"Here's What Fracking Can Do to Your Health"

McDonnell, Tim. "Here's What Fracking Can Do to Your Health." Mother Jones. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/heres-what-fracking-can-do-your-health

The article “Here’s What Fracking Can Do to Your Health” by Tim Mcdonnell, explains the problems fracking can cause the environment and humans. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling into the earth to extract natural gasses. Although this seems to be an easy alternative of oil, many dangerous chemicals like hydrochloric acid and ethylene glycol are being pumped into the earth, while methane and benzene are being released into the air on these sites. Even after the waste water is contained, there have been many reports of spills. A colorado study counted 77 fracking wastewater spills that impacted groundwater supplies. Of those groundwater supplies 90% of them were contaminated with benzene. Not only can groundwater be contaminated but so can drinking water. This happens when the cement casing cracks or leaks, which happens to 2%-50% of fracking wells. according to studies (that the author did not list). Overall this author is trying to spread awareness about the negative aspects of fracking.

In this article Mcdonnell informs the reader about the dangers of fracking to our everyday society. Because of broken fracking wells methane can get into people's drinking water, even though methane is non toxic if too much is consumed at high concentrations it will cause death by asphyxiation (when not enough oxygen gets into your lungs). Broken wells also result in flammable faucets nearby fracking sites. Another negative effect on fracking is the air pollution near the wells. This has a negative impact on people because some airborne air pollutants like the ones found in one Colorado study are endocrine disrupter and mess up fetal and early childhood development. Also some airborne pollutants cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

I thought this article was well written and Mcdonnell did a good job explaining the possible reasons fracking can be harmful to someone’s health. But to make this article better I think that Mcdonnell could have listed the studies that found certain information he talked about instead of just saying, many studies found that (information). Also I think that Mcdonnell could have told the reader more specifics on the process of fracking. But besides those issues I think that  this article was easy to follow and I learned alot about this nationwide problem. Hopefully articles like these will be able to raise awareness about the dangers of fracking so production can be stopped before more wells are created.

Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat

Ellie Parson           9/22/16

Current Event #3

Citation for Article:

Wallace, Tim. "Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat." The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Sept. 2016

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/12/science/earth/ocean-warming-climate-change.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

The article Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat by Tim Wallace discusses the roles Earth’s oceans plays in absorbing and controlling the temperature of the planet. In 2016, global temperatures reached a record high during the seasons of winter, spring, and summer.  Although to scientists and meteorologists, the increase in heat is no surprise. Over three decades Earth’s surface temperature has supposedly been on a permanent acceleration to extreme heat. The ocean covers more than 75 percent of the planet, which inevitably causes the large bodies of water to be the victim of unusual temperatures. Without the ocean, the effects of climate change on the Earth would be depressingly worse, as Wallace states “Since 1995, more than 90 percent of the excess heat retained by the Earth as a result of greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the ocean”(Wallace, 3). Because of this, Eric Leuliette from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration feels as if 90 percent of the ongoing and present history of climate change has been ignored and underrated. Climate change is occurring as a result to many different factors, some being natural, like El Nino, and others because of the population’s abuse of fossil fuels. No matter the reason, the impact on the oceans is great in comparison to land. Wallace describes Earth’s oceans as “heat sponges” that shelter people who live on their planet. Unfortunately, as protective and useful they are, the more heat the Earth sustains, the less efficient oceans are at maintaining their temperatures. Large bodies of water expand as they store heat, causing one third of the rise scientists have seen in sea level. The other two thirds are the response the arctic and antarctic circles had to warmer water temperatures, their ice caps melting in large amounts. Not only does the ocean expand when it is heated, but it also enables for more dangerous and destructive weather patterns. Weather patterns, unlike mass climate change, cannot be controlled. Marine life faces as many issues as the ocean does. Species of bleached coral thriving on the Great Barrier Reef are jeopardized, as well as other animals and birds. Fishing industries have to relocate to colder locations in order to catch the same groups of fish they used to, creating an economic calamity. This generation of scientists, politicians, and world leaders have shown or acknowledged the ocean’s suffering in some form, but actually taking the time to act upon the responsibility of lowering the temperatures is difficult. Creating new sources of energy in large quantities at such high demand seems nearly impossible. However, Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer of the NOAA, claims that the rate of energy gained by the earth’s surface from heat “between 1971 and 2010 was roughly equal to the power required to run 140 billion 1,500 watt hair dryers over the same number of years.” Rising heat does have a largely negative impact on the Earth and the life on it, but if scientists find a way to recycle the extreme heat humans cause to the planet, there may be a way to reverse the damage.

Society will suffer greatly from the rising levels and dying marine life across the world. Cities and towns located on beaches are in danger as sea levels rise, and extreme flooding has already occurred after hurricanes Earl, Sandy, and Katrina. Hurricanes and Typhoons cannot be controlled unless prepared for greatly in advance, therefore a responsibility is placed upon societies worldwide to reduce their usage of fossil fuels and other harmful greenhouse gasses. El Nino, a natural rise in heat over bodies of water and land, is the acception to climate change, as it can never be changed. However, warm temperatures before and after El Nino only enable it to be stronger. No matter if the country is landlocked or exposed to the ocean, the impact climate change has on the population is evident. Political figures are expected to talk about their views on global warming, and scientists struggle to convince a small percentage of the population that global warming exists. The world as a whole is confused by how to react to climate change on land, and has absolutely no idea how to save the oceans that are still partially unexplored.

This article did an amazing job at portraying the effects of global warming on Earth’s oceans. Wallace grabbed my attention by supporting his claims with detailed and descriptive data. He wrote the article smoothly, making sure his ideas were easy to understand and was even persuasive. The one technique that stood out to me was that he highlighted the most important data in his article. However, he lacked in descriptive detail and personal reflection on the data he acquired. It is great that the article did not seem to be written in a biased tone, but I would have connected more if he had related his opinions more directly to his findings. The words he used to describe the data was bland and his vocabulary was average in comparison to other writers. If he had related the information to himself or took a more dramatic approach to the topic, the importance of rising heat temperatures in oceans would have been more personified and emotional.  

Visions of Life on Mars in Earth’s Depths

Alexander New Current Event 3

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/south-african-mine-life-on-mars.html?action=click&contentCollection=space&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Citation:

Chang, Kenneth. "Visions of Life on Mars in Earth’s Depths." The New York Times. The New

York Times, 12 Sept. 2016. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

In the article, Visions of Life on Mars in Earth’s Depths by Kenneth Chang from the New York Times, scientists went to the Beatrix gold mine in South Africa. When they were in the mine, they took samples of tiny microbes living in the hard rock, miles underground. These organisms flourished not from the sun, but from the interior of Earth below. At the time of the Viking missions, Earth’s deep biosphere was unknown to biologists. It was always assumed that where it was always dark there would no life at all. Almost a century ago, Edson S. Bastin, a geologist at the University of Chicago, wondered why some petroleum had higher levels of sulfur and generated more pollution when burned. “He and a colleague, Frank E. Greer, successfully cultured such bacteria from groundwater from an oil field, and Bastin speculated these could be descendants of bacteria that had been trapped in ocean sediments more than 250 million years ago” (Chang). Today, the deep biosphere is thought to account for 10 to 20 percent of mass of all life on Earth.

Studying these microbes could help in figuring out if life could exist on other planets, like Mars. The reason for this is that the conditions underground on Mars could be similar to the conditions in the mine on Earth. If you put the organisms on Mars, then they could easily colonize with a little water and the chemical reactions occurring in the rocks around them. Dr. Onstott, a scientist working on the project said, “As long as you can get below the ice, no problems. They just need a little bit of water” (Chang). There is lots of evidence so that one could assume there is life on Mars, but it is definitely not a sure thing. At the end of the article, Chang poses the question, “Even if life did arise on Mars four billion years ago and later migrated underground, could it have survived for four billion years? There are reasons to be skeptical. When low on water and energy, microbes can slow their metabolism or enter a state of suspended animation, able to revive when conditions improve. But many biologists doubt that such a tenuous hold on life could extend for a few billion years” (Chang).

I enjoyed reading this article because it is intriguing to think about there being other life outside of Earth, especially if it is in the same Solar System. The article provides lots of detailed information about how they discovered the microbes and why it is possible for microbes to be on Mars as well. Also, I liked how Chang asked questions at the end of the article but instead of leaving us questioning, he answered them to the best of his ability. However, the article was rather long and a little difficult to follow at times. Overall, if Chang shortened the article a little so that it was more about Mars rather than the studying of microbes, it would be improved.

A Mosquito Killer, Unwelcome to Many

Shelby Mitchell Biology

Current Event #3 9/17/16

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/health/a-mosquito-killer-unwelcome-to-many.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&_r=0

In the article, A Mosquito Killer, Unwelcome to Many by Donald G. McNEIL Jr. from The New York Times, a pesticide called naled was sprayed over Miami this month to help stop the spread of the Zika virus in Southern Florida. This has caused many protests and environmentalists who are worried about naled’s toxicity. naled is a chemical called organophosphate that is used to control mosquitoes. It is very lethal to insects and toxic to birds and fish. Many researches believe Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (the type of mosquitos that carry the Zika virus) have developed a resistance to naled. There has been an ongoing disagreement over naled’s safety in the United States and in Europe. For example, naled could have fatal effects to people who come into contact with it, “Overdoses can cause vomiting, seizures and loss of consciousness. An extreme doses, from a spill for example, victims lose their ability to breath, and die” (McNEIL 2). It has been banned since 2012 in the European Union because it is a risk to humans and the environment but is still used in the United States. Although the main reason Naled is used to stop the spread of Zika, no one guarantees that naled will stop the transmission. In the article it explains, “It is considered a last resort, but worthwhile because the viral threat to babies is so great and because other mosquito control measures are failing” (McNEIL 2). In 2015, mosquito populations dropped by 99 percent in Tampa and Miami and 90 percent in New Orleans. Throughout 2016, many researchers and scientists are hoping naled will help continue help stop the transmissions of Zika.

This article is important to society because the Zika Virus is an epidemic all over the world. An infection during pregnancy can cause a birth defects of the brain called microcephaly. Other problems that have been detected among infants include defects of the eye, hearing, and impaired growth. This is a huge problem because in other countries where women are pregnant there is nothing they can do from being bitten by this mosquito. Also, these mosquitos that have the Zika Virus are in Miami which is one of the most popular places to travel and live. This is why scientists have sprayed naled throughout Florida because they understand the importance of the effects this virus can have on infants.

In my opinion, this article did a great job explaining scientists efforts in trying to stop the transmission. I thought they could have explained more background on Zika and the defects it can cause to infants. They could have also talked more about the protests and demonstrations against the use of naled. Overall, besides these minor fixes, the article was very easy to understand and advanced my knowledge of the Zika Virus. Hopefully naled is just the start of scientists attempts in trying to stop the transmission this virus.

Does it pass the 'smell test'? Seeking ways to diagnose Alzheimer's early

Kirsten Ircha

September 15, 2016

Current Events

Citation:

"A Smell Test May Diagnose Alzheimer's Early." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/health/alzheimers-eye-and-smell/index.html>.

The article Does it pass the 'smell test'? Seeking ways to diagnose Alzheimer's early

by Susan Scutti from CNN outlines new scientific studies that have been working to detect Alzheimer's disease early on. Alzheimer's itself is the most common type of dementia and causes people to have thinking problems, experience memory loss, and have unusual behaviors. Early detection is essential, as it prevents symptoms from worsening. Sadly, tests to detect these problems are both expensive and invasive. Currently, scientists are working on methods to find  the causes of Alzheimer's in less expensive ways. Some of these studies involve studying odor detection as a possible test for the disease. At Columbia University, Seonjoo Lee, an assistant professor of clinical biostatistics, and her colleagues tested 397 nondemented people around the age of 80. The studies showed that participants with lower scores on odor test were more likely to develop mental decline in later years. Next, Dr. William Kreisl, an assistant professor of neurology performed a second unrelated study at Columbia University and examined smell scores in combination with brain scans and cerebrospinal fluid. The researchers found that signs of plaque in the brain or spine were signs of Alzheimer's development and the smelling abilities were not a factor. Other studies have looked at retina thickness as a possible symptom of Alzheimer. Dr. Fang Ko of the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology in London explored the retinal nerve fiber layer and found a link between thinner retina layers and mental decline. In the last study detailed in the article, Melanie Campbell, a professor of physics at the University of Waterloo, and her colleagues studied amyloid protein deposits in the retina, and found a relation between protein deposit build-up in the eyes and the beginning stages of the disease. Overall, these scientists are working towards a future with better detection methods for Alzheimer's.

This article is extremely relevant to society, as Alzheimer's disease and dementia affect many elderly people worldwide. The disease is very debilitating and can cause many adversities for patients in day to day life. A cure or way of early detection for the disease can be critical for the quality of life for many senior citizens. Alzheimer’s affects me greatly, as my grandfather was diagnosed with dementia shortly after he had open heart surgery a few years ago. He now has to have a full-time caregiving staff and is unable to perform many everyday activities on his own. He no longer remembers my name or who I am. He also has many odd behaviors due to his disease and often wakes up in the middle of the night to unplug every electronic in his home or forgets about a conversation in five minutes. This disease has greatly changed my life and relationship with my grandfather and can be emotionally harmful for the person with Alzheimer's along with their closest friends and relatives.

The article does a great job of stating each scientific study in a clear an organized format. Also, the subsections allow for the material to be understood very well. The language is not overly advanced and broadens the audience to younger readers. Also, the article was a manageable length that provided an abundance of information but was not unbearable long to read. Although this article was informative, some of the sentences were phrased oddly and were confusing to read. At some points, I had to reread a few of the statements to completely see what the author was attempting to convey. I also feel that some of the information became very repetitive and too many studies were stated. If I wrote the article, I would have fewer studies mentioned but with greater detail. Also, I would advise the author to make some of the sentences phrased more simply so they can be fully acknowledged.

"Soccer Injuries Surge as More Kids Play"

Samantha Huss
Current Event
15 September 2016

Rapaport, Lisa. "Soccer Injuries Surge as More Kids Play." Scientific American. N.p., 12 Sept. 2016. Web. 13 Sept. 2016. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soccer-injuries-surge-as-more-kids-play/>.

Over the last twenty-five years, the rate of injuries in youth soccer players has doubled. More kids are playing soccer which accounts for the increased number of injuries, but the rate which these injuries occur has also risen. This means that each soccer player is statistically more likely to injure themselves and for it to happen more frequently. Most of these injuries are contact or collision injuries which have most likely increased because of increased pressure within the sport. Players are taught to play with a mindset of doing whatever it takes to win the game, and this translates to children risking anything, even an injury, for their team. Furthermore, more players have been specializing in one sport and playing soccer all year instead of doing other sports during the off season. This translates to players both over using certain parts of their bodies and becoming stronger on the soccer field, and results in many more injuries.

Soccer is an extremely popular sport. All over the world, children practice this sport everyday, and in turn are risking injury constantly. I play soccer for my school team and a lot of my friends play as well. The great risk of injury which we are all taking is shocking to discover. All of the soccer players I know have injured themselves in some way, whether it be serious or very small. All successful soccer players have to push themselves extremely far. With professional players running, on average, seven miles per game, and young players running about four, the risk of overuse alone is extremely high. It is important for people everywhere involved in soccer to be aware of how high the risk is for players. The discoveries detailed in this article are very important for coaches, players, and parents.

The author of the article did a great job of presenting facts and establishing a trustworthy argument. The article is filled with facts which support the claims being made. The author also was good at using precise, clear phrases to get her point across. The article was very detailed, however it reused similarly vocabulary and seemed slightly repetitive. It would have been improved if it used different vocabulary to keep the reader more engaged. Although the article was well written, it would also have been improved if the author had gone on in the research and suggested possible ways to help prevent injury. It felt slightly unfinished because it only presented the problem, and didn’t suggest possible solutions. Overall, the article was very informative and increased my understanding of possible injuries, and the risk of injuries, from soccer.  

"See Where Clinton and Trump Stand On Science"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/see-where-clinton-and-trump-stand-science

Staff, Science News. "See Where Clinton and Trump Stand on Science."Science News. N.p., 13 Sept. 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

Review by Jay Burstein

9/14/16

The election of 2016 has been one of the most controversial elections in our history. Our two candidates for the presidency have been boasting about their vision for America. This article points out their views on science and how it will have an impact for our future. The article interviews the two candidates to find out more about their platforms on the following scientific objects such as space exploration, climate change, vaccines, health, genetic engineering, gun research, and STEM education. While Science has not been a main issue in this cycle, this article discusses certain scientific views of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In my review, I will focus on space exploration, climate change, and STEM education. These topics are the most important to be reviewed.

Space exploration has been a debated subject for half a century and also a recent one. Mrs. Clinton's stance is that we have a lot more to learn and discover so the government should continue to fund those efforts. The article said, "Clinton wanted to be an astronaut when she was 14 years old, but NASA told her that they weren’t accepting girls". Hillary Clinton supports the mission of NASA and this quote shows that to be true. Surprisingly, Trump agrees with Clinton on this issue. He too loves what NASA represents. NASA can create new jobs and spark curiosity in kids and ultimately trillions of dollars into our economic system. However, he stated that their are bigger issues that we have to tackle and space exploration shouldn't be a high priority. Overall, Trump and Clinton are for space exploration but neither candidate goes into depth as to what their plan would be.

Climate change has also been a debated subject for a while now and it is a topic that can have a heavy impact on our future and for the future generations to come. Mrs. Clinton believes that science is real and specifically, that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs. She has called the Paris climate agreement a "historic step forward". According to Mrs. Clinton, she'll deliver on the U.S. pledge to curb warming without relying on the climate deniers in congress to pass new legislation. Her goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent in 2050. In order to do this, she would invest in renewable energy. Ultimately, she is for climate change and has a clear and concise vision to tackle that problem. On the other hand, Donald Trump is strongly against climate change calling human caused climate change a "hoax". He has also said that any efforts to combat it are burdensome on the economic system. Donald Trump at a rally said, "President Obama entered the United States into the Paris climate accords. Unilaterally and without the permission of congress, this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over what we do on our land in our country." From this quote, it is evident that Trump does not support the fight to combat climate change. Trump has said that he will cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs. Part of his plan is to undo many of the climate initiatives put into place by the Obama administration such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut emissions from power plants. Also, he would encourage the use of natural gas and other American energy resources. Ultimately, the nominees strongly differ on this scientific subject. 

As far as the article goes, I thought that it was an extremely well informed article that covered a lot of the points. It was well detailed and provided a lot of useful information. I liked the fact how the article covered the state of the science as well as Trump and Clinton's stance on each of the issues. However, I wish they had talked to more scientists who are experts on these issues and to ask for their opinion on each of these issues. If we got the insight of the scientists who do this for a living, then this article would be a lot more meaningful and insightful. Overall, this was a well written article and as we are 55 days away from choosing our next commander in chief, it is essential to take notice of these two candidates visions on scientific views. I say this because, our well being of earth is important for our future and their actions on the following scientific issues can have a major impact on the direction for our future. 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/five-things-to-know-about-congresss-fight-over-zika.html?_r=1

Five Things to Know About Congress’s Fight Over Zika

By EMMARIE HUETTEMANSEPT. 6, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• 
  
• S

Review by Ava Gaston
Five things to know about Congress fight over Zika” disscuses the main issue on the Congress fight over Zika and how much money the government is running short of. Congress voted down the proposal of  more funding for Zika treatment. There are two sides of the debate, One side is saying that we should not worry about as the mosquitos season is over in the North,however, in the South, especially Florida, there are still a number of cases. Therefore , we need more funding. But  Congress doesn't have enough votes to better the issues. According to the Florida Department of Health, the number of cases in Florida is 56. In addition to this the CDC says that out of the $222 million given, $194 million had already been used. $35 we million were used in Florida, but unfortunately the money is running out too fast.

This issue affects humanity as a whole as Congress is being careless about how their people they are representing are getting sick and need help. This also shows that we as humans care more about money keeling as supposed to taking care of one another. We should be caring about each other and not about stupid superficial money.people are getting sick and their own country’s government  doesn't work hard for them.

The article was detailed and was written very well. It was clear and easy to read. I could understand it. However it could have provided more specific data or evidence on number of cases nationwide as supposed to only Florida. This would alarm the readers more and really drive the issue more

"Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study"

Julia Curran

September 6, 2016

Current Events

Worland, Justin. "Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study." Time. Time, 06 Sept.

