Twenty years later: Ixtoc damage remains video at:

Future of the Gulf: Learning From the Past
History may teach a valuable lesson about what will happen next in the Gulf.
02:14 | 08/18/2010

Special thanks to Richard Charter

August 16, 2010

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/oil-spill-recovery-grant-includes-3-million-for-862689.html

By Christine Stapleton
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 7:49 p.m. Monday, Aug. 16, 2010
Posted: 7:14 p.m. Monday, Aug. 16, 2010

Florida mental health care providers will get $3 million of the $52 million that BP pledged to state and federal agencies Monday, to provide behavioral and substance abuse services to residents along the Gulf Coast.

In a proposal to BP on July 30, Florida’s Department of Children and Family Services had requested $5.6 million for mental health services. On Monday, DCF Secretary George Sheldon called the $3 million grant “a start toward helping Floridians who are beginning to feel the stress associated with this disaster.”

The grant “will not prevent the Department from seeking additional funding as needed,” Shelton said.

Other agencies receiving money include: the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Heath Services Administration, $10 million; Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, $15 million; the Mississippi and Alabama mental health departments, $12 million each.

Among those hoping for financial support include Lutheran Services of Florida, which quickly responded to the needs of children along the Gulf with its Camp Beyond the Horizon. The program teaches coping skills and give children a place to talk about their fears.

“What we are finding is an increase in fear of everything the weather, other disasters, losing people, said Beth Deck, the northwest regional director who helped organize the camps. “Worry, worry, worry. They worry about people losing their jobs. They think all the animals have died.”

During the summer over 150 kids attended the free, week-long camps in Pensacola, Deck said.

Many of the children hide their fears, afraid to add more stress to their parents, Deck said. Some of the children, already veterans of one disaster in their young lives, attended a similar program, Camp Noah, after hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, she said.

Money will allow the camps to continue on the weekends during the school year, she said: “Every kid in the community is impacted.”

News of the funding pleasantly surprised the mental health community, which has watched BP consistently deny injury claims especially those for mental health problems.

“This is a good downpayment,” said Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Fitzpatrick wrote a terse letter to BP in July, telling Doug Suttles, BP’s Chief Operating Officer, that BP has a “moral obligation to help finance mental health services.”

“It gets back to the stigma surrounding mental illness,” Fitzpatrick said. “This recognizes that mental health is an important variable in what happens in a disaster.”

The emotional damage caused by the spill received little attention until June 23, when an Alabama charter boat captain who had recently lost his business because of the spill — shot himself to death aboard his vessel.

Steve Picou, a sociologist at the University of South Alabama who lives along the Gulf and for 20 years has studied the communities affected by the Exxon Valdez, said his research has shown that Gulf communities are already having “severe problems.” Picou said he was “very surprised” by BP’s announcement, since similar requests were made of Exxon after the Valdez spill but Exxon “would not have any part of it.”

BP posted a two-page announcement about the funding on its web site on Monday.

“We appreciate that there is a great deal of stress and anxiety across the region and as a part of our determination to make things right for the people of the region, we are providing assistance now to help make sure individuals who need help know where to turn,” Lamar Kay, the new president of BP America said in the release.

Christine_Stapleton@pbpost.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Big-Oil-faces-new-rules-after-disaster

Environmentalists were aghast when, just this spring, President Barack Obama announced an energy initiative encouraging offshore oil drilling. Only a few weeks later, the president and the rest of the nation got a lesson in the risks of running roughshod over Mother Nature: We’re still holding our breath over efforts to put a final cap on the disastrous Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf was to have been the scene of a new oil rush. Our chagrined president and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quickly put the kibosh on their own plans with a half-year moratorium on deepwater drilling. Legal battles are still being waged over that moratorium, and over the comparative safety of other rigs out there – but the ban is in place for now.

Would the Deepwater Horizon have been dangerous if the federal Minerals Management Service hadn’t been lip-locked with the oil companies it was supposed to be regulating – and if corporate bosses hadn’t been sloppy about following the rig’s safety procedures? Hard to say – but our distraught nation has an idea …

It’s been clear for the past few months that Obama’s people need to rid the minerals-management agency of the bribed-up, oil-cozy officials who thrived under his predecessor before even thinking of allowing any more drilling in water deeper than 500 feet.

On Monday, the administration said there’ll be no more fast-tracking of deepwater projects. That means an end of previous exemptions from environmental review.

Yup – under a policy of leniency imposed by the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s, Big Oil has been excused from detailed environmental reviews when its work didn’t involve significant environmental impact. And who determined that? Guess. That exemption covered the central and western Gulf – including the killer rig Deepwater Horizon. Yessir – get government out of our hair; deregulate industry, and watch our smoke (or slick) …

“In light of the increasing levels of complexity and risk – and the consequent potential environmental impacts – associated with deepwater drilling, we are taking a fresh look,” Secretary Salazar mildly put it, at the environmental-protection process.

