The issue of managing increasing levels of carbon dioxide waste is a hot topic nowadays. Many solutions have been proposed, one of the foremost is to store liquid carbon dioxide gas in deposits under the ocean floor. I found two sources of information on the topic, one primary and the other secondary. The primary source entails the proposition, “Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep-Sea Basalt” by David S. Goldberg, Taro Takahashi and Angela L. Sagle. They’re findings were reported in the Seattle Times, “Storing Carbon Dioxide Under NW Seafloor Proposed” by Sandi Doughton.
There are a number of differences between the two sources, the most prominent of which involves the amount of information being displayed. A large number of factors could play into this, for example a newspaper is only allocated a certain amount of room, while the published work of researchers would need the small details and statistics to prove their arguments thoroughly.
The article, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under NW Seafloor Proposed” by Doughton also lacks an argument. Doughtan actually seems reluctant to make a concrete statement on the topic, “scientists say a partial solution to global warming,” (Doughton 2008) The author is careful not to be overly optimistic, “Researchers envision a system” (Doughton 2008), I admire how the author simply reports and does not offer an opinion allowing the reader to make their own informed opinion.
Goldberg et al. however are more dynamic in they’re arguments. Unlike the newspaper article they aim to advertise and gain support for their research. They thoroughly back all claims with a number of statistics, “geological storage of industrial CO2 emissions can contribute significantly to achieving a stable solution,” (Goldberg et al. 2008) They also cite a number of different researchers to support their claim, “Matter et al. (25) conducted a small-scale injection experiment,” (Goldberg et al. 2008). They include diagrams on how the process would run as well as.
The newspaper article lacks all the statistics that the primary source provides, “Bulk permeability estimates in the shallow basement range from 10−9 to 10−13 m2” (Goldberg et al 2008). Instead it focuses more on informing a regular audience, and a long winded detailed account would not sell as many copies as a concise article that tells the reader what they want to know in a few paragraphs. The first paragraph itself summarizes easily what the rest is about, “Deep volcanic rocks could serve as a kind of storage locker for carbon dioxide, trapping the greenhouse gas under great pressure with virtually no chance of leaking back into the atmosphere,” (Doughton 2008). This format allows the reader to stop any time without having to search the rest of the article for key points. Newspaper articles are also designed in a way that can easily be edited to fit what ever space has been given, i.e. if an article has to be cut short it can be done with the deletion of a few paragraphs instead of a complete revision.
I believe that the general public simply has no time to sit and read every research publication that is out there. A newspaper can neatly sum up the information in a way the reader can easily decipher. However I only find that some articles contain a large bias and argument on the topic, to find an article without bias is harder, yet easier for the readers to judge information for themselves. The paper by Goldberg et al. also tries somewhat to appeal to the general public; they do this by adding diagrams and pictures
Resources:
Doughton, Sandi. (2008) Storing Carbon Dioxide Under NW Seafloor Proposed. Seattle Times. July 14 2008. Accessed October 1, 2008 from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008050976_webcarbonstorage14m.html
Goldberg, David S. et al. (2008) Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep-Sea Basalt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. May 7, 2008. Accessed October 1, 2009 from : http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/9920.full?sid=688f33eb-ce02-4893-8816-7ee1b03c43b7se
Posts
Rava, I like how you mentioned that the amount of information displayed in each source might differ due to the fact that a newspaper is only allocated a certain amount of space. I honestly never thought of this concept while writing my blog! Also, you gave really good "back up" for your ideas by using direct quotes from the two articles. I would suggest checking over your punctuation because I noticed that the last sentence of your final paragraph does not end with a period. Or did some of the paragraph get cut off?
ReplyDeleteRava, I enjoyed your critique and agreed with most of the points that you made. I also felt that your comparison was quite through, except for one point. You did not make any points on the differences in the disscussion of limitations between the two sources. In addition in the third pargrap you contracdced yourself and your quotations do not strongly support your points.
ReplyDeleteAll in all though I did enjoy reading your critique and felt it was well written
I found it interesting that you comment on what you see as the newspaper's motivation for publishing the article. You say newspapers focus on informing a regular audience, and telling the reader what they want to know. While I believe this is partly true, you also say at the end of your post that Goldberg's paper "also tries somewhat to appeal to the general public: they do this by adding diagrams and pictures". I don't think this is the case. I believe this primary paper, like all others, is intended for members of the scientific comminity, and such diagrams serve only to supplement the written information.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that Goldberg and the other authors thoroughly back all claims with a number of statistics. You then provide a quote from the primary article. I gather that you are showing this as an example of one of these statistics. However, the quote you provide is "geological storage of industrial CO2 emissions can contribute significantly to achieving a stable solution". I don't believe this is a statistic, rather a qualitative statement.
I found this article very interesting. One thing in particluar that I liked was how you said that you admired that the author of the secondary article only reported the data and findings from the primary article, but did not offer any opinions. I think that it is important for opinions to be told in opinion pieces and blogs, but in a secondary source I agree that the author should keep their opinions to themselves and simply state the results and conclusions of the study. I believe that it is good for people to be able to know the data and be able to have their own opinions, and not be influenced by the opinions of the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a very good job summarizing the differences between the two articles and I agree with what you said. Overall it is a job well done!