On September 14, 2010, an article titled “Human Impacts on the Deep Sea Floor” was published in Science Daily. The article discusses the results of recent research dealing with the footprint of human activity on the seafloor of the North East Atlantic. This study, titled “Human Activities on the Deep Sea Floor in the North East Atlantic: An Assessment of Spatial Extent” was published in the PLoS ONE journal in September 2010, and deals primarily with data from 2005. Five activities were taken into consideration: the installation and presence of submarine communication cables, the effects of marine scientific research, bottom trawling for commercial fishing, the endeavors of the oil and gas industry, and past dumping of radioactive waste, chemicals, and munitions.
One point which the author of the article in Science Daily makes fundamentally clear is that bottom trawling single-handedly exceeds the footprint of all other considered activities. Though this statement does coincide with the results of the study, the author fails to fully recognize the limitations of the research. In the journal article, it is made evident that much of the results are based upon educated estimations because all the desired information was hard to come by. It is further noted that military activities were not taken into consideration, as most militaries refused to divulge their past and present behaviour. However, it is no secret that militaries used the ocean as a dumping site for munitions and chemical weapons to a great extent in the past. Surely if these numbers were included in the study, the effects from said activities would influence the results of the research. Furthermore, the journal article points out that since the data was colleted in 2005, there have been some newly approved rules and procedures for bottom trawling adopted by the European Union as well as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in the pursuit of protecting underwater ecosystems. The harmful effects of bottom trawling are indisputable, and by no means is the author conveying different results from what the researchers revealed, but through censoring out important information, it seems to portray the author’s personal opinion that the fishing industry is the main factor responsible for damage to the ocean’s ecosystems. Even if this opinion is highly plausible, the author should not have ignored the other contributing factors which the primary source brought light to.
A huge limitation to the study is due to the fact that only the footprint of intentional and direct human behavior was taken into account. The resulting effects of pollution, radioactive contamination, and related disturbances were not acknowledged, as it is much harder to ascertain the source of these problems. The research paper acknowledges that only the immediate effects were included in their study, as they had acceptable data to work with. They then point out the flaw in this by noting that some of the studied activities have an immediate effect on the sea floor, whereas others may have a delayed effect. It is noted that some consequences may be short-lived and the environment will be able reestablish itself quickly, whereas others are much longer lasting and ultimately may be the true source of damage. For example, when a drum of radioactive waste is dumped into the ocean, its initial effect would be to upset the surrounding environment of the ocean where it had sunk to. This is obviously not ideal, but in the greater scheme of things, it will not have a huge influence on the health of the ocean’s floor, as it is only a small percentage that will be affected. However, once one considers the possible leakage of radioactive waste from the drums, the consequences of its presence in the ocean seem much more widespread and grave. The article in Science Daily briefly mentioned that the study did not include ensuing effects such as pollution, however there was no discussion of the possible short term versus long-term effects. This is clearly a huge limitation to the research, which is noted so visibly in the primary source, yet the article ceased to mention it. The article may have failed to acknowledge this shortcoming in order to simplify the research and portray the results as much more conclusive then they in fact were.
Though I have predominantly remarked on the article’s lack of accuracy in regards to the original research, I do feel that overall it did a rather good job at portraying the information provided. One of the most important aspects of the study which the secondary source did not fail to mention was that much more work needs to be done in order to further understand the influence of human activities on the deep ocean floor. Through out the entire study, it is evident that many of the numbers provided are simply guesswork, hence data needs to be more adamantly governed and collected. Both the study and the article conclude by mentioning that there still remains a huge lack of knowledge of the seafloor, and we must aim to increase this understanding as it is becoming exceedingly integral for the world we live in. I found it very redeeming that the article in Science Daily mentioned this, because it acts as an acknowledgement that the research results are not set in stone and do need to be improved upon. Though the secondary source may have overlooked some important information that the research included, it is almost inevitable when summarizing a twenty-five page report into a page and a half. This simply acts to prove the point that when reviewing a secondary source, the reader must take what is given to them with a grain of salt and be apprehensive to accept what they are reading as absolute truth. In order to fully understand the findings which the secondary source is conveying, it is best to go straight to the primary source.
References:
Angela R. Benn, Philip P. Weaver, David S. M. Billet, Sybille van den Hove, Andrew P. Murdock, Gemma B. Doneghan, Tim Le Bas, Peter Roopnarine. Human Activities on the Deep Seafloor in the North East Atlantic: An Assesment of Spatial Extent. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (9): e12730 DOI: 10. 1371/journal.pone.0012730
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (UK) (2010, September 14). Human Impacts on the deep seafloor. Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914115244.htm
http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/map.htm (picture)
No comments:
Post a Comment