Cynthia Graber: Article Analysis

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist for nearly 15 years. Cynthia received her masters of science in science Journalism from Boston University in 2000. Cathy has expanded her knowledge in know how to speak 3 languages Hebrew, Spanish and French including her native tongue English. She has acquired a host of accomplishments stating from “pinnacle of Excellence” award, radio, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004 and the latest Regional Edward Murrow award from the Radio Television Digital News Association, 2015 (for Gastropod). Cynthia continued her development participating in several different fellowships MIT Knight Fellow, Kavili Science Workshop on the Frontiers of Brain Science and the Institute for

In this article the idea is trying figure out the best way to effectively and motivate energy conservation. The author stated that even environmental and health benefits has not been well communicated as part of the conservation effort. The study that she was speaking is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America by William C. Clark. He was stating that when they began to investigating the effectiveness of non-price incentives to motivate conservation behavior they were looking for behavior to change in the residential electricity sector. The article found “we find that environment and health-based information strategies, which communicate the environmental and public health externalizes of electricity production, such as pounds of pollutants, childhood asthma, and cancer, outperform monetary saving's information to drive behavioral change in the home” (William C. Clark, 2014). While the health information is vitally important like air pollution from coal and natural has plants and has demonstrated an impact on childhood asthma and cancer it has not been communicated well enough to be an impact on homes. Scientists began to check

More importantly there are many health risks in polluted cities. One of the cons of this article is that the author took the number 1 most polluted city and state in America so while the number could be attributed to pre-conceived notions or ideas it would make the theory one-sided. The least polluted state would have not been a great representation either but some city or state right in the middle of the spectrum. Another con is the air pollution in a reason for cancer and other diseases. I would have to question that because of seasonal changes and other environments as far as oceans, lakes that may carry viruses as well. My question would be, does that all give to the air pollution or are these personal document circumstances? Lastly of my cons why apartments, understand that in LA they may have more of them then of homes but across American who receives more air pollution apartments are homes. The pros of the article is I thought that it was very important that she started off the article about addressing the health issues with the environment being polluted. Also, another is being able to tell the difference with the children in the research and showing how important children are to the effects of our world. I think this is very important science because it will eventually help out our nation and even world with using less resources to produce energy. The writer