Author Topic: Deepwater Horizon  (Read 2184 times)

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #120 on: August 18, 2010, 08:57:28 AM »
Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill

Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH; Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH
JAMA. Published online August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs.

The main components of crude oil are aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.1 Lower-molecular-weight aromatics—such as benzene, toluene, and xylene—are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and evaporate within hours after the oil reaches the surface. Volatile organic compounds can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression. Benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans, and toluene is a recognized teratogen at high doses.1 Higher-molecular-weight chemicals such as naphthalene evaporate more slowly. Naphthalene is listed by the National Toxicology Program as "reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans" based on olfactory neuroblastomas, nasal tumors, and lung cancers in animals.2 Oil can also release hydrogen sulfide gas and contains traces of heavy metals, as well as nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS effects; PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.1 Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality. The Gulf oil spill is unique because of the large-scale use of dispersants to break up the oil slick. By late July, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had been applied in the Gulf. Dispersants contain detergents, surfactants, and petroleum distillates, including respiratory irritants such as 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.

Acute Health Effects From Oil and Dispersants   

In Louisiana in the early months of the oil spill, more than 300 individuals, three-fourths of whom were cleanup workers, sought medical care for constitutional symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain. These symptoms are typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or hydrogen sulfide, but it is difficult to clinically distinguish toxic symptoms from other common illnesses.1

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up an air monitoring network to test for VOCs, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and naphthalene. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of the EPA data concluded: "The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm."3 Data posted on BP's Web site suggest that air quality for workers offshore is worse than on land. Local temperatures pose a risk of heat-related illness, which is exacerbated by wearing coveralls and respirators, implying a trade-off between protection from chemical hazards and heat.

Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema, edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash. Some hydrocarbons are phototoxic.


Potential Long-term Health Risks 

In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil will contaminate fish and shellfish. Although vertebrate marine life can clear PAHs from their system, these chemicals accumulate for years in invertebrates.4 The Gulf provides about two-thirds of the oysters in the United States and is a major fishery for shrimp and crab. Trace amounts of cadmium, mercury, and lead occur in crude oil and can accumulate over time in fish tissues, potentially increasing future health hazards from consumption of large fin fish such as tuna and mackerel.


Health Effects From Historic Oil Spills 

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a total of 1811 workers' compensation claims were filed by cleanup workers; most were for acute injuries but 15% were for respiratory problems and 2% for dermatitis.5 No information is available in the peer-reviewed literature about longer-term health effects of this spill. A survey of the health status of workers 14 years after the cleanup found a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic airway disease among workers with high oil exposures, as well as self-reports of neurological impairment and multiple chemical sensitivity.6

Symptom surveys performed in the weeks or months following oil spills have reported a higher prevalence of headache, throat irritation, and sore or itchy eyes in exposed individuals compared with controls. Some studies have also reported modestly increased rates of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rash, wheezing, cough, and chest pain.7 One study of 6780 fishermen, which included 4271 oil spill cleanup workers, found a higher prevalence of lower respiratory tract symptoms 2 years after oil spill cleanup activities. The risk of lower respiratory tract symptoms increased with the intensity of exposure.8

A study of 858 individuals involved in the cleanup of the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2002 investigated acute genetic toxicity in volunteers and workers. Increased DNA damage, as assessed by the Comet assay, was found in volunteers, especially in those working on the beaches.7 In the same study, workers had lower levels of CD4 cells, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and interferon  compared with their own preexposure levels.

Studies following major oil spills in Alaska, Spain, Korea, and Wales have documented elevated rates of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological stress.9 A mental health survey of 599 local residents 1 year after the Exxon Valdez spill found that exposed individuals were 3.6 times more likely to have anxiety disorder, 2.9 times more likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder, and 2.1 times more likely to score high on a depression index.10 Adverse mental health effects were observed up to 6 years after the oil spill.


Approach to Patients 

Clinicians should be aware of toxicity from exposures to oil and related chemicals. Patients presenting with constitutional symptoms should be asked about occupational exposures and location of residence. The physical examination should focus on the skin, respiratory tract, and neurological system, documenting any signs that could be associated with oil-related chemicals. Care consists primarily of documentation of signs and symptoms, evaluation to rule out or treat other potential causes of the symptoms, removal from exposure, and supportive care.

