CSM: Ecological risk grows as Deepwater Horizon oil rig sinks in Gulf

[PeterMP]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

Initial findings from a new survey of the Gulf conclude that dispersants may have sent droplets of crude to the ocean floor, where it has turned up at the bottom of an undersea canyon within 40 miles of the Florida Panhandle. The results are scheduled to be released Tuesday, but CNN obtained a summary of the initial conclusions Monday night.

Plankton and other organisms at the base of the food chain showed a "strong toxic response" to the crude, and the oil could well up onto the continental shelf and resurface later, according to researchers.

"The dispersant is moving the oil down out of the surface and into the deeper waters, where it can affect phytoplankton and other marine life," said John Paul, a marine microbiologist at USF.

[China]

Well it had to go somewhere and only a fool would've believed it just "disappeared" as some were reporting.

[twa]

There is no plankton in deep water is there?

Oil certainly does not disappear:silly:,but it does certainly breakdown or convert into other substances.

the problem being the definitions used...a link to the study

http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16.pdf

[PeterMP]

There is no plankton in deep water is there?

Oil certainly does not disappear:silly:,but it does certainly breakdown or convert into other substances.

the problem being the definitions used...a link to the study

http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16.pdf

Plankton is an unspecific term. Most plankton are plant like (and sometimes called plant planktons or phytoplanktons) and live on the surface and are photosynthetic. Other planktons, more specifically called zooplankton, live at various depths in the water column, including deep water and are involved in the break down of dead material.

[Monk81skins]

I've been out in the Gulf on a sampling ship since early August. good times...

[PeterMP]

deleted post

[generaltso]

Heading down to panama city beach over labor day, gonna spend as much money as possible.

[Monk81skins]

I have no clue how much info. I can give out. They're saying that we can't give out information while on the ship. I didn't specifically sign anything though.

[twa]

Oil spilled. But hysteria did the real damage in the Gulf

From the BP leak to terror or ash clouds, politics has spurned its most precious responsibility: to react proportionately to danger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/17/deepwater-horizon-spill-barack-obama

[China]

Oil spilled. But hysteria did the real damage in the Gulf

From the BP leak to terror or ash clouds, politics has spurned its most precious responsibility: to react proportionately to danger

I don't think we know what the full extent of the damage is or will be.

How can politicians react proportionately to something they don't know?

I'm sure politicians are and were playing it up to make themselves look good, like they're trying to do something, or at least to keep themselves from looking like they were doing nothing, which is pretty much what they did.

[PeterMP]

Oil spilled. But hysteria did the real damage in the Gulf

From the BP leak to terror or ash clouds, politics has spurned its most precious responsibility: to react proportionately to danger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/17/deepwater-horizon-spill-barack-obama

First, the piece is full of things that he can't back up. We don't know if most of the oil evaporated. We don't know where it is, and in the Persian gulf, it isn't believed that most of it evaporated. About half is believed to evaporated. A good bit was physically pumped out of the Persian Gulf. The rest remained in the environment and either has been metabolized somehow or is still there today. (And I won't even get into the Persian Gulf being warmer and shallower than this part of the Gulf and the use of the dispersants in this case.)

Second, people aren't eating fish from the Gulf specifically because they aren't testing the sea food for dispersants. If some company (or the government) wants to step up and do that, you'd pretty much immediately see sea food consumption from the gulf go up.

Third, I NEVER heard a single politician suggest that ANYBODY NOT go to a FL beach. If he (or you) would like to provide some quotes to back that up, I'd really be interested.

[twa]

They are supposedly finishing up test protocol for dispersant from what I gather

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38694358/ns/us_news-environment/

NOAA, FDA to test seafood for dispersants

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/07/fda_sees_no_harm_to_seafood_from_dispersants_used_in_gulf/

FDA sees no harm to seafood from dispersants used in gulf

FDA scientists do not believe that the chemicals accumulate significantly in the tissue of fish and shellfish, and so even if the fish absorb the chemicals through gills or other ways, the fish do not retain them, Jeanne Ireland, FDA’s assistant commissioner for legislation, wrote to Markey.

That means they do not pass up the food chain to humans and are not considered a public health concern, according to the FDA.

[PeterMP]

They are supposedly finishing up test protocol for dispersant from what I gather

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38694358/ns/us_news-environment/

NOAA, FDA to test seafood for dispersants

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/07/fda_sees_no_harm_to_seafood_from_dispersants_used_in_gulf/

FDA sees no harm to seafood from dispersants used in gulf

FDA scientists do not believe that the chemicals accumulate significantly in the tissue of fish and shellfish, and so even if the fish absorb the chemicals through gills or other ways, the fish do not retain them, Jeanne Ireland, FDA’s assistant commissioner for legislation, wrote to Markey.

That means they do not pass up the food chain to humans and are not considered a public health concern, according to the FDA.

I understand that they don't see a public health risk, but people are still going to be cautious until it is actually demonstrated by testing for the dispersants.

It does seem a bit odd that they were able to state that their was no risk w/o even having a protocol that had been developed to detect the dispersants.

[China]

Is this one time testing? Or will they continue to monitor and test the seafood. If the oild and dispersants are still floating around, it may take more time to see them at detectable levels in the seafood, assuming (as Peter mentioned) they get a protocol in place to detect the dispersants.

It's nice initial news, but it's too soon to say everything's hunky dory.

[twa]

I understand that they don't see a public health risk, but people are still going to be cautious until it is actually demonstrated by testing for the dispersants.

It does seem a bit odd that they were able to state that their was no risk w/o even having a protocol that had been developed to detect the dispersants.

What is really odd is simply smelling the seafood to test it,they obviously have a better nose than I do:ols:

There have been studies on dispersant(and the chemicals that make them up) and seafood....science says they do not accumulate it....thus the assumption of no risk.

It can hurt developing and adolescent seafood though.

added

China I'm sure they will be continuing testing till the fear wears off....c'mon down and suck some heads

[KingGibbs]

I highly recommend that anyone that eats seafood from the Gul to keep their receipts over the next few years. I'm no scientist, but I would think that it would take some time for the dispersant to affect marine life??? I wouldn't be surprised to see some big time fish kills in the next few months.

Or did the dispersant act like a leach and sink to the bottom of the ocean floor with the oil??

[zoony]

The nice thing is, you won't have to add salt to any seafood dishes for the next few years

[twa]

I'm no scientist, but I would think that it would take some time for the dispersant to affect marine life??? I wouldn't be surprised to see some big time fish kills in the next few months.

Or did the dispersant act like a leach and sink to the bottom of the ocean floor with the oil??

The dispersant supposedly breaks down faster than oil,I wouldn't look for large fish kills at all from this....in fact wasn't there a massive one up North about a week ago (Chesapeake bay?)that dwarfed the kill we have seen from the record breaking spill?....maybe our fish are smarter:silly:

I look forward to seeing the new test results on this event and real science being applied:)

added

Naturally there are those that disagree :evilg:

http://www.gulfoildisasterrecovery.com/web/index.asp?mode=full&id=752

Attorney Stuart H. Smith, representing the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, public and private entities, and citizens harmed by the BP oil catastrophe, today issued this statement:

“Independent analysis by toxicologists dispute FDA claims made in the last few days that chemical dispersants used by BP during the oil catastrophe may not accumulate in seafood.

“In fact, in a full report by Dr. Bill Sawyer released today, there is a grave problem caused by dispersants, due to the fact that these were used in deep waters and on such a vast scale.

“Studies of other spills show that the toxic components of crude oil ‘bio-accumulate’ into the food chain and become highly toxic to marine reproduction and harmful when consumed by humans, even when dispersants are applied at the surface and the chemical toxins may be sufficiently diluted over time to pose only minimal risks.

“However, BP’s use of dispersants deep underwater in the Gulf, and on such a vast scale, represents the first time dispersants have been used in this manner. The greatly-reduced biodegradation in the DEEPWATER HORIZON case, resulting from lack of sunlight, extreme cold temperatures at 5000 feet, and other environmental factors significantly reduce the rate at which the dispersed crude components are degraded.

“Eight months would be required to remove 96 percent of the petroleum under ideal conditions, thus we can only assume what remains in the Gulf waters will be a ‘toxic soup’ of chemicals for the foreseeable future, due to the worst-case scenario which has unfolded.

“The most potentially dangerous of the components in the Gulf’s toxic soup are ‘polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons’ (PAHs), dangerous cancer-causing chemicals which slowly break down after being ingested by marine life, persist in marine organisms and can be passed to both humans and other wildlife through consumption.

“PAHs are not contained within the dispersants used, but rather, have been extracted from the BP crude and suspended in the water column via dispersant use.

“It must also be noted that the deep water National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Weatherbird analyses and our own near shore water, tunicate and beach samples have revealed a consistent pattern of dispersant-induced C19-C36 hydrocarbons and PAHs. Unfortunately, these specific PAHs are of the most toxic variety. Clearly, analyses of seafood in impacted regions require additional testing for PAH uptake protective of human carcinogenic potential.

