Hazards of Oil Dispersants

One thing that really stood out to me was that in the article it was saying that some of the oil was evaporating. Well, wouldn't this be a bad thing? Now not only is the oil in the sea but in the air, and when it rains the oil would move to new places and harm these locations as well. Just because it is not in the water anymore does not mean it is gone. It would get in the water ways and on the crops we eat due to precipitation. It would be in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. So I ask you, is the oil really gone?

Does solving one problem create another even larger problem?Why?

I think that this really depends on the specific situation. For example, if the original problem needs immediate attention, although it may not be as important as the resulting issues, it would be priority to attend to the first and then attend to the consequences. Although, if the first problem is just as immediate and drastic as after affects would be, I think it would be more wise to wait and search for other means of solving the situation.

Which do you think is worse; oil spill or the chemical dispersant?

I think the chemical dispersants are much worse because they are being added to the oil, so it is a combination of both which seems to be lacking knowledge, causing much of the controversy because of unanswered questions. The oil does not blend well with water and floats on the surface, so it didn't affect plants and animals that lived on the sea floor very much. With the chemical dispersants it is not going away, but just blending with the water, and therefore still there.