Before coming enrolling in this class, I considered myself a good researcher when it came to finding and breaking down sources to use them in projects. I was surprised to realize that I wasn’t going deep enough into the actual meanings of my sources and so I was missing some crucial details. Learning about the writer’s project and then learning how to find it helped me tremendously to better evaluate sources. I was able to read a little bit of each source, then I was able to find the writer’s project and then I would determine if it was useful or not. Initially it was difficult to do if I didn’t have any background knowledge on the topic. For example, in the first unit, it was hard for me to figure out what some of the writers were arguing because I wasn’t aware of the background of the topic and so I wasn’t able to specifically identify the problem at hand. This made it tougher for me to synthesize articles. Once I got used to identifying the claims, I was able to get more out of my sources. Accurately identifying the claims also gave me more terms and keywords that also aided me in my research. I thought that the “Quick-n-Dirty heuristic” was especially helpful with regard to finding new keywords and terms because it forced me to search for different things. I even tried researching things that didn’t seem important initially and I obtained a few good sources based off of those key words. I had the realization that if I can’t find any major key terms, I could still be just as successful using seemingly less important words. I no longer needed ten sources to write an article or an essay; I only needed like four of five because I could now extract more necessary and useful details. I also cut down the time it took to conduct research because I was able to cut out the time that it would normally take me to think of things to research.
When I learned about the unit two and three assignments, I already knew what I wanted to research and talk about because I already had a strong interest in the subject. I knew a lot about the topic already and I already had a stance on the issue without doing any research. In my research, my goal was to find sources that were interesting, that identified the controversy, and that backed or opposed my claim. I already liked the topic so reading about it and learning more about it was joyful to me but I knew that not everyone shared the same passion as me. The group work where we had to briefly explain our topic, and take a stance, and then have my partners share their view helped me put myself in the mind of my audience. I was also fond of the posters that we made where we put our controversy on it and then the entire class critiqued it for the same reason. I learned a lot more through research than I shared because it wasn’t as important as some of the other information. My topic was very complex so I know that there is still a lot to learn and I want to still learn about it. I want to continue to research about the future of the nuclear energy, specifically in the case of power plant designs, and I also would like to delve a little deeper into the history surrounding nuclear energy that created the misconceptions that most people mistakenly believe in today.
I would share my unit 3 piece with really anybody that was willing to listen to me. I would choose this piece because I care very deeply about the topic that I chose to write about. I put a lot of research and a lot of effort into understanding and conveying that information in a way that would make sense and be convincing to whoever was reading it. I provided several specific claims and I also provided evidence to support my claims. I would hope that after reading it, the reader would have a different outlook on nuclear energy. I strongly believe that nuclear energy is the energy of the future and I did my best to share this belief to my audience. My goal was to just encourage my audience to maintain an open mind with regard to nuclear energy because with the ongoing energy crisis that is among us today, no options should be ruled out without proper research being done first.
WRT 205/Spring 2016 Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine
[1] How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?
The purpose of the title is to grab a person’s attention in order to attract them to the article. I think my title does a good job doing that because all people want answers to their problems and I proposed a solution to a problem that affects all people.
[2] How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency? How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?
The introduction starts by asking a question assuming the reader already was wondering. I then go on to explain what nuclear energy is. I started with this because it is the basis of the solution so I provided it for some background. I then proceeded to ask another question about the energy that was meant to provide the problem and then briefly provide an overview of the solution before I went into more detail as the article went on.
[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?
The basis of the entire article involves a very complicated and technical process so it must be explained. It is something that most people aren’t aware of so it needs to be put into terms so the non-technical readers can understand it.
[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?
I’m not sure how I unique or stylish I was but my intention of the article was to present it as if I was having a conversation with the reader and I was answering the questions that they were asking.
[5] How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?) How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?
The topic is very controversial because of its past so I needed to provide proof that it can be the answer to a problem by making the proof about things that people care about, such as economics and safety.
[6] How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic, and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?
I took a strong stance by claiming that nuclear energy is the answer as long as people embrace it and develop it. I provided details such as the economics and safety in order to relate with the reader and be more persuasive.
[7] How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).
I did extensive research into my topic and this is shown in the amount of evidence I provided. The topic is not a basic one so I needed a strong understanding from a variety of sources if I want to persuade my audience to share my view.
[8] How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?
I used my sources as a way to simply prove that I wasn’t making stuff up and that real, highly educated people have proven time and time again that the view I have is a more common view than most people realize. The audience just needs to accept it.
[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research? How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?
I used questions as titles as my article progressed as a way to direct all of the information that I obtained towards a specific question. It allowed me to craft my paragraph in a way that wasn’t repetitive and so it also answered any potential questions the audience may have.
[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual? Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them? Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?
