The Effects of Dispersants

The Effects of Dispersants

By: Shannon Gauthier
When examining both primary and secondary sources it is important to know that the secondary source is not always as accurate as the primary source. Both the sources may be on the same topics, but the may also contradict each other. The audience aspects may differ as well, one may be to inform an audience and the other is simply just stating facts, and creating an opinion.
The two sources that are being compared is the secondary source which is an article on Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution? And the Primary source which is a news press called the EPA dispersants response to the BP Spill. Both articles are related to the massive oil spill that happened in the gulf.

Both of the these articles are on the same topic, they both express the concerns on the environment regarding the oil spill and dispersants that are being used. But the primary source expresses how the dispersants are more beneficial, while the secondary source uses the primary source to show the reader the negative effects of the dispersant.
The Primary source is telling the reader how “ dispersants are generally less toxic than oil”(EPA, 2010 ) . This is a positive effect that the dispersants have, they may not be completely non-toxic but they still are less toxic than the oil itself. While, the secondary article uses the same information and displays it in a negative way. Saying that “ dispersions are toxic” ( Biello, 2010 ). And completely leaving the statement as just that. They do not give any reason as to why the dispersions are toxic or even how they compare to the oil. The secondary source simply uses the information to create a negative image.
Another main difference between the two sources was how each article expressed the results towards the environment and the animals that live there. The secondary source states the concern that “ both types of dispersal compound corexit used in the gulf so far are capable of killing or depressing the growth of a wide range of aquatic species”( Biello, 2010). It does not how ever mention that oil does the same thing and the effects of it are a lot greater on the environment and harder to clear once it has hit shore. The primary source shows that researchers know that “ the surface use of dispersants decreases the environmental risk to shore lines and organisms at the surface”(EPA, 2010). Allow the reader to see that the dispersants are being used for a reason. They help clear the shore line which affects that most wildlife and has a negative effect on ecosystems. The secondary is concerned mainly with the small picture, it does not look at the benefits that some dispersions can have when cleaning up an oil spill.
The primary source does not always have all the answers, they can sometimes have flaws in their arguments and not fully support the point they are trying to get across. Even though the EPA believes strongly that dispersants are the correct way to go in controlling the oil spill, they still do not know all the long term effects that it has on the environment. They know that at any time they may have to use the ability to stop the release of oil dispersants ( EPA, 2010 ) because new research may show serious long term affects on the marine life and environment. The EPA also believes that “dispersants should only be used sparingly and when absolutely necessary” (EPA, 2010). They understand that some of the effects are unknown and until we are certain about the long term affects we should only use them if it is necessary. In a way the secondary source is right “ the problem is that too little is known about the dispersants and the dispersed oil”( Biello, 2010) so they have every right to be worried about the affects on the environment. Unless the research is completely solid than there will always be doubts in the effects of a product or dispersant.

The main difference that I saw in both the primary and secondary sources was the amount of information and facts that were being presented. The secondary source was mainly sourcing from one main website and news press. While the primary source had many sources, many studies that were conducted and many opinions throughout. It seemed as though the primary source had more research to back up what they were saying, while the secondary source was expressing an opinion on the topic of dispersants in the gulf with minimal research.
Both the Article and press release may be on the same topics, but they use the information to display different opinions. The secondary source created an opinion of dispersants and found facts in the primary source to support their on opinions. While the primary source showed both the positive and negative effects that it can have on the environment and there own reasons to support why they are using it. When looking at research articles it must be understood that each article is intended for a certain audience and its opinions and research are based on that audience, the secondary source mainly does thus. Overall the primary source is the most reliable source to obtain, it does not usually have opinions and it is more based on the research and facts rather than proving a point.

References
Biello,D. Is using Dispersants on the BP Gulf oil spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution? “Scientific American , 2010” < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution >

EPA. EPA’s toxicity testing of dispersants. “ United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010” < http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html >