That’s an important point. Many accounts (including the one I wrote yesterday) have left the impression that 74 percent of the oil had been “dealt with,” and 26 percent of the oil was “still out there.” Included in that 74 percent figure, however, is 24 percent of the total oil, which has only been chemically or naturally “dispersed” (see here), meaning that it’s still in the system—just broken up in to smaller droplets.
Both The Washington Post and NPR pointed out that NOAA’s Lubchenco had to correct a misunderstanding fostered by White House climate and energy advisor Carol Browner, who said on the Today Show Wednesday that “more than three-quarters of the oil is gone.” Lubchenco clarified that about half the spilled oil has actually been removed from the Gulf ecosystem through skimming, burning, collection, and evaporation.
As for The New York Times, it acknowledged the debate over the federal report in two articles on Thursday—one on the front page and one inside. The inside article attributed most of the related skepticism to Gulf coast residents rather than independent scientists, however, and seemed to defend the Times’s Wednesday article, reporting that “The implication of the report was that future damage from the oil might be less than had been feared.” The front-page article seemed to dismiss lingering concerns almost entirely, surmising that “The skepticism has been stoked by environmental groups that came to the gulf in droves, lawyers who have been soliciting clients from billboards along roads leading south, a sensation-hungry news media and politicians who have gained broad popularity for thundering in opposition to response officials.”
It’s shocking how similar that sounds to comments by Rush Limbaugh, who, citing the Times’s Wednesday article, launched into a tirade accusing the media of being “willing accomplices” in an anti-capitalist agenda that “wanted this disaster” to help further their cause. “The fact is they can’t find the oil,” he said. “This hilarious … nature always cleans itself up.”
Well, no… not always. Yet reporters should, in fact, be careful to avoid and combat sensationalism related to the Gulf spill. Again, this is not about drumming up an ecological catastrophe that isn’t. It’s about refusing to accept government and industry assurances that everything is hunky-dory without at least making a few calls and getting some outside opinion. Yes, the press needs to avoid alarmism, but it also needs to avoid credulity.
Yes, the press needs to avoid alarmism, but it also needs to avoid credulity.
The press has seldom avoided alarmism when it comes to environmental issues.
In general, the toxicity of a substance, any substance, is a function of the concentration of that substance. As Paracelsus put it “the dose makes the poison”. The longer that oil stays in the gulf, the more it will disperse (the whole point of using dispersants), and the less toxic it will be. The Gulf of Mexico is a big place. I would expect that within a few months currents and natural diffusion will render whatever oil still left in the gulf waters undetectable. This may not be the case for the stuff on the shore or heavier constituents in deeper colder spots but it looks like things might not be as bad as once thought.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 5 Aug 2010 at 05:55 PM
One of the things I found interesting about the report was how it was an indictment of the cleanup efforts if you look at their numbers.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100804_oil.html
The cleanup only recovered 25% of the spill that they were supposed to have completely handled.
70% of the oil is still out there, "8% estimated" emulsified by unknown chemicals with unknown effects when used in these concentrations. We don't know the break down rates of this much natural crude, which accounts for 67%.
These same cleanup techniques were used in Prince William sound, someone should ask around about what the recovery was like, how areas covered in dispersed oil bounced back (hint: they didn't) how oil absorbed and buried by the beaches broke down (hint: it hasn't). The figures issued by the government and BP were known to be false and independent investigation was suppressed. That indicates to me the BP is working off of government and industry figures and was told to make some quick guesses for public consumption, because the public was going to be consuming seafood soon.
This is being accepted by conservatives because conservatives want to believe that the environmental catastrophe was an over hyped anti-captialist plot and is being accepted by democrats because it's "Mission Accomplished" before the mid-terms and Obama doesn't want to talk about his support of off-shore drilling, his failure to get a climate bill, the images from a contaminated shore and contaminated animals, unemployed fishers losing their houses because the government and BP isn't there to help.
The press and the science are trying to soften the outrage before an election.
As consumers and independent press do not trust government figures and tests, continue testing the products coming out of the gulf independently, and don't eat that stuff until you can trust it, something that takes a couple of years of monitoring, at least, not a couple of weeks.
The opening of the gulf is just another of many cowardly actions by this administration to protect itself and BP.
And without sustained outrage, the problems which created this mess will not change.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 01:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4-eoNE-izk
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 03:06 AM
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/hazmat-leader-large-bones-washing-low-tide-mammal-bones-turtle-bones-lot-large-fish-dead-beach-video
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 08:52 AM
The english press is doing investigations. If the American press does only as good..:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/03/gulf-oil-spill-chemicals-epa
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 09:02 AM
Don't forget about the workers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/06/98772/with-well-shut-next-worry-is-health.html
Which BP is laying off with the "news" that the disaster is over:
http://motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/08/bp-cuts-more-10000-oil-spill-cleanup-workers
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 7 Aug 2010 at 05:40 AM
Little tid bit here. From the NOAA report about I linked to:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf
there's a list of independent scientists who "consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to refine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate."
One of the names that shows up is:
Ed Overton, LSU
Ed has a history. Read:
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/government-scientist-tests-didnt-see-oil-in-samples-of-water-with-heavy-metallic-sheen
Who else has a history? Paid reporters need to check that out.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 7 Aug 2010 at 05:55 AM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/04/98658/scientists-skeptical-of-obama.html
"The scientists and other experts who challenged the government's conclusions warned that painting too rosy a picture could hamper the environmental monitoring and cleanup work that remains to be done in the Gulf.
Marine conservationist Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska scientist, said: "Let's look at this another way: that there's some 50 percent of the oil left. It's still there in the environment."
The government report also fails to account for the effect of vast, underwater plumes of microscopic droplets of oil that remain unmeasured, scientists said, and it downplays the potential long-term effects of the release of as much as 4.1 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Some 800,000 barrels were captured at the wellhead.
The remaining 50 percent in the water is the equivalent of almost eight Exxon Valdez oil spills, until now the country's benchmark environmental disaster.
"Now what we're hearing is they don't think the damage will be as bad as they initially thought," Steiner said. "We have to remember that the same thing was said after the Exxon Valdez. But much of the damage didn't become apparent until the second or third year."
Scientists also questioned the report's methodology.
"There is a lot of uncertainty in these figures," said James H. Cowan, Jr., a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University,
For example, the report doesn't explain how its authors decided what was naturally dispersed oil and what was chemically dispersed oil. They gave no details of how they estimated the evaporation rate of oil — something that's difficult to do over large areas of seawater because of the effects of weather and other factors, Cowan said.
In the face of the criticism, administration officials bristled at questions about their findings."
"One of the scientists, who also testified before Congress on Wednesday and contributed to the government report, said he wasn't surprised by the findings. Edward Overton, an emeritus professor of environmental sciences at Louisiana State, acknowledged that oil in deep water is unlikely to degrade as quickly because of colder water temperatures and lower oxygen levels.
However, he also said that organisms living in deep water are acclimated to living in some amount of crude oil — an amount of oil equal to two Exxon Valdez oil spills seeps naturally out of the sea bottom every year, he said.
"I think what is left is degrading rapidly,'' Overton said. "I keep asking everyone I see, 'You seen oil?' And the answer is 'nothing.'""
Hmmmn, Good article. with the skeptic at the end.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 7 Aug 2010 at 11:03 AM
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-05-so-what-happens-when-you-dump-2-million-gallons-of-toxic-chemica/
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2305
Hugh Kaufman's asks:
"7) Congressman Edward Markey provided documentation over the weekend that two to three times the amount of the dispersant Corexit was spread over the floating oil than was reported to have been spread by EPA and the Government. Do you agree or disagree with Congressman Markey's documented allegation? If you agree, what actions will you take to correct the record?
8) At your press conference Monday, you stated that biodegradation of the oil spilled in the Gulf was 50 percent faster when dispersants were used. This assertion is in direct conflict with evidence of a report describing the Amoco Cadiz oil spill in France in 1978, in which dispersed oil is still not biodegraded. What scientific basis do you have for your conflicting assertion?"
I'd like to know.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Aug 2010 at 06:53 PM
McClatchy (former Knight-Ridder) a lone MSM wolf disputing government claims yet again.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99316/georgia-scientists-dispute-obama.html
"Far from gone or dispersed, the scientists said, 70 to 79 percent of the more than 4 million barrels of oil that escaped into the Gulf of Mexico remains in the water, posing real but still undetermined risks.
"The idea that 75 percent of the oil is gone and of no concern for the environment
is just absolutely incorrect," said Charles Hopkinson, a director of Georgia Sea Grant and marine science professor at the University of Georgia, who co-authored the report.
The Georgia report blamed the media for "inaccurate and misleading'' interpretation of a federal analysis released Aug. 2, but its authors, in a teleconference, declined to address questions about whether an upbeat spin by the Obama administration had shaped coverage."
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 10:11 PM