Awesome Blogs I Recommend Reading

All of my fellow classmates have done an excellent job in researching and providing information on hot topics in this year's midterm elections.  Here, I have chosen three of these blogs that I find especially interesting and informative in which I would recommend other to read!

What the Frack?

This blog concerns the process of fracking used by onshore drilling companies here in America.  Houston Brown clearly discusses his topic throughout the various posts and defines and describes what fracking is, who it concerns, the debate between environmentalists and oil companies, and how this is ultimately affecting the environment and the public.  This blog is extremely informative about the opposing sides of this current issue; the material is well-researched and presented in an unbiased fashion.  I would also like to add that Houston’s site includes a playlist of great music and his witty use of fracking in the title of his blogs gives off a sense of humor and somewhat comical appeal.  If you would like to learn more… go FRACKING check it out!

Algae: Powering the Future

I would definitely recommend checking out this blog as it discusses a great alternative to fossil fuels using of all things - algae.  Because this blog represents the type of research in alternative fuels that I also advocate for, I found it especially interesting and insightful.  Humanmachine discusses why we are looking to alternative fuels, how it works, and the pros and cons of the algae over fossil fuels.  The information in this blog is also well-examined and includes links to enlightening articles concerning the topic.  Humanmachine does a remarkable job presenting material for both sides of the argument to allow readers to form their own opinions.  Go green!

Occupation: Unemployment

This blog deals with a major crisis in our economy presently – unemployment.  This topic particularly interests me considering I will be seeking a job within the next few years and I hope to be successful in doing so.  Mr. Cash’s evaluation and analysis of this issue includes information on the debate between the political parties, its current status, and the relevant effects on our economy and people in our society; he also uses proposed methods, such as tax cuts, and reasons, one of them being outsourcing, to further reveal the complexity of the matter at hand.  Even more, he provides statistical data and graphs that demonstrate who is affected and how many Americans are facing this problem.  Altogether, his impartial and educational examination of this important topic is shown through his well-constructed and explored posts.  Read it!

Supplemental Video to Post

I found this video as I was looking back at the web pages from which I obtained some of my information and saw a link to this.  This gives a more visual aspect in explaining how the oil is damaging the food chain.

Working its Way Up

As seen in the video in the previous post, the marine food chain is an essential part of the cycle of life for species in the environment.  Therefore, it is imperative and crucial to our ecosystem that we assist in keeping this cycle ongoing.

In an article posted by the Deseret News, it stated that “Scientists say bacteria, plankton and other tiny, bottom-feeding creatures will consume oil and will then be eaten by small fish, crabs and shrimp. They, in turn, will be eaten by bigger fish, such as red snapper, and marine mammals such as dolphins.”  This brief excerpt from the article describes the relation of the food chain and the oil spill and its effect on the marine species.  Because the oil floats, it is therefore found at the surface of the water where the phytoplankton and many other microscopic animals at the base of the food chain thrive.  The zooplankton then consume these species along with bits of oil to then be passed along the food chain as previously described.  Another article published by Science Daily discusses how scientists are monitoring the amount of hydrocarbons and heavy metals from the oil in the different species as they are carried throughout the food chain. 

Since the food chain is a circle of life that is needed to keep these species alive, I feel as though this is a serious matter at hand.  I think that it is important that scientists are examining and evaluating how and how much oil is working its way up the food chain.  Honestly, this not only causes me to increase my awareness of this issue, but it also makes me think twice about eating seafood that is imported seeing as there is a possibility that it could contain oil and be passed on to me as well.

Implication Post

            As state in my earlier analysis post, there are two central arguments surrounding this topic; these include the extreme advocating for environmental reforms and research by environmentalists and activists on the effects of the oil on the Gulf of Mexico area versus the belief that the detriment caused by the oil spill has been overstated and exaggerated, chiefly due to the media’s influence and amplification of the results and factual data presented.  Furthermore, I theorized in a more recent theory post that I believe that the polarized views and attitudes concerning the damage done to the environment by the oil could find common ground if factual evidence and supported research conducted by the environmentalists and scientists were accurately calculated and then stated to the public, especially via media.

I believe that if these types of extreme actions persist, the actual facts and details of the effects of the oil on the environment may never be communicated to people.  I feel as though the information surrounding the topic has continuously been exaggerated to both extremes and therefore has created untruthful realities and biased opinions of the effects of the Gulf oil spill.  Without valid knowledge of the events and results of what is deemed to be the “worst environmental disaster in United States history”, the public will never discover the real facts and evidence of the effects of the oil on our environment.  On a larger scale, if this type of reaction and response to an incident such as what occurred with the Gulf oil spill is tolerated, I believe that the same results will yield when similar events occur; this means that the public will forever be imparted with false and bias facts when these situation arise.

Fall Break Mental Health Break

Marine Food Chain!

This brief and comic video of the marine food chain explains the relationship of ocean species in this underwater feeding hierarchy.  As it describes, phytoplankton are the most abundant species that are typically found near the top of the water so they can photosynthesize using the sun’s energy.  Zooplanktons then consume the phytoplankton, which marks them as the second level within the food chain.  Further, smaller fish eat the zooplankton to then be eaten by larger fish.  At the top of the ocean food chain are the large marine animals, such as sharks, dolphins, and sea turtles, which consume these bigger fish.   

                The food chain is a circle of life in which all components, the types of species, are necessary for the cycle.  It is a crucial part of environmental processes and an essential sequence to keep the cycle continuous and the animals alive.  Even though we are not part of the marine food chain, humans are part of a complex food chain as well!

Theory Post

With both sides holding such strong opinions and attitudes concerning the BP oil spill and its detriment on our environment, it is difficult to find a middle ground between the polarized arguments.  I believe that the unexpected devastation and rapidity of the spread of oil caused immediate tensions for the environmentalists and activists and those who felt, and still feel, that the incident was exaggerated; I think that this altogether created the opposing sides of the argument.  In my opinion, I feel as though it is reasonable, to a certain extent in which the actions are beneficial and realistic, for the environmentalists and activists groups to be so active and persistent in their research and dedication to cleaning up and analyzing the long and short term effects of the oil spill.  Even so, I do not believe that the media should have gone to such great lengths in amplifying the detriment and causing the incident to be blown out of proportions; this led to more serious issues concerning workers, companies, and the economy as a result.

Therefore, I believe that in order to effectively and accurately assess the truth of the effects on our environment, both the environmentalists and activist along with those who believe the occurrence was overemphasized largely due to the media must provide honest information with factual evidence.  I also think that this support and data should be unbiased to provide the readers with the most truthful reports and facts.  I think that by doing this, people will be more knowledgeably informed and able to take a stance on the issue without being persuaded with false and incorrect materials.

Are Dispersants Helping or Hurting?

              

Dispersants are useful and essential chemicals to help break up large amounts of oil into smaller droplets as seen in the video from the previous post.  Although these chemicals are indeed intended to create beneficial and positive effects, it is also possible that these chemicals can cause harm.

                An article by the PR Newswire addresses the issue that the dispersants could be causing more detriment to the environment than helping clean up the oil.  The dispersant primarily being used by BP was Corexit 9500; the chemical makeup of this dispersant is toxic and can lead to health problems of not only volunteers and workers, but also wildlife and marine species if exposed.  This dispersant was used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the workers reported health issues after being in contact with such chemicals, validating the risk of the dispersants.  According to another source, the “Corexit 9500 is four times as toxic as the oil itself”.  Because of the level of toxicity, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, mandated that BP stop using the Corexit 9500 dispersant and find a less toxic and more effective one chosen from a list of approved dispersants.   
                Since the Corexit 9500 being used is harmful to the environment and people, I think it is a good thing that the chemical was identified and banned.  I think a more eco-friendly alternative is more beneficial to reduce the impacts on both the workers and the species.  The oil in itself caused much damage to the environment; therefore, doesn’t it make sense to combat the detriment by using chemicals that will have the least long and short term effects?

Analysis of the Gulf Oil Spill

The BP Gulf Oil Spill, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is a catastrophic event in American history that occurred on April 20, 2010.  An oil rig located in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, creating a leak at the bottom of the ocean where oil began gushing into the water.  This incident killed eleven workers and injured an additional seventeen.  In mid-July, a temporary cap was place at the site of the leak, and later removed when the oil was contained.