Prevention of illness from oil and related chemicals on the Gulf Coast during the cleanup period includes proper protective equipment for workers and common-sense precautions for community residents. Workers require proper training and equipment that includes boots, gloves, coveralls, and safety glasses, as well as respirators when potentially hazardous levels of airborne vapors, aerosols, or particulate matter exist. Workers should also take precautions to avoid heat-related illness (rest breaks and drinking sufficient fluids). All worker injuries and illnesses should be reported to ensure proper tracking.

Community residents should not fish in off-limit areas or where there is evidence of oil. Fish or shellfish with an oily odor should be discarded. Direct skin contact with contaminated water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. If community residents notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge in an air-conditioned environment. Interventions to address mental health in the local population should be incorporated into clinical and public health response efforts. Over the longer term, cohort studies of Gulf cleanup workers and local residents will greatly enhance the scientific data on the health sequelae of oil spills.


AUTHOR INFORMATION 

Corresponding Author: Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, UCSF, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 (gsolomon@nrdc.org).

Published Online: August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, and Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California.


REFERENCES 

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999. 
2. National Toxicology Program. Naphthalene. Report on Carcinogens. 11th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2005. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s116znph.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2010.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Odors from the BP Oil Spill. http://epa.gov/bpspill/odor.html. Accessed June 7, 2010.
4. Law RJ, Hellou J. Contamination of fish and shellfish following oil spill incidents. Environ Geosci. 1999;6(2):90-98. FREE FULL TEXT 
5. Gorma RW, Berardinelli SP, Bender TR. HETA 89-200 and 89-273-2111, Exxon/Valdez Alaska Oil Spill. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1991.
6. O’Neill AK. Self-Reported Exposures and Health Status Among Workers From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Cleanup [master's thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2003.
7. Rodríguez-Trigo G, Zock JP, Isidro Montes I. Health effects of exposure to oil spills [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43(11):628-635. PUBMED 
8. Zock JP, Rodríguez-Trigo G, Pozo-Rodríguez F; et al, SEPAR-Prestige Study Group. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616. FREE FULL TEXT 
9. Sabucedo JM, Arce C, Senra C, Seoane G, Vázquez I. Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe. Disasters. 2010;34(3):809-820. PUBMED 
10. Palinkas LA, Petterson JS, Russell J, Downs MA. Community patterns of psychiatric disorders after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(10):1517-1523. FREE FULL TEXT 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/jama.2010.1254v1
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #121 on: August 24, 2010, 06:35:00 AM »
Birds
1968 captured alive
1000 rehabilitated and released
4642 collected dead

Mammals (?)
78 dead

Turtles
Over 500 dead
Over 400 captured for rehabilitation

http://www.ibrrc.org/gulf-oil-spill-birds-treated-numbers-2010.html
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #122 on: August 24, 2010, 06:40:55 AM »
Read an article about a wildlife refuge in Arkansas who, expecting their usual visits by the fall migration, will be flooding the refuge, so as to discourage their visitors from continuing their journey to the Gulf. In other words, they're increasing their wetland environment so as to encourage more birds to stay there, rather than to fly further south, into harm's way.

(Was really impressed with the creativity there.)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 12:05:42 AM by Nichi »
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18283
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #123 on: August 24, 2010, 06:29:43 PM »
That's a bit of good news - news of some goodness in the world.

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #124 on: August 25, 2010, 03:59:47 AM »
That's a bit of good news - news of some goodness in the world.

Yes! And truth be told, there are many stories out right now about the rescue work going on around the Gulf. Many groups are involved...
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #125 on: August 25, 2010, 08:23:17 AM »
I'm going to post this, despite its semi-inflammatory nature. It fits with all the other numerous articles I've been reading. It's always possible that the article is wrong - in fact, I hope it's wrong in its ultimate conclusions. But there has indeed been a cover-up, so one has to ask, why?

Walking dead: Ongoing BP Gulf disaster may be killing millions

by Terrence Aym

“I think the media now has to...tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf." - Hugh Kaufman, senior EPA analyst, admits millions have been poisoned in the Gulf states.

A biochemical bomb went off in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010—a bomb that was as dangerous and destructive as a nuclear blast.

