Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 9 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News    H2'ed 7/23/10

BP Sock Puppets Open Fisheries as Bonnie Looms

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Georgianne Nienaber
Become a Fan
  (47 fans)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, announced the re-opening of a substantial portion of the southeast section of the closed fishing area in Gulf of Mexico federal waters at a press conference on Thursday. NOAA reopened 26,388 square miles of Gulf waters to commercial and recreational fishing at 6 p.m., EDT Thursday. This opening was decided upon after "consultation with the FDA and under a re-opening protocol agreed to by NOAA, the FDA, and the Gulf states," Lubchenco said.

At its closest point, the area to be reopened is about 190 miles southeast of the Deepwater/BP well-head, and the area where the majority of fishing will occur is about 220 miles from the well-head, along the west Florida shelf.

This is a notable development, coming on the heels of Senator Barbara Mikulski's (D-Maryland) July 15 hearings on BP's use of almost 2 million gallons of dispersants on the oil released from the April 20 explosion of the Macondo well-head in the Mississippi Canyon oil field. Mikulski's hearing raised many questions regarding oversight, accountability and reliability of scientific data.

In another development this week, EPA toxic waste official, Hugh Kaufman told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, "The EPA, the government, NOAA, etc., have been sock puppets in this cover up (of the dangers of Corexit)."

Is the Obama administration and BP engaging in politics and PR with a dangerous twist?

There is no doubt that Gulf commercial fishermen have been suffering greatly from a lack of income in the aftermath of the explosion of the Macondo well-head. States have lost revenue from fishing licensing and supportive recreational industries, and BP would certainly like to reduce its liability for lost income and wages.

According to Lubchenco, NOAA's rationale for opening the closed area is that NOAA data have shown no oil in the area since mid June, and United States Coast Guard observers flying over the area in last 30 days have also not observed any oil. Additionally, trajectory models show the area is at a low risk for future exposure to oil, and fish caught in the area and tested by NOAA experts have shown no signs of contamination.

But is this enough?

Between June 23 and July 5, NOAA collected samples of fish, including grouper, snapper, tuna, and mahi mahi from the area where the heaviest fishing will take place.

"Sensory and chemical testing following the methodology and procedures in the re-opening protocol showed no detectable oil or dispersant odors or flavors, and the results of chemical analysis were well below the levels of concern," NOAA said in a press release.

In a transcript from Mikulski's Senate hearings last week Larry Robinson, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, said, "Research on the effectiveness and effects of dispersants and dispersed oil has been underway for more than three decades, but vital gaps still exist," adding, "chemical dispersants can be an effective tool in the response strategy, but like all methods involve tradeoffs in terms of effectiveness and potential for collateral impacts."

At the sea surface, early life-stages of fish and shellfish are much more sensitive than juveniles or adults to dispersants and dispersed oil. There are no data on the toxicity of dispersed oil to deep-sea marine life at any stage, so we have to extrapolate based on existing knowledge. However, at both the surface and sub-surface, modeling and monitoring is confirming that dispersed oil concentrations decline rapidly with distance from the wellhead as it mixes with seawater and moves with the currents away from the treated areas.

Robinson added, "Thus far, we haven't found any evidence of these contaminants in any of the species that we've taken outside of the contaminated area."

But what about fish and water movement from the contaminated areas? Is a smell test enough?

The science of testing and monitoring appears to be inexact at best.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Georgianne Nienaber Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter Page       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram Page

Georgianne Nienaber is an investigative environmental and political writer. She lives in rural northern Minnesota and South Florida. Her articles have appeared in The Society of Professional Journalists' Online Quill Magazine, the Huffington (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Recently Leaked Documents Confirm Clinton Haitian Gold Scheme

Dian Fossey and the Gorilla Killings

Should the World Boycott the Beijing Olympics? The Horrific Story of the Falun Gong

Haiti Watch: Disease Threatens Infants and No Plans to Stop It

Murder, Mayhem and Mexican Mafia Stalk the Bakken Oil Fields

Bakken Oil: Fighting for Control of Fort Berthold and the Three Affiliated Tribes

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend