Hannah Beldotti
AP Biology
Current #23
April 29, 2018
“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, 29 April. 2018.
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 performed 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 comparing 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.
Alyssa Lee
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event #1
9/5/18
Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 5 September. 2018.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150514-sunscreen-nanoparticle-nanotechnology-oceans-marine-beach-boat-toxic/
I decided to analyze and comment on Hannah Beldotti’s current event and article, “Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” by Craig Welch. There are multiple aspects of Hannah’s review that I consider to be well done- for example, she explained the gist of the article’s contents very concisely, referencing the article often in the form of quotes and other expert opinions in order to lend her review credence (e.g. Gary Cherr and Paul Westerhoff). Her brevity combined with her writing’s effectiveness is a large component that keeps the reader engaged, condensing the article into an understandable, enjoyable read. Another aspect of her review that I found conducive to her review’s success was the fact that she included both opposing viewpoints in her review despite the fact that the article only discusses the opposition briefly. Hannah explains clearly why the opposite side feels that the nanomaterials will not cause long-term damage to the animals, stating that “they feel that the amount of nanomaterials used was a much larger amount than any of the marine life would realistically encounter.” Hannah was also successful in her critique of the article, pinpointing the weaknesses of the experiment conducted and plainly stating the reasoning behind her criticisms. For instance, she opines that the scientists would have benefitted from experimenting with a greater variety of aquatic life, something that I would concede to be a weakness of the article as well.
Although Hannah’s review possesses many strong points, there are some areas that she could improve on. One of the more glaring problems with her review is the takeaway paragraph- she does not clearly state or elaborate on what implications this experiment has on the world or how it had changed her perspective on the issue. For example, she states that one learns to “apply” the information in the article. She does not develop her argument through reasoning or references to the original text, and so I found this area to be rather weak. To ameliorate her writing here, I would suggest adding ways in which one could apply this information in daily life or elaborate on her reference to the Environmental Working Group. Another less prevalent weakness of Hannah’s review is that she does not explain what specifically about the nanomaterials makes them toxic to marine life, and so the reader misses a key link in understanding how the two are related. She could have included a brief description of the metal oxides being lethal to sea life at high levels, and the defects that they caused in sea urchins.
Reading this article along with Hannah’s review has revealed to me information that I was not aware of before- the fact that sunscreen, a product that we are all told to apply as children, could have such detrimental effects on marine life. This article in particular caught my eye because it boggles the mind to think that even small amounts of sunscreen can alter the genetic development of so many aquatic species. With this newly-acquired information, I can now be more conscious as to how much sunscreen I can apply before stepping into the water at the beach. To be even more cautious, I could also refrain from stepping into the ocean entirely to avoid contributing any more toxic nanomaterials. In general, this finding has led me to understand that even the chemicals appearing to be most “harmless” can have devastating effects on the natural world, cautioning us to be more careful if we are to preserve the wildlife that we often take for granted.