Carole Bartolotto tells us in her article for The Huffington Post that GMOs have not been proven safe in humans. In her quest to educate the public, she cites two studies supporting GMOs (one of which she insults the validity of because of the source’s past work), and none specifically against GMOs. She builds up a claim that GMOs could be unsafe to humans since we only have animal tests, and that in the past (in the case of artificial sweeteners), these tests were shown to be uncorrelated to human responses.

It is unclear what she wants to convey to her audience. Does she want to ban or label GMOs? Her combative writing about artificial sweeteners and “diet” foods (which makes up most of her article) makes it seem like she wants to ban them, or at least unable to be served to humans. However, her final statement is “we need GMO labeling so we can do the epidemiological studies that are essential to determine their risk.” I ask, don’t we need controlled epidemiological studies in order to test their validity? We can’t simply slap a sticker on something and watch people eat, so in the meantime, deterring people from eating anything not labelled as “organic” is unprofessional.

The person writing this article dismisses the only statements supporting GMOs (and the only two statements actually about GMOs in her article) entirely. She introduces the viewpoint that some scientists “Some scientists are quite emphatic about this…” and then ends any discussion that does not adhere to her views about the subject, which, by the way, she does not even have. Her entire argument is based around a poor agreement between animal and human toxicology tests. Granted, she gives evidence to back up this claim, but, she has no evidence supporting the opposite (ironic, considering her stance that we do not yet know anything about GMOs).

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html

In an article published by ScienceDaily, Amy Kalkbrenner, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has found evidence that has added onto past findings that links autism to air pollution. Kalkbrenner’s study found that the influence of pollution on autistic rates were similar to that of studies done in California. Kalkbrenner also found that women in their third trimester were more prone to the harmful effects of air pollution on their unborn babies.

Kalkbrenner’s research focused on PM10, a particulate matter that results from traffic-related air pollution. In order to study the effects of this matter Kalkbrenner gathered the data of children from specific regions in two different states in order to “simultaneously measure the level of particulate matter present, and know which children had autism in these regions.” In order to gather accurate information about the level of PM10 each child was exposed to the research team looked at the addresses the mothers where living in while they were pregnant. The research found that “the concentration of particulate matter was highest among children born in summer months in North Carolina and those born in fall and winter months in California.”

The author uses various types of evidence to support her claim. She uses evidence from past studies that also show similar results of finding a link between air pollution and autism which are due to the effects these pollutants have in the brain of the unborn child during the third trimester. Kalkbrenner shows evidence that supports her assumptions within her own research, which also showed “links between autism and altered brain network development.” The article and the evidence shown are both scientific because the methods that were used such as using a more precise tool to measure the amount of exposure to pollution helped to gain more accurate results. The author of the article does not seem biased, but she is able to persuade the reader in making the same assumptions by stating the results of her research and being able to support her research by using past findings. The evidence is not balanced because all the evidence that was shown was in favor of her findings and none of the evidence opposed or offered a different explanation for her findings. The findings of this article supports the idea that there is a link between autism and air pollution, in order to move on with these findings it is important to do more research in order to find out why there is a greater risk for unborn babies during the third trimester.

The article that I decided to read is entitled Air Pollution Harmful to Young Brains, Study Finds. The article was found on ScienceDaily, and the source is the University of Montana. It describes a study conducted to see if living in cities negatively impacts children’s blood-brain barriers and other functions that can cause long lasting effects on the body. The study tested the serum and cerebrospinal fluids in the brains of children living in an area with low pollution and children living in Mexico City. The main conclusion of this article is that the harmful chemicals and metals found in the air are being inhaled by children living in cities, and the effects of this can increase the risk of neurological defects including brain inflammation as well as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

The author of this article only references this one study done by Dr. Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas. The evidence that was used to back up this finding was the results found by the doctor. She found that the children who were living in Mexico City had high levels of autoantibodies that were harming the parts of the brain that protect us from viruses and bacteria. The author of the article does not show any bias, instead detailing the study that was done and also mentioning that the doctor who conducted the study would recommend doing a follow-up study. This article does not try to persuade the reader to believe that air pollution is the cause of this increase in autoantibodies, but does include many quotes from Dr. Calderon-Garcinduenas explaining how continuously exposing oneself to air pollutants will eventually cause long-term negative effects. More research can be done to provide evidence towards the consequences of air pollution for people who are exposed to it in their daily lives. For example, studies can be done in other cities such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The author does mention that the air pollution in other major cities can cause harm to the brain. This article does not show any opposing views on the subject of air pollution being the cause of the brain’s protective barriers deteriorating.

Find Article Here

The number of individuals that believe climate change doesn’t exist is decreasing. It is widely accepted that the average temperatures across the world are increasing. There are people who still feel like the only people that will be affected by this change are individuals along the coastal areas. There is new research rising saying that the daily and nightly difference in temperature is changing at a faster rate than the difference in seasonal temperatures.

In this article, George Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany, explores the daily and nightly differences in temperatures and how those differences will affect the world in the long run.

Along with his partner, Michael Dillon, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming, Wang gathered over one billion temperature measurements from 7906 weather stations that collected samples from January 1, 1926 to December 31, 2009. With this data they used a new mathematical technique to determine the difference in temperatures from winter to summer and from day to night as well as computer clusters on two continents, the majority at MPI for Developmental Biology. This allowed them to characterize the variability in temperatures. This evidence is both based in a lot of estimation through data collection. They used this extensive data to estimate the global changes in the annual and diurnal temperature cycles from 1975-2013. The problem is these mathematical techniques weren’t described in the article, which makes the reader wonder how these estimations were made and how valid they are.

Wang and Dillon were able to conclude that the most intense changes in the differences in temperatures take place in the poles and far from the oceans. In these locations, the difference in the temperatures during summer and winter are increasing while the temperatures between day and night are increasing. Essentially, the areas that aren’t tropical are becoming more tropical. These conclusions go against the public assumption of climate change solely affecting those living in coastal areas.

If these conclusions were proven to be true, the consequences would be drastic in the long run. Bugs might live longer in non-tropical regions which could increase the spread of disease and crop damage. If the diurnal temperature difference continues to increase, plants in temperate climates would find it difficult to react correctly to the season and might end up flowering too early or too late, causing some seasons to pass by with these plants not bearing any fruit.

Wang and Dillon are trying to guide readers to their conclusion, but their using data collected to persuade readers. There is a bias towards the conclusion that they made in their study, but this is also based in the data they collected. However, there is room to continue collecting data and seeing if the estimations made could be solidified into concrete conclusions. As for if this article should be considered science, there is a lot of basis in science, but it should go into further detail of the processes used to generate these estimations to add more concrete evidence to the conclusions made.

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141009100928.htm

Is it possible for genetically modified organisms to appear naturally? It appears so, according to the Science Daily article entitled “Spontaneous GMOs in nature: Researchers show how a genetically modified plant can come about.” A study conducted at Lund University in Sweden shows that horizontal gene transfer has occurred between two species of plant: the Festuca ovina and the Poa palustris. DNA analysis has showed that a small part of the Poa palustris’ chromosome was transferred into the DNA of the Festuca ovina. Specifically, the gene was for an enzyme named PGIC, which is specific to the Poa palustris plant. The method of gene transfer is suggested to be from a parasite or pathogen, like a virus. The researchers are certain that the gene was definitely a result of a transfer because the two species of plant are not viable for reproduction. The way in which this gene jump occurred is unclear, though researchers assume that a sap-sucking insect may have assisted the pathogen/parasite from first plant to the next.

The researchers and authors of this article seem to have some bias towards the debate concerning GMOs. The researcher is explicitly quoted about the fact that GMOs may spread to the natural world is a very weak and unimpressive argument. This shows that he is biased towards the side where GMOs are completely safe and very beneficial and as this research suggests, natural. In reality, this research was only done a few years ago and so, it is not too clear whether GMOs are natural or not. Imposing this point upon the reader doesn’t give much room for debate, since it is simply stated, with no counter argument for it. The article only makes use of one research study from a Swedish university. This is geared towards one side of the controversial GMO debate, unlike other articles that may incorporate both sides of the argument.

This article focuses on the findings of one research study, concluding that GMOs can be found in the natural world. It suggests that GMOs are naturally occurring and have been like so for hundreds of thousands of years. However, it only makes use of one research publication, which makes it a very biased article. Some readers may not be so critical in analyzing the article and may find relief in the fact that this article states that GMOs are perfectly safe and natural. This is not the case because more research has to be done and the effects it has on us due to its consumption. This article proves on side of the GMO debate very well, but lacks an explanation or acknowledgement of the various other unproven debate points about these controversial food items.

Link for the article:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.html

In May, California caught fire again. Or maybe it’s more correct to say it kept burning. Wildfires have been a problem in California for as long as there were people that didn’t want them to occur, but they’ve only gotten worse in recent years. With the conditions of the land only getting worse and feeding larger, more devastating fires, science has a job to do and media has something to point and scream at.

The article I chose was “Fire Season Starts Early, and Fiercely,” published this May in the New York Times. In the article, the author discusses how conditions are getting worse, the fires are getting worse, and no one has any solutions because it’s not even clear what’s to really blame. Up until that last bit, the article was really well researched: experts from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the state’s Natural Resources department were interviewed; statistics were used; there was a handy graph.

But the most mention the article does to the cause of the fires is the especially dry conditions, draught, and one expert saying that climate change was assuredly playing a factor. The article went on to say absolutely nothing because it offered no possible solutions—sort of playing the whole thing to be a twist of fate. Twists of fate, I might dare say, are not science (unless we’re talking about entropic determinism and physics, I guess). The problem with this article is that it wasn’t written to further any degree of understanding, but instead to garner attention with the drama that wildfires present. With the experts, the journalist gives equal time to California inhabitants discussing the consequences the fires have had on them personally; there is even a video that explains the science behind how fires work but not the reason the fires are getting any worse. So, why are the fires getting worse?

I’ve done some research and it seems to be a combination of human activity and climate change (well, insofar as climate change is another kind of human activity I guess; all in all we’re all at fault). Wildfires are a pretty natural process in the wild and can even be somewhat beneficial—the fire burns away the tree canopy and lets more sun in for other plants to grow, fertilizes the soil with wood ash (which is a fantastic fertilizer that also helps keep the soil at a neutral pH using carbonates that remain after wood burns), and some species of plants have become sort of dependent on forest fires to further their growth, a good example being the Jack Pine which releases seeds as its temperature rises so that even if the tree dies, new ones will take its place. But because fires have always been so near to human settlement (because human settlement is everywhere), the general view of wildfires was always to put them out immediately, which has led forests becoming overgrown with more small trees and ferns that will feed fires to make them that much larger. The additional dryness added by climate warming has, as it turns out, not helped at all. This video and its provided sources do a better job explaining the phenomenon:

So now the problem becomes my main crux with the article: what can we do about it? And now my problem becomes the same as the article’s, because I have very little of an idea. Somehow we need to find a way to fix climate change, know when to put out fires and when to let them burn for a little longer, and put more water and dampness into dry regions. Let’s call Captain Planet.