Isabel Caton September 12, 2016
Current Event AP Bio D block
Kramer, Andrew E. "In Siberia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.
In this New York Times article by Andrew Kramer, he talks about the Daldykan river in Siberia, the river has turned a ‘blood’ red color, but the reason is still being debated. A government ministry is investigating a possible leak of industrial waste, but it is still unclear what is causing the discoloration. The river does flow past a Nickel mine and a metallurgical plant which is one of the world’s most polluting enterprises. This plant produces about two million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, which more than is produced in all of France. The plant has produced so much waste that it is surrounded by a dead zone which is bigger than the size of Rhode Island. This one plant produces copious amounts of copper, one-fifth of the world’s nickel and half of the global supply of palladium. The ore also contains iron, but it is far less valuable than the other precious metals, and the iron is generally discarded in slurry ponds. This iron slurry is most likely the source of the rivers discoloration. Russian environmental regulators said “attributing the red hue to iron oxide, better known as rust.” The Ministry of Natural Resources came out with a statement that said the possible cause of the pollution of the rives is a rupture of a slurry pipe at Norilsk Nickel. A researcher named Vladimir Chuprov said that the red water will mostly be harmless to humans but the high concentrations of iron could be fatal to fish. But the slurry is more dangerous because of the traces of heavy metals created by the Norilsk smelters which can damage the fragile Arctic environment. Although the river is a bright red color it is not particularly harmful to humans, but it is extremely dangerous to the wildlife in the area.
This article is related to people in the United States because it shows what can happen if we are not careful with our material waste. If we continue to produce metals and more waste that causes acid rain and excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide, the environment will be affected in a negative way. Because of the extreme amounts of metal in the water the fish and other animals and plants around the river are dying and this is going to destroy our ecosystem. This one example is a lesson to the rest of the world that we have to be careful with the waste and the amounts of gas we are releasing into the air. The effect of sulfur dioxide is also harmful to people. It irritates the nose, throat, and airways to cause coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, or a tight feeling around the chest. The effects of sulfur dioxide are felt very quickly and most people would feel the worst symptoms in ten or fifteen minutes after breathing it in. With this one plant producing more sulfur dioxide than the whole country of France, it is very harmful to the people in the area.
Even though I enjoyed this article, I thought it was a little confusing at times because it went back and forth with what the cause of the red water was. The article was easy to read and understand but the cause was a little unanswered. The article used good quotes and interviews that helped explain the situation. I wish that the author had written what is going to happen to the river in the future and how they are going to get the blood red color out. I am also now curious about the future of the Nickel mine and the metallurgical plant and how they plan on fixing the slurry issue and the amount of waste it produces into the environment. Overall, the article was really interesting and I am curious about the future of the Norilsk plant and the Daldykan River.
I think Isabel did a good job reviewing the New York Times article, “In Serbia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island”. This topic is very interesting. I think that her review allowed me to get a good understanding of the topic and included details that allowed me to follow the discussion with ease. I think that she made a good point when stating that this can happen in the United States if we are not careful with our material waste.
ReplyDeleteI commented on Isabel’s review of the article written by Andrew Kramer, “In Siberia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island”. I thought Isabel did an overall good job reviewing this article. One thing I liked about her review was that she states possible reasons for the color of the river being this color, which was a definite question I had before reading the article. She said that the river may be blood red due to possible leaking of industrial waste, but that that was not certainly the reason. I also liked how Isabel clearly stated how this issue is important to us. She says that the discoloration of the river will most likely not be harmful to humans. It is important, however, because it may be fatal to wildlife in the area which could destroy our ecosystem. I also liked how Isabel obviously had done her research on the topic. She stated that the sulfur dioxide the plant is polluting into the environment can be harmful to humans, so we need to do something about it. After saying this, she went through what the side effects of too much sulfur in the air can be. This included shortness of breath and tightness in the chest. By including these side effects, it makes it obvious that Isabel knows what she is talking about and that she researched this information.
ReplyDeleteAlthough overall I enjoyed Isabel’s article, there were some things she could improve. She states that the plant located by the river in Siberia produces much of the world’s nickel and palladium. She includes facts like the plant produces “one-fifth of the world’s nickel”. I wish she had not included these facts. They do not very relevant to the point of the article and are boring to readers. If these facts had been taken out, nothing would be taken away from the review and it would have been more interesting. Another thing I wish Isabel did better was to not use words repeatedly. At one point she writes, “...the iron is generally discarded in slurry ponds. This iron slurry…” She repeatedly uses the word slurry and begins to bore the reader. If she had used synonyms for this word, it would be much less boring.
After reading this article and its review, I was surprised to see how such a small thing can affect so much. It is amazing to me how a leak in a pipe could lead to a polluted river, which could lead to fatalities for wildlife, which could disrupt the ecosystem. This article truly shows how everything in nature is related and relies on one another. This article was interesting to me, because it made me realize how our way of life can truly affect the world we live in.
Isabel did many things in her review to help the reader understand the topic of her article. I liked how she gave background on the topic of industrial waste from metallurgies, comparing the amount of sulfur dioxide produced to emissions levels in France and the dead zone created as a result of this to the size of Rhode Island. She also extended the issue by discussing how it is relevant to the United States and commented that this can happen here if we do not devise a plan to manage our industrial waste. I also liked how she explained the effects of various pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, which effectively explained how this issue can impact the lives of the reader.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wish she had done is explain what actions are being taken to address the problem of nickel in the Daldykan River. I would have appreciated a solution to the issue being discussed. I also would have liked for her to include some reactions of people who live near the river in Siberia, which would have humanized the issue and may have sparked more of an outrage at the situation.
Isabel’s review helped me better understand pollution and industrial waste and the issues that arise from such activities. It has sparked my interest in possible clean-up solutions when such event occur. I will also be on the lookout for any information about what the Russian government is doing to clean up the Daldykan River.
For my second current event review, I read Isabel’s commentary on the article “In Siberia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island.” There were certainly multiple aspects of her review that were well presented. First, Isabel did a good job of summarizing the broader points covered in the article. The article reports on a river, for ambiguous reasons, that has turned into a blood red color. Some experts believe that the river’s color has to do with the river flowing past a Nickel mine as well as a metallurgical plant, which is one of the world’s most polluting industries. This particular plant, according to the article, produces one fifth of the world’s nicker and half of the global supply of palladium. Clearly, this will entail significant amounts of pollution. The ore produced likely is cause for the river’s discoloration. The high concentration of pollutants can be very damaging to marine life. Second, Isabel did a good job of connecting this seemingly foreign issue to our lives and our country. She makes it very clear that this is an issue central to our ecosystem and that regulation must be enacted; if not, we will face the consequences. Biodiversity across the world is being largely damaged by pollution; as such, are ecosystems are also at risk. Third, Isabel did a good job of describing the various effects of pollution. These effects include acid rain, excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide, and extreme amounts of metal in the water. Acid rain can obviously be damaging to particular ecosystems, sulfur dioxide can irritate airways and thus cause further problems, and extreme amounts of metal in the water can damage aquatic life. All in all, Isabel did a good of covering both the broader points and smaller details the article touches on, all the while emphasizing the importance of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThough the overall review of the article was well done, there are a few aspects of Isabel’s review that fell short. First, she failed to include ideas for a solution to the issue. Though she does address the point that regulation is needed, she fails to specify the particular regulation she believes would work best. Including this would enhance the credibility of the review and leave ideas in the mind of the reader. Second, Isabel could have done a better job of integrating external information on the subject. Adding outside information, for instance a scientific study on the effects of iron oxide pollution, would certainly add insight to the topic and would also give further support to any claims made in both the review and the article itself. All in all, however, Isabel produced a well-written review.
The article and review were indeed both very informative. The strongest point made addressed the effects of pollution on marine life. I learned of the significant extent to which pollution of iron and nickel ore can damage biodiversity and thus ecosystems. The article and review made it very clear that pollution must even further be regulated in order to support our dying ecosystems.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKramer, Andrew E. "In Siberia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2016. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/world/europe/russia-red-river-siberia-norilsk-nickel.html
Isabel, I read your review of In Siberia, a ‘Blood River’ in a Dead Zone Twice the Size of Rhode Island by Andrew Kramer and I thought you did a good job overall. Firstly, I thought that you did a good job in providing a very detailed and clear summary of the article. I especially appreciate how you utilize quotes from the article and experts. For example, you say that that Russian environmental regulators are “attributing the red hue to iron oxide, better known as rust”. Quotes like this help establish the credibility of both your review and the article. Secondly, I believe you do a very good job at connecting the topic to the reader. You explain that the article “shows what can happen if we are not careful with our material waste”. Your connection makes the article more important towards the reader since most readers wouldn’t care about a dead zone in Russia.Your connection is very clear and helps the reader see the article in a new light. Finally, I think that you did well at critiquing the overall article. You say that “little confusing at times because it went back and forth with what the cause of the red water was”. Having read the article, I can agree with you and the other points you make as well. This helps your credibility in the eyes of the reader since you are honest.
Your review was well written but their are still some minute details that I believe you should address. One thing you could improve is the way your review flows. For example, at one point you write, “Russian environmental regulators said ‘attributing the red hue to iron oxide, better known as rust’”. You could improve this sentence by writing Russian environmental regulators are “attributing the red hue to iron oxide, better known as rust”. Fixing the flow of your sentences will take away less from your writing and will allow the reader to focus on the content.Also, another thing you could improve on is your summary of the article. Although it is detailed, I believe you could shorten it and make it more concise by cutting out useless information. For instance, you could cut out the sentence where you say that the plant produces “one-fifth of the world’s nickel and half of the global supply of palladium” since it does not contribute to the argument.Cutting things like this can help to keep the reader's attention.
Before reading your review I never knew sulfur dioxide was so harmful to people.Your review has reinforced the way I believe on factories and industrial manufactures should be regulated. Factories should never cause harm to people or their environment and this is unacceptable. Your review has been very helpful to me and was very well written.