Primary and secondary source papers exhibit a number of differences, not only in the quantity of information they present but also in the quality and validity of the statements they contain. It is important for one to acknowledge these differences and to know how to critically examine each of these sources in order to obtain the most representative information. To illustrate these discrepancies I looked at the article, Oil sands releasing toxic heavy metals, study finds (The Star, August 30, 2010), and then read the original, or primary article from which the Star published its report, Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentration to the Athabasca River and its tributaries (Kelly et al., 2010).
The research done by Kelly et al., investigated whether or not the presence of Primary Pollutants (PPE) and polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) in the Athabasca River and its tributaries were the result of natural erosion of the oil sands, or if in fact the oil sands operations were responsible for the dramatic increases in these toxins. Study sites were selected both upstream and downstream from oil sands operations, and data was also collected from background sites, so as to provide a control for the experiment (Kelly et al., 2010). Data was collected from February to June of 2008, ensure enough data. Through their study it was determined that oil sands operations, including but not limited to, watershed disturbance, land clearing, mining, processing of bitumen and tailing pond leakage do increase the concentration of 13 of these primary pollutants. All of these toxins were found in higher concentrations downstream of oil sands operations and in disturbed areas which supports the claim that the oil sands are responsible for the increase in contamination of the Athabasca River and its tributaries (Kelly et al., 2010). The article goes on to explain other various pathways to which the toxins are entering the Athabasca River system, including air and water being the main sources of transportation. The article notes that although water is the main pathway for contamination, that the precipitators which are supposed to limit the air pollution are not effective on all elements, and therefore an increase in As, Ph, and Hg particulate emission are being noticed (Kelly et al., 2010). This is of particular concern because Hg concentrations in local fish are already higher than normal, and if Hg particulate contamination continues, it could be very damaging to both wildlife and human populations because of bioaccumulation (Kelly et al., 2010).In the photo shown above, the Athabasca River runs right beside Suncor’s upgrader plants responsible for the refinement of bitumen (Web Page).
Limitations to the research were also noted and included the fact that there was a lack of previous long term monitoring which makes it difficult to determine how much PPE and PAC levels have actually increased. Also because background concentrations of toxins are increasing, this makes it even more difficult to establish a normal or control level for current readings. Stating these limitations is important because it provides advice if you will for future researchers who are wanting to further expand on the current study.
Overall the Star’s summary of the research conducted by Kelly et al., was fairly accurate, although not nearly as detailed. The article stated that it was in fact oil sands operations responsible for polluting the Athabasca River system and its tributaries, and went on to name some of the toxins in question. The article also mentioned where the sampling was done and some concerns to do with the bioaccumulation of toxins such as mercury in fish (The Star, 2010). However, this article was not as thorough as the primary article by Kelly et al., which decreases the strength of the claims made. In the primary article there is raw data and calculations to back up their findings and in the article published by the Star it is merely a summary of what Kelly et al., found. Furthermore the article in The Star took a more politic view of the situation, touching on the issue of claims made by the Alberta Government and also the need to reconsider development of the oil sands. Furthermore, the article in The Star did not mention any limitations of the research, which is a fundamental part of the scientific procedure. Because no limitations were mentioned it may make it seem that the research that was conducted has no flaws and that future research is not necessary. However it should be noted that no assumptions were communicated in this article based on preliminary findings in the paper by Kelly et al., which is a common issue when information is summarized from a primary source.
In conclusion, the secondary article to this study was a fairly accurate representation of the primary research and paper published. The aim of a primary source is to express as much information and insight into an issue which has been researched and developed carefully, whereas a secondary source is summarizing that information and condensing it into a format that is easy for a wide variety of people to utilize. It is easy when this information is condensed to change the context in which information was originally intended, and for that reason it is always important to refer back to the primary source.
References
Oil sands releasing toxic heavy metals, study finds. The Star. August 30,2010. [online]. Accessed September 16, 2010.
Kelly, E.N., D.W. Schindler, P.V. Hodson, J.F. Short, R. Radmanovich, and C.C. Nielsen. 2010. Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries. PNAS. 107 (37): 16178-16183.
Photo:
http://news.auroraphotos.com/2009/03/peter-essick-images-of-oil-boom-receive-press/
No comments:
Post a Comment