What was that about reducing our need for oil?

It's been two years since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig suffered explosions and sank, leading to about 206 million gallons of crude spilling out of the BP well and into the water, marshes and beaches of the Gulf of Mexico. On top of that, around two million gallons of Corexit dispersant were also added, both on the surface of the water and at the wellhead itself. It's all cool now though, right?

Maybe not. To listen to the FDA and the EPA, seafood from the Gulf is safe, and all is well. However, that message is not in tune with what some scientists and fisherman are saying. In some areas it seems, shrimp, crab and fish populations are hugely decreased and what remains show an alarming rate of deformity. Tumors, lack of eyes, and running sores are just some of the visible signs of the impact that the spill is continuing to have on organisms in the region. Officialdom's seeming obliviousness is hardly comforting.

Hit the jump for a video overview of Al Jazeera's in-depth report on the issue, or better yet, read the whole article.

Now, about reducing our need for oil...



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 64 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      Let us keep giving huge incentives to these coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas companies so they can keep giving us food like this. As Mitt Romney said, "I had some of 'em southern grits and they are good." We should restrict the Gulf to American owned companies only. These foreign companies could care less about our environment, and while we are at it, get those electric cars massed produced and on the market.
        • 3 Years Ago
        BP is about half American and half British, with each countries citizens and institutions controlling 40% of the company, it is as foreign as any other American company with partially foreign shareholders. Do you really think American companies care more about the offshore environment?
      Jim
      • 3 Years Ago
      I'd like to point out that this is the same EPA that declared the air at Ground Zero safe to breath, causing 9/11 rescuers to disgard their breathing protection and subsequently damage their lungs. The EPA has shown a disturbing trend lately of placing the value of commerce above public safety.
        PR
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Jim
        Jim got voted down because the EPA only declared that the air in the surrounding residential districts around Ground Zero was safe to breath a number of days after 9/11. The EPA never declared the air quality on "The Pile" to be safe to breath for the 9/11 workers attempting to find survivors, or that the air the 9/11 rescuers breathed on the day the buildings came down was safe to breath. On the contrary, the EPA mandated that anyone working on the pile wear within the closed zone around the pile wear a hazmat mask. A number of 9/11 workers and people living in areas directly surrounding Ground Zero had their lungs damaged on 9/11, long before the EPA was involved. Many others had their lungs damaged and other problems when working on the pile where they were supposed to be wearing masks, but they had to remove their masks at times to crawl into the rubble, or had problems with masks not fitting properly, or had the wrong type of mask, etc. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the EPA clearing the the surrounding neighborhoods as having breathable air. So Jim got downvoted for being wrong on the facts. But I understand that you anti-gov't folks really don't care about the facts, and will up-vote Jim just because his falsehoods align with your political viewpoints.
          EZEE
          • 7 Months Ago
          @PR
          I was genuinely curious. Yes, anti-government (for most things) but if someone is in error, or missing something, I always like a correction. The air around the towers (that Bush personally piloted both planes into - see, I can be on your side) was certainly bad, but I didn't know of the timeline. But, thanks for stereotyping those who disagree, stereotypes are never bad, I have learned, and they canbe used with impunity. Why would anyone think lumping people into groups and then making assumptions about them is a bad thing? Cetainly not I! Oh no wait, stereotypes are wrong.
        EZEE
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Jim
        Do you suppose you were voted down because you committed the sin of criticizing government, or....? I understand why I am voted down (habit), but this, nor your below post seem unreasonable...
        pmpjunkie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Jim
        Jep, and the same FDA that counts fries and ketchup in school food as vegetables. Nuff said!
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Jim
        Jim, you're starting to get it :). The EPA has been corrupt for the last decade or two. They no longer work in the interest of the people. Just look at the clean water act. Natural gas companies can pump whatever combination of unknown chemicals into the ground, and have it automatically be deemed safe to do so, with no approval whatsoever. This is supposedly a protection for them, so that they don't give up their proprietary mix of chemicals. There are dozens of cases of contaminated groundwater after fracking and the EPA continues to allow it, and really does not do anything for the folks who have lost their water supply since it is so contaminated. Don't get me started about the what they allow monsanto and the big agricorps to get away with..
          PR
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          2WM said: "Natural gas companies can pump whatever combination of unknown chemicals into the ground, and have it automatically be deemed safe to do so, with no approval whatsoever." It is actually worse than that. The law passed under the Bush administration also makes these companies completely sue-proof, because the law provides blanket immunity for the gas companies for all environmental and economic damages they cause. This is NOT the fault of the EPA. This was a law passed by the Republicans because they claimed that there was too much gov't regulation, and it was getting in the way of businesses making a profit. It isn't the EPA that is corrupt and bought off, it is the Republican Party (and a few select "blue dog" democrats) who are corrupt and bought off. Sadly, it is exactly folks like you with your virulent Libertarian mentality that the gov't should get out of the way of industry that allows these Republican Congressmen to get way with things like this. Because every time you and your buddies say that the gov't should get out of the way of industry, this is exactly the same results. But heck, don't let the actual measurable damage of your Libertarian politics get in the way of more calls to get the gov't out of the way of industry.....
          EZEE
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          2 wheel I continually harp on the 'lessons' that these posts teach is. PR's teaches another lesson. Can you guess what it is? It is a fundamental different between statist and non-statist philosophy (I say it that way since calling you a right winger would not be accurate - you are libertarian leans left, I am libertarian leans right). Oddly, when I tell people to read Rules for Radicals, I do not do so as an insult to the left, but more to understand both sides (moreso the left) and the tactics, which is what it is actually about. 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Does that look familiar?
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          Lol again, you don't understand my mentality. You hear the word libertarian and start making an amazing amount of assumptions. Probably ones you heard on a democrat blog somewhere. I should move to Somalia, right? Yes, me, the guy who pushes for oil conservation, electrification, and wants to get people out of cars.. rides and ebike and does electric racing.. charges off solar panels.. is friends with the fossil fuel companies.. you just get me 100%.. You trolling, or serious? There is a term for what you're talking about though. It's called crony capitalism and it's not just the blue dogs that are involved. I hear that term a lot from democrats or progressives, as a way to defend their party, because on that side of the table, being corrupt to corporate interests is not fashionable. Both are equally corrupt, they just have different masters moving the puppet hands. I stopped being a loyal democrat voter when i realized that in my mid 20's. It is just more alarming when oil companies get favor, versus hollywood, lawyers, the medical industry, and unions. The middle class interests don't end up polluting water supplies forever and create a lot less superfund sites ;)
          EZEE
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          Your virulent. Cover your mouth. I have this thing and I cannot get sick.
      me
      • 3 Years Ago
      The sad part is U.S. corp media controlls the US media, so you have to go to AL Jezzera for real news on this issue. Over seas news gives way more info than cnn fox msnbc all fake all owned RT News a russian site gave more details on this issue also.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      Old story, but i'll comment.. Our government's environmental controls are really failing. Look at what fracking is doing to our water ( as well as using up a good chunk of our water supply ). Look at this massive coverup of the BP spill. The brash carelessness of dealing with inland oil spills into water supplies ( salt lake city oil refinery leak, and more recently the south platte river leak in Denver, which went on for almost a year even though the state and feds knew about it ). This is one of the nasty side-effects of peak oil/energy. Government will bend further and further to fossil fuel extraction companies. Drilling, pumping, and mining will get more desperate and risky. Fossil fuel interests will exert their control over the press more & more ( 1-2 decades ago, wouldn't a story from FOX news about how the muppets are working against oil interests seem even weirder? ). Either reduce your use, or get off oil entirely. All this environmental destruction is funded by your monetary support for the industry. If you are disturbed by what they do, don't buy their product.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        And by the way, i want tight regulations on the oil companies as much as you do. Or alternately, they could actually enforce the ones they already put in place decades ago. Expecting either, however, is asking for a miracle. Having an alternative in place is the first step towards loosening the oil industry's grip over our governments.. state and federal..
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        SNP, did you notice that i said 'reduce or get off oil entirely'? You can do either. The former is a lot easier. The majority of oil that the regular person consumes is in transport. That is the lowest hanging fruit. God, you people make me out to be a crazy person for suggesting that people use less oil. What site am i on again?
          SNP
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          you have been known to preach some outlandish things before. But as far as this topic goes, your complaints are more geared to the obvious problems of today and doesnt take into account he direction we're headed towards. One point I dont agree with is your position on fracking. We frack nat gas and nat gas is our cheapest/most abundant and easily attainable energy source. Next to coal, there's nothing else. It's either mideast oil, coal, or natgas and you gotta choose one. Uranium/plutonium is too expensive and rare to process and the damage is far worse than temporary carbon dioxide. Our alternative sources are not viable options and only hydro/geotherm return enough bang to justify such a large purchase. But those are limited. There really is nothing else. Now in terms of your claim of corruption. Let's define that as breaking the law to gain benefits in exchange for other benefits. Since the law is changed, it's not so much as "corruption". It's more that the tax code had changed over the years because the federal govt saw a need for new direction and used public money to guide the private market to achieve that goal. US oil production/consumption ratio was a problem, the govt used money to give tax breaks to those industries. Now it's not a problem anymore and those breaks are still in place. We need to reform the tax codes. Corruption is more like if exxon were to give 10M to obama and obama says they can drill in alaskan reserves. That's corruption... What we have is a warped tax code that had been adjusted many times over the course of a century using the american legal system. On another note, I do believe super pacs are inappropriate and runs along the lines of corruption.
          Marco Polo
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          @2WM, SNP, is correct. It will take decades to reduce the world's oil consumption. By then, economic depletion will have resolved the problem of oil used as fuels. But fuel, is only one part of the Oil industry, (and the least % profitable) . Over 13,000 products are produced from oil. In fact most of modern civilisation is based on product made with an oil industry component. (Including the internet) . From plastics to paint, from Medicine to fertiliser, the oil industry plays a pivotal role. From a pollution view point, the best environmental result would be to reduce the use of Marine grade No. 6 (bunker oil. If just 0.001 over the world shipping ceased to use this fuel, it would equal all the equivalent pollution created by every motor vehicle on the planet ! Much easier to convert 100 ships, than 1,000,000,000 motor vehicles! (and much less disruptive). Now that, as you say, is the 'low hanging fruit' .
        SNP
        • 7 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        Dude, everything you do uses fossil fuels. Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean you dont reap the benefits of our infrastructure. What do you think they use when they built your computer? shipped your bike? packaged your food? even the roads you drive on was paved using fossil fuel. The decision to make the world you see today was hugely dependent on the fact that the oil and gas was at those prices and had that availability. You dont even have a better alternative, yet you complain so much about the world. We've got multiple nuclear plants projects under consideration, multiple solar plants projects, and multiple wind farm projects. We've got billions poured into other R&D for alternative sources. We've got a nobel physicist as energy secretary, and highly educated economists and the president is very smart. I think they know the proper balance to shift our consumption sources without gutting our existing infrastructure and economically wrecking the lives of hundreds of millions of americans. For now, ALL we have is natural gas as a quick decade long replacement for oil/coal and you have no better alternative.
        PR
        • 7 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        So let me guess, as the repeated hard-core Libertarian you are, you think the gov't should get out of the way and let businesses do whatever they want, and let the market decide? And what are all the rest of us supposed to do while it takes decades for the rest of everyone else to stop buying their product? Just suffer without any recourse? No thanks!
          Marco Polo
          • 7 Months Ago
          @PR
          @PR What a strange response to 2WM ? Are you so committed to excusing the admistration's role in this affair, that you must distort everything ?
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        PR, you just failed big time at assuming what i believe. I am not a hard core libertarian. Oil companies already self regulate because they have a lot of federal and state level politicians in their pockets, using a portion of their profits to keep it so. I would be stupid for wanting self regulation, because that's exactly what they have already. Maybe they pay a pittance from time to time.. a few months or a year of their profits for a year.. that which gets written as a tax writeoff and sometimes they get a refund for it.. you don't hear about that. In today's level of government corruption, companies virtually write their own rules and regulations. So you do not vote, nor do you have any say as to how this goes at the ballot box. You vote with your dollar, and when you hand it over to an oil company, you are telling them that they've done a good job and to keep it up. The only recourse is to stop giving them money. There are already alternatives available, by the way. You can reduce your oil consumption with a hybrid or electric car. You can ride a bike/eBike. You can take mass transit.. There's also the biodiesel route.
      Change
      • 3 Years Ago
      Remember boys and girls, no organization lies more baldly than a government. Our own history is rich with government whoopers. EPA is just another big government invention that shares underwear with those with deep pockets. Protecting the public health is just a slogan to the revolving door of richly paid advocacy jobs or richly paid industry jobs.
        PR
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Change
        Change said "no organization lies more baldly than a government". Except of course select members of Private Industry. Enron, BP, Lehman Brothers, Dow Chemical, etc.
          super390
          • 7 Months Ago
          @PR
          EZEE, before 1913 we didn't even have an income tax, and yet corporations eagerly bought state legislatures and governors to aid and abet their worst crimes. Have you heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire? Or the tainted meat scandals? Or how the coal companies would jack their prices way up every winter so people couldn't afford to heat their homes? Most of all, have you heard how the National Guard used to be sent by bought-out governors to gun down strikers an average of twice a year from 1865 to 1941? Flat taxes are utterly incapable of stopping the polarization of wealth in a private property system. Once wealth is polarized, there is no barrier to creating a society like the old slave South, or death-squad El Salvador, or the criminal Gilded Age. People who fought against such societies have always had to resort to at least the threat of revolution (and implicitly government internvention) because the market has NEVER reduced inequality by itself. Once you have enough money to control the media, you logically should claim that even a flat tax is unfair because the worthless, parasitic poor should pay higher rates. In fact, this has been a part of far-right literature for decades, because they have no intention of being satisfied by a flat tax once they get it.
          PR
          • 7 Months Ago
          @PR
          It is funny that you blame gov't for being controlled by Industry, but then give Industry a free pass for their roll in buying gov't influence. As if they played no role.
          EZEE
          • 7 Months Ago
          @PR
          I would debate that they lie more,,,that would be hard to do...but your second post on buying influence...ahhhhh, interesting. The regulatory thing will always be open for debate (and therefore, influence), but the taxation side...create a single tax - be it on sales, income, whatever, and you eliminate the taxation side incentive for businesses to try to buy influence.
      Jim
      • 3 Years Ago
      And of course, the real reason for using all that dispersant wasn't to minimize environmental damage, it was to mask the true quantity of oil released. So I guess it served its purpose. Nice job, BP.
        EZEE
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Jim
        makes me think of a leaky pipe with duct tape, then Someone saying, 'there, I fixed it!'
      mylexicon
      • 3 Years Ago
      An Arabic news outlet is trying to encourage Americans and Europeans to cease deepwater drilling. I'm sure they have absolutely no ulterior motive.
      American Refugee
      • 3 Years Ago
      Remember boys and girls, it's not just about the cars.
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      The oceans of the world have suffered from all kinds of pollution during the industrial era. They have been treated as a sort of carpet under which all kinds of unpleasant toxins can be swept., Out of sight and ignored. Nobody cares very much, because jurisdictional problems make environmental enforcement difficult. Russia and PRC dump vast amounts of every kind of toxin, from heavy metals to radio-active waste into the oceans. The US built giant pipelines into the ocean and pumped every kind of waste out to sea. Every country allows rivers to carry all kinds of pollutants into the worlds oceans. Every nation, with a port, loads waste onto barges and just dumps it into the ocean. Those without ports, load waste onto trains, and send it to a port, where it's dumped in the ocean. Even landfill, eventually breaks down and leaches out into the ocean. Airborne pollution mostly ends up falling into the ocean. Even most of the highly toxic pollution created by shipping fuel (Bunker Oil), (one of the most serious forms of man made energy pollution,) ends up in the ocean. Very sad ! But it's not as if the ocean doesn't have to contend with it's own natural disasters! Naturally occurring massive oil spills, underwater Volcanic disturbances, eruptions, and earthquakes ! Fish stocks are being rapidly depleted by over fishing. Negligently lost vast nets, long since abandoned, roam the currents, meaninglessly continuing to kill all kinds of marine life. Castigating BP for one relatively small oil spill, while ignoring the larger issues, is an important reason why nothing is done! Thinking locally, while ignoring the Global problem, is a sad refection on the human ability to find scapegoats and thereby avoid shared culpability. The health of the oceans is the responsibility of every citizen of every nation. The European environmental politician, flying into New York, to deliver a stentorian speech at a conference about the evils of BP's activities in the Gulf, is to say the least, hypocritical. As he gazes out the widow, while searching for the right sound bite phrase, to ensure his TV popularity, he fails to notice the Mobro 4000 garbage scow, or the small news item referring to the 100 million ton, floating garbage 'island', called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. He ignores the damage created by a giant container ship's bunker fuel, as it brings it's cargo of PRC produced plastic coat hangers to the USA. He's far too absorbed in ensuring his moral indignation is recognised by his followers, to care that every aspect of his life is built on a BP related product. He doesn't care that every single product, will eventually end up in the ocean. Life began in the ocean, we're doing our damnedest to ensure that we end life in the oceans ! But we are all just as guilty. PR, desperate to ensure that Obama isn't blamed, others invent conspiracy theories, most blame oil companies............anyone but ourselves!
        upstategreenie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        so do all the worlds' navy incl. nuclear vessels. just literally dump tons of garbage untreated into the oceans every single day. like a giant trash can. humans are gods creatures or even for really fu(*ed in the head 'special'? really? based on what?
      Nick
      • 3 Years Ago
      How long will it take for oil / dispersant to decompose? I think its safe to say that marine life will be affected by it until then. Sad, just sad.
      Maddoxx
      • 3 Years Ago
      I was in New Orleans last September where I had the best tasting shrimp and oysters ever. Dragos is number 1!!! Do not believe this report. It is biased reporting, AOL and huffpost and autoblog has become the same as fox news but for liberals. It's disgusting. You must goto new Orleans and enjoy the seafood there it is one of the best in the USA. If you haven't tried it then you really don't know the facts.
        Domenick
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Maddoxx
        Did you watch the video where the reporter interviews American scientists? I'm glad you enjoyed your meal in New Orleans and you may very well have had delicious Gulf shrimp and oysters, but there's a good chance they didn't come from the oil spill affected area. There, oysters beds are wiped out as well, as most of the white shrimp. (I've heard this from reports from Canadian media sources.) But, the Gulf is a big place and there are still fisheries in action in other parts. Myself, I love me some oysters from Apalachicola, which I can get fresh since it's close by.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Maddoxx
        Do you work for BP?
          Maddoxx
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          no 2 wheels, i work for a tech IT Hardware company in the Silicon Valley, a few miles away from failed empty Solyndra buildiing in Fremont, CA. I've also been to New Orleans 3 times over the last decade twice before Katrina, and once last year after the BP Spill. The latest I was there was in September where I whole heartedly enjoyed the Gulf Seafood, I was very skeptical that it would taste bad and be toxic, but I tried it anyways and now must clamor how good it really is. Ask any High End chef in the Gulf coast if they would be hesitant to server any of the food from ther Gulf they will all tell you, they would not hesitate to serve t because it is some of the best in the world especially the shrmp, oysters, and Crawfish. This is just bad Reporting with no real basis, using scare tactics. to try to make a poltical point.
        upstategreenie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Maddoxx
        I know the facts. go to the beach and step on sand. it is black because there is oil in it. if you dont think it is oil what is it? corexit maybe???? you are number one reason for having NO public option or public romney/obamacare. you need to be responsible for own ignorance. that is tea party mantra...everybody owns their own sh*( if you LIVE on coast as opposed to visiting as a tourist, huge difference as you cant get home insurance due to BP's sh*(ing on entire coast. most oystermen are bankrupt now. are YOU reimbursing them? BP sure as he!! ain't and it has NOTHING to do with liberal anything...THAT is all garbage mudslinging distract and divide bs from top 1% you prob. worship if you watch faux news. why are you on THIS site?
        Marco Polo
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Maddoxx
        @Maddoxx Considering your batting average for accuracy, I think I'll pass on your kind offer of gulf shrimp ! Still considering your obvious passion for such food,...it explains a lot about your posts.......
          Maddoxx
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Mr Polo, shrimp and oysters are one of the best tasting foods that can be enjoyed from the sea. They're less toxic than the hormone pumped chicken you eat from the super market. Millions of people eat and rely on the Gulf for food and livelihood. This biased unsubstantiated reporting is irresponsible. The food has been tested many times over and it is approved by the FDA. This is no better than the biased scare tactics Fox News uses with their viewers. As formy previous post about Fisker, my statement still stands true, the government should not give Fisker any loans based on the fact that they're building highly expensive niche cars, and doing it badly. These loans should be given to reduce the cost of Electric Vehicles and bringing them down in price so they can compete with gasoline powered vehicles. The only way to do that is to build the infrastructure and look for companies that have that business plan in mind. Fisker and Solyndra are bad investments, at least the DIE have learned their lessons with Solyndra, and are not giving Fisker anymore loans until they have a better more mass appealing product.
        Timo
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Maddoxx
        FYI, toxic food can taste good.
      PR
      • 3 Years Ago
      To be clear about what the EPA has said about Gulf seafood: They have never said that Gulf seafood is free of contaminates. The EPA has only said that the level of contaminates is low enough that a typical 170 lb man who eats a typical US diet will not exceed the yearly safe max limits for the contaminates that are in Gulf seafood. If you weigh less than 170 lbs, or eat more than the typical US diet in Gulf seafood, you will most likely exceed the maximum allowed yearly limits of these contaminates. The fact that BP turned around and ran hundreds of thousands of TV ads saying that Gulf seafood is safe to eat based upon these EPA findings isn't the Gov't's fault. That is the fault of BP trying to reduce their financial liability by promoting Gulf seafood and tourism by glossing over the details. If your main source of facts about what the EPA has said about Gulf seafood, or Gulf beaches and tourism come from BP funded ads on TV, you probably don't know what the EPA has really said about Gulf shrimp, or Gulf beaches.
        EZEE
        • 7 Months Ago
        @PR
        Yea PR, repeating talking points! Just trying to hush this up, while people like ME are saving children! (yes PR, I am kidding and if I smiled any harder right now the corners of my mouth would meet in the back of my head and the upper 2/3rds of my head would topple off). All fun aside, thanks for the research. And, although I am a svelte 162lbs with 7.5% body fat, I will go ahead and avoid shrimp that....well...look like the one in the picture.
        pmpjunkie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @PR
        Thank you for repeating the talking points to hush this up. If you watched the video you knew that this is not about whether the seafood is safe to eat. This is about the impact on marine life which in turn affects the entire food chain later on. Trying to reduce this to just one issue and issuing technically correct, but misleading statements about that single issue is a great way of covering things up. A half truth is (still) a whole lie.
          pmpjunkie
          • 7 Months Ago
          @pmpjunkie
          @ Jake Y I appreciate the finer points on specific responsibilities and statements. To sum it up would you agree with: A. After all that was said and done by EPA/NOAA/FDA/BP and disseminated by the media the american public has a clear understanding of what happened and the risks and possible consequences. or B. The whole fiasko has blown over way too fast and everyone is just beeing as tight lipped as possible. If i follow your explanation I find it alarming that two government agencies don't say much while the third one goes ahead and self censors because it is "involved in legal proceedings". If this was a private dispute it would be understandable. But we are talking about the federal government dealing with a private for profit operation it ought to regulate and control. If they fail as spectacular as they did AND there is a record of previous incidents, they can't be transparent enough to the general public about what is going on IMHO
          PR
          • 7 Months Ago
          @pmpjunkie
          pmpjunkie -- You might re-read my post. The point I was making was that the EPA has NEVER 100% cleared the gulf seafood as being OK to eat. They have only made a very limited and qualified statement, and have basically said that unless you meet certain conditions, eating gulf seafood will result in you getting more contaminates then you should consume in a year. The people who are repeating the talking points are BP, with their multi-million dollar ad campaign that mis-characterizes the EPA's statements about Gulf seafood and makes it sound safer than it actually is. This is the cover-up. BP's ads are the cover up, and thus the lie you complain about. I'm not supporting BP's talking points, and how BP has manipulated the EPA's full results to leave out how if you weigh less than 170 and/or eat more than the average US diet of seafood, that you are poisoning yourself with contaminates. If that was the impression you got, please re-read my post.
          JakeY
          • 7 Months Ago
          @pmpjunkie
          I think you are the one pushing talking points. This article and people like you are putting words into the FDA and EPA's mouths (that there was absolutely no impact on marine life from the oil spill). First of all, the FDA only deals with food. Their only role is to examine whether the seafood is safe to eat. The result is the level of contaminants in the seafood is back to background levels (aka safe to eat). If you ask them for comment, that's the only thing they can respond with. http://www.fda.gov/food/ucm210970.htm Second, the EPA deals mainly with air/water quality as relevant to HUMANS (not animals). They have determined the air/water is safe for humans (on beaches). In terms of their role for wildlife/ecosystems, they deal with LAND. The only place where they truly touch on marine life is for endangered species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/ In this specific case, the EPA's only role as relevant to marine life is in hazardous waste testing. The biggest issue/controversy right now is the toxicity of dispersant. So let's see what they actually say about dispersant: "The results indicate that for all eight dispersants in both test species, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture. Oil alone was found to be more toxic to mysid shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone." "EPA believes dispersants should only be used sparingly and when absolutely necessary. Since the well was capped, only 200 gallons of dispersant have been applied to the Gulf, but constant monitoring continues. The results of the two phases of tests are helping to inform the Administration as the Federal Response Team evaluates the Congressionally-legislated oil spill response practices for future scenarios." http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html#phase2 As you can see, nowhere does the EPA say that dispersant or the oil spill has no impact on marine life and that everything is fine and dandy. They only say that the dispersant is less toxic than just oil alone, not that it is not toxic at all. They also say they are only allowing the bare minimum in terms of usage. If you read the original article from Al Jazeera, much of the impact on the marine life is from the oil itself. Finally, the department that truly deals with the ecosystem and marine life of the oceans is NOAA. And NOAA essentially is saying there IS an impact by being involved in a lawsuit against BP. NOAA may not be able to make a public comment (because that will effect the lawsuit), but the implications are already clearly shown! So the federal response is clearly not that there is no impact on marine life or that all is well in the Gulf (despite what the article tries to present). In fact the impact on marine life (and the fishermen) are the main reason why they are still involved in lawsuits against BP! If their claim is everything is fine and is fixed, there would be no lawsuits!
    • Load More Comments