posted on May, 8 2011 @ 07:45 PM
“All those symptoms have been seen naturally before, but it’s a matter of them all coming at once that we’re concerned about.”
So what are the unique factors involved as cause? The spill is the biggest influence, no?
And he sees troubling signs consistent with oil exposure: fish with lesions, external parasites, odd pigmentation patterns, and diseased livers
and ovaries. These may be signs of compromised immune systems in fish that are expending their energy dealing with toxins, Patterson said.
I wonder how this affects them genetically, and their off spring.
Pensacola marine biologist Heather Reed is studying red snapper for a private client using broader testing methods than mandated by the federal
government, which she says are not adequate.
“I’ve been testing different organs in game fish that have been brought to me, and I’m seeing petroleum hydrocarbons in the organs,” said
Reed, the environmental adviser for the City of Gulf Breeze. “I was shocked when I saw it.”
15 years of research and she was 'shocked' at what was found. Sounds pretty significant!
“Cause and effect is a huge problem for environmental work,” Snyder said. “You see anomalies in fish. Is it oil-related? How do we prove it?
We can make the connection with economic stuff. But after the oil is gone, how do you definitely say the fish are sick because of the oil
Well, we have a distinct problem, so we examine the variables and again, the spill was the biggest cause factor, imo. Proving it may be a challenge I
guess, but I don't understand how it is not eveident, but then again I am not a scientist.
I wonder if BP will exercise some influence in the conclusions/reports from the studies they funded? I am glad there are some private studies being
done as well.