Real interviews of Corexit destruction

B

Brownout

Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
252
Corexit interviews

Part 1-missing dead sea life

I know most everyone has "issue fatigue" but this guy wrote this massive piece on Huffingtonpost and he has like 2 comments. Meanwhile, the most commented story is about Sarah Palin's entourage ripping down a sign. Spread the article around if you feel like it. Very good reporting.
 
I just got done reaing that article. I think I'm going to vomit now! There is absolutely no real leadership anywhere in this country.
 
just read it, not surprised. I said it before and I'll say it again, our government is failing us. dem or repub, doesn't matter. it's all about the money, who's giving and who's taking.
I really feel for the people of that region, must be frustrating to watch all the lies on tv when the truth is lying dead in you backyard.
 
Damn the price of shrimp at Red Lobster is gonna go up.
 
I think it's good to read anything and everything using critical thinking, and not simply accept wholesale what you read.

There may be some, even a lot of truth to what he wrote there. But I wouldn't be too sure of all that. Maybe more info will come to light in the near future about how much damage really occurred to marine life. I'm guessing it was probably quite a lot, considering the quantity of oil, natural gas and chemical dispersants.

But there might be some slanting going on with that article. For example, workers were going around cleaning up dead animals etc. and taking them away. The article makes it sound like that was a conspiracy to hide the facts.

But supposing they DIDN'T clean up? They would have been accused of negiligence, of not caring about beach communities, etc. It was the responsiblity of the government and BP to the people of the beach communities, to clean up as quickly as thoroughly as possible.

Beach communities depend on tourism, so the image of the town and beaches is very important. I'm guessing most people in those beach towns wanted the dead animals removed as quickly as possible.

So, I detect a little "spin" going on regarding the removal of the dead animals.

They could be removed to "hide" the facts. Or they could be removed because that's their duty and responsiblity to do that task, as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
 
yeah, troutbert is right on that.

Yeah, this was a megadisaster. There was lots of damage. And the dispersents, while they certainly create some problems of their own, the overall trade off is positive.

People keep saying the oils all down there on the bottom. I'm sure there's a little. But overall, no, the oil is gone!!!!! By forming it into tiny little droplets and dispersing it throughout the water column, you open up the highest possible surface area and give the oil eating microbes (and dispersent eating microbes) a feast.

No, I don't want to be surrounded by millions of gallons of dispersent, yes it can make you sick, and yes its a crappy situation. But being surrounded by millions of gallons of oil is even worse. The dispersents worked. Without them, marine life would be dying, and people getting sick for years, maybe decades to come. With them, marine life is dying and people getting sick for perhaps months to come.

And they cleaned up dying, rotting carcasses quickly before people were exposed to them. Oh yeah, thats terrible! Ok, yes, they need to admit how much died due to the disaster. And its not acceptable to prevent medical treatment of those who need it. But the Huffington post needs to realize how many more animals and entire ecosystems would have died, and how many MORE people would be sick if not for the dispersents.

Anyway, soapbox out....
 
Pat,

What's your take on this article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/05/oil-spill-white-house-accused-spin
 
My take:

"The White House was accused today of spinning a government scientific report into the amount of oil left in the Gulf of Mexico from the BP spill which had officials declaring that the vast majority of the oil had been removed."

Well, if they said the vast majority was "removed", thats just not true, it wasn't removed. It was degraded by natural forces into its constituents, which are common and much less dangerous substances. This occurs naturally, but the use of dispersents greatly accelerated the process, i.e. it made the oil more biodegradable. The process is likely not over, either. It would normally take decades for this to occur naturally. With dispersents, it's probably more like a few months, but we've only had weeks for some of the oil that came out late in the spill. So yeah, there's still oil being eaten by microbes throughout the water column. But unlike some of the things you read, it isn't all just laying there on the bottom.

Further, onshore, such as the marshes and mud flats, there's still surface oil. The whole process just doesn't work as well in shallow, flat water as it does in deep, agitated water. And the dispersents are still out there too, they'll take a few months to break down as well, but they are biodegradable.

And while the microbes are feasting on oil and dispersent, they're using oxygen, in an environment thats always been oxygen poor due to the Mississippi. So the already existing dead zones on the ocean floor are almost certainly expanding. And of all those dead fish, I'm sure some died of toxification, but more probably died of suffocation, or if their food supply is out of reach or destroyed, starvation. For instance, the one article showed a school of rays swimming near the surface. Why? Well, they're normal habitat, the bottom, is uninhabitable because of lack of oxygen, and their bottom dwelling food supply either perished or moved. They're on the surface to breath.

So I do see a political danger in saying "all is well" when the reality is "things are still very very bad, but not as bad as they could have been and the situation is improving." Plus, even when all the oil and dispersents are gone, recovery from the economic aspect of the disaster will linger, and it'll take some time to get the fishery to fully recover. Those people down there have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and they don't look to come back anytime soon. The last thing they want to see is the president telling the rest of the country that everything is peachy now and that everyone can forget about the gulf.
 
Back
Top