HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » An explosion in oil-munch...

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:13 PM

An explosion in oil-munching bacteria made fast work of BP oil spill, scientist says

Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune / Nola.com

Much of the oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 disappeared within weeks of the capping of BP’s Macondo well on July 15, digested by a massive explosion in oil-eating microorganisms, said Terry Hazen, a professor of environmental biology at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, during a Monday panel at the national conference of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans.

<cut>

Much of the oil and methane gas released by the well was originally found to be moving in a plume 3,600 feet below the surface to the southwest of the Macondo well site.

An initial scientific paper in August 2010 concluded that the tiny droplets of oil and oily material in the plume already were rapidly disappearing within a few days after the well was capped.

Further research found that there was a 10-fold increase in several types of bacteria that munch on oil molecules, Hazen said. Over time, the make-up of the different types of bacteria changed to those that were eating different toxic chemical compounds left behind when the oil was eaten by the first organisms, he said.

Read more: http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/04/an_explosion_in_oil-munching_b.html

122 replies, 15295 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 122 replies Author Time Post
Reply An explosion in oil-munching bacteria made fast work of BP oil spill, scientist says (Original post)
Sgent Apr 2013 OP
Esse Quam Videri Apr 2013 #1
LTX Apr 2013 #39
wordpix Apr 2013 #75
LTX Apr 2013 #86
bucolic_frolic Apr 2013 #2
Botany Apr 2013 #6
NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #8
Botany Apr 2013 #10
LTX Apr 2013 #40
alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #103
CreekDog Apr 2013 #74
kestrel91316 Apr 2013 #81
CreekDog Apr 2013 #82
kestrel91316 Apr 2013 #117
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #31
LTX Apr 2013 #44
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #52
LTX Apr 2013 #55
demwing Apr 2013 #90
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #92
demwing Apr 2013 #101
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #93
demwing Apr 2013 #100
Botany Apr 2013 #3
PatrynXX Apr 2013 #14
slackmaster Apr 2013 #38
demwing Apr 2013 #58
slackmaster Apr 2013 #84
demwing Apr 2013 #88
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #20
Botany Apr 2013 #32
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #36
Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2013 #104
Occulus Apr 2013 #4
LTX Apr 2013 #43
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #67
LTX Apr 2013 #71
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #73
LTX Apr 2013 #76
wordpix Apr 2013 #77
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #85
LTX Apr 2013 #109
LTX Apr 2013 #110
loudsue Apr 2013 #5
judesedit Apr 2013 #13
tblue Apr 2013 #24
LTX Apr 2013 #45
loudsue Apr 2013 #99
LTX Apr 2013 #107
loudsue Apr 2013 #118
LTX Apr 2013 #119
KoKo Apr 2013 #7
Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #11
Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #9
Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #12
LTX Apr 2013 #50
brush Apr 2013 #15
LTX Apr 2013 #51
wordpix Apr 2013 #78
LTX Apr 2013 #89
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #95
LTX Apr 2013 #106
frylock Apr 2013 #16
defacto7 Apr 2013 #17
tavalon Apr 2013 #18
LTX Apr 2013 #53
wordpix Apr 2013 #79
LTX Apr 2013 #87
Fearless Apr 2013 #19
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #23
Selatius Apr 2013 #21
DeSwiss Apr 2013 #22
sir pball Apr 2013 #60
DeSwiss Apr 2013 #61
sir pball Apr 2013 #122
LTX Apr 2013 #64
Rain Mcloud Apr 2013 #25
DeSwiss Apr 2013 #27
Rain Mcloud Apr 2013 #29
LTX Apr 2013 #66
Rain Mcloud Apr 2013 #113
LTX Apr 2013 #115
cosmicone Apr 2013 #26
colorado_ufo Apr 2013 #28
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #30
Javaman Apr 2013 #33
LTX Apr 2013 #47
Javaman Apr 2013 #48
LTX Apr 2013 #49
Javaman Apr 2013 #54
LTX Apr 2013 #56
Javaman Apr 2013 #57
LTX Apr 2013 #63
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #69
Dustlawyer Apr 2013 #34
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #121
jpak Apr 2013 #35
Botany Apr 2013 #37
jpak Apr 2013 #41
Botany Apr 2013 #42
jpak Apr 2013 #70
dipsydoodle Apr 2013 #114
jpak Apr 2013 #116
LTX Apr 2013 #46
DCBob Apr 2013 #59
jpak Apr 2013 #65
LTX Apr 2013 #68
DCBob Apr 2013 #72
wordpix Apr 2013 #80
DCBob Apr 2013 #83
RedstDem Apr 2013 #62
winter is coming Apr 2013 #97
phleshdef Apr 2013 #91
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #94
phleshdef Apr 2013 #96
Ganja Ninja Apr 2013 #98
Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2013 #108
LTX Apr 2013 #120
LTX Apr 2013 #111
DCBob Apr 2013 #112
asjr Apr 2013 #102
Sunlei Apr 2013 #105

Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:20 PM

1. LMAO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Esse Quam Videri (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:10 AM

39. Why are you laughing your ass off? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #39)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:30 PM

75. because it's preposterous---anyone who followed this knows the oil sank to bottom

There are lots of videos showing this a year and 2 yrs. after the spew

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:57 PM

86. I'm not following. What's preposterous?

The existence of hydrocarbon metabolizing bacteria? Their exponential increase following the spill? The lack of open water oil concentrations shortly after the spill? The demonstrable hydrocarbon consumption rates of the observed bacteria?

And yes, a proportion of oil emulsion and particulate did sink to the bottom (oil floats, so in general terms, emulsification and initial degradation are prerequisites to its sinking). A proportion also concentrated along shorelines and in marshlands. Nobody says otherwise. But "the oil" did not all sink to the bottom. There was dispersal (caused in part by current, temperature, and consumption bond-breaking), and very significant microbial degradation of key hydrocarbon constituents.

There seems to be some political need to simply deny this reality. It is not at all dissimilar to conservative denial of evolution, climate science, etc. But politicization of science is as poor a policy choice for the left as it is for the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:21 PM

2. Let's See Some Peer Review

that's independently funded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:40 PM

6. I checked out the guy's bio .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:46 PM

8. U Tenn Knoxville?

legit as in finger quotes "legit".

I am unimpressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:54 PM

10. He is legit

Systems Biology approach to Bioremediation, Bioenergy and Water Quality
The Hazen Lab is a diverse group of scientific post doctoral fellows, research associates, technicians, and students in microbial ecology and environmental engineering. The primary research emphasis of the lab is basic and applied field microbial ecology, especially as it relates to bioremediation, biofuels, enhanced oil recovery, and water quality. The overarching vision for the lab is understanding the fundamental concepts of systems biology and environmental stress response pathways from the molecular to the ecosystem level to improve our knowledge of fundamental biogeochemistry and suggest exciting new applications that are relevant to the world's current problems. We have labs at both UT and Oak Ridge National Lab and active field studies in Puerto Rico, Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and Oak Ridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:12 AM

40. Right. Because them so-called science people at UT are so fucking dumb.

They're in the evil south, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:49 PM

103. Knoxville is the flagship campus for the University of Tennessee

UT Knoxville is what we in the biz call an R-1 (or Research 1) university.

This guy, even outside of that, has hundreds of peer-reviewed publications dating back nearly forty years. Oh, and an endowed chair.

He's as legit as an American academic can get, in other words. You're just wrong here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:24 PM

74. regardless of whether or not it's legit, how much oxygen is being consumed by the process?

in a water that already had problems with levels of oxygen to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #74)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:43 PM

81. Not necessarily any. Bacteria come in millions of species. Not all need oxygen.

Many, in fact, are killed by oxygen and don't utilize it for any metabolic processes.

As somebody with a degree in microbiology, I find this whole story completely plausible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #81)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:45 PM

82. is this an anaerobic process or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #82)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:00 PM

117. I have no idea. It certainly could be anaerobic, and it makes more

evolutionary sense to me that it would be, because oil deposits in nature tend to be large masses of goo where little oxygen could be, other than right on the surface.

It's not safe to assume that oxygen is required. That is my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:23 AM

31. Here's a second opinion from a slightly more objective source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:38 AM

44. And how does that source conflict with the findings by Hazen?

Clearly, you haven't actually read what is being discussed in either article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #44)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:13 PM

52. Clearly you don't know your ass from your elbow.

One article claims the oil has all disappeared. The other says the oil is sitting in the sediment on the bottom and "could be there for a century".

One article claims that bacteria ate all the oil. The other article says it killed off the bacteria.

One article claims the oil in the wetlands "key chemical constituents largely disappeared after a year of weathering". The other quotes another scientist regarding the wetlands and says "You can still find a lot of oil in there."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:15 PM

90. How Objective?

Here's an article showing BP gave USF an $11 million grant to study the spill.

If a financial interest is all it takes to show corruption, then USF has been corrupted. Yeah, no doubt there's a difference between $11 and $500 million, but $11 million is still $11 million.

Maybe its only research with which you disagree that gets labeled as tainted, maybe not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #90)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:36 PM

92. It's objective enough to be believable if you didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

Which is more than I can say for the Terry Hazen fantasy. The $11 Million study finds oil the $500 Million expert couldn't.
Gosh who should I believe? That's a tough one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #92)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:47 PM

101. Are you always so strident?

Or is it just that you're egotistical, and don't handle dissenting opinions very well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #90)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:44 PM

93. Oh yeah you forgot your link for that $11 million claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:22 PM

3. i am skeptical of some of this ....

.... because the oil eating critters need O2 (oxygen) and much of the oil was sunk to the
sea floor which is a low O2 environment.

But I would suggest that exxon get some of those critters to Arkansas ASAP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:55 PM

14. tars a bit different though

I imagine dry crap is harder to digest than liquified crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:07 AM

38. You can still find small tarballs from a 1969 oil spill on the beaches of Southern California

 

The stuff is very stable once the volatile organics leech out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:21 PM

58. I remember that!

Actually, what I remember was that trips to the beach always included a can of lighter fluid, which dad used to get the tar off our feet. Even today, I associate the smell of lighter fluid with being at the beach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:51 PM

84. Same here. The drill before re-entering the house included hosing off sand, using lighter fluid...

 

...on the tar, and inspection by a parent to make sure we got all the tar off of our feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #84)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:00 PM

88. What SoCal beach?

My dad always took us to Venice, or Will Rogers State Beach, just north of Santa Monica

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:35 AM

20. It might suggest the dispersants were an awful bad idea.

For one, they are incredibly toxic on their own, and two, if this is accurate, keeping the oil at the surface is better to break it down anyway.

I'd like to see some peer reviewed studies on the dispersants themselves, and see if any of this was ever taken into account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:42 AM

32. the dispersant had one purpose and that was to hide as much oil as possible from ....

.... the public and press. They had nothing to do w/environmental clean up
or damage mitigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:28 AM

36. And from the government.

Every gallon they hid from the EPA means one less gallon 'spilled' to be fined for under the clean water act. (Or the maritime equivalent.)

I agree. The dispersants were damage control, but not on the environment's behalf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

104. Well, at least they have their priorities straight.

Straight to their bottom line and damn the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:26 PM

4. Not one species named.

Not. One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LTX (Reply #43)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:50 PM

67. And here's an article linking Hazen to $500 million in funding by BP while at berkley labs


Oil Spill FAQ

Latest Gulf Oil Spill FAQ: The Government’s Power to Punish BP, and More…
Slideshow

Photos: BP Gulf Oil Spill

MIT’s Science Tracker, in a post published yesterday, noted that the microbe study was conducted by U.C. Berkeley scientists through a grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, and that the Energy Biosciences Institute is funded by none other than BP, through a $500 million, 10-year grant. (To the researchers' credit, they also mentioned the funding in their press release — you just had to read about three-quarters of the way through.)

That relationship shouldn't have been a total surprise. In July, news reports had noted the U.C. Berkeley-BP connection. Activists had protested the $500 million in funding, worried that the funding source would influence the science. The response from U.C. Berkeley? From the Associated Press, emphasis added:

But UC Berkeley officials say the institute has nothing to do with the Gulf spill, and the university has no plans to end its research partnership with BP.

That was late July — less than a month before Berkeley Lab scientist Terry Hazen announced that his team’s research found that the deep water plumes “went away fairly rapidly after the well was capped.”

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/take-it-with-a-grain-of-sea-salt-gulf-microbe-study-was-funded-by-bp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #67)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:07 PM

71. Oh, well. Then Hazen and all of his collaborators must be lying in their research and articles.

And shockingly, nobody in the scientific community has caught their lies! That's because, of course, all them other science people are in on the lying conspiracy.

What really must get your goat is that U.C. Berkeley, that hot bed of lying-science-liars, didn't even try to hide the BP grant money! How brazen.

Now, about those pesky articles I linked. Your specific complaints with them are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #71)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:18 PM

73. Well I see the first 5 are Co-Authored by Hazen.

Let me guess the other Co-Author's initials are BP.

What am I suppose to do go find the smoking gun to all the crap research you're posting? This guy is funded by BP to the tune of 1/2 a Billion. His "research" is nothing but crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #73)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:33 PM

76. Um, the grant money went to U.C. Berkeley. Not Hazen individually.

And you don't actually have to guess. The co-authors are listed right there in the articles. All you have to do is read. And there are, of course, additional articles listed that were not co-authored by Hazen.

It's really quite remarkable that you are able to conclude, without reading a thing, that it's all "crap" research. But on the off chance that you reconsider ignorance as your stopping point, there actually are hydrocarbon metabolizing bacteria. And there actually was an observable and testable exponential increase in their concentrations following the spill. It's interesting stuff. Worth learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #73)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:33 PM

77. haha, good catch. Methinks your antagonist works for BP, sure sounds like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #77)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:52 PM

85. The shills are all out in force on a Kamikaze mission.

Ignore that $500 million in funding. Ignore the research that contradicts the BP funded studies. These are not the droids you're looking for.

Not one attempt to discredit USF's findings, just pages and pages of links to other studies and were suppose to spend the day trying to ferret out the links to BP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #85)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:57 PM

109. Please identify the "research that contradicts the BP funded studies,"

whatever those "BP funded studies" are (note that the grant to U.C. Berkeley was not in any way connected to the gulf spill). Absolutely no one is contradicting the USF "study" (which was actually a conglomeration of preliminary findings). And gee, you'd think with all of your vested stridency, you would actually read at least one of the "pages and pages" of links to other, actual studies.

