Article: Pollutants from plant killed fish in China by Neil Gough on New York Times published on September 4, 2013. Retrieved from; https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2013\/09\/05\/world\/asia\/thousands-of-fish-killed-by-waste-from-Chinese-plant.html
Overview of the article:
Gough, in the article, identifies that the work of clearing the dead fish found in the FU River is hard work but the Wuhan's resident took the initiative and carried the responsibility. The article makes it certain that the fish died from the chemical plant as per the provision of environmental officials. From the article, it is evident that the plant responsible was Hubei Shuaghuan Science and Technology Company and all that was supposed to be done was to demand cleaning activity by the company and punishing it for being irresponsible or conscious to the environment. The article also reveals that from the test conducted on the river's water, it showed that a very high level of Ammonia was released by the plant to the river and this would be enough to decide the number of charges to charge the plant. The author recommends that an action was taken against the plant by the provincial officials because if the company was allowed to continue with its production, it would have caused more harm.
Highlights of the article
The article has effectively discussed the part played by the company towards the death of the fish given that it did not receive the calls made, which leads to the assumption that it was aware of all the damage it caused to the environment but ignored. The author has also asserted the dangers subjected to the resident along the river, as their lives were in danger. There is adequate investigation and findings that the environmental officials were in a good position to alert residents which is essential because water is important in the life of a human being and being safe when taking water would keep their lives in good condition. The article's information is sustainable because having realized that ammonia was the pollutant in the river is clear evidence of a good step taken to clear it out. The author also makes it clear that the environmental officials were supposed to warn people about taking polluted water.
Pitfalls
The article does not discuss the course of actions that would be taken by the environmental officials in collaboration with the company to eliminate the pollution. The author offered adequate information about the article. It the article, there is the discussion that the company was supposed to be treating all its sewage and this would have saved it from being ordered not to continue with its production. The author also states that the alert made by the ministry of environmental protection on the seriousness of the pollution showed that it was concerned about the life of people in the area. The information that water quality was depreciating rang an alarm of the need of treating all sewage by the companies in the entire country as it would improve the health of people is relevant. The author effectively identified that very many fish died innocently from the careless actions of the plant. The article also includes information that investigation was needed to mitigate the risk.
Scale-9
The article\u2019s news is relevant for enhanced human and animal living. By reading this article, one gains a warning of avoiding polluting river water or any water source because the health of residents would be endangered. The article shows great concern from the author, of human and animal health and indicates the dangers of not being responsible for the organizational behavior.
