Hunting is a Good Thing

According to Irena Knezevic hunting is a much needed aspect for a more healthy wildlife environment. In her article, “Hunting and Environmentalism: Conflict or Misperceptions”, Knezevic points out that the main misconception people are led to believe is that hunting is the main factor for animal’s extinction, but in reality animals are extinct because of habitat loss. People do not understand hunting has many good qualities. Therefore, I believe hunting is good for society because it provides food, helps with overpopulation, and it creates a better living environment for the animals.

Whenever someone sits down at a table whether it is in a restaurant or their home, one has to realize that the meat on the table was provided by someone who hunted. When the early settlers came to America, they relied on hunters to provide their food. Without hunting, none of us would be here today. People need to better understand where the meat they eat comes from. There are two types of hunting, commercial and recreational, both of them provide food. Fishing is a main provider for commercial hunting. These fisherman set out for months at a time rounding up thousands of pounds of meat to be killed and sold to restaurants. Another type of commercial hunting business is cattle ranching. Cattle ranchers buy and sell cattle looking for the best quality of meat. After buying the cattle, they raise it for several months or until the suggested weight and then kill and sell the meat from the cattle to restaurants. I’m a recreational hunter and I can honestly say that I do not know anyone that kills just to kill. As someone who only hunts for recreational purposes, I still have yet to meet another person who loves to hunt just for the kill. The meat from the animals I kill is always saved for food. I either eat it myself or give it to someone less fortunate. I believe that a lot of people appreciate my hunting. I believe that all hunters use the animal’s meat for consumption.

Hunting also helps control the overpopulation of meat. There are a few negative aspects to overpopulation, two being hunger and disease. For instance, an overpopulated lake of bass is a bad thing. When their food source is scarce, they begin to eat each other or die from starvation. In order to avoid this problem, you must take out a certain number of bass, so the bass to food ratio is correct. Also an overpopulation of deer can cause a greater risk of disease amongst the herd. I have a two thousand acre farm in Mississippi, and every year the Mississippi Wildlife Agency drives around our farm calculating the number of deer that need to be killed each year. The number is different every year, but if we do not get kill the number given to us, the deer are in a greater danger of disease. Therefore, while being a recreational hunter, I can still help the environment.

Hunters put a lot of time and money into producing a better living environment for animals. One of the best conservation organizations in America is Ducks Unlimited. Each year Ducks Unlimited raises millions of dollars for wetland conservation. Their goal is to create a better living habitat for ducks. This organization travels all over the US buying and fixing property. As a hunter I joined this group, and I donate money each year for land conservation. This organization helps, and saves countless animals. Thus, hunters help animals by conservation.

People need to understand why hunting is necessary. When you compare the pros versus the cons, the number of pros is substantially larger. Meat for food is very necessary; therefore, hunting is needed. Also, hunting helps reduce the overpopulation, which allows for a better life for the animals, because they do not have to go hungry or worry about diseases.

It's Toxic

Just three years ago, one small lake in Ireland caused over 182 people to be diagnosed with the often fatal, intestinal parasitic disease, cryptosporidiosis. The disease is caused by the pathogen Cryptosporidium and is most commonly spread by feces digestion. To great dismay of the public, this lake, known as Lough Corrib, was governmentally recognized as safe for drinking and recreational activities for the public. If one small lake was so unknowingly highly concentrated with pathogens, how is the community to trust that the surrounding lakes used for drinking water abstraction and leisure are nontoxic? The academic journal Aquatic Invasions recently débuted a research article in which a team of environmental and health scientists tested Lough Arrow lake in Sligo, Ireland for waterborne parasites. Based on the prior knowledge that zebra mussels are an indicator of the presence of pathogens, the scientists set goals to prove that the size of a zebra mussel does not affect the effectiveness in which it concentrates Cryptosporidium oocysts, Giardia cysts, and microsporidian spores, and, secondly, to examine the existence of pathogens causing intestinal disease in order to determine the risk to the public posed by the lake’s water quality.

The research of the article, titled “Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are Effective Sentinels of Water Quality Irrespective of Their Size,” relies on previous scientific studies that have proven that zebra mussels are valuable indicators of concentration levels and viability of the pathogens Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and microsporidian because of their ability to concentrate the particles of the parasites. After a nominal amount of research, I found that the viability of a pathogen refers to the likelihood that it will persist or be capable of living. This is important knowledge for scientists analyzing bodies of water because if the pathogen has no chance of persisting, then attempting to treat the water or solve runoff issues is time wasted. As mentioned above, the first researched parasite is Cryptosporidium and it can be life threatening. Additionally, it is one of the most well-known and severe sources of waterborne-etiology diarrhea. The parasites Giardia and microporidia are known to pollute bodies of water as a result of wastewater seepage, urban runoff, and agricultural undertakings. The parasites are usually transferred through oocysts, cysts, and spores, respectively. As stated by the article, “it is believed that the ingestion of only ten oocysts can cause a human cryptosporidiosis infection” (Lucy). Thus, depending on the levels measured by the zebra mussels, the water in Lough Arrow can propose a great threat to the dependant community.

Before one can analyze the procedures and results of the zebra mussel research, one has to become familiar with the conditions of the experimenting location. The area selected as the testing location for the project is a small lake used for fishing, drinking water, and wastewater treatment. Lough Arrow is situated in the valley of three surrounding hills and has streams that flow into the body of the lake. Another distinctive aspect of the lake is that it is a designated Special Protection Area for birds, meaning that many species breed and populate the area. In Ireland, zebra mussels are considered an invasive species and were recently first recorded in Lough Arrow in 2003. As a result of the latest influx of zebra mussels, transparency of the lake water has increased; however, despite popular belief, the improved transparency does not reflect an upgrade in water quality. Many lakes in Ireland, including Lough Arrow, are exceptionally susceptible to pollution from agricultural waste and runoff from wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks. Consequently, human health is an important consideration as a result of possible fecal contamination from humans and farm animals. To fairly assess the quality of the lake, six distinct sites on Lough Arrow were chosen to be tested for concentration levels of the three main parasites. Three of the zebra mussel sampling sites were the locations of drinking water plant intake screens, two sites were at the intersection of inflowing streams from wastewater plants and the body of the lake, one site was labeled as low-impact and located close to shore, one of the previous sites was located near a farm with cattle, and the last site was on a filter inside a drinking water plant that extracts water from the lake. The strategically placed testing sites attempt to prove the source of contamination based on varying concentration levels at the different locations.

In order to compare concentrations of human waterborne parasites in different bodies of water without boundaries set by the age and density of zebra mussels or varying environmental factors, the team of researchers created an experiment testing the hypothesis that zebra mussels are an effective portrayal of the concentration of contamination in water regardless of their size. To test this hypothesis, the team first collected zebra mussel samples by using divers to remove them from the six testing sites by hand. Next, each sample was labeled with its site of origin and stored on the boat. The samples were then cleaned and organized into three main size intervals. The ranges selected were 11-15 mm, 16-20 mm, and 21-25 mm. The fourth step was to blend, or homogenize, each mussel with its shell. The resulting homogenates were then sedimented by gravity overnight and the top settlement was collected in a tube and centrifuged- the use of a machine to cause centrifugal force in order to separate substances of different densities. The liquid material resulting from the centrifugation was then discarded and the remaining material was stored in an ethanol substance. The next step was to wash the matter of its alcohol by the process of centrifugation and divide it into two parts. Each part was tested using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique, known as FISH. Simply stated, FISH uses fluorescent probes to identify species-specific sequences of rRNA that reveal the type of pathogens. The final step to determining the existence and concentration of parasites from zebra mussels was to examine each sample blindly using a high powered microscope to identify and count the pathogens found. Though the actual procedure for the experiment is extensively more complex and involved, these simplistic steps allow enough insight for a student to gain the basics of the experiment and recognize the credibility and tediousness of the research.

After testing various sizes, ages, and densities of zebra mussels, the results of the experiment show that the concentration of pathogens in the mussels were unchanged by the size of the mussel, but the quantity of pathogens did vary with the pathogen species. Contamination from fecal matter was found at all three drinking water plants, and all of the pathogens were equally represented at each plant with about the same number of potential pathogens at each plant. A human source of contamination was evident at the drinking water plant screen because of the presence of Cryptosporidium; however, there were no pathogens found in the filter inside of the drinking water treatment plant. At the sites where the stream from the wastewater treatment plant intersected with the lake body, a higher concentration of pathogens was found closer to the intersection, where as the amount of pathogens decreased toward the middle of the lake body. Since zebra mussels are stationary creatures, this data is especially important because it clearly shows the concentrations of pathogens based on location, which helps analyzers can determine the source of contamination and how to manage water quality.

Based on the research published and peer reviewed in the Aquatic Invasion journal, it has been tested and supported with clear data that zebra mussels are efficient indicators of water contamination by human waterborne pathogens and the size of the zebra mussel is not a factor when comparing concentrations from different bodies of water. Also, because of the high levels of Cryptosporidium oocysts, Giardia cysts, and microsporidian spores found in the Lough Arrow lake, it is risky for humans to use the water for drinking or recreational purposes.



http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2010/AI_2010_5_1_Lucy_etal.pdf

The First Injection Event

Drugs. Heroin, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Ketamine—for the majority of us these drugs are nothing more than terms we have heard in Health class, or things we have seen portrayed in Hollywood films; however, sadly for the group of 222 subjects involved in a study conducted by Stephen E. Lankenau they are drugs, that when injected for the first time, made them nothing more than statistics relating injection to hopelessness, depression, and homelessness. Lankenau, an associate professor at Drexel University, conducted a study between 2004 and 2005 during which he interviewed young injection drug users (IDUs) about their initial injection session with hopes to draw conclusions based on differences from injection drug users based on what the initial drug injected was: heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or ketamine. Despite the fact many people would argue any study based off of teenage runaways with a history of being strung out on hard drugs would be questionable at best, after analyzing the data it is apparent that the type of drug first injected is related to certain characteristics of the initiate, risk behaviors at initiation, and future drug-using trajectories.For this study participants were chosen from as young as 16 up to 29 from public settings in New York, New Orleans, and Los Angeles based on a commonality that they had all injected ketamine at least once in the two previous years. The division based on which of the four primary drugs were initiated is as follows: heroin 48.6%, methamphetamine 20.3%, Ketamine 17.1%, and cocaine 14%. The variables that seems to be the most significant to drug type were: age at injection initiation, level of education, region of initiation, setting, mode of administration, patterns of self injection, number of drugs ever injected, current housing status, and their hepatitis C virus (HCV) status.

This study, described in the article The First Injection Event: Differences Among Heroin, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Ketamine Initiates., used Questionnaire Development Software to help ensure the reliability of the results and conclusion. The overall mean age during enrollment was 22.3 years, and the subjects were mostly white, heterosexual males; a majority of which had histories of mental health care, HIV or HCV testing, and were not employed full or part time. These characteristics remained relatively invariable despite the drug type initiated. There were some significant differences pertaining to which drug type was used such as the age of the first injection: ketamine initiates began injection around 18.8 years old, cocaine was approximately 16.4, methamphetamine 16.2, and heroin 15.9 years old. Other interesting facts that differed among drug type were education difference, homeless status, history of drug treatment and arrest, and the HCV status. Based on the group of Ketamine initiates, 76.3% graduated from high school or obtained a GED, 62.1% were homeless, 31.6% had a history of drug treatment, and only 5.3% reported being HCV positive. While these figures are nothing to brag about they are impressive when compared to the fact that only 44.4% of methamphetamine initiates had comparable educations, 92.6% of cocaine initiates are homeless, 60.2% of heroine initiates have received drug treatment, 97.8% of methamphetamine initiates has a history of arrest, and 28.9% of methamphetamine initiates are HCV positive.

