Sources and how we view an issue
Every year wildfire smoke is a common occurrence in British Columbia. The smoke is affecting people in many different ways and different sources portray (will present) the issue in different ways. An academic source is written and portrays (explains) an issue differently to that of a news source. Depending on how the source writes and portrays the issue our conception about the issue (can) change(s). In this paper I will analyze how different sources write and portray this (ongoing) environmental issue and determine how it affects our conception regarding it. I am going to (will) look at several popular (news) sources and (as well as)   academic sources to help me with my analysis.
Firstly, I am going to look at (examine) a popular source. The source (this rather than "the source") is an article from The Ubyssey, the official and independent student-run paper of the University of British Columbia, entitled “The UBC community feels the impacts of the BC wildfires” by Joshua Azizi. Here, the author starts the article with an anecdote of a UBC Forestry professor and her husband’s account when (as) they were driving home from the West Chilcotin region. It talks (in detail) about the thick clouds they saw( they saw is redundant), the roaming cattle and the fallen dead (dead- redundant) power lines. It later talks about how people (the local population) are facing troubles in escaping from the fires. It describes the difficulties people face when they have to evacuate horses and other livestock. It also (goes on to talk about) talks about how some people are not only considering their personal safety but also about their business (and livelihoods- the rest is very wordy) as such their livelihood depends on that business. It finally talks about the life under these smoke clouds, and how people who have asthma are particularly facing more difficulties due to the lower air quality (and how people with asthma are facing increased breathing difficulties with the lower air quality). The article ends by saying that while this year was an anomaly, it is expected that (this trend will continue? Not sure what the article says, but you can't have anomaly twice in a row) there will be more years that will be an anomaly compared to its past and that we have to manage around wildfire (of this caliber as a result of climate change) and also this type of wildfire is increasing due to climate change. This way (can cut this way) the article paints a grim picture of wildfire. It has used personal events and notes that gives readers a personal attachment and also helps to describe many forms of difficulties experienced due the wildfires. The events, which acted as evidences, also make it easy to relate, understand the severity of the issue and works as a component that will make people be (proactive in managing wildfires and dealing with climate change.. or something of that sort) willing to do their part in managing wildfires and also emissions that cause climate change. The article also considers that people from different academic backgrounds are expected to read it and as such is written in a clear way by being easily accessible to the average reader and using no technical terms. The source does not change the conception of the impact of the issue but reinforces them.
Continuing on popular sources, a radio interview of CBC radio where Carolina de Ryk interviews Dr. Marie Hay and the Deputy Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Tyler about the health impacts of wildfire smoke was analyzed. In contrast to the previous source where there is no technical term involved, in this interview technical terms have been used (sometimes-no). Sometimes (occasionally- sometimes isn't a strong essay word) the terms were explained and sometimes (other times) they were not. Also while the previous source tried to touch on a large range of impacts, in this interview the only impact that was touched upon was how health was affected by wildfire smoke. The interview first starts with Dr. Marie (redundant) Hay as the interviewee and she talks about which particular element of wildfire smoke is dangerous, the effects of long term exposure(,) and then (redundant) which part of the population is affected the most – the (redundant) pregnant women and the elderly. The interviewee, Dr. Marie (redundant) Hay claims that prolonged exposure to wildfire smoke can increase the risk of autism and have briefly described why this is the case. Dr. Hay finally talks about what measures the listeners can take to reduce the exposure on (of) wildfire (smoke?) and also (redundant) the steps the municipal or provincial government can take as well. The interview then continues on with the Dr. Bonnie Tyler being the interviewee this time (this time is redundant). Dr. Bonnie (redundant)Tyler talks about how they are monitoring the number of ambulance calls, physician visits, emergency department visits, etc. (relating to damage from the smoke?, )so that they can understand the impact on the communities and then (find proactive alternative mesaures in the future?) look at the measures they can take to protect the people in the future. In this source, the environment issue was not seen in a diverse range compared to the first. It was more focused – health impacts, the steps we should take to minimize the impact(s) and what the provincial health department is doing it to combat this issue in the future. Through this interview people can have a better understanding of the issue(,) but most importantly can know (understand) that wildfire not only affects the current generation but also the future generation (future generations as well). The interview paints a worry sign and gives suggestions on how we can work to combat the issue. Furthermore, with experts talking about the issue and how to combat (overcome?)them, people are more willing to listen to them as opposed to a random news article even (redundant) though the news (REDUNDANT) article will be more accessible and easier to understand than the interview itself. Unlike the first source where evidences were disguised as personal events of different people, here the evidences are more discreet with the interview asking the interviewee where they received their information from whenever necessary, example when Dr. Marie (redundant) Hay says that Husky Oil is allowed to flare every day in the year(,) even when the air quality is bad(.) She is immediately asked where she received this particular information in which she replies that she got it from the Ministry of Environment (the Ministry of Environment provided her with the information). In one way the source changed the conception of the problem – that wildfire smoke not only affects us but also the unborn child (children).
An academic article is written differently to a popular source.(, as-no period) It is a lot more focused and detailed. The first academic source that was analyzed was entitled “Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure” by Colleen E. Reid, Michael Brauer, Fay H. Johnston, Michael Jewett, John R. Balmes and Catherine T. Elliott. The article was published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September 2016. In this article the authors have reviewed many papers of wildfire smoke exposure on mortality and on respiratory, cardiovascular, mental(,) and perinatal health in order to conduct their research, and they found out that wildfire exposure is associated with respiratory morbidity and all-cause morbidity.  However, there needs to be more research to explain which cause of mortality is associated with wildfire smoke and also to identify which specific population is more vulnerable. The source describes the method and the results in a very detailed manner, referencing all the resources they used to come to their conclusion. They have described any (and all) math that was involved and while everything is not as easy to understand completely, the average reader can comprehend the summary of it and what point the article is trying to come across (is able to comprehend the articles meaning). With evidences clearly stated and linked and not just believed by the word of the mouth, the content of the article is more reliable. The article does not paint any picture of the issue but rather just states the facts. However, the readers can understand that particular affects on health due to wildfire smoke and can understand which part of the pollution is affected the most – that is not enough research has been done to actually determine that (this sentence is seriously so weird, but it being almost 5am can't figure out how to reword). The article does not change any conception of the issue but rather helps in filling the knowledge gap associated.

Academic sources can also come to different conclusions even (redundant) though they have used as much (many)references and evidences (as much evidence) in the article mainly (redundant) because the references used are different and hence, the references led the authors to different results and conclusions. The analysis of an article entitled “Non-Accidental Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke” by  Youssouf, Hassani; Liousse, Catherine; Roblou, Laurent; Assamoi, Eric-Michel; Salonen, Raimo O; et al shows us that. The article published in Environmental Research and Public Health on November 2014. Here the authors wanted to find out the health effects of wildfire (and smoke?). They conducted a review of non-accidental health impacts of wildfire and included knowledge from recent experiences and have concluded that cardiorespiratory symptoms and wildfire emissions are related and also (redundant) that there are very few relationships between wildfire emission and mortality. They also concluded that certain parts of the population are susceptible to smoke related health risks – the elderly, the (redundant) smokers, firefighters and people (those instead of people) with pre-existing cardiopulmonary conditions. This is in contrast to the first academic source where it was said that they could not identify the part of the population and also said that wildfire emissions and mortality was connected. Both articles talk about the same part of the problem – impact on health and which part of the population is affected the most and in the end (conclude)says (to say) that more research is required to have a better understanding. Like the previous academic source everything was clearly detailed and explained, a picture was not painted and only facts were stated. It also does not change any conception(,) but rather fills the knowledge gap.
As shown above, popular sources talk about wildfire smoke by covering a vast area – health impacts, reasons of wildfire, how to combat wildfire and impacts on life. In contrast an academic source is more focused and talks only about one or two particular segments of the issue but describes it a lot (in detail) and provides as much evidence as possible. In comparison, popular sources do not have such detailed descriptions and while evidences are provided, they are not as conclusive and the work cannot be used for further research like academic sources. Academic sources also do not paint a picture but rather states the facts and academic sources (redundant) can also contradict each other. But no matter how the source presents the issue, our basic conception does not change.