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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rhody
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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

Back
Top