review

Running head: Article Review

6

Article Review

Article Review

Student’s name

Name of institution

Date

Biography

Johnston, A. & Shamasunder, B. (2021). Urban oil wells linked to asthma and other health problems in Los Angeles. Retrived from, The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/urban-oil-wells-linked-to-asthma-and-other-health-problems-in-los-angeles-160162#

Introduction

The article is written by Jill Johnston, a preventive medicine assistance professor in University of Southern California, together with Bhavna Shamasunder, Associate professor of the Urban and Environment Policy in Occidental policy. The article explores the relationship between urban oil drilling or operations and various human health issues such as Asthma, particularly around Los Angeles communities, “where thousands of oil wells still dot the city,” (Johnston, A. & Shamasunder, B. 2021). Jill and Bhavna point out how oil wells emit some toxic chemical like benzene. In Los Angeles, these wells are located near schools, parks and homes, which in return leads to health problems such as eye irritation, sore throats and asthma.

Thesis statement.

Although the authors uses only South Los Angeles for their research and discussion, their arguments are strong because they are solely based on facts, figures and reasons, which can be proven without any reasonable doubt.

Summary

The authors discusses the impact of oil drilling and oil wells, particularly in South Angeles on the environment and health by providing facts, figures and reasons. First, Jill and Bhavna discusses the history of oil industry in Los Angeles over a century ago. According to the authors, Los Angeles was one of the biggest oil-exporting states in the world around 1920s. Back then communities around the region supported oil industry because it provided job until exploitation and oil spills occurred which caused a long-term damage to the human health, water and land. The authors then, discuss how urban oil drilling are closer to ‘sensitive land uses’ like parks, schools, care facilities and homes as well as their effect on lung functions. According the statistics, around 75% of the active oil well are located with 1640 feet near residential, schools and other sensitive land. Jill and Bhavna then provides their research details on how oil drills in Los Angeles affects the residents; health. From the research, there is a “significant relationship between living near oil wells and worsened lung health,” (Johnston, A. & Shamasunder, B. 2021). The residents living near oils wells or operations, suffer a more than average rate of asthma as well other health issues such as sore throats, wheezing or eye irritation. The authors continues to explain how the impact of oil operation in the people’s lungs is worse compared to being exposed to passive smoke every day or living near a highway. To conclude, the authors recommends considering various policies as well as emission controls and phase-out in order to protect the public health, especially communities at risks.

The review

The authors’ main argument is that oil operations have a big impact on not only the environment but also the surrounding communities, therefore, various policies and strategies need to be considered in order to protect public health. This is a significant topic because it helps the audience understand the relationship between oil operations and health issues. In addition, it helps in developing various strategies for controlling or preventing such negative consequences. To prove this argument, the authors uses various facts and data from their environmental research studies. In addition, Jill and Bhavna also includes data from their research together with the community health workers on the impacts of oil well on the residents, especially, historically Hispanic and Black neighborhoods. The results from the research figures, results including the facts are used perfectly to provide a clear evidence and reason why these issue is of importance. However, some biases are evident in this article. The results used as the evidence is based on too small sample, thus generalizing the finding on these result can result to omitting of important details.

However, in the article Jill and Bhavna provides a human health and environment perspective on the topic. People’s health and general well-being is intimately connected to the state of the surrounding environment. If the oil operations emits toxic chemicals, they lead to pollution, which can also affect public health. As an individual, who has lived in residents near oil wells and experienced various health issues such as constant eye irritation, I would say this a very informative article. Reading it has helped broaden my knowledge on the effects of oils wells, drilling and operation to the surrounding communities.

Conclusion

This is a relevant article, which provides an evidenced based understanding on impacts of oil drills on public health. It provides a starting point for developing new strategies and policies for protecting the environment from such pollutants in order to protect the public health, especially vulnerable communities at risk.

Category	Strengths	Weakness
1. Argument	The authors’ argument makes sense. It draws conclusion from the evidence, particularly convincing and valid evidence. For instance: the authors argues that oil drilling has on impact on resident’s lung. To provide this, they work with “ community health workers to gauge the impact oil wells are having on residents, particularly on its historically Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.”(Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 12). From this research, they “found that  asthma was significantly more common among people living near South Los Angeles oil wells than among residents of  Los Angeles County as a whole.” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 13). The argument is logical because it is proven by valid evidence from research.	The authors generalizes the argument. They not only use a small sample but only a particular race.
2. Evidence	The authors provides credible information on the evidence. This is proven by the links they provide for each evidence. For instance, “ distinguish oil-related pollution.” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 17) and “ 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 500 meters” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 13). All these links provide more information on the evidence.	The authors uses effective examples, for instance, YouTube story, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSfXx7cMNWc (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, pg. 2), which is not only representative but also enough evidence.
3. Bias	One obvious bias is the small sample used. For instance, “813 neighbors from 203 households near wells in Las Cienegas oilfield,” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 13), and “We measured lung function of 747 long-term residents, ages 10 to 85, living near two drilling sites.” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 14). These are small samples that cannot represent the entire population but this does not impact information presentation.	No possible manipulation of the truth because all the evidences provided are linked for more information.
4. Content	The author’s ideas makes sense. For instance, the idea, “ people living near these urban oil operations suffer higher rates of asthma than average, as well as wheezing, eye irritation and sore throats.”(Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 3). If there is a chemical emission in the air from oil operation then this is likely to happen.	Most of the points are true expect the ideas that the effect of oil wells on people living closer to an active or ideal oil sites “on their lungs’ capacity and strength was similar to impacts of living near a freeway or, for women, being exposed to secondhand smoke,” (Johnston and Shamasunder 2021, 16). This might need more research more accuracy.