Society and Environment

Article #1:
Briggs, H. (2017, September 25). Panda's habitat 'shrinking and becoming more
fragmented' - BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-41366274

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

The article describes the shrinking habitat of giant panda’s across their
geographic distribution. Although in 2016 the giant panda moved from
endangered to vulnerable and made headlines everywhere, their habitats
continue to decrease and fragment; despite their movement on the IUCN Red
List of Threatened species the giant panda’s extinction in the future is possible if
nothing is done to protect their habitat. There are many factors that contribute
to the animal’s habitat loss, including but not limited to: earthquakes, human
encroachment, agriculture, road building, tourism and logging (Briggs, 2017).
There has been a substantial loss in their habitat, “the average size of the
habitat patches decreased by 23% from 1976 to 2001” (Briggs, 2017), this is
devastating. The article notes, researchers are using satellite imagery and
geographic mapping information to measure the geographic range of the giant
panda from 1976 to 2013.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The specific issues in this article are the habitat loss of the giant panda as
well as the possible future extinction of this species.

3. What claims are being made in the article? Who is making these claims?
A claim in this article is that humans are heavily destroying the giant
panda’s habitat. Another claim in this article is, the giant panda may very well
go extinct regardless of the efforts being made to help the species come back
and thrive. These claims are made by a study that was published in the journal,
Nature Ecology & Evolution, researchers at the Center for Eco-Environmental
Sciences, as well as professors from Michigan State University and Duke
University.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

I believe these claims are substantiated. The article is based on a study
that has been published with the Nature Ecology & Evolution journal, which is a
reputable and reliable resource. Professors make other claims within this article
from well-known universities in the United States of America as well as a
research center in Beijing, China. I have done a little research behind these
places and these people, based upon this I have concluded that these claims are
substantiated.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

 As the habitats of these animals are being fragmented through human
destruction such as the construction of roads and logging that run through
panda ranges, it is difficult for panda’s to meet and breed with each other. If the
species cannot breed there will be a rapid decline in population, which will most
likely lead to extinction. If this species goes extinct there will be consequences
on nature such as the food chain and the ecosystem.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims giving reasons for your answers?
I would be prepared to accept these claims because trustworthy
individuals made them based on their prior publications, research and studies. I
can conclude that this article was well substantiated and a suitable article to use
in a classroom to talk to students about the things that are happening in regards
to habitat destruction.

Article #2:
Drayer, L. (2017, September 29). Is coffee healthy? - CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/health/coffee-healthy-food-
drayer/index.html

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

This article is discussing the positive effects of coffee on the human
body. According to, “a new observational study involving close to 20, 000
individuals, people who consumed at least four cups of coffee daily had a 64%
lower risk of early death compared to those never or rarely consumed coffee”
(Drayer, 2017). The article discusses the lower risks of many diseases such as,
type 2 diabetes, liver disease and skin cancer to name a few. Although coffee
consumption may benefit some, it is important to be aware that individuals,
who are pregnant or have problems with their heart, should consume coffee as
well as anything that contains caffeine in moderation. The article concludes with
some tips for healthy consumption.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The main scientific issue within the article is the portrayal of positive and
negative effects of drinking coffee in excess of two cups a day.

3. What claims are being made in the article? Who is making these claims?
The main claim in this article is that individuals who drink at least four
cups of coffee a day are less likely to die at an early age. A second claim in this
article is that women who are pregnant and consume more than 200mg of
caffeine daily have a higher chance of miscarrying or having a preterm birth. The
first claim mentioned is made by the author of the article, L. Drayer, on behalf
of a “new observational study” (Drayer, 2017), none of which is referenced or
mentioned anywhere else in the article. The second claim above is not clear
 where it came from even though there are quotation marks around a sentence
in the article; there is no citation for it.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

These claims are not substantiated. The first claim is made from the data
of an observational study; however, the study is not referenced anywhere, nor
is the name of the study or the organization(s) that conducted said “study”. The
second claim is not accompanied by an in-text citation so it is unaware of where
such a statement came from. If there is no evidence to support such claims,
then there is no reason to believe the information being presented.
In general this article is not substantiated, in my opinion. I believe this
because over the years there have been numerous studies conducted and the
results always seem to vary. Some studies conclude that coffee is bad for you
and increases the risk of an early death, where others, such as this one,
conclude that coffee is indeed healthy and may extend your life.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

The implications of these claims depend on whether an individual
believes the underlying “research” of the claims. I suppose, if one were to
believe the study and this article, 64% of people will live a longer life (Drayer,
217). Overall people who drink coffee will be less likely to get the following
diseases: type two diabetes, liver disease, colorectal cancer, Alzheimer’s and
skin cancer. They would also reap the benefits of all the antioxidants loaded in
coffee. Another implication may be if a person reads this and believes it and
then continues to drink mass amount of coffee and then a new study is
conducted and found that it negatively affects human health, they could really
be at a disadvantage. An implication would also be that coffee would become
more popular and thus a higher demand. If people have read this article and
take it for face value, the demand will increase and thus the price will increase
as a result.
If one were not to believe this article than they may be wary of
consuming coffee and may even do more research to conclude their own
opinion based on reputable sources and reliable organizations/researchers.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims giving reasons for your answers?
I would not be prepared to accept these claims, as not very many
statements are cited and the study itself is also not cited or referenced in any
way. If I cannot go to these sources and have a look at the research myself, it is
not possible to just accept these claims as they are. There are many studies
done on the positive and negative effects of coffee and each study has
something different to conclude. Either coffee is great for you and will extend
your life, or it is horrible for the human body and its consumption will be a
detriment to a person’s health. Anybody could be writing false information and
publishing it for the world to believe. This is why it is so important to be
 cautious when selecting articles to view with your students, as you may be
sharing something that is not reliable.

Article #3:
Spears, T. (2017, September 24). Canada is actually running short of bugs | Canada |
News | Toronto Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/24/canada-is-actually-running-short-of-
bugs

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

The article discusses the decline in Arthropod populations in Canada. It
describes what it means in the environment and how truly devastating it could
be to nature and humans. It talks about possible reasons for bug populations to
be decreasing as well as methods to measure such an observation. The Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds thought of something that could measure the
population of bugs, in 2004 they, “invented the Splatometer – a square of
flypaper that drivers put on the front of their cars” (Spears, 2017). It mentions
that some areas in Canada are not seeing this decline such as Pinery Provincial
Park west of London, Ontario. It is speculated that this is because the way the
winds travel across the lake and causes the air to be free of pesticides.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The main issues in this article are the declining population of bugs across
Canada and their effects on the surrounding environment and humans.

3. What claims are being made in the article? Who is making these claims?
A main cause of decreasing Arthropod populations may be caused by the
use of pesticides. Many bug scientists make this claim. Bird populations are also
decreasing, particularly: swifts, swallows, nighthawks and martins, and this is
likely caused by the decline of bug populations. Many bird watchers make this
claim across the country, as well as Bird Studies Canada.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

These claims are not very substantiated. It may be visible to people who
drive through the night and do not find themselves using much windshield
washer fluid as usual, that bug populations are not as populated as they have
been in the past. As Spears mentions in this article, researchers do not have a
method to record a ‘bug census’, this observation is not scientific research. The
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds invented the Splatometer in 2004, but
this does not give a true representation of bug populations from a research
point of view. It would need to be used many times all across Canada in all kinds
of environmental conditions and climates. This model more or less gives an
overview of the bug populations and what to expect in future years. There may
be observations taken from reputable people and organizations, such as Jeremy
 Kerr (University of Ottawa), Jeff Skevington (Agriculture Canada scientist) and
Queen’s University biologists but if there is not an accurate way to measure the
observations we cannot conclude that the claims are based on fact.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

There are many implications of these claims. If bug populations continue
to dwindle, certain species of birds will not have a food source. If these birds
cannot eat, they will not survive and this will cause the affected species to go
extinct. Birds are a crucial part of the food chain, just like any organism in the
world. When a group collapses there are detrimental effects to the food chain,
respective environments and other organisms. Bugs, not just bees, help to
pollinate plants that produce food for humans and other organisms to eat. If
these plants are not getting pollinated because of the shrinking bug population
the food will not be able to be processed for livestock consumption or even for
our consumption. If there is not an ample food supply, populations cannot
survive. These are very serious implications, and in reality are very frightening to
think about. This is exactly why we must do things to help insect populations
come back and educate our students on the possibilities of bettering the world
around us in all contexts and showing how everything in nature interacts with
each other.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims giving reasons for your answers?
Based on the evidence and research I would not be prepared to accept
these claims. My reasoning is because there does not exist an accurate system
in which to measure such data. In my personal experience, on the other hand, I
have noticed the dramatic decrease in bug populations through the years as I
have travelled back and forth between Toronto and Thunder Bay multiple times
by vehicle. I would like to see, in the near future, a method of measuring bug
populations and determining with further research why bug populations are
declining (if they are) and reasons to support such a claim.