You've become a parody of science denial, and are absolutely no different from the climate change deniers on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #77)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:05 PM

110. No, I'm just disgusted by the science denial demonstrated in this thread.

But you'll continue to fantasize about evil science conspiracies, I'm sure, imagining all of U.C. Berkeley lying for grant money (and miraculously getting away with it, because all them-there other science-liars is in on it). I guess it just takes a "real amurican patriot with common sense" (like you) to prove them-there elitist egg-heads wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:26 PM

5. THIS was part of what Justice Powell was after when he proposed the Powell Manifesto

Funding the Universities, you could turn them as right leaning as anyone could imagine. He proposed BUYING what was not being controlled during the 60's and 70's. Media, colleges (and influencing the hiring of teachers....hiring the ones who lean to the right would mean better funding for pet projects universities were interested in) , churches...and hiring by corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:44 PM

13. That's exactly what the Koch's are doing. Giving to schools so they can dictate who gets hired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:43 AM

24. And NPR. Anything not neoliberal

has been in their sites for decades. They're patient, strategic, devious and really smart about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:40 AM

45. Forgive me, but what on earth are you talking about?

Do you have any idea what the research being discussed is even about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #45)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:31 PM

99. I know exactly what the research being discussed is about.

The article is all about how the DISASTROUS and devastating oil spill that destroyed a great deal of the gulf coast, was BINGO, WHO KNEW all gone and cleaned up ( "disappeared" ) within a few weeks by nice little bacteria that eat oil and all the poisonous chemicals that were dumped into the ocean to break up the oil.

How much bullshit do these "scientists" , from universities VERY WELL SUPPORTED by right wing /oil industry/corporate benefactors, expect us to swallow?

The article also mentions that:

"As with similar research results released in peer-reviewed scientific magazines or at other scientific meetings, the results of the two researchers represent only small slices of the wide body of research being conducted into the effects of the oil spill.

Much of that research is being done to support the ongoing lawsuits by the federal government against BP and other parties believed responsible for the spill, and many of the results of that research are still being withheld from the public until the legal battle is over."


The research presented in this article, in other words, is obviously getting out in front in order to convince people that the oil spill wasn't as bad as all that.

But the problem is....it WAS that bad. It is still a HUGE problem in many areas, and the chemicals are still toxic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #99)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:18 PM

107. Actually, your post reveals that you know nothing about the research being discussed.

Absolutely nothing in the any of the research being discussed in the o/p says that "bingo, who knew, all gone and cleaned up." If you actually went past the newspaper article and looked at the research (something that nobody on this thread seems in the least interested in doing), you would realize that. But I guess science is now reduced to bumper sticker political slogans. Every bit of the oil is still there and we're all going to die from it, or absolutely none of it is there. Choose your side. No room for any of that science shit around here. It's one extreme or the other, and fuck off you bunch of lying science bastards with your so-called "nuance" and actual observations. Reality consists of my political position, and nothing is going to change that. (Sheesh.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #107)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:00 AM

118. So only one of us....you and me.....has an agenda??

I'm ready to hear yours. And I'm very pro-science. But I'm also aware that "science" is being purchased by people who ALSO have an agenda....but they ALSO have a shit load of money to pay for that science....science that will say whatever they PAY for it to say. That is the problem...whether the paid for science agrees with my bumper sticker political slogans or NOT, if it's not honest, I don't have any respect for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #118)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:00 AM

119. And so the question is -

what precisely do you believe to be dishonest about the science at issue here? No sloganeering, just specific findings that you believe to be dishonest.

My agenda is science. Nothing more. And when I see vague (indeed, entirely non-specific) allegations of fraud and dishonesty being tossed around like the allegations in this thread, I get angry. They are not addressed to the science at issue, and serve only to perpetuate equally vague conspiracy theories. So please delineate the specific scientific issues you have with the research papers that underlie the newspaper article in the o/p. That in and of itself would be a refreshing turn toward honesty, something you claim to be acutely interested in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:44 PM

7. Maybe some Nuke Eating Bacteria are at work on the Fukashima

spill right this minute.

This report seems woo woo to me until I see some other data by other investigators. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:18 PM

11. Not yet, but they're working on it.

 

SYDNEY: Some bacteria have the capacity to stabilise uranium contaminated sites, and if they are used they could reduce the chances of these sites contaminating major waterways and ecosystems, U.S. scientists have said.

Using the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Photon Source (APS) electron accelerator and storage system – which provides the brightest x-ray beams in the Western Hemisphere – the scientists have been able to study the transformation of uranium at the atomic level.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/uranium-eating-bacteria-clean-radioactive-sites/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:54 PM

9. Further down the article he said this:

"While the rapid disappearance of oil was a largely positive sign, Hazen said it’s still unclear whether the explosion in growth of a few oil-eating bacteria types might have itself disrupted the deepwater Gulf ecosystem. Meanwhile, oil that came to the surface also rapidly exhausted available nutrients, competing with naturally-occurring algae in the warm Gulf waters, he said.

Scientists also are unsure whether the oil and its cleanup directly affected the ecosystem before it was biodegraded and dispersed, he said.

Also unanswered, Hazen said, is how resilient the Gulf is to future combinations of hurricanes, oil spills, floodwaters from the Midwest, and the industrial and human wastes entering the Gulf from the Mississippi and other rivers"

Science isn't about a yes or no answer that can be easily packaged. It is multi faceted and complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:39 PM

12. BINGO! That's all three flavors in a bullshit banana split.

Just sayin'

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:12 PM

50. What, precisely, is "bullshit" about it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:59 PM

15. Are they expecting us to fall for this? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:12 PM

51. Fall for what? Be specific. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #51)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:34 PM

78. fall for your crap, Hazen or BP exec, whoever you are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #78)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:03 PM

89. Amazing.

Science denial raised to political theater. If anyone dares to discuss the actual observations, they are the enemy. My politics must come first, and reality must be adjusted accordingly. But just as an exercise, please explain precisely what is wrong with the science being discussed in the o/p.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #89)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:07 PM

95. Still waiting for you or any of the other BP defenders to refute the USF study.

Or are you in denial.

Not one person here defending this shill has be able to offer any credible evidence discrediting USF's findings. USF has made direct Field observations and finds oil in the sediment on the gulf floor. Diseased fish are still turning up. Their researches counter the claims made by Terry Hazen the BP funded shill. They are finding Oil in the marshes. Where's your answer for that BP defenders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #95)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:09 PM

106. The USF "study" is not in contradiction to the findings discussed in the o/p

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Why do you think I'm trying to "refute" the USF "study" (it was actually not a study, it was a conglomeration of preliminary findings), and why do you think that what is in the o/p is trying to refute the USF "study"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:27 AM

16. really?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:00 AM

17. Well.. OK then....

I'm glad that's over with. Forget about spills, they are all OK now. I won't worry about the Gulf of Mexico anymore. It was just fine all along.


not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:02 AM

18. It's magic!

Magic Bullshit, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:13 PM

53. No, it's science. There's a difference. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:35 PM

79. just like WMD in Iraq, "we know it's true b/c we cherry picked the evidence & left out the caveats"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:23 AM

19. What's all that greasy black stuff washing up on the beach?

Oh nothing honey, go back to bed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:08 AM

23. That would be the stuff that surfaced and photo-degraded.

 

Light fractions, evaporate,

If you might recall, the fear at the time, was that the portion (lion's share IIRC) which did not surface, but remained dispersed throughout the water column, might persist for years or even decades.

This story if true, suggests that most of that dispersed oil was gobbled up by bacteria far more quickly than was originally feared.

It also aknowledges that however fast the oil was cleaned up, long term effects remain unknown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:36 AM

21. There's huge money being invested in this being true regardless if it is actually true.

A lot of business interests in the Gulf region are desperate for that tourism revenue to return to pre-Recession/pre-Katrina/pre-spill levels, and that's not going to be happening if there are red flags on people living next to that water, swimming in it, or eating the shrimp and fish that are still surviving in that water.

On the other hand, as to the veracity of this study, I'll just leave it up for peer review. Suffice it to say, I probably won't touch Gulf shrimp and fish caught in the affected areas for the next 20 years. There's no rush to die of cancer or organ failure from ingesting crude oil found in shrimp and fish caught nearby.

For the record, I live on the Mississippi coast. If it were within the president's power, he should've nationalized BP's operations within the United States as payment for the damage done and sold the assets for compensation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:41 AM

22. Riiight.


University of Tennessee-Knoxville environmental
biology professor Terry Hazen at the American
Chemical Society
national meeting on Monday.

- Giving a report to his employers....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:30 PM

60. Umm, you do know the ACS

Isn't an industry group at all? It's a scientific society of chemists, just like the AMA is a society of doctors. Presenting at the national meeting is pretty heavy intellectual rock-star-ism.

It is the world's largest scientific society and one of the leading sources of authoritative scientific information.
The ACS is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The ACS holds national meetings twice a year covering the complete field of chemistry and also holds dozens of smaller conferences in specific fields. Its publications division produces dozens of scholarly journals including the prestigious Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:38 PM

61. Not impressed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:44 AM

122. Wear that badge of ignorance proudly!

The word "Chemical" is in there, it MUST be evil!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:45 PM

64. Your point? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:58 AM

25. And then.......

 

Over time, the make-up of the different types of bacteria changed to those that were eating different toxic chemical compounds left behind when the oil was eaten by the first organisms, he said.

