Researchers Find Impact of Oil Spill in Marsh Fish Species

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com...

Researchers from Louisiana State University have issues a report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The report is unsurprising in that it identifies what industry insiders and politicians don't want to hear. I expect a contradictory study to surface soon, as is the way of using science for political expedience and or profit. Meanwhile I would like to point out by emphasizing in the following excerpt:


Their study shows that, despite very low to non-detectable concentrations of oil constituents in the water and in fish tissues, biological effects in fish indicate dramatic responses that are indicative of exposures to the toxic components of oil.

That is, the biological responses of the fish were much more sensitive indicators of exposures and effects from the contaminating oil than the environmental chemistry was.

"Though the fish may be 'safe to eat' based on low chemical burdens in their tissues, that doesn't mean that the fish are healthy or that the fish are capable of reproducing normally," said Whitehead.


Of course, corporatists and conformists will say ... "See?... they ARE safe to eat!" Others might disagree, insisting that the food they eat actually be healthy and normal before it is consumed.....

Mercy me.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Of course, corporatists and conformists will say ... "See?... they ARE safe to eat!

To these notions and denials, I always say,"will you feed the food to your baby?"

The current LSU study shows that early signals of similar kinds of sub-lethal effects are starting to emerge in an ecologically-important species following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Wonder what this means, specifically?

spec



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


The affects of such a spill will be far reaching and will be notable in our biosphere for years to come... Pollutants dont jut go away as we would like to think....
We need to try and take better care of our planet and our fellow relatives....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I can tell ya first hand about this, since I live on pensacola beach florida, and have since 1970. Last year my beach got covered with the oil spill goo, and were still geting blobs of mess every high tide. I don't eat the salt water seafood anymore. And its been a year since I went in the water. This was the reason I moved here for the raw beauty of nature. Bp and the others eco-terrorists have ruined my home for the next 100 years. So its nice your doing tests at LSU, but its alot different when you live in it day in day out.....




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Maxmars
.....

The current LSU study shows that early signals of similar kinds of sub-lethal effects are starting to emerge in an ecologically-important species following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.


Wonder what this means, specifically?

spec


Unless I am mistaken they are referring to the fact that at a molecular level, biological systems of tiny and more primitive animals like plankton, sponges, corals,and other creatures unable to remove themselves from the vicinity begin to process the chemical in the water along with their digestive systems and, in the case of 'gilled' creatures through their respiratory systems.

The chemicals are 'sub-lethal' and do not cause the animal to die, but they do cause chemical changes in the metabolic process that make the creature less healthy; smaller, weaker, less able to cope with infections, or other environmental stresses.

I hope I am wrong, but I would suspect to see an upsurge in fisheries finding their catches with tumors and other undesirable effects ... stuff they wouldn't "feed to their own kids" as you say.... but will it stop the businessmen from selling them, or their fish-based products to us anyway? Who knows for sure?
edit on 27-9-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   





posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Thank you so much for that additional article.... "Gulf oil spill could cause lasting damage to fish populations, study finds cell abnormalities and toxicity"

I found it interesting that this one is titled in such a manner as to point out the "toxicity" angle. time for a good "contrast and compare" exercise.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I was unsure about the "similar kinds" part, but yes it seems they are describing broader measurable effects amongst the marine life from the toxicity.
reply to post by freespirit1
 

Thanks for the additional info


Whitehead said the results show that just because fish from the gulf have passed federal inspections, it does not mean these species are unaffected by the spill.

Wonder if there are any members there that might constitute 'conflict of interest?'

"You can have a fish that's safe to eat but is still not healthy," he said, adding that as sediment containing hydrocarbons is dredged up by storms, it could expose species over time. "The sediments are going to act as this long-term reservoir of oil, of potential exposure."

So the amount and/or time frame is constantly stirred and settled, making it unpredictable in it's reaches or intensity. So this is not something that peaked, and will now continue to heal, but rather it happened, and the effects will continue to rise and fall somewhat unpredictably?
What a shame...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
People believe what they can handle knowing.

I still can't believe all the people eating seafood, between this and Fukushima. I'd kill for some clean lobster with my Red Stripe.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Well, I just got back from two weeks on Manasota Key (between Sarasota and Ft. Myers on the Gulf Coast of Florida), and the Gulf was literally TEEMING with fish. So much so that at high tide the small ones would get chased by bigger fish up into the waves at the shoreline and become beached when the tide went out going. I observed a LOT of fish both in temporary tidal pools and those that died when those tidal pools went dry at low tide. I saw NOTHING unhealthy or unusual with any of the fish I saw. The birds were fat and happy feeding on all the fish and none of them looked in the least bid unhealthy neither.

Matter of fact, I went into the water myself several times over those two weeks and observed schools of fish in great abundance while snorkeling. This is the first time I have stuck even a toe in the Gulf of Mexico since the "spill" took place. So yes, I have now had Gulf of Mexico water up into my sinuses, in my ears, swallowed my fair share of it, and had my entire body immersed in the water for hours at a time.

So far, I feel just FINE. Everyone we saw on the beach appeared to be just FINE.

Heck, I like a conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but quite honestly, I think the gloom and doom over the Gulf of Mexico is pretty much played out by now. In my opinion, the "wolf" that everyone has been crying about being there just isn't so....... And until I see firsthand evidence to change my opinion, I believe all unsubstantiated claims to the contrary just need to be taken with a very large helping of salt.





top topics
 
3

log in

join