Blog 3: Doubts of Safety Tests On Oil Dispersant

There are many issues that are threatening the health of the ecosystems around us in today's world. One of the most devastating examples of destruction to ecosystems would be the recent British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This is a tricky situation to handle not only because it is dangerous to hundreds of organisms in the area but also because this situation had not occurred before in this kind of severity, so our knowledge of ways to stop this event are lacking. There were many proposals on how to remedy this situation and the one chosen has been highly criticized by environmentalists because of the potential effects of the chemical on the ecosystem. An article written by P. Aldhous defends the justification of using the chemicals to disperse the oil in the Gulf. In our society a lot of environmental problems get dismissed or set aside because arguments can not be made as powerfully as they should or because they don't provide enough proof or persuasive arguments to justify the expense of "going green". P. Aldhous takes the position that the Environmental Protection Agency has falsely accused these chemicals of being bad for the environment by formulating opinions on incomplete data and that this is the best resource we have to remedy the situation of the oil contaminated water.

Initially the author refers to studies that have tested the toxicity of the chemical BP has been spraying on the oil and later he establishes the fact that this was only one set of criteria of many that need to be considered. Scientific studies are always a good point to refer to in persuasive articles, however I don't think this particular case provides enough information to make a valid argument. If I were writing this article, I would have included some real examples from the study if why this is not as valid as the EPA claims it to be. The author should have addressed these claims further to discredit any opposing ideas as the lack of information leaves the reader indifferent about the validity of either side of the argument. Later on in the article, he proposes that the data used to determine that the chemicals were not safe had many different variables that hadn't been tested whatsoever, so they were not reliable. When reading this opinion, the reader is left to wonder what kinds of flaws were found in the data; were they minuscule or were they devastating to the results. Perhaps the addition of some of the actual results could give the reader a better feel of what Aldhous is referring to. The lack of information about this statement neglects the potential of validating his position further.

The next topic that the author decides to address is that the amount of chemicals that they are spraying on the oil in the sea and the conditions of which they are being applied. He states that 1.52 million liters of chemicals had been pumped directly into the gushing oil from the seabed at a depth of 1,500 meters. first of all, I think that to combat the negative view that is being pushed forward, it might be useful to add some statistics on the severity of the oil spill, how many organisms this threat will effect if gone unchecked and the rate at which this method disposes of the oil. A scientists referred to in the article also addresses the use of there chemicals at such a depth to be "unprecedented". I think in this case an explanation is needed of exactly why using chemicals at such depths may or may not vary the effects as drastically as he makes it out to sound, since even i had a hard time understanding what the implications might be. A topic such as this is not common knowledge so the addition of further detail would help the reader understand the argument more completely and make it easier for them to side with Aldhous's point of view.

To discredit the EPA, the author goes into the process at which the toxicity research should be done. He then goes on to say that the data was incomplete and resulted in unreliable data sets. Aldhous refers to the EPA as not having enough evidence to support their conclusions but the author of this article commits the very same error when he does not explain what steps were skipped in enough detail to convey to the reader why this is a crucial consideration to the toxicity level argument. To the average reader, I don't think that this point comes across as completely valid, as it almost sounds like the other tests aren't even related to the point of the study. This argument only speaks to the people with knowledge of the importance of these steps of determining toxicity, which is why I think he should consider adding real world examples of instances where these tests are crucial to the process.

In conclusion, P. Aldhous made a very compelling argument about the flaws of opposition against the chemicals in use to disperse the oil particles in the sea, although the strengthening of this piece of literature could be made to convince more people of his viewpoint. The main ways that his article could have reached a wider audience is the clarification of sophisticated details and concepts and examples to simplify arguments.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19053-doubts-over-safety-tests-on-gulf-oil-dispersants.html