Home | About | Donate

New Study Warns of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill's Long-Lasting Impact on Ocean's "Building Blocks"


#1

New Study Warns of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill's Long-Lasting Impact on Ocean's "Building Blocks"

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Following President Donald Trump's "reckless" decision last week to repeal an ocean protection policy enacted by his predecessor, a study published Friday in the journal Nature detailed the lasting impact of BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, outlining how "lingering oil residues have altered the basic building blocks of life in the ocean."


#2

Not to mention Fukushima.


#3

The fact that this is even a question is appalling. How many years have the criminal denials sucked the tit of professional propaganda meisters to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?

The poison of the companies that facilitate the criminal irresponsibility of corporations run amock is aggregating in undeniable and psychopathic constructs to enable the corporate profiteers to escape. The basturds must actually believe that somehow, sometime, they’ll be free from their destruction. Not a chance. Mother Nature bats last and these semi-humans have been crafting one mother of a bludgeon.


#4

Between the pollution coming down the Mississippi River and the Deepwater horizon’s manmade well blowout (I hate when it’s called a spill, it wasn’t), the Northern Gulf of Mexico is basically one big dead zone. Two yrs. after the blowout, I was working for a company on a bayou that emptied into the Gulf, and I noticed dolphins everywhere. At first I didn’t understand because they rarely come into the bayous, then it hit me, they were chasing juvenile bait fish, trying to survive. The fish they were chasing are their normal food source, but only after they mature and move into the open Gulf. Meaning those bait fish weren’t surviving in the gulf, and probably the reason so many dolphins were washing up onto the beaches in a emaciated condition.


#5

Perhaps “wretched” would be a better term than “reckless” as the latter implies a lack of thought while the action reflects, in my opinion, malice aforethought.

I guess the shrimpers will have to look forward to again trolling for tar balls as they did in 2010. The money-grubbing science-denying malfeasants are at it again. As TOG said above, Mother Nature bats last.


#6

When the first Europeans saw the Gulf of Mexico centuries ago, it was so ecologically healthy that the fish were so thick that they stopped boats.
My grandparents have live on the Gulf of Mexico for decades, and as a child when I visited, the Gulf water was clear like a spring; manatees, dolphins, and birds, shellfish were everywhere.
Now, that same Gulf and beaches are ruined. The water is cloudy and polluted, the marine mammals have been killed by pollution, jet skis and boats, the birds and shellfish are gone, and ugly condo towers have risen to blight the beaches.
This is how humans ruin the biosphere. It goes beyond the petroleum industry’s destructiveness.


#7

Please let us not forget the chemical dispersants sprayed by BP over the entire area of the oil blow out in massive amounts. Dispersants were not mentioned here but has a long lasting dreadful harmful impact on its own to the marine life, and birds, and people of the Gulf of Mexico.


#8

Thanks for bringing that up. I usually cover that subject, but decided not to go into my usual long rant on this subject.


#9

I haven’t eaten Gulf shrimp since the BP horizon. BTW friends don’t let friends eat farmed fish.


#10

“We have all the Best people, making all the Best decisions.” ~DJT

Are we all insane for allowing this to continue?


#11

“Draining the swamp”

Straight into the sea


#12

We are living in an insane asylum.


#13

Then why mention it in this context? It appears marine life is actually thriving in the debris fields of Fukushima–quite the opposite of the findings here.


#14

We probably are at a point in history where we do have the start of a new world energy technology available, but the multi billionaire industrial monopoly on supplying America’s energy needs will continue to dominate. And that is what needs to be dealt with directly by the American people.


#15

Ok. And there are animals and birds living in Chernobyl but we still do not know the long term effects of all these ecological impacts from accidents. Just like the article says. Another poster said they do not eat the fish from the sea now. I too (if I ate fish) would not want anything from there or Fukushima.


#16

Then there’s this:


#17

Nature and modern mankinds greed can’t exist together as the only reason for anything to exist has become something to be capitalized upon.


#18

The use of dispersants a money-saving tactic.
The less apparent the spilt oil, the less money spent cleaning it up.
Rather than say, “Just leave it in the ground”, say “Stop using oil wastefully
on long-distance travel and transport, air travel and RV entertainment.”


#19

ReconFire
Between the pollution coming down the Mississippi River and the Deepwater horizon’s manmade well blowout (I hate when it’s called a spill, it wasn’t), the Northern Gulf of Mexico is basically one big dead zone. Two yrs. after the blowout, I was working for a company on a bayou that emptied into the Gulf, and I noticed dolphins everywhere. At first I didn’t understand because they rarely come into the bayous, then it hit me, they were chasing juvenile bait fish, trying to survive. The fish they were chasing are their normal food source, but only after they mature and move into the open Gulf. Meaning those bait fish weren’t surviving in the gulf, and probably the reason so many dolphins were washing up onto the beaches in a emaciated condition.

This is a suicidal leap by the Trump administration to oblivion.


#20

We’ve had 30 years to look at the ecological impacts from Chernobyl. That is more than enough time to assess and make projections, and from what we’ve seen so far the trends in the exclusion zone (popularly described by anti-nukes as a “desolate wasteland”) have been both clear and dramatic. Not only are there animals living there, the adjectives I most often see used to describe wildlife in the zone are ‘thriving’, ‘flourishing’, and ‘proliferating’–including some species that were previously endangered or had not been seen for many years in the area before the disaster. We also know the ecological effects of radiation diminish over time, so if we haven’t detected any serious radiation problems yet, it is unlikely we ever will. If we’re honest, we know what the real threat to Chernobyl wildlife is. It is us. It has already become Europe’s largest de facto wilderness preserve, but that will only persist while radiation levels remain high enough to keep humans at bay. Eventually, the temptation to sweep back in and repopulate the area, and wipe out the natural order, again, will become irresistible for us.

“Just like the article says. Another poster said they do not eat the fish from the sea now. I too (if I ate fish) would not want anything from there or Fukushima”

This has been a real effect from Fukushima. Ocean food consumption in the region has dropped, giving the badly depleted marine populations there a chance to recover. This is not a direct effect from radiation itself, but an indirect effect from human fears about radiation. Sadly, this has not been enough to seriously deter their killing of dolphins, but at least maybe the dolphins have more food–for a while.

"Then there’s this: [naturalsociety link]

Yes, there has been an abundance of insinuation, spin, skew, reinterpretation, and sometimes hysterical or downright fraudulent claims made by the likes of Alex Jones (infowars), Mike Adams (NaturalNews), Enenews and their many repeaters (such as your link here, which was echoing the usual culprits of misinformation), some of which are also purveyors of bunk when it comes to vaccinations, the HIV/AIDS connection, chemtrails, and UFO’s. They are the internet equivalent of tabloids (the ridiculous photoshopped image on your link should have been a clue) usually with junk or fake sources, but when they do base an article on a reinterpretation of a real scientific study, as they do here, you have check what they are saying against the source material, and what the researchers themselves have to say. In this case, here’s the relevant release from MBARI:

https://www.mbari.org/feast-and-famine-on-the-abyssal-plain/#toggle-id-1-closed

And if you zip down to the bottom, you can click on a bar to open out their response to “misleading web stories related to this press release”.

Or here’s the view of another marine biologist who is independent of the study:

So what do you normally think of people who reject legit scientific views in preference to bogus information they get from tabloids, fraudsters, quacks, and hustlers?