I used a nice picture of a power plant as a way to make the plant seem more safe. I provided reasons why they are safe but I included the picture in order to allow people to visualize a safe plant. I also used a graph to back up some of the arguments that I was making and I was hoping that by showing the proof, more people would believe it.
[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?
I changed the order of my paragraphs a few times in accordance with the recommendation of my class mate who proof read and edited for me. I believe that he helped me tremendously to make my article flow and be more persuasive and casual.
[12] How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?
I used hyperlinks on a couple important claims I was making because without the claims, my argument wouldn’t stand and I wanted people to be able to physically see why I was making those claims.
[13] How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?
I tried to stay away from big words and I tried to use words that I would normally use in everyday conversation so that I could continue my goal to make the article seem like a conversation between me and my audience. I of course had to use some words that I wouldn’t normally use because the topic was complex and there was no way to better explain it without some of the phrases and terms that I used.
What is nuclear energy you ask? Commercial nuclear power plants use a process called fission to to produce energy. Fission is essentially just splitting a large atom into smaller ones. This splitting of large atoms also releases energy. This reaction takes places inside of what is called a pressurized water reactor. The energy from the reaction in the reactor is then used to heat up water that is flowing through the system. The water is then turned to steam and the steam is able to turn a turbine. The turbine creates work and the work is used to power a generator which then releases electricity on a very large scale to the cities around the power plant. It is a very complex reaction but it utilizes the same basic process that coal plants and wind power turbines use to create electricity.
Nuclear Power Plant
The question that usually follows now is, “what makes this energy so special?”
Nuclear energy is special because of the potential that it possesses. It has a ninety-one percent capacity factor, which is the energy that is currently produced compare to the theoretical total that it can produce. The theoretical total is just how much of the energy that the reactor is able to produce, but some of it is lost in the process, either through heat or through other sources. For comparison, coal has a fifty-eight percent capacity factor, so you can see that it is not very efficient at creating good amounts of energy, as almost fifty percent of it is lost in the process. The ninety-one percent that nuclear reactors produce is the capacity factor for the outdated designs that most nuclear power plants use today. However, newer designs can produce upwards of one hundred times more energy than the old models. Newer models are extremely efficient and can endlessly produce energy that can be used immediately. There are dozens of different reactor designs; all of which can solve the energy crisis if they become implemented. Dangerous fossil fuels, which are not energy efficient whatsoever and are harmful to both the environment and us, can finally be phased out.
You may now ask, “you say it is safer, but how much safer is it?”
With proper regulations and safety procedures in place, nuclear energy is significantly less dangerous than fossil fuels. There are heavy regulations and safety procedures in place to ensure the safety of people surrounding the plants, as well as the people that are operating them. Nuclear energy results in only about 0.04 deaths per terawatt of energy produced compared to the 161 deaths per terawatt from coal energy. A terawatt is essentially a measure of a large amount of energy produced. Nuclear power plants also result in about 0.005 percent of the radiation that is allowed per person per year. That is 100 times less radiation released than coal! Nuclear energy is easily the safest form of energy because it is an industry that is held to a very high safety standard in comparison to the coal industry or oil industry. The operators are very educated and very highly trained in all safety regulations and safety procedures. If there were any accidents, regardless of the size or impact of the accident, support for the industry would take a huge hit due to the history of the industry and the misconceptions that has been taught to the general public regarding nuclear energy. Public support is a big part in growing nuclear energy because if the general public supports it then government officials will also support it and they will increase funding and make the energy more widespread and the misconceptions will disappear.
It makes sense to be be cautious and hesitant to support an energy form that doesn’t have a great history. So I’ll try to clear up some of the misconceptions that most people have.
When most people think of nuclear energy, the first things that come to mind are the biggest disasters: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. What people don’t understand are the facts behind these disasters. Chernobyl became a disaster because the people in the government that oversaw the plant decided to do a riskier experiment. It required them to turn off all of the safety features. As a result, the plant blew up because all of the safety protocol was ignored and put aside in order to conduct the experiment. It was not a nuclear explosion that caused the plant to release enormous amounts of radiation; it was just water rapidly expanding and changing into steam. This steam was in a closed space and so it exploded. Fukushima, on the other hand, resulted from a poor design of the plant. The plant was not prepared to handle large natural disasters, so when a 20-meter-high wave, a tsunami, hit the plant, it knocked out all of the power and the operators didn’t have the proper tools to regulate the reactors. As a result, the reactors blew up much like Chernobyl did. Three Mile Island was the only disaster to occur on American soil and it resulted from a lack of communication within the industry about a faulty part within the process. Soon after the incident, the U.S. government created new agencies that would allow for the sharing of information and designs in order to prevent any of these types of disasters from happening again.
Nuclear power plants simply cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. This is because of the safety features that are built into power plants that activate automatically. The fuel is also not nearly concentrated enough to produce enough energy for a nuclear explosion. But even so, nuclear power plants are one of the most guarded places in the United States. Each plant sports no fly zones and a very wide security perimeter in order to make sure that there are no unwelcome visitors. To enforce these security features, each plant has a highly trained and heavily armed security team. Most are ex-special forces operatives so it is safe to say that each plant is in good hands. And to defend against any cyber attacks, the plants only send out information, they do not allow any incoming information which blocks any hackers from accessing any systems remotely.
“So if this energy is so safe for people and the environment, and it has such a high potential, then why has it not deemed a ‘green energy?’ Why has it not been talked about nearly as much as other alternative green energies such as solar power, wind power, and hydropower?”
This is a very complicated answer because there are many moving pieces involved with the nuclear industry. To give a short answer, it is basically because the public does not accept this form of energy so the government cannot help to advance the industry like it can for other renewable alternatives like solar and wind energy. The first step should be to label nuclear energy as a green technology because of the fact that it doesn’t harm the environment because of its lack of carbon emission. Nuclear energy is also perceived to be a very dangerous energy because of the history of it. Its history has been a huge factor in the formation of the many misconceptions that many people have. Events such as Chernobyl and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan have people scared to believe that this energy can be the answer to humanity’s current energy crisis. The misconceptions that people form are then transferred to younger, less informed generations in schools and to older, less informed people during protests. Most people only look at the negatives surrounding the industry and most of this information only comes from news stations that report on disasters. As a result, nuclear energy is quickly overlooked as a viable source and more money is pumped into other, less efficient sources. This makes nuclear power less viable because without government help, the capital costs for the current nuclear power plant designs are too high and so less are built. If people did more research into the topic, they would be pleasantly surprised to see how far the industry has come and how ready it is to step up and become the primary source of energy. That isn’t the only thing though. Since the nuclear energy industry is not nearly as big as the fossil fuel industries, it cannot progress and advance because money talks and the other industries have more money. The money then translates into lobbying power on Capitol Hill and the majority of the lobbying is done by fossil fuel industries. If more people put their faith in this energy, then more advancement can be done and the energy crisis will be a distant memory. The future of energy is up to people like you and me and future generations to make the right decision and to choose nuclear energy.
Imagine an abundant energy source that when used, does not produce any harmful substances. Imagine being able to produce the same amount of energy in one plant of this form of energy that takes 50 coal plants to produce. Imagine how different society would be if we could just use up as much energy as we need, without any concern of running out or doing any harm to the environment. That energy source is nuclear energy.
[1] How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?
The purpose of the title is to grab a person’s attention in order to attract them to the article. I think my title does a good job doing that because all people want answers to their problems and I proposed a solution to a problem that affects all people.
[2] How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency? How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?
The introduction starts by asking a question assuming the reader already was wondering. I then go on to explain what nuclear energy is. I started with this because it is the basis of the solution so I provided it for some background. I then proceeded to ask another question about the energy that was meant to provide the problem and then briefly provide an overview of the solution before I went into more detail as the article went on.
[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?
The basis of the entire article involves a very complicated and technical process so it must be explained. It is something that most people aren’t aware of so it needs to be put into terms so the non-technical readers can understand it.
[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?
I’m not sure how I unique or stylish I was but my intention of the article was to present it as if I was having a conversation with the reader and I was answering the questions that they were asking.
[5] How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?) How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?
The topic is very controversial because of its past so I needed to provide proof that it can be the answer to a problem by making the proof about things that people care about, such as economics and safety.
[6] How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic, and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?
I took a strong stance by claiming that nuclear energy is the answer as long as people embrace it and develop it. I provided details such as the economics and safety in order to relate with the reader and be more persuasive.
[7] How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).
I did extensive research into my topic and this is shown in the amount of evidence I provided. The topic is not a basic one so I needed a strong understanding from a variety of sources if I want to persuade my audience to share my view.
[8] How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?
I used my sources as a way to simply prove that I wasn’t making stuff up and that real, highly educated people have proven time and time again that the view I have is a more common view than most people realize. The audience just needs to accept it.
[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research? How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?
I used questions as titles as my article progressed as a way to direct all of the information that I obtained towards a specific question. It allowed me to craft my paragraph in a way that wasn’t repetitive and so it also answered any potential questions the audience may have.
[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual? Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them? Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?
I used a nice picture of a power plant as a way to make the plant seem more safe. I provided reasons why they are safe but I included the picture in order to allow people to visualize a safe plant. I also used a graph to back up some of the arguments that I was making and I was hoping that by showing the proof, more people would believe it.
[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?
I changed the order of my paragraphs a few times in accordance with the recommendation of my class mate who proof read and edited for me. I believe that he helped me tremendously to make my article flow and be more persuasive and casual.
[12] How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?
I used hyperlinks on a couple important claims I was making because without the claims, my argument wouldn’t stand and I wanted people to be able to physically see why I was making those claims.
[13] How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?
I tried to stay away from big words and I tried to use words that I would normally use in everyday conversation so that I could continue my goal to make the article seem like a conversation between me and my audience. I of course had to use some words that I wouldn’t normally use because the topic was complex and there was no way to better explain it without some of the phrases and terms that I used.
You were asked to first perform a quick-n-dirty search on your topic, then moved into the more sophisticated library databases. Please describe how you progressed from the general to the specific. What worked? What didn’t work? Snafoos? Advice for future researchers? Be specific.
At first I just tried to get any source that seemed at least somewhat relevant. Then I read through a few, skimmed through a few, and I was able to collect a couple of key words that I would then use when I moved to the library databases. That allowed me to use key words that were more direct and to the point.
Which sites or search engines yielded the most substantial results for you (think back to the search engines you were introduced to and the library databases that Patrick Williams walked you through) AltPress, Lexis Nexus, Proquest, etc.? WHY? And HOW? Be specific.
I tried to use the databases that were provided and I did get a couple of articles but what I found was that due to the nature of my topic, it was more beneficial to go directly to google and read some articles from their that were simplified. I read through a few articles using the library databases and like I mentioned, I was able to collect some sophisticated key words that yielded a good amount of useful sources.
Describe what you’ve learned about the research process (please don’t tell me “well, it takes time” or “it’s hard” or disingenuous comments—please try and be honestly reflective here). Use specific references to your own work.
I found that at times I wasn’t able to find useful articles because I was searching directly for articles that answered my question. After I realized that wasn’t working for me, I split my topic into sections and decided to search for articles based on those sections. At the end, I was able to answer my question by combining these sections together.
Describe the challenges of this assignment, “The TED TALK.” What did you struggle with—and why?
The biggest challenge was my lack of experience with speaking to an audience directly. I also struggled with just find useful articles like I just explained. At first, I struggled with not finding articles but then when I had to present, I struggled with talking about the material in all of the articles I found within the 5 minutes that I was allotted.
Describe your understanding of exigency and kairos—how does it pertain to your topic? Your research?
In order to give a good controversial presentation, the topic must be presently controversial. These words essentially mean that the articles found through research and the topic itself must be semi-recent otherwise nobody will have heard about it and that means that it probably isn’t important anymore. Discussions about a topic from 30 years ago can be very different it the topic were to be discussed again today due to a ever-changing culture.
Describe your comfort level in navigating the library’s databases (specifically the search engines Patrick showed us) (1 being extremely unfamiliar—10 being masterful)—and explain.
I would say I’m about a 6 with comfort level. I still have a tough time using the different search assists that the databases provide but after I found a good method of finding good key words to search, utilizing the search databases became more easy.
Explain the genre expectations of a TED TALK and how you were able to successfully adhere to these in your own TED TALK to the class. Please be specific.
With regard to expectation, I think it was important for me, especially with the nature of my topic, to keep the material at a level that people without any prior knowledge could understand. Most of my articles did this already but I had to go through and really try to understand the material so that I could do a better job explaining it. The biggest, and probably the hardest, was to be confident in the research I did and what I was saying. It is very hard for someone to pay attention to and believe in a presentation if the person presenting can’t get out a full sentence without using “um” multiple times. I was guilty of it but I tried to be conscience of it.
As we shift to Unit III, you’ll draw from all the research you’ve compiled in Unit II, as well as additional primary research on the controversy. What type of primary research is feasible for the upcoming Unit? What are your ideas and what arguments are you looking to collect still?
Articles that come from people who work directly with nuclear energy will strengthen my argument. It will make it seem true because the person that would have written the article will have been directly in contact with the topic. I think it is imperative that I gather more articles that offer more contradicting views and maybe try to refute or agree with those arguments instead of ignoring them.
What was something that we did as a class, discussed in conferences, did as homework, etc. that was helpful for your understanding of assignment or research? Why?
The best part of either the speed debating or putting the topics on paper on the board. Each of these allowed other perspectives to be heard and it provided a path for ideas to be shared. Even if someone said something that wasn’t true, it provided research material to prove that said idea wasn’t true.
Wouldn’t you like to know if the food you eat is contaminated with a deadly disease? Wouldn’t you like to know if that disease could potentially kill you or someone you know? The food industry doesn’t care. They don’t want you to know about their unsafe and inhumane processes that they use to produce the food that you buy. All they care about is your money!
Big food companies such as Tyson Foods and Cargill Foods produce most of the meat that is sold in supermarkets. People buy the meat, cook the meat, and then they eat the meat like any other standard meal in the history of civilized living. But what is different about these the meat nowadays is that the meat is processed in large factories. This is due, in part, to the dramatic increase in demand for meat that is required to satisfy the growing population of America. But this was not fast enough for these big corporations. Many big companies have resorted to creating feed for these animals that differs from the natural diet that these animals are used to. As the Consumer Reports article made evident, feathers and feces are only some of the things that are essentially fore fed to these animals. This creates an environment for disease. In the documentary Food Inc., the director gives an argument against the current way that feed is produced. He argues that the food that is given to animals is harmful because it goes against what is supposed to be given to them. Giving corn to cows is dangerous because cows are not supposed to eat corn so their bodies are not very healthy which leaves them vulnerable to disease. Corn can also carry diseases such as E. Coli. It can then be spread to animals and humans. If the corn contains a disease, then the cow gets the disease. When combined with the horrid living conditions that these animals are forced to live in, the disease can then evolve and spread faster to the humans that eat the meat that comes from that cow. These unnatural and basically inedible feed ingredients are meant to fatten the animal quickly so that they can be slaughtered and sold sooner. But instead, the feed helps make the animals walking petri dishes that contain many different diseases and bacteria. In addition to the unhealthy feed, all animals, regardless of health, are given medications that are supposed to “boost growth and keep infections at bay.” This now makes these animals like walking cocktails.
The Consumer Reports article does provide a slight glimmer of hope. It provides ways, in which, the consumer can protect themselves against these potentially dangerous meats. But it does not solve the issue at hand.
Big food companies also take advantage of the new technologies that society has to offer. Their goal to decrease their spending while increasing their profits. They no longer have the consumer’s best interest in mind. They only care about their wealth. This shows in how they run their factories and their farms. They have resorted to some inhumane practices as a way to increase their profit margin. Food Inc. visits some of these huge farms in America that house hundreds of cows, chickens, and pigs. The film shows some of these animals being kept in tight, dirty spaces; sometimes even being kept in their own feces. This brings down the maintenance costs by giving the animals the bare minimum needed to live but it also creates a breeding ground for bacteria and disease.
Pesticide use has also become commonly used as a way to kill bacteria and bugs which allows for a higher crop yield. These crops are then put in the feed of the farm animals. Some pesticides, such as chrysanthemums, sabadilla, and nicotine, are highly toxic and can be dangerous to consume. But of course, these companies do not care as long as they are paying less and making more.
Blake Hurst in his article, Organic Illusions, spends some time discussing pesticides. According to a Stanford study, that he repeatedly refers to, pesticides cannot be doing any harm because if they were, then farmers would have stopped using them years ago. The Food Journal article backs up this point of view to a certain extent. The article insists that new pesticides that are made are modelled after natural pesticides and they are safer than before. Jennifer Dewey Rohrich, a third generation farmer, says that her family must protect their farm in order to keep producing and if pesticides were slowly damaging their land, they would not be using them anymore.
The Consumer Reports article argues that pesticides and antibiotics lead to disease and if farms and companies were to stop using them, then there would be less risk of getting some diseases. This contradicts with Dewey Rohrich’s view because Dewey Rohrich mentions that farmers are very safe when it comes to pesticide use and she argues that pesticides make food safer because disease carrying organisms are killed and so they can not infect any of the plants.
The article ultimately makes the claim that without pesticides, the cost of farming would significantly increase because alternative methods of protecting crops would have to be used and so the price of goods that are bought in stores would increase as well. So again, it all comes back to costs. At the end of the day, food companies only care about their profit margin so they will continue to use whatever products or practices allow them to spend less and make more.
This all ties nicely under the idea that there is a lack of government oversight. The government created the Food and Drug Administration and the United Stated Department of Agriculture in order to oversee the food industry and ensure that the companies are following regulations that were that were implemented in order to make food safe for consumers. Food Inc., Marion Nestle, and Consumer Reports show that this is not the case. Food Inc., Marion Nestle, and Consumer Reports all argue that the government needs to do more. From Food Inc., “in 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.”
There has clearly been a sharp decline in government involvement in the food industry. There are a few factors that can affect this downward sloping trend. One example being a lack of funding. Food safety has clearly become a second thought in the minds of everyday consumers and this stems from the trust that they have put into their government to keep them safe. Consumer Reports and Marion Nestle go more into detail on the two agencies that are supposed to be protecting the consumers of America. Nestle believes that the lack of federal oversight stems from the “illogical division of food safety oversight.” An example being that the USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry doe and the FDA regulates hot dogs in rolls. But the main issue regarding these two is that they are very understaffed. The FDA has about 700 inspectors and does an inspection about once every five years due to this. The USDA has about 7000 inspectors, which is more than the FDA but is still not enough because the USDA does daily inspections but they cannot be thorough because they have a lot of companies to inspect. This results in situations like how the FDA only tests about 2 percent of imported seafood yet about 80 percent of seafood is imported.
These are the very things that allows food companies to get away with skimping on proper safety procedures. The FDA and USDA need to be more funded. They ultimately need an overhaul in the way the agencies are structured. The current state of these agencies is one of inefficiency, which allows for the selling of unsafe food.
The food industry has been able to get away with not following safety instructions properly due to their size and power and also the lack of government oversight. This makes buying food dangerous because the average consumer is not able to tell whether the food they buy will get them sick. They put their trust in these companies and in the government and in return, they are let down when outbreaks occur and people die. This can happen to anybody, at any time, anywhere that sells these tainted foods. These companies, and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them, need to be overhauled to stop people from getting sick and dying.
Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article.
I think that through the workshops in class and listening to the views of other people on the writer’s project, the writers project became very clear in each article. I was able to identify the project after breaking down the article into its crucial details. Doing that made the projects very clear. My project was that the food industry is not as concerned about the consumer as they should be and the people deserve to know.
Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization?
Summarizing the main arguments of the article and then responding to these arguments made it easier form my project because I was now able to see the ideas laid out. It made it easer follow instead of having to keep it all in my head. Without the layout, I probably would have just written whatever came to my head in hopes that it comes out clearly.
Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.
After synthesizing these articles, the direction I wanted to take became very clear. I laid out the details, formed the question that I wanted to answer and then plugged in the details where I saw fit. This is evident in the paragraph where I introduce the government agencies. I supported the synthesis by plugging in statistics.
Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit.
I was successfully able to fully analyze and formulate an opinion on the subject and successfully back up this opinion using the articles from class and also from another online source.
5.) Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?
I originally wrote the synthesis as an essay but I realized that writing as a blog would be more successfully at conveying ideas to the lay person. A blog is more informal while at the same time, sharing a lot of information. At first, I just compared a few of the articles against each other but in the end, I decided to lay those same details out and use them to support a claim that I was making. That claim being that the food industry needs to be overhauled.
Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response.
SMy strategy for my drafts and my final piece were the same in that I used an outline. The difference was how I used that outline. Basically my entire piece was changed. At first, I wrote it as an informative essay but then I wrote it as an informative blog that was doing more than stating facts. My entire piece needed to be changed in order to properly convey the claims that I was making.
Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you.
In the 6th paragraph, I begin talking about pesticide usage and I use 3 separate sources that discuss pesticide usage directly. I started out making by taking a stance and I feel as though I pulled out the most essential sentences that supported and strengthened my claim.
8.) Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article?
sMy lead did not really change much throughout the evolution of my blog. I knew I wanted to take an immediate, strong stance against the current state of the food industry and I feel as though that is exactly what my lede did. I wanted it to set the tone of the article and after getting some feedback about it, that is exactly what it did.
9.) Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.
During the next project, I would like to get better at synthesizing because at first, it was difficult for me to make a claim and find details to support said claim. But after finishing the first project and reflecting upon the process, I feel like I am already better at seeing the argument that I would like to make.
Wouldn’t you like to know if the food you eat is contaminated with a deadly disease? Wouldn’t you like to know if that disease could potentially kill you or someone you know? The food industry doesn’t care. They don’t want you to know about their unsafe and inhumane processes that they use to produce the food that you buy. All they care about is your money!
The food industry has experienced exponential growth over the last century. As a result, food safety has increasingly been compromised in favor of decreasing costs and increasing profits. Food companies such as Tyson Foods and Cargill Foods control a large percentage of the meat industry which gives them tremendous influence over prices and government policy. This puts food safety in the hands of the very companies that that produce and sell the foods. Food safety is supposed to be in the hands of the government. Government agencies such as, the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture were created to ensure that food is safe to be sold and consumed. The documentary, “Food Inc.,” and the articles, You Are What They Eat, Organic Illusions, Resisting Food Safety, and Why Do Farmers Spray Chemicals On Crops, do a good job at exposing and/or examining the many problems within the food industry. Three major issues that are becoming topics of debate regard the feed that is given to animals on farms, the chemicals that are given to these animal, and the amount of government oversight. Each source gives its own view on these subjects which allows the reader to analyze and understand the issues and their causes
What goes into the feed that is then given to animals has been a highly debated topic. In the documentary Food Inc., the director gives an argument against the current way that feed is produced. He argues that the food that is given to animals is harmful because it goes against what is supposed to be given to them. Giving corn to cows is dangerous because cows are not supposed to eat corn so their bodies are not very healthy which leaves them vulnerable to disease. Corn can also carry diseases such as E. Coli. It can then be spread to animals and humans. If the corn contains a disease, then the cow gets the disease. When combined with the horrid living conditions that these animals are forced to live in, the disease can then evolve and spread faster to the humans that eat the meat that comes from that cow. But this is not the only issue with the feed as the Consumer Reports article makes apparent. The article points out that the feed also contains unhealthy things such as recycled waste among other things like feathers and feces. These are meant to fatten the animal quickly so that they can be slaughtered and sold sooner. But instead, the feed helps make the animals walking petri dishes that contain many different diseases and bacteria. In addition to the unhealthy feed, all animals, regardless of health, are given medications that are supposed to “boost growth and keep infections at bay.” Although the conditions seem bad, the Consumer Reports article does give hope to the consumer, though, by providing some steps that they can take to protect themselves form these sometimes deadly diseases.
As society continues to advance, so does technology and the food industry has taken full advantage of some of them. Companies continue to modernize and increase their profits at the expense of consumers by reducing their costs using new technology. These big companies have resorted to some inhumane practices as another way to reduce costs and increase profits. In Food Inc., they visit some of the biggest farms in America that house hundreds of cows, chicken, and pigs. These animals are all kept in tight, dirty spaces; sometimes even being kept in their own feces. This brings down the maintenance costs by giving the animals the bare minimum needed to live but it also creates a breeding ground for bacteria and disease. These companies have now resorted to another technology that is supposed to kill the bacteria: pesticides. Pesticides can be natural but they can also be artificially made and they can potentially do more harm than good. Blake Hurst in his article, Organic Illusions, spends some time discussing pesticides. According to a Stanford study, that he repeatedly refers to, pesticides cannot be doing any harm because if they were, then farmers would have stopped using them years ago. He also goes on to say that there is no way to be sure that organic foods, that are meant to have no pesticides used in the growing process, contain absolutely no pesticides. The Food Journal article backs up this point of view. The article insists that new pesticides that are made are modelled after natural pesticides and they are safer than before. Jennifer Dewey Rohrich, a third generation farmer, says that her family must protect their farm in order to keep producing and if pesticides were slowly damaging their land, they would not be using them anymore. The Consumer Reports article argues that pesticides and antibiotics lead to disease and if farms and companies were to stop using them, then there would be less risk of getting some diseases. This contradicts with Dewey Rohrich’s view because Dewey Rohrich mentions that farmers are very safe when it comes to pesticide use and she argues that pesticides make food safer because disease carrying organisms are killed and so they can not infect any of the plants. The article claims that without pesticides, the cost of farming would significantly increase because alternative methods of protecting crops would have to be used and so the price of goods that are bought in stores would increase as well. So again, it all comes back to costs. At the end of the day, food companies only care about their profit margin so they will continue to use whatever products or practices allow them to spend less and make more.
This all ties nicely under the idea that there is a lack of government oversight. The government created the Food and Drug Administration and the United Stated Department of Agriculture in order to oversee the food industry and ensure that the companies are following regulations that were that were implemented in order to make food safe for consumers. Food Inc., Marion Nestle, and Consumer Reports all argue that the government needs to do more. From Food Inc., “in 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.” There has clearly been a sharp decline in government involvement in the food industry. Consumer Reports and Marion Nestle go more into detail on the two agencies that are supposed to be protecting the consumers of America. Nestle believes that the lack of federal oversight stems from the “illogical division of food safety oversight.” An example being that the USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry doe and the FDA regulates hot dogs in rolls. But the main issue regarding these two is that they are very understaffed. The FDA has about 700 inspectors and does an inspection about once every five years due to this. The USDA has about 7000 inspectors, which is more than the FDA but is still not enough because the USDA does daily inspections but they cannot be thorough because they have a lot of companies to inspect. This results in situations like how the FDA only tests about 2 percent of imported seafood yet about 80 percent of seafood is imported. These are the very things that allows food companies to get away with skimping on proper safety procedures. The FDA and USDA need to be more funded. They ultimately need an overhaul in the way the agencies are structured. The current state of these agencies is one of inefficiency allows for the selling of unsafe food.
The food industry has been able to get away with not following safety instructions properly due to their size and power and also the lack of government oversight. This makes buying food dangerous because the average consumer is not able to tell whether the food they buy will get them sick. They put their trust in these companies and in the government and in return, they are let down when outbreaks occur and people die. These companies and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them need to be overhauled if people want to feel safe when buying new food.
The food industry has experienced exponential growth over the last century. As a result, food safety has increasingly been compromised in favor of decreasing costs and increasing profits. Food companies such as Tyson Foods and Cargill Foods control a large percentage of the meat industry which gives them tremendous influence over prices and government policy. This puts food safety in the hands of the very companies that that produce and sell the foods. Food safety is supposed to be in the hands of the government. Government agencies such as, the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture were created to ensure that food is safe to be sold and consumed. The documentary, Food Inc., and the articles, You are What They Eat, Organic Illusions, Resisting Food Safety, do a good job at exposing and examining the many problems within the food industry. Three major issues that are becoming topics of debate regard the feed that is given to animals on farms, the chemicals that are given to these animal, and the amount of government oversight. Each source gives its own view on these subjects which allows the reader to analyze and understand the issues and their causes
What goes into the feed that is then given to animals has been a highly debated topic. In the documentary Food Inc., the director gives an argument against the current way that feed is produced. He argues that the food that is given to animals is harmful because it goes against what is supposed to be given to them. Giving corn to cows is dangerous because cows are not supposed to eat corn so their bodies are not very healthy which leaves them vulnerable to disease. Corn can also carry diseases such as E. Coli. It can then be spread to animals and humans. If the corn contains a disease, then the cow gets the disease. When combined with the horrid living conditions that these animals are forced to live in, the disease can then evolve and spread faster to the humans that eat the meat that comes from that cow. But this is not the only issue with the feed as the Consumer Reports article makes apparent. The article points out that the feed also contains unhealthy things such as recycled waste among other things like feathers and feces. These are meant to fatten the animal quickly so that they can be slaughtered and sold sooner. But instead, the feed helps make the animals walking petri dishes that contain many different diseases and bacteria. In addition to the unhealthy feed, all animals, regardless of health, are given medications that are supposed to “boost growth and keep infections at bay.” Although the conditions seem bad, the Consumer Reports article does give hope to the consumer, though, by providing some steps that they can take to protect themselves form these sometimes deadly diseases. As society continues to advance, so does technology and the food industry has taken full advantage of some of them. Companies continue to modernize and increase their profits at the expense of consumers by reducing their costs using new technology. These big companies have resorted to some inhumane practices as another way to reduce costs and increase profits. In Food Inc., they visit some of the biggest farms in America that house hundreds of cows, chicken, and pigs. These animals are all kept in tight, dirty spaces; sometimes even being kept in their own feces. This brings down the maintenance costs by giving the animals the bare minimum needed to live but it also creates a breeding ground for bacteria and disease. These companies have now resorted to another technology that is supposed to kill the bacteria: pesticides. Pesticides are natural but they can potentially do more harm than good. Blake Hurst in his article, Organic Illusions, spends some time discussing pesticides. According to a Stanford study, that he repeatedly refers to, pesticides cannot be doing any harm because if they were, then farmers would have stopped using them years ago. He also goes on to say that there is no way to be sure that organic foods, that are meant to have no pesticides used in the growing process, contain absolutely no pesticides. The Consumer Reports article partly disagrees by saying that if less pesticides and antibiotics were used, then there would be less risk of getting some diseases. But the article concedes that organic foods may not be the answer because there is no guarantee that it is disease free. Both articles agree, though, that organic foods are way too expensive to be the food of choice. So again, it all comes back to costs. Companies will continue to use these practices as long as it saves them money.
This all ties nicely under the idea that there is a lack of government oversight. The government created the Food and Drug Administration and the United Stated Department of Agriculture in order to oversee the food industry and ensure that the companies are following regulations that were that were implemented in order to make food safe for consumers. Food Inc., Marion Nestle, and Consumer Reports all argue that the government needs to do more. From Food Inc., “in 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.” There has clearly been a sharp decline in government involvement in the food industry. Consumer Reports and Marion Nestle go more into detail on the two agencies that are supposed to be protecting the consumers of America. Nestle believes that the lack of federal oversight stems from the “illogical division of food safety oversight.” An example being that the USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry doe and the FDA regulates hot dogs in rolls. But the main issue regarding these two is that they are very understaffed. The FDA has about 700 inspectors and does an inspection about once every five years due to this. The USDA has about 7000 inspectors, which is more than the FDA but is still not enough because the USDA does daily inspections but they cannot be thorough because they have a lot of companies to inspect. This results in situations like how the FDA only tests about 2 percent of imported seafood yet about 80 percent of seafood is imported. These are the very things that allows food companies to get away with skimping on proper safety procedures. The FDA and USDA need to be more funded. They ultimately need an overhaul in the way the agencies are structured. The current state of these agencies is one of inefficiency allows for the selling of unsafe food.
The food industry has been able to get away with not following safety instructions properly due to their size and power and also the lack of government oversight. This makes buying food dangerous because the average consumer is not able to tell whether the food they buy will get them sick. They put their trust in these companies and in the government and in return, they are let down when outbreaks occur and people die. These companies and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them need to be overhauled if people want to feel safe when buying new food.