“It is important that the public be vigilant and educate itself to these risks, as further compounding this misinformation from FDA are published news reports which show the government trying to discount university studies about the toxicity of the Gulf water column and seafood, and denying the continued use of dispersant spraying off the coast of Florida.”

[twa]

OMG has our government been bought off?

http://www.truth-out.org/uncovering-lies-that-are-sinking-oil62345

:maniac::stir:

[PeterMP]

OMG has our government been bought off?

http://www.truth-out.org/uncovering-lies-that-are-sinking-oil62345

:maniac::stir:

Yes, our government has been bought off (completely independent of the information in that link being accurate or not).

In terms of the dispersant issue, the other link you quoted is accurate. There has been no studies on degredation or bioaccumulation under these conditions (depth, temperature, length of time of exposure). If you want people to believe your product is safe, then give them some evidence of it.

If you won't/can't, you really can't complain when people decide not to use your product.

[twa]

Well there will definitely be studies now

[twa]

New microbe discovered eating oil spill in Gulf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100825/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_oil_eating_bugs

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has revealed a previously unknown type of oil-eating bacteria, which is suddenly flourishing.

Scientists discovered the new microbe while studying the underwater dispersion of millions of gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf following the explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

And the microbe works without significantly depleting oxygen in the water, researchers led by Terry Hazen at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported Tuesday in the online journal Science Express.

"Our findings, which provide the first data ever on microbial activity from a deepwater dispersed oil plume, suggest" a great potential for bacteria to help dispose of oil plumes in the deep-sea, Hazen said in a statement.

Environmentalists have raised concerns about the giant oil spill and the underwater plume of dispersed oil, particularly its potential effects on sea life. A report just last week described a 22-mile long underwater mist of tiny oil droplets.

"Our findings show that the influx of oil profoundly altered the microbial community by significantly stimulating deep-sea" cold temperature bacteria that are closely related to known petroleum-degrading microbes, Hazen reported.

..

Hazen suggested that the bacteria may have adapted over time due to periodic leaks and natural seeps of oil in the Gulf.

Scientists also had been concerned that oil-eating activity by microbes would consume large amounts of oxygen in the water, creating a "dead zone" dangerous to other life. But the new study found that oxygen saturation outside the oil plume was 67 percent, while within the plume it was 59 percent.

[PeterMP]

I love how numbers are thrown out there with no context.

"Based on laboratory or field-observed responses of organisms to oxygen stress, hypoxia has been variously defined as corresponding to a range of 3.0–0.2 ml l¡1, with the consensus in favor of 1.4 ml l¡1 (D 2mg l¡1 or ppm). Another convenient threshold for effects that was adopted by Breitburg (2002)was dissolved oxygen concentration<50% saturation owing to avoidance behavior, reduced growth, or other signs of physiological stress in sensitive fish. For this review, we define hypoxia for the northern Gulf of Mexico as dissolved oxygen levels below 2 mg l¡1. This is the level below which bottom dragging trawls usually do not capture any shrimp or demersal fish (Renaud 1986)."

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150513

So from falling from oxygen saturation from 67% to 59%, we are 47% closer and only 9 percentage points from reaching a point where we start affecting fish behavior in the ABSENCE of oil and dispersants.

And even the full "dead zone" has ~20% oxygen saturation.

And of course, this decrease happened mostly from the bacteria eating mostly the shorter, easier to metabolize molecules.

[twa]

Speaking of context:),those oxygen numbers are from inside the plume itself.

Which is dissipating rapidly per their report.(which I believe stated the microbes are more detectable than hydrocarbons at this point.

added

Are your dead zone baselines even from a comparable depth?

[PeterMP]

Speaking of context:),those oxygen numbers are from inside the plume itself.

Which is dissipating rapidly per their report.(which I believe stated the microbes are more detectable than hydrocarbons at this point.

added

Are your dead zone baselines even from a comparable depth?

1. I'm not sure what you mean by dead zone baseline? 20% oxygen there is little to no aerobic activity no matter what the depth.

2. They give no data from just outside of the plume. Their "non plume" data is from different sites.

3. PARTS of the plume were dissipating quickly. The parts that are easiest to metabolize and least toxic.

4. The studies you are posting on come from data collected in June. I've already posted in this thread a link from studies in August showing that MILES from the site of the spill that oil had settled to the bottom.