Abbey Thomas
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
7 December 2017
For this week’s current event, I decided to review John Hurdle’s article entitled “New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit of Chemicals in Drink Water”, I chose this article because toxic chemicals are a highly debated topic for policy makers and scientists, and understanding what is in water is also important since it can be very harmful. New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institution is proposing to lower the levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is a type of perfluorinated chemical that has previously been banned from being used to make cookware and mattresses. New Jersey is looking to lower the maximum contamination limit from 70 parts per trillion to 13 trillion parts per trillion, and all water systems operators would have to adhere to the new regulations. The motivation behind the lowering of the contamination limit is because studies have found that New Jersey has the highest concentration of PFOS, 3.4%, in the drinking water, which is twice the national average, 1.9%. Dr. David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group said that “These chemicals are extremely persistent, they’ve become global contaminants, and they can seriously impact human health at extremely low concentrations”. The impact of human health that Dr. Andrews is referring to that the increased concentration of these chemicals puts New Jersey residents at a high risk of low birth weight in infants, kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and impaired immune system function.
The relevance of containment drinking water is very clear, as seen in New Jersey and in Flint, Michigan, these chemicals cause serious health risks, and the EPA is not doing enough studies or making the correct regulations to lower the risks. The evidence for this is clear, as the use of PFOS in mattress and cookware was phased out 20 years ago due to health concerns, but there are still high levels of these chemicals allowed in the water supply. One of the issues that has stopped proper regulations is organizations such as the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, a trade group for chemical manufacturers that produce their own studies. Even though studies for the businesses normally have a too small test population, their results are accepted by the EPA, until health risks occur.
There were many strengths in Holden’s writing in this article. For example, Holden included a counter argument to lowering the levels of PFOS in water, and then used scientific data to disprove the argument. This tactic helped prove the main point of the organizations that are proposing a lower contamination level and made a strong argument. One thing that Holden should have added is the economic ramification of the lower level, since the economy is big factor in regulations. Overall, Holdren wrote a strong article that displayed the importance of lowering PFOS in drinking water.
Isabel Sondey
ReplyDeleteHurdle, Jon. “New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit on Chemical in Drinking Water.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 6 Dec. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/nyregion/new-jersey-pfc-water-limits.html?rref=collectio
n%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=strea
m&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront&_r
=0.
Abbey’s review of New York Times article “New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit of Chemicals in Drink Water” was a strong one in a few ways. First, she includes some meaningful statistics to strengthen her argument. She discusses how New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institution is moving to lower maximum contamination of PFOS from 70 parts per trillion to 13 parts per trillion. She also mentions how New Jersey faces the highest PFOS concentration, at 3.4%. Statistics aid in furthering her central points. She also makes reference to the quotes of several professionals in the field, and these citations validate her review. She offers a quote from Dr. David Andrews, a scientist at the Environmental Working group, in which he discusses the negative impact, on a global scale, of chemicals in our drinking water. Additionally, she successfully establishes the article’s importance, putting it into context in order to draw the reader in. She discusses how contaminants found in drinking water pose a threat to people worldwide, as chemical-containing water results in serious health conditions. She introduces the matter as one that must be addressed, as well as one that requires appropriate action, as failure to do so could risk the lives of unsuspecting individuals who drink contaminated water, particularly in New Jersey where this issue is prevalent.
While Abbey’s review was fairly strong, there are certainly a few areas in need of improvement. For one, she only provided a very basic synopsis of the research. While she did include a few meaningful statistics, her explanation of the research did not extend beyond this; she stopped at a brief summary of the issue at hand. She could have included a few details on the specifics of future plans to limit contaminants in water, and could have included some information on how chemical levels in water are determined and monitored. Her review was also somewhat disorganized, making it hard to follow.She starts with a basic explanation of the water contamination crisis, delving into some research on the matter and then going into a summary of New Jersey's proposed action. From here, she addresses the article’s relevance today, but then jumps back to explaining some previous research. This makes her review hard to keep up with. It would have been a little more comprehensible had she included the majority of the explanation of research in one place, and then transitioned into the research’s relevance after.
I was drawn to Abbey’s review since it was one that seemed to relate to me; since the article addresses the concern of contaminated water, I was curious to learn if the water I was drinking is safe and what policies New York State has in place for ensuring that safety. While the article didn’t really touch on that (it mainly focussed on New Jersey), its contents certainly holds a great relevance to all. The matter of water contamination is one that clearly affects people of all areas, even those living in well-developed areas and neighborhoods. All people must take precautions to ensure that the water they consume is chemical-free, regardless of how safe they may assume it is.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
13 December, 2017
Current Event #11
Hurdle, Jon. “New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit on Chemical in Drinking Water.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 6 Dec. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/nyregion/new-jersey-pfc-water-limits.html.
This week, I chose to read Abbey’s review of The New York Times article titled “New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit on Chemical in Drinking Water” by Jon Hurdle. Throughout her discussion, Abbey did three things exceptionally well. Firstly, she provided her audience with a very clear and understandable summary of the original text. In doing so, her readers were more well-informed on the subject before reading on about its importance. Next, Abbey used quotes from credible sources, such as Dr. David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, that were also included in Hurdle’s original article. This allowed for Abbey to establish her credibility as an author and a critic. Finally, Abbey did a great job describing the article’s importance and its effect on our society. By doing so, she makes sure that her audience understands how crucial it is that we take action regarding the issues of water contamination.
Although Abbey’s review was well-written, she can improve upon a couple points in the future to make her writing stronger. Firstly, she can work on making her critique more detailed and can include more constructive criticism in order to give her audience a better understanding of Hurdle’s work before reading the original article. Also, Abbey can address the question about where New Jersey, and hopefully other states, will take this concern over drinking water in the future. If she talks about the nation as a whole in this way and what steps states may be taking, this would leave her readers with fewer questions in the end.
Overall, Abbey did a great job on her reflection and I fully understand this topic and the author as a result of reading her critique. I chose to read this review because I am greatly concerned with the water quality in our country. Following New Jersey’s demands, I hope that other states have been making improvements, as clean water is an essential part of our daily lives. I am now more concerned with New York’s drinking water quality and will be more involved and interested when I see news discussing water contamination in America. This issue not only affects Americans, but it greatly affects other nations, especially those with little access to fresh water, typically in third-world countries.