Oil spill area coming back to life

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Life Oil
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the recovery of marshlands in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, following the Gulf oil spill. Scientists, including Irving A. Mendelssohn from Louisiana State University, report positive signs of ecological recovery, with marsh grass and mangrove trees beginning to regrow. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reopened over 5,000 square miles of the Gulf to fishing, indicating confidence in the safety of seafood from these waters. However, concerns remain about the long-term environmental impact, as studies suggest that 70-79% of the oil released is still present in the Gulf waters.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ecological recovery processes
  • Familiarity with the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
  • Knowledge of oil spill impacts on marine life
  • Awareness of the role of dispersants in oil spill management
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the long-term ecological impacts of oil spills on coastal ecosystems
  • Study the effectiveness of dispersants like Corexit in oil spill remediation
  • Examine the recovery processes of marshlands post-oil spill
  • Investigate the methodologies used by NOAA for assessing seafood safety post-disaster
USEFUL FOR

Environmental scientists, marine biologists, policymakers, and individuals involved in fisheries management will benefit from this discussion, particularly those focused on oil spill recovery and ecological health in coastal regions.

  • #31
Spreading it out evenly in the whole gulf? Seriously? Obviously the oil is much less dispersed than that. Mexico isn't seeing any oil wash up on their shores because there isn't any oil over there
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
And now back to the topic.

I was down in New Orleans for a wedding a few years back and noticed that no one went near the river. I thought it was very peculiar, as it was the middle of June, and about 100'F outside. It seems the Mississippi is very polluted.

I just found the following article, which is somewhat related to the spill:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/mississippi_river_pours_as_muc.html"
Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune
Thursday, August 05, 2010

Every day during the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, contractors sprayed an average 140,000 pounds of Corexit dispersant onto oil slicks on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and into the oil being released a mile below.

But what few in the public understood was that an equivalent amount of similar surfactant chemicals -- the active ingredient in Corexit and in household soaps and industrial solvents -- enters the Gulf each day from the Mississippi River, with more flowing in from other rivers and streams along the coast.

...

As the river suffers, so do the people. The Mississippi River provides 23% of the nation's public surface water supplies. Eighteen million people depend on the Mississippi and its tributaries for drinking water.

But it's not just the water we drink that is of concern. What we do to the rivers show up in other ways as well. One example is the area in Louisiana called "Cancer Alley". Between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is said to have one of the highest incidence rates of cancer in the country. Residents also suffer from high numbers of respiratory problems, birth defects and immune system disorders.

Perhaps 40 years of dumping dispersant into the Gulf prepared it for this spill, or perhaps not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Thread open.
 
  • #34
Evo said:
Thread open.

Is there some news related to the topic? Other than that old report about underwater plumes, it really seems as though anaerobic bacteria are doing their job on the oil. I'm a bit starved for news on the topic however, so if anyone has anything, pro or con so to speak, I'd love to read it.
 
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
Is there some news related to the topic? Other than that old report about underwater plumes, it really seems as though anaerobic bacteria are doing their job on the oil. I'm a bit starved for news on the topic however, so if anyone has anything, pro or con so to speak, I'd love to read it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil" . :)

I'm interested in hearing news about how much oil total was spilled vs the amounts that were contained, reclaimed, dispersed, evaporated, and eaten. The situation is a bit complex, as some of those are either required or desired stages for the others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
mugaliens said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil" . :)

I'm interested in hearing news about how much oil total was spilled vs the amounts that were contained, reclaimed, dispersed, evaporated, and eaten. The situation is a bit complex, as some of those are either required or desired stages for the others.

Thanks, I'll read that and some related articles. You're right about the complexity of the situation... I wonder if as much as we'd like to make predictions, this is a wait-and-see situation by default?
 
Last edited by a moderator: