Broad, William J. "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
I read the article, “Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution, ” by William J. Broad. The article details the change that has occurred in the depths of the ocean in the past decades. This change, is known as “noise pollution,” and involves the new loud and present sounds that are infiltrating the once quiet ocean ecosystems. This ocean noises are caused by humans, and more importantly technological advancements. Sonar blasts of military exercises, commercial ships horns, and air guns for oil and gas exploration are just a few of the noises penetrating the deep ocean waters. This change, unfortunately, is having detrimental effects on the marine populations, particularly whales, who depend on their hearing to locate food and each other. Many sea mammals evolved to have very good hearing to make up for the poor visibility in the dark ocean. Marine biologists have noticed a recent decrease in mammal “talk”, or the voices whales and dolphins use to communicate, as human noises have increased. This inability to communicate could mean a decline in hunting and breeding, and therefore possible extinction for certain mammals in the ocean, but particularly whales.
Fortunately, society is recognizing the importance of solving this problem. Certain solutions are being presented and enforced to protect sea animals and control ocean noise pollution. Mr. Bahtiarian of Noise Control Engineering has provided extensive measures to quiet ships. This includes adding layers of sound-absorbing tiles to the walls of noisy rooms and mounting engines, pumps, air compressors, and other types of machinery on vibration isolators. Furthermore, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has designed maps that use bright colors to symbolize the sounds in the oceanic depths. These maps will raise awareness of our generation’s contribution to ocean noise and build a better way to reduce it. Lastly, legal experts are figuring out ways to create laws, regulations and treaties through United Nations bodies like the International Maritime Organization that will work to achieve voluntary noise reductions. It is clear that it is important to further expand these efforts and become aware of this problem. It is also beneficial to note the repercussions our technological society can have. Fortunately, the advancements in science are making it more possible to solve these problems.
I thought this article was well written and presented the seriousness of the situation in a comprehensible and factual manner. However, this article frequently mentioned different organizations and people, making it slightly difficult to follow at certain points. Yet, the main points and goals were there, and I was left with an aware yet optimistic attitude for solving this problem.
Broad, William J. "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." The New York
ReplyDeleteTimes. The New York Times, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
George did a great job on his review of “Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution” by William J. Broad. I particularly enjoyed George’s definition and description of key terms. For example he described the change that has occurred in our oceans during the past decades as “noise pollution…(which) involves the new loud and present sounds that are infiltrating the once quiet ocean ecosystems.” By qualify what this key term means the reader is easily introduced to the topic and understands its significance. Another element upon which George flourished was in his assertion of this article's importance. George evoked emotion from the reader by stating that this new noise pollution leads to an “inability to communicate (which) could mean a decline in hunting and breeding, and therefore possible extinction for certain mammals in the ocean, but particularly whales.” By explaining how these occurrences may led to extinction George ensures the reader understands why this issue is significant. A final element George did well was in his analysis/critique paragraph of the article. George stated “this article was well written and presented the seriousness of the situation in a comprehensible and factual manner. However, this article frequently mentioned different organizations and people, making it slightly difficult to follow at certain points.” By presenting both the pros and cons of the article we as readers understand the in depth analysis George partook in order to write his review. Additionally, by realizing what not to do, we as readers and George himself understand what not to do when we write scientific articles.
However, George did have two areas of his review in which he could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that George proofread his work more carefully before submitting. For example, I noticed a grammatical error when he stated “this ocean noises.” Here it appears George meant to say “these ocean noises.” Although a small error, and it does not necessarily impact readability, his credibility would increase if there were not silly mistakes like this one. The solution is simple. George should just more carefully re-read his review before submitting and typo mistakes like this one could be avoided. Another area upon which George could improve is his description of researchers/individuals involved in this research. For example, George states that “Mr. Bahtiarian of Noise Control Engineering has provided extensive measures to quiet ships.” However, although this is an excellent piece of information about what is being done to combat the issue of noise pollution, it remains unclear who Mr. Bahtiarian is. Perhaps the original article only providing his last name, but this is unlikely, so George should simply include full names/descriptions in his review. By providing more detail about Mr. Bahtiarian or anyone involved George would establish a sense of his authority and knowledge on the subject. This is because if he provided the information his review will present as more accurate and thus trustworthy.
Overall, George did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece that exemplifies the current issue of noise pollution in our oceans as well as the matters being created to combat it. George’s review illuminated how severe this issue has gotten and that extinction is now a real possibility to many ocean mammals. I personally love the ocean and feel a strong connection to it and the creatures it contains. Thus, it both saddens and empowers me to hear about this issue and makes me want to do something. This topic is interesting from both a scientific and humanitarian (animaltarian) perspective and demonstrates how we has humans must be careful of our operations in order to not disturb the beautiful diversity of time, whether that is in our oceans or our rainforests.
Connor Barrett
ReplyDelete2/7/17
AP Bio
Current Event 16
Broad, William J. "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/science/project-seeks-to-map-and-reduce-ocean-noise-pollution.html?ref=science
George Daskalakis’s review of "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." was interesting to read. He did a good job of summarizing what ocean noise pollution is in a clear and comprehensive way. George also explained in detail the ways that the noise pollution can be stopped and prevented. He also expressed the adverse effects of noise pollution on sea life in a organized fashion. Overall George did a good job explaining this phenomenon.
Two areas that George can improve on are the detail and length of his last paragraph as well as some grammar and style choices. It would have been nice to hear more of George’s thoughts in the last paragraph as that is where the reader gets to understand his point of view. Improving some of the style choices with his writing will strengthen the learning experience for the reader. Despite these minor changes George’s review is well written.
I chose George’s review because I had not heard of ocean noise pollution before and wasn’t sure how it could affect ocean life. After reading his review I feel as if I have a strong ground level understanding of the topic and the ways it can be prevented. While I do not believe I am causing much noise pollution it is still an interesting and important topic to know about.
Broad, William J. "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." The New York
ReplyDeleteTimes. The New York Times, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/science/project-seeks-to-map-and-reduce-ocean-noise-pollution.html?ref=science
I read George's review, and I think that he did a very nice job. The first reason as to why I liked his review was because he explained a few of the terms he used in the summary such as "noise pollution". Many people wouldn't know what he meant by noise pollution since noise does not literally pollute the ocean but his explanation really helped understand the symbolism behind it. Another aspect of George's review that I enjoyed was his second paragraph. The language he used showed that he really understood the article that he read which is very important. And lastly, the third part of his review that I thought made it very well written was his sentence structure. His sentence structures really helped sometimes compare two sides of the article.
Although I thought that he did a very good job, there are a few things in which he could improve upon. He could have incorporated quotes from the article within the summary. It would have added some important detail and made it more professional. A second part that I think he could have improved was his grammar. There were a few minor grammar issues that made some sentences a little confusing but nothing major. If he had done those two things that would have made his article even better.
I did not know about this until I read George's review. Because of this review, I now have a better understanding of this article and at this subject making me aware of what "noise pollution" is.
Isabel Caton
ReplyDelete2/7/17
I read George’s review of the article “Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution,” overall it was very interesting to read and George did a good job of reviewing it. He did a good job of giving a detailed summary of what noise pollution is and explained the different ways that the noise pollution can be prevented and stopped. He also explained the effects of noise pollution on the animals and sea life. By doing all of these his review gave me a really good understanding of what noise pollution is.
Although George did a very good job reviewing this article, there were somethings that he could improve on. He could have included some quotes from the article into his review, this would have added more detail and brought in the perspective and tone of the article. Another thing that he could improve is his grammar. There were a few grammar issues that made some of the sentences a little confusing.
Overall George did a very good job reviewing this article. I chose this review because I had not heard of noise pollution and did not know anything about it. I now have a good understanding of what noise pollution is and how it is affecting the sea life and also how it can be stopped.
Evelyn Kluemper
ReplyDelete2/7/17
AP Biology
Broad, William J. "Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/science/project-seeks-to-map-and-reduce-ocean-noise-pollution.html?ref=science
George’s review of the article “Project Seeks to Map and Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution” by William J. Broad was intriguing. He thoroughly defined terms that readers may be unfamiliar with, such as noise pollution and mammal talk. George also gave examples of human activity that is causing this noise pollution, listing “sonar blasts of military exercises, commerical ship’s horns, and air guns for oil and gas exploration”. George explained some effects of noise pollution on animals, such as the “inability to communicate” and “a decline in hunting and breeding”.
Although George’s review was interesting to read, some revisions could be made to make it better. I would like to read George’s opinion as to what course of action is most suitable to raise awareness about this phenomenon and how to stop it. Also, the incorporation of quotes by experts on the subject would make the review more eloquent.
Prior to George’s review, I had not heard about the debilitating effects of noise pollution in the ocean, proving how little has been done to spread awareness about this phenomenon. I hope that in the future, machinery can be redesigned in order to minimize any harm towards the animals of the oceans.