Core Biology Current Event 6
Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
Reading, “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs,” was a pretty scary, yet funny read. The article tells of a 10m meteor entering our atmosphere. This fireball didn't land but it got close. Although small compared to other meteors, it still got pretty close it us. The space rock exploded 16 miles above the Bering sea, or 3 Mount Everest's, on December 18. It did not do any damage to anything as it was over the Bering Sea. The part that scares scientist is the fact we never saw it coming. We didn't know years before, days before, or even hours before, it just happened. With an explosion of 175 kilotons of TNT the explosion was roughly equivalent to 10 Hiroshima's. People now talk of the event as the statistics were released a week ago and nobody besides Siberians and Alaskans knew of the event(and space agencies).
This is impacts society greatly. If a meteor comes in the future like this one, over New York City in can cause huge amounts of damage without even hitting the surface. This fireball is the second largest fireball since the one over Chelyabinsk 6 years ago. The problem is that scientists are not looking for meteors the size of these ones as they usually do not do anything and just dissipate. This causes them to not even realize that ones like the Chelyabinsk one and this one are getting dangerously close to earth. This has been a wake up call for scientists as a fireball this size that exploded over NYC would kill thousands as buildings would collapse.
I loved reading this article. Patel is very funny adding puns and funny captions on pictures that made it very fun to read. The information was also very good and Patel used interviews with scientists to explain the problem of this meteor explosion. I actually have no suggestions for the article. I bet there might have been some minor things that I didn't notice, but I felt that there was nothing important to improve on.
Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
ReplyDeleteIn Will’s review of the article “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs,” he did many things well, although there are a few aspects he could improve upon. Firstly, Will had a very clear message throughout his review. Everything was said for a reason, and he made every point clear. Furthermore, his current event review was very well explained. It was easy to read, follow along with, and comprehend. His first paragraph, or summary, was especially well explained and clear, with the information presented well. Additionally, Will had a great connection to the outside world. His connection, which was that if an unknown or unplanned for meteor were to occur again, it could cause a ton of damage, was relevant and logical.
That being said, there were a few suggestions I had for Will. Firstly, some of his sentences were repetitive. For example, he stated that the meteor had gotten fairly close to Earth twice in consecutive sentences: “This fireball didn't land but it got close. Although small compared to other meteors, it still got pretty close it us.” Although this may have been done for clarity, reducing the repetitiveness may help to improve the review. Also, it may have been helpful to include a legitimate suggestion for Patel on how to improve the article. Even suggesting a minor edit may have added to the fullness of the review.
For me, an ‘aha moment’ or realization in Will’s review was essentially the entire topic. I had no idea about the meteor and its near-collision fall through the atmosphere. Additionally, I was unaware of how such large meteors can be so harmful to people on Earth even if they do not actually crash into the crust. The fires that trail the meteor can be extremely damaging to land and the people inhabiting it. All in all, Will’s review of Patel’s article was purposeful, clear, and had a great connection, though it could have been improved by deleting some repetitive sentences or adding more constructive criticism. His topic was interesting and surprising, and I knew little about it before reading the review.
Ava Chiang
ReplyDelete3/20/19
Bio Odd / C
Current Event Comment #6
Will’s Article: Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
I think Will really did well in his review of the article. His summary of the article was clear and concise but also included a lot data to provide evidence. He used dates, specific locations, and made comparisons of the meteor explosion to events that most people know, like the nuclear explosion in Hiroshima. My favorite part of his review was when he did this comparison, he describe the meteor as “With an explosion of 175 kilotons of TNT the explosion was roughly equivalent to 10 Hiroshima's.” This really made me visualize the situation the article described and helped me understand the gravity ot it. But despite all the data, Will’s summary cut straight to the point and included only the most important information which made it easier to read and understand. My favorite part about Will’s review was how he related the contents of the article to society. Other than describing how a meteor explosion like this would damage large cities, Will compared it to another meteor explosion in Chelyabinsk six years ago. This inclusion of another source of information shows me that he is really interested in this article and knows his information well.
I enjoyed reading Will’s review but I feel like there are some minor adjustments he could make to improve it. For example, he didn’t critique the article and wrote “I actually have no suggestions for the article. I bet there might have been some minor things that I didn't notice, but I felt that there was nothing important to improve on” instead. But from his summary and the connections he made between this article and society, I feel like he should be able to find something the author can improve on. Second, a major reason Will cited for his enjoyment of this article was that he thought the author was funny and made a lot of jokes, which made this article more enjoyable to read. This wasn’t stated in the rubric, but I feel like if he was going to mention this in his reflection then he should include an example to help readers better understand his position.
I chose this review to read because I’m very interested in humanitarian events and one of the biggest humanitarian crisis was US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. To this day, possession of nuclear bombs remain a big issue in global politics and is a topic constantly discussed. So when I saw the title of the article that stated that this explosion is comparable to ten nuclear explosions, it immediately caught my attention. Will’s summary of the article shocked me and it made me realize the complexity and power of nature. No matter how big humans seem or how much we achieve, it seems like the universe is also constantly improving and remains a goal that impossible to overcome.
