The exigence that I have chosen to pursue is how can microbeads' negative affects on the environment be stopped As I write my paper I want to focus on President Obama's recent ban on products containing microbeads, what microbeads actually are and talk about why they are so harmful to the environment. I am interested in pursuing research on this topic because I feel as though not many people know the harms of microbeads or that they are being banned nationally. I also want to know more about them for myself. When I was coming into college I thought that I wanted to be a marine biologist and I hoped to one day save the sea turtles. I bring that up because a big reason why sea turtles are endangered is because they eat plastic thinking its food and I know that microbeads are one of the plastic waste products they consume. I know that a big thing regarding microbeads is the fact that so many fish are eating them and the chemicals in the beads are endocrine disrupters wind up messing with their reproductive system. So, I definitely value President Obama's recent ban. As of right now I do not think I am the most qualified to write about this topic, however as I go about my research I think that I will have enough knowledge to write about it.

My first source is an article from CNN written about President Obama's ban on microbeads. This informational article was written just after Obama signed the bipartisan bill at the end of 2015. The author, Jareen Imam, provides background information as to what a microbead actually is and why it is bad. The main reason for this article is to provide a basic awareness for the public. The author brings in the statistic that, "the volume [of microbeads entering waterways] was enough to coat the surface of 300 tennis courts every day" (Imam). I feel like this statement creates a bias. This statistic was definitely meant to be astounding. However, it also begs the question, how thick is this layer of microbeads? Or would they be somehow melted down and spread across the top just a millimeter thick (note that a microbead is 5 millimeters in diameter or smaller). I feel as though over all the author is credible, mostly because CNN is a widely trusted source.

My next source is an article from NPR written about microbeads in the Great Lakes. This article was written back in May of 2014, a little over a year prior to Obama's national bill. There three issues addressed in this article. The first matter at hand was the fact that microbeads exist and that they are finding their way into the Great Lakes. The next focus was then the issue of their prevalence in the Great Lakes and the fact that they are entering the food chain because fish as eating them. Finally, the article brought up how state governments surrounding the Great Lakes were addressing these concerns with local legislation. The areas at stake are living beings health (marine animals and human beings) as well as the overall condition of the Great Lakes. Similar to CNN, NPR is a very reputable source so I trust their information. However, this article was definitely more geared to the Great Lakes and really did not seem to mention other waterways being affected. So I feel as through there is bias in that certain information was shared and other information was not.

This final article was published by CBS and it talks about how microbeads are harmful to fish, some alternatives that companies could use in their products and how effective water treatment plants are at keeping microbeads out of our waterways. This article referenced the local bans on selling products with microbeads in states surrounding the Great Lakes and how other states, especially those on the coast, would be doing similar. One thing I that I realized while reading this article is how water treatment plants are pretty big stakeholders in this exigence. It is their responsibility to maintain clean water after it has been used and some facilities just cannot handle the microbeads. I found this article to be very informative, however, the majority of the research provided was from only one scientist. So, I felt that they could have cut down on their bias if they had interviewed more scientists and compared and contrasted the findings. CBS is considered a reputable source, so I trust their information. Also, the scientist that they interviewed, Marcus Erkisen, has his PhD in Science Education and works for 5Gyres, an activist group working toward liberating the world of plastic pollution.

I think that I can argue that microbeads are an unnecessary element to face washes, toothpastes, soaps etcetera and that there really is no need for them. As I go on with my research I think it will be important to find what companies have been using as alternatives. All three of my sources really follow along my same thought that microbeads do more harm than good by being in household products. I think that it will be a challenge to find an article that is pro-microbeads. I feel as though these sources have really added to my knowledge and enforced my perspective on the matter at hand. As I begin to write my ten-page paper I do not know how much modification I will end up having to do. Since there is still a lot of scientific research surrounding microbeads I feel as though a lot of my information will surround the ban. 

