Sarah Billings September 9, 2016
Current Event Review 1 AP Biology D even
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
In this new New York Times article, by Jesse Mckinley, the topic of whether or not General Electric has finished in its cleanup efforts of the Upper Hudson River is being discussed. After spilling PCBs, or the synthetic chemical polychlorinated biphenyl, which was used to make transformers, capacitors and other electrical products, into the Hudson for decades, G.E paid for a cleanup project to remove over 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment. And while the job was completed, environmentalists have recently been challenging the finished order, saying “unacceptably high levels of PCB-contaminated sediment remain in large portions of the Upper Hudson.” The state Department of Environmental Conservation cites maps also show where large amounts of polluted sediment sit in the river. While the residents agree that more definitely needs to be done, they’ve been living with water contamination for long enough to accept it as a part of life. One of the residents describes how she’ll just tell her children to shower after coming out of the water, and everyone knows not to eat the fish. Some residents even skeptical of the whole cleaning up process, labeling it as “a farce.” Whether or not the G.E believes its job was successfully completed, environmental agencies aren’t ready to give up on their river yet.
This article’s information pertains to us in particular because the Hudson River is very close to us and we should know if one of one of our major state rivers becomes unsafe for human use. In a broader aspect, it’s important for us to be aware of how much pollution goes into those rivers because we can help support environmentalist agencies’ requests to conduct more cleaning projects. Not only will this help the communities living around the river, but hopefully help prevent the pollution from spreading underground to other water sources, particularly ones that actually provide our drinking water. This article also pertains to my life because I helped a research group over the summer that was looking at pollution levels in our own Bronx River, and I discovered that this river also has very high levels of bacteria, making it unsafe for people to go in. So I understand why agencies are determined to keep the cleanup going in the Upper Hudson. It’s important to let people know what their local water sources are like, and help spread awareness so we can keep our community safe.
I thought the article did a really good job of explaining the situation that was happening right from the start, so it was easy to follow. They also made good use of quotes from different sources throughout, getting opinions from the agencies as well as residents nearby the site. One thing I think they could have done better was the ending of the article because the author didn't really give us an idea of what the current plan for a clean up plan was and steps that might be done soon so I was left wondering about that. Another thing I think could be improved was just showing more of the opposite point of view. While there were many good quotes on the people who disliked how the cleanup plan stopped, there wasn’t much feedback shown from the G.E’s people’s side. It would have been interesting to see how they were dealing with their cleanup plan. Overall, it was a really good article and interesting to read about.
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDelete.
I read the article and the review of “G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough? and enjoyed it and learned many new things. I liked how the author of the review talked about the project General Electric workers did before this news arrived: what they did, what they thought they accomplished, and then this lead to the breaking of this news. I also like how the author of the review gave specific details and numbers as to how much sediment was removed from the river, helping us understand how critical that project was and understanding this importance in detail. Lastly, I liked how the author included the struggles and ways the residents avoid using the water, showing how important this topic is and how poisonous this water would be if ingested or consumed. The real life stories of the residents make this story so much more real and important.
Although I enjoyed many parts of this article, there were some parts I did not like. First, I did not like how the author did not indicate how more sediment entered the river and what caused this problem to arise again, even after the first cleaning. Identifying what the causing factor is would clear up many more questions. Also, I did not like how Sarah did not say what General Electric was going to do about this problem now that it has arisen again. We do not know when they are going to start taking action or what they are going to do. Even though there are some negatives, I greatly enjoyed this article and it provided me with much new information about our environment today.
I learned many new things when reading this article. First, I learned about the condition of the Hudson River at this moment, because not many people are informed about the environmental problems, especially at the Hudson River. Also, I learned about PCB-contained sediment and its dangers when it reaches high levels in one ecosystem. This information has changed my understanding because it made me more informed about my environment right now and it taught me about more dangerous environmental factors that could harm an environment at high levels. Overall, I greatly enjoyed this article and the review and I look forward to learning more about this topic and our environment in the future.
ReplyDeleteMckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
.
I read Sarah’s current event about the clean up of the Hudson River. She wrote a well writen review and I liked many aspects of it. The first was that her summary of the article was concise and it summed up the main points in the article well. This enhanced the readability of her review so I was able to understand what she wrote. The second aspect that I liked about her review was that she quoted lots from the article which helped to show that she was not making up what she was writing but instead was basing it solely on facts. For example, she stated “And while the job was completed, environmentalists have recently been challenging the finished order, saying ‘“unacceptably high levels of PCB-contaminated sediment remain in large portions of the Upper Hudson.”’ The final aspect that I liked was that she chose a topic that directly impacts our lives because the Hudson River is so close. This was key as it kept me reading and engaged. Although there were many good aspects of her report there were also some aspects that needed work too. The first was that she didn’t talk about the effects of the PCB’s being dumped into the river; it would have been interesting to see the extent of environmental catastrophe these chemicals did. The second and final aspect that needed work was that she did not say what GE was going to do as the issue rose again. Finally, I learned many things from this article. The first thing I learned was that the Hudson River is actually in trouble from big industry. I did not know this at first because I thought the laws prevented such environmental catastrophe from happening. Overall, I enjoyed Sarah’s review and the article too.
