual representation of these conclusions. It can also be seen that the frogs' body weights had no effect on the frogs’ abilities to complete amplexus. Where Mittelstaedt’s article does not seem to draw any conclusions from the findings; Hayes’ article strongly stresses the potentially devastating effects that will occur if a population is unable to reproduce properly. He claims that all of these factors will have a direct impact on exposed populations (Hayes at al. 2010). The awareness he offers to the reader plays a crucial role in solidifying the implications of his findings in the readers mind. Whereas Mittelstaedt’s article goes no further than presenting a simple result.

Between the two articles there are more limitations presented in Mittelstaedt’s article. It was stated on more than one occasion that many researchers were skeptical of the findings until the effects were confirmed by other scientists (Mittelstaedts 2010). Alternatively the original article argued that not only were these findings legitimate but that they could be produced in other species as well. Hayes’ article cites other studies, which have found that atrazine feminizes zebra fish and leopard frogs and attributes to low sperm count and poor semen quality in humans (Hayes et al. 2010). The article goes so far as to state that this is not a species-specific effect but rather one that occurs across nonamniote vertebrate classes (Hayes et al. 2010). This suggests that these results can be used to create adverse hypotheses concerning the effect of the pesticide on a number of different species, as opposed to the single species, African clawed frogs, that Mittelstaedt’s article references.

It is evident in both the articles that the results of this study have no doubt sparked concern about what we previously considered safe levels of atrazine in our environment. Hayes’ and Mittelstaedt’s articles do a good job to inform us of the devastating effects this pesticide has on the reproductive systems of African clawed frogs. However, the results of any study are perhaps futile unless the public is willing to act upon them. By using increased detail and removing the limitations on which species these findings can apply to; Hayes’ is able to go much further to convince us of the seriousness of his findings. This provides us with a fundamental difference between the two articles; Mittelstaedt intends to simply report whereas Hayes intends to convince his audience.

Works Cited

Hayes, B Tyrone. “Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.10 (2010): 5. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612.full

Mittelstaed, Martin. “Weed killer can turn male frogs into females, study finds.” The Globe and Mail 2010 1-March: 2. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/weed-killer-can-turn-male-frogs-into-females-study-finds/article1485580/

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.

Freshwater Yield Declining in Southern Canada

Many people see the fossil fuel products humans generate as the most valued and dependant product of our time. However, the products we require to survive often do not come to mind, such as water. Water is such a valuable resource, especially these days when there are limitations to our demands. Numerous studies have been conducted calculating the volume of water we have now compared to what was accessible to us in the past. The problem is that the ordinary person does not understand the true facts about accessible water declination. This is due to the fact that after new research is posted as a primary source, the news or any other form of a secondary source, which most people gain their general knowledge from, is often mislead with the detail and quality of the information obtained from the primary source. Such information complications can be observed between the primary source of “Freshwater supply and demand in Canada” by Statistics Canada and the related secondary source of “Water resources declining in Southern Canada” posted by The Canadian Press. Although both works deal with the same topic, the information displayed in the secondary source differs in a number of ways.

The content examined between each source is, in many ways, different. The degree of variance has to do primarily with what the secondary source decided to include and conceal from the information within the primary source. After examining both works, the secondary source from The Canadian Press illustrates a lack of detail and clarity contained compared to the primary source.

Firstly, the primary source, “Freshwater supply and demand in Canada” by Statistics Canada, states that Canada’s water yield has declined by an overall 8.5% over the past 34 year period. They also state that this represents an annual water loss of 1.4 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, which is almost equivalent to the amount of water supplied to Canada’s residential population in 2005 (Statistics Canada 2010). The detail to these percentages is covered later on in the source. However, the “Water resources declining in Southern Canada” article by The Canadian Press, the secondary source, contains the same general water loss information, but it is stated in a much more dramatic way. They place a lot of emphasis on how much the water yield has actually declined in Southern Canada. This emphasis on this claim is shown when the total 8.5% is stated. The article makes it seem as if this 8.5% decline is occurring annually, thereby illustrating a much greater decline in water yield. There is no detail regarding the dispersion or limitations of this decline.

The secondary source also has its downfalls when identifying the main topic of the research, water yield. No where in the article does it state clearly what water yield is. The definition is stated in the article, “It's the result of precipitation and melted ice that flow over and under the ground, eventually reaching rivers and lakes” (The Canadian Press 2010), but there is no relation to this statement being the definition of water yield. This could definitely cause some misconception among readers as they may relate this statement with the idea that this water loss is due to precipitation and melting ice, not the fact that it is the definition of water yield. This error obviously does not make sense, but with the desperate-answered people of our time it could still very likely happen.

Another fault with the secondary article is the clarity in which the declining levels of water yield is presented. Although the secondary source presents the proper percentages and measurements, no raw data is shown or discussed. The secondary literature may force people to think that the water yield in Southern Canada is declining annually in a steady fashion. This idea is, in fact, not true. The actual data, in chart form, illustrates the varying levels of water yield in Southern Canada throughout 1971 to 2004. This is important information to note as water yield can be quite unpredictable, especially in the Prairie region of Southern Canada. Accordingly, the secondary source does not disclose detailed information about exactly how much less water yield the Prairies receive compared to the rest of Canada. For a reference, the Prairie drainage region only receives roughly 6% of what is collected in the Maritime Coastal drainage region and 3% of what is collected in the Pacific Coastal drainage region (Statistics Canada 2010). When this kind of information is left out from the secondary source the reader cannot truly understand how much less the water yield is in the Prairies compared to the rest of Canada.

Another important piece of information that was left out of the secondary article was the economic strain resulting from the lowering water yield levels, which was highly mentioned in the primary article. Statistics Canada says this declination in water yield is having a direct impact on the products and services we depend on. They also state how the water is a primary foundation of our economic strength, especially for manufacturing. The water used for manufacturing is designed to satisfy our domestic needs, as well as produce products for export. None of this information, however, is even mentioned in the second article. It only focuses on directing the water loss on the scale of how it affects us Canadians, when in reality it affects many other countries and nations as well. There is a large economic ordeal that is associated with the declining water yield which is explained in the primary source, by Statistics Canada, but is left out of the secondary literature.

Perhaps the most important detail that should have been included in the secondary source regarding the declination of water yield is the sectors of water distribution. As stated by Statistics Canada, “The sector that withdrew the most water overall, by a considerable margin, was thermal-electric power generation” (Statistics Canada 2010), followed by the manufacturing sector in second, the residential sector in third, and lastly the agriculture sector. As the water yield continues to decline, from what we know of, this means that the industrial sector will have to continue using their required water volumes for production while the residential and agricultural sectors become limited. This will pose a major problem to the Prairies due to the high agriculture production, residential occupation and water yield unpredictability in this region. This kind of information is crucial for understanding the facts and outcomes of this water yield issue.

After examining both articles, it is clear where the differences, and some similarities, fall into place. It is easy to recognize the detail that has been disregarded in the secondary source compared to the primary source. While the primary article presents the entire water yield issue in detail, the secondary source only emphasises on the declining rates. This comparison overall illustrates the detailed research of a primary source and the limitations to a related secondary source.


References:

Primary Source: The Daily, Monday, September 13, 2010. Study: Freshwater supply and demand in Canada. (n.d.). Statistics Canada: Canada's national statistical agency / Statistique Canada : Organisme statistique national du Canada. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100913/dq100913b-eng.htm

Secondary Source: Google. (n.d.). Water resources declining in Southern Canada - The Globe and Mail. Home - The Globe and Mail. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/water-resources-declining-in-southern-canada/article1705092/


By: Tyler Blauel


Words: 1151