This week, we were asked to look for an article related to an environmental science topic that was particularly interesting to us. In addition to giving a brief
summary and our reaction to the article, we were asked to look at where the
article came from, the source. Can
you trust what you’re reading? Is the source reliable? Is the information
backed by data or are logical fallacies at play? Like most people nowadays, I read my news online, and it’s not
always easy to tell which sources of information are reliable, and which
sources are not.
Let’s take a look at the article:
Plastics are a huge problem in our marine environments.
While the large pieces can end up clogging the GI tract of
organisms, microplastics pose other threats despite their minute size. They are
chemical magnets, attracting toxic chemicals like phthalates, that are easily
consumed by small prey and eventually work their way up the food chain, posing
potential threats to humans. This article focuses on recent study that
uncovered the “disappearing sea trash” mystery. The floating trash that
researcher expected to find but didn’t, has been found, broken down into tiny
pieces called microplastics, in
remote deep sea habitats. The study showed that every square kilometer contains
4 billion microplastic fibers, illustrating plastic pollution’s ubiquity. The presence
of this plastic poses major threats, but how it works its way into food webs and affect humans is unknown at this point, so further studies are needed to answer these questions.
After reading the article, my reaction was a mixture of multiple emotions. Recently, I completed a research project concerned with microplastic
consumption in fish, so this article, along with any other that is related to
plastics in our natural habitats, naturally sparked an interest. Having that
first-hand experience, I know there is a lot of plastic present in our marine
ecosystem, yet I’m still shocked by the sheer numbers, “4 billion pieces per km2”.
That is a lot of plastic! It’s disheartening to see the enormous amounts of microplastics
that are contaminating our oceans. While this article talks about the
accumulation of plastic in the deep sea, microplastics are found at every depth
of the ocean, so it affects many ecosystems as well. Protecting marine
ecosystems is a passion of mine, and I’m pleased to see that attention to this
matter is being brought forth, and hopefully steps will be taken to protect our
natural habitats and wildlife by stopping plastic before it can enter the water
shed. All of this really makes you think. Is that facial scrub worth it?
Let’s look back at the source of this
article, which was published by National Geographic News. Established in 1888,
Their mission is clear. National Geographic is a worldwide nonprofit
organization with a strong belief in the power of science, exploration, and storytelling
to change and protect the planet. National Geographic funds scientists to
conduct research and share their findings with the world. One thing that
impressed me is that everything the author "claimed" was supported with
scientific data from previous studies. It shows that the author of article did
his research and educated the public with truthful information and not
something that he thought we wanted to hear, sticking with National Geographic’s
belief in science. Although I was unable to find all of the evidence that I wanted to determine this a reliable, based on
the information I did find, I’m confident that National Geographic News is a
reliable source, and the information is science based.
Here’s a short but interesting info-video about plastic in marine
environments, and what you can do to help.