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDeleteI read Sarah's review of the article about GE's clean up of the Hudson River. I think Sarah did a good job writing her review, she did many things well. I liked the topic she chose, environmental conservation and clean up are prevalent topics in todays world and slowly the affect of global warming and climate change are important to keep our planet healthy. She also did a good job of showing there is another side to the story, she mentions that some residents call the cleaning process a farce. Not everyone is in agreement with the help GE is doing and it is good Sarah mentions this in her review. The third thing I noticed that Sarah did well in her review was the connection and importance to society and her personal life. She finds multiple connections and does a great job.
Sarah wrote a good review but she could work on a couple things. I would have liked to know more about what type of work GE is doing and how long it will take. I also would have liked if Sarah had included more detail about the affect of the pollution on the river. Besides this she did a great job writing her review and analyzing the article.
Before reading this I had no idea that there was so many pollutants being dumped into the Hudson and I agree that some clean up has to occur. I enjoyed reading this article and Sarah's review.
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDeleteI read Sarah’s review of the New York Times article, “G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?” and thought that she did a very good job. I particularly liked her summary of the article and its main points. She kept her summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I liked her connection between the Bronx River and its relevance in our lives. Once Sarah made this connection, my attention was drawn. I also liked how she gave details and numbers, specifically when talking about the amount of sediments that were removed from the river. These numbers helped the reader conceptualize how important this project truly is. Finally, I liked how Sarah included a quote from an environmentalist. She included the quote “unacceptably high levels of PCB-contaminated sediment remain in large portions of the Upper Hudson”. By including a quote, she is including the opinions of professionals on the topic, proving the validity of the article.
Although Sarah did a very good job in her review, she could use some improvement. I thought that she left out what GE was going to do since the issue came back. I believe this is an important part of the article and it should have been addressed. Finally, I thought that she should have included more details about what type of work GE is exactly doing. By including more these details, the review would have been slightly enhanced. However, I think that Sarah still wrote an excellent review.
I thought that the review was written very well and Sarah chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very prevalent in all of our lives and Sarah has further educated me on the topic. I did not know the extent of this pollution before reading Sarah’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Sarah’s review and learned a lot from it.
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Sarah’s review of the article “G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough? I was able to learn many new things and insight on a topic I was not aware about. I liked how the author of the review talked about the project General Electric workers did before this news arrived: what they did, what they thought they accomplished, etc. I also liked how the author included the struggles and ways the residents avoid using the water, showing how important this topic is and how poisonous this water would be if ingested or consumed. The real life stories of the residents make this story so much more real and important. Lastly, like how the author of the review gave specific details and numbers as to how much contaminant was removed from the river. Although much of the article and review was enjoyable, there were some parts I did not enjoy. First, I did not like how Sarah did not say what General Electric was going to do about this problem now that it has arisen again. We do not know when they are going to start taking action. Identifying what the causing factor is would clear up many more questions. Also, I did not like how the author did not indicate how more sediment entered the river and what caused this problem to arise again, even after the first cleaning. Even though there are some negatives, I greatly enjoyed this article and it provided me with much new information about our environment today.I learned many new things when reading this article. First, I learned about the condition of the Hudson River at this moment, because not many people are informed about the environmental problems, especially at the Hudson River. This information has changed my understanding because it made me more informed about my environment right now and it taught me about more dangerous environmental factors. Overall, I greatly enjoyed this article and the review and I look forward to learning more about this topic and our environment.
Mckinley, Jesse. "G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDelete.
I read Sarah’s review of the article, “G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?” from the New York Times. Overall I think that she did a good job critiquing the article. There are a few things that I liked about her review. I liked how she used direct statistics and quotes from the article in her summary. It allows her summary to be more precise and concise without leaving the reader with any questions. She uses statistics when she explains the how much sediment was removed that was paid by the General Electric. Another aspect of her article that I liked was when she explained what kind of an impact the cleaning up of the hudson river would have on the environment. Her explanation was very present. Sometimes in that part of the review, the critiquer speaks about the far future while she spoke about the near future and “now”. She also related it to her own life. She says, “This article also pertains to my life because I helped a research group over the summer that was looking at pollution levels in our own Bronx River, and I discovered that this river also has very high levels of bacteria, making it unsafe for people to go in”. And the last part that I like is overall the topic choice of the article. Pollution is a big problem today and is badly hurting the environment. It has to be fixed. Although Sarah did a great job reviewing the article, there are still some things that she could improve on. I think that she could have quoted the resident interviewed in the article. This would have given a strong connection to the article instead of summarizing what she or he said in her own words. One last thing that I think she could have done to improve the review is explain possible future plans that General Electric has. This could have given hope to the reader of her review that this problem can potentially be solved. Overall through her review I learned that there is a company that is willing to help save our environment. I did not know about this company before this review so I learned a lot from it.