This
article tackles the side effects caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989
that put marine and land wildlife alike at risk. After the spill occurred in
Prince William Sound, populations of herring and pink salmon crashed over the
following four years. However, it was impossible for this occurrence to be
directly linked to the oil spill, and fish populations slowly returned to
normal levels. AS a result, many believed the consequences of the spill had
finally subsided, but scientists from the NOAA Fisheries have unearthed more
insidious effects that disseminated crude oil has had on fish populations. Such
effects have come in the form of heart defects that reduce both aerobic and
cardiac capacity of pink salmon and herring, which has left them susceptible to
predation. Although the crude oil has fallen in concentration greatly, its
remnants, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, have absorbed through the
membranes of fish embryos and consequentially caused lower growth levels and
abnormal heart size. Due to this, both herring and pink salmon are dying at
young ages and at an alarming rate.
In
a controlled experiment, scientists from the Northwest Fisheries Science center
exposed embryonic salmon and herring to low levels of crude oil from the North
Slope of Alaska, and within weeks found that PAH’s had been absorbed into their
tissues. They then placed them in a clean solution, finding that compared to
fish that had not been exposed to contaminated water, those that did swam at
substantially slower speeds and actually had structural differences in the
formation of their hearts. Mark Carls, a toxicologist who overlooked the
experiment, puts it best when he says, “Crude oil is changing basic physiology,
or what makes a fish a fish.”
The
topics presented in this article are noteworthy because they address a side
effect of the oil spill that is not known to have been as a severe and
long-lasting. While it is well known that the crude oil damaged maritime
populations after the spill, there is a lack of attention paid to the adverse
effects that are still presenting themselves, even after 25 years. An article
as this hopefully will open people’s eyes to the dangers of deep-sea oil
drilling, and will make more strict regulations that prevent such catastrophes
like this, as well as the 2010 BP Oil Spill, from happening again.
This
article resonated with me particularly as I took APES last year, and we spent a
good portion of the year studying the adverse side effects of such disasters.
It is morally wrong to ignore such events as they happen, and they have a high
propensity to effect humans as well as animals. This is most evident in the
case of the BP Oil Spill, where thousands upon thousands of fishermen lost
their jobs because consumers lost faith in the food quality available. As
expected, this led to a domino effect that caused many restaurant owners to
close, which in turn led to a downturn in the economy of the Gulf states.
Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908082807.htm
Cameron,
ReplyDeleteIn your summary and review of the article Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival, I felt that your biggest strength was how well you introduced the experiment. You were successful in quickly summarizing what the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was and who it immediately affected. From this point, you seamlessly transitioned into what your experiment would look at by introducing the issues pink salmon and herring still face today. Another thing I felt you did strongly was that you summarized the experiment well. You were successful in briefly describing what the procedure of the experiment was and ultimately what the results showed while cutting out the excess details that were not entirely necessary for understanding the issue. Lastly, I felt that you were extremely effective in crafting a concise piece of writing. Every sentence you use introduces new information or analyzes what you have already introduced, and because of this the article flows very nicely and reads very easily.
One thing I felt you could have improved on is harnessing your outside information. You acknowledge that you had spent some time on this issue in the past in AP Environmental Sciences, however you do not seem to synthesize any of what you had previously learned with what you learned from this article. Also, I feel you could have put stronger emphasis on why testing the residual conditions of an environmental disaster more than 25 years ago is so important today and what that means going forwards.
I was really interested in the fact that the residual oil left from the Exxon Valdez could have such a strong impact on the ecosystem today. The fact that the physiology of fish born in the areas where the spill occurred has changed is truly unbelievable and this really highlight the gravity of not just this environmental disaster, but all environmental disasters alike. Going forward, this will give me foresight into how far reaching the effects of any environmental disaster can be and how important it is that we are environmentally conscious. Overall, I felt your review was very well written and astute.
Cameron,
ReplyDeleteIn your summary and review of the article Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival, I felt that your biggest strength was how well you introduced the experiment. You were successful in quickly summarizing what the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was and who it immediately affected. From this point, you seamlessly transitioned into what your experiment would look at by introducing the issues pink salmon and herring still face today. Another thing I felt you did strongly was that you summarized the experiment well. You were successful in briefly describing what the procedure of the experiment was and ultimately what the results showed while cutting out the excess details that were not entirely necessary for understanding the issue. Lastly, I felt that you were extremely effective in crafting a concise piece of writing. Every sentence you use introduces new information or analyzes what you have already introduced, and because of this the article flows very nicely and reads very easily.
One thing I felt you could have improved on is harnessing your outside information. You acknowledge that you had spent some time on this issue in the past in AP Environmental Sciences, however you do not seem to synthesize any of what you had previously learned with what you learned from this article. Also, I feel you could have put stronger emphasis on why testing the residual conditions of an environmental disaster more than 25 years ago is so important today and what that means going forwards.
I was really interested in the fact that the residual oil left from the Exxon Valdez could have such a strong impact on the ecosystem today. The fact that the physiology of fish born in the areas where the spill occurred has changed is truly unbelievable and this really highlight the gravity of not just this environmental disaster, but all environmental disasters alike. Going forward, this will give me foresight into how far reaching the effects of any environmental disaster can be and how important it is that we are environmentally conscious. Overall, I felt your review was very well written and astute.
Dear Cameron,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your review of “Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival.” You did a great job of organizing your ideas so that your work flows really well together. For example, in the second paragraph, you do a great job of outlining the procedure for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s lab in a way that makes it easy to follow and understand. Another thing you did well was you connected the article with yourself on a personal level, which really heightened the impact your review had. You did a nice job in the last paragraph describing how one even could have a ripple effect that would influence many others. A third thing you did well was to bring information from the article into your review in a way that was clear and concise. In the first paragraph, towards the end, you explain the process of how the material absorbs into the membranes of fish embryos and continued on like that to give a clear picture of what the problem was. Something I thought you could improve upon is spending a little more time on the influence of the oil spill outside of the direct impact zone: the aquatic life. You touch on the fishermen, etc. but I would have liked to hear a bit more about that. Another thing I think could have been improved was questioning the reasoning behind the relevance of the article. The accident occurred over 25 years ago.
What made me choose this article to write a comment on was the seriousness of the event. An oil spill has major impact on the surrounding environment and everything in it. I have always found marine life interesting and one of my brothers spent some time working at Woods Hole Oceanographic, which is something I would love to try. So when I saw the title, I knew this was an article I wanted to hear more about.
All the best, Sincerely, Yours Truly,
Brendan
Cameron,
ReplyDeleteYour review of the "Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival" is very well written and easy to follow. You gave detailed and concise background about the spill and what animals were affected. I also liked how you described the process in which the oil is affecting animals in detail, describing the deterioration into polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which enter the embryos. I especially liked how you added passion to this by mentioning that it is "morally wrong" to ignore what happened. One of the parts I felt was missing from this review was what scientists or the government are doing or what ideas they have for fixing this problem. You mentioned what is being done to prevent further spills, but what about what is being done to solve the problems already created by past spills? I also think that with the mention of the BP oil spill, you could have added some insight into if anything is being done to stop this problem from happening there and if it is already occurring.
I found this article extremely interesting because it gave me a completely different look at the effects of oil spills. I remember seeing images of birds covered in oil and unable to fly on the news after the BP spill and all the commercials about how they had cleaned up the gulf, but I never realized there could be effects caused by a product of crude oil deterioration. I would enjoy hearing more about this problem in the future and if it is going to kill off a lot of the species there or if a solution to this problem will be found.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCameron,
ReplyDeleteI was very interested and I think you did a great job reviewing the article "Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival" from sciencedaily. I think you did a great job explaining the background information of the spill, thus setting up the rest of your review very well. I enjoyed how you also explained the specific effects that the oil spill had on the fish, discussing the heart defects that reduced both aerobic and cardiac capacity of pink salmon and herring, thus resulting in them being susceptible to predation. A third thing that I think you did well was the way you explained the experiment conducted by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. I liked how you explained it in a very neat, concise, and easily understandable fashion. All together, there were many things that I think you did very well in this review.
I would have liked to hear more about what happened to other fish in the area of the spill other than the pink salmon and herring. Another thing I believe you could have added would have been an explanation to what exactly is being done to help recover from previous spills, not just what we are doing to prevent more.
Something I found very intriguing was how much impact the spill had on everything in its environment. This review gave me much more insight to the specifics of the spill, what its impact was one everything.
Cameron,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your analysis of the article you chose, "Delayed Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Compromise Long-term Fish Survival" from sciencedaily. Three things I think you did well in your writing was that you got right to the point, you supplied sufficient and relevant examples from the article to strengthen your point, and you told the readers why this article was worth reading. In your first sentence, you explain what the article was about. Even if the effects the Exxon Valdez oil spill had on the fish population were impossible to prove, you state that there was clearly a correlation. In the next paragraph, you give the concrete evidence to support this claim to the contrary by talking about the controlled experiments done on fish by scientists from the Northwest Fisheries Science. Finally, after you talk about the main point of the article, you give reason for why the article was noteworthy, which I thought was a good job.
Unfortunately, your review had some errors that threw me off as I read. You begin your fourth sentence with a typo, saying "AS" instead of "As," and said "did swam" instead of "did swim" or just "swam." It is very unfortunate to see improper grammar in writing as it ultimately discredits the whole piece. (I think you need to reread your work before you submit it.) The other thing I had trouble with was the fact that the Exxon Valdez oil spill happened over 25 years ago!
I was impressed, however, by the lingering effects this oil spill has had on the marine life. I did not know that something that happened that long ago could have such a long lasting effect. All in all, I think you did a great job presenting this fascinating information to us. Bravo.
Sincerely, your friend, best regards,
Sam Connors