Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2007: More than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:30 PM
Original message
2007: More than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound.
The study...found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/02/oil.pollution

...oil that seeps out with every tide, and that because incomplete weathering left behind higher concentrations of toxins is even more poisonous now than when it gushed from the ripped tanker. This oil will remain on these beaches for decades to come.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0322-04.htm

estimates that shoreline habitats such as mussel beds affected by the spill will take up to 30 years to recover fully.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=environmental-effects-of

Just a few tidbits I found this afternoon while reading around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oil will disperse much slower in colder climates than in warmer ones

A) Evaporation is accelerated in warmer climates

B) Oil-eating micro-organisms thrive in warmer water.

C) Gulf of Mexico has much stronger currents than Prince William Sound... breaks up the oil quicker.


All anyone has to look at is the IXTOC spill in 1979. It was about the same amount of oil as the Deepwater Horizon spill... and it dispersed pretty rapidly and took less than a decade for the marine life to fully recover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I will look into that as well...
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. You might be interested to read
Jeanne Devon's excellent post at The Mudflats, "Walking with the Ghost of Exxon," http://www.themudflats.net/2010/07/06/walking-with-the-ghost-of-exxon/ regarding a recent visit she and Shannyn Moore made to the Sound to see for themselves whether the oil has degraded. It's sad and disturbing, especially the videos.

Of course, it is true that our climate is different up here and maybe oil DOES degrade faster in the warmer climates, but all these reports that 75% of the Gulf spill is "gone" make me furious. I don't see any way that could be true. And as much as the fishermen of the Gulf are suffering, I think it's very irresponsible of the government or whoever to encourage people to buy seafood from the Gulf. The results could be disastrous on a far greater level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That infuriates me as well...
In fact it was the government that made the claim that the Deepwater Horizon disaster is four times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

I have a hard time believing that it was cleaned up in 1/3 the time.

I also couldn't agree more that the FDA claiming that Corexit is safe enough for gulf seafood consumption makes me very skeptical. I'll tell you one thing; I will not be eating it anytime soon.

I'm waiting on information from some special interest group to block as much information as possible as to where the shrimp/mussles/clams et. al with regards as to the location of where they were caught...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-08-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well if anyone had said any of that
I'd understand your skepticism.

But nobody said the entire gulf is cleaned up or will be any time soon.

And nobody said you can eat seafood soaked in Corexit. They are testing water and seafood for safety as they reopen fisheries though.

Also, they removed the most toxic ingredient from Corexit after Valdez too.

So maybe with the correct information, you'll be a little less infuriated and a little more motivated to just stay on top of every ounce of information for the next twenty years and make sure BP is held to account in a way Exxon never was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC