Whale Shark Paternity Study Comparison

The two articles under review for this particular assignment are “Whale Sharks May Produce Many Litters from One Mating, Paternity Test Shows” (Science Daily Staff, 2010) which will be acting as the piece of secondary literature for this assignment and the piece of literature acting as the primary literature will be “Paternity analysis in a litter of whale shark embryos” (Jennifer V. Schmidt1, 2,*, Chien-Chi Chen3, Saad I. Sheikh4, 8, Mark G. Meekan5, Bradley M. Norman6, 7, Shoou-Jeng Joung3, 2010.). As is clearly stated in the titles of both the primary and secondary literature the object of study is the breeding habits of whale sharks. To complete this study a single whale shark was analyzed containing 304 embryos which was caught near Taiwan in the year of 1995 (Schmidt 2010.) Of these 304 embryos 29 embryos of all different ages were studied to determine if they had an identical father (Schmidt, 2010.)

The secondary article “Whale Sharks May Produce Many Litters from One Mating, Paternity Test Shows” (Science Daily Staff, 2010) is a typical article one would find in a newspaper or on an online website such as the one this particular article was found on (www.sciencedaily.com). The article summarizes key facts and important data from within the study and then presents it in an easy to understand format for the general public to view. This easy to read format intrigues the public more so than a scientific paper would and thus allows them to become more interested in the subject presented by the secondary article. This format works well for the general public but for the more intrigued person, such as an environmental science student, a more detailed analysis and understanding of the study is needed. Hence we look to the primary article for more information. In this blog several points from within the secondary article will be analyzed and compared with the primary article to see just how true to the study the secondary article is.

The first example that will be examined is the point made in the secondary article where the author reveals the primary result of the study. As written by the author of the secondary article the primary result of the study showed that the 29 embryos of all different ages did in fact have an identical father (Schmidt, 2010.) Although the author presented the same primary result shown in the primary article they neglected to explain exactly how this result was determined. As it turns out the process to identify whether the embryos had an identical father was very tedious. The way the scientists determined whether or not the embryos had an identical father was by comparing the genotypes of the embryos using 9 microsatellite loci (Schmidt, 2010.) The scientists predicted that if the 9 microsatellite loci showed more than 4 alleles that there would be more than one father for the litter but if the 9 microsatellite loci contained 4 alleles than the litter would likely have an identical father (Schmidt, 2010.) After the DNA was sequenced and the 9 microsatellite loci were compared the results concluded that all of the microsatellite loci contained only 4 alleles (Schmidt, 2010.) This result indicated that there was a very high likelihood that the 29 embryos contained an identical father. This primary result was shown in the secondary article but it failed to explain the process in which the result was determined. The secondary article also failed to mention the error within the experiment. This error accounted for the fact that only 29 out of 304 embryos were tested. The fact that only a percentage of the embryos were tested for paternity makes it impossible to state that all of the embryos came from an identical father (Schmidt, 2010.) A probability analysis showed that there could have been a second undetected father if it was responsible for breeding a number of embryos totalling fewer than 10% (Schmidt, 2010.)

The second example that will be compared between the two articles is the secondary part of the results of the experiment where by the study concludes that there is a possibility that a whale shark can store sperm from a single mating and then use this sperm to fertilize eggs during a length of time (Schmidt, 2010.) This hypothesis could explain the reason why there is such a variety in the ages of the embryos (Schmidt, 2010.) The secondary article presents this hypothesis in the form of a quote from Schmidt where she says, "We have to be very cautious in drawing conclusions from a single litter, but the data suggest female whale sharks store sperm after a single mating event, and subsequently fertilize their own eggs as they are produced." (Schmidt, 2010.) Although the author of the secondary article expresses the results of the study in the form of a quote straight from one of the people involved in the study, it still does not provide the full detail involved in the study that led to that particular hypothesis. In the primary article scientists explain how it is possible for sharks to store sperm. Sharks contain an oviducal gland and this is the site of sperm storage (Schmidt, 2010.) Several species of shark other than whale sharks have also been observed to contain this sperm storage ability such as blue sharks and whitespotted bamboo sharks (Schmidt, 2010.) These specialized glands allow these sharks to store sperm and use it for fertilization at a later time. The fact that these sharks have this capability can lead to the assumption that whale sharks may also have this capability (Schmidt, 2010.)

