Could the BP Oil Spill Have Long-Term Effects on Human Health?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rhody
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential long-term health effects of the BP oil spill and the various containment strategies being considered, particularly the controversial idea of burning the oil. Experts express skepticism about the effectiveness of burning due to environmental conditions and the nature of the oil, which is described as a sticky substance. Concerns are raised about the spill's impact on marine life and the food chain, with references to historical engineering disasters highlighting complacency and greed as contributing factors. The conversation reflects a sense of urgency and frustration over the slow response to the crisis and the potential for repeated mistakes in safety protocols. Overall, the thread underscores the complex interplay between environmental disaster management and human health implications.
  • #31
magpies said:
Possibly but then again what if it's not? The question you gota ask is how bad will the next world war be?

I have no way of knowing, but I imagine that we agree that it would probably be fairly brutal and destructive should it occur. Remember that delay of such a conflict allows us all to live a bit longer, and enjoy life (if we can). No need to rush to an abrupt end, unless you're expressing a sublimated suicidal urge.

This is a disaster, and burning wetlands already trashed by Hurricane Katrina has been decried by those not concerned only with clean beaches. That being said, I'll take it over mushroom clouds.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well I didn't say we should nuke our selfs just the evil countrys... Like cuba brazil and antartica.

With all joking aside I really do think burning the oil is the best bet. If you look at the larger oil spills in history the oil that ends up on beachs stays there for many many years. Of course burning it will kill most if not all the wild life in that area it will however be able to regrow instead of just having oil filled wet lands that doesn't have anything growing for more then decades.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
magpies said:
Well I didn't say we should nuke our selfs just the evil countrys... Like cuba brazil and antartica.

With all joking aside I really do think burning the oil is the best bet. If you look at the larger oil spills in history the oil that ends up on beachs stays there for many many years. Of course burning it will kill most if not all the wild life in that area it will however be able to regrow instead of just having oil filled wet lands that doesn't have anything growing for more then decades.

I really don't know enough about the effects of burning oil in this fashion to make form an opinion. I can only see what warring environmentalists, industrialists and politicians have to say on this. From what little I do know however, calm water allow for skimming, and are required for a burn. Why not skim? This spill is also very dispersed in plumes beneath the surface now, so I wonder if this would be meaningful in any way.

I don't know that a good option exists one this kind of tragedy occurs. So... your nuke idea, where do I sign up:)
 
  • #34
You'll have to become a really good hacker and pull a number on the systems that control nuke deployment...

Well I think the main problem with this oil spill is that nobody is going to be willing to clean it up. So it's either come up with a way to get people to clean it or take the easy out with fire. Thing is the longer we wait the worse it is... What I am really hoping for is hurricane season to come and collect some of the oil and spray it across the country...
 
  • #35
rhody said:
Now, here is an unlikely scenario: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2226640420100523?type=marketsNews"
That link doesn't contain the quote? Also I believe the Iranians have very limited http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/2258304801/articles/offshore/production/middle-east/2010/03/iran-set_to_start.html" experience, and none in deep water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
mheslep said:
That link doesn't contain the quote? Also I believe the Iranians have very limited http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/2258304801/articles/offshore/production/middle-east/2010/03/iran-set_to_start.html" experience, and none in deep water.

mheslep,

You are correct, my fubar, I shouldn't have posted it in quotes, I was paraphrasing, and it seems providing a bad link as well, I apologize. Here is a good http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...o-help-with-US-oil-spill/UPI-31871272993408/" with the real quote.
Heidar Bahmani, the managing director of the National Iranian Drill Co., said his company was ready to help contain the spill, Iran's state-funded broadcaster Press TV reports

"Our oil industry experts in the field of drilling can contain the rig leakage in the Gulf of Mexico and prevent an ecological disaster in that part of the world," he said.

As you stated maybe it was more a political message than one of real intent to really make a difference. I don't know for sure, but the mere fact that they would make an offer to assist is what struck me as worth mentioning, even if it was from a position of "false bravado".

P.S. This article was published on May 4th.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Anyone got any good pics of the gulf as it is today?
 
  • #39
I've seen them on CNN, and Cousteau's footage of oil deep in the water column. I couldn't watch too much without feeling despair.
 
  • #40
For those who ponder unintended consequences, consider this, fast forward to late August early September this year and a category 3/4 hurricane takes a similar path that Katrina did a few years ago, making landfall with a north track along the Gulf Coast, what do you think will happen with the tidal surge as it washes oil of different viscosities into the sewer systems/water treatment facilities and land affected by the surge.

I shudder to think about the consequences, but consider the scenario possible. Let's hope and pray the Gulf Coast is spared this fate this season.

Rhody... :rolleyes:
 
  • #41
Media Dogpiling: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...esticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews"

Edit: I wonder if the Oil Industry and the current Administration have ever heard of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBSAFE" .
If they haven't they should look into this program it has served the US Navy well since the 1963 sinking of the USS THRESHER (SSN-593) due to poor quality control and inspection techniques. No US Subs have been lost since. "[URL Science Committee on Subsafe Program Oct 2003
[/URL]
Rhody...:frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
  • #43
The spill began April 22, and today is May 30, that makes it 38 days, estimates of oil being pumped from the broken well head: range: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill" per day (at 42 gallons per barrel).

A http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_of_gas_does_a_tanker_truck_hold" holds 9000 gallons of fuel
A http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_feet_long_is_a_gas_tanker_semi_truck" is about 70 feet long.
A normal sized railroad http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_of_gas_does_a_railroad_tanker_car_hold" holds 30000 gallons of fuel
A http://chicago.railfan.net/cgi/photos.pl/?page=UTLX_661968" is about 60 feet long

Let's run some numbers:

Losing 25,000 barrels of oil a day at 42 gallons a barrel times 38 days = 39,900,000 gallons, rounded: 40,000,000.

Lets fill the railroad tankers: 40,000,000 / 30000 = 1333.3333 rounded = 1334

Lets fill the gas trucks: 40,000,000 / 9000 = 4444.4444 round = 4445

Lets see how much distance the railroad cars would span: 60 * 1334 = 80040 feet / 5280 feet per mile = 15.15 miles

Now the gas trucks: 4445 * 70 = 311150 / 5280 feet per mile = 58.92 miles

Lets take the best case at 5000 barrels a day, divide all answers by 5.

Number of railroad tankers = 1334 / 5 = 266.8 rounded to 269
Number gas trucks = 4445 / 5 = 889
Railroad tanker length = 15.15 / 5 = 3.05 miles
Gas truck length = 58.92 / 5 = 11.784 miles

Still sobering, I don't want to picture 100,000 barrels a day.

Rhody... :cry: :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
rhody said:
The spill began April 22, and today is May 30, that makes it 38 days, estimates of oil being pumped from the broken well head: range: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill" per day (at 42 gallons per barrel).
Or about 20 olympic swimming pools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Thinking outside of the box, maybe Craig Venter and his research facilities could do the whole world a huge favor and work on some enzymes that could consume/transform the oil into something benign, if anyone in the world could pull it off, it would be Ventor and his organization(s).

Rhody... :biggrin:
 
  • #47
rhody said:
mheslep,

By my calculations: 40,000,000 gallons / http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...yMeqlscUHAAAAqgQFT9BvUQs&fp=275a8ddf8a4c886f" = 61.72 pools worth, or divided by 5 for 5000 barrels a day = 12.34.
<shrug>, i dunno. The USGS high side estimate with no insertion tube sucking off a portion is 19k bbls/day. For 40 days that's 31.9 million gals, or 49 O. pools worst case. Low side USGS estimate is 12k bbl/day, minus ~5k bbl/day pulled off via insertion tube for the last 30 days (?) is 20 O. pools, best case.

I suppose the more important metric is how much La marshland has been hit. So far per the Coastguard oil spill honcho a couple of days ago it was 50 acres, so I heard on air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
This is self explanatory: http://scienceblogs.com/speakeasyscience/2010/05/a_lethal_concentration.php"

Rhody... :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
Garrett's idea to stop the flow...
http://twitter.com/garrettlisi"
1. Drill an angled shaft 2000ft down, to within 100ft of the well shaft. Detonate a large conventional bomb, pinching off the well shaft. Done.
about 4 hours ago via web

Rhody... :wink:

TBone can you live with this then ? stealth comment ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Ever wonder what the pressure in pounds per square inch is on the ocean floor one mile down near the well head ?

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/fluid_pressure.html"

pressure:total = pressure:atmosphere + pressure:fluid

pressure:fluid = density * gravity * height

density = 1.03 * 10^3 Kg/m^3
gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
height = meters

pressure:atmosphere = 1.01 * 10^5 N/m^2
1 mile: 5280 feet = 1609.344 meters

pressure:atmosphere = 101,000
pressure:fluid = 1030 * 9.8 * 1609 = 16,241,246

pressure:total = 16,342,246 N/m^2

pounds per square inch = 2360 at one mile down, over one ton of force, pressure of ocean + pressure of atmosphere

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Uhhhh, if the oil slick crosses cruise line routes in the Carribean what happens to http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Cruise-Ships-Make-Fresh-Water&id=1781431" ?

excerpt:
The desalination process on a cruise ship uses either flash evaporators or osmosis. Flash evaporators boil sea water and re-condense the steam vapor, producing fresh drinking water. This method is similar to the natural water cycle, where sea water is heated by the sun, rises as steam to form clouds, and then falls back to Earth as rain. The second method, osmosis, filters sea water through a fine membrane to separate pure water from salt and other minerals. Cruise ships do not desalinate water near ports or close to land, because coastal waters are the most contaminated.

After desalination, the water is passed through a mineralization plant, which adds minerals. This is necessary because the healthy minerals naturally found in drinking water have been removed by desalination. At this stage, the water is also checked for impurities, sanitized, and the pH is corrected. The water is then sent to massive storage tanks on board the cruise ship. On the Grand Princess, for example, these storage tanks hold up to 500,000 gallons of fresh water.

Sounds like the Cruise ships can't run the "gauntlet" to me...

Rhody... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Just in case you want to see what is happening down below:

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam"

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
FYI: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ituQga0asf6vCgS2YMtxBjKZ6KJAD9G4CK401"
In the end, Ixtoc spewed a record 140 million gallons of oil. Massive slicks reached the northern Mexican Gulf coast and Texas, where it would eventually coat almost 170 miles (275 kilometers) of U.S. beaches.
and, mother nature seems pretty resilient to making a comeback, a good thing IMHO
The good news is the Ixtoc experience suggests the Gulf of Mexico has natural properties that help it cope with massive oil spills, scientists say. Warm waters and sunlight helped break down the oil faster than many expected. Weathering reduced much of the oil into tar balls by the time it reached Texas.

Two decades after the Ixtoc disaster, marine biologist Wes Tunnell sank his diving knife into an area where he had spotted a tar patch just after the spill. The blade came out black and tarry but the hardened surface of the patch was under sand, shells and algae that had completely covered it.

"No one else would know that it was anything other than a rock ledge," said Tunnell of Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University. "I think that the Gulf of Mexico is hugely resilient, or at least it was 30 years ago. We've insulted it a lot since then in various ways."

The Gulf has also long dealt with oil that naturally seeps from the seafloor. Some experts estimate that tens of millions of gallons seep into the Gulf from natural up-wellings each year, fostering large populations of oil-eating bacteria and microorganisms.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
russ_watters said:
I saw the piece. A good analysis of the situation. I find that most engineering disasters have the same hallmarks of complacancy-caused relaxation of safety standards combined with greed.

Generally, stupidity and greed are our our usual weaknesses.
 
  • #55
rhody said:
FYI: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ituQga0asf6vCgS2YMtxBjKZ6KJAD9G4CK401"

and, mother nature seems pretty resilient to making a comeback, a good thing IMHORhody...
Also from that piece:
Other causes, he said, could include overfishing of coral-friendly fish, coral collecting and sewage.
And add erosion of the La marshes due to development and manipulation of the Mississippi river.

I have little doubt that the ratio of media coverage on this oil spill to media coverage on Gulf overfishing/wetland destruction/sewage/pollution run off is far, far out of sync with the actual damage caused by each.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Someone at work pointed this out to me, and I wanted to share:

This sort of thing has been going on in Nigeria for decades and neither Europe or the US seems to care, amazing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell"

Very sad...

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
You should see what companys do to tropical islands when searching for minerals.
 
  • #58
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x371477266/Lessons-can-be-learned-from-spill"

A double edged sword: something to consider:
To make matters worse, when Exxon was dragged into court and received harsh judgments, it appealed, over and over again. It incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of legal fees to avoid paying out on billions of dollars of claims and fines. It even took its punitive damages verdict all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. And, by negotiating that these settlements would be done in civil rather than criminal court, Exxon was able to write off their litigation and liability costs on their taxes. Between windfall refinery profits, legal tactics, and tax-avoidance strategies, Exxon cried itself all the way to the bank.

BP will most likely suffer a worse fate. And, BP seems to be acting far more responsibly in this matter than Exxon did with the Valdez tragedy. But BP's plight is much more public, the government is much more involved and much less oil friendly than President Bush the elder's administration, and the supply of oil in the Gulf is not cut off, even if new drilling is coming under closer scrutiny.

BP, too, is us. While we might be angry with BP management, and demand our pound of flesh, about 40 percent of BP stock is owned by Americans. While some are trying to make political hay by taking on a foreign company, our adversarial approach is hurting both those who live by the Gulf of Mexico and those Americans who will see their BP dividends cut because of pressure on BP by the U.S. government and media to suspend dividends for now. Ultimately, such a suspension will not affect the value of a company that can easily afford to do the right thing. However, it is the pound of flesh an angry mob is demanding.

Obviously I am talking about the workers, not the high paid Exec's at BP.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Just found this link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...on-heavy-metals-oil-lung-heart-damage&page=3"

I realize the article refers to the burned form of heavy heating oil and not the type of fine mist that would be carried inland wherever a hurricane would deliver it's fury, but the thought of a fine unburned oil mist even in small parts per billion is disconcerting.

I have lived through two hurricanes and can state for the record that the residual salt spray had an effect on trees/plants/bushes and grape vines. They all recovered, but it was not pretty. For any chemists out there, what happens when you mix normal salt water with oil from the spill. I shudder to ask but would like to know.

Rhody...:frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K