The main issue I am focusing on concerns the effects and damage on the environment caused by the large amount of oil leaked into the ocean.  This includes discussing and illustrating how the environment has been affected and how we have tried to manage the situation.  Many species of wildlife have died or been harmed due to the toxins and consistency of the oil, as noted in the article “10 Animals Most at Risk from Gulf Oil Spill”.  Additionally, dispersants have been used in an effort to break down and clean up the oil on the surface of the water.  My postings evaluate how the oil and dispersants are further affecting our food chain and therefore creating “dead zones”.    

Within the complexity of the issue, there are different sides to the story:

The environmental aspect of the issue concentrates on how the oil has affected the environment. When analyzing the media input and published articles concerning environmental issues resulting from the spill, the environmental activist groups and organizations are the main voices advocating for these reforms and resolutions.  Activists have been conducting new research and experiments to assess the damage and effects of the oil.  Greenpeace, one of these environmental organizations, currently has a ship sailing in the Gulf of Mexico that is evaluating these impacts at first hand.  The Greenpeace crew will be analyzing and determining things such as gulf ecosystem detriment, oxygen levels, and stable carbon isotope ratios.  Even more, over half a billion dollars have been given to scientist for further research in the Gulf of Mexico.  This research is comprised of two types: where the oil has spread and how it has affected the ecosystem and public health; the natural resource damage assessment, NRDA, to calculate how much BP is to pay to clean up the damages.  In addition to the activists, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has been a major supporter of the examination and clean up of the oil spill; according to their website, they have been “collecting samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil and dispersants in the air, water and sediment; supporting and advising Coast Guard efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the shoreline; and closely monitoring the effects of dispersants in the subsurface environment.”  Altogether, these environment activists and federal organizations have been devoting time and energy to research and evaluate how the oil spill has impacted our environment and how to best manage and effectively clean up the oil.

Contrary to the beliefs that the oil spill has destroyed and immensely impacted our environment and marine life, are those that consider that the oil spill was exaggerated.  A TIME article published three months after the spill highlighted the media hype of the oil spill saying:

“Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.”

 This article also imparted some discussions with scientists that agreed that the effects of the oil are being overblown.  Furthermore, another article, posted by NJ.com, talks about how the exaggerations of the damage on the inlands have decreased the amount of tourism due to the negative publicity about the oil spill.  It says how people cancelled vacations reservations because they heard the beaches were contaminated when in reality they were fine.  It also refers to the workers shown in the media cleaning up oil in various locations wearing haz-mat suits as protection from the oil although people deal with oil every day.  To come to the point, the exaggeration of the oil spill impacts on the environment and wildlife have been communicated chiefly by the media.  As a result, the economy, tourism, and workers have suffered.
                In the political sphere, the Democrats and Republicans appear to have somewhat differing responses and opinions to the oil spill and how to deal with the situation.  The Obama administration implemented a moratorium on off-shore drilling after the spill which created unemployment issues for workers.  The New York Times reported on October 12, 2010 that Obama repealed the moratorium and stated that the new rules should be sufficient for safe drilling now.  As for the Republicans, they have been supporters of big oil companies as noted in the 2008 campaign with the slogan “Drill, baby, drill”.  Once the oil spill occurred, Republicans still insisted on the expansion of offshore drilling.  Recently, the Republicans blocked the subpoena power in the BP oil spill, which is an uncommon occurrence when dealing with such a crisis.  
                A major school of thought concerning the Gulf oil spill is the environmentalists’ views on how to assess and further manage the effects of the oil on the environment.  These activist groups believe in actively pursuing research and observation because it is essential to evaluate the damage.  Another school of thought is the exaggeration of the damage.  A majority of this group of believe that the media has been the source for these overstatements.
                After doing much research and learning the history and debates of both sides, I have now become well-informed on how the effects of the BP oil spill are argued.  I understand that the environmentalists are extremely concerned about how the oil has impacted our ecosystem and are devotedly researching the causes of the impact.  At the same time, I also recognize that the recorded environmental damage can be hyped and therefore exaggerated in the public.  Therefore, I can now assess the information provided by media and articles to more competently to rule out seemingly biased materials and offer unbiased logic and reasoning in my posts.


              

Dispersing the Damage

Dispersants are used to break up large amounts of oil into smaller droplets to be more easily and naturally processed.  In a Popular Science article, it stated that “Smaller, dispersed droplets are less threatening for two reasons: they present more surface area to the water, so ocean bacteria can degrade the oil faster; plus, the small droplets are much slower to rise to the surface, keeping the oil at sea instead of in coastal wetlands and giving the bacteria more time to do their magic.”  It also explains that the natural current of the ocean in necessary for these dispersants to circulate and fragment the oil into droplets.  This article also compares how the dispersants react with the oil to soap used to clean an oily measuring cup; the soap acts as the dispersant to break up the oil into smaller globules on the cup to then be more effectively cleaned off. 

To give a better understanding of how this applies to the Gulf oil spill, I have found an informative video.  This video illustrates how oil dispersants are dispersed and how they work with oil to clean up the floating oil as a result of an oil spill. 

Wild about wildlife!

    

I suppose it’s pretty obvious that this week’s postings are primarily devoted to how and to what extend the oil spill has affected coastal wildlife.  Because wildlife is so important to our ecosystem, I’ve decided to take this week to really provide general knowledge to better understand the reality of these outcomes so you readers can analyze the material more effectively.

So now here are some answers to the questions I left for you all to ponder from the last post…
          The Australian Maritime Safety Authority provides information on just how different types of oil can harm wildlife.  It says that depending on the type of oil, the location of the spill, the local wildlife, breeding cycles and migrations, and the weather at the time of the spill all contribute the specific effects to wildlife.  It also states that the oil sticks to the feathers of birds and flippers of marine mammals causing them to struggle to float or escape predators, and can furthermore result in hypothermia for both by decreasing the amount of insulation; it goes on to say that the pollutants from the oil and the toxins can cause injuries as severe as inflammation of internal organs, infections, ulcers, and bleeding in the stomach.
          Even more, the oil spill has disturbed the natural habitats for wildlife breeding and migration.  The Gulf’s inland and marsh areas are where a large amount of breeding and eggs laying occurs for both birds and turtles.  The brown pelican, Louisiana’s state bird, was just taken off of the endangered species list last fall and therefore have laid eggs in Breton National Wildlife Refuge in an attempt to keep it from being put back on the list.  In reference to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority information again, this material explains how the contamination of breeding sites can cause fewer eggs to be laid, if any are, and that the shells of the eggs may become thinner.  Additionally, an article from National Geographic is concerned with the safety and health of birds migrating south this fall.  Although the oil leakage has ceased, it could nonetheless be a risk to these birds as there is still evidence of oil residue and environmental damage.
          Now that we see the causes and effects on wildlife due to the Gulf oil spill, I will next look into how this connects more to the environment! Stay tuned!

What Kind and How Many?

Growing up and still to this day, I have always loved visiting aquariums on both the east and west coasts.  When I was younger, I remember spending my time exploring and observing the fish and sharks swim around the tanks.  I was, and still am, fascinating with touching the stingrays, horseshoe crabs, sea anemones, starfish, and so on.  Ever since I can recall, I have been fond of coastal wildlife and marine animals.  Because wildlife is an important aspect of our environment, let’s take a looks at the different types of species and most harmed by this oil spill.

Due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, various wildlife species have suffered and died as a result.  So you may be asking, just how badly has it affected our wildlife?  Julia Kumari Drapkin from GlobalPost identifies threatened species in her article “10 animals most at risk from Gulf oil spill”.  This list includes North Atlantic bluefin tuna, sea turtles, sharks, marine mammals, brown pelican, oysters, shrimp and blue crab, Menhaden and marsh-dwelling fish, beach nesting and migratory shorebirds, and migratory songbirds.  In another article “16 Birds Threatened by the BP Gulf Oil Spill” published by The Daily Green, it is discusses how these species of birds, some even endangered, were affected due the destruction and contamination of their habitats. 

Thousands of these birds and large numbers of turtles were found with their bodies soiled with oil and rescued by cleanup crews.  A great number of these wildlife species, especially fish and underwater marine life, were not so fortunate and did not recover from the oil.

Here are a few questions to ponder until next time… Why didn’t they survive?  How did the oil pollutants specifically affect each species?  Was it the toxins released by the oil or the consistency of the oil itself that harmed the wildlife?  These are some of the questions that will be discovered in my next blog later this week!