Ava Chiang
ReplyDelete3/20/19
Bio Odd / C
Current Event Comment #6
Will’s Article: Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
I think Will really did well in his review of the article. His summary of the article was clear and concise but also included a lot data to provide evidence. He used dates, specific locations, and made comparisons of the meteor explosion to events that most people know, like the nuclear explosion in Hiroshima. My favorite part of his review was when he did this comparison, he describe the meteor as “With an explosion of 175 kilotons of TNT the explosion was roughly equivalent to 10 Hiroshima's.” This really made me visualize the situation the article described and helped me understand the gravity ot it. But despite all the data, Will’s summary cut straight to the point and included only the most important information which made it easier to read and understand. My favorite part about Will’s review was how he related the contents of the article to society. Other than describing how a meteor explosion like this would damage large cities, Will compared it to another meteor explosion in Chelyabinsk six years ago. This inclusion of another source of information shows me that he is really interested in this article and knows his information well.
I enjoyed reading Will’s review but I feel like there are some minor adjustments he could make to improve it. For example, he didn’t critique the article and wrote “I actually have no suggestions for the article. I bet there might have been some minor things that I didn't notice, but I felt that there was nothing important to improve on” instead. But from his summary and the connections he made between this article and society, I feel like he should be able to find something the author can improve on. Second, a major reason Will cited for his enjoyment of this article was that he thought the author was funny and made a lot of jokes, which made this article more enjoyable to read. This wasn’t stated in the rubric, but I feel like if he was going to mention this in his reflection then he should include an example to help readers better understand his position.
I chose this review to read because I’m very interested in humanitarian events and one of the biggest humanitarian crisis was US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. To this day, possession of nuclear bombs remain a big issue in global politics and is a topic constantly discussed. So when I saw the title of the article that stated that this explosion is comparable to ten nuclear explosions, it immediately caught my attention. Will’s summary of the article shocked me and it made me realize the complexity and power of nature. No matter how big humans seem or how much we achieve, it seems like the universe is also constantly improving and remains a goal that impossible to overcome.
Griffin Patterson
ReplyDelete3/20/19
Bio Odd / C
Current Event Comment #7
Will’s Article: Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
I just read will grants review on “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs” by neel v patel and I thought he did a very excellent job. The first thing Will did well was he expressed the article very well. Will’s Summary at the beginning expressed this article very well as well as using a lot of evidence to support this articles claims and data. He used dates, specific locations, and made comparisons of the meteor explosion to events that most people know, like the nuclear explosion in Hiroshima. The first thing Will did well was when he described the space rock. He said” the space rock exploded 16 miles above the Bering sea, or 3 Mount Everest's, on December 18. It did not do any damage to anything as it was over the Bering Sea. The part that scares scientist is the fact we never saw it coming. This was exciting information because the rock didn't do anything to the Bering Sea which is a relief because if the rock did it would've causes some massive damages. The last thing Will did well was how he related the contents of the article to society. Other than describing how a meteor explosion like this would damage large cities, Will compared it to another meteor explosion in Chelyabinsk six years ago.
While Will’s review was really well written there was some things he could improve on. In the end paragraph he stated that “ there are no suggestions for the author”. I feel like he could have done better in this part and it seems a little lazy. He could have really looked carefully in the article and stated some of the minor suggestions as he said. Overall, i feel like saying there are no suggestions was lazy and i thought he could have put in more effort on that part. The Second thing Will could have worked on was explaining his point about how the author was funny in the last paragraph. Overall, he could have at least had an example of why the author was funny or one of the puns the author used.
This was overall a very well written review besides the improvements. This really made me think about how important the Us dropping two bombs on hiroshima was . also how important in history that was and how it affected today's world and society. When I saw the title of the article that stated that this explosion is comparable to ten nuclear explosions, it immediately caught my attention because of the historical importance already. Overall Will did a great job writing this review and I learned alot about how the US dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and how important it was. .
Chris Aherne
ReplyDeleteCore Bio
Mr. Ippolito
3-28-19
Patel, Neel V. “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs.” Popular Science, 18 Mar. 2019, www.popsci.com/bering-sea-meteor-explosion-10-atomic-bombs.
For current event seven, I decided to read my classmate William Grants review on Neel Patel's “A Meteor Exploded over the Bering Sea with the Energy of 10 Atomic Bombs”. What I loved about Will's review is that he instantly began the text stating that the article had comedic ties to it, instantly lightening the mood. Secondly, he did an amazing job making the article clear and to the point, not allowing himself to be pulled in by subtopics. It made the read very quick and easy. Lastly, he did a great at giving a sufficient amount of information relating to the article. For example, when he states that "The space rock exploded 16 miles above the Bering sea, or 3 Mount Everest's, on December 18," he gives us clear information on the magnitude of the explosion whilst also keeping it to the point. It made the article very easy to learn from and understand.
Although Will did an amazing job on many different things, there was definitely room to improve. Firstly, I feel as if there was a lack of detail in some areas. Yes, he did keep the review short and to the point, but it felt as if it was missing information. I was left with a lot of questions. He can fix this by just adding a few more details about certain aspects of the article. Secondly, I found that the article did not flow very well. It was too choppy and some questions were still unanswered. However, he can fix this by simply adding some transition words.
Overall, I had a great time reading Will's review. It was full of information and beside the occasionally missing fact, it was great. I chose to read this review simply because the title drew me in. It was hook that I couldn't refuse. And im very glad I read this article because it taught me a lot about how something from space could hit the earth at any moment and destroy us all.