What he forgot to tell was the most bestest,most golly gee williker part:
The Toxin Munching Bacteria mutated!
Mutated into Unicorns which flew away,farting rainbows of capitalism,rational self-interest and christianity to all the childrens of the werld.
Then he gave us milk and cookies and tucked us in after saying our prayers.
I wanna be that goy when i grows up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rain Mcloud (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:39 AM

27. They're mutating alright.....



- Bon Appétit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:00 AM

29. Petroleum causes Cancer and Birth Defects? Who Knew?

 

Bacteria mutates? When did this start happening?
Well,anywho.........it is all gonna be alright because people have jobs and that means a steady supply of income from the bottom feeders to the top 1% who are in that vaunted position,having been hand selected by God to rule over his flock for Him.

In the mean time,the rest of us slackers and takers have to get ready to go to work so we can afford to put that nourishing warm bowl of PCB laden garbage on our families and grow the pie higher.
I'm channeling G-Dub here of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rain Mcloud (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:47 PM

66. Mother of god. You really need to learn some rudiments about the topic before you post. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #66)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:17 PM

113. I learned that BP is trying to spin the gulf spill into a positive for the industry.

 

Question,if the bacteria in question did such a marvelous job then why are there still plumes of oil migrating around the gulf?
Who put the lesions on the fish?
Why are shrimp being born without eyes?
Who put the stars in your eyes?
Where is the EPA?
Who made me dream all day?
Dreaming of you.
Dreams,i know can never come true.


My point was and still is: PR Pure Bullshit.
Hazen knows better than to submit observations to a peer review but instead throws it out to the court of public opinion and the Picayune supports tourism in the redneck riviera so they covered the non story.
To me this smacks of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine brand denialism.
Look up Arthur B Robinson and Linus Pauling.
Extra Credit Bonus,ding ding ding:Who is Christopher Monckton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rain Mcloud (Reply #113)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:10 PM

115. It's ok. You stay calm now. Just pinch your nose . . . and tilt your head back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:17 AM

26. We need bacteria that would

affects the brains of right wingers and instill compassion, peace and altruism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:53 AM

28. Even the effin BLOB could not have eaten all that oil, especially that fast!

The oil fumes must have gotten to this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:18 AM

30. I beg to differ.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022618065

Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off
Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:50pm

The oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon disaster three years ago killed off millions of amoeba-like creatures that form the basis of the gulf's aquatic food chain, according to scientists at the University of South Florida.

The die-off of tiny foraminifera stretched through the mile-deep DeSoto Canyon and beyond, following the path of an underwater plume of oil that snaked out from the wellhead, said David Hollander, a chemical oceanographer with USF.

"Everywhere the plume went, the die-off went," Hollander said.

The discovery by USF scientists marks yet another sign that damage from the disaster is still being revealed as its third anniversary looms. Although initially some pundits said the spill wasn't as bad as everyone feared, further scientific research has found that corals in the gulf died. Anglers hauled in fish with tattered fins and strange lesions. And dolphins continue dying.

The full implications of the die-off are yet to be seen. The foraminifera are consumed by clams and other creatures, who then provide food for the next step in the food chain, including the types of fish found with lesions. Because of the size of the spill, the way it was handled and the lack of baseline science in the gulf, there's little previous research to predict long-term effects.

More: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/gulf-oil-spill-killed-millions-of-microscopic-creatures-at-base-of-food/2113157

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:55 AM

33. Terry Hazen, hmmm, where have I heard that name before. Oh that's right!

Gulf oil spill: White House accused of spinning report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/05/oil-spill-white-house-accused-spin

>snip<

Recent reports seem to say that about 75% of the oil is taken care of and that is just not true," said John Kessler, of Texas A&M University, who led a National Science Foundation on-site study of the spill. "The fact is that 50% to 75% of the material that came out of the well is still in the water. It's just in a dissolved or dispersed form."

-but then....

>snip<

Terry Hazen, the head of ecology at the Lawrence Berkeley national laboratory, who studied the spill for Noaa, said his teams could find no trace of oil on the surface or in the deep between 2km and 100km from the well site last week.

"Whatever was put into the environment, it is undetectable in the water column and the surface of water," he said. But he added: "That is not true though in the marshes or on some of the shorelines. We do know there is still oil out there."

He also said there were potential weaknesses in the analysis because of Noaa's assumptions about the size of the spill.

more at link...

-Step in the wayback machine and read the rest. I remember this guy coming out as the "expert" on the spill the goverment paraded out to tell us "all is well!" When it clearly was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:47 AM

47. Oh brother. You live in a world of hazy knowledge and equally hazy conspiracies.

Hazen is part of a group of scientists who conduct a broad range of bacterial and microbial research. Neither he, nor his numerous collaborators and co-authors, are in on some evil plot to hide the truth from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:48 AM

48. you got that from that? `

Huh, how about that.

He was the spokes person for the US gov to put a nice spin on something that was unspinnable.

how is that a conspiracy?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LTX (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:13 PM

54. That's all real nice, but it still doesn't distract from the fact that he said what he said during

the BP oil spill.

He went out front and center and said what he said.

And I would suggest you read the post by Dustlawyer below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:19 PM

56. So what precisely did Hazen say that was wrong? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:20 PM

57. I guess you didn't read what I posted.

which I'm not going to retread for you, you can reread my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:44 PM

63. I did. Now, what was wrong about it?

There was in fact plume formation, followed by rapid dispersal and degradation, with only trace surface and column oil remaining in open water gradients. And there were in fact marsh and shoreline concentrations of oil. And to a one, scientists studying the spill "knew there was still oil out there," as Hazen said, but other than current and wave action concentration points, they did not know where. And yes, even the NOAA made significant post-event reassessments of the size of the spill. And yes, study has continued on the spill and its effects, because everything cannot be known immediately, especially with an event of this scope.

But because he didn't set his hair on fire and scream about how we're all going to die, I guess he didn't meet your standards for proper scientific reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:55 PM

69. Terry Hazen - BP shill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:11 AM

34. I work full time on the BP oil spill case. The amount of propaganda they spew is huge!

The Corexit was sprayed b/c it sinks the oil. They did not want it sucked up onto barges where it could be counted and thus, they would pay a fine on it. This way, out of sight, out of mind, and they are definetely out of their collective minds! Most victims still waiting for help from the rigged "Class Action" suit. Eric Holder not only refused to prosecute BP, he let them off of the probation they were under from blowing up their plant in Texas City, Texas where they killed 15. BP has used their money and influence to misinform, under pay victims, and rig the whole process. NOLA justice sucks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:02 AM

121. I agree: NOLA justice sucks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:21 AM

35. Wow - reading the comments here makes me sad

The Gulf of Mexico has numerous *natural* low-volume hydrocarbon seeps that provide a steady supply of hydrocarbon substrates to the water column

The water column in the GOM naturally contains prokaryotes adapted to assimilating and oxidizing petroleum and methane from those seeps.

When the spill occurred, the petroleum and methane released stimulated the growth of hydrocarbon oxidizing prokaryotes already present in the water column.

Initial dissolved oxygen and inorganic N and P concentrations in the deep waters of the GOM were more than sufficient to support the abundant growth of hydrocarbon-oxidizing bacteria from the spill.

The water temperatures were also high enough to support rapid prokaryotic growth and metabolism after the spill - and rapid abiotic weathering of petroleum on the sea surface.

The proliferation and succession of pertroleum-oxidizing prokaryote species during the oxidiation of the spill products was also not unexpected.

There is nothing in this article that even hints at greenwash.

It's sound science.

Take off the tinfoil.

Sheesh

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:06 AM

37. I posted a link to and his bio and that was not good enough .....

.... it seemed to me that it was pretty straight forward but oh well ....

I did not know that petroleum "eating" bacteria could work in the cold
low O2 environment of deep water areas on the sea floor.

http://web.eps.utk.edu/faculty/hazen.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:18 AM

41. The deeper waters are the GOM are not that cold and there is plenty of DO there.

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Benthic methane seeps in the GOM support a diverse and abundant community of animals with symbiotic chemosynthetic prokaryotes - that use hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide.

They all do just fine down there.

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=86

There aren't any DO or temperature constraints on the growth and metabolism of hydrocarbon-oxidizing prokaryotes in the GOM.

What was reported was good science.

No tinfoil required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:31 AM

42. thanx I am more familiar with surface dwelling critters ......

..... and even though the oil spill in the Gulf was a massive ecological
and economic disaster the concept that you would have a bloom of
"oil eating" bacteria when a large food source comes into their environment
is not tinfoil science. It is just common sense.

I would like to see about the health of the sea floor where large amounts
of oil settled because of the dispersant and in the intertidal areas too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:01 PM

70. Marine prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) rule the waves

They are quite active in polar waters where temperatures are routinely -1.8 degrees C.

They are active in naturally occurring Oxygen Minimum Zones (and made-made hypoxic zones).

They are even active at the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench - which is quite remarkable...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1773.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:22 PM

114. Temperature at the bottom is a few degrees above freezing.


The broken well is 5,000 feet below the surface, on the continental slope, which is the long hill that runs from the edge of the continental shelf to the abyssal plain in the central gulf. The pressure is about 2,230 pounds per square inch, 152 times that of the atmosphere at sea level. The temperature is just a few degrees above freezing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/15/AR2010051503636.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #114)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:15 PM

116. The plume stabilized and spread out at ~1,100 m

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6001/201.short

Again, low temperature does not constrain bacterial growth in deep waters or polar waters, and indeed enhanced prokaryotic hydrocarbon biodegradation was observed in experimental cultures grown at 5 degrees C (from the spill zone).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6001/204.abstract

and especially this...

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/50/20292.short

Abstract
Microbial communities present in the Gulf of Mexico rapidly responded to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In deep water plumes, these communities were initially dominated by members of Oceanospirillales, Colwellia, and Cycloclasticus. None of these groups were abundant in surface oil slick samples, and Colwellia was much more abundant in oil-degrading enrichment cultures incubated at 4 °C than at room temperature, suggesting that the colder temperatures at plume depth favored the development of these communities. These groups decreased in abundance after the well was capped in July, but the addition of hydrocarbons in laboratory incubations of deep waters from the Gulf of Mexico stimulated Colwellia's growth. Colwellia was the primary organism that incorporated 13C from ethane and propane in stable isotope probing experiments, and given its abundance in environmental samples at the time that ethane and propane oxidation rates were high, it is likely that Colwellia was active in ethane and propane oxidation in situ. Colwellia also incorporated 13C benzene, and Colwellia's abundance in crude oil enrichments without natural gas suggests that it has the ability to consume a wide range of hydrocarbon compounds or their degradation products. However, the fact that ethane and propane alone were capable of stimulating the growth of Colwellia, and to a lesser extent, Oceanospirillales, suggests that high natural gas content of this spill may have provided an advantage to these organisms.

sorry.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:43 AM

46. It's amazing, isn't it?

Knee-jerk reactions alleging conspiracy without even bothering to learn a damn thing about what is being discussed. And we accuse the right of science-ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:24 PM

59. Many here on DU are distressed this oil spill didnt turn out to be the catastrophy they wanted.

They assumed this massive spill would wipe out the Gulf thus proving their case for banning off shore drilling. I am not pro-drilling either but it does seem nature always has a way to deal with things like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:46 PM

65. It was a disaster - and we do not know the full extent of the damage

Especially to deep water GOM habitats.

They are too remote, difficult and/or expensive to properly sample or monitor.

Furthermore.

We do not know the effects on Kemp's Ridley Turtles (endangered).

We do not know the effects on GOM whale shark populations.

We do not know the effects on GOM cetacean populations.

We do not know the effects on GOM-spawning Blue Fin Tuna populations.

To say that this was not a major disaster is just as dumb as seeing BP conspiracies everywhere.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #65)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:51 PM

68. Nobody is saying this was not a major disaster.

And son-of-a-gun, scientists are in fact continuing to study the ramifications of the disaster, including looking for the effects that you describe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #65)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:16 PM

72. of course it was..

but it wasnt catastrophic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:39 PM

80. yes nature has a way - it only took 15,000 years after the last Ice Age to bring the ecosystem back

Yes, we're distressed there weren't even more birds, fish and animals that died off in the BP disaster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #80)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:50 PM

83. ok the crack about DUers wanting a catastrophy was a bit over the top..

but sometimes it sure seems that way with the comments some have made here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:39 PM

62. and then the bacteria were eaten by the next stop on the food chain

And over and over, and that's how it got on your plate sir.
Would you like another?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedstDem (Reply #62)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:24 PM

97. ^^ This. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:25 PM

91. Wow, I love how so many in this thread sound like creationists and other dismissive teabaggers.

I would at least give the research a chance to be scrutinized with honesty before dismissing scientists.

Give yourselves a big round of applause. You've perhaps earned a spot among creationists and global warming deniers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #94)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:17 PM

96. I think BP funding it is definately worth noting, but its doesn't discredit it or give merit

You seem like someone who has decided the study is false and worked backwards from there.

I'm being objective. You are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #96)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:26 PM

98. I'm being a realist and USF's findings are real.

They're sampling the sea floor. I don't have to give merit where none is due. One study finds oil the other study, coincidentally by a researcher with ties to BP does not. Somebody's lying and my guess is it's the guy that was in on a half a billion in funding.

Believe what you want to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #98)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:21 PM

108. + about a million. It would be extremely naive to fail to suspect and look for oil industry

interests being dishonestly protected in the research reports released by the studies they have had a huge part in funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #98)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:20 AM

120. USF research on the gulf oil spill is directly funded by BP,

unlike the indirect funding of U.C. Berkeley research you find so distressing.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/usf/bp-awards-usf-$11-million-for-gulf-oil-spill-research

So why is the USF research pristine, and the research at issue here tainted?

And again, what specifically is contradictory between the USF research and the research at issue here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #94)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:13 PM

111. Once again, please describe in detail what is contradictory between the USF "study" and the

so-called "BP funded research." Be specific, and support your assertions with references to each. It should be fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #94)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:59 PM

112. I think few would dispute there was a massive die off of creatures wherever the oil plume went.

Oil is toxic to most living creatures.. any idiot knows that. The issue is how serious was/is the damage and how bad are the long term effects. From most accounts it appears most of the Gulf has recovered -- fisherman are fishing again, beaches are full of tourists, and, with a few exceptions, ocean creatures are thriving.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:49 PM

102. I've heard of flesh-eating bacteria but never oil-eating bacteria. Is oil the first course

or just the appetizer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:04 PM

105. good paper and sure bacteria that consume oil must have increased, there was oil there for them.

But they didn't eat all the oil. The toxic effects like all the dolphins that misscarried their yearly babies sucks. I hope the poor things have live babies this spring!

It would be really cool if the bacteria mutated and consumed all the oil on earth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread