Scientists have recently discovered that a fire whirl could potentially be a new resource to use when dealing with oil spill cleanups. A fire whirl is a blue flame that spins and moves like a tornado. In 2003, a spill from a bourbon factory caught fire on a pond and formed a fire whirl. This gave three scientist, Huahua Xiao, Michael J. Gollner and Elaine S. Oran, the idea that maybe fire whirls are capable of cleaning up other types of spills. To test this theory, they poured n-heptane into a pan, lit it on fire, and channeled are to it. Sure enough, a fire whirl formed and once all of the n-heptane was fully burned, the fire whirl died out. The scientists must now learn more about this blue flame that was formed and how to control it before this method can actually be used on any actual oil spills.
The discovery made by these three scientists could be a huge scientific breakthrough. If this blue flame does not have harmful effects on the environment and is able to be controlled, it could potentially clean up oil spills which have killed thousands of species living in the ocean. In the future, if another oil spill occurs we will have a way to, more thoroughly, clean the oceans. As of now, we don’t have any really impactful way to clean up oil spills which causes them to be detrimental to ecosystems when they occur. Therefore, this discovery could potentially have extremely positive impacts on aquatic ecosystems if it is proved to be feasible for real life use.
This article had a good title that drew the reader in and the article did a great job of explaining how bourbon inspired the three scientists’ new theory of how the fire whirl could help clean up oil spills. The article was easy to follow and easy to understand even for someone who does not understand much science, because the author explains more different concepts clearly in the article. The video provided at the top of the article gave a great visual and an even clearer understanding of the blue whirl and how it could be used to clean up oil spills. I think that the author could have talked more about how this will help clean up oil spills. For example, will it be able to clean up oil spills that happened decades ago, or only recent ones. I would have also liked to know how these scientists will figure out why the blue flame came about and how they will try to handle the flame better. Overall, this article depicted a potentially amazing new discovery which could have a huge impacts on ecosystems around the world. I hope to read more about the research as it continues and evolves.
Gorman, James. "New Form of Fire, Inspired by Bourbon, Might Help With Oil Spills." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Aug. 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/science/firenado-fire-whirl.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=49&pgtype=sectionfront>.
I read Sophia Anagnostakis’ review on the article, “New form of fire, Inspired by bourbon, Might help with oil spills”. Sophia did a good job summarizing, and reviewing the article. Throughout the article it definitely seemed as if there were some terms that were difficult to understand or someone would not use or know. Fortunately, in her review, she defined some of the scientific and hard words in the article. For example, in the first paragraph, she explained what the “fire whirl” was. This word was definitely a critical part of the review/article so it was important that she went over that. She explained that it was blue flame that moved like a tornado. Another aspect that she achieved is that she seemed to have well understood the article. Of course this is very important. In her second paragraph the way she explained the article seemed very self explanatory and she was able to clearly understand the ways that this new fire could serve as a positive impact on aquatic ecosystems if it is proven feasible for real life uses. And lastly, I liked how she backed up her criticism on the article. Sometimes those who review the article just explain what they like and do not like without any further explanation on why they are criticizing. In the third paragraph she explains how she wishes that the author had explained more about how this new system will help clean up oil spills. After she states that, she writes “for example” and explains what she thinks the author could have done.
ReplyDeleteAlthough her review was good there are a few things that she could have been changed or improved upon. I believe that the first paragraph, could have been a little more detailed. Looking at the article it did seem quite short but I think that there were a few quotes that she could have incorporated in the summary giving the reader of the review, some connection with the scientists. Something else that she could have improved on is also in the first paragraph. Since she talked about the video that was linked to the article in the last paragraph, I feel like she could have used it to help with the summary paragraph. Sometimes the videos that are linked give detail that was not given in the article and can add extra explanations for the reader.
I learned a lot through her review. I did not know before I read this that scientist were close to making something that could potentially help ecosystems around the world. I had no clue what a fire whirl was and that it was being tested. This has changed my perception on science and now I know that humans could have the possibility to help future ecosystems survive.
Sophia, I read your review on the article “New form of fire, Inspired by bourbon, Might help with oil spills” and I thought that you did a very good job in your review of the article. First off, I thought that you did a good job at summarizing the article. Having read the article, I notice that you are able to keep your summary short and to the point without omitting any important details.For example, you state that “Scientists have recently discovered that a fire whirl could potentially be a new resource to use when dealing with oil spill cleanups” and then you immediately proceed to explain that “A fire whirl is a blue flame that spins and moves like a tornado”.Your summary could be picked up and read without and significant knowledge of chemistry or biology. Another thing that I feel you did well is how you acknowledge in your second paragraph that we currently have no truly effective ways to combat oil spills. You provide a range of analysis so that all important factors relating to the importance of this discovery are addressed. You showed that you understand the article as well as the general topic surrounding the article making for a solid review.Finally, I think that that your critique of the flaws in the article was honest and thought out. You provide the reader with the flaws in the article but you also elaborate on how the author could fix the problems of the article.
ReplyDeleteAlthough your review overall was good, there are still some areas that I feel you could improve on. First off, there are some grammatical errors within the article. For example in the first paragraph you write,”and channeled are to it” when I think you mean to write “and channeled air to it”.Attention to little details like this can make your review more clear and leave the reader to focus on the content rather than the grammar of the review.Also, I think that you are vague when you talk about the other methods for cleaning oil spills. I think that you could go into detail on what the current methods are of controlling oil spill.You could compare the current methods with the new method and show how the method is better from the old method.
Nonetheless, I learned a great deal of new information from your review. Before reading the review, I never knew that there was no formidable way to deal with oil spills. I did not expect a spill from a bourbon factory to prompt scientific breakthrough. This definitely changes how I see change in the world.I also agree that this breakthrough could be very good news for the marine life around the world.
Evelyn Kluemper
ReplyDelete9/13/16
AP Biology
Gorman, James. "New Form of Fire, Inspired by Bourbon, Might Help With Oil Spills." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Aug. 2016. Web. 07 Sept.
The review by Sophia of the article, “New Form of Fire, Inspired by Bourbon, Might Help With Oil Spills” by James Gorman was interesting. She defined terms that were difficult for me to understand in the article. The critique of the article that was honest and she used evidence. Sophia clearly summarized the article well into well-written paragraphs and I was able to understand the issue without very much background information.
Although Sophia wrote a good review, she could have used the video provided with the article to give additional details to her summary of the new form of fire. She also could have used quotes by experts on the subject to explain the topic.
This review was informative and I learned something new about a new type of fire that could help ecosystems survive. This scientific discovery could save marine life in the world.
Sophia's review of the article, "New Form of Fire, Inspired by Bourbon, Might Help With Oil Spills" is very well done. Her summary of the article is well-written and interesting. Many people do not know the science behind this and scientific articles can be hard to read, but Sophia was able to very clearly summarize and explain what the breakthrough was. Sophia then went on to explain the importance of this new scientifc discovery. She stated, "As of now, we don't have any really impactful way to clean up oil spills which causes them to be detrimental to ecosystems when they occur. Therefore, this discovery could potentially have extremely positive impacts on aquatic ecosystems if it is proved to be feasible for real life use." She explains that oil spills have been a problem; they are dangerous to aquatic ecosystems because they kill species, and there is not currently a solution to that problem. Sophia states that with more research, this could potentially be a huge step in helping the environment. Another aspect that Sophia did very well was offer her opinion on how the article could be more in depth. "I would have also liked to know how these scientists will figure out why the blue flame came about and how they will try to handle the flame better." It shows that she really thought about the subject of the article and wanted to expand her knowledge on the fire whirl.
ReplyDeleteOne area that Sophia could have improved on is her summary. Although it is very easy to read and clear, I think she could have expanded on it a little more. One example is she could have given more background knowledge on the fire whirl. The article states that fire whirls can be devastating and some scientists want to prevent them. Another aspect is the grammar- there are a couple typos.
Overall, Sophia did a very good job reviewing this article. I learned so much by reading this. I did not know what fire whirls were before now and I think it is so interesting that they could potentially save aquatic environments from oil spills. This definitely changes my perspective on science. It is interesting that although many scientists think that fire whirls are dangerous and want to prevent them, these three scientists took a different approach and looked at the positives that they offer.