>> host: If you've been
following the videos
on this playlist in order,
you've already asked questions,
generated a hypothesis,
planned and carried out
an investigation, analyzed
your data using Mathematics,
and you've constructed an
explanation for what happened to
the fish on the Ogeechee River.
That's a lot.
Now we'll put all of this
together with our last two
Science and Engineering
Practices:
Practice #7: Engaging in
Argument from Evidence.
This one might be the most fun,
because who doesn't enjoy a
good argument once in a while?
Of course this is not
the kind of argument you might
see on reality TV shows.
Remember, in Science
an argument is based
on reason and evidence.
Lastly, we'll use
Practice #8:
Communicating Information.
So let's get to it.
>> professor: Now that you've
taken some time to make
a display board with
your guiding question,
your claim, and the evidence
you're using, at the bottom
of the display, you should
have listed possible concerns
to the economy, or to health,
or maybe legal or
political concerns.
Now it's time to argue
using evidence.
Each team will present
their display boards.
Team 1 can go first:
>> student: Our claim
was that it was a BASE
that caused the fish kill.
The evidence shows
that the area where the fish
were killed became alkaline,
not acid. So we rejected
our first hypothesis.
>> professor: Yes, rejecting
your first hypothesis is fine.
Remember that Science
is a constantly
self-correcting process.
We reject ideas if there is
no evidence to support them.
>> student: We reason that
the King America Finishing
Company might be a responsible
party and may have to clean up
and restore the river.
So they may need to come up
with a plan to prevent
future spills, also.
>> professor: Those are
great ideas.
Let's hear from Team 2.
>> student: Well, we used
a color graph to display
our data. Is that okay?
>> student: Sure, I can
understand your data
using the colors...
did you display averages
for each river station
like we did?
>> student: Yeah, and we
thought a color graph
might show what was happening
between stations.
Our data is qualitative,
so we don't have numbers
to graph.
We did a graph based
on color changes we saw.
Our evidence shows a change
to alkaline water in the area
around and downstream from
King America Finishing Company.
So we rejected our
first hypothesis, too.
We said we thought the fish kill
might have been caused by
an alkaline chemical spill.
>> student: Yeah, but we
weren't sure if that
is enough evidence.
I mean, how do you know
what killed a fish?
We think it is a good idea
to get more information about
what other chemicals might
have been in the water,
like fertilizers.
Maybe something else
killed the fish, too.
We were concerned that if
a lot of people are employed
at King Finishing,
and they had to close down
because of the fish kill,
a lot of people
might lose their jobs.
All the families in the area
would really suffer.
>> student: Right, and we
were also concerned about
long-term environmental damage.
Maybe there should be some
outside group brought in
so they can monitor the water
in the river all the time.
Maybe there needs to be research
done on alternate chemical
methods to do what King
America Finishing does.
Maybe there is a different
way to do what they do.
>> professor: Good job.
Now I've got
a few questions for you.
Most importantly, you all
first wrote that you thought
the fish kill might have been
caused by an acid spill.
Does your evidence support
your original hypothesis?
>> student: No, our evidence
showed that it was most likely
a base that got into the water
and killed the fish.
>> professor: Okay.
In that case, your evidence
does not support your
original hypothesis.
Can you tell us again why
rejecting a hypothesis is okay?
>> student: I think I can.
It's the evidence
that really matters.
Once you measure pH
and gather evidence,
the evidence tells you
whether your hypothesis
was supported or not.
>> professor: Right!
And, that's fine.
A "no" answer is as good
as a "yes" answer, because
we've learned something.
The experimental evidence gives
us a lot of information as
to what happened in the river.
Here, the evidence shows
that a base might be
causing the fish kill.
We now know something
we didn't know before.
>> host: As you just saw with
our students in this video,
professional scientists
make their conclusions after
a great deal of experimentation.
Sometimes they even go back
and change hypotheses,
and then run a whole new set
of tests and experiments.
When the results of
the experiments show
that the predictions of
the hypotheses are supported
by evidence, scientists go
a step further and publish
their results and conclusions
so that other scientists
can use the information.
Science isn't effective
if no one communicates
its results.
The display boards you made
are a great start as you begin
to communicate using
the language of Science.
As you know, this experiment
was based on an actual event
that occurred in Georgia's
Ogeechee River in 2011.
So let's learn a little more
about how your experiment could
be useful in the real world,
outside of the classroom.
To do that, I sat down and
spoke with attorney, Don Stack
to learn more about
what actually happened.
Hi Don. Thanks for
joining us today,
>> attorney: Thank you.
>> host: If you would, just
give us a brief introduction
to the events that occurred
in May 201,
on the Ogeechee River.
>> attorney: Sure.
Right before memorial day,
in 2011, people in the area
noticed a great number of fish
dying off right below
the King America Finishing
discharge pipe,
in Dover Georgia.
Over the next week or so
they noticed that it
continued to migrate down
this number of fish and
ultimately we ended up
with the largest fish kill,
and the most devastating
fish kill in the entire
history of Georgia.
>> host: And it wasn't
just fish. There were other
types of animals
that were killed as well?
>> attorney: Yes, in fact
there was just about any animal
that lives in the water
was affected.
From micro vertebrate,
to all the way up to
larger things.
You didn't have, you know,
the impacts on alligators
and things like that,
because they can move out
of that water.
But anything that actually
lives in the water
was being affected.
>> host: And is there
an approximate count of numbers
of animals that were killed?
>> attorney: Well, everybody
talks about 38,000 fish,
but that really didn't include
the probably more important
things that hadn't been
addressed which is all
the species that lead up
to the fish in that food chain.
And so, that was significant.
>> host: Sure.
And about how far down stream
did the kill continue?
>> attorney: You could see
impacts almost about 70-75
miles, because what would
happen is that you could
actually see it migrate
from day to day,
and you would see the impacts.
So like on day one of the
fish kill, for example,
it would be within a few miles.
Then the slug, for lack of
a better word, would actually
migrate down stream.
And so it lasted about 70 miles.
>> host: Now how can we know
for certain that it was
the chemicals that caused
the fish kill and not another
bacterial infection,
or another biological event?
>> attorney: Well, I think
the easiest way is to look
at it, and think the students
have learned the difference
between qualitative data
and quantitative data.
Well qualitatively
it is pretty easy.
Qualitatively you could say,
well, there were no fish dead
above the discharge pipe, okay?
All the fish were
bellow that, okay?
Quantitatively you could
also look at the data
that was acquired.
PH above the river,
above the discharge point
was within normal limits
of a black water stream.
The PH below that was
significantly higher.
You had readings up to nine,
nine and a half.
In a black water stream
you would think you're
gonna be looking at
about 6 and a half maybe 7.
So, you put those things
together and it becomes pretty
evident pretty quickly.
Or at least to people who
were looking at it objectively.
That the King America site
was the source of the problem.
>> host: Now, we may not think
of Chemistry as something
you'd need to be an attorney.
>> attorney: Right.
>> host: And yet, it has
obviously helped you
in this case.
>> attorney: Oh, absolutely.
The ability to interpret data
is-is critical.
Weather or not you understand
PH, that's important.
But also, I think what's
important is that Chemistry
and Science as a whole
give people, students
and lawyers a way
of thinking about things.
About the way they
evaluate problems.
Problem solving.
I have attorneys who have
Science backgrounds,
and I have attorneys
who work for me, who have
English and Political Science
backgrounds.
And I will tell you
that there is a big difference
between how they view
problem solving.
And so, I think Chemistry is
an absolutely essential part
of being a good lawyer.
>> host: So it's important
what's going on in
these classrooms right now?
>> attorney: Oh, absolutely.
Yes. Absolutely.
>> host: Do your home work,
and listen to your teacher.
>> attorney: That's exactly
right. Yeah.
>> host: All right.
I want to thank Don Stack
for helping us get a better
understanding of how Chemistry
can be used in careers
and places you might
not expect to see it.
And thanks to you for watching
and participating in unit one
of "Chemistry Matters."
I hope you were able
to get a solid handle
on the eight Science
and Engineering Practices.
To review, they include
asking questions
and defining problems,
developing models,
planning and carrying
out investigations,
analyzing and interpreting data,
using mathematics
and computational thinking,
constructing explanations
and designing solutions,
engaging in argument
from evidence,
and obtaining, evaluating
and communicating information.
Not only are these tools
that we'll be using
throughout this series,
they're also a great way
to see how Chemistry
has real world applications
and implications
well beyond your classroom.
But more about that
in future episodes.
Don't forget, you can further
explore scientific notation,
and significant figures with
our Unit 1 closer look videos.
And, you'll find more
information from Georgia's
Department of Natural Resources
about the Ogeechee River
fish kill, and our
"Chemistry Matters" tool kit.
While you do that,
I'll get to work on Unit 2,
Introduction to Matter,
and see you there.