What I Think About "Food Matters" vs. "Removal of Radionuclides..." and Why

After reading both Schwartz’s “Food Matters” and Potts and Churchwell’s “Removal of Radionuclides in Wastewater Utilizing Potassium Ferrate(VI)” I have concluded two main things: first, I feel that neither of these articles were written for my audience, although they are both accessible to me and second, the two articles serve different purposes, although they both offer scientific information to better the world.

I think that Schwartz’s article was written for a person without college level scientific training. There were several concepts simplified and explained in Schwartz's writing that I was already very familiar with. For example, on page 143 he writes “When the protein is heated, it is denatured. In other words, it breaks down.” In contrast, Potts and Churchwell’s article dealt with concepts that I had never heard of such as flocculation and the measurement of gross alpha radioactivity. While these concepts are not beyond my grasp, I didn’t understand them until reading the article and looking up further information.

Both articles serve to share information with the public in an attempt to educate, but they achieve this in different ways and with the intent of reaching different audiences. Potts and Churchwell present the results of scientific experimentation proving that potassium ferrate(IV) can be used to treat radioactive wastewater. This information is written for other scientists in their field to gain information about a specific topic. With this information, scientists in wastewater treatment will be able to implement new treatment methods. Schwartz’s article instead is directed to the general public. Schwartz presents health information that the general public can follow and yet he includes scientific concepts to back up his claims. Many articles or news reports about science or health issues, in an attempt to reach a wider audience, fail to explain concepts in scientific terms. Additionally Schwartz’s presents information in an anecdotal form, while Potts and Churchwell’s data is highly organized and structured.