Jordan Peeler 1

“What’s Happening Now?” Questions

1. Briefly scan the articles that you’ve critiqued. What article stands out the most to you?
Why does that article stand out to you? What was significant about it to you?

The article that stood out most to me was “Scientists Just Sequenced An 18 Million Year
Old Species That Cloned Itself,” by Karla Lant, because I have always had a fascination with the
genetics of organisms. It fascinates me how much knowledge you can gain through four letters,
not only dissecting where the organism came from but how it could help us in the future. The
article itself was well written and was easily able to enlighten me on what this species could do
for us in a clear way. To clarify, I was able to read the article and enjoy it because I could clearly
understand it as well as could enjoy the contents of the writing itself. To further why this article
stood out to me, the worm itself is captivating as “it is one of the oldest known asexual animals.”
So, not only has it mutated itself to survive, but is also one of the oldest asexual animals out
there. Additionally, “the D. pachys actually skip meiosis, which is the point in which sexual
reproducers halve their chromosomes to produce gametes, along with it skips recombination.” It
has learned to clone itself while still maintaining diversity! That is crazy! Lots of asexually
reproducing animals die of quickly or over time because they are unable to mutate and adapt to
changing conditions, but the worn has figured it out. Lastly, it brought up a lot of questions. The
topic of cloning has always been controversial. When we first cloned Dolly the Sheep, everyone
was incredibly happy, but along with it comes questions. What would the clones be like? Would
they show empathy? Would I want a clone?

2. Are general news publications unbiased in their reporting? Should they be? Discuss

While most people turn to general news for unbiased opinions on certain topics, the
articles most of the time are biased. This can be very obvious or just subtly woven in. News
channels obviously have biased opinions, mostly based on whether they are conservative or
liberal. Often times I find that when doing research for a certain topic, you find yourself already
leaning toward one side of a scale. The only times I would consider an article unbiased is if they
were on a natural disaster or something similar. For example, in the article, “Unusual Mexico
earthquake may have relieved stress in seismic gap,” the only thing discussed was mainly facts
about the earthquake that had taken place and what it would mean for the future of Mexico.
Most of the article contains facts such as, ‘The epicenter, according to article was “just
southeast of the Tehuantepec gap, a 125-kilometer-long stretch of Mexico’s Pacific coast that
has been seismically silent since record-keeping began more than a century ago.’” and, “ The
recent earthquake killed more than 90 people and destroyed or ruined more than 2.3 million
homes.” Both of these unbiased, as they should be. An exception being are meant to be biased.
The article “Yes, Even Millennial Households Can Afford Solar Energy” is obviously biased
toward millennials being able to sustain themselves and make good choices, as the
generalization is that millennials are useless. However, in the article such as “Remembering the
Chicago Pile, the World’s First Nuclear Reactor” they are biased against the fact that the
government did not make a good decision in regards to how they used the nuclear reactor,
during and after the Manhattan Project. Someone just looking for an article on the first nuclear
reactor may not want to bring, not only bias in, but politics too. If you’re going to be biased,
provide evidence of so in the title.

3. Are environmental organizations’ publications unbiased? Should they be? Discuss.

 Jordan Peeler 2

Environmental organization publications are, again, while not as often, biased toward
one end of the spectrum. While one may not want them to be, most times we find ourselves
leaning toward one side without even realizing it. While I may not have chosen any well known
environmental organization publication companies, I did do a couple science related articles. In
the article “Remembering the Chicago Pile, the World’s First Nuclear Reactor” the article talks
about how “overtime, the military came to realize that wartime secrecy and suspicion would
require them to cover up all the work Metallurgical Lab accomplished, and so the workers were
deemed security risks.” Personally, I think this gives off a negative connotation, showing how
the author felt about the topic. On the other hand, most of the other articles I summarized did
not obviously show any bias, however it may have been woven into the article unknowingly. I
think that all environmental articles should be unbiased because when reading about a topic on
an environmental topic, I want to learn the basic knowledge before someone throws their ideas
at me. It want the facts before the debate.

4. Do most of the articles about environmental problems suggest solutions? Should they?
Discuss.

Most of the articles I collected provided a topic and what we were doing to solve it. So it
did not necessarily provide a subject then suggest solutions, but instead the entire article was
about the solution itself. In “Ozone treaty taking a bite out of US greenhouse gas emissions” the
topic of the article was how we were solving ozone problems through the Montreal Protocol.
“The Montreal Protocol, which is an international treaty with the purpose of restoring Earth’s
ozone layer, was recently covered in an article done by the American Geophysical Union. In this
piece of writing, it is discussed how the preceding protocol that was created in 1989 has not
only significantly reduced the depletion of the ozone layer, but it has also decreased the amount
of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.“ Through this quote, it can be collected that, while the
question says it may suggest solutions, this entire article was about a solution. Another example
of an article being entirely about a solution is “Under Antarctic ice, microbes gobble up
greenhouse gas” where it talks about how greenhouse gases, a gas that contributes to the
greenhouse effect, is being solved naturally by microbes. “After an expedition four years ago led
by scientists to find out more about what is going on underneath the nearly impenetrable ice, the
scientists discovered a new form of bacteria that eats methane.” Again, an article about a
solution to an already known problem. While my articles may have been about solutions
themselves, I do think that, if the article is about a problem, then they should provide a solution.
However, if the article is unbiased then, I don’t think they should show bias by showing a
solution.

5. Even “experts” frequently disagree. If opposite sides of an environmental issue both

seem to have good arguments and believable “experts” supporting them, how would you
decide on which side to base your actions?

When experts disagree, which is often, and both have a good argument and are
believable, I find it good to do my own test and look at the facts myself. Once one finds them
believes one side, they tend to lean to one side, no matter what one says. So if I can gather it
myself, starting out confused I may be able to figure it out myself. Another way of doing it would
be to ask my friends. I need multiple opinions and the facts for myself. As for how this relates to
my critiques, I can see the controversy that would ensue from the anaerobic animal article
“Scientists Just Sequenced An 18 Million Year Old Species That Cloned Itself” as there is
already a lot of arguments over the topic of cloning. “It could help us figure out how humans
might be able to someday create our own clones,” is one of the last things the article talks
about. There have been many debates over cloning ourselves and the repercussions that would
 Jordan Peeler 3

follow the act. In my article, during my reflection section I ask some questions. “Would my clone
be good? Would it be intelligent? Would it be able to show compassion and empathy?” and then
go on to say, “Our view of clones may be warped by sci-fi movies and fairy-tales, but the logical
part of me, not the sci-fi lover that I am, has to consider that it almost seems unethical. Clones
may just end up being a bad version of ourself who never shows emotions and shows no
empathy toward others. So are clones really something we want in our future?” Obviously my
opinion is already evident, having heard both sides a the conversation in past years, but the
time in which I eventually came to the conclusion that I don’t want clones was after I had
conducted research of my own and dissected the facts myself.

6. Do the general news publications and broadcast media seem to go into depth, or do they
just do a superficial coverage of environmental issues? If they do a superficial coverage,
what can one do to find out more?

General news publications and broadcast media often only scrape the cusp of the topic,
not usually going into full depth. However, this is a bit of a generalization, and is not true for
every media site as some do cover full topics. Nonetheless, most of the time, media tends to
show what they want to show, not the overall story. If a news story is thrust to two very different
news shows with unalike opinions, you may find yourself hearing one thing from one show and
other things from the other. This is to bring viewers to their side by showing the evidence that
supports them and does not detriment the amount of views they receive. This may be true for a
publication site as well, only covering half a story to maintain their popularity with one group of
people. While I may not have great evidence from my articles of this, it is very evident in news
channels like Fox, a conservative show, and MSNBC, a liberal show. Fox often showcases
articles that present President Trump positively, while MSNBC presents President Trump
negatively. Both never show the full story, thereby making it superficial. As for what you can do
to find out more, you can watch the two different shows, therefore collecting evidence from the
two opinions. You can also try and find an unbiased source, who will tend to cover both sides of
a topic more evenly, outputting more information. Lastly, you can ask your friends, get other
opinions and see what they know about the topic of interest.

7. Discuss the idea that understanding leads to concern, which leads to involvement, which
leads to more understanding, which leads to more concern, etc…

When one becomes friends with someone else, you form a bond. This bond holds the
two people together and has an underlying rule that, when one end of the bond is threatened
you defend that end of the bond. Let’s say that one end is being threatened and you become
concerned, so you become involved to try and help. This leads to understanding the situation
more, realizing that not only is your friends lunch money being taken, they are also being
verbally bullied, which leads you to become more concerned, which leads to more involvement,
so on so forth. To state it in terms that relate to the environment, when one comes to realise that
the world is being polluted, they come concerned, become involved, and understand more, have
more concern, more involvement… It is a cycle that people tend to follow when they come
across a controversy that affects them, their loved ones, or the world. It can be related to most
things.

8. There is a (false) story that when ostriches see predators approaching, they hide their
heads in the sand because they think that if they don’t see the predator, it won’t hurt
them. Some people seem to take the attitude that “What I don’t know won’t hurt me” with
regard to environmental issues. What do you think of this?
 Jordan Peeler 4

I do get why people feel this way. For me, personally, when I was younger I had the
attitude that if I didn’t face my problems they would eventually go away, but as I got older I
realized this didn’t work. This relates to idea of what I don’t know won’t hurt me because people
believe, “well, if I don’t know about the greenhouse effect, it won’t hurt me.” It never works
though. The world, while we may think it amazing, it actually pretty ruff, you just have to open
your eyes and see it. While this may not be the action most people want or will ever take, you
will never be able to be a part of society or a real person if you don’t know all the bad things
happening in the world. “A graph provided allows us to see that while in 1900, there were 10.3
million immigrants, in 2016 there were 43.7 million. Not only this, but the graph allows us to
catch a glimpse at the predicted future, saying that there will be 78.2 million immigrants in the
year 2060, making up 18.8% of the population.” These astounding numbers from US
immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation, really shocked me. I have always
avoided talking about immigration because opinions are so scattered on the topic. I thought that
by shielding my eyes from the problem would keep me from seeing it, but it only brought around
a sort of realization and shock when I saw the numbers. So, the overall conclusion of what I’m
trying to convey is that, the phrase what I don’t know won’t hurt me never works, it will always
get around to you, no matter how protected your eyes are.

