Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is this really possible this quickly? In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:15 PM
Original message
Is this really possible this quickly? In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes
In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_healing_ma...

BARATARIA BAY, La. Shoots of marsh grass and bushes of mangrove trees already are starting to grow back in the bay where just months ago photographers shot startling images of dying pelicans coated in oil from the massive Gulf oil spill.

More than a dozen scientists interviewed by The Associated Press say the marsh here and across the Louisiana coast is healing itself, giving them hope delicate wetlands might weather the worst offshore spill in U.S. history better than they had feared. Some marshland could be lost, but the amount appears to be small compared with what the coast loses every year through human development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Coastal marshes are for the most part places where the effluent
from all man's excesses over hundreds of years has been getting flushed. They are the planet's liver and kidneys, designed to deal with all sorts of toxic crap (in much smaller amounts, of course).

People may be pleasantly surprised over time to see how the wetlands respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who's taking credit for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. It does get hot there
And that will get the microbial action working a LOT faster than it does in Prince William Sound.

I still say it should be the impetus for a mangrove planting program to stabilize and expand the barrier islands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ivor van Heerden, a BP-hired environmental scientist, said....
the damage may be even less than that.

How many of the other scientists interviewed are realizing monetary compensation from BP?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Try the same kind of reasoning but flip it around.
That'll demonstrate how sound it is.

The scientists that said it was horrible were standing to reap large amounts of money--summer funding, extramural grants. The worse it was, the faster and sloppier BP and the government would be in their haste to fund research.

The groups that said it was catastrophic garnered great PR and lots of donations and volunteer time.

At the same time, the scientists and enviro groups scored big PR points in painting BP and the oil industry as baddies. They raised awareness of their importance.

Therefore, it could be predicted that they'd say it was bad, even if it wasn't.

BP wanted to hire all the faculty in one dept. The dept. chair said that BP wanted a confidentiality agreement, and then said the agreement was unacceptable because they didn't even want to be have their reputations associated with BP. Follow that reasoning: The confidentiality agreement wasn't unacceptable because of sqelching publication, it was unacceptable because it would besmirch their reputations by association. Internalized McCarthyism.

Then there are the researchers who claim that their the object of government gagging because they were told, upon having a couple of sample, to not say that the dispersed oil plumes were huge and from the BP well. The problem was, that when they were saying the plumes were huge and from the BP well they didn't actually have any *evidence* they were huge and the tests to determine the source of the oil hadn't been done. But asking them to stick to the facts was a "gag order." Why? Because blaming BP was a good thing; ratcheting up the enormity of the mess was a good thing.

But, of course, these people, who might well be acting out of self-interest, are good because like us they think BP does environmentally destructive things because all the BP employees hate Gaia.

In other words, we start from the conclusion we want and work backwards: Those who say we're right are good, and trustworthy, and incorruptible. Those who say we're wrong are bad, therefore untrustworthy and corrupted.

Yes, critical thinking would be asking, "Are the facts on the ground actually true? How could we account for them? Let's look at the explanations and see if they make sense." It would work from there to then establish whether the scientists are telling the truth and are correct. But ad hominem reasoning is so much simpler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Unsurprising
Estuarine marshes are the most productive environment. Most of the plant species that grow within them are highly adapted to deal very well with harsh edaphic conditions and frequent perturbation. Southern marshes in particular are high energy - high base productivity environments. This is exactly why they are important and produce so much of the life we come to eventually call seafood.

Folks love to think of wetlands as "delicate", in fact, this type of wetland is rather tough and resilient. We have been losing them, but not because they are "delicate" but because they have been deprived of sediment through the ACOE management of the Missippii River These areas are relatively easy to restore as mom nature does almost all the work, as long as the sediments are there. Oligotrophic freshwater wetlands on the other hand can be a bit "delicate" and tough to restore.

We are currently near the peak of the growing season, the fact that these areas are showing the first signs of recovery should be expected, and exactly not surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Of course it is! the oil all evaporated!
jesus, get with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Now BP's planting stuff in the middle of the night and spraying Miracle Grow from choppers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug 31st 2014, 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC