Thursday, March 5, 2015

Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced, Study Says.

Jack Kiefer 3/5/14
Core Chemistry Even D Mr. Ippolito


Citation: Hoffman, Jan. "Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced, Study Says." New York Times 04 Mar. 2015: n. pag. Print.


The article that I read is called, “Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution is Reduced, Study Says”, by Jan Hoffman. It is about a study that was done on three groups of fifteen year-olds by scientists and professors from USC or University of Southern California. Altogether, there were 2120 children that the experiment was done on. The first group that the experiment was done on was from 1994 to 1998, the second was from 1997 to 2001, and the third was from 2007 to 2011. All of the students were taken from schools in the cities of Long Beach California and Mira Loma California. They were all asked to blow into an instrument called a spirometer, and the device measured how much air they could breathe out in one second and how much air they could breathe out completely. Since during these years, laws and regulations were put on that restricted the pollution put out by things like diesel consuming trucks, ships, trains, and refineries. Nitrogen dioxide levels fell by 35% and fine particulates levels had fallen by 50% when the studies were concluded by 2011. The children born in later years were, “More robust than those born earlier”. Their lung capacity was, “About ten percent greater than that of the fifeteen year-olds measured in 1998”. The article also talks about how the research that was found in the experiment was analyzed and what it will do for the population.
This experiment that was done has a massive effect and importance to the population of the world. The study concludes that the children who grew up breathing cleaner air will live longer than the children who were inhaling polluted oxygen. The children who were from earlier years are, “More susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases”, which is why they might have a shorter life span. This is important to the world because health and being able to breathe strongly and fully are very important to humanity. When you are healthy, you feel better and have a better life. Morton Lippmann, a professor of environmental medicine, said, “The research would be influential and predicted that when federal emission standards are due for review, ‘This kind of information will play a major role.’”. It would be great to decrease the emission standards, as it would allow the future generations of children to grow up like the ones in the later groups of the study. This article is also specifically important to my classmates and I because we are around the age of fifteen also. The article says, “The children (who were fifteen) were in a period of pubertal growth during which lungs almost finished developing”. Also according to the article, the lungs that you acquire during this stage of life are the ones that you keep your whole life. I would like for my classmates and I to be part of a healthy generation that has full lung capacity.


This article overall was pretty well written, but it did have some flaws. I like how Hoffman laid out the scene and gave background information quickly that let us as the readers know what the article was going to be about. In the first couple paragraphs, she told us what was being studied and what that meant. However, after that, her writing was a little bit unorganized. She jumped around in her thoughts a lot. Another thing that wasn’t great was the fact that she didn’t explain what “fine particulates” were. They are pretty much just the particles in smoke and other pollutant materials. Hoffman also didn’t explain what the machine they used in the experiment was. She said it was a spirometer, but the reader most likely won’t know what that is so she should give a description or at least a picture. Although, her article had some minor problems, it was about an important topic and had many credible sources like professors and scientists, so it is a well written piece.

3 comments:

  1. I chose to read Jack Kiefer’s article titled, “Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution is Reduced, Study Says”, by Jan Hoffman. I thought his article was very clear and concise so the reader knew exactly what was going to be talked about throughout the review. In addition, the background information that he gave on the topic was really helpful and informative because he presented us with facts so he could than explain the current situation and build on what he had set up. Most importantly, his critique on the article was really good and specific. For example, when he was questioning why the author didn’t explain what “fine particulates” were, I agreed with that because I had also been wondering what that was while reading the quote.

    While his review was really good, there were a few things that could have been improved to make his critique better. One is to state who is saying the quotes that he put in so we know that they are reliable quotes and really related to the topic discussed. Also, he ended his first paragraph briefly talking about the effect of the situation on the population and how it was analyzed. I feel like that was sort of a cliffhanger because I then wanted to know more about its analyzation, but it wasn’t discussed any further.

    Besides the few minor things, I thought his review was very thoughtful, especially the paragraph about its importance to us and society. When he talked about how this could be really important for us growing up (since we are the same age as the kids tested on), I hadn’t even thought of it like that and it made me even more intrigued about the article. Overall, it was an interesting article and a worthy review.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeff Sargent
    Current Event 3
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/childrens-lung-health-improves-as-air-pollution-is-reduced-study-says/?ref=science
    "Children's Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced, Study Says."Well Childrens Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced Study Says Comments. N.p., 04 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. .

    In Jack’s review of the article “Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced, Study Says” he displays his points very well. One thing I liked about his review is that he gave very many dates and statistics, which could help him convince people to like his article. Secondly, I think that he used many quotes to give the reader examples of the experiment and gives them direct information. Lastly, Jack used examples of why this experiment was important. In his second article, he stated how it affected people and if it was doing good or bad. I like this because this makes the article not only have a scientific point, but it also shows how it can affect us in real life. One way that this review could have been made better is if he gave a source after each quote. On some of his quotes, he didn’t state who said it, so I was unsure if it was a credible source. Secondly, I think that he could have worded his article better. I didn’t really like the flow of the article, and I feel like he could give a better sentence structure. This article changed my opinion about the pollution of the world. I used to think that the world has been the most polluted it ever has, but this article proved me wrong. Because of this, I noticed that overall, the review was informative and a pleasure to read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott McGrath
    Core Chem
    Current Event Comment

    URL: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/childrens-lung-health-improves-as-air-pollution-is-reduced-study-says/?ref=science
    Citation: Hoffman, Jan. "Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution Is Reduced, Study Says." New York Times 04 Mar. 2015: n. pag. Print.

    Jack’s review of the article “Children’s Lung Health Improves as Air Pollution is Reduced, Study Says”, by Jan Hoffman, is very well done. I like the way he describes every inch of the issue in clear detail. I also thought it was helpful to add so many facts and quotes. I thought this because it gives us the actual facts instead of his opinion only. I also really liked the way he allowed the article to flow from one topic of discussion to another. This really made the article easier to read and allowed us to focus more on the issue in the article. Although he did a great job explaining it in full detail, it was very long. This is a problem because when you're reading a review, you can tend to zone out especially when the article is that long. One other thing he could have improved upon was summing up the article into one small section so if we got lost during the reading, we could reference that. I found the article very interesting, especially when it states that scientists started this experiment a very long time ago, so it shows that scientists were always thinking ahead. Overall, I think Jack did a very good job presenting this article.

    ReplyDelete