An atom bomb’s death and destruction can be measured immediately after detonation while BP’s unintentional biochemical bomb is a slow-motion explosion that is driving a disaster that continues even now.

Lingering death, however, occurs with both types of explosions.

Millions exposed to uncontrolled hemorrhaging, lesions, cancers

Recently, enraged scientists have presented strong evidence that millions of Gulf area residents have been poisoned by the BP Gulf disaster. Worse, millions more could be exposed to long term poisoning from benzene contamination. Benzene exposure leads to cancers.

Yet other than those furious scientists few seemed to care.

Now, however, more frightening evidence has emerged that areas of the Gulf Coast may have been not only saturated with high levels of benzene, but hydrogen sulfide and radioactive hydrocarbon effluents too-three deadly substances that can cause disease and death years after the initial exposures.

The EPA and the ongoing news blackout

The curtain of silence that swiftly descended just days after the Deepwater Horizon blowout at the Macondo well has never been fully lifted. At the time, a no-man's land was created prohibiting fishermen, reporters, news helicopters and civilian sea and air craft from approaching the immediate disaster zone. The US Coast Guard and BP conducted joint operations feverishly attempting to quell the spreading disaster.

Reporters were threatened with arrest. News stories were yanked. Scientific reports buried. And data from the NOAA research vessel—initially sent to the region to take readings of the seafloor—was suppressed.

Yet, like the oil and gas, information leaked.

Beyond the oil gushing into the Gulf at a rate never before seen, deadly methane gas also flooded the region. The methane reached such high levels of density in the Gulf that brilliant scientists like Dr. John Kessler of Texas A&M recorded stunning readings of methane amounts one million times higher than normal.  His reports reached the media.

Although access to the forbidden zone has since been restored, a partial news blackout regarding the chemical readings and data that were measured in the Gulf waters and the Gulf states from April into August continues.

A conveyor belt of death: deep sea oil plume 22-miles long

Despite the "all-clear" pronouncements of talk radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the Gulf has not "magically cleaned itself up."

Poisons flooded into the Gulf for three months. Unabated, these poisons have affected the ecology of the region. Now more evidence is mounting that the delicate infrastructure of life inhabiting the Gulf continues to absorb much of the poison and is passing it on to unsuspecting humans. Reports that sea life in the Gulf have remained uncontaminated are being vigorously challenged.

And new reports are circulating the globe that the missing oil’s been found. A plume 22-miles long is suspended deep in the cold, dark waters of the Gulf. It’s not breaking up and it’s not being eaten by microbes.

It is, however, acting as a conveyor belt of death.

Cocktail of poisons

Some environmental experts are calling what’s pouring into the land, sea and air from the seabed breach ‘a chemical cocktail of poisons.’

Areas of methane dead zones devoid of oxygen are continuing to drive species of fish into foreign waters, are killing plankton and other tiny sea life that are the foundation for the entire food chain, and are polluting the air with cancer-causing chemicals and poisonous rainfalls.

And before the news blackout fully descended, the EPA released data that benzene levels in New Orleans had rocketed to as high as 3,000 parts per billion (ppb).

Benzene is extremely toxic, even short term exposure at low levels can cause agonizing illness and slow death from cancerous lesions and leukemia years later.  But 3,000ppb is far from a low reading.

Hydrogen sulfide was also detected by the EPA monitoring stations around the New Orleans area. The EPA reported hydrogen sulfide levels as high as 1200ppb. A normal, safe level falls between 5 to 10ppb.

Recently, Ron Kendall, an ecotoxicologist from Texas Tech University, was interviewed by National Geographic concerning the affect of the poisons released by the blown out well on bacteria and plankton in the Gulf.

The results were not looking good. Indications of a major, ongoing poisoning occurring in the Gulf were widespread. "This is what we've been worried about, because this is the base of the food chain," he told National Geographic.

"Any effects on that level can work their way right on up."

Meaning right up the food chain to humans—many of whom have already been exposed to poisons from the air and water.

The bio-chemical time bomb

A hamstrung oil giant unable to stop a gigantic disaster; the federal government's inaction and misdirection; angry governors unable to get federal agencies to lend a hand; a Nobel Prize winning physicist appointed as the head of the task force dealing with the Gulf—a man who couldn't tell a drill bit from a drill press…This is either a script for a bad Hollywood movie or a reality that could lead to the eventual premature death of millions.

Unfortunately, it's a reality. And the BP Gulf ticking time bomb continues to tick.

According to a report issued by Michael Harbart, Professor of internal medicine at Wayne State University and Kathleen Burns, Ph.D., Director of Sciencecorps, long-term exposure of the chemicals released by the ongoing BP Gulf disaster—at relatively low levels—should be avoided at all costs because "the potential for serious health damage is substantial.  Chronic health effects are typically evaluated for specific crude oil components and vary from cancer to permanent neurological damage.  They cover a range of diseases affecting all the organ systems..."
[Sciencecorps.org: "Gulf Oil Spill Health Hazards"]

In their JAMA paper, the “Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill,” Gina M. Solomon and Sarah Janssen categorically state that “The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health…”

They further point to that infamous “cocktail of poisons” again naming benzene, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, and xylene among other toxic airborne contaminants that have been released over the residents of the Gulf coast community.   

Senior EPA analyst admits millions poisoned in Gulf

Recently—in an eye-opening interview with 'Democracy Now!'—Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, made this shocking admission:

"And I think the media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf."

As Alexander Higgins at 'Democracy Now!' points out: “Hugh Kaufman has been at the EPA since the Agency was created in the early 1970s, as an engineer, investigator and policy analyst. Prior to joining the EPA in the beginning of 1971, he was a captain in the US Air Force. He helped write all the Federal laws regulating the treatment, storage, disposal, and remediation of solid and hazardous waste. He has been the Chief Investigator on numerous contamination cases, including Love Canal and Times Beach.”

For more of the transcript and the EPA analyst’s video testimony go here.

The walking dead

Like those exposed to the Russian Chernobyl disaster, or the many thousands now sick and dying after exposure to the 9-11 Twin Towers toxic cloud, the people of the Gulf coast may have joined the ranks of the walking dead.

Experts cannot predict with any certainty that the poisons will be contained exclusively to the Gulf states. Weather patterns and the variable density of the substances could conceivably expand the Death Zone into parts of the Midwest and East coast of the United States.

What happened leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster can be debated as an accident or a folly, but what has happened to millions of people in the aftermath can be called nothing but criminal.

Now BP and the federal government have been attempting to assuage public concerns and claim that the Gulf disaster has been much ado about nothing.

Their claims are being met by skepticism. The response from Washington has been excuses.  Although that will be of little consolation to the children and adults that may contract leukemia or other debilitating diseases a mere handful of years from now.

Excuses are of little value to the dead.

http://www.helium.com/items/1929422-bp-gulf-disaster-may-be-killing-millions?page=1

Benzene Toxicity

New Orleans' '4WWL TV News' report on EPA benzene levels [May 2010 before news blackout.]


Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Toxicity

Toxicological Profile of Hydrogen Sulfide PDF

Radioactivity exposure: air, water, food supply

“Radioactive Hydrocarbon Effluent ...from oil and which possesses higher levels of radium isotopes. The deeper the petroleum reserves, the more likely the reservoirs of oil and methane in those geological formations will contain uranium, thorium or radium. Given the elevated levels of radioactivity at the source, the level of radioactivity associated with the hydrocarbon effluent coming out of the well will inevitably be impacted. Radium isotopes have inherent health risks that ought to be identified and properly disseminated. The concerned resident of the Gulf Coast may want to initiate him/herself in the area of health impacts due to long-term exposure to low grade radioactivity. Of course, the seafood, the waters and the beaches all provide different vehicles for such contamination to take place, each with varying consequences.'

Environmental and Health Impacts of the BP Gulf Oil Spill


Scientists plead dispersants not be used
Dispersants consensus statement [PDF]


Continued Abundance of corroborative links at:
http://www.helium.com/items/1929422-bp-gulf-disaster-may-be-killing-millions?page=3
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 08:36:55 AM by Nichi »
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #126 on: August 27, 2010, 02:41:51 AM »
How Has It Come to This?

Scenes from Grand Isle, Louisianna
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #127 on: August 27, 2010, 02:50:48 AM »
National Wildlife Federation Urges Attorney General to Consider Gulf Gas as Well As Oil
Including Gas in Gusher Tally Raises Potential Penalties by 50 percent


08-25-2010 // Miles Grant
Oil burning in Gulf of Mexico

The National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today urging him to hold BP and other parties accountable for both the oil and hydrocarbon gas spilled in the Gulf of Mexico gusher.