2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

http://time.com/4480016/air-pollution-health-effects/

 “Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study” by Justin Worland addresses how air pollution remains a major global health threat that contributes to many more degenerative diseases than previously thought.  According to new research the toxic effects of pollution reach well beyond just cardiovascular diseases.  Based on research from a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pollution also appears to be a contributing factor to brain maladies, such as Alzheimer's.  Researchers found that toxic particles of magnetite and other metals which makes up the much of the pollution in urban areas, are actually able to permeate the brain through the olfactory nerve.  These substances have been found in high levels of brain tissue taken from people who had previously resided in heavily polluted cities.  The author believes this research now shows how the  pollution can enter the human body and cause the disease, although he does note that more research will be necessary to show the exact cause and effect.   

This is problematic, since according to the World Health Organization, over 80% of people in urban societies reside in areas where air quality is well below current health standards. According to this article air pollution is linked to a variety of health issues, including millions of premature deaths yearly, throughout the world. It has long been a problem in cities that are heavily polluted such as in third world countries like India, but now it seems to also be affecting areas that are proactively fighting pollution, such as in Europe and the United States.  It affects our lives here in Bronxville, because we are located just outside a major city.  We breath the same air and it appears based on this article, that even small amounts are able to “infiltrate” the human body and wreak havoc on one’s health.  Now that we are gaining a greater understanding of how pollution can permeate the body, we need to focus more on ways to prevent it from doing so.  

I found this article to be very interesting since toxic air pollution affects so much of humanity.  However, it covered this topic in very general terms, raising a lot of unanswered questions.  The author often stated that “research shows” that pollution contributes to degenerative brain diseases without giving specific examples or sources for his theories.  He asserts that pollution “infiltrates” the brain through the olfactory nerve, but has not detailed exactly why he makes this claim, other than that it was found in the brain tissue of  individuals from heavily polluted cities, like Mexico City and Manchester.  It leaves me to question whether there could be other ways that pollution could end up in the brain tissue.  Maybe it traveled in the person’s bloodstream when that person drank contaminated water or food?  Could the magnetite or other metals somehow be absorbed by the skin, similar to lead poisoning? Leaving these questions unanswered was frustrating to me as a reader, however with more research these questions could possibly be answered.

         

         

The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It's 'Vulnerable.'

Lyric Abbott   

September 6, 2016

Current Events

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/science/giant-panda-endangered-vulnerable.html?action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It’s ‘Vulnerable'

In the article, The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It’s ‘Vulnerable,’ published in the New York Times by Liam Stack, it is stated that Giant Pandas are no longer considered an endangered species. Giant Pandas originate from China where the climate is frequently changing which will have a negative effect on pandas in the future. Giant Pandas are no longer close to becoming extinct due to the growing forests and protection in China. Efforts by the Chinese government to create better living environments for the pandas has changed their status to vulnerable as opposed to endangered. Although the pandas currently live in a safe environment surrounded by forest, climate change in the future could eventually demolish over 35 percent of the animal’s habitat which is mostly made of bamboo. This destruction is estimated to occur within the next 80 years. The Chinese government is taking full measure to ensure a safe environment for the pandas in order to conserve the species for as long as possible. Although Giant Pandas are no longer endangered, the Chinese government is taking strong measures to make sure their safety is not compromised in the years following.

The endangerment of Pandas leaves a huge affect on the world for many reasons. As humans, we are the ones who have caused the endangerment of pandas and for our own unnecessary benefit. By cutting down forests, we have made many different species of animals environments a very unsafe place for them to live. The article states that pandas survive mainly on bamboo and by cutting down these bamboo trees, we are depriving them of both food and shelter. Giant Pandas are important to mankind because they play a crucial role in the growth of China’s forests. The article also states that Giant Pandas spread seeds and help with the growth of vegetation as well which could benefit humans in the future.

Although the author of this article does a good job of getting the point of how pandas are no longer endangered across, their are a few things that could be improved in order for the article to be more clear to the reader. The author starts with a strong opening that introduces the main idea of the article and backs it up with a lot of factual evidence. As the article progresses, the author starts to talk about how eastern gorillas are far more likely to become extinct in the coming years. This part of the article was not as necessary to include because the article is about Giant Pandas and their endangerment and the title of the article does not make it clear that the article will go into detail about endangered gorillas as well. The author could have also included more detail and facts about how they became endangered in the first place because only a brief summary is given which does not leave me as the reader particularly satisfied.