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

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/08/13/2504309/decision-expected-on-plug-for.html
BP’s broken oil well is not dead yet
By TOM BREEN (AP) – 2 days ago
NEW ORLEANS –

The government’s point man on the crisis said Friday that the blown-out well is not securely plugged to his satisfaction and that the drilling of the relief well – long regarded as the only way to ensure that the hole at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico never leaks oil again – must go forward.

“The relief well will be finished,” said retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen. “We will kill the well.”

Work on the relief well was suspended earlier this week because of bad weather. Allen did not say when it would resume, but when the order comes, it could take four days to get the operation up and running again.

From there, it could be only a matter of days before the “bottom kill” is done and the blown-out well that wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast economy and environment is no longer a threat.

Last week, BP plugged up the ruptured oil well from the top with mud and cement, and for a while, it appeared that the relief well that BP has been drilling 2 1/2 miles under the sea all summer long in an effort to seal up the leak from the bottom might not be necessary after all. But Allen dashed those hopes after scientists conducted pressure tests on Thursday.

Scientists had hoped that the cement pumped in from the top had plugged the gap between the well’s inner pipe and its outer casing. The pressure tests showed some cement was in that gap, but officials don’t know enough about what’s there – or how much of it – to trust that there is a permanent seal, said Allen, who has repeatedly insisted on an “overabundance of caution” when it comes to plugging the well.
The well spilled an estimated 206 million gallons of crude into the sea before BP finally put a cap on it July 15. But that was always regarded as a temporary fix until the relief well and the bottom kill could be completed.

Bob Bea, a petroleum engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said that given the results of the pressure tests, proceeding with the relief well makes sense.
“Everything we know at this time says we need to continue the work with the relief wells,” he said. “We don’t know the details of how they plugged the well from the top. We don’t know the volume of material they put in the well bore, and without that we can’t tell how close to the bottom of the well they got.”

Drilling of the relief well began in early May, and the tunnel is now just 30 to 50 feet from the blown-out well. To intercept the well, the drillers must hit a target about the size of a dinner plate. Once they punch through, heavy drilling mud and cement will be injected into the bedrock.

Allen said scientists from BP and the government are working to ensure the bottom kill does not damage the cap and make the disaster worse. New equipment to ease the pressure inside the well might have to be installed, which would “significantly affect the timeline” for the final fix, Allen said, though he did not specify how much.

Officials from BP and the federal government have been touting the bottom kill as the final fix for weeks, and local officials said they were glad to hear it will go forward.

“If it’s a nearly redundant safety measure, that makes sense to us,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who attended a closed-door meeting with Allen, local leaders and other federal officials.

The possibility, floated earlier this week, that the well might already be plugged didn’t sit well with local officials or environmentalists, who said they were leery of optimistic forecasts from BP and the government.

“After all this effort, why would they quit before they’re done?” said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. “If you had a trustworthy company and they said it’s done, it’s done. But in this case BP has not been a trustworthy company.”

Along the Gulf Coast in Houma, La., construction worker Doug Hunt wearily wondered if the crisis would ever end upon hearing that the permanent fix was at least several more days off.

“All we’ve heard is oil, oil, oil. I guess they’ll do the job sooner or later, but it will take a long time for the people here to recover from this,” Hunt said.

The crisis began on April 20, after an explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers.

Associated Press Writers Harry R. Weber and Noaki Schwartz in New Orleans, Kevin McGill in Gray, La., and Mary Foster in Houma, La., contributed to this report.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sign the petition to stop the use of dispersants here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/25/stop-the-use-of-dispersants-in-the-gulf/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/16/next-major-toxic-hazard-that-can-ruin-you-and-your-childrens-health.aspx
The above link takes you to a video of Susan Shaw, internationally recognized marine toxicologist, author and explorer, who shows evidence that the toxic Gulf of Mexico oil slick is being kept off of beaches at devastating cost to the health of the deep sea.

**************************************

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The BP oil leak has reportedly been plugged, but the devastation caused by the hundreds of millions of gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf, coupled with a reckless use of toxic dispersants to “clean it up,” is just beginning.

And the sad truth is, even highly trained toxicologists can only guess what the full extent of the damage will be. This is, by far, the worst oil spill in human history. The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled “only” 12 million gallons of oil — and even that ended up taking a much more complex environmental toll than toxicologists initially predicted.

There’s no doubt in my mind this disaster will take DECADES to clean up, if it’s at all possible, and the worst-case scenario is pointing to major devastation on all levels of marine life, from coral reefs and plankton to fish and air-breathing mammals.

Where Did the Massive Oil Slicks Go?

Since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, thousands of square miles in the Gulf were covered with immense patches of oil.

Media images showing the extent of the destruction have been scarce — draconian measures have been implemented to limit media access and reporting on the disaster, and CNN recently reported on a new rule that prevents anyone, including reporters and photographers, from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms anywhere on the water or on beaches — but the oil was there, coating expansive stretches of ocean, nonetheless.

Now, fast-forward to early August and the New York Times reported that the oil patches are “largely gone,” and “Radar images suggest that the few remaining patches are quickly breaking down in the warm surface waters of the gulf.” They went on to report, “The slick appeared to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.”

Two days earlier, a government report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey similarly implied that the oil in the Gulf was quickly disappearing and that environmental effects were well under control.

Government Report Implies Oil is Mostly Gone!

For starters, the report estimated that only 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well, when at the height of the spill estimates revealed that 4.2 million gallons of oil were likely still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico daily.

Next the report goes on to explain that:

“It is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.

The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.”

The remaining “residual” oil, along with the oil that has been chemically and naturally dispersed are “currently being degraded naturally,” according to the government report.

With a glowing report like this one, it makes you wonder if the U.S. government is in collusion with BP. Already the report is drawing criticism that it is deliberately trying to play down the real impacts of the spill.

As Samantha Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia who has conducted important research regarding the spill, told the New York Times:

“A lot of this is based on modeling and extrapolation and very generous assumptions. If an academic scientist put something like this out there, it would get torpedoed into a billion pieces.”

You can also listen to this shocking interview with top EPA official Hugh Kaufman, which reveals that the NOAA and the EPA are covering up the lethal effects of dispersants and lying about Gulf Oil Spill water samples to save BP billions of dollars in fines.

At the very least, it appears the government has completely overlooked the toxic effects of the dispersants used to “remove” much of the oil. Massive oil slicks don’t just “disappear” from the ocean. Instead, many were treated with harsh chemical solvents that simply transferred the oil from the ocean’s surface to the delicate waters below.

Toxic Dispersants: The Oil Spill Tragedy You Probably Haven’t Heard About

BP is using two dispersants: Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A.

Corexit is on the EPA’s list of approved chemical dispersants, and BP could have chosen any one from the list. Instead, they chose Corexit, which is among the most toxic and least effective options.

As it turns out, BP has financial ties with Nalco, which explains why they have now poured more than 1 million gallons of it into the Gulf. Because of these industry ties, Corexit is the only dispersant available in the massive quantities “needed” for an oil spill of this size.

In fact, they used up all exiting stockpiles of Corexit 9527A, the older and more dangerous formula, and Nalco states it will be discontinued, now that it has been used up.

Of all 18 dispersants tested, Corexit 9500 and 9527A are the LEAST effective, further confirming that BP’s preferential use of these products is motivated by profit, rather than their proclaimed intention to “clean up the mess.”

Toxic for Humans and Marine Life

Corexit products were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the UK more than a decade ago after the agents were linked with human health problems including:

· Respiratory

· Neurological

· Liver

· Kidney

· Blood disorders

Further, according to Carys Mitchelmore, a researcher at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds are known to cause a variety of health problems in animals, including:

· Death

· Reduced growth

· Reproductive problems

· Cardiac dysfunction

· Immune suppression

· Altered behavior

· Carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects

As Sayer Ji, founder of InformationToInspireChange.com, stated:

“Dispersing the oil into the water column accelerates the poisoning of all marine life, deep throughout the water column and seabed. Ultimately it results in “covering-up” the extent of the disaster on the surface, while amplifying the damage within our oceans.

Also, when the dispersants mix with the crude oil, a third far more toxic product is produced called “dispersed oil.” Dispersed oil has been shown to be more toxic than the sum of its parts.

Dispersing simply keeps the oil deeper in the water column so that it will not surface, into the light of public scrutiny.”

The chemical dispersants, by the way, are not a silver bullet to miraculously make oil disappear. Oil spill dispersants only alter the chemical and physical properties of the oil, making it more likely to mix with seawater than deposit on the shoreline.

So what the dispersants do is re-direct the oil, making its impact perhaps less so on birds and shore-dwelling animals, but more so on fish, coral reefs, oysters and other marine life that live in the deeper waters. It essentially “hides” the oil out of view, below the surface where news cameras can’t see it.

Sadly, the oil and dispersant mix is so toxic that I strongly caution you to STAY OUT of the Gulf of Mexico. In my opinion, it’s simply not safe to swim there.

Remember also that children are far more prone to experiencing health problems from this type of toxic exposure than adults. So please, keep your children safe. Do not allow your children to swim or play on the Gulf coast beaches.

Is There Any Way to Help?

Only time will tell what the true environmental and human health impacts of the 2010 BP oil spill will be, but this is for certain: we need our oceans, our coral reefs and our marine life to survive.

Coral reefs are already disappearing faster than rainforests, and dispersed oil is particularly deadly to coral reefs.

According to Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist regarded as the world’s foremost authority on coral reefs:

“The future is horrific. There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we now recognize. If, and when, they go, they will take with them about one-third of the world’s marine biodiversity. Then there is a domino effect, as reefs fail, so will other ecosystems. This is the path of a mass extinction event, when most life, especially tropical marine life, goes extinct.”

You may feel helpless right now to make a difference in the Gulf, but there are some steps you can take to help. First, you can join the movement to stop the use of dispersants by signing this petition.

I also urge you to take action now, without delay, pressing your representatives to hold BP accountable for this massive environmental tragedy.

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/feds-confiscate-independent-lsu-scientists-samples-because-project-not-approved-by-bp-others

AUGUST 11TH, 2010 AT 10:17 PM

Linda Hooper-Bui, Louisiana State University Department of Entomology Associate Professor, writes in The Scientist, “My PhD student’s ant samples were taken away by a US Fish and Wildlife officer at a publicly accessible state Wildlife Management Area because our project hadn’t been approved by Incident Command.”

What is the Incident Command? Hooper-Bui continues, “[It’s] also called the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command – which is a joint program of BP and federal agencies, such as the Coast GuardŠ”

She shares another similar experience, “Where our research trip was halted after driving more than 150 miles to a study site. On the way to our sampling sites in Grand Isle, LA, [we] were turned away by a sheriff’s deputy blocking the road who said that he was told to allow no one who wasn’t associated with BP or NRDA.” The NRDA (National Resource Damage Assessment) process “is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP.”

To read the full article, you must register with TheScientist.com: http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&id=57610&o_url=news/display/57610

(see story below)

___________

The Scientist

By Linda Hooper-Bui

Opinion: The oil’s stain on science
An ecosystem biologist discusses how the effort to assess the oil spill’s damage is stifling independent research

[Published 5th August 2010 01:59 PM GMT]

Functioning as an independent researcher in and around the Gulf of Mexico these days is no simple task. I study insect and plant communities in near-shore habitats fringing the Gulf, and my work has gotten measurably harder in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

Some Gulf scientists have already been snatched up by corporate consulting companies with offers of $250/hour. Others are badgered for their data by governmental agencies. Some of us desire to conduct our work without lawyers, government officials, or corporate officers peering over our shoulders. In the end, it may be the independent, non-biased researchers who can deliver credible scientific results that perform the crucial function of assessing the damage wrought by this disaster…if we survive professionally.

Thanks to the National Science Foundation (NSF), some of us might. We don’t work for BP or the government’s National Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process, which is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP. We are independent scientists who want to honestly and independently examine the effects of the oil spill.

The ants, crickets, flies, bees, dragon flies, and spiders I study are important components of the coastal food web. They function as soil aerators, seed dispersers, pollinators, and food sources in complex ecosystems of the Gulf.

Insects were not a primary concern when oil was gushing into the Gulf, but now they may be the best indicator of stressor effects on the coastal northern Gulf of Mexico. Those stressors include oil, dispersants, and cleanup activities. If insect populations survive, then frogs, fish, and birds will survive. If frogs, fish, and birds are there, the fishermen and the birdwatchers will be there. The Gulf’s coastal communities will survive. But if the bugs suffer, so too will the people of the Gulf Coast.