The characteristics of the first injection event was a topic focused on during the study, and in general a minority of IDUs initially planned their first injection, most initiated in groups of two or more and had used drugs prior to initiation, very few supplied their own syringe and sharing paraphernalia was common amongst all drug types. There were seven main variables which proved significant to the study: region of initiation, injection event setting, history of using the drug before the injection event, payment for the drug, mode of administration, who gave the injection, and the number of injections taken during the event.

The rationales expressed by the IDUs regardless of which drug they initially injected all seemed to mirror each other and were condensed into five main groups: curiosity, peer influence, efficiency of injection as a mode of administration, self-medication, and lowered inhibitions. Lankenau includes quotes from different users as they defend their rationale. There is records of a heroin initiate using curiosity for rationale stating that “I was just getting curious about it and I’d been thinking about it for a while.” The influence of peer pressure was shared amongst all drug types sometimes explained as passive, being exposed to injections from others, or active, being coerced into injecting for the first time. A methamphetamine initiate said: “I wanted to get high and I’d done drugs before, but if I wanted to get high at that point in time, I had to shoot it. That’s the only way they’d [friends] give it to me for free.” Other IDUs claimed that injecting was the more practical mode of administration because they were able to get the “biggest bang for the buck” and all users except for ketamine initiates blamed increased tolerance for their switch to injection. As can be expected self-medication was often cited, mostly among methamphetamine and heroin initiates. Subjects relied on injecting drugs to treat psychological symptoms like depression or to dull physical pain. Hopelessness was a common rationale shared by heroin initiates claiming they had nothing to live for, not caring about anything, or feeling self-destructive. Finally, lowered inhibitions towards needles as a result of using other drugs were one shared only by ketamine initiates.

The subjective recollections of experiences during the first injection are often influenced by the properties of the drug, use in combination with other drugs, drug history, mode of administration, quality and quantity, features of the user group as well as the setting of the event. The majority of heroin and methamphetamine initiates recall their initiation as being “blissful”, “heavenly”, and “euphoric”. Ketamine and cocaine initiates did not share the same euphoric state, and often described unpleasant physical sensations, auditory hallucinations, and uncomfortable intensity. Often times bad experiences during the first time resulted in negative opinions towards injections and some vowed never to inject again while others worried about the consequences of injection, both cases were most common in ketamine initiates. On the other hand, many participants, mostly those who started with methamphetamine and heroin, claim to have discovered a new affinity for injecting and plan on continuing.

There are many parallels shared between the type of drug first injected, other types of drugs injected, the number of drugs injected, and the “current drug of choice”. Very few ketamine initiates injected other drugs after initiation; whereas most of the heroine, methamphetamine, and cocaine initiates injected a variety of drugs. Only 21/1% of the ketamine initiates injected other drugs whereas 84.4% methamphetamine, 83.3% heroine, and 77.4% of cocaine initiates injected several others and 71.1% of ketamine initiated never injected another drug other than ketamine again. Only a small percentage of initiates of methamphetamine, ketamine, and cocaine refer to their initiation drug as their drug of choice; however 59.3% of heroine initiates due which may be due to the potency, euphoria or duration of high experienced from heroin.

This study, though it is the first to investigate the relationship between drug type and a variety of factors at the first injection event, has many facts which were previously reported in other results; however has drawn conclusions that have never before been studied. As a result of the study Lankenau suggests ketamine initiates could be a unique type of IUD which is older, more educated, less likely to be homeless or to have histories of drug treatment and arrest or to be HVC positive in comparison to initiates of the other drugs studied. Ketamine initiation also differs in that it is usually given free and injected intramuscularly by the initiate as opposed to into a vein. Also, given that ketamine was not linked to a precise region suggests its general availability. Ketamine initiates were also least likely to transition into injecting other drugs and carry the lower risk subgroup of IDUs.

As a result of Lankenau’s in depth analysis on the first injection event and its impact on the type of drug injected, we are able to see that amongst the four drugs studied-- methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and ketamine—ketamine appears to have the most unique factors contributing to it. This article relates how demographic characteristics, first injection event situations, as well as the trajectories of drug careers following initiation can be associated with the drug injected.

Photo Courtesy of www.news.sky.com

A New Type of Shark Scale
By: Eric Vorst

In the summer of 1975 the father of the summer blockbuster was born with the release of Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws.” This movie has continued on through generations to instill a primal fear of the deep blue sea for every tourist and beach native in the continental United States. The 124 min cinematic masterpiece has caused frenzy in the public since then making every rare encounter between man and shark into the next serial killing man-eater. In all truth however, very rarely do sharks actually kill people. More often than not shark attacks are mere scratches in the terms of the damage a shark would do to something it was intentionally hunting. Almost all fatalities from shark attacks are due to one of two reasons, either the person bitten goes into shock and drowns, or severe blood loss from the initial wound not being treated quickly enough. In order for doctors and response teams to be able to assess the damage of different types of shark attacks more quickly a group of researchers have recently devised a bite ranking system. The system is being implemented in hopes that it will lower mortality rates for bite victims because they receiver faster medical treatment.

The Shark Induced Trauma Scale (SIT) is what a research group from Florida have come up with after years of recording and interpreting shark attacks. These scientists have reviewed over 4,409 cases of alleged shark attacks. The records for these attacks are kept and investigated at the International Shark Attack File department, located in the Florida Museum of Natural History. During their research 96 specific cases had all of the information concerning hospital records, depth of water, type of shark, and area of most traumatic damage. These 96 isolated cases are what the research team used to define the different levels on the SIT scale. After separating the attacks based on their similarities the scientists came up with 5 distinct levels of bite damage. Each level differs in the damage a victim suffers in certain areas: tissues, muscles, tendons, bone, and vascular system. Out of the 96 attacks that were focused on 40 were Level I injuries, 16 were Level 2 injuries, 18 had suffered Level 3 injuries, 14 had Level 4 injuries, and eight recorded Level 5 injuries.

The first 2 levels of injury differ mostly with the size of the laceration that is given by the shark. Level 1 bites are fairly routine fixes, requiring simple sutures and antibiotics. Normally these happen in shallow water less than waist deep and the victim can easily get to shore under his or her own power and receive treatment. When a slightly larger wound is received and muscle tissue or ligaments are damaged then it becomes a Level 2 situation. Level 2 is when the attack is more than noticeable and the damage requires a short hospital stay. Normally in these two levels full function to the affected area is almost always restored.
Level 3 and Level 4 attacks require much quicker medical attention than the previous two. After a person has suffered a Level 3 attack they will have had major tissue, muscle, and ligament damage. Reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery will be extremely important along with intense cleansing of the wound. Because so much flesh is removed in these attacks infections are frequent and normally more deadly than the bite damage. A Level 4 bite typically happens in deeper water outside the surf zone. The amount of tissue removed along with muscle and minor vascular damage requires immediate surgery and sterilization. Doctors must operate immediately in order to save these victims because the rate of infection and blood loss is increased dramatically from Level 3.

The final level has the highest mortality rate due to the intense damage done to the vascular system. Level 5 bites almost always end in death due to extreme blood loss. The rapid blood loss causes victims to go into shock extremely fast so even if they make it to shore, which they are usually a good swim from, the odds of them being able to get medical treatment quickly enough is slim.

The benefits of this new scale for assessing the damage caused by a shark attack should allow medical teams to respond much more quickly than in previous incidents. If on site teams can identify the situation and relay it to the surgeons waiting at the hospitals then more victims will have a better chance of surviving. Being more prepared by having an outline of the damage will give surgeons an easier time neutralizing the more deadly aspects of every wound. Also thanks to the continuous recording of these attacks hopefully there will so be a correlation between areas and time of year that these more deadly attacks are taking place. The SIT scale should greatly increase the response rate of lifeguard, EMS, and surgeons when dealing with shark attacks of the future.

Eaten Alive: Macroautophagy

Macroautophagy is the process of breaking down proteins, organelles and other nutrients your body may contain. Studies of Macorautophagy date back to about fifty years ago but have only recently been unfolded within the last fifteen years. Now, instead of just accepting the fact that cells self-digest its own components, we have discovered not only do the cells rid the body of damaged organelles and invading microorganisms, but they also provide nutrients and energy to and for the body. With this knowledge and further development of studies, we can begin to understand more about “human pathophysiology and fields extending into cancer, neurodegeneration, immune response, development and ageing” . In this blog post, I will “recycle” some of the current knowledge about Macroautophagy and “breakdown” the role of autophagy in health and disease.

Macroautophagy was a concept that was brought together by a series of small discoveries beginning about fifty years ago. It was a series of small discoveries that eventually were bound together in order to form this consensus. The first finding of autophagy was made around fifty years ago. In these studies it was determined that ‘dense bodies’ included lysosomal enzymes which recycle and digest broken down organelles. It was not until 1963 that the Ciba Foundation coined the term ‘autophagy’. Also, it was not until 1963 that the discovery of a cell containing multiple phases of disintegration was made.

Macroautophagy begins its function with the inside of the cell membrane. The organism recognizes and engulfs sections that are no longer working inside of the cell. From there, the cell decides whether to reproduce or just give off the energy and nutrients back to the organism.

Autophagy is important in the development of the human body. In recent studies, scientist have released information that autophagy might have a large impact on some common and deadly diseases. First off, it plays a large role Cancer development, which seems to be the most common diagnosis in today’s society. Autophagy plays a role in tumor suppression because the body can recognize the foreign cells and break them down, thus causing the tumor to not form. But, on the other hand, autophagy does not break down enough of the cells in order to get rid of the tumor. The tumor then forms and begins to exploit autophagy for its own development. Therefore, the tumor cells reproduce at rapid speed. It is important for scientist to understand this concept in order to keep the tumor from using the organisms own system against itself. Further studies and development information of the regulatory pathways will give us the ability to in fact use autophagy in the cell for only good organelle development.

Lastly, I have to reiterate that discoveries of autophagy and how it works, has only been recently helpful in the development of medicine. “Our current knowledge of autophagy, especially in human physiology, represents only the tip of the iceberg” . These studies of where autophagy comes in and breaks down the dead, “defective proteins” or cells inside of a loving organism have shown that autophagy works in order to maintain and provide energy to the body. Although, our knowledge is already growing quickly, it is critical to have more studies and knowledge about autophagy in the near future.

Citing

Importance of Citing

We believe that citing sources is important because it protects us from allegations of plagiarism by distinguishing which ideas are ours and which ideas were borrowed. Also, by showing that the ideas are credible it gives our posts credibility and allows the reader to continue research on the topic if interested.

- Safeguard for being accused of plagiarism 
- Show which ideas are ours and which are ideas of others
- Gives credibility to our writing
- Allows the readers to continue research on the topic if interested

How will we implement citing on our blog

We have decided to use hyperlinks in text to direct the readers to the source and throughout the posts we will be sure to use authors/scientists/sources names before or after any specific quotations or borrowed ideas.
Ex:
- The research of the article, titled “Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are Effective Sentinels of Water Quality Irrespective of Their Size,” relies on previous scientific studies that have proven that zebra mussels are valuable indicators of concentration levels and viability of the pathogens Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and microsporidian because of their ability to concentrate the particles of the parasites.

Why we chose this

We chose to add the sources in the form of a hyperlink because it makes it easier for the audience to follow our sources. Since this is a blog which gives the readers access to the internet they are able to quickly access all the sources on their own if they are interested in continuing research on the topic. Given that our posts are based on only 1 or 2 sources, it seems to make sense to cite them in the beginning of the text and referencing them throughout the article, in text, so that it does not become too redundant since all of the information is being pulled from the same sources. We chose not to use formal MLA or APA citing because it will take away from the overall ease we are trying to create with the blog for our audience. The tradition citations will clutter the pages and creates extra work for the reader to have to search the source on their own.

The Impact and Faults Behind Major Oil Spills

Have you ever seen that Dawn commercial that shows a man/woman with heavy plastic gloves on, rescuing oil drenched baby ducks from contaminated water? It is true that in the past months, the gulf oil spill has led to many concerns as to how one can prevent the spreading of contaminated water and save animals and their natural habitats. Oil can be devastating to humanity and the environment especially when it is gushing out at numerical rates of more than 210,000 gallons per day. Looking into the future, there needs to be some way to avert miss use of oil that will cause thousands of natural habitats to be destroyed, hundreds of wildlife deaths, and even more water pollution. In the July 7th edition of Nature Magazine, the article “how do we defend against future oil spills” depicts a nation of extreme greediness and one who has yet to learn a lesson from its past. The writer gives some of his insight to the amount of money being spent on future prevention of oil spills or lack of. With a contrasting view found in opinion section of a newspaper for California State University, one reads that there has been research already performed it is just the lack of government involvement that has been performed poorly. By researching and comparing the articles about oil spills, I will determine the two thesis statements. Then, extrapolate how these two writers differ in their opinions. And lastly, decide which article has a more convincing argument and conclude how I feel this controversy should be handled.

In the first articled, located in Nature Journal, Arne Jernelov states “that Technologies for mitigating spills are not improving fast enough, and lessons are not being learned; information from the last major blowout in the Mexican Gulf doesn't seem to have been at the fingertips of responding bodies this time around”. In this claim it is clear that Jernelov is concerned that as a nation our technology has not improved at a quick enough pace in order to prevent future oil spills. Jernelov’s goes on to say “more oil profits should be diverted into research to ensure that clean-up knowledge and technologies keep pace with advances in drilling, and are targeted at potential future problems”. I agree with this statement, because this article provides a chart that shows how much money has been spent to prevent oil spills, to how much money has been spent to drill for new oil. It is clearly one sided and I strongly believe in order limit the amount of disasters there does need to be more time and money in the prevention category.

The second article was found in the opinion section of a newspaper for California State University. In this article the writer states, “it is the kind of negligent, leeching attitude that government must correct by enforcing that all oil companies purchase acoustic remote-control devices in order to prevent disasters related to oil spills and protect the environment”. This article is contradicting the first article, because it states that the technology is already there and that the research has been done, but there is no law implementing the use of the new devices. The writer attacks the government for not regulating a shut off valve to be purchased in order to prevent the big oil spill. Therefore, he says, it is the “greediness of our society” that causes these oil spills. The safety devices that the writer alludes to, have been found to be the “most successful and effective option” but was cut out of the plan simply because of its cost. This article supports the first article because it talks about how more money needs to be spent on the prevention of a spill rather than the drilling of oil, but the second article provides more information about the available technology that is already been discovered.

Therefore, the two articles are both convincing provided that the writers gave adequate facts and a common basis of money. The second article provides a more convincing argument when it is stated that there has been research on technology already, but the government needs to provide more research and money in order to prevent and conserve the environment. Also, I strongly agree with the second article and believe that it should be required that oil companies purchase the emergency device before they can drill for more oil.