While attention has focused almost exclusively on the millions of barrels of crude oil spilled, the discharge and effect of large quantities of hydrocarbon gases like methane and propane have been virtually ignored.

“To hold BP fully accountable for the impacts of the Gulf disaster, the Department of Justice needs to calculate civil penalties by combining both the oil and gas discharges – a total that’s 50 percent higher than the oil alone,” said John Kostyack , executive director for wildlife conservation and global warming with the National Wildlife Federation. “While the public’s attention has been focused mainly on oil, both the Oil Pollution Act and Clean Water Act make it clear that penalties should consider both oil and gas.”

When calculated in equivalent units of weight, the magnitude of discharged oil plus gas is equal to one and a half times the oil alone. In other words, if 172 million gallons (4.1 million barrels) of oil were discharged into U.S. waters, the total discharge in barrel of oil equivalents (oil plus gas) was actually more than 252 million gallons (6 million barrels).

“While it will take time to fully understand the effects of the Gulf disaster, we’re deeply concerned about hydrocarbon gas discharge because so much of it will dissolve into the water before reaching the surface,” said Dr. Ian MacDonald, professor of oceanography at Florida State University. “These effects may include neurological damage and death for fish and other marine life.”

Examples of a cause and effect relationship between large natural gas releases and mass fish mortality were found in the early 1980s in what is now Ukraine. Accidental gas blowouts in the Sea of Azov in 1982 and then again in 1985 significantly impacted flounder and sturgeon populations, resulting in impaired movement, weakened muscle tone, and cell membrane damage.

“Even if microbes work to degrade the hydrocarbon gases, they’ll be competing for oxygen and other nutrients with microbes attacking oil,” said Dr. Lisa Suatoni, senior scientist with NRDC’s Oceans Program. “That could significantly affect the overall degradation process.”

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2010/08-25-10-Including-Gas-In-Gusher-Tally.aspx
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #128 on: August 27, 2010, 03:11:48 AM »
NOAA Claims Scientists Reviewed Controversial Report; The Scientists Say Otherwise

By Dan Froomkin
Huffington Post
   
In responding to the growing furor over the public release of a scientifically dubious and overly rosy federal report about the fate of the oil that BP spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA director Jane Lubchenco has repeatedly fallen back on one particular line of defense -- that independent scientists had given it their stamp of approval.

Back at the report's unveiling on August 4, Lubchenco spoke of a "peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists." On Thursday afternoon, she told reporters on a conference call: "The report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists." The scientists, she said, were listed at the end of the report.

But all the scientists on that list contacted by the Huffington Post for comment this week said the exact same thing: That although they provided some input to NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), they in no way reviewed the report, and could not vouch for it.

The skimpy, four-page report dominated an entire news cycle earlier this month, with contented administration officials claiming it meant that three fourths of the oil released from BP's well was essentially gone -- evaporated, dispersed, burned, etc. But independent scientists are increasingly challenging the report's findings and its interpretation -- and they are expressing outrage that the administration released no actual data or algorithms to support its claims.

HuffPost reached seven of the 11 scientists listed on the report. One declined to comment at all, six others had things to say.

In addition to disputing Lubchenco's characterization of their role, several of them actually took issue with the report itself.

In particular, they refuted the notion, as put forth by Lubchenco and other Obama administration officials, that the report was either scientifically precise or an authoritative account of where the oil went.
Story continues below

"What we were trying to do was give the Incident Command something that they could at least start with," said Ed Overton, an emeritus professor of environmental science at Louisiana State University. "But these are estimates. There's a difference between data and estimates."

Overton said NOAA asked him: "How much did I think would evaporate?" He responded with some ideas, but noted: "There's a jillion parameters which are not very amenable to modeling."

He said he didn't know what NOAA did with his input. "I pretty much did my estimates and let that go," he said.

And Overton bridled at the way the report was presented -- with very precise percentages attributed to different categories. For instance, the report declared that 24 percent of the oil had been dispersed.

"I didn't like the way they say 24 percent. We don't know that," Overton said. "They could have said a little bit more than a quarter, a little bit less than a quarter. But not 24 percent; that's impossible."

Michel Boufadel is on the list, but told HuffPost he did not review the report or its calculations. And the Temple University environmental engineer also said its specificity was inappropriate.

"When you look at that dispersed amount, and it says 8 percent chemically dispersed and 16 percent naturally dispersed, there's a high degree of uncertainty here," he said. "Naturally dispersed could be 6 or it could be 26."

Ron Goodman, a 30-year veteran of Exxon's Canadian affiliate who now runs his own consulting company, was incorrectly listed on the report with an academic affiliation: "U. of Calgary." He is only an adjunct there. He said he responded to a series of questions from NOAA -- "and that was it."

And once the report came out, he said, "I was concerned that the amount dispersed was very low. I think it was higher by maybe a factor of two or three."

In another example of how people are reading too much into the report, there has been some discussion suggesting that its estimate that 8 percent of the oil was chemically dispersed provides a new data point regarding how well those controversial chemicals worked. Goodman, however, said he believes the government scientists didn't base their conclusion on evidence, but on faith.

"They took the amount of dispersant that was applied, and multiplied it by 20 which is the manufacturer's suggested amount," he said.

Merv Fingas, a former chief researcher for Canada's environmental protection agency, said he thought the report was purely operational in nature. "The purpose of this was for the responders, and to tell them what to do -- as opposed to saying 'golly, the oil's all gone.' That was never the impression. That was very badly misinterpreted."

Fingas said the scientists stressed how broad the ranges should be for the estimates. "On the pie chart, if you say 15 percent, it could maybe be 30, it could maybe be 5."

Told how much certainty administration officials expressed in the estimates -- "we have high degree of confidence in them," is how Lubchenco put it -- Fingas was blunt.

"That's what happens when stuff goes from scientists to politicians," he said. "It was exactly the opposite with the scientists. We had a lot of uncertainty."

Juan Lasheras, an engineering professor at University of California, San Diego, on the list explained: "My involvement with the estimation of the oil spill budget has been minimal. I simply assisted Bill Lehr (NOAA) in a minor way with the estimation of the size of the oil droplets generated by the rising plume. I have not been involved in any of the other calculations or in the discussion and the writing of the report."

Jim Payne, a private environmental consultant on the list, declined to comment beyond saying: "I really don't know that much about how that was calculated."

Also worth noting: Four of the "independent scientists" listed on the report work for the oil industry, have until recently, and/or work for consulting companies that do business with the oil industry.

What happened here? Why did ballpark estimates clearly created to guide emergency responders suddenly get cast as a conclusive scientific facts? (See my story from a few hours ago, Questions Mount About White House's Overly Rosy Report On Oil Spill.)

Why did administration officials mislead the public about those findings -- and then claim that independent scientists had reviewed them, when the evidence suggests that they did not?

NOAA public affairs officials did not respond to requests for comment before my deadline.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who was not one of the scientists on NOAA's list, sees this latest incident as part of an ongoing problem.

Lubchenco had previously been a key figure in the patently low-ball estimates for the oil flow, and fervently resisted acknowledging the existence of underwater oil plumes, he said.

"I've worked with NOAA essentially all my career and I have many good friends there, and people I respect in the agency, scientists who are really solid," MacDonald said.

"Throughout this process, it's been troubling to me to see the efforts of people like that passed through a filter where the objective seems to be much more political and public relations than making comments to inform the public.

"The consistent theme," MacDonald said, "seems to be to minimize the impact of the oil -- and to act as a bottleneck for information."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/noaa-claims-scientists-re_n_689428.html
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18283
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #129 on: August 27, 2010, 08:38:39 AM »
So it goes on. Unfortunately it is not just BP that wants this subject off the radar. I would say both political parties are keen to forget it - Democrats because they are in Government, and Republicans because they are on the side of de-regulated industry. It is politically too fraught with pitfalls for any politician.

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #130 on: September 03, 2010, 07:23:18 AM »
There has been another oil rig explosion in the Gulf, to the west of Deepwater Horizon. It's not one of BP's rigs, and there is a leak associated with it.
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #131 on: September 04, 2010, 06:19:20 AM »
Shades of extortion ...

