Michael Grunwald took a run at carrying forward this idea that the BP oil disaster is actually, you know, not so bad, a perspective contrasted by his own colleague at Time, Bryan Walsh:
I think it’s far too early to declare the oil spill a bust. It’s true that the coastlines don’t seem to have experienced the damage they might have—though as Mother Jones’s Mac McClelland points out, there’s definitely still oil in the waters and the beaches. (One of the challenges of covering this spill has been geography—as Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen has said, it’s like fighting hundreds or thousands of smaller spills, each of which can hit hundreds of miles of coastlines. It’s the fog of environmental war—just because one island hasn’t been hit by oil doesn’t mean another might not be, and vice versa.) [...]
But look beyond the coastline. The truth is we know very little about what the release of tens of millions of gallons of oil underwater will do to the marine ecosystems of the Gulf. Add in the application of some 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants, which have never been used—and were never meant to be used—in such vast quantities. We know that there are oil plumes under the water—but we don’t know what they might be doing to marine life. And there are great fears that the Gulf’s rich fisheries might take years to recover. The spill hit during the nursery season, and might have damaged oysters, shrimp and other species when they were young and vulnerable. 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, fisheries in Prince William Sound haven’t fully recovered, and nearly every fisherman you meet on the Gulf coast worries the same thing will happen to the waters they once plied.
Indeed, the real problem now might be that the oil, along with dispersants, have absorbed into the marine life. The whole PR strategy for BP has been to keep the oil off the shore, so people like Michael Grunwald would bail them out with articles about how the disaster isn’t all that bad. But just because we can’t see the insides of the organisms in the food chain, that doesn’t mean their intake of oil and other chemicals isn’t devastating for the ecosystem:
Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the foodchain.
Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them “in almost all” of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. — more than 300 miles of coastline — said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.
And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely in the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Toxic droplets that can affect the ocean life in the Gulf for generations – that’s not my idea of a dodged bullet. So the idea that BP can “scale back” their operations now is outrageous. They can scale back the dumping of toxic chemicals into the Gulf, to be sure, but it’s way too early to take the cleanup crews out of the water. The situation is still bleak.





16 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Oil “spills” are daily occurrences, according to information compiled and released by the National Wildlife Federation. NWF got the info from the Minerals Management Services, but then who would ever expect MMS to make such data available readily to the public?
LINK.
Always looking on the sunny side:
Incoming BP CEO: Time for ‘scaleback’ in cleanup
Meanwhile,
“Meanwhile, efforts to permanently plug the gusher hit a snag when crews found debris in the bottom of the relief well that must be fished out before crews can pump mud into BP’s busted well in a procedure known as a static kill.
. . .
“After the static kill comes the bottom kill, where the relief well will be used to pump in mud and cement from the bottom of the busted well and hopefully cut off the oil permanently.”
LINK.
Sylvia Earle, the National Geographic’s explorer-in-residence and former chief scientist at NOAA, stated that “the instructions for humans using Corexit warn that it is an eye and skin irritant, is harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed, and may cause injury to red blood cells, kidney or the liver.” “People are warned not to take Corexit internally,” she said, “but the fish, turtles, copepods and jellies have no choice. They are awash in a lethal brew of oil and butoxyethanol.”
One problem with breaking down the oil is that it makes it easier for the many tiny underwater organisms to ingest this toxic soup.
Earle has called for a halt on the subsurface use of dispersants, while limiting surface use to strategic sites where other methods cannot safeguard critically important coastal habitats.
For a better understanding of why toxic dispersants are being used by BP in such an excessive and unprecedented manner, visit:
http://renergie.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/bps-strategy-to-limit-liability-in-regard-to-its-gulf-oil-gusher/
“Earle has called for a halt on the subsurface use of dispersants…”
Seems to me EPA tried that a while back. How’d that turn out?
