The Number One Environmental Disaster: Exxon Valdez

[EV_Ares]

Ironically, the worst environmental disaster in history was an oil spill that doesn't even rank among the top 50 largest oil spills . Yet the Exxon Valdez oil spill is widely considered to be the most disastrous oil spill in the world in terms of its environmental impact . The 11 million gallons (or 257,000 barrels) of oil that eventually escaped from the tanker's hull continue to affect the surrounding area . As soon as the ship hit Bligh Reef, the Alaskan body of water known as Prince William Sound became forever changed.

As you might remember, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker left Alaska on March 23, 1989, at 9:12 p.m. carrying more than 53 million gallons (1.26 million barrels) of oil. Just three hours later, after the ship ran into a reef, thousands of gallons of oil coated everything within site. All told, the amount of oil spilled was enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool 125 times . While 11 million gallons was the official number given by the U.S. Coast Guard at the time, some people involved in the cleanup effort estimate that the amount of oil spilled was nearly three times that .

Despite the relatively small amount of oil released, several factors contributed to the spill's severity: timing, location, abundance of wildlife and substandard cleanup efforts. In comparison, one of the largest oil spills in history, the rupture of an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that released 140 million gallons (3.3 million barrels) of oil, caused relatively little damage because it happened in the open sea where currents and winds contained it until it disintegrated .

By contrast, the Exxon spill occurred inside a body of water that housed an abundance of wildlife rather than in the open ocean where oil could dissipate and be broken down by wave action. The following animals were killed by the spill:

250,000 seabirds
2,800 sea otters
300 harbor seals
250 bald eagles
22 killer whales


The 10,000 square miles (25,900 square kilometers) and 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) of shoreline covered with oil encompassed a national forest, four wildlife refuges, three national parks, five state parks, four critical habitat areas and a state game sanctuary .

Ten years later, only two of 23 animal species injured by the oil slicks had fully recovered . As of 2004, populations of loons, harbor seals, harlequin ducks and Pacific herring were still affected by the spill , and the entire food chain was altered.

The entire article @: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental-disaster1.htm

[lapfog_1]

1. uhh, no... Chernobyl

and it's a gift that will keep on giving for centuries.

[EV_Ares]

2. uhh, no, if you read the scientific examination of these disasters as horrible

as all of them were, it isn't as the article explained if you read it.

Chernobyl, global warming and Hurricane Katrina seem like reasonable guesses. The nuclear reactor that exploded in the Ukraine spewed 50 tons of radioactive material, burned for 10 days and forced the evacuation of at least 30,000 people. Elevated radiation levels caused thousands of people to eventually die from cancer and other illnesses. In addition to the human casualties, the radiation carried by the wind contaminated millions of acres of forest .

Despite the initial environmental damage, contaminated trees recovered within three years. And forests in the "exclusion zone," the area closed to humans because of dangerous radiation levels, are now thriving. In a surprising turn of events, nature once threatened by radiation is now blossoming in the absence of human interference, while the land outside the exclusion zone now is harmed by the actions of humans living there. Thus, although Chernobyl dealt a devastating blow to the people in the region, its long-term damage seems largely constrained to human life .

[lapfog_1]

4. yeah, I've heard about the "forest preserve" in the

2,826 sq mile exclusion zone... however, many articles point out that we really don't know that much about the long term effects of high (and in some spots extremely high) radiation. While it is true that excluding humans from the area has resulted in a rebound of wildlife... humans are excluded for a reason, whereas the wildlife is left to experience multi-generational genetic damage, which will likely result in mass species mutations. And while this might be a "lab experiment" in the theory of mutation and adaptation through natural selection, many many species will evolve by having offspring die horrible deaths as a result of genetic damage (or change).

We simply don't know if this is happening now in the area of the disaster, and we are unlikely to know what the results are for a thousand years.

And that's the rub.

Exxon Valdez, as bad as it was, won't even be remembered in 200 years.

In 2000 years, there will still be an exclusion zone around Chernobyl. If humans still exist AND remember.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. k+r And I'd like to throw my suggestion in the ring...

...the Rocketdyne meltdown.

Another nuculer disaster hidden from the unwitting public and within miles of the second largest city in America.

Not to mention it's seeping into the groundwater. Has been since 1959.

No one knows the extent of the damage because Rocketdyne built rockets and everything they did (are doing) is considered national secrets.

Rocketdyne is now owned by Boeing. What's the likelihood a corporation will be held accountable for anything under a GOP administration/Congress?