Quote
BP Says Limits on Drilling Imperil Spill Payouts

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: September 2, 2010
New York Times

   
BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The company says a ban would also imperil the ambitious Gulf Coast restoration efforts that officials want the company to voluntarily support.

BP executives insist that they have not backed away from their commitment to the White House to set aside $20 billion in an escrow fund over the next four years to pay damage claims and government penalties stemming from the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The explosion killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.

The company has also agreed to contribute $100 million to a foundation to support rig workers who have lost their jobs because of the administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium. And it pledged $500 million for a 10-year research program to study the impact of the spill.

But as state and federal officials, individuals and businesses continue to seek additional funds beyond the minimum fines and compensation that BP must pay under the law, the company has signaled its reluctance to cooperate unless it can continue to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf accounts for 11 percent of its global production.

“If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow,” said David Nagel, BP’s executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, “makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs.”

The requests keep coming for BP to provide additional money to the Gulf Coast to help mitigate the effects of the spill. This week, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, reiterated his request that BP finance a five-year, $173 million program to test, certify and promote gulf seafood.

BP has already agreed to pay for some measures that exceed its legal obligations. For instance, to help promote tourism in affected regions, it donated $32 million to Florida’s marketing efforts and $15 million each to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

But the company, which is based in London, now appears to be using such voluntary payments as a bargaining chip with American lawmakers.

BP is particularly concerned about a drilling overhaul bill passed by the House on July 30. The bill includes an amendment that would bar any company from receiving permits to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf if more than 10 fatalities had occurred at its offshore or onshore facilities. It would also bar permits if the company had been penalized with fines of $10 million or more under the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts within a seven-year period.

While BP is not mentioned by name in the legislation, it is the only company that currently meets that description.

The provision was written by Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who is a strong environmental advocate and a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker.

It was specifically designed to punish BP for its past transgressions, including the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and deny the company access to American offshore oil and natural gas.

“The risk of having a dangerous company like BP develop new resources in the gulf is too great,” said Daniel Weiss, Mr. Miller’s chief of staff. “Year after year after year, no matter how many incidents they’re involved in, no matter how many fines they’ve had to pay, they never changed their behavior. BP has no one to blame but themselves.”

BP’s concerns are becoming public as the company begins final preparations for permanently sealing its stricken well. On Thursday, it removed the temporary cap on top of the well, which had earlier been blocked with cement, so that it could replace the blowout preventer. The blowout preventer, a massive piece of equipment whose valves failed to shut down the oil flow after the explosion, is a crucial piece of evidence in the investigation.

Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman, said that BP had shown good will by going beyond its legal obligations to clean up the spill and compensate those affected.

“We have committed to do a number of things that are not part of the formal agreement with the White House,” he said. “We are not making a direct statement about anything we are committed to do. We are just expressing frustration that our commitments of good will have at least in some quarters been met with this kind of response.”

Mr. Gowers suggested that the proposed legislation contradicted President Obama’s stated desire to keep BP a strong and viable company after the agreement to set up the escrow fund. He added, “I am not going to make a direct linkage to the $20 billion, but our ability to fund these assets and the cash coming from these assets that are securing these funds would be lost” if the House bill were enacted by Congress.   

BP executives have said that regulators in other countries have not circumscribed their deepwater operations since the gulf accident. The only exception came in Greenland, where officials quietly told BP that it was not welcome to join in an auction for offshore leases in a new Arctic drilling zone.

BP is the largest producer of oil and gas in the gulf, pumping 400,000 barrels a day and accounting for about 20 percent of total production from deepwater reservoirs in the region. The company operates 89 production wells and shares a stake in 60 other wells operated by partner companies.

As BP has tried to raise cash to pay for damages caused by the spill, it has suspended its dividend and intends to sell off as much as $30 billion of assets around the world.

But the Gulf of Mexico remains crucial to the company’s finances.

“The gulf is the most profitable barrel in BP’s portfolio,” said Fadel Gheit, a managing director at Oppenheimer & Company. He estimated that the gulf generated $5 billion to $7 billion in profits annually for BP, or about a quarter of the company’s total.

Mr. Weiss dismissed BP’s warning that it might not be able to meet its financial obligations. “BP has substantial assets, whether they develop them or sell them,” he said. “If BP needs to sell assets to meet its financial obligations, that’s a decision they have to make.”

BP said that the House bill would stymie new drilling and cripple the company’s existing gulf operations.

Mr. Nagel said BP had discussed the matter with House leaders, and that company executives intended to discuss the matter with Senate leaders after the summer recess. The Senate version of the drilling reform bill does not specifically ban BP from future leases, but it grants regulators explicit authority to deny leases to companies with safety or environmental problems.

The Obama administration endorsed the overall House bill, but has been silent on the Miller amendment. An Interior Department official said that the agency already had the authority to deny a company guilty of safety or environmental regulations the right to bid on offshore leases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03bp.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03bp.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #132 on: September 08, 2010, 08:56:56 AM »
Birds
1968 captured alive
1000 rehabilitated and released
4642 collected dead

Mammals (?)
78 dead

Turtles
Over 500 dead
Over 400 captured for rehabilitation

http://www.ibrrc.org/gulf-oil-spill-birds-treated-numbers-2010.html

As of Sept 6:

2055 captured alive
1177 rehabilitated and released
5701 collected dead

Can't locate update on turtles and "mammals", but I did read talk of a "superpod" of dolphins found dead... can't confirm that, though.
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #133 on: September 11, 2010, 11:55:33 PM »
Millions of Migrating Birds Heading to Oil
Birds from Canada are ready to head south, and are in for a deadly shock when they reach still fouled Gulf Coast.


By Larry O'Hanlon
Wed Sep 8, 2010 09:38 AM ET
Discovery News


THE GIST
Migratory birds are heading south into the troubled shores of Louisiana.
Many areas are too contaminated to support the invertebrates migrating birds require.
 
Nearly five million Migratory birds from Canada are now winging their way south across North America, and many of them could be in for a nasty shock when they reach the oily marshes and beaches along the Gulf Coast.

"There’s a lurking time bomb for many waterfowl and shorebirds that breed in Canada's boreal forest and winter or stop in the Gulf," said Jeff Wells, senior scientist at the Boreal Songbird Initiative.

There are several concerns ornithologists have about the birds. First of all, they could come into direct contact with oil that's present in many salt marshes, as well as just under the surface of shores and islands off Louisiana.

Then there is the problem of food. Many shorebirds eat small invertebrates that live in the sand along the shore. Now a lot of that sand is saturated with oil just below the surface, which has wiped out the invertebrates.

"The birds are actually dipping their bills down into the oil," said Wells.

The marshes, shores and islands of the Gulf Coast are a bottleneck for birds heading south, as they provide the last chance for many of these birds to fatten up before flying 500 miles across the Gulf to their wintering grounds in the Caribbean or South America. It's arguably one of the word's the worst places to have a major environmental disaster, said Melanie Driscoll, director of bird conservation for the National Audubon Society's Louisiana Coastal Initiative.

In order to see whether migrating birds get mired directly in oil, or if there are any other surprises in bird behavior or health due to the oil spill, the Audubon Society is planning on expanding teams of volunteer and professional bird watchers to monitor what happens in the coming months, and even years.

Among the first things that might be observed, said Driscoll, is a desperate search for food. If shorebirds can't find food, they will start moving around, looking for it in other areas.

"Migrant birds have very plastic behavior," said Driscoll. "We should be able to see changes in the use of habitat."

Driscoll said she recently visited one of the barrier islands off Louisiana and confirmed Wells' concern about the oil. She found oil-saturated sand just a half inch from the surface of the sand. The oil-soaked sand went down as far as she dug, which was about 15 inches, she said. That's very bad news for shorebirds.

"We're not really sure what will happen," Driscoll told Discovery News. Birds might fail to find enough food and then not complete their migration, search much further and find food, or try to fly without eating enough, and not make it.

"To get answers, we're really looking at these long-term monitoring efforts."

It could take years to sort out the effects to migrating birds, because they are difficult to count and, by their nature, move around a lot.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez disaster, the effects to birds are still being seen because oil is still surfacing on the beaches -- 21 years later. But because the Gulf Coast is so much warmer, Driscoll and others hope that the bacterial degradation of the oil will happen faster than in Alaska's colder Prince William Sound.

"What's really going to matter is the long term impacts to this ecosystem," said Driscoll. "It's a bad place to have a really bad natural disaster."
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #134 on: September 15, 2010, 01:23:01 AM »
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk