primary and secondary source. Although they seem to contain the same material, often the
second one misses important details or misinterprets the original message. On September 17, 2010, an article from ATP was published entitled "UN Scientists say Ozone Layer Depletion has Stopped" based on the report; "Scientific Depletion of Ozone Depletion: 2010". This report was prepared by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
The two sources, primary and secondary, while telling the same story, differ in many ways. The first and most obvious being that the article is just a brief summary of the report. The article is just over one page long, whereas the report is 33 pages of detailed analysis. One of the reasons for this is because of the different audiences that each source caters to. The primary source is meant for other scientists and government policy makers, people whose job it is to read information such as this and use that raw information. The article, however, is written for the general public who are usually just reading out of interests sake. Article writers need to keep the information to the point in order to not lose interest from the public. It is necessary to define and explain terms such as "ozone" and "CFCs" in the article to accommodate readers who are uneducated in the subject, but who still want to find out the just of the message.
The lack of detail in the secondary source is evident as it failed to mention three important aspects of the primary source. The report described in detail the effects of UV radiation as a direct impact from the changing ozone layer, yet the article did not touch on this subject. I find this surprising as UV radiation is a topic of concern among the public with the increasing skin cancer patients. The second important detail left out of the article is the whereabouts of ozone layer change. The report gives specific speculation for the recovery of the ozone layer in different parts of the globe, for example multi-latitudinal ozone will be restored before the arctic and antarctic zones (Scientific Assessment Panel 2010.) Finally, the secondary source states what HCFCs are (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) and ends the article by acknowledging that they are another dilemma in the climate change challenge but they do not expand on this point as the primary source does. The report gives the present plan of the Montreal Protocol parties to reduce HCFC emissions by 0.6-0.8 million ODP-tonnes. The article gives the misconception that HCFC emissions are a mystery that scientists are still pondering how to fix, but a clear plan is in progress to fix it according to the report. This missed detail could confuse readers.
Not only did the article lack certain facts, it also incorrectly states facts given by the primary source. It was made clear in the report that because of the ODSs (ozone-depleting substances) still hanging around in the atmosphere, ozone depletion will continue for many more decades, but there are reduced contributions of the ODSs. The article misinterprets this as the global ozone layer is no longer decreasing. This is even stated in the article's title. In my opinion, this is a fairly major difference in ideas. Another example of differing facts is how the article gives full credit to the Montreal Protocol ban on ODSs as being responsible for the stopping of the ozone depletion. The report, however, acknowledges the Montreal Protocol yet also notes that other factors may be responsible such as natural variability and uncertainty of observations.
Another difference between the two sources is how the report uses specific data instead of general facts. For example, the report states that by 2008, methyl chlorine had declined from 3.7ppb to 3.4ppb (Scientific Assessment Panel 2010.) The secondary source just uses words to describe data because the general public doesn't know the context of scientific numbers such as the parts per billion of methyl chlorine. Diagrams, graphs and tables are frequently used in the assessment report but not in the seco-
ndary source, to show the relationship between these numbers. Although there are many differences between the two
sources, they both did a fine job of describing the new findings. They both gave history on the topic by describing the start of the Montreal Protocol ban in 1987. This was due to observations that a hole was spreading in the ozone in the 1970s. The picture to the right shows the increase in size of the ozone layer hole from 1960 to 2001. The article was beneficial to read because it was short and simple and also described terms that were out of my vocabulary. The report was also worthwhile to read as it provided specific numbers and diagrams to help visualize concepts in addition to accurate information. For these reasons, it is clear that for a reader to get the whole picture of a topic, they're best option is to read both the primary and secondary sources.
Works Cited
"AFP: UN Scientists Say Ozone Layer Depletion Has Stopped." Google. AFP, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment