This
article talks about the Gowanus Canal in New York City, and it explains how
this canal is turning into a garbage dump. The main reason of the pollution caused
by the canal, are decades of sewage garbage carried into it. In the past years
people have been throwing metals and bricks into the canal. This not only harms
any animals that live in the water and causes pollution, but it also makes it
harder to load barges. “The canal acts as an infrastructure that supports the city,” said Mike
Petrosino, and it shouldn’t be treated as a garbage dump. Businesses like Benson
Metal, Greco Brothers Concrete, and Sixth Street Iron and Metal were arrested for
pouring dirty water into the canal which violates the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. They had to pay money for all of the garbage that they put into
the canal. Benson, for example paid $85,000.
All of the garbage in the canal produces
even more pollution to the environment. The federal government wants to put to
action a $500 million cleanup plan for the canal. All of the pollution that we
are causing is making the air dirtier. Factories, for example are producing a
lot of carbon dioxide. Pollution is hurting animals too. All of the metals that
we release into oceans, fish and other sea creatures eat. The Gowanus canal is
just one example, but there are many areas in the world where animals are dying
because of the garbage that we cause.
The article talked more about who is
throwing garbage into the cannel than how does garbage in the canal affect us. The
article only says that the pollution in the canal interferes with the
barges. The author should have included
more explanations to how this affects our life. She should have also included
ways that we can help clean the canal.
I really liked Maryasa’s choice on topic: The Gowanus Canal in New York City. I like that it is a nearby issue, so we can see issues that are surrounding us. One thing that I think that Maryasa did really well, was how she talked about the reason for the pollution, and where it is coming from. I felt that this background information helped to create a more clear understanding. Also, I liked how Maryasa told about how the government wants to help by using a 500 million dollar action. Finally, I liked how Maryasa critiqued, saying that there should have been more detail on how this affects our lives and on ways to clean up. I agree with Maryasa, and think that this should have been included; I would like to know how this affects the nearby people and whether it could be affecting us, and what we can do to help.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there was a lot of good information in the review, I believe that there could have been some clarification on some things. She said that the pollution is affecting fish and ocean animals, but what type of animals? Also I would have liked to know what the government plans on doing for a cleanup. How will the cleanup affect the nearby people and sea life? Maryasa also mentioned that this is only one out of many other examples of canals that are being polluted, and animals are dying, but where else? One other thing I think Maryasa could have done was to make her critique a little more in depth. I would have liked to know more about what the author did well and didn't. Overall, I think Maryasa did a very good job on the review.
I was impressed by how close this issue is to us, and how people aren't very concerned. I was surprised that there isn't more controversy over this issue, and also controversy on how people plan on resolving it. I look forward to hearing as to what the government plans on doing to resolve this issue, and hope people take more concern in it.
In this review, Maryasa did a very god job in explaining the problem by stating the cause and the reason for the cause. She did a very good job in explaining the whole who, what, where, aspect of the article so that we could easily tell what her article was about and the position behind it. Another thing that Maryasa does well in her review is that she gives example of amounts, for instance, how much Benson had to pay for their pollution, so that the reader could get a good approximate. Finally, at the end, Maryasa gives a very good critique of the article, explaining what it needed, or what it could have added, to have been better and really inform its reader.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Maryasa could have done better was too elaborate on the government clean-up plan. Maryasa started the second paragraph in that direction then gave a very minimal description and left it at that. I personally would have liked to know more about it, but that could just be me. Another thing that Maryasa needed to add was when all this happens. Throughout the review there isn’t a single date to tell the reader when, for example, when Benson was fined for pollution or when the government clean-up plan may come into action.
His article was pretty unenlightening because most of this information was already known. However, one thing that I didn’t know was that factories release metals into the water ways. That surprised me because I always that that sort or material could be reused and dumping it was a waste of material.