Ya era tiempo – it was about time government reined in the oil guys. This horse, obviously, was already out of the barn, and the drilling field lying a mile below the Gulf surface never underwent a site-specific review.

Future projects can expect such reviews, as well as demands for the utmost in caution.

The reaction from the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil-and-gas lobby, was predictable: Environmental reviews, it claims, are already extensive. On paper, maybe; but when the people doing those reviews are partying it up on Big Oil’s tab, how serious could they be at the business table? Presumably, their successors will give a gimlet eye to new deepwater-drilling proposals.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

This new report provides evidence that we need an independent, peer reviewed examination of all the scientific data on the whereabouts and impacts of the remaining oil from the BP disaster. The discrepancy in the ways federal agencies and academic research scientists are interpreting the data is as wide as the Gulf itself.
– Frank Jackalone, Sierra Club

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/100816_Sea_Grant.shtml

Media briefing featuring Samantha Joye, Charles Hopkinson scheduled for 11 a.m., Aug. 17

Writer: Sam Fahmy, 706/542-5361, sfahmy@uga.edu
Contact: Jill Gambill, 305/542-8975, jgambill@uga.edu
Aug 16, 2010, 16:56

Athens, Ga. – A report released today by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.

The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.

“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are.”

Co-authors on the paper include Jay Brandes, associate professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences, UGA; Richard Lee, professor emeritus, Skidaway; and Ming-yi Sun, professor of marine sciences UGA.

Hopkinson and Joye will discuss the report and the fate of gas released into the Gulf of Mexico at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 17. The briefing will be held in Room 261 of the Marine Sciences building on the UGA campus. Reporters can join the briefing via teleconference by dialing toll-free 888-204-5987 and entering access code 2560397.

The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present.

Hopkinson said that his group also estimated how much of the oil could have evaporated, degraded or weathered as of the date of the report. Using a range of reasonable evaporation and degradation estimates, the group calculated that 70-79 percent of oil spilled into the Gulf still remains. The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in deep water.

Another difference is that the NIC report estimates that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the wellhead, while the Sea Grant report uses a figure of 4.1 million barrels since .8 million barrels were piped directly from the well to surface ships and, therefore, never entered Gulf waters.

On a positive note, the group noted that natural processes continue to transform, dilute, degrade and evaporate the oil. They add that circular current known as the Franklin Eddy is preventing the Loop Current from bringing oil-contaminated water from the Gulf to the Atlantic, which bodes well for the East Coast.

Joye said that both the NIC report and the Sea Grant report are best estimates and emphasizes the need for a sustained and coordinated research effort to better understand the impacts of what has become the world’s worst maritime oil spill. She warned that neither report accounted for hydrocarbon gasses such as methane in their oil budgets.

“That’s a gaping hole,” Joye said, “because hydrocarbon gasses are a huge portion of what was ejected from the well.”
##

Note to editors:

The complete Georgia Sea Grant/University of Georgia Oil Spill report is available online at http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16.pdf.

Figures from the report are available at http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilChart.pdf.

Special thanks to:
Frank Jackalone
Senior Field Organizing Manager/ FL & PR
Sierra Club
111 Second Avenue, Suite 1001
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)824-8813
frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/jama.2010.1254v1?etoc

by Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH; Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH
JAMA. Published online August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs.
The main components of crude oil are aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.1 Lower-molecular-weight aromatics—such as benzene, toluene, and xylene—are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and evaporate within hours after the oil reaches the surface. Volatile organic compounds can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression. Benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans, and toluene is a recognized teratogen at high doses.1 Higher-molecular-weight chemicals such as naphthalene evaporate more slowly. Naphthalene is listed by the National Toxicology Program as “reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans” based on olfactory neuroblastomas, nasal tumors, and lung cancers in animals.2 Oil can also release hydrogen sulfide gas and contains traces of heavy metals, as well as nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS effects; PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.1 Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality. The Gulf oil spill is unique because of the large-scale use of dispersants to break up the oil slick. By late July, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had been applied in the Gulf. Dispersants contain detergents, surfactants, and petroleum distillates, including respiratory irritants such as 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.
Acute Health Effects From Oil and Dispersants

In Louisiana in the early months of the oil spill, more than 300 individuals, three-fourths of whom were cleanup workers, sought medical care for constitutional symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain. These symptoms are typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or hydrogen sulfide, but it is difficult to clinically distinguish toxic symptoms from other common illnesses.1
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up an air monitoring network to test for VOCs, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and naphthalene. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of the EPA data concluded: “The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm.”3 Data posted on BP’s Web site suggest that air quality for workers offshore is worse than on land. Local temperatures pose a risk of heat-related illness, which is exacerbated by wearing coveralls and respirators, implying a trade-off between protection from chemical hazards and heat.
Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema, edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash. Some hydrocarbons are phototoxic.