After reading both the primary and secondary articles it can be seen that the secondary article highlights the most important points that exist within the primary article but lacks the detail of the primary article. However, a secondary article is not meant to explain the results of a study in such detail but rather summarize the key points. The secondary article did not make any claims that the primary article did not and thus it can be said that the secondary article provided a fair representation of the primary article.

Bibliography:

- University of Illinois at Chicago. "Whale Sharks May Produce Many Litters from One Mating, Paternity Test Shows." ScienceDaily 31 August 2010. 23 September 2010 .

- “Paternity analysis in a litter of whale shark embryos.” Jennifer V. Schmidt1, 2,*, Chien-Chi Chen3, Saad I. Sheikh4, 8, Mark G. Meekan5, Bradley M. Norman6, 7, Shoou-Jeng Joung3. August 4 2010. http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/12/n012p117.pdf

- Alton’s Dive Center http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://diveinutila.com/images/stories/altonsimages/whalesharks/Whale-shark%2520wide.jpg&imgrefurl=http://diveinutila.com/resort-diving.html&usg=__q2_qBPa2rY6XmZ1cnjPyUwgiSwc=&h=306&w=619&sz=28&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=Y4d-YGJEHZRjNM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=160&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhale%2Bshark%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D559%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=281&ei=rhicTLjOI8H_lge8w9TWCQ&oei=rhicTLjOI8H_lge8w9TWCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0&tx=47&ty=26. 2006.

Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries

Photo-- Ian Jackson: The New York Times

Recently established in most accepted sources of media, oil sands development have been shown to be a part of Canada’s strong economy (Krauss). Tar mixed with sand and metals are extracted and become what is known as bitumen which is further processed into synthetic oil (Krauss). The newspaper article brings forth the argument made by the citizens of Alberta that “high cancer rates are related to the expanding excavation of bitumen for the production of synthetic crude” (Krauss). The article claims that a study led by researchers from the University of Alberta found levels of toxic pollutants exceeding federal and provincial government guidelines near and around oil sands mining sites. According to the article, researchers found unusual levels of lead, mercury, zinc, and cadmium downstream from the oil sands mining sites. The study from the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences addresses these elements as well, however including thirteen in total, naming them Primary Pollutant Elements (PPE). The newspaper article fails to mention all thirteen pollutants, therefore misinforming the reader as to the severity of pollutants present. Additionally, Krauss mentions that after the tar (bitumen) is extracted, it is processed into synthetic oil. Krauss fails to include the evidence from the study which illustrates the knowledge that while converting bitumen into synthetic oil, the processing involves coking, coke combustion, and production of wastes and fly ash that contain PPE (Kelly et al). The study clearly states that the “upgrading process” of bitumen to oil is significant to the amount of PPE found in the air (Kelly et al). This valid information cannot be found in the article, which advances the notion that the newspaper article is presenting limited or selective information. Krauss reports that according to a joint oil industry-government research panel, natural causes opposed to mining as earlier suggested were the cause of the high levels of metals found in the Athabasca River. Conversely though, no evidence is given in the article to back up the “natural causes” testimony. In the article, Krauss discretely includes the idea that studies are biased based upon the group leading the study. This is exemplified when he says, “…a community that is complaining about high cancer rates, found high levels of carcinogens and toxic substances in fish, water and sediment downstream from the mining projects.”

Results from the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicate that PPE levels as sampled in six tributaries near oil sands development did not show a considerable increase, however the PPE levels are said to be attributed with overall land disturbance (Kelly et al). The tributary research is a main component of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, and provides the clearest and most certain evidence of the pollutants, yet is unmentioned by Krauss in the newspaper article. The study shows that in the tributaries tested, overall land disturbance caused a major flux of PPE to water which Krauss seems to have made the assumption that automatically this results in the correlation of toxic substances found in fish. The newspaper article includes the research made by the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP), industry, government and other related agencies that cancer rates and other health related and environmental issues are not at risk from oil sands development. Contrarily, the journal explains that the RAMP is continually not dependable for accuracy therefore this piece of information should not be considered of great value, yet Krauss uses it in the article to create a sense of quarrel. Furthermore, the journal goes on to articulate the necessity of their independent field studies, which Krauss also falls short to mention. A noteworthy aspect of the journal study is that PPE concentrations were increased during summer months when the development of oil sands are in prime season. In winter months, the sites were evidently less disturbed (Kelly et al). This leads to the conclusion that natural erosion is a false assumption and that oil sands development is directly related to land disturbance. This major piece of information was lacking in Krauss’s article and therefore the article does not provide the public with the full background information necessary to understand the causes and effects of oil sands development. No suggestions are made by Krauss in the article to improve or progress keeping the effects of oil sands development minimal. Yet the journal study concludes with propositions to concentrate on “detailed long-term monitoring to distinguish the sources of these contaminants and control their potential impacts on environmental and human health” (Kelly et al). Monitoring programs are also suggested to be put into practice to examine the effects of oil sands development on the health of fish, wildlife, and humans in areas most susceptible to problems caused by oil sands development (Kelly et al).

Works Cited

Kelly, Erin, David Shindler, Peter Hodson, Jeffrey Short, Roseanna Radmanovich, and Charlene Nielson. "Oil Sands Development Contributes Elements Toxic at Low Concentrations to the Athabasca River and Its Tributaries." 107.37 (2010). PNAS. Web. 19 Sept. 2010. .

Krauss, Clifford. "New Study Links Toxic Pollutants to Canadian Oil Sands Mining." The New York Times.30 Aug. 2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2010/30/new- findings-on-toxic-pollutants-and-oil-sands-mining/>.

A Very Simple Review of a Primary vs. Secondary Resource

In academics, literature is put into one of two categories, namely primary or secondary. Stated simply, primary literature is the findings of original research as written by the scientists themselves, whereas secondary literature can review and summarize original research, such as in literature reviews, newspaper articles and textbooks.

I reviewed an on-line news article authored by Harvard University entitled “’Archeologists of the Air’ Isolate Pristine Aersol Particles in the Amazon” which was based on a recent study, conducted on aerosols in the atmosphere. I then reviewed the original study authored by Poschl et al. (2010). There are distinct differences between the two articles which, I believe, stem from the parameters for each type of writing. These differences include; the audience, language and tone, as well as the style, layout, illustrations, and references.

Audience: Each article was written with a particular audience in mind. In the two pieces of literature I chose the titles alone demonstrate the divergence in the intended audience of the literature. The on-line news article reads “‘Archeologists of the Air’ Isolate Pristine Aerosol Particles in the Amazon”. Wow! I instantly had fantastical imagery run through my mind of a hot air balloon adventure over the rainforest canopy sucking up air with a vacuum complete with a safari hat. Putting aside the fact that I have no idea what pristine aerosol particles may be, this title holds a certain amount of excitement and promise. I for one have never heard of “Archeologists of the Air” and this catch phrase may entice me to read on. The primary research title reads “Rainforest Aerosols as Biogenic Nuclei of Clouds and Precipitation in the Amazon”. I will admit that this title peaks my interest but biogenic nuclei also alerts me to have my dictionary and google search at the ready. Although this title is accurate to the content of the article and indicates the who, what and where, it is less clear on what that all means.
Going back to the on-line news article’s title for a moment, what exactly did they mean by pristine aerosol particles? In the primary article, Poschl et al. (2010) uses terms such as “near-natural conditions”, “pristine tropical rainforest” and “pristine rainforest air” but never claims that the aerosol particles are themselves pristine.

Language: Secondary literature has a tendency to speak for a general audience. It may also flush out the main findings from original research and build a story around them which can potentially change the meaning or actual results published in the primary literature. For example, the primary article I reviewed explains that they were able to place the observed aerosol particles into five categories based on their origins, which are all named in the article. The secondary article focuses on the predominate source of the aerosol particles, namely secondary organic aerosol, and does not mention the other four sources. This omission does not necessarily change the meaning of the results but it does play into the articles earlier theme of pristine aerosol particles. The reality is that the aerosol particles were made up of more than the secondary organic aerosol so the reader of the secondary literature is not getting the full picture.

In the on-line news article the author communicates with common language though does use scientific terms where appropriate. When describing how the experiment was conducted they kept it very brief and said, “... using a range of techniques...”, in contrast, the primary article was more detailed in their description and said, “The measurement techniques applied include scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX), atomic force microscopy (AFM), secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS), aerosol mass spectrometry (AMS), differential mobility particle sizing (DMPS), ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizing (UV-APS), and counting of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and ice nuclei (IN)...”. There is quite a dramatic difference in the information provided between the two articles. However, depending upon the audience, the message of the overall story is not necessarily lost by omitting the exact techniques used.

Tone: As a common reader who is not overly familiar with the topic of aerosol particles, through its tone, the on-line news article implied that this information is new, that it is something to get excited about and it has important consequences for our understanding of atmospheric processes and future understanding of climate change and the protection of the Amazon.
Where the on-line news article declares that “ “archeologists of the air” have, for the first time, isolated aerosol particles in near pristine pre-industrial conditions” the primary article states that “to our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive, detailed, and size-resolved account of the chemical composition, mixing state, CCN activity, and IN activity of particles in pristine rainforest air approximating pre-industrial conditions...”. The primary article is much more subdued in its approach, almost modest. As scientific research can never unequivocally prove anything, scientists are careful not to speak in terms of absolute truths when sharing their results for publication in scientific journals. The primary article takes a much more serious tone in the conclusion of the article “The feedback mechanisms involved may be important for stabilizing the Amazonian rainforest ecosystem and may also be generally relevant for the evolution of ecosystems and climate on global scales and in the Earth’s history.”

Layout and Style: For primary literature there is a certain layout and style you must adhere to depending on the literary journal you are submitting to. Some journals require a formal Abstract, Introduction, Materials/Methods, Results and Discussion, where others may include much of that information without clearly detailing the sections, and further, others may only make reference to supporting online material where you can find the materials and methods section as well as some of the more detailed results of the study. This is not necessarily the case for secondary literature. Though, there is an underlying framework and/or guidelines for the flow of the writing there can also be a greater degree of freedom when it comes to creative style in the writing.

Simple differences between the on-line article and the primary article are their use of illustrations and references. In secondary literature you can find images that are of general interest but in primary literature the only images seen are those directly related to the findings of the research. In the on-line news article an illustration of the observation tower used to collect atmospheric samples is displayed, whereas the illustrations in the primary article are of the types of particles observed and in the supplementary data there are tables of data collected. As well, in the on-line news article there are direct quotes from the scientists who conducted the research allowing for a simplified explanation, even a subjective perspective, of their research. Whereas, in the primary literature there are no direct quotes and the presenting of the findings is very objective.

In this particular case, although directed at two very different audiences, the two articles were indeed telling the same story adding or omitting some details.

References

Harvard University (2010, September 16). ‘Archeologists of the air’ isolate pristine aerosol particles in the Amazon. Science Daily. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100916145053.htm

International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project. Image. Website accessed September 22, 2010. http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/Field/aceasia/prospectus/prospectus022601.html

Poschl, U., Martin, S.T., Sinha, B., Chen, Q., Gunthe, S.S., Huffman, J.A., Borrmann, S., Farmer, D.K., Garland, R.M., Helas, G., Jimenez, J.L., King, S.M., Manzi, A., Mikhailov, E., Pauliquevis, T., Petters, M.D., Prenni, A.J., Roldin, P., Rose, D., Schneider, J., Su, H., Zorn, S.R., Artaxo, P. and Andreae, M.O. 2010. Rainforest Aerosols as Biogenic Nuclei of Clouds and Precipitation in the Amazon. Science. 329:1513-1516.

There is a Difference

From text books, to journals and newspaper articles, there is often that one thing that such secondary sources can be traced back to- the primary source. Primary and secondary sources have many differences for instance, their format of writing, figures and illustrations, and levels of focus and detail. Along with these factors that categorize both types of sources comes their similarities. The Journal of Ecology study and the Daily Mail Reporter news article will be the primary and secondary sources that are referred back to when examples of comparisons and contrasts are presented.

The Journal of Ecology study- the primary source- has a writing style similar to that of a scientific report of research that has been conducted. On the other hand, the secondary source which is an article by the Daily Mail Reporter is presented as a newspaper article. The secondary source has very short paragraphs, about a sentence or two long referring to a study done on orchids. The references made by this source lead back to the primary research that was done on orchids. In the Journal of Ecology, Validation of biological collections as a source of phonological data for use in climate change studies: a case study with the orchid Ophrys sphegodes, the paragraphs are formatted in such a way that they have appropriate headings for each section as follows: summary, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, acknowledgements, and references. These are only a few examples of how primary and secondary sources differ.

Another aspect which differentiates these articles are the figures and illustrations. The article, How dried flowers picked 150 years ago could give scientists clues about how plants respond to climate change, includes two pictures throughout the paper. Both photos are of the Ophrys sphegodes, also known as the spider orchid. The first, is an early picture of an orchid picked in Kent in 1900 and the second being a recent picture of the same plant. The secondary source includes much more scientific illustrations. With six graphs and one table, the study precisely outlines the data that was collected, tested, and interpreted.

The extent to which each of the sources go into detail is of the most importance when recognizing what makes a primary source different from a secondary source. The research paper goes into depth. Not only does it include headings for each section, as previously mentioned, but the extent to which it explains every part of the research is apparent as well. Including various figures, percentages, data, and dates are only few of the examples of how intricate this paper is in comparison to the news article. The secondary source article most certainly is more general. It does not go into depth about the orchid research. Rather, it refers back to the study and discloses the main points about the primary source. The secondary source is good to rely on if you are only interested in the general important facts rather than all of the fine details that are included in the primary source.

Although primary and secondary sources seem to have more differences than similarities, it does not go to say that one is more important than the other. Yes, they are used in different ways and for different types of purposes. However, it goes without saying that they do indeed depend on one another. The primary source depends on the secondary source to present very detailed information to a more general and public audience in a clear, consice, and understandable manner. It is evident that primary and secondary sources have a diverse and complimentary relationship.

Reference List
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314213/How-dried-flowers-picked-150-years-ago-scientists-new-clues-plants-respond-climate-change.html?ITO=1490
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01727.x/pdf

Primary Sourse vs. Secondary Source

Cole Anderson

0680018
ENVS 1020

The article that I chose to look at is called Carbon Sequestration: Mineral carbonation in periotite for CO2 capture and storage (CCS). This article is the secondary literature, in this article they make reference to the primary literature which is from the the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. From reading the primary literature I though the claims made in the secondary literature are extremely generalized and I believe that the secondary literature suggests that this technology will be up and running in the near future, which I believe is not the case, after reading the primary literature.

In the secondary source, the only equation mentioned is the equation of the formation of magnesite. Magnesite is only one part of mantle peridotite. The components of which peridotite is made up of are: Magnesite, serpentine, and calcite. The secondary literature has narrowed down the topic by eliminating serpintine and calcite from the article, and in doing so the article now seems relatively easy to understand. The reader is now convinced scientists have found a way to perform carbon sequestration and this is where I think the author misleads the reader into thinking that this technology is available to us in the close future.

The secondary source has narrowed down the topic so much that I think it is almost impossible to form your own view on the situation. For example: The Carbon Sequestration article only talks about in situ carbonation as opposed to ex situ carbonation. What if in situ carbonation was not the best method of going about carbon sequestration and that ex situ carbonation is better? The reader of the secondary source would only know about in situ carbonation and therefore may come to the conclusion that in situ carbonation will not work and will not find this article helpful.

Secondary sources are the dumbed down versions of the primary text. The secondary source is lacking the detailed graphs and charts that the primary source has and without these it is hard to see anything else other than the author’s opinion. The secondary source claims that the reaction, once started, will maintain itself and in the primary source, it says nothing about a self -sustaining reaction. It says that there is actually a very complicated process involved and the secondary source makes it sound like carbon sequestration is way easier to perform than it actually is.

Even though there are many differences in the two sources, there are also many similarities. Both stay on the same train of thought because the secondary article is based off of the primary source. The primary source in this case explains that there are better ways to solve the problem of atmospheric CO2 due to humans after the industrial revolution. Both articles agree that carbon sequestration is the way to go about getting rid of this CO2.

Another claim that the secondary source makes is that the CO2 fluid can just be pumped into the rock. This article makes it sound like drilling kilometers under the ocean through the ocean floor is a simple task. The primary source actually outlines a complex drilling system that they would have to perfect in order for carbon sequestration to work. People would have to drill in order to make a hydraulic fracture and then pump hot CO2 fluid very fast through it and then pump colder CO2 through it in order to maintain the same temperature.

In my opinion the secondary source seems like it is for people with a lower level of knowledge towards the subject of the article and to really understand the article, you have to find the primary source and formulate your own understanding of the topic, then go back to the secondary source and see if you agree with the claims that the author has made. There will always be similarities and differences between the two articles, but in the end you should form your own idea and understanding of the topic. In this case, I have come to the conclusion that the claims made in the secondary source do not accurately portray what the author in the primary source was trying to say. I believe that carbon sequestration will need a lot more research and testing done before It is released to the general public based on the reason that the long term effects of carbon sequestration are not known.

References:

Peter B. Kelemen, Jürg Matter, In Situ Carbonation of Periotite for CO2 Storage,Columbia University, Palisades, NY, september 22, 2008, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/10/31/0805794105

Kelemen, P.B., Kikawa, E., and Miller, Carbon Sequestration Mineral carbonation in Periotite for CO2 capture and Storage, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/publications

PPEs in the Athabasca River Caused by Oil Sands

The July 2, 2010 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries” details a recent study in which researchers found that the oil sands industry releases 13 PPEs (priority pollutants) into the Athabasca River. The August 31, 2010 article from Nature News, “River metals linked to tar sand extraction” uses the previous article as its primary source, summarizing the main points of the first article, though with some differences.

There were several points made in the primary source which were not made very clear in the secondary source and which could be confusing to the reader.

For example, the secondary source states that “13 elements classified as priority pollutants (PPEs) by the US Environmental Protection Agency were found in the Athabasca River in the province of Alberta.” (Hoag 2010)The way that this statement is worded leads the reader to believe that those 13 PPEs were not previously found in the Athabasca River. However, the primary source makes it clear that the PPEs have always been present in the river and that “the oil sands industry substantially increases loadings of toxic PPE to the AR and its tributaries via air and water pathways.” (Kelly and Schindler 2010) 

Later in the Nature News article, the secondary source says that seven of the PPEs were “present at high enough concentrations to put aquatic life at risk.” (Hoag 2010) Though this statement is true to some extent, the primary source explains that samples were taken from more than 31 different places, with slightly varying results depending on the location’s proximity to development. “For example, seven PPE exceeded guidelines in snow at ND sites, whereas only Cd exceeded guidelines at some BG sites.” (Kelly and Schindler 2010) The primary source also explains that the number of PPEs that exceeded guidelines was also dependant on the time of year. “Guidelines were exceeded more often in winter at AR sites.” (Kelly and Schindler 2010) 

 

There were also many instances where the secondary source made true statements but leaving out a lot of detail, which is essential for understanding what took place and what the results mean.

 For example, the secondary source says that “the team took samples of surface water from the waterways upstream of the tar sands region and compared them with samples taken within the region — both upstream and downstream of mining projects. The researchers also looked at snow samples from many of the same areas towards the end of winter to look for airborne sources of PPEs, which would be discharged to surface waters when the snow melted.” (Hoag 2010) This information given by the secondary source is all correct but leaves out many details about the process.  It leaves the reader with an incorrect idea of the amount of locations tested. The researchers collected surface water from 37 sites in February 2008, 47 sites in June 2008, and snow from 31 sites in March 2008. These sites were either upstream or downstream from the oil activity and were classified according to an index of relative overall land disturbance. They also chose 3 sites (one upstream, one midstream, one downstream) at each of the 4 tributaries of the Athabasca River.  

At some points in the article, the secondary source was very vague. For example, the secondary source merely states that “the findings are also of concern to human health.” (Hoag 2010) However, the primary source goes into much more detail and gives several examples, saying that though the increased amounts of metal in the water is a concern, the PPE concentrations in the Athabasca River don’t exceed the drinking water quality guidelines. It is mentioned that one way that increased levels of PPEs in the water is a concern, is by affecting animals. The article gives the example of a link between diseases in fish and certain carcinogens.  They also give the example of moose, which are affected by Cd which accumulates in their liver and kidneys.

Though the secondary source does a good job of summarizing most of the important points from the primary source, there were still some that were not mentioned which are pertinent to the study which was conducted. For example, though the secondary source touches on the fact that Alberta’s oil industry is planning on expanding, it does not convey the effects which this study predict that expansion will have. The primary source says that new and expanding facilities will add to the problem and increase the concentrations of these harmful elements in the Athabasca River even more.

References: 

Hoag, Hannah. 2010. “River metals linked to tar sand extraction.” Nature News, 31 August, 2010. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/news.2010.439.html.  Accessed 22 Sept 2010.

Kelly, E. N., Schindler, D. W., Hodson, P. V., Short, J. W., Radmanovich, R. & Nielsen, C. C. 2010. “Oil sands

development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 37, Sept. 14, 2010.   

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16178.full.pdf+html. Accessed 22 Sept 2010.