Scientific method Critique Essay
Polling Paradise- Ecocide in New Zealand The documentary “Polling Paradise- Ecocide In New Zealand” was produced by the Graff Boys’ to Inform New Sealant’s general public of the negative aspects and dangers of the use of 1080. Brothers Steve and Clyde Graff are attempting to display that 1080 use is bad and the reasons as to why they were “concerned at the ever increasing use of 1080”. The Graff brothers grew up around Tee aware National Park, exposed to an outdoor lifestyle and hunting from a young age. Since, they have been reading a series of hunting and outdoor documentaries.
As a result of their great hunting interest and background, the Graff brothers may be biased towards their views on 1080 use as it kills potential game, including deer and possum. The purpose of the information is therefore to convince the audience that 1080 is bad, and to showcase negative consequences of 1080. This personal agenda of the Graff boys Is presented to the public using examples of people with animals affected by 1080 as well as a variety of scientist’s and other farmer’s opinions. All of these sources hold animal views on 1080 use and reinforce a negative stance on the poison.
Spectacles In the design and evaluation of scientific research, Dry. Quinn Whiting-Coffee presents the most important piece of biological information in the documentary which was originally found from a study in 2009. He stated that, “New Zealand drops into its forests about keg of pure 1080 per year, enough to kill 20 million people on a per acre basis. This is 350 times more [1080] than Australia and 22000 times the rest of the world. ” The fact that this exhibits that 1080 is capable of killing this amount of people on its own results in the rethinking over the use of 1080 humans, because of our basic survival instincts.
Furthermore, because of Dry. Q Whiting-Coffee being qualified In analyzing Information his results can be found valid and reliable, hence also unbiased. The piece of Information from Dry. Q Welting-Coffee relates New Sealant’s use of 1080 to the wider world enabling a fair comparison. The amount of 1080 he reveals to be dropped is proven to be reasonably valid, with statistics In scientist Alexis Mari Pieta’s report stating an average of 2000-keg of 1080 is dropped each year.
Although, the way in which the Graff brothers have presented his information in the documentary has manipulated the way we understand it, so as we view it in a negative sense. They leave out information in “Poisoning Paradise- Ecocide in New Zealand” that depicts positive aspects of the poison, including that it is being used to kill greatly unwanted pests. The claims made as to the amount of 1080 which is dropped In New Zealand each year can be seen as valid although the Graff brothers do not touch on what all of that keg of sass’s effects are, possibly exterminating any views that 1080 is positive In their documentary.
The second most Important piece of biological Information displayed In the documentary was the account from Anthem Thomson, on viewing a doe die from 1080 poisoning. ‘The most horrific death I have ever witnessed on any poor animal. ” This piece of information results in the manipulation of the use of 1080 opinions. We can confirm that this is a true depiction of what happens when they die from The World League for protection of animals who state, “the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. ” Therefore this biological information is accurate, able to confirm it with different sources.
With this biological information, the Graff brothers are able to misguide the public into formulating an unreliable conclusion that 1080 must be a horrific poison, which always results in deer being killed and should not be used. Hence, this biological information can be seen as biased as Anthem Thomson clearly is against 1080 use having had animals become susceptible to it and the Graff boys only depict one side of the story. They do not illustrate any points or evidence which is pro-1080, misguiding the public into being ineligible to form their own accurate conclusions on the matter.
As a final point, although statistics displayed by the Graff brothers were able to be confirmed as accurate, they have not provided sufficient evidence to balance the negative and positive aspects of 1080. As the Graff boys deliver a biased documentary, where no advantages are displayed, the public is led to believe that the use 1080 is in no way beneficial. As a result of the facts portrayed by the Graff Boys in the documentary, the public is not able to determine correctly whether 1080 use is right or wrong. 2) An updated review of the toxicology and ichthyology of Sodium
Fluorescent (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand The scientific Journal article, “An updated review of the toxicology and ichthyology of Sodium Fluorescent (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand” was written by Charles Season, Arrow Miller and Shawn Gillie from the Faculty of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Department of Ecology, Lincoln University along with Arthur Firewater from the Department of Conservation. The review was written with the intended audience being the scientific community, in order to splay all benefits and detriments which the use of 1080 involves.
As Season, Miller and Gillie are all qualified university scientists and researchers, they would hold an unbiased opinion on 1080, being interested in the research and not providing any preferred outcome. It is probable that being from the Department of Conservation, Firewater will be pro-1080 and therefore slightly biased, but in conjunction with the other authors the review will overall become unbiased, therefore valid and reliable. In addition, as it is a scientific Journal article, the review would have been peer reviewed and verified.
Because of this we can assume that all facts provided are reliable and would have been cross-checked. The purpose of this review is to evaluate and analyses how effective 1080 is as a pest control tool in New Zealand and in doing so, to provide information on both the positive and negative aspects of 1080 use, from a neutral perspective. This is indicated in the conclusion of the review, reiterating the stance of the article, “The benefits of 1080 use in conservation, pest control, and disease control need to be weighed alongside the risks of using 1080 and alternative techniques for pest control.
The most important piece of biological information in the article states, “Adverse effects of 1080 use are outweighed by ecosystem protection and the reduction of pest impacts on native species. ” This piece of information is the most important as it states as a scientific, unbiased and researched fact that possible negative effects of 1080 use, of which a controversial through the reduction of pests brought about by 1080. We can be certain that this statement is valid as it can also be found on the Forest and Bird New Sealant’s website in the 1080 facets.
Forest and Bird NZ is a trusted, reliable organization, Hereford encouraging that this piece of biological information is valid. It states that “Far more native birds are killed by possums, rats and stoats than by 1080”, reinforcing the point made in the article that adverse effects of 1080 use, such as the possibility of birds eating the poison, are far outweighed by ecosystem protection and ultimately the reduction of animals such as possums, rats and stoats (pests).
This biological statement allows the audience an input towards a decision on the use of 1080, as it is a valid and reliable declaration. The second most important piece of illogical information displayed was “Considerable care must be taken when using 1080 to ensure that the risks of its use are outweighed by ecological benefits achieved. ” This is confirmed in a report from The Environmental Risk Management Authority, who concluded that the benefits of using 1080 clearly outweighed the risks, subject to strict controls.
Therefore, we can be sure of the accuracy of this biological information and can confirm it as a reliable statement. This concluding statement emphasizes the scientific Journal article’s neutral position on 1080 use, in that it is essential for negatives to be assessed according to the positives with the intention of then being able to make a Justified decision.
It Juxtaposes the information presented in the review, which depicts the advantages and disadvantages of 1080 use with an unbiased opinion. Therefore, the scientific audience is able to reach a valid conclusion which they can be sure is without any bias and is accurate and reliable. The statistics and statements demonstrated in the article can be found to be legitimate, allowing the decision to be completed as to the usage of 1080.
