It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"RELAX!" & "no big deal", Oh? - Gulf Oil Spill Creates 'Giant Experiment' in Marine Toxicology

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Damage to Gulf of Mexico marine life could last generations, federal scientists warned today.



Article Source


As oil spews from a damaged well 5,000 feet beneath the surface, scientists say the reproduction of wildlife and food webs could be changed in ways that could have long-term effects on the ecosystem.

"We do anticipate long-term and perhaps widespread effects to wildlife and ecosystems that may persist -- even to animals with no evidence of oil on their feathers or fur," said Glenn Plumb, who is leading the National Park Service's spill response effort.

Though few oiled animals have come ashore, scientists say they are concerned about animals swimming through, inhaling and ingesting the oil far at sea.

"A lot of these impacts are more subtle than oil on the outside of the animal," said Ralph Morgenweck, a senior science adviser for the Fish and Wildlife Service.


Just to put it into a little perspective, this is a picture montage of what an oil spill can do to an ecosystem. This is only on the surface and doesn't yet take into account what the article eludes to.

Not all these images are from the current Gulf Oil Spill and are images from the Exxon Valdez spill. None the less, I feel this is similar to what is to come but on a grand scale. The last two images however are current pictures from the Gulf. "RELAX" and "no big deal" indeed!




















[edit on 5/23/2010 by UberL33t]




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Indeed! I have grave misgivings myself.

At the depths of the gulf, where the "cold seeps" and bubbling methane fields are, there are scores, if not hundreds of species who live off the solar grid, converting and exploiting sulfides and methane for their source of food.

There are at the farthest limits of our diving capability in vast numbers.

I have to wonder what this will do to those ecosystems? They are totally separate from our food chain, yet massive clouds of hydrocarbon rich matter will engulf them like a fog.

The chemical dispersant of choice will serve to further extend the reach of these toxic clouds and the hope that they will 'dissolve' or become so sparse in the vast ocean will prove to be foolish. Our oceans are much like our atmosphere, constantly swishing and swirling, and churning itself, masses of air, cold, wet, hot, dry and otherwise move in vast islands of distinct qualities. If it were not so we probably would lead very different lives. The ocean is no different.

Severity notwithstanding, the level of callous disregard for the balance of a dynamically unstable system approaches criminality... a criminality that only 'corporate' venture seems capable of avoiding. Commerce is all well and good. But there are those who always want to make a 'killing' rather than a 'living.'

In this case, the 'killing' manifested itself in reality.

The responsible parties should be forced to make a living at ground zero.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




The responsible parties should be forced to make a living at ground zero.


I concur, coat everything in their daily life in Oil. I realize that we are dependent upon Oil. However that's only because TPTB choose to stay grounded to this fleeting resource. Thus keeping the masses dependent upon it while they fill their pockets regardless of the sacrifice to humans (war, etc), animals (due to spills such as this), and whole ecosystems alike have to endure. Sooooooo many other viable clean renewable energy resources that could be utilized that are swept under the rug.

Sure it wouldn't happen overnight, but as long as they continue to drill and make the world reliant upon it, these resources will never be able to make it to mainstream. I could type for pages & pages on this but I'll end this post here.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by UberL33t]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
And yet ANOTHER gloomer thread.
did you forget to mention the differences between the Exxon Valdez incident and the BP one? It is pretty significant since you are predicting that the wildlife will suffer the same fate.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just Wondering
And yet ANOTHER gloomer thread.
did you forget to mention the differences between the Exxon Valdez incident and the BP one? It is pretty significant since you are predicting that the wildlife will suffer the same fate.


Why don't you enlighten us, you already seem to know.

I think of a few right off the top...this oil "volcano" will "spill" many times the amount of oil than Valdez was able to spill. Next, there wasn't a simultaneous release of hydrogen sulfide, METHANE, and benzine, as there is in the Gulf with the Valdez. Funny enough, the focus has been on just OIL, I'D like to know why NO NONE is talking about the 5000:1 ratio of gas to oil in this prospect (BP's estimation). Next...cleanup had already started with 33 days of the spill. Clean-up of this mess hasn't really begun...unless you can call using dispersant "cleaning up"...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Just Wondering
 




since you are predicting that the wildlife will suffer the same fate


You seemingly have very poor comprehension skills, I said....



a picture montage of what an oil spill can do to an ecosystem


Um..."can do" ...not "will do"...if that is in fact the portion you were referring to as far as your claim that it was a prediction on my part.

Perhaps you meant this portion...



I feel this is similar to what is to come but on a grand scale


"I feel" would be an opinion, hardly a prediction


Then again, perhaps you were referring to the article in the OP. As per the Article Headline...



Damage to Gulf of Mexico marine life could last generations, federal scientists warned today.


Um..."could" ...not "will" ...so please enlighten me as to the portion that claims this is or any of the aforementioned was a "prediction".

Since you are so inclined to point out the differences between the two please, please do add your data to this thread! I would be curious how that affects what is being stated in the OP. May I remind you when the Exxon Valdez incident occurred, March 24, 1989.

Now, may I direct your attention to this 2003 article from Science Daily:

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Impacts Lasting Far Longer Than Expected, Scientists Say


Assuming that oil spills such as the one that devastated Alaska's Prince William Sound almost 15 years ago and other toxic insults to the environment have only short-term impacts on coastal marine ecosystems has been a big mistake, a new study shows.


There have been more recent articles stating that there is still evidence of the spills devastation on that ecosystem.

The scales of these two spills are quite different as well as the Gulf Spill has unforeseeable attributes regarding the ecosystem as a whole. IMO that is!




top topics
 
5

log in

join