It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Scientists say Gulf spill altering food web

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:07 AM

Scientists say Gulf spill altering food web

Scientists are reporting early signs that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is altering the marine food web by killing or tainting some creatures and spurring the growth of others more suited to a fouled environment.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related Discussion Threads:
Government Experts reveal 420 MILLION to 840 MILLION gallons of BP oil have flowed into Gulf

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Maxmars]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:07 AM
Note: I am aware that this is a "Deepwater" related topic. However, it is nevertheless Breaking Alternative News in its scope and impact.

Interestingly, as I had feared early on, this 'drop of oil' in the 'vast vast ocean' meme will not stand up to scrutiny. The foundation of the food-chain is being tainted and will bear it's foul fruit before long.

Near the spill site, researchers have documented a massive die-off of pyrosomes - cucumber-shaped, gelatinous organisms fed on by endangered sea turtles.

Along the coast, droplets of oil are being found inside the shells of young crabs that are a mainstay in the diet of fish, turtles and shorebirds.

And at the base of the food web, tiny organisms that consume oil and gas are proliferating.

As the roiling fog of cloudy Corexit and Oil tainted waters get pushed and channeled through the gulf stream and beyond, we will be able to determine just how 'minimal' the damage is.

Interestingly, the article goes on to relay some supposed government sourced information:

Federal wildlife officials say the impacts are not irreversible, and no tainted seafood has yet been found.

I find the above statement almost comical, considering the entire point of the article to be that in fact such tainting has been found.

Further on we see another one of the now notorious practice of never giving the same number twice:

Much of the spill - estimated at up to 176 million gallons of oil and almost 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas - was broken into small droplets by chemical dispersants at the site of the leaking well head. That reduced the direct impact to the shoreline and kept much of the oil and natural gas suspended in the water.

I would like to ask the kind reader to reference the following thread: Government Experts reveal 420 MILLION to 840 MILLION gallons of BP oil have flowed into Gulf . Evidently, the "estimates" can still be said to be subject to editorial control and other - non-scientific - input.

Chemical oceanographer John Kessler from Texas A&M University and geochemist David Valentine from the University of California-Santa Barbara recently spent about two weeks sampling the waters in a six-mile radius around the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig. More than 3,000 feet below the surface, they found natural gas levels have reached about 100,000 times normal, Kessler said.

Already those concentrations are pushing down oxygen levels as the gas gets broken down by bacteria, Kessler and Valentine said. When oxygen levels drop low enough, the breakdown of oil and gas grinds to a halt and most life can't be sustained.

The BP spill also is altering the food web by providing vast food for bacteria that consume oil and gas, allowing them to flourish.

At the same time, the surface slick is blocking sunlight needed to sustain plant-like phytoplankton, which under normal circumstances would be at the base of the food web.

And finally, the obligatory assurance that all is well:

Seafood safety tests on hundreds of fish, shrimp and other marine life that could make it into the food supply so far have turned up negative for dangerous oil contamination.

Except who is testing what and from where is sadly unreported in this article.

Eco-disaster? I suppose those who still proclaim event this as relatively insignificant will remain in that mindset until their own lives are affected. I see more problems we are 'not talking about' because it simply isn't encouraging enough for propagation. Sort of like what is always practiced in today's corporate media world, and today's corporate-government 'partnerships.'
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Maxmars]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:15 AM
While I am not a scientist I can, in good faith, state that oil in the food chain is not a good thing.

Assume everything is cyclical then of course this impacts the cycle. e.g. cows are designed to eat grass. now they eat corn, are pumped with hormones and as a result people grow larger themselves.

The oil in the gulf will not only impact the food chain for fish, it will impact the hydrological cycle as water can't evaporate cleanly, etc.

If we all take a minute to think a few links down the chain we will quickly realize how connected everything is.


posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I'm not scientist either but it was pretty obvious from the onset that this was going to happen. And they're not even getting into mutations and the altering of resulting migration and breeding patterns that might span over decades.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:23 PM
I have been waiting for this to pop up for sometime now.

I am not surprised.

I saw this since day one.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:36 PM
I wonder how our government officials reconciled themselves to 'accept' the BP method of PR. It begs the question of who they were protecting, us (the country) or them (the corporate citizen?)

This is another one of those things that the people will not really deal with until LeBron James, American Idol, Lindsey Lohan, and Mel Gibson stop hogging the limelight.

Imagine that your kids will be eating this oil-laced food someday. But it's OK 'cause the Government says so.

new topics

top topics

log in