9. Discuss the idea of “Think globally, act locally.”

“Think globally, act locally” is a saying that urges people to make small changes in their
community, acting locally, to impact the globe. Superheros are often empowered to be the only
individuals that can protect us, but in all honesty, you can too. It doesn’t take telekinesis, while it
may be useful, to plant a couple trees in your neighborhood, or use water-efficient appliances,
or use a more power efficient car. I often use the saying, “never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful committed citizens can change the world,” by Margaret Mead. This quote perfectly
empowers the idea that a small group of citizens can change the world just by doing things in
their local community. They are aware of the world problems and are doing things about it. They
are thinking about the world, and acting locally about it.

10. Reflecting on the entire article portfolio experience, do you feel that this was beneficial to
your understanding of the course material or a waste of time? Why do you think that?
This class if very time consuming on students and your time is valuable. How could your
teacher make this activity more worthwhile to students?

This portfolio, while sometimes a little aggravating, was useful to my understanding.

While it may not have taught me anything on specific material, it helped me understand that the
world is full of bias and rhetoric. This is because, as answering this question, I realized just how
opinionated all the articles are and sometimes I was only given half an answer to the questions.
So while this may have been time consuming, it was beneficial in helping me understand how
the world runs. Furthermore, it gave me insight on some cool new things happening around the
Earth, increasing my curiosity. This therefore leads to more research and learning new things.
The teacher could make this more worthwhile by making the project only 6 articles and having a
debate about a certain topic in class instead of the other two. Find a way to incorporate class
time to make us talk about the topic and get other opinions instead of just looking at an article
that gave me a one sided opinion. Furthermore, maybe set a sort of layout for the critique the
kids could follow, that way, there is less confusion over what material the teacher is looking for
from the student in what they right. Overall, it was a good project that I am glad I completed.
 Jordan Peeler 5

Article Critique #1
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/under-antarctic-ice-microbes-gobble-
greenhouse-gas

Under Antarctic ice, microbes gobble up greenhouse gas

Ilima Loomis

Methane, an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, has been trapped by the thick
blankets of ice in the Antarctic for a long time. With global warming on the rise, concerns have
arose of this ice melting and releasing the Methane. But, after reading Ilima Loomis’s article, a
new hope of eradicating this gas before it escapes the ice has come to light. After an expedition
four years ago led by scientists to find out more about what is going on underneath the nearly
impenetrable ice, the scientists discovered a new form of bacteria that eats methane. This
bacteria may devour all of the gas before it reaches the atmosphere.
To provide some background information, Antarctica sea levels were much higher
millions of years ago. However, over time the sea levels retreated, leaving behind plant and
animal debris. This layer of debri got trapped when the temperature dropped and the water iced
over, leaving behind the layers of ice we know today as Antarctica. The old bacteria underneath
the ice, the non-methane eating kind, ate this debris and exhaled methane as a result. This
harmful gas is still trapped under the ice today.
Nevertheless, in the recent expedition, as I aforementioned, they went 800 meters down,
or about half a mile, and found samples of the new bacteria. The bacteria was consuming the
methane and emitting carbon dioxide in its wake. While carbon dioxide may also be a
greenhouse gas, according to the article, “it’s a far weaker one (methane is around 30 times
more powerful than CO2) — and plants can soak up the CO2.” All this information was attained
at Lake Whillans, which is a body of water that is deep underground, or in this case under an
ancient blanket of ice. This is why it’s assumed we hadn’t attained this information before.
Additionally, this information is not only beneficial to our scientists with interest in
climate, but also our scientist who are interested in searching for extraterrestrial life. The
conditions of our cold, icy Antarctica are similar to some of the other plants in our solar system,
such as, according to the article, “Jupiter's moon Europa.” By obtaining this new data, we learn
through the tough bacteria how it lives in extreme conditions, providing facts on what life might
look like outside of our blue green plant, as well as new tools for future space expeditions.
So overall, the outcome of the long and tedious journey not only provided us with a new
hot-water drill that can help us explore the life under the ice, but also attain a new hope for the
depletion of Methane gas under the blankets as well.
In my opinion, with the forever improving knowledge of our scientists and the constant
enhancement of technology, our intelligence of this bacteria will continue to grow, allowing us to
not only watch the depletion of Methane, but also one day be able to figure out how the bacteria
converts one gas into another. If we can convert gas ourselves, we may be able to change the
future of global warming.
Global warming is something our plant has been battling against for ages, and if we let
ourselves follow the path we are laying out now, we may one day be too far down the road to
turn around. Over the past decade, we have lost 13.3% of Arctic ice and 286 gigatonnes of land
ice over the past year.1 Earth’s waters are rising again as ice melts from the risen temperature.
Someday, my children, or their children will have to deal with the climbing climate. So, I am
biased toward the fact that we should continue our research on the methane eating bacteria.
We should care about what is being released into our air. I believe that the author is also biased

1
https://climate.nasa.gov/
 Jordan Peeler 6

toward the fact that we should be watching out greenhouse gas emissions, or otherwise, she
would not be writing about that fact that it is good we found this bacteria.
I wish I could do more to help the research of this amazing bacteria, but there is not
much I, nor my community can do. This bacteria, while it may be accessible to discovery now, is
fairly new and has only been found in one location. In the future, I wish to be able to fund more
expeditions that will venture out and explore the life changing bacteria that is found under the
ice in Antarctica.
 Jordan Peeler 7

Article Critique #2
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814121047.htm

Ozone treaty taking a bite out of US greenhouse gas emissions

American Geophysical Union

The Montreal Protocol, which is an international treaty with the purpose of

restoring Earth’s ozone layer, was recently covered in an article done by the American
Geophysical Union. In this piece of writing, it is discussed how the preceding protocol that was
created in 1989 has not only significantly reduced the depletion of the ozone layer, but it has
also decreased the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
The reason that both of these beneficial things were an outcome of this treaty is because
ozone-depleting substances are also substances that we know as greenhouse gases. In other
words, by creating a treaty that declared the reduction of ozone killing substances, we killed two
birds with one stone by also taking out detrimental greenhouse gases as well.
To speak statistically, in a recent study, evidence was found that around 170 million tons
of carbon dioxide emissions were eliminated each year from 2008 to 2014. According to the
article that's “roughly the equivalent of 50 percent of the reductions achieved by the U.S. for
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the same period” (American Geophysical
Union). Lei Hu, lead author of the study taken above states that, “We were surprised by the size
of the decline, especially compared with other greenhouse gases.” The benefits of the Montreal
Protocol will continue to grow.
The Montreal protocol was highly successful in the U.S. overall goal, to reduce the
amount of CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs used in our country. These chemicals have not only been
reducing the ozone area, but they open a hole the size of the U.S. every September and
October over the Antarctic. The Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act together lead to the
reduction of these chemicals by 95% since 1998.
In my opinion, the Montreal Protocol is amazing. Not only does this affect me, but it will
also affect my children, and their children, and their children, so on so forth. The ozone layer is
what keeps out most of the Sun’s UV rays, so if we continue to use chemicals that are harmful
to the ozone layer, we may eventually start letting too much of the rays in, and that could hurt
the human population. Too much radiation can cause skin cancer and damage our eyes, and
those are only two of many dangerous effects. I don’t want my children to go blind or receive
skin cancer because of something that could have been prevented.
Not only do I think the Montreal Protocol is fantastic in relation to the fact it helps rebuild
the ozone layer, but I also think this protocol is critical because of the way it has greatly reduced
the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. This protocol has been way more effective
in reducing these chemicals than most other projects that we have conducted in the world to
minimize the gasses in the first place. Again, I don’t want my children dealing with a polluted
atmosphere when they get older or have children.
The author(s) of this article were biased toward the fact that the protocol was taking
place. I believe this because, not only would they be writing in context like it is a good thing, but
they were giving statistics in a positive manner rather than a negative manner. Not only this, but
at the end of the article it states, “Hopefully, the Protocol can serve as a model of the
 Jordan Peeler 8

international cooperation that we need to tackle the real problem -- carbon dioxide.” In this
quote, we can gain an understanding that the authors are looking forward to tackling the
problem of carbon dioxide, meaning they are biased toward the protocol as it is what they are
hoping can change the future of our carbon emissions.
 Jordan Peeler 9

Article Critique #3
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/unusual-mexico-earthquake-may-have-relieved-
stress-seismic-gap

Unusual Mexico earthquake may have relieved stress in seismic gap

Lizzie Wade

On September 7, 2017, a level 8.2 earthquake struck Mexico’s Chiapas State. While this
earthquake was devastating, it wasn’t completely out of the blue. Vlad Manea, a geophysicist
who studies seismic activity, has been studying the Juriquilla area for a century and has had
little activity, leading us to believe that Mexico was due for a big earthquake soon.
The epicenter, according to article was “just southeast of the Tehuantepec gap, a 125-
kilometer-long stretch of Mexico’s Pacific coast that has been seismically silent since record-
keeping began more than a century ago.” The focus was located 70 meters down between the
Cocos and North American plates. This area is known to have an oceanic-continental
convergence with the oceanic plate is subducting. However, over the past couple years, the
ruptures have avoided the Tehuantepec gap and Guerrero gap by more than 500 kilometers.
This isn’t the first time a level 8 earthquake has devastated Mexico City. In 1985, a
quake near the Guerrero gap killed and harmed thousands of people. This inclined the city to
install a seismic alert system as well as increase the strictness of building codes. The recent
earthquake killed more than 90 people and destroyed or ruined more than 2.3 million homes.
According to the article, “Although the epicenter was just outside the gap, more than 1000
aftershocks have been recorded, many in the gap itself.” Some of these aftershocks have been
so strong, they released stored pressure and closed the gap, making future quakes in the region
less likely. Even though this evidence has been found, it’s still unclear what will happen to this
gap though. In fact, the aftershocks may have added more stress to the gap and increased the
chances of future slips.
While this earthquake may not have an immediate impact on my life, it still surprises me
that the earthquake’s aftershocks may have closed the Tehuantepec gap, preventing more
earthquakes in the future. Not only this, but after the article the aftershocks continued to
happen. I also have to wondered, what would have happened to the city, or how much more
damage would have taken place if the city did not have seismic trackers after the Earthquake in
1985? Not only this, but can the readings we gathered from the earthquake increase our
knowledge on these natural disasters?
This article is applicable to the study of environmental science because, obviously, it has
to do with earthquakes. In this article it talks about the epicenter, magnitude, type of fault, and
focus of this earthquake. Additionally, it talks about the after effects the earthquake had on the
environment. I never realized how much damage an earthquake could cause. Killing thousands
of people and ruining 2.3 million homes are very significant numbers. If we could figure out how
to prevent or how to warn people even earlier of a quake about to take place, we could save
thousands of lives as well as prepare structures for the incoming surface waves/vibrations. This
could prevent home damage and taller building from collapsing into streets, people, and other
buildings.
Jordan Peeler 10
 Jordan Peeler 11

Article Critique #4
https://futurism.com/scientists-just-sequenced-an-18-million-year-old-species-that-cloned-itself/

Scientists Just Sequenced An 18 Million Year Old Species That Cloned Itself
Karla Lant

While it is often said that sexual reproduction is far better than asexual reproduction, the
asexual team may have had a boost in their rankings. A newly sequenced worm known as the
Diploscapter pachys, or D. pachys for short, “is a small, transparent, asexual, fee-living
roundworm,” as the article puts it, that is able to maintain high genetic diversity while still
reproducing asexually.
D. pachys has been around for about 18 million years. While one may think, that’s not
that huge of a number compared to many other species, it is actually an anomaly for a species
that reproduces asexually to have been around for that long. In fact, it is one of the oldest
known asexual animals. The reason that animals who reproduce asexually don’t survive as long
is because there is no genetic variation involved. Due to this, the animal is more at risk for
harmful factors because the animals cannot adapt as well as those who get genes from two
parents and receive mutations and adaptations through genetic shuffling or recombination.
The D. pachys has survived for so long because the germ-cell it contains is changed to
prevent recombination. The animals were cloning themselves basically. Moreover, the worm
“contained only a single pair of chromosomes.” Single pair chromosomes are very rare in high
level organisms and have only been known to be in two other species. As a result of figuring this
out, the scientists conducted more research and found out that the D. pachys actually skip
meiosis, which is the point in which sexual reproducers halve their chromosomes to produce
gametes, along with it skips recombination. Instead, it “fuses the six chromosomes of its
ancestor into a single chromosome, maintaining high genetic diversity asexually.”
By studying all this, we would have a better understanding how how asexual
reproduction works, and how we could use this for human reproduction later in life. It could help
us figure out how humans might be able to someday create our own clones.
My take away on this article is through the D. pachy we could learn many things about
asexual reproducers, not only figuring out how to clone ourselves, but we might be able to save
more asexual species from dying off. Through the D. pachy we would ensure the survival of
species and keep them from going extinct. Our current asexual reproducers have a hard time
surviving because it never undergoes any mutations that help it adapt to its environment. Our
research may be able to help us assist these animals with being able to obtain adaptations
through reproduction. Furthermore, this would help the next generation of humans because this
keeps up the levels of biodiversity in an ecosystem. Through this increased biodiversity we can
obtain more medicine, more food, and keep ecosystems balanced.
However, even with all this great stuff, it makes me think, “can’t cloning also be bad?” I
get the whole fact of cloning being great because clones can survive for longer and even maybe
never die, and that ensures the population, but the natural side of my brain is thinking, “is this
really good?” I don’t know if it’s me or if it’s just my human side telling me cloning myself would
be unnatural, but it just seems weird. Would my clone be good? Would it be intelligent? Would it
be able to show compassion and empathy? Our view of clones may be warped by sci-fi movies
 Jordan Peeler 12

and fairy-tales, but the logical part of me, not the sci-fi lover that I am, has to consider that it
almost seems unethical. Clones may just end up being a bad version of ourself who never
shows emotions and shows no empathy toward others. So are clones really something we want
in our future?
 Jordan Peeler 13

Article Critique #5
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-immigration-population-hits-record-60-million-1-of-5-in-
nation/article/2637603

US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation

Paul Bedard

A recent article by the Washington Secrets reveals the fact that there has been a
massive increase in immigration. While this may not be so much of a “secret”, it is still
astounding to find out that, as the article states, “the past 16 years has jumped the immigrant
population to over 43 million in the United States.” This number is only the base, so when you
add their U.S.-born children, the number grows to over 60 million. This makes up nearly one-
fifth of the nation’s population.
All these numbers have been taken from the Center for Immigration Studies, “a non-
profit research organization ‘that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research
to further those view,’” according to Wikipedia. A graph provided allows us to see that while in
1900, there were 10.3 million immigrants, in 2016 there were 43.7 million. Not only this, but the
graph allows us to catch a glimpse at the predicted future, saying that there will be 78.2 million
immigrants in the year 2060, making up 18.8% of the population.
Steven Camarota, the co-author of the report and the Center for Immigration Studies
director of research states that, “The enormous number of immigrants already in the country
coupled with the settlement of well over a million newcomers each year has a profound impact
on American society, including on workers, schools, infrastructure, hospitals and the
environment. The nation needs a serious debate about whether continuing this level of
immigration makes sense.” Through this long quote we can come to conclusion that the
immense amount of immigrants coming into the country is affecting American society, and the
author believes there needs to be a debate about if continuing to allow this high number of
immigrants to enter our country is in our best views.
While the article done doesn’t tell us the percentages of illegal vs legal immigrants, there
are about 12 million undocumented aliens in the country. In 2000, it was found that the
immigrant population increased 8 million, a lot of that coming from Mexico and Latin America,
which is the highest source of illegal immigrants.
Personally, I had never really thought before reading this article about how many
immigrants really enter our country every year, or the fact that a significant percentage of our
population is made up of them. However, while 60 million is a very notable number, I have never
had any problems with an immigrant myself.
While this may be true, I do think that we should be cautious of the people that enter the
US. The media lately has released a lot of stories on the immigration policies and “the wall” that
Donald Trump has been enforcing, and while I do think it’s good to let certain people in, it is also
good to enforce rules to make sure terrorists and illegal immigrants don’t enter as easily. To
clarify, I think it is good to put stronger rules down, watching the people coming into our country
more closely while still helping those who enter legally.
As for the numbers, as we have been talking about population recently in class, it brings
the fact to my attention that with increased populations mean less jobs, more stress on the
 Jordan Peeler 14

environment, and less room. My children may be affected if the predicted future numbers are
true. With this massive increase in people, there will be many negative effects that take place.
Not only this, but as of now while it does not affect me, when I get older and am trying to get a
job of my own or find my own house, the increased population will affect my ability to complete
these tasks.
 Jordan Peeler 15

Article Critique #6
http://www.newsweek.com/hawaii-half-coral-reefs-bleached-702058

Half of Hawaii’s Coral Reefs Damaged in One Year, and it’s going to get Worse
Summer Meza

Over the course of just one year, half of Hawaii’s reefs were bleached. Bleaching is a
process known as when the ocean can not support coral reefs anymore due to it not being a
healthy environment. However, the bleaching is not expected to stop, in fact it is expected to
continue for another decade. Scientists have been concerned for a long time about the serious
coral crises, a specific case emerging in 2005 when the Caribbean lost half of its coral in a year,
this being a more sever case then the previous 20 combined, showing just how severe the
problem has become.
During the year of 2014, Hawaii’s heat waves made conditions for coral hard to survive
in. But the worst is yet to come. Ocean temperatures are rising, meaning that in the 2030’s 30-
50% of the years will have major bleaching events. Along with rising temperatures comes the
controversy of global warming which poses a threat to worsen the threat even more.
Statistically, the decline was pretty significant across all the islands, 56% of the Big
Island’s coral was damaged and furthermore, 44% of Maui’s west coast and 32% of Oahu’s
reefs have been damaged as well. Additionally, reef damage is endangering fish populations
due to species being left without a habitat as well as coastlines unprotected from storm surges
due to no protection.
Scientists all around the world are trying to generate an operational solution to the loss
of coral reefs. One specific idea is if we can cool the water. Warm temperatures cause coral to
expel algae, which gives it the bleached appearance. So, if the coral environment where to
becomes less stressed, they can start to heal.
Yet with all this research about how to heal our ocean, there has been many reports
saying the reefs are still declining in size. Despite these alarms, ocean environments in Hawaii
have continued to declined, endangering the marine life. According to the article, “Data from the
University of Hawaii found that over the past 15 years, overfishing has caused a 90 percent
drop in overall catches.” All of this information is shocking and just proves we need to become
more serious about this topic before all our coral reefs are gone.
As for how this relates to me, having been to Hawaii, I have witnessed how beautiful and
diverse the reefs are off their coast. It’s hard to imagine all of that beauty gone and the fish gone
with it. It is also hard to wrap my mind around the fact that part of the reason for this problem is
society's fault. While we are aware of the of the complication, we are not doing anything about
it. Global warming is still increasing at alarming rates.
Currently, this does nothing to me as I don’t live near any coral reefs myself, but as
generations continue, fish population and ocean health will continue to decline. As the fish
population declines, there will be less food available to everyone, as well as with the dying of
oceans, less oxygen will be supplied to people and our atmosphere.
All of this relates to our current unit because we are talking how coral reefs are being
harmed. We have been studying how coral reefs can be harmed and how coral reefs are good
for us. Some of the benefits we discussed are it's important food sources for local people,
 Jordan Peeler 16

provides wave erosion control, and create great diversity of marine vertebrates and
invertebrates as they inhabit the reefs.
In conclusion, reefs are in serious danger and if we are going to ensure a future with
healthy coral present, we need to attack the problem and conquer it. Coral reefs provide many
benefits to our society, and without them there could be untold consequences.
 Jordan Peeler 17

Article Critique #7
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilyeoh/2017/11/18/yes-even-millennial-households-can-afford-
solar-energy/#3d1d5b1c7cd2

Yes, Even Millennial Households Can Afford Solar Energy

Neil Yeoh

While solar energy costs have dropped by more than 70% between 2010 and 2016,
households are still not installing solar energy. Why? Because there is a significant upfront
costs. This could be, even after the subsidies, thousands of dollars. This amount of money
prohibits the average american household, especially millennials and Generation Z, to obtain
the solar power providers. Not only this, but financing programs require good credit score and
certain home requirements. According to all the factors listed above, “GTM Research - an
independent clean energy research organization - estimates... that 77 percent of American
households are ineligible for rooftop solar.” So while the hardware side of the solar industry has
had many innovations, solar companies have just not been able to lower prices enough for all
consumers.
Due to these high prices, entrepreneurs from across the country are attempting to make
more ideas that make solar power available to all consumers. Among these companies is a
Boston-based group called Solstice, which was founded by millennials Steph Speirs and
Sandhya Murali. The two had an idea to make solar energy available to everyone by implanting
three tactics to help “clear a path for the long-awaited scaling of residential solar energy in the
U.S.”
The first is to access solar energy through community-scale projects. This entitles
Community Solar, a model that “allows households to subscribe to a portion of a local solar farm
and generate savings on their electricity costs.” By allowing households to do this, communities
don’t have to change their property as one would have to do with rooftop solar. Additionally, if a
customer is moving out or defaults, they can swap a new customer in. However, there is still
work to be done. Risk aversion has lead to requirements such as high credit scores, high
cancellation fees, and long contract lengths. This excludes renters, low income communities,
and communities of color however. Luckily, as entrepreneurs find ways to break down these
barriers, community solar is becoming more accessible. According to the article, “In fact,
Solstice announced last week a partnership with Delaware River Solar to provide capacity from
three 2.8 MW (megawatt) community solar farms in Baldwin, NY to households across central
New York.” From this, consumers will receive 10% savings on electricity produced from their
portions of the farm over 6 years (This is ⅓ of the industry's 20 year standard). Furthermore,
there is no fee for early termination.
The second tactic is using technology to make getting solar energy easier. Major
technology companies and industry players want to build platforms to make solar options more
accessible. Google noticed a large number of people searching for solar energy in 2015, so in
response they launched Project Sunroof. It provides solar saving estimates, impact
measurements, panel needs, and options for installation. Solstice itself is offering its own online
platform as well.
 Jordan Peeler 18

The last and third tactic is navigating local and state solar energy policies. Each state
tries to achieve renewable energy policies in different ways, and given the current administration
toward energy as well as government opinions, the local state governments now have a bigger
role to play to help curb climate change. States’ roles in solar development are becoming more
clear. “A recent study by the Center for Biological Diversity, which indicates that the top 10
states that are blocking distributed solar potential account for 35 percent of the total rooftop
solar potential for the US, but only 6 percent of installed capacity.” Solar industries are also
developing interactive mapping tools to help find out solar use in your state. Lastly, policy help
low-income communities and color communities in the solar market.
In conclusion, none of the growth in the recent years would have been able to happen
without businesses and the individuals who decided to adopt solar energy. All of these efforts
make a difference. Expanding solar energy will require efforts from many people such as
stakeholders, the government and traditional energy companies. The cost-effectiveness of solar
will hopefully and most likely make it to the main form of energy in years to come. However,
there is still plenty of work to be done to make solar energy available to everyone.
While my family may not own solar energy right now, as prices become cheaper and the
source becomes more efficient, it could be in my future. Along with my family owning solar
power, many more families will start to buy this new way of collecting energy. From this, it can
only be assumed that the globe with benefit from the more environmentally friendly way of
collection. This means that there will be less pollution radiating from houses and factories in
attempt to create energy as well as a, hopefully, a better impact on our current climate change
danger.
Not only will I be benefited, but future generations will as well. While I may only be able
to see the beginning of this event take place, future kids will be able to witness a full blown
revolution of how the world knows energy. Maybe someday students will learn about fossil fuels
and see how far we have come. I personally think that the two millennials have great ideas for
our future and are proving to people who think we millennials are useless are wrong. We do
actually care about our environment, it's just that we get a bad rep by the people who are lazy
bums (excuse my unprofessionalism). Not only are they providing a hopeful future for
technology, but they are also proving our generation can be good.
As for how this relates to our curriculum, students constantly hear about how bad fossil
fuels, coal, natural gases, etc. are. So if we can engineer an affordable plan to help reduce our
emissions into the atmosphere we may be able to save our planet from the current track we are
on.
 Jordan Peeler 19

Article Critique #8
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/remembering-chicago-pile-worlds-first-nuclear-
reactor

Remembering the Chicago Pile, the World’s First Nuclear Reactor

Alex Wellerstein

On one of the coldest days in Chicago, a crew of scientists gathered at University of

Chicago’s Stagg Field to light a secret fire. The crew consisted of members of the Metallurgical
Laboratory, which was according to the article, “an organization that had existed only since that
January, and were attending to their creation, a dusty collection of graphite, uranium, and
scientific equipment that they called the Pile.” This is known today as the world’s first nuclear
reactor.
Today, Nuclear reactors provide around 19.5% of electricity to the US, so while current
reactors are high tech and proficient, the first reactor was very low tech, consisting of only a
stack of forty thousand graphite blocks. This was held together by a wooden frame that was 25
feet wide and 20 feet tall. Inside the peat, about half of the blocks had holes containing small
amounts of uranium oxide along with a few other small amounts of uranium metal. A simple
device that they hoped would create electricity. However, the first nuclear reactor was pretty
anticlimactic.
When the group first turned on the reactor, they brought it to criticality, or the point where
it was self-sustaining, but it was shut down an hour later before it could continue growing heat
and the radioactivity could become too dangerous. The lab continued experiments after the first
test, then after a few months disassembled it and then reconstructed it. The new design
contained a radioactive shielding and was positioned farther away from the city. It ran for a
decade before it was broken down and buried. So overall, it was not a huge achievement, but it
would lead to a much greater plan.
We often hear about the tragedies that have occurred at some of the nuclear reactor
sites such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Most of these accidents resulted in
harm to workers, and after Three Mile Island, many safety features have been added to the
requirements of owning and running a plant. Even the pile had a few safety features. While few
bases of protection were set, the scientists were protected against the radiation through control
rods. Today, control rods are electronic, however the peat design required the scientists to
manually move the control rods. So after the first anticlimactic and unsafe reactor was buried, it
wouldn’t be brought around again till later in time.
Surprisingly, it would come around during the Manhattan project, but the plethora of
reactors would not be for energy but rather for producing plutonium. This plutonium would be
used to build nuclear weapons. This allowed the school to become a wartime contractor, which
doubled the school’s budget. However, overtime, the military came to realize that wartime
secrecy and suspicion would require them to cover up all the work Metallurgical Lab
accomplished, and so the workers were deemed security risks. Eventually, after Vannevar Bush
told the military to brush aside the concern by putting the workers in a more controlled area, the
scientists were put to work again. While some scientists left for New Mexico to continue work,
some were left behind to rebuild their life. These scientists were left with the controversy of
 Jordan Peeler 20

whether the nuclear reactor was built for better or worse of the world, considering all the
damage and lives it resulted in harming.
After the war was over and the world came to know the nuclear power plants for the
energy they provide today, the University of Chicago installed a new plaque, that according to
the article said, “‘On December 2, 1942, man achieved here the first self-sustaining chain
reaction and thereby initiated the controlled release of nuclear energy.’ In a rejected suggestion,
the university press director proposed that a phrase be added to the end: ‘for better or worse.’”
After reading this article, my opinion of nuclear reactors has not really changed. While
the article may have stated that the first nuclear reactor was anticlimactic, I believe it was the
start of a revolution. At the end of the article, they state “for better or worse,” and in my opinion it
was for the better. It lead to the evolution of new ways to produce energy as well as the ability
for us to learn many new things. Without nuclear power, there is not telling where we could be
today as a world, but not only in the aspect of energy, but where would our world be if we didn’t
drop the bombs?
This all relates to our unit about energy because we often talked about nuclear power
plants. One thing that caught my attention was the things that fueled the first reactor. While
today they often use U-235 or U-248, they used uranium oxide and small amounts of uranium
metal. What impact did that have on the amount of energy produced by the reactor? To further
my questions, I wonder what the scientists that made the peat would think of our reactors
today? Would they approve of them, or would they think them dangerous? Why are they
bringing up this article now, when the US is not building anymore reactos? Is there even a future
for the reactor industry? It is hard to tell, but my kids may know one day.
The article, at the end, talks about the government and military taking over the
technology to use it for nuclear weapons. While it may not have been the best option to have
nuked China, we couldn’t think of anything better at the time. But after all of this happened and
the Manhattan project was over, they didn’t take the best route, as they basically tried to
alienate the workers because they were considered “security risks.” I am happy they recognized
the workers after the war was over. But was it necessary to add for better or for worse on the
plaque?
Going back to the original topic, the first reactor was very simple. Consisting of a stack of
forty thousand graphite blocks being held together by a wooden frame that was 25 feet wide
and 20 feet tall. Inside, uranium oxide and uranium metal powered the machine. Simple, yet
effective. But we know that the safety system for the reactor was not effective. Since the control
rods were manual, the workers had to go into the reactor to turn it off, thereby exposing the
worker to the radiation. Not only this, but there was no safety casing around the reactor. The
scientists at the time had to idea of the harm they were thrusting upon themselves. But it was all
for the greater good. To start the revolution of the nuclear power industry, as they say “for better
or for worse.”