Anotation+1

1. Paul Voosen, “Undersea Dispersant in Gulf of Mexico Lingered in Deepwater Plume”. The New York Times, January 27, 2011 [] ** 2. **** Where does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? ** Paul Voosen is a scientific writer. Most of his articles are about the issues related to different scientific problems facing society. He has written several articles on the oil spill, also he has written about the use of genetically modified foods it the food supply for human consumption. In one of his other articles about the oil spill he spoke about the evidence that most of the oil had been dissolved or eaten by microbes after only a couple weeks of the well being caped. ** 3. **** What is the main topic or argument of the text? ** The article talks about the dispersants that were used in the gulf spill, and how they were lingering in the area longer than expected. The author goes into the different scientific reasons the dispersants degrade so slowly. There was no real discussion about the effects on the dispersant on the environment and the people who are in the area. ** 4. **** Describe at least three ways that the main topic or argument is fleshed out. ** The main topic is the fact that components of the dispersant are still lingering it the water. The main component is dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate. This is the main component that has resisted the breaking down. The author then talks about the different proof of the dispersant problem. The experts that are studying the breakdown of the dispersants and the recovery of the gulf do not know how the dispersants will break down and how they will affect the ecosystem in the future. Everyone was lead to believe that they would be gone sooner by BP. Also the author speaks about the conflicting reports of the EPA and experts that are studying the area. He does not make any statements of the reasons for the different results but presents the different stories.

** 5. **** What three quotes capture the critical import of the text? ** Liz Kujawinski, a chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution "had the impression that the dispersant was supposed to have degraded faster." Dave Valentine, a geochemist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "This was a pretty classic example of not having relevant scientific studies to base our expectations," there was no good scientific information to base the use of subsea dispersants. Half of the molecule likes to be in oily substances, while the other half likes to be in water, Kujawinski said. It cannot easily be separated from samples, like traditional liquids or gases, and it will stick to Teflon-lined containers.

** 6. **** Explain how the argument and evidence in the text supports your research focus. ** Dave Valentine studied the breakdown of the gas and oil that was released, he also took samples of the dispersants. He found that over several months most of the oil and natural gas had been broken down by the microbes in the deep ocean, however the dispersants had only dissolved to lover concentration because of the large amount of water. He found that they were not being broken down by the microbes. These concentrations were 1000 times lower than known levels to be toxic to undersea life. The EPA sampling for dispersants fond that here was no measureable levels in the area. The EPA uses machines that look for toxic levels, Valentine was looking for any levels of surfactants. One issue with testing for the surfactants is that there has been little work done with then in the past. Also they are very difficult to separate from water because to their affinity to water on a molecular level. The microbes that took care of the oil and natural gas did not bother with the surfactants because they were in such low concentrations compared to the others that it may have not been work the effort for the microbes to adapt. The main issue in the area is that there is now past research of the behavior of the dispersants when they are released under the surface of the water. ** 7. **** List at least two details or references from the text that will be useful to other members of your research group ** The information about the dispersants not breaking down could be useful to the wildlife research.