AP Biology
Current #1
September 12, 2017
“Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways”
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.
Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways? gives insight into an important debate that is still occurring. Some scientists fear that the nanomaterials used in some sunscreens and other cosmetics, as well as boat paint, could “harm marine creatures by disabling the defense mechanisms that protect their embryos.” According to a recent study, the nanomaterials in these products could have the potential to be dangerous to marine life, such as tiny marine worms, crustaceans, algae, fish, mussels, and other sea creatures. Most people are oblivious to the harm they can initiate when tens of people all step into the ocean with sunscreen on at the beach. Gary Cherr, interim director of the University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory, says, “"When they were exposed to these nanomaterials, even in extremely low concentrations that you wouldn't expect to have an effect, we saw all sorts of unusual patterns of development.” However, other scientists disagree with this experiment because they feel that the amount of nanomaterials used was a much larger amount than any of the marine life would realistically encounter. So, people such as, Paul Westerhoff, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, believe that the experiment and conclusion were inaccurate. He continues to say, “It could be the amounts we tested are, in fact, higher than you would see. But when you look at the potential for a busy enclosed beach, we don’t know that.” Although the focus of the experiment was on marine life, scientists are also looking to view the effects on the environment itself.
I commend how the author included two point of views on the topic at hand. On one hand, Gary Cherr preformed an experiment that exposed urchin embryos to nanoparticles. Through this experiment, he claimed that his conclusion led him to believe that these nanomaterials are harmful even in the smallest amounts. On the other hand, Paul Westerhoff claimed that the experiment was somewhat invalid dude to the fact of nanomaterial that was used. This made it so that you know that the article is unbiased by comapring and contrasting the two scientists opinions and data. Also, you get to read the article in two different perspectives both supported with valid evidence. However, I do not think that the scientist Gary Cherr could possibly make a conclusion based on one experiment. It seems more reasonable to do multiple experiments with a realistic constant amount on nanomaterials(the control variable). Also, instead of simply testing just one animal with the nanomaterials, a variety of animals should have been tested in an environment with nanomaterials.
The authors conclusion made it so that you learned something after the article and that you could take away information from it. For example, in the last paragraph, the author says, “The advocacy organization Environmental Working Group has named zinc oxide as the best available sunscreen option for most consumers.” After reading the article and seeing the problem, you are able to take away this piece of information in this last sentence and learn and apply it.
x
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National
ReplyDeleteGeographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150514-sunscreen-nanoparticle-nanotechnology-oceans-marine-beach-boat-toxic/.
Hannah-
I found your current event very interesting, and was particularly impressed by the detail you put into summarizing the article. Although it was complex, I was able to easily understand what the article was about and what the issue was. You also provided background information on how we, common vacationers, are part of the growing issue. This helped me connect to the issue on a personal level. Another impressive part of your current event was the fact that you were able to analyze the two different part of the piece, and that the author showed no bias. This also shows your ability to chose an article with unbiased information, opposed to a piece with a clear opinion behind the voice of the writer.
One thing I think you could have addressed better would be analyzing how the authors piece had an effect on society, and how people learn from it. On the other hand, you did mention how people are part of the overall issue, but it could also make your argument stronger if you made a stronger connection between the article and its effect on people reading it. Additionally, there were some minor typos throughout your writing, but this could be easily fixed by proofreading.
I found your piece very interesting, and I think it was a very good choice for a current event. As everyone is just returning from summer, and most of us from the beach, I think it is interesting to think about the marine life you could have been affecting without even noticing. I had also never really thought about this before, which is why your current event grabbed my attention. In the future, I think that this information will be useful to me, and that I will be more careful in selecting the areas I swim in, respecting marine biology to a greater extent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMia Gradelski
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology
September 27, 2017
Welch,Craig. "Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?" National
Geographic. National Geographic Society, 14 May 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2017.
Throughout this review, I thought Hannah demonstrated the use of evidence supporting this article very well and not only provided clear details to this main argument of the effects sunscreen has to marine life but stated supportive points that readers can understand. Overall, I was able to understand the two opposing views on this experiment based on the way she claimed scientist, Paul Westerhoff views and Gary Cherr’s on marine life. She did an excellent job expressing what risks will be present in the future by stating detailed facts evident from the reading. In addition, I enjoyed reading her opinion on this piece which shows readers the impact this article can have on the public. It is important that she believes this issue has affects on our own world because we are harming this environment we live in. Lastly, I think she represented both arguments well by demonstrating that the author showed no bias. This was done well by the quotations that she chose from the article specifically in paragraph one, and then went on to gathering the data to make her own claim.
Although I thought her review was written beautifully, there were a few areas that I thought she could improve on especially where she mentions scientists such as Gary Cher, and what he is looking out for in the water, but doesn’t explain what experiments he is testing to conduct that research. She can improve this by mentioning data that has already been conducted from different cells in the water and how they have died. At times I felt her review was a big vague in only presenting information that wasn’t relevant to each other. Hannah can improve upon this by explaining a quote that describes Cherr’s hypothesize from the article. An example of this is evident in the second paragraph, where she immediately discusses Gary Cherr’s conclusion that he could make after explaining what Paul Westerhoff claimed, which was a bit irrelevant. In addition, along with being a big a bit vague and not as specific as I would’ve liked to have read, I didn’t sense a clear argument between the author and the effect on the people. I would’ve liked to have read in Hannah’s article more about why the public thinks this is happening since it is evident in reading the original article.
I thought Hannah’s piece was very informative and sparked new questions for me regarding my actions in my environment. I never would’ve thought that the chemicals we put on our body to keep us safe from the sun, would damage the environment. Also, I learned that protecting our environment is just as important as protecting ourselves. This article lead me to become more aware and be consciousness about the earth that we need to cherish. I chose to comment on this article because I was surprised that this was occurring. Since I’m an outdoor person and coming back from summer vacation, I thought this article was very relevant and good to discuss upon. In the future, I will definitely be more careful about how I treat the earth not only at the beach but everywhere I go. As a result, Hannah’s review has lead me to understand the world around me better and most importantly respect it anywhere I go, to be a good role model for others and help save habitat in the ocean.
Cindy Kwok
ReplyDeleteCurrent Events 2
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.
I read Hannah’s review of the article “Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?”. I thought Hannah did a great job pointing out the positive aspects of the article. She discussed the ways that the article remained unbiased in its approach to the experiment by including two opposing points of view on the subject. I also liked the way Hannah summarized the article which could be a little complex into simpler terms that still covered all the basics of the experiment and the hypothesis made by both scientists. Lastly, I enjoyed the way Hannah incorporated her own opinions into the article. She talked about the way she was not sold on Gary Cherr’s conclusion because the experiment should have been performed more times before drawing a conclusion.
Something I thought needed work was with the article itself. I felt that it could have explained the experiment with more depth rather than just explaining what the effects of the experiment were. An example is how they keep talking about “low concentration of nanoparticles” but fail to mention the actual concentration [just mentions it in broad context]. Another area I thought needed work was witht eh critique. I thought that Hannah could have explained the significance to humanity part better. I felt like she didn’t really address this point in her critique at all.
Overall, I found the article interesting. Because of how normal it is to put on sunscreen and chemicals on our bodies, we normally do not associate it with harm. When putting on sunscreen before wading into the ocean, no one thinks about whether it would hurt the animals living in the water. I liked the entire experiment because I thought it had a lot of significance today especially with so many other thing harming sea life such as pollution. It was important to study whether the chemical did affect ocean life, and to provide some context about what was safe to use in order to help the environment.
Ava Austi
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #2
9/23/17
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150514-sunscreen-nanoparticle-nanotechnology-oceans-marine-beach-boat-toxic/
Hannah wrote a great review based off the article “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” by Craig Welch from National Geographic Society. This article discusses the important debate over whether or not nanomaterials used in some sunscreens and other cosmetics are harming the ocean life. Throughout the review of the article, there were many aspects that Hannah did well in order to write a great review. Firstly, Hannah did an excellent job of providing a detailed summary for the reader. This allowed me as the audience to fully understand what Hannah’s article was about without any confusion. I also really liked how Hannah included different views on the subject. She introduces the reader to two scientists, Gary Cherr and Paul Westerhoff, that have beliefs against one another. This allowed me as a reader to understand the debate over the topic more clearly. Lastly, Hannah did a excellent job of incorporating quotes from the article. For example she included a quote from Paul Westerhoff saying, “It could be the amounts we tested are, in fact, higher than you would see. But when you look at the potential for a busy enclosed beach, we don’t know that.” Hannah successfully wrote a clear and interesting review of the article she read.
Although Hannah presented a great review of the article, there were some aspects where she could have improved. In the review, I thought Hannah could have talked more about how the article had an effect on society and how people responded. Including this could make the argument stronger because it would incorporate a stronger connection between the article and its effect on people reading it. Also, I think after Hannah wrote her review, she should have double checked for grammar and spelling errors, which both can easily be fixed by proofreading. These issues are both easy to fix in order to make Hannah’s review even better. Even though there were some parts of the review that Hannah could have improved, I think she wrote a great review of the article.
I thought Hannah did a great job in writing her review and I really enjoyed reading it. I learned a lot of new information about this topic. Majority of the people who apply sunscreen to themselves or others, never think about the harm that it may cause to our environment. Clearly, this is not a subject that many are unaware of and that is why I found this article so interesting. For such an impact, no one seems to know about it. After reading Hannah’s review, I want to learn more about this important debate between scientists. Overall, I think Hannah successfully wrote a clear and detailed review of her article.
Luke Redman
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #2
9/23/17
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150514-sunscreen-nanoparticle-nanotechnology-oceans-marine-beach-boat-toxic/
Hannah’s review of the National Geographic Article, “Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?”, by Craig Welch, was extremely well written with very few flaws. The article was about the nanomaterials in sunscreens and other cosmetics hurting marine creatures because the nanomaterials are toxic for them. In Hannah’s review, she presents both sides of the argument and was unbiased while analyzing the article. She included the statements of scientists that had tested the nanomaterials against animals and she included the statements of those who did not agree with the findings of the experient. Hannah also supported her review with quotes, which gave the review more credibility and helped the reader understand the article without reading the full article. She also gave her own opinion on the article, stating whether it was biased or unbiased and constructively criticising the author on what she thought he could improve on, and gave the reader more information to read and absorb.
While Hannah’s review of Welch’s article was very well done, there were some areas that she could have improved. Although the review was very informative, I felt that it lacked personality in the concluding paragraph, and it felt like she had no connection to the topic of the article. Another area she could have worked on is giving examples of the nanomaterials’ effects on the marine life, instead of saying that they had “unusual patterns of development.” It does not help the reader visualize the problem if no examples are given.
Other than the very few flaws that Hannah had in her article, it was extremely interesting and opened my eyes about how humans affect the earth in negative ways, even in something so small as putting on sunscreen. I will look forward to reading one of her reviews again.