The author talks about how a study shows high levels of microplastics in bottled water. The author thinks that the people making the bottled water should do something about it. He describes how the particles in the water can be bad for our health. The companies producing the product should take more time reducing the harmful particles in drinking water.
Your summary of the article is strong, but I don't think you quite answered the question of the prompt. The question asks what you think the response to the article should be, so this is your opportunity to add in an opinion and use the article to back it up. Your response to the second question was strong and you used the article well to support your answer, but make sure you answer all the questions the prompts ask for future blog posts.
Based on the information from the article over 90% of the worlds leading bottled water brands contain "tiny pieces of plastic" this could obliviously have some impacts on human health I think when this knowledge is made public people will either shrug it off or stop drinking certain bottled water brands. I think the government should act by just doing more research into this problem or do more to stop pollution because that has a big part in all of this.
This was a very strong response! I was glad to see you quote the article and use more information from it to support your ideas. You also did well in expanding on your ideas, which was awesome. There were a few grammatical errors such as run on sentences and lack of punctuation, so for future blogs make sure you give yourself enough time to proof read your work so you are more credible as a writer.
The World Health Organization should take control of this problem. I think this because the article states that "of 250 bottles from 19 locations in nine countries across 11 different brands found an average of 325 plastic particles for every litre of water being sold." These statistics mean that people who drink around 3 bottles of water a day, are exposed to these plastic particles. In my opinion, I think that the reason bottles water companies are not urging to solve the problem is because it has been going on for too long and they don't want people to avoid drinking their water or even try to blame them for certain health issues some citizens might have. For example, if a popular water bottle company like Nestle publicly released that their water had been contaminated with plastic particles, then most people will not purchase their water anymore and this could possibly put Nestle out of business. To avoid putting any companies at risk of going out of business, the World Health Organization should find a solution to fix the problem, then inform the public of the problem, and how they fixed it.
Very strong response. You explained your ideas more and did well in using quotes and information from the article, which was what we had talked about in class to improve on for this post. For your next blog, I want you to work on restating the question the prompt asks and introducing your quotes, that way your reader has a better idea of what you are talking about and isn't just thrown right in the middle of your idea.
The response that the researchers want are for people to be scared because of the plastic particles that are found in the water. The WHO has announced that there are potential risks in some of the "world's most popular bottled water brands." By doing this it causes panic and causes companies such as Nestle or Coca-Cola to release statements about it. Coca-Cola stated plastic fibers "may be found at minute levels even in highly treated products." Since the companies that produce the bottles know that the plastic is there, they more than likely won't do anything. I believe the WHO should act by placing fines on companies if they have plastic fibers in their water. By doing this the companies will be forced to pay the fines or forced to clean the water.
Your response has significantly improved compared to the last blog post! I was glad to see you expanded on your ideas and used more quotes and information from the article to back up your arguments, your execution of both practices was strong. I also liked your solution to who should be in charge of fixing the problem, it was very well informed. In your next blog I would like to see you work on citing the author more when using quotes.
The response that is warranted by the research on microplastics in water is very helpful for everyone because if the know about what is in their water, they wouldn't drink it. The companies and the government organization, WHO, should act and get cleaner water for us to drink, because according to Graham Readfearn and his article on microplastics in water, he states, "more than 90% contained tiny pieces of plastic".
I was glad to see how well you used the quote in your response, you did a very good job introducing the quote as well as giving the author credit for what he said. Great job! In your next post however, I want you to work on developing and expanding your ideas more. Why would finding out about the micro-plastics in water make them change their drinking habits?
As Graham Readfearn said in the article Micro-plastics found in 90% of bottled water he said "Scientists used Nile red dye to fluoresce particles in the water," this specific dye sticks to the surface of plastic. In a single bottle of Nestle the concentrations of the plastics were as high as the 10,000's of plastic in the water per liter. The companies response was there is "Plastic microfibers that are airborne." These companies were getting angry because the scientists were calling out the companies water that had the highest concentration. Nestle also stated that "CBC's technique using red dye could generate the false positives," these companies are about to have a huge problem on their hands if they don't change their products concentration of the micro-plastics.
You did a great job quoting the author and the article in this post, I am glad to see that you worked on it. However, you used so many quotations that it was hard to pick out what your ideas were and it made the paragraph a little choppy. Good writing finds a balance between quoting and borrowing other authors ideas in support of your own, and your own thoughts and opinions. I know finding that balance can be hard and you are so close to getting there, just keep practicing in your posts.
In the article about plastic being in multiple brands of water bottles it has become quite a serious problem throughout the world. In the article Graham Readfearn states " 11 different brands found a average of 325 plastic particles for every litre of water being sold". Nestle' Pure Life was found to have the most plastic particles per litre of water. "Concentrations were as high as 10,000 plastic pieces per litre of water . The compnay Coca Cola should act on this because they are the owners of Dasani water, therefore they should produce some way to find out how much plastic is in every bottle of water. Then they should come up with a plan to get the plastic particles out of the water.
Great job incorporating and introducing quotes in your response, it definitely strengths your argument. There were a few grammatical errors that could have been fixed with a quick proof read and there was a slight disconnect between your first part of the response and the second part when you mention Coca Cola for the first time. Make sure you bring your ideas back full circle so there is an overall connection throughout your writing.
In the article written by Graham Readfearn, he said, "The world's most popular water brands found more than 90% contained tiny pieces of plastic." This fact shows that many of the big companies that people trust, are not taking time to filtrate the water and sending it through to the public. The false positives people are being told about the healthiest, cleanest drinking waters are as stated, false positives. If 90% of bottled drinking waters are contaminated with plastic pieces, why would these companies be willing to give it to the public? Nestle released a statement to the CBC stating, "The Nile Red dye was generating false positives." Nestle, a large bottled water company, shows there worries and shows that is afraid to lose customers, but will not admit the filtration problem at hand. This also shows that large companies are worried about if the consumers stop buying there merchandise, then the company will lose revenue.
This was a very strong response, in fact I think this could be the introduction to a really great research paper. You used quotes from the article to support your arguments well and you quoted everything correctly which is a big improvement from the last post. However, you don't really answer the questions the prompt is asking. Make sure for future blogs you answer the questions they ask.
The World Health Organisation should be the people cracking down on these microplastics in the water. Graham Readfearn states "there was not yet any evidence on human health" which to me it didn't matter anyway. I truly don't care because it is so easy to just grab a bottle of water and walk out the door and not worry about spilling t in the car. If you have to drink out of a cup with no lid then you have to be careful to not spill it on you.
I am really glad to see you incorporated a quote from the article in your response! This is definitely an improvement from last week's post, but you didn't really answer the questions the prompt had asked. Make sure your response fits the question because that is part of what you will be graded on when taking the tests we have been preparing you for.
A response warranted by the article should to stop drinking bottled water or for companies to filter more. We should act because if we stop buying their products then they would have to change how they filter or go out of business. As said in the article "micro plastics found in 90% of bottled water". This means that we cant just change the brands we drink from.
You make some really strong points and I was happy to see you pulled a quote from the article, well done. However, you still need to work on expanding your ideas more. Pretend that the companies of that make and sell water bottles is reading your response, how are you going to convince them to change their ways if you don't completely explain yourself? Use your words!
Graham Readfearn did a study about micro plastics found in 90% of bottled water. The (WHO) world health organisation should be responsible for getting the problem fixed because if not it can cause a lot of health issues to people. The (WHO) got scientists to do tests in the bottles of water and "found roughly twice as many plastic particles within bottled water." They still have not found out the problem and that is going to be a problem in the near future.
This is a huge improvement from last weeks blog, great work. You did a great job incorporating quotes from the article and you introduced them well which is important, I'm glad you are understanding it better. For your future posts, I want you to really work on explaining yourself more because right now your statements are very broad and vague and as a reader I want to know exactly what you mean. For example, you kept saying there was a problem, but you don't really explain what the problem is. Make sure when you write, you are clear in what you say.
The potential risks of plastic in our bottled water is an issue that should have steps taken to prevent it from happening by WHO. All most all of the companies have admitted that there is a possibility that plastics could be in the water. In the article stating that "Plastic microfibers are easily airborne." We need the WHO to come in and regulate the sealing of the plant and to have the bottling stations sealed off and away from the making of the bottles.
You make some really great points and you did a good job in incorporating a quote from the text to back up your argument. There were a few grammatical errors that could have been fixed with a quick review of your work and I would like to see you elaborate on your ideas more, but overall this was much improved compared to the last post.
This article is about the consumers health and Graham Readfearn wanted let everyone know so they can stop consuming the micro-plastics. Graham explains that from his research "the worlds most popular brands found that more than 90% contained tiny pieces of plastic" I feel this is a WHO problem and they should be the ones acting on this situation. A way they could help and prevent this from happening is if they stopped bottling the water and get a bottle and cap that doesn't release micro plastics into the water, then they should test it in till they find the right one and then continue to sell it to the public.
Your response was very strong and you made many good points on how to fix the problem. You did well in incorporating and introducing quotes from the text, which is a big improvement from the last blog. There were a few grammatical errors that could have been fixed with one last read and some of the sentences were a little choppy, work on proof reading your work before you submit (I know this is not always possible with the time restraints, but if you have time definitely put this into practice. It will only help you)
What Response Is Warranted By Research On Microplastics Who should act and how? Nestle Pure Life should be held accountable for not checking the bottles that were sold. Because scientists had a method to see the particles by using the red dye so Readfearn studies should go down and the health should get better.
You make some strong points in your response and your restatement of the question was helpful for as the reader. In the future, I want you to work on explaining your ideas more, I can tell you're a strong writer with great ideas and I want to read them, so give me more! Also, adding in some quotes and information from the article will help add a little oomf to your writing and give you more to write about.
Even though this is a health issue having micro plastic in the water bottles it's honestly not shocking. People aren't as freaked out as maybe we should be. We aren't going to stop drinking from water bottles and there hasn't been enough knowledge on how this will affect our health. I personally think we should all just continue with our lives and still drink it. The likely hood of this being fixed is slim to none and I rather not worry if bottled water will cause me to die earlier on bc of tiny mirco bits of plastic.
You make a very good point, there isn't enough evidence that the micro-plastics are causing harm to the public's health. I think you explain yourself wall in your response, but you need to make sure you use information from the article to back up your argument, other wise it just looks like you are sharing an opinion that isn't credible. Also, you need to make sure you spelling out words completely and using correct punctuation, I know it can be tempting to write like you would when you are texting but in academic writing we can't do that.
The response I think is warranted by the research on microplastic by Graham Readfearn. In the text, it shows the dye tends to stick to the surface to plastics but not most natural materials. It affect our health. Also, of the 259 bottles tested, only 17 were free of plastic. In addition, I think they should search more information for this problem.
You did a great job incorporating information from the article into your response, that a big improvement from the last post. Well done! In your next post I want to see you work on talking about your own ideas more and really explaining them so your audience knows what you think about what you read too.