• 7 years after Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Louisiana dolphins struggle to reproduce
    8 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Seven years ago today, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, killing 11 workers and triggering the worst oil spill in U.S. history. It took 87 days to cap the well. During that time, approximately 3.19 million barrels of crude oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill had a huge impact on marine wildlife, including wild bottlenose dolphins living in Louisiana’s Barataria Bay. A study released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in April 2016 noted that the spill may have led to historically high death rates and impaired reproductive health for the group of dolphins. Pregnant dolphins showed an 80 percent reproductive failure rate, either because the fetuses were exposed to oil spill-related compounds or because the mothers' health suffered from the exposure, according to NOAA Fisheries. Dolphins exposed to the oil compounds who were not pregnant were were more likely to have damaged lungs and adrenal glands, which regulate hormones, and many developed bacterial pneumonia. [/QUOTE] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/years-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-louisiana-dolphins-struggle/story?id=46845941[/url]
Poor dolphins.
Jesus Christ, [I]seven[/I] years?
[QUOTE=IKTM;52172225]Jesus Christ, [I]seven[/I] years?[/QUOTE] The crap still stays in the water not to mention the foodchain so they are basically enjoying poisoning every day of those seven years. It's why water pollution is a lot bigger deal than air - no kinda pollutant ever lingers in the air for as long as it can linger in the water. It's why those "hippies" that protest against every single major offshore drilling venture are right to be concerned - the results of even the ever unlikely breach are [B]really bad[/B] and even if you wanna be 100% human centric pragmatic, each burns a huge hole into our own food supply. In a way these disasters are every one a lot worse than any of the nuclear disasters we had.
[QUOTE=millan;52172252]The crap still stays in the water not to mention the foodchain so they are basically enjoying poisoning every day of those seven years. It's why water pollution is a lot bigger deal than air - no kinda pollutant ever lingers in the air for as long as it can linger in the water. It's why those "hippies" that protest against every single major offshore drilling venture are right to be concerned - the results of even the ever unlikely breach are [B]really bad[/B] and even if you wanna be 100% human centric pragmatic, each burns a huge hole into our own food supply. In a way these disasters are every one a lot worse than any of the nuclear disasters we had.[/QUOTE] I think IKTM's post was an exclamation at the fact that seven years have passed already, sort of a "damn, time flies" kinda deal.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52172256]I think IKTM's post was an exclamation at the fact that seven years have passed already, sort of a "damn, time flies" kinda deal.[/QUOTE] Oh right, my bad.
[QUOTE=millan;52172315]Oh right, my bad.[/QUOTE] nah your post was still interesting, it's weird to think about poison practically being passed down through the food chain over the course of so much time (i'm pretty clueless when it comes to ocean ecosystems and all that crazy stuff so correct me if i'm misunderstanding)
its OK to resume drilling because we can't sacrifice a single or entire ecosystem for the sake of economic development. whats the survival of an entire species compared to a few million barrels of oil
The article claims 7 years after, while all the sources they cite are from no later than a NOAA report in 2016, which were studies from no later than 2014. The suspected cause of the deaths and/or chronic illness was due to direct exposure to oil either by the fetus during pregnancy or the mother, which is why they were seeing unusually high mortality rates in the location near the disaster site. (exposure to high levels of crude oil is bad for you, who'da guessed?) The source, nor any of the cited documents make a claim that dolphins are still having difficulty reproducing in 2017. The issue here is that dolphins only have one calf at a time, and typically only every 5 years or so. So the dolphins living near the spill when it happened got dealt a pretty bad hand. Not only did they get a higher likelihood of stillborn babies that were already in the womb during the spill, but the spill caused chronic disease in the future mothers that also complicated birth. As to whether or not there are any dolphins that are still being born/stillborn with birth defects, the source material does not say. Here's the report that ABC cites: [url]http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico_results.html[/url] [url]http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico.htm[/url] [quote]The UME investigation and the Deepwater Horizon Natural Damage Resource Assessment have determined that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in the death of marine mammals and is the most likely explanation of the persistent, elevated stranding numbers in the northern Gulf of Mexico after the spill. The evidence to date supports that exposure to Deepwater Horizon petroleum products was the most likely explanation of the adrenal and lung disease in dolphins, which has contributed to increased deaths of dolphins living within the oil spill footprint and increased fetal loss. [B]While the number of dolphin mortalities in the area decreased after the peak from March 2010 – July 2014, it does not indicate that the effects of the oil spill on these populations have ended.[/B] Researchers still saw evidence of chronic lung disease and adrenal impairment even 4 years after spill (in July 2014) and saw evidence of failed pregnancies in 2015. Research into the long-term health effects of the spill on marine mammal populations is ongoing. For more information on proposed restoration and monitoring activities please see the (PDARP). Additionally, more details are available in the following publications.[/quote] We'll have to wait for future reports to see how the population is doing to date. [editline]1st May 2017[/editline] The cited study from 2010-2014 was an ongoing investigation in unusual dolphin deaths in this population [I]prior[/I] to the oil spill. Which is sort of interesting. So the affected population were already sick and dying before the spill took place. The spill was directly correlated with an even higher increase in mortality, however. [QUOTE=millan;52172252]The crap still stays in the water not to mention the foodchain so they are basically enjoying poisoning every day of those seven years. It's why water pollution is a lot bigger deal than air - no kinda pollutant ever lingers in the air for as long as it can linger in the water. It's why those "hippies" that protest against every single major offshore drilling venture are right to be concerned - the results of even the ever unlikely breach are [B]really bad[/B] and even if you wanna be 100% human centric pragmatic, each burns a huge hole into our own food supply. In a way these disasters are every one a lot worse than any of the nuclear disasters we had.[/QUOTE] All the remaining oil from the BP spill has settled on the bottom of the gulf. Right now the primary risk it poses is to the deep sea ecosystems around the oil deposits which are hard to study. We don't really know what kind of long term lasting effects it will have. Claims about the size and location of where this oil still contaminates are conflicting. The toxic hydrocarbons in the oil will pose less of a threat as time goes on, however. The question is how much time. Luckily, oil does not bio-magnify, so only things eating lower trophic level organisms that still exist near these oil deposits are at risk. (stuff gets contaminated by exposure to the oil, stuff then eats the contaminated stuff, causing health complications) The oil doesn't linger in the water column. Eating gulf seafood has been safe for years, and populations are slowly recovering. [QUOTE=TCB;52172416]nah your post was still interesting, it's weird to think about poison practically being passed down through the food chain over the course of so much time (i'm pretty clueless when it comes to ocean ecosystems and all that crazy stuff so correct me if i'm misunderstanding)[/QUOTE] Bio-magnification isn't really an issue with oil spills. You should be far more concerned with eating seafood that contains Mercury, than oil from the gulf of mexico. Oil does it's killing physically and chemically. That is, when it physically covers organisms during the spill (oiled birds and all that) and when the organisms ingest or are directly exposed to the oil for a long enough time for it to cause defects. (like these dolphins) [url]http://oilspill.fsu.edu/images/pdfs/msds-crude-oil.pdf[/url] Basically, prolonged, direct exposure to crude oil is bad for you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.