Tatlow, Didi Kirsten. "Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing,
Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster’."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
The article
“Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster.”
addresses the effects of Beijing’s smog issue. Recently, officials have begun
the process of legally classifying smog as a natural disaster: there is support
to add smog to the Beijing Municipal Disaster Prevention Statue. However, many
are concerned that the classification of murky air as a natural disaster would
allow officials to avoid this critical problem. Beijing’s PM2.5 – a measure of
particulate air pollution – rose to an average of 100 micrograms per cubic
meter in November. This statistic brings concern to the health of Beijing
residents. The World Health Organization advises that countries maintain their
PM2.5 level below 10 micrograms per cubic meter. The Chinese government has
pledged to reduce their PM2.5 levels by 18% by 2020, but have time and again
fallen short on similar promises. Chinese scientists recently concluded that
outdoor PM2.5 caused 51,000 deaths in China from lung cancer in 2005, but were
advised by the government not to publish their study, indicating that the
government likely will not address country’s pollution problem. The Beijing
News argued against the classification of smog as a natural disaster, citing
that it is a problem generated by human activity and calling it a natural
disaster would allow the government to pretend otherwise. The Chinese government
has continuously ignored this problem as they look to further grow their
economy in an effort to further establish their global presence.
This issue
is obviously paramount to the well being of the environment. Pollution in China
obviously has effects on the environment on the whole, and thus in relevant to
the world as a whole. While the issue of smog may not be as globally relevant
as other types of pollution, it is harming the 1.357 billion people who live
and China, and is a critical humanitarian issue. China must take measures to
reduce their pollution or the lives of its citizens will continue to be in
danger. Doubtless, China must adhere to the standard set by all the other
developed countries.
This
article was particularly well written. The author did a good job of integration
statistics from a number of sources and providing an indication as to the
effects of high PM2.5 levels. However, I thought that the author could have
focused more on addressing the push back against the classification of smog as
a metrological disaster.
Tatlow, Didi Kirsten. "Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster’." The
ReplyDeleteNew York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
Brian did a great job on his review of “Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster” by Kirsten Didi Tatlow. I particularly enjoyed Brian’s careful definition of any key terms that may be unfamiliar to the average reader such as “Beijing’s PM2.5 – a measure of particulate air pollution.” By defining what a “PM2.5” is the reader is better able to understand what is going on in the review as well as be able to reflect upon its significance. Another thing upon which Brian flourished was in his observation of how the classification of smog as a natural disaster instead of a human-made occurrence is all due to the communist totalitarian Chinese government. Although not directly related to the science by mentioning that when “Chinese scientists recently concluded that outdoor PM2.5 caused 51,000 deaths in China from lung cancer in 2005…(they) were advised by the government not to publish their study.” By adding this interesting piece of information Brian is exemplifying the corruption behind the new classification and symbolic “sweeping under the rug” of the smog problem in China. A final element that Brian did well was in his assertion of the importance of solving China’s smog problem. Brian excellently cites that smog “is harming the 1.357 billion people who live and China, and is a critical humanitarian issue.” By adding the quantitatively large data readers of his review can easily realize how much of an issue smog is to the health of the Chinese people and that something must be done to fix it.
However, Brian did have two areas of his review in which he could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that Brian use more quotations. Brian did not use a single quotation throughout his review and I believe that doing so would have given his review greater authority and significance. By adding quotes from leading scientists or politicians he could have more accurately depicted the opposing sides on whether to determine smog to be natural or human derived. In order to correct this weakness Brian could simply add more quotes, assuming their are quotes present in the article. After glancing at the article I do see a number of quotes that could have been used and thus this issue has an easy solution. Another thing upon which Brian could improve is his proofreading. For example, Brian had said “and thus in relevant to the world” when he meant to say “is” instead of the “in.” Most likely just a simple typo, by fixing typos and misspellings like this Brian’s article review can become more effective and trustworthy, therefore resulting in a more well-received and impactful review.
Overall, Brian did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece that exemplifies a current point of contention in China; the classification of smog as either a natural disaster or a human-made occurrence. I chose this article because I was interested in the debate/controversy over the classification of smog. I had previously thought everyone accepted it as a human made occurance but based upon this review it is evidently not. However, it is most definitely a human-contributed issue and this review reminded me that the issue of smog is still alive and increasing in severity. So many lives are at risk and with the new technology being invented everyday perhaps instead of just finding the level of pollution in the atmosphere, someday we may be able to reverse and lower such levels. This article also reminded me that the Chinese government is corrupt and even when it comes to hard science they refuse to accept their reality. Hopefully this issue rights itself soon as most everyone knows China is the world’s greatest pollution contributor.
Evelyn Kluemper
ReplyDelete1/3/16
AP Biology
Tatlow, Didi Kirsten. "Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster’." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/world/asia/beijing-smog-pollution.html
Brian did an excellent job on his review of “Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster” by Didi Kirsten Tatlow. He explained the current situation in Beijing and what goals the Chinese government has promised to reach in order to reduce levels of pollution. Brian described key terms, including the measure of particulate air pollution, PM. He also included alarming statistics by scientists, depicting how the smog has brought great health problems to the Chinese people, including lung cancer. Brian also wrote about how the government urged scientists to not release these results.
Although Brian’s review was very well-written, he could have added more direct quotes by experts on the subject in order to make his review more eloquent. It would also be interesting to write briefly about other developing countries that are experiencing similar pollution problems, such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
The article and review by Brian were both thought-provoking and upsetting. This prior summer, I spent time in Shanghai and Beijing. I witnessed the impact of the smog, a result of rapid growth and development. I am eager to see what steps the Chinese government will take to reduce levels of pollutants.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex Swenson 1/1/17
ReplyDeleteAP Bio Comment
Tatlow, Didi Kirsten. "Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster’." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/world/asia/beijing-smog-pollution.html
I read Brian’s review of the article "Don’t Call It ‘Smog’ in Beijing, Call It a ‘Meteorological Disaster’." I enjoyed reading his review for three reasons. The first of which is that he provided an excellent summary of the article. The second reason is that he provided facts from the original article such as the PPM count of Beijing's air quality. The final reason I enjoyed reading his review is that he included what the Chinese government would do to help fix this epidemic.
Although Brian’s review was good, two aspects of it need improvement. Although Brian included facts in his current event, he could have included some quotations as well. These would have definitely helped his current event. Also, Brian could have included why this problem has come about in other developing nations and how or if this problem could be fixed.
Overall Brian had a very well written review on an interesting topic. Previously, I had known about this problem in developing countries and reading this review only greatened my knowledge on the topic.