This is why my continued research is important: to give us an idea of just how badly the health of the Gulf Coast ecosystems has been damaged and what, if anything, we can do to stave off a full-blown ecological collapse. But I am having trouble conducting my research without signing confidentiality agreements or agreeing to other conditions that restrict my ability to tell a robust and truthful scientific story.

I want to collect data to answer scientific questions absent a corporate or governmental agenda. I won’t collect data specifically to support the government’s lawsuit against BP nor will I collect data only to be used in BP’s defense. Whereas I think damage assessment is important, it’s my job to be independent — to tell an accurate, unbiased story. But because I choose not to work for BP’s consultants or NRDA, my job is difficult and access to study sites is limited.

In southern Alabama back in late May, my PhD student’s ant samples were taken away by a US Fish and Wildlife officer at a publicly accessible state Wildlife Management Area because our project hadn’t been approved by Incident Command (also called the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command — which is a joint program of BP and federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, assembled to respond to problems related to the April 20 blowout).

We’ve had similar experiences in south Louisiana, where our research trip was halted after driving more than 150 miles to a study site. On the way to our sampling sites in Grand Isle, LA, were turned away by a sheriff’s deputy blocking the road who said that he was told to allow no one who wasn’t associated with BP or NRDA to pass that point. We’ve also been blocked by the Wisner Trust, one of the largest private land owners of marsh habitat in Louisiana, who in the past allowed LSU researchers access to their property. The lawyer representing the trust indicated that they are coordinating over 700 different people associated with BP and NRDA and that they simply cannot approve access for anyone else.

People at the NSF think the work I conduct with my graduate students and eight collaborators on coastal food webs is important enough to fund through their Rapid Proposal Program. The truth is that we used our meager discretionary funds to hurriedly collect data in May before our study sites were oiled. Our group was lucky we weren’t turned away by BP, sheriff’s officers, or Coast Guard at that time. Now we’re seeking a source of independent funding once again.

I’ve been doggedly pursued by NRDA for data our team has and will be collecting. Three different people from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) indicated interest in our data in repeated requests. In fact, I’ll be going to a meeting with LDNR next Thursday (August 12) to further discuss my data. If I were to agree to submit my data, thus officially participating in NRDA, I would be required to sign a confidentiality agreement that lacks an officially specified end date. Exactly when my students or I would be able to publish any results from this research would be determined by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would make that decision based on the status of a civil suit brought against BP. Were I to accept research funding directly from BP or from one of their contractors, I’d have to sign a contract that includes a three-year no publication clause. If I signed either a contract to work with NRDA or to work under BP or one of their contractors, I would have virtually unlimited access to study sites and more research support.

But the price of the secrecy involved with participating in NRDA or conducting research under the auspices of BP is too high. My student and I couldn’t discuss our data, results or experiences for three years or until the litigation against BP is settled. More importantly, we couldn’t publish any of our results. I couldn’t write this essay. The data could be tied up for years in litigation just like that of the scientists who participated in NRDA after the Exxon Valdez incident.

Every day it takes resolve to continue on the path of honest and open science on the effect of stressors on the smallest creatures on the coast. If current trends continue, I fear that the independent researcher may be added to the list of species that will be endangered by this ecological disaster.

_______________________

Linda Hooper-Bui is an ecosystem biologist at Louisiana State University A&M and the LSU Agricultural Center who specializes in disturbance ecology of ants and other arthropods. She coauthored a chapter called “Consequences of Ant Invasions” in the book Ant Ecology, published this year. She loves to spend time mentoring students and has an active undergraduate and graduate student research program.

Editor’s note – Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Dept of Interior NRDA coordinator, told The Scientist that he was unaware of any samples being taken or access to study sites being restricted by federal, state, or tribal officials associated with NRDA. He did, however, confirm that researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement. Tuttle said that the agreement prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date. “This is a civil lawsuit [against BP],” Tuttle said. “We are protecting our interests and our case. It’s not designed to squelch anything, but just to ensure that the integrity of the case is protected.” The Scientist contacted a BP representative to respond to Hooper-Bui’s claims, but BP declined to comment.
Read more: Opinion: The oil’s stain on science – The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&id=57610&o_url=news/display/57610#ixzz0wb0Q5UfM

Special thanks to Richard Charter