Potential Long-term Health Risks

In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil will contaminate fish and shellfish. Although vertebrate marine life can clear PAHs from their system, these chemicals accumulate for years in invertebrates.4 The Gulf provides about two-thirds of the oysters in the United States and is a major fishery for shrimp and crab. Trace amounts of cadmium, mercury, and lead occur in crude oil and can accumulate over time in fish tissues, potentially increasing future health hazards from consumption of large fin fish such as tuna and mackerel.

Health Effects From Historic Oil Spills

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a total of 1811 workers’ compensation claims were filed by cleanup workers; most were for acute injuries but 15% were for respiratory problems and 2% for dermatitis.5 No information is available in the peer-reviewed literature about longer-term health effects of this spill. A survey of the health status of workers 14 years after the cleanup found a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic airway disease among workers with high oil exposures, as well as self-reports of neurological impairment and multiple chemical sensitivity.6
Symptom surveys performed in the weeks or months following oil spills have reported a higher prevalence of headache, throat irritation, and sore or itchy eyes in exposed individuals compared with controls. Some studies have also reported modestly increased rates of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rash, wheezing, cough, and chest pain.7 One study of 6780 fishermen, which included 4271 oil spill cleanup workers, found a higher prevalence of lower respiratory tract symptoms 2 years after oil spill cleanup activities. The risk of lower respiratory tract symptoms increased with the intensity of exposure.8
A study of 858 individuals involved in the cleanup of the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2002 investigated acute genetic toxicity in volunteers and workers. Increased DNA damage, as assessed by the Comet assay, was found in volunteers, especially in those working on the beaches.7 In the same study, workers had lower levels of CD4 cells, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and interferon compared with their own preexposure levels.
Studies following major oil spills in Alaska, Spain, Korea, and Wales have documented elevated rates of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological stress.9 A mental health survey of 599 local residents 1 year after the Exxon Valdez spill found that exposed individuals were 3.6 times more likely to have anxiety disorder, 2.9 times more likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder, and 2.1 times more likely to score high on a depression index.10 Adverse mental health effects were observed up to 6 years after the oil spill.

Approach to Patients

Clinicians should be aware of toxicity from exposures to oil and related chemicals. Patients presenting with constitutional symptoms should be asked about occupational exposures and location of residence. The physical examination should focus on the skin, respiratory tract, and neurological system, documenting any signs that could be associated with oil-related chemicals. Care consists primarily of documentation of signs and symptoms, evaluation to rule out or treat other potential causes of the symptoms, removal from exposure, and supportive care.
Prevention of illness from oil and related chemicals on the Gulf Coast during the cleanup period includes proper protective equipment for workers and common-sense precautions for community residents. Workers require proper training and equipment that includes boots, gloves, coveralls, and safety glasses, as well as respirators when potentially hazardous levels of airborne vapors, aerosols, or particulate matter exist. Workers should also take precautions to avoid heat-related illness (rest breaks and drinking sufficient fluids). All worker injuries and illnesses should be reported to ensure proper tracking.
Community residents should not fish in off-limit areas or where there is evidence of oil. Fish or shellfish with an oily odor should be discarded. Direct skin contact with contaminated water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. If community residents notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge in an air-conditioned environment. Interventions to address mental health in the local population should be incorporated into clinical and public health response efforts. Over the longer term, cohort studies of Gulf cleanup workers and local residents will greatly enhance the scientific data on the health sequelae of oil spills.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author: Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, UCSF, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 (gsolomon@nrdc.org).
Published Online: August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Additional Contributions: We thank Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, MPH, Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathleen Navarro, BS, University of California-Berkeley; and Diane Bailey, MS, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, for their assistance with the literature review.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, and Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California.

REFERENCES

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999.

2. National Toxicology Program. Naphthalene. Report on Carcinogens. 11th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2005. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s116znph.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2010.

3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Odors from the BP Oil Spill. http://epa.gov/bpspill/odor.html. Accessed June 7, 2010.

4. Law RJ, Hellou J. Contamination of fish and shellfish following oil spill incidents. Environ Geosci. 1999;6(2):90-98. FREE FULL TEXT

5. Gorma RW, Berardinelli SP, Bender TR. HETA 89-200 and 89-273-2111, Exxon/Valdez Alaska Oil Spill. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1991.

6. O’Neill AK. Self-Reported Exposures and Health Status Among Workers From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Cleanup [master’s thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2003.

7. Rodríguez-Trigo G, Zock JP, Isidro Montes I. Health effects of exposure to oil spills [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43(11):628-635. PUBMED

8. Zock JP, Rodríguez-Trigo G, Pozo-Rodríguez F; et al, SEPAR-Prestige Study Group. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616. FREE FULL TEXT

9. Sabucedo JM, Arce C, Senra C, Seoane G, Vázquez I. Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe. Disasters. 2010;34(3):809-820. PUBMED

10. Palinkas LA, Petterson JS, Russell J, Downs MA. Community patterns of psychiatric disorders after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(10):1517-1523. FREE FULL TEXT

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz