Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Boss This!
10034 Followers
Belhassen Ben Smail
1172 Followers
Belhassen Ben Smail
1172 Followers
subatomicdoc
2537 Followers
mnocketAug 8, 2010
"“But the fact is that 50 to 75 percent of the material that came out of the well is still in the water – it’s just in a dissolved or dispersed form,” he says."
So basically he agrees with the NOAA.
MitchPaigeAug 9, 2010
He agrees with the NOAA assessment in the same way I agree with my old college roommate that sweeping the dirt under the rug in the TV room was considered cleaning.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
You'd think environmentalists would welcome the news.
treehugger87Aug 9, 2010
Didn't your Dad ever tell you that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true?
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Oh. Right. It's not really about the environment is it?
rblancarteAug 9, 2010
Well if you took time to read on ...
He notes that even oil and gas that has been broken down naturally, or bio-degraded, still can present problems because it tends to remove oxygen from the water. If enough oxygen is removed, the waters can become hypoxic and these oxygen-depleted waters can create “dead zones” that can be harmful to marine life.
“Even if it is dissolved or dispersed, the oil can still be toxic to marine life even in very small amounts,” he adds.
He also mentions that everyone has focused on the oil and seemingly ignored the natural gas, which is also posing problems on its own.
The point he makes is that these numbers are being run out there in attempt to tell everyone the problem is almost fixed, when the truth is it isn't, and it's not even close.
drunkinbdaAug 9, 2010
one would think that cleanup of an oilspill would at least take longer than the spill/lead lasted..
and it only got capped what, last month? i sincerely doubt its anywhere near finished
burningmanstanAug 9, 2010
I think the real story is that some of the people who continue to deny global warming after decades of research are the same people who are willing to say that the gulf spill is not a problem after a few weeks. I wonder why that is?
It is going to take decades of research to determine the long term effects of the spill. In the short term dead zones may be a problem because oil consuming bacteria require oxygen. A population explosion in response to the oil could kill other marine life once bacteria consume all the oxygen in the region. The gulf already has major dead zone problems due to the nutrients brought down by the mississippi river. Methane (natural gas) is also is a nutrient so that can also alter microbial populations.
Additionally since most oil consuming bacteria need oxygen to break down oil, the oil buried in anoxic sediment and sand may will not break down for a very long time. Oil soaked sand may alter the erosion of barrier islands. The list is endless.
Water is a very interconnect system. You can't put that much oil into such a system and have no or few impacts. This is just another example of our instant gratification culture and the delusion that human actions can be solve quickly. Decades of research people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29
eagles7977Aug 8, 2010
The oil is not gone, the Gulf has been destroyed. f**k BP!
ousthouseAug 9, 2010
The oil is not gone, the Gulf has NOT been destroyed. f**k BP! (but don't make up s**t to make a point)
gcnaddictAug 9, 2010
Most of the oil is dissolved into the water much the same way salt would be. Unless you plan on evaporating the ocean, it's basically there for good until something can help it precipitate out.
Tough.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlietunaAug 9, 2010
Salt is a bit more stable than hydrocarbons.
strfxAug 9, 2010
There are plenty of organism in the gulf that feed on oil, which will eventually take care of a lot of the oil. The reason why there are so many simply is that this diet is quire readily available, because there is considerable "spilling" going on all the time. Not on the same order of magnitude as this BP disaster, but still: the Gulf has not been some pristine sea for a long time. Take a swim off of Galveston if you need more convincing :-)
flip2tripAug 9, 2010
Thank you. I used to live along the MS gulf coast and that water was nasty. I swam in it one time and when I got out there was this brown slime all over me. My dad told me it was poop so I never went back in the water.
iluvpiAug 9, 2010
Parents are great aren't they?
ikorkyiAug 9, 2010
chemistry FAIL
agoodzAug 9, 2010
Other reports are hearsay, says hearsay.
prisoner24601Aug 9, 2010
"Three-quarters of the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico has been cleaned up or broken down by natural forces"
Yeah, BP's public relations department must be writing this. It sure sounds better than:
"Three-quarters of the oil spilled is now invisible because it's already been absorbed into the food chain. Enjoy the tangy new hydrocarbon flavor in all your favorite seafood America!"
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
No need to oil the grill.
jimlowAug 9, 2010
there goes my shrimp c**ktails, how much you wanna bet the FDA will have looser standards concerning some of the seafood coming out of the gulf and this will lead to many people getting food poisoning.
koparAug 9, 2010
More interesting are the lingering heath effects on our and other nations. Will BP be held liable for those costs? Not likely. I'm sure health care systems will be burdened with that particular joy. I'm sure BP and Phillip Morris executives are giving each-other reacharounds right now.
thudAug 9, 2010
Actually it was NOAA and the USGS who released the report stating most of the oil was gone.
firecellAug 9, 2010
It's all gone people. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
bossm4nAug 9, 2010Submitter
I really wish that were true because I love gulf seafood. However, I watched a story this morning here in Houston on the local news that showed the grounds that have been opened up for crabbing and fishing covered in oil on the silt covering the bottom. When the fishermen stir it up, the oil starts floating to the top. They don't want to fish there, much less eat anything. It's why I posted this story. It comes from a very unbiased source and someone who should know what the hell they're talking about.
neil22Aug 9, 2010
And how is the Gulf different from other waters? Fish in most rivers and you stir up mercury and lead. You can't swim or wade or eat fish from the Delaware river -- oil and other toxins have been a problem for decades. PCB's in the Great Lakes. Over fishing in the oceans. Come on - this is American capitalism and industrialism at it's best!
bossm4nAug 9, 2010Submitter
@Neil22 - Good question. They actually explained in the piece I watched that the oil resting on the silt is particularly troublesome as the crab and shrimp reside there. I also don't disagree with you about anything else you said. I'm hardly a fan of commercial fishing, in fact I went for a very long time without eating any seafood for just that reason. I still prefer sustainable seafood, but I have no problem fishing in the gulf and eating what I catch or my friends and family catch.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I don't wanna talk to a scientist, y'all mothaf**kas lyin', and gettin' me pissed.
paranor01Aug 9, 2010
troll, tea-bagger or /s ?
so hard to differentiate sometimes
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
rain12913Aug 9, 2010
"Music is all magic...you can't even hold it."
Is that s**t for real? Seriously, I know ICP is kind of tongue-in-cheek (or at least I had always hoped they were), but that song is just completely a joke, right?
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I've actually heard that the song is seriously sincere, which makes it so much more hilarious.
mikbunnAug 9, 2010
Apparently if you dip your hand into the water anywhere along the affected coast region, even if the water appears oil free, your hand will come out slimy. The BP "cleanup efforts" have largely involved dispensing chemicals that break down the oil into component parts that appear transparent and water-like for the cameras.
At first I was kind of skeptical about BP being the big evil corporation (because why would a company not want to keep a revenue source running at all costs), but their handling of the spill and prior safety records are completely reprehensible.
I'll never fuel up at another BP station. f**k 'em.
sil369Aug 9, 2010
hmm who knows how many other oil spills there have been that we hadnt heard of because they used this chemical to cover it up...
peestandingupAug 9, 2010
BP oil goes to more than just BP branded stations.
It's easy to just not go somewhere again, but we need to change the way we consume energy or this s**t will never get better.
schwab002Aug 9, 2010
Doesn't matter. If you boycott BP, no one will want to start or keep their BP franchises and they'll lose money. I really don't understand why people can't under that a BP boycott can work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flip2tripAug 9, 2010
"I really don't understand why people can't under that a BP boycott can work."
How is not buying BP gas going to even touch BP's bottom line?
Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/your-money/12money.html
FTL:(on boycotting BP stations) This doesn’t send a particularly powerful message to BP, though. After all, BP owns only a handful of the 11,000 stations that bear its brand and is trying to sell the few still on its books. So those who wish to inflict the maximum amount of pain on the company are instead putting much of the hurt on the family businesses that actually own the stations.
strfxAug 9, 2010
@mikbunn: I've lived in Houston for a while, and I can assure you that if you had dipped your hand into the gulf off of Galveston last year, it would have come out slimy...
cockofdoodieAug 9, 2010
Having spent a few years in a polymer lab, I am really interested in what kind of detergents these are. To my knowledge, what you describe is possible. I could be mistaken since I haven't kept up with literature in that field since I find it, how do you say, f**king boring lol.
koparAug 9, 2010
I don't think they are making it 'invisible' but in a large body of water, hiding something is as easy as making it drop a few inches under the surface of the water. Easy Peasy. Even just disrupting the usual surface tension interaction between water and oil could make it difficult to spot.
darthfaceAug 9, 2010
As far as I understand, it's essentially soap that doesn't foam. Like a methanol solution, so long and you don't smell it or investigate it too much, looks pretty much the same as water
buckygradAug 9, 2010
Who will pay for the cleanup then? Let them pay, then boycott them. Don't let them get off easy by declaring bankruptcy.
borezAug 9, 2010
But... you will continue to use oil in your daily life though eh?
lust4meAug 9, 2010
the problem is...I'm running out of oil companies to use based on their track records. Between environmental disasters and human rights issues, there aren't many to choose from - I try to drive as little as possible, but that is only my direct use of oil, and the rest I can't control easily. Blerg.
1ofmanyAug 9, 2010
All I know is that it's going to take me a while (most likely years) before I want to eat any shrimp that comes from the Gulf Coast.
secretrussianAug 9, 2010
They're not putting out oiled seafood; it's all tested before they sell it. Sure, the cost will go up, but you're still not eating seafood that's just taken out of the Gulf and sold directly afterwards.
yardieAug 9, 2010
Tested by the FDA? you mean the FDA that checks for quality by sniffing seafood for oil smell? This couldn't possibly be the same FDA that doesn't allow additional bacteria inspection in meat because other meat companies said it costs too much.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darthfaceAug 9, 2010
I still wouldn't trust it, they can't test it all. Representative sampling under political scrutiny to allow sale will only result in either fudged numbers or lax protocols. I mean, look at seafood now, the mercury levels can cause problems and they allow it to be eaten in countries all over the world (of course not all seafood, but enough is sold with high mercury content to warrant my comment). I strongly doubt that the seafood will actually be of high enough quality that is all consumers knew the facts they would want to eat it.
Of course, these lax protocols, fudged numbers or other allowances may save the economy there and be a major saving grace for the people who live there. This spill is one hell of a catch 22 for seafood producers in the affected areas
firecellAug 9, 2010
Just become a vegetarian.
gorftronAug 9, 2010
Rush Limbaugh says the gulf is just fine and that's good enough for me. Dud-da-laat! Dud-da-laat! Dud-da-laat! Dud-da-laat! Dud-da-laat!
sil369Aug 9, 2010
he should prove it by swimming in it
sil369Aug 9, 2010
and on another note, this ^ is my 5000th post on Digg! :D
EwartCoveyAug 9, 2010
buried on both accounts.
kajaragoAug 9, 2010
What a waste of a 5000th comment.
hereticoftruthAug 9, 2010
Not fair. Rush Slimeball can't tell the difference so stop picking on him.
anteyekon4mystAug 9, 2010
You mean they lied to us? Never. Everyone knows American corporations want what's best for us. We do give them all those dollar "votes" in our support don't we?
crunchdiggAug 9, 2010
especially those American corporations formerly known as British Petroleum, with international headquarters in London.
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
Buried for "Texas A&M scientist"
iluvpiAug 9, 2010
I'm from Texas and I thought this was funny. Truth be told, A&M is the most conservative school in Texas.
thatsnotpuddingAug 9, 2010
Disparaging Big Oil in Texas, prof? Better sleep with one eye open.
joculatorAug 9, 2010
They just made it look like the problem's gone. I'm not eating anything from the gulf if I can help it. God knows what the effects of dispersant are on humans.
juliusthecatAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Face it folks, you're gonna have to find a new hysteria.
hendriksAug 9, 2010
Yes, we'd better get going on that "boycott-14-dollars-a-gallon-gas" rhetoric.
murrdpirateAug 9, 2010
I don't think anyone can say that the oil spill is no longer an issue, but it definitely doesn't seem like it's going to be the catastrophe that the media hyped it to be.
For those that take everything BP says with a grain of salt because BP is a corporation that has to minimize costs, you should also take what the media says with a grain of salt: it is certainly in their best interest to hype this as much as possible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trippritterAug 9, 2010
Right, because Dr. John Kessler chemical oceanographer and professor at Texas A&M is the "media."
hendriksAug 9, 2010
Exactly! What is worse for the popularity of the current administration: oil spill or 14 dollars a gallon at the pump?
hereticoftruthAug 9, 2010
"Scientists find an Angry Red Blob evolving since 2010 may be the causes of the disappearances located in the Gulf Oil Triangle."
gefahrAug 9, 2010
M. Night Shymalan
lalongecarabineAug 9, 2010
But BP said it was free of oil, it must be so! Why would they lie.
banmenowAug 9, 2010
Dugg because its from the Texas A&M website. Whoop!
rblancarteAug 9, 2010
Dugg because this information needs to be spread. Hook'em!
vammiratoAug 9, 2010
Dugg because I liked the story and feel others should know about it. Get Your GUNS Up!
frostbytAug 9, 2010
As far as I am concerned the oil is gone and we are back to clear waters. I will never visit the deep ocean so by the time I care to it will be gone.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
How to monitor abusive Diggers:
1) Install "Oz Finder" in Chrome
2) Copy this list into a text file:
4verageJo3
alanocu
allisonrose870
asami21
atomheartmother
BalancingAct
Benthedog
diggforwhatever
LeConcierge
bettverboten
Lizbett
loquaciouslolaMsBoop
bossm4n
CaptCarrot
therjcarter
cajungal
ChronicColonic
clickfire
ClydePRM2
conservativepie
DCconservative
dgpj
emersonbiggins
EdHurl
rjwusa
MightRighty
BurtToast
GangusGreen
esornivek
EMFK
frofisrael
jenalp
Gandalff
gbudavid
heythere1857
howdoyouknow
jackalgunner
Janinco
JasonQPublic
scarlett0hara
JeremiahLaments
RightWingAttila
jjvors
johnny2k
KCLorelei39
Kraviwannabe
LandThatILove
le0pardess
1badk1tty
libertyalways
KurtHofmann
45superman
lilamae
Fillifan
LoneStarLizard
LouisCipher777
maggiesnotebook
MattRoss1968
mikeinto
minarchian
Phreedom
CongressCritter
Brewskie
novaculus
PatriotRoom
billdupray
pharoah247
phoenixtx
vrayz
pookydirt
pray4sneaux
energizersnobabe
punx
quirkopatra
raggsat98
MassRon
Ramfire98
Raycheetah
Browncoat
robertsdig
SadLisa
mollydog12
GrantPeace
FoolsGoldParty
UrdhvaMukha
schwartzloenard
NewsGuy2005
NewsGuy2009
ClydePRM
SethStuck
ConservativeBrawler
spiegelscott
spindig
starcmc
Striker101
sultanknish
tasine
Temlakos
texasknight
ThePartyStar
LibertyCheeks
MyCarteBlanche
thoughtsonthis
Welshman007
whatbubbaknows
zacharytelschow
3) Also copy this list into Oz Finder
4) Click the Oz Finder button to search for abusive Diggers after navigating
or refreshing a tab
Note: New tabs will require a new copy/paste action into Oz FinderComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Aug 9, 2010
Making me scroll down two pages makes YOU the abusive digger.
You have been reported.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
You have been blocked.
tgc1Aug 9, 2010
What I want to know is WHO THE f**k has allowed BP to use Chemical Dispersants in the first place. That s**t is likely to f**k everything up even worse that the oil itself.
govtdoesnotworkAug 9, 2010
Clearly it's all Ron Paul's fault. Obama's EPA could have never done something like that.
shwaavayAug 9, 2010
EPA studied it. Corexit us safe:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-07-21-oil-dispersant_N.htm
dushAug 9, 2010
Then why did they eventually tell BP to stop using it?
elliamAug 9, 2010
The point is that turning surface oil slick into a dispersed subsurface oil cloud is worse because its harder (impossible?) to clean up.
shwaavayAug 9, 2010
@elliam
If you had bothered to RTFA, you would see that the use of dispersant keeps life from being extinguished, without it, many more marine animals would be dying, as well as marshland grasses.
Subsurface clouds of oil in the gulf is already a naturally occurring phenomena.
lamadave222Aug 9, 2010
OOOmmmmmm. Who made oil and for what purpose? Is it a thing of nature or not? I buy my shrimp from Thailand. OOOmmmmmm.
bleueAug 9, 2010
Props to the T A&M reporters for getting their article on the Digg front page.
avangionqAug 9, 2010
"The bottom line is, this problem has not gone away as some recent reports seem to indicate," John Kessler, assistant professor of oceanography in the College of Geosciences. "There are still large amounts of oil and gas in the gulf - just because we see less at the surface doesn't mean it isn't there." ... in an attempt to conceal the scope of the crime, the dispersants used have turned a surface problem which could have been cleaned up into the poisoning of the gulf ... to this day, this remains the single greatest environmental crime, and for which no one has been held accountable with jail sentences ...
koparAug 9, 2010
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
1ofmanyAug 11, 2010
I'm only 50 miles away (48 of them over water) from the leak. I get a lot of fresh seafood from the Gulf and I'm not trusting it.
uafwolfcrySep 8, 2010
It will be a while until that oil spill is gone lol