Article bibliographic material in APA format
Brown, M. J., & Margolis, S. (2012). Lead in drinking water and human blood lead levels in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61 (Supp), 1-9
(1 pt.) What is the problem? Why is the problem important according to the author(s)?
The problem according to the research is that there could be components of lead in the tap water being consumed in several parts of the USA. This problem is important because any amount of lead consumed can have adverse health effects in both children and adults. The presence of lead in tap-water can, therefore, amount to the government poisoning its citizenry.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
(1 pt.) Is the hypothesis clearly stated or do you have to assume what the hypothesis is? What is/are the hypothesis (es)? Are the variables defined conceptually and operationally? How is the relationship between the variables explained?
The hypothesis is clearly stated. It is a declaration that if all other sources of Lead poisoning are ruled out, tap-water should be confirmed as the culprit. The variables are defined conceptually. The relationships are explained by the concept that since over 97% of the confirmed high blood lead levels (BLL) have been caused by Lead from tap water, this makes tap water the general culprit with any other lead source being the exception.
(1 pt.) How does the literature review reflect the “Big V” concept? How is the rationale for the hypotheses supported?
The literature review compresses data collected over a span of 3 centuries emanating from both the Americas and Europe. It therefore exhibits the ‘4v concept of big data’ to wit high volume, high velocity, and/or high variety and therefore high veracity. Most of the data is therefore generalized with a singular cited research report being used to support several decades of research. The research clearly shows that from the 18th Century to date, tap water has been confirmed to be the leading source of Lead.
(1 pt.) How was the sample selected? Is it likely to be unbiased? Why or why not?
The research utilized the natural experiment format where the sample was selected from a random cross-section of the United States. This had a high preponderance for being unbiased. With the CDC being a federal body and water supply being a state function, this would have tempted the local authorities to provide purified samples. The use of a natural experiment setting made it virtually impossible for the samples to be fumbled with as they were not definite.
(1 pt.) Are the instruments appropriate? Why or why not?
The instruments are appropriate. The research used peer reviewed publications that span for years. This adequately covers the topic and provides a clear perspective of water as a sole source of Lead in the US.
(1 pt.) What is the design of the study? Is it the best design possible for testing the hypotheses? Why or why not? What controls for alternative hypotheses (extraneous variables) were discussed? Were the controls adequate?
The research study follows a descriptive design. This design was the best suited for the declarative hypothesis. The area of declaration was extremely wide and there was a need for extensive qualification for the said declarations. The research overwhelmingly pursued the declaration in the hypothesis and did not seem to anticipate an alternative finding. There was, therefore, no definite controlled alternative hypothesis.
(1 pt.) Describe the data used to test the hypotheses and indicate the level of significance used as the decision rule. Were the findings statistically significant? What statistical method of analysis was used?
The data used to test the hypothesis was premised in a literature review spanning over 3 decades from various places in Europe and America. It also involved actual tests done by arms of the federal government of the United States which also include the CDC. This was significant since the declarative hypothesis was absolute and not limited to a time or geographical scope. The statistical findings were also significant as they had to be large enough to eliminate reasonable doubt from any arena. The statistical method of analysis used was the Hypothesis Testing also known as t testing. It entailed placing the hypothesis on a pedestal and testing all available data against it to see if it stood.
(1 pt.) Are the conclusions and recommendations warranted by the results? Explain. Can you point to any generalizations, implications, recommendations, and/or further research needs that were not discussed by the authors? Explain.
The conclusions and recommendations in the article clearly warranted the results of the extensive research. This is because the original hypothesis was clearly confirmed by the entire research conducted. The entire foregoing showed very clearly that there were Lead elements in tap water and it had adverse effect on children’s health specifically and the general health of the population. It also showed that the solution suggested by the EPA were inadequate as they were based on the wrong testing methods. Among the specific recommendation, therefore, was changing the testing regimen. Instead of testing the piping for Lead elements, they should conduct a BLL test on the people taking the water. If the BLL is high, it should automatically indict the piping systems.
(1 pt.) What do you think of this study in general and why ? That is, do you think the study is well done or sloppy, important or not important, and interesting or not interesting? Does it make sense? Would you act on the basis of it? Why or why not?
This is a great study about a critical issue. Lead poisoning in children is worse than any fatal illness. It kills some organs in the body, perhaps the brain or other equally irreplaceable organs. It then slowly drains the child and eventually leads to death. The effects are equally ruinous for grownups. EPA has however, been hiding behind semantics and technicalities to create the impression that the problem was being solved. Getting called out for its errors by the CDC was important and makes sense as it will trigger it to meaningfully improve the situation. Given the results from the research, I totally agree on its advocacy since Lead in tap water in an issue that requires high attention.
