Andrew Cargill 4/15/15
Chem C Odd Mr.
Ippolito
Einhorn,
Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
The article, “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” by
Catrin Einhorn, talks about the process in which our dead bodies are used to
grow new life by being buried into the ground to help grow new life. Katrina Spade, a 37-year-old
Seattle resident with a degree in architecture, said, “our bodies have
nutrients. What if we could grow new life after we’ve died?” She also suggested that we create facilities
for human composting. The article mentions, “Each human composting would cost
about $2,500, a fraction of the price of conventional burial, Ms. Spade
estimates.” Convectional burial and
cremation are relatively new, and were not entirely accepted at first. The article mentions that many Americans find
this new idea of composting human bodies repulsive. There are many obstacles Spade and her
supporters face, such as state laws and what it should be used for. Despite this, her and her team are making
great efforts and progress in making this a reality.
This has a
tremendous effect on humanity. To be
able to have your body buried into the ground to help the environment is a huge
step. Many scientists agree that this is
a great way to have your loved ones buried, as it has no drawbacks. However, despite the scientific support, they
face many problems with Americans. And
considering it’s them who would opt-in for this, them not supporting could end
up being a huge problem. I personally
really like this method, as cremation and normal burial seem a bit unnecessary.
In this, we are helping the environment and science at the same time. In addition, it costs a fraction of what a
normal burial costs, which is easier on their loved ones.
The article
was very solid. It had many quotes and
primary sources. The information was
relevant and detailed. However, the
order in which the information was given was a bit tricky at first. I had to re-read certain parts in order to
grasp the idea that the author was trying to explain. Despite this, there isn’t much I can criticize.
I learned a lot about the environment,
burial traditions, and what the future holds in terms of what we do after a
loved one passes away. There were no
grammar or vocabulary mistakes. In conclusion,
this was a very solid article that was well written.
This review by Andrew Cargill of the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost," written by Catrin Einhorn, was very well done. It is a very interesting article that gives us a wholeness side to the argument cremation vs. burial. Although when buried, you are still rotting away in the ground, you are playing a big role in our environment. Even though we are dead, our bodies have nutrients that could support new life. I really like how he chose an article that was obviously very interesting and how he managed to keep the reader captivated. One thing I wish he had done better though, was the first part of his first paragraph, at first I found it a little bit confusing and had to reread a little. Another thing he really succeed in doing was describing the articles main points very clearly. I knew exactly what I was supposed to know at the end of the review without even reading the article. Just something small that could be improved upon was saving his opinion for the opinion section, it would just organize the review better. I also really like how he worded the text, especially "Conventional burial and cremation are relatively new, and were not entirely accepted at first," by saying this it made the article less plain and better to read. I found this article very interesting and it changed my perspective on the burial process, instead of your body being a dead lump in the ground, its a dead lump in the ground providing nutrients to support life. I was also amazed that so many people in America disapproved of the new find while it could prove beneficial to us all.
ReplyDeleteAndrew's review of the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost" was well done. He very clearly stated the background information, and he did a good job to keep the reader on track, which would be difficult for a daring article like this. He also was concise and to the point, with not too much background, but still enough. He did not drag down the reader and rewrite the article, but provide enough context to help the reader understand. I also think that he did a good job of supporting his argument with pieces of the text. He had background from the test proving why his point was valid. I do think that he could have included more expert opinions. This may have been fault of the article, but I think this would have been more convincing if he had other people speaking about this topic. I also think he could have used more facts about how it supported science. Andrew needed to use both qualitative and quantitative pieces to support his argument. I learned from this article that you can, if you want to, cremate your body in such a way that it actually benefits science and the environment. Overall, Andrew's review of this article was thorough and concise.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Cargill did a very good job reviewing “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” by Catrin Einhorn. For example, Andrew helped the reader understand the topic by adding background information. Also, Andrew showed how this could be good for humanity but also telling us how it could cause a problem. By adding his own personal opinion, it made the reader of the review more interested in this article. Although, in the beginning paragraph it was a little bit hard to understand so I had to reread a little. Another think Andrew could work on was adding more opinions from outside sources such as professionals. In the end, I was very impressed by Andrews knowledge of his topic and he made the article interesting to me and other readers. I would want to find out more about this topic.
ReplyDeleteEinhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeleteThis review by Andrew on the article “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” by Catrin Einhorn was very interesting. He incorporates a quote from an expert on the topic. Andrew also includes what steps Katrina Spade and her team will take in the future to gain support to use corpses as compost. Andrew includes his own thoughts about human composting, allowing readers to develop their own opinions.
It would be interesting if the review included a quote from someone opposed to this idea. It would also be helpful to elaborate on the evidence that proves that human composting is beneficial to the environment.
This is a very interesting topic. I learned that human composting is cheaper than a standard burial and is beneficial to the earth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost
ReplyDeleteEinhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Andrew Cargill’s article, “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” is very interesting. I have never heard of this alternative method to cremation or grave burials and I learned a lot from this article. There were many things that Andrew did well in his current event. For example, he did a good job of introducing the main idea of the article. Also, Andrew included several quotes and opinions of professionals in order to further explain the pros and cons of the new method of composting dead bodies. Finally, Andrew did a very nice job of connecting this topic to how it would benefit humanity as well as the environment. In addition, he included his opinion on the issue and explained why he believes that this new method would be beneficial to humanity. Although Andrew did many things well, there is always room for improvement. One area that Andrew could have improved was in his introduction. If he included a more in depth analysis of the process of composting dead bodies, the reader would not have to refer back to the article to learn the step by step process of composting dead bodies. Also in Andrew’s first paragraph, there are too many quotations from the article. Although quotes are very useful in current events, when you use to many, you tend to lose your own voice in your writing. In order to resolve this conflict, Andrew could either paraphrase what he quoted or if it is not a crucial piece of the article, not include the idea at all. I was very surprised while reading this article and current event. I have never heard of composting dead bodies as being a beneficial alternative to burying or cremating bodies. As it was stated in the article, this new process seems disgusting and repulsive. However, I will need to do more research on the topic in order to conclude whether I agree or disagree with the new method.
Einhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeleteIn Andrew’s review in the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost" I felt that he did an excellent job describing the article to the reader. He made a point to keep the reader on track and captivated throughout the review, which when choosing an article like this one, could pose to be very difficult. He made sure to include the counter argument of how while this may be for the good of humanity, it also poses problems. Finally I loved how he included his personal opinion on the matter, and went further as to give detailed explanation on why he felt this way. In giving suggestion to make this review better I would ask Andrew to include more opinions on the topic from the articles. I also feel more scientific facts were needed to fully convince readers and myself. Overall I think Andrew did a tremendous job on his article review and I definitely learned a lot on a topic that had never been brought to attention before.
Julian McCarthy Mr. Ippolito
ReplyDeleteHonors Chemistry April 15, 2015
Current Event
I thought Andrews review on the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost" was very insightful and informative. He did a very good job of summarizing the article, and at the same time including interesting facts. Andrew focuses in on Katrina Spade, and how her team investigates the effects of compost. I really liked how Andrew included many quotes and facts about compost. It strengthened his review and made it easier to read. I also liked how he gave both sides of the issue. He explained how composting has both positive and negative effects on our society. For example he explained a positive of composting when he focuses on when the article stated, “Each human composting would cost about $2,500, a fraction of the price of conventional burial, Ms. Spade estimates.” I think that Andrew’s review was very insightful but it could have been better if he offered more background information on composting because I was very unfamiliar with this topic. Overall I thought it was great review, and offered a lot of information about a topic I knew nothing about.
Citation:
Einhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/a-project-to-turn-corpses-into-compost.html?_r=0
Andrews article “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” by Catrin Einhorn was a very interesting article. He wrote this review on the article very clearly to let the reader understand the topic by adding background information.Andrew also showed how this could be good for humanity but also telling us how it could cause a problem. By adding his own personal opinion, it made the reader of the review more interested in this article. Although, in the beginning paragraph i had trouble understanding his article. Another thing Andrew could work on was adding more opinions from outside sources such as professionals. In the end, I was very impressed by Andrews knowledge of his topic and he made the article interesting to me and others. I would like to search deeper into this theory.
ReplyDeleteEinhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Cargill’s article, “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” is very interesting. He wrote this review on the article very clearly to let the reader understand the topic by adding background information and I also really liked how Andrew included many quotes and facts about compost. It strengthened his review and made it easier to read. Although Andrew did many things well, there is always room for improvement. One area that Andrew could have improved was in his introduction. If he included a more in depth analysis of the process of composting dead bodies. I was also amazed that so many people in America disapproved of the new find while it could prove beneficial to us all. Overall I think he did a great job with his current event.
Andrews Cargill’s response to the article “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” by Catrin Einhorn was a good review. His article was written well so we could get background info and understand what he was saying.Andrew brought up how his project could be good for humanity, which i thought was interesting. When i read that he added his own personal opinion i became more interested in what others thought of this article. It was good but the beginning was a bit hard to read. It was a bit short and I think if he added more outside opinions he could have made it a bit better. Andrew’s review made he very interested in the topic was an overall success.
ReplyDeleteEinhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeleteAndrew’s review of the article, “A Project to Turn Corpses into Compost” by Catrin Einhorn was clear and well written. It was an informative article on the new and innovative idea of turning corpses into compost. He explained the article thoroughly and used quotes to back up his statements. Andrew compared the positives and negatives effects this could have on modern day life. But, Andrew doesn’t state his opinion on this new process. It would have been more satisfying to read and would have been overall a better review had he done so. It left me questioning whether or not all bodies are good for compost. What about people riddled with radiation or diseases? Would that be good for the earth? I thought overall, this review was very well thought out and shows the new steps we are taking for a better and more conscientious future.
Einhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeleteThis review by Andrew Cargill of the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost," written by Catrin Einhorn, is a great review of a current issue. It is a very interesting article that gives us a wholeness side to the argument cremation vs. burial. Even though we are dead, our bodies have nutrients that could support new life. I thought his use of vocabulary really drew me in to want to know about the topic. I wish Andrew had added more statistics in his review, I feel it lacked in raw facts. Another thing he really succeed in doing was describing the articles main points very clearly. I knew exactly what I was supposed to know at the end of the review without even reading the article. Just something small that could be improved upon was saving his opinion for the opinion section, it would just organize the review better. I really feel like this article can open the public’s eyes to the fact that composting things matter. Banana peels and apple cores can be composted just like here where Mrs. Spade composts dead bodies for the greater good of the planet.
Einhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/a-project-to-turn-corpses-into-compost.html?_r=0
I thought Andrews review on the article "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost" was impactful and interesting. Andrew made a good effort to include both sides of the argument. One side of the argument was that it is degrading for the dead people and the other one was that it helps the environment. He was also very clear about what the article stands for. While Andrew’s review was very detailed and the length didn’t affect the understanding of this topic at all. Yet, Andrew didn’t back one theory or another scientifically. The lack of understanding of the scientific side of this operation was shown. Also, I think he could have included more facts about the topic to enhance his review. I had never thought about an issue like this and I was fantasized about the idea. How composing dead bodies could help the environment.
Einhorn, Catrin. "A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/a-project-to-turn-corpses-into-compost.html?_r=0
Andrew Cargill’s article, “A Project to Turn Corpses Into Compost” is very interesting. There were many impressive aspects of the article. One of which being how did a good job of supporting his argument with pieces of the text. He had background from the test proving why his point was valid. Andrew also used his vocabulary very well in this piece. His intriguing language caused me as a reader to become more interested in the topic itself. Finally, Andrew did a very nice job of connecting this topic to how it would benefit humanity as well as the environment. In addition, he included his opinion on the issue and explained why he believes that this new method would be beneficial to humanity, which helped me as a reader understand how others interoperate this topic. The review overall was great, but there were a few parts that could have been better. In the first part of the essay. Andrew used several quotes, although quotes are helpful in reviews on articles if you use to many, you begin to loose your voice in the paper. Another thing he could have improved on would be his introduction, it came off as a little vague. If he included a more in depth analysis of the process of composting dead bodies, the reader would not have to refer back to the article to learn the step by step process of composting dead bodies. One thing I learned from reading this article and review, would be how the composition of dead bodies actually helps the environment. Before reading these two pieces, I knew very little information on the topic, and how it benefits our environment.