"How Microscopic Algae Are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals." The Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2016.
The environment can leave a traces of evidence into a criminal. Diatoms are microscopic algae that can be retrieved from anywhere in the water and are used to determine death from drowning. They are very tiny and flow in the water and are inhaled into the body when someone drowns. They are then transported through the circulatory system into the lungs, brain, and bone marrow. When the diatoms are observed under the microscope, they can be compared to the water where the body was found. If the diatoms are not present in the body, this could mean the victim was not killed by being drowned. If the diatoms are different from the ones found in the water where the body was found, then this might mean that the body was drowned and then moved to a second location. They are also trace evidence indicators. Criminals pick up evidence from a crime scene while leaving their own beyond. Diatoms are abundant in many different types of environments and can be found anything: clothing, footwear, and personal belongings.
This article is very important to crime scenes and the field forensics in general. The field of diatom analysis is very important, and will be emerging in the future. More and more scientist will begin to observe these microscopic algae more and more carefully. You can have one single diatom on a person’s sneaker and they can instantly be convicted guilty.
This article was very well organized. It elaborated on all of the scientific terminology that was used and could not be understood until explained. Also, there were pictures inserted into the article of scientists observing the diatoms under microscope. There were also microscopic pictures of what the algae looked like. At the end of the article it was helpful how the author explained why this field would be important for the future.
4 comments:
I thought that Helen overall did a great job with her current event review. One of the things that I liked about her review in particular was the fact that she left no details out of the article. She told the full events of the article, to make it a clear read. Another thing I liked about this review was that she reviewed the article in an interesting yet concise manner. I was intrigued to continue reading throughout the review, and thought that Helen did a great job at keeping the reader interested. Finally, I liked Helen’s review on the writing style of the article was very to the point and excellent. She was able to critique the author’s writing in an interesting and proper way.
While I thought that overall this was a great article review, one of the things that I thought could have been improved upon was better discussing the relevance of the article to the modern forensics world. Another thing she could have improved on was discussing the subject at hand a little more thoroughly.
I was very fascinated to learn that microscopic algae are helping forensic teams catch criminals as much as they are.
Works Cited
"How Microscopic Algae Are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals." The Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2016.
http://theconversation.com/how-microscopic-algae-are-helping-forensic-teams-catch-criminals-57407?
"How Microscopic Algae Are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals." The
Conversation. Web. 08 May 2016.
http://theconversation.com/how-microscopic-algae-are-helping-forensic-teams-catch-criminals-57407
Olena wrote a great response to the article “How Microscopic Algae are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals” by Kirstie R Scott. She begins with a succinct and informative summary that provides the reader with most of the necessary information. She is able to explain what diatoms are and how they can aid forensic experts in their work. Olena also did an excellent job of providing an example that illustrates a situation in which the microscopic algae can prove useful. She explains that the diatoms or lack of diatoms found in the lung, brains, and bone marrow of the victim can indicate whether the victim was drowned and whether the body may have been moved after death or not. I also loved how she defined specific terms that were mentioned in the article that were imperative to the reader’s understanding of this issue.
Although Olena wrote a well-written and concise current event report, there are two places where she could improve. I think that her current event review could have been much more thorough if she had added more details and information from the article. From her report, the reader doesn’t understand what the diatoms are exactly, how they were discovered, or really how this breakthrough will benefit the future of forensic science. I also think that Olena could have included a quote from the article. In this way, Olena could have cited a statement from a credible expert in this field who was able to emphasize the importance of this discovery and connect it to the discussion of forensics.
After reading Olena’s response to Scott’s article, I have learned about an important scientific discovery made in the field of forensics that uses algae to reveal the details of a death and possibly connect a criminal to their crime. This is extremely interesting to me and I will definitely stay updated on any new breakthroughs or cases solved using diatoms.
"How Microscopic Algae Are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals." The
Conversation. Web. 08 May 2016.
http://theconversation.com/how-microscopic-algae-are-helping-forensic-teams-catch-criminals-57407
Olena wrote a great response to the article “How Microscopic Algae are Helping Forensic Teams Catch Criminals” by Kirstie R Scott. She begins with a succinct and informative summary that provides the reader with most of the necessary information. She is able to explain what diatoms are and how they can aid forensic experts in their work. Olena also did an excellent job of providing an example that illustrates a situation in which the microscopic algae can prove useful. She explains that the diatoms or lack of diatoms found in the lung, brains, and bone marrow of the victim can indicate whether the victim was drowned and whether the body may have been moved after death or not. I also loved how she defined specific terms that were mentioned in the article that were imperative to the reader’s understanding of this issue.
Although Olena wrote a well-written and concise current event report, there are two places where she could improve. I think that her current event review could have been much more thorough if she had added more details and information from the article. From her report, the reader doesn’t understand what the diatoms are exactly, how they were discovered, or really how this breakthrough will benefit the future of forensic science. I also think that Olena could have included a quote from the article. In this way, Olena could have cited a statement from a credible expert in this field who was able to emphasize the importance of this discovery and connect it to the discussion of forensics.
After reading Olena’s response to Scott’s article, I have learned about an important scientific discovery made in the field of forensics that uses algae to reveal the details of a death and possibly connect a criminal to their crime. This is extremely interesting to me and I will definitely stay updated on any new breakthroughs or cases solved using diatoms.
I thought Olena did a great job of explaining how diatoms are connected to crime scenes and how they are useful in the field of forensics. I never would have thought of using algae to determine if someone was drowned, but it makes so much sense considering that a person who is drowning inhales water and that water is home to many microscopic organisms. I also thought that she did an excellent job critiquing the article, and really did a good job of finding it’s strengths and flaws. Another thing I liked about her review was that she was able to explain something scientific without any complicated terminology, so that anyone could understand it.
A suggestion I have is that Olena could have incorporated some quotes from the article itself, because when writing about something that’s scientific or evidence based, the writing will sound stronger if there are examples from sources. Another thing I thought she could have done better is to explain how significant this field of forensics is. She states that the article is important and that it gave an explanation of what this means for the future, but she didn’t actually put that in her review.
One thing that surprised me was that a single diatom found on a person is enough to convict them. It seems to me that since there are so many types of microorganisms, there are plenty of places that one type of diatom can live. I really wouldn't have expected algae to be such strong evidence for a crime.
Post a Comment