One of the many things that I have found upsetting about this oil disaster is that it doesn’t seem to be translating into any clear public awareness of the need for a fundamental change in our approach to our energy. Much of the public outrage has been focused on the corporate malfeasance of BP in much the same way it was on AIG during the financial meltdown. That’s all well and good, but we need to look at energy in a new light. That’s not necessarily true about money.
The public seems depressingly willing to swallow any corporate and media spin that the crisis is over and we can go back to business as usual.
The New York Times and the Minneapolis Tribune have also started pushing the story that the oil spill wasn’t as big a deal as people thought, and I’m sure than many other newspapers have also done so. None of the things I’ve read so far have given much attention to the long-term biological affects; mostly it’s just visible effects that they’re talking about.
None of the things I’ve read recognizes that when microorganisms break down the oil, the water is depleted of oxygen and the already-existing dead zone might be enlarged.
It really reads like an organized disinformation campaign aimed at making anyone who’s actually concerned about the whole range of results seem like a partisan.
I saw the movie “Zeitgeist” the other day. It was shocking to say the least and underlined how the powerful can easily control the message. Once you see that movie, the rest of this all makes sense. We will never get clean energy in this country until we can reclaim our government from the corporations.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
I don’t think it’s coincidental that by injecting Corexit directly into the rising column of oil, BP greatly diminished the appearance of the oil slick on the surface and obscured the ability to accurately measure how much oil was gushing into the Gulf each day. This use was going on at the same time BP was vastly understating the flow from the well. The way in which Corexit was used appears to be part of a purposeful campaign to mask the total release, and to treat the oil spill as a PR problem rather than an environmental issue.
Any disaster of this kind is handled by making things look good again — “cleanup”. Actual remediation or restoration is sometimes ignored completely. In this case, BP is also gaming the fines and penalties by destroying evidence and withholding information.
The sad thing is that Obama is playing along with BP
Where is the leadership which would help the public make sense of the information available?
Not in the WH, not in the MCM (Mainstream CORPORATE Media), not in Congress. And those who would inform are ignored by the MCM. If not for the blogs and intnets….
Which raises the question of when will the power that be move against freedom on the internet?
Now, why would Obama go along with BP? Why would he forego the opportunity to appear to be an actual leader and defender of the American people?
Why, indeed….Read this post by Boston Boomer at The Confluence where some dots are connected. This needs more investigation, but the implications are…shocking and terrible. But seemingly very possible.
It’s like saying exposure to ionizing radiation isn’t so bad, because I walked into a room with Plutonium sitting on the table, touched it (hey! it’s warm to the touch!) and nothing happened.
Later, I kinda got sick….
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Mark Sumner’s (aka Devilstower) The Evolution of Everything: How Selection Shapes Culture, Commerce, and Nature hosted by Janet Stemwedel
I was going to point out Boston Boomer’s excellent and well-researched diary about the connections between Larry Fink (head of BlackRock, a corporation that has majority ownership of BP) and Geithner and Paulson, but you beat me to it. Her diary contains a link to a Vanity Fair article on Fink that contains this:
Vanity Fair Link
People think that the only real problem is when they see black muck fouling beaches. I frequent a musicians/guitar discussion forum and the owner posted a comment asking where all the oil from the spill was. More than a few are beginning to equate the whole thing as an over-blown media event similar to the Flu scare last year. I told my wife weeks ago, “Watch, in 90 days, you’ll hear virtually nothing on the news about the Gulf disaster.” I’m starting to see stories on the CBS Evening News that the effects of the spill may not be as bad as originally thought. Bullshit. Just because no one is ass-deep in tar balls doesn’t mean everything is fine. I think the worst is yet to come, unfortunately.
If it is proven that larvae of blue crabs and fiddler crabs sampled from Louisiana to Pensacola are contaminated with oil and corexit dispersant, (as one expert put it) “the effect on fisheries could last for years probably not a matter of months” and affect many species.
SO we just stop eating crab and it will be OK right? Wrong!
It all comes down to understanding the food chain. The food chain is the sequence of who eats whom in a biological community (an ecosystem) to obtain nutrition.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-for-dinner.html