Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fish-s ... 51853.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


BARATARIA BAY, La. (AP) — Two years after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, scientists say they're finding trouble with sick fish that dwell along offshore reefs and in the deep waters — especially in places where the oil spill hit the hardest.
The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. The biggest question is whether contaminants from the BP spill are causing the problems. For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

I just went to a thing at Nicholls State last Wednesday where various scientists gave presentations on the situation, there was a panel discussion, etc. The overall tone is that things aren't that bad. There was discussion of how this was different than something like the Exxon Valdez where a bunch of thick oil was dumped at the surface as one big slug. Discussion of how the Gulf envirnonment has been acclimated over many millions of years to metabolize oil.

And of course there were the obligatory challenges by environmentalists and community activists who insist that things are in crisis regardless of what the data suggest.

Every aspect of the Gulf environment is being monitored more intensely now than it's ever been monitored. Things like some small percentage of a fish population being "sick" are far more likely to be noticed now. In addition to being more likely to be noticed, incidents like that are much more likely to be empahsized in the news media.

JohnStOnge wrote:I just went to a thing at Nicholls State last Wednesday where various scientists gave presentations on the situation, there was a panel discussion, etc. The overall tone is that things aren't that bad. There was discussion of how this was different than something like the Exxon Valdez where a bunch of thick oil was dumped at the surface as one big slug. Discussion of how the Gulf envirnonment has been acclimated over many millions of years to metabolize oil.

And of course there were the obligatory challenges by environmentalists and community activists who insist that things are in crisis regardless of what the data suggest.

Every aspect of the Gulf environment is being monitored more intensely now than it's ever been monitored. Things like some small percentage of a fish population being "sick" are far more likely to be noticed now. In addition to being more likely to be noticed, incidents like that are much more likely to be empahsized in the news media.

That's nice, John. Think I'll pass on the Gulf seafood for a while longer anyway..

Just took my fish oil pill

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I just went to a thing at Nicholls State last Wednesday where various scientists gave presentations on the situation, there was a panel discussion, etc. The overall tone is that things aren't that bad. There was discussion of how this was different than something like the Exxon Valdez where a bunch of thick oil was dumped at the surface as one big slug. Discussion of how the Gulf envirnonment has been acclimated over many millions of years to metabolize oil.

And of course there were the obligatory challenges by environmentalists and community activists who insist that things are in crisis regardless of what the data suggest.

Every aspect of the Gulf environment is being monitored more intensely now than it's ever been monitored. Things like some small percentage of a fish population being "sick" are far more likely to be noticed now. In addition to being more likely to be noticed, incidents like that are much more likely to be empahsized in the news media.

That's nice, John. Think I'll pass on the Gulf seafood for a while longer anyway..

I am with you on that houndawg. Glad it seems nature was able to handle the spill, but gonna wait a few cycles before I have some.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I just went to a thing at Nicholls State last Wednesday where various scientists gave presentations on the situation, there was a panel discussion, etc. The overall tone is that things aren't that bad. There was discussion of how this was different than something like the Exxon Valdez where a bunch of thick oil was dumped at the surface as one big slug. Discussion of how the Gulf envirnonment has been acclimated over many millions of years to metabolize oil.

And of course there were the obligatory challenges by environmentalists and community activists who insist that things are in crisis regardless of what the data suggest.

Every aspect of the Gulf environment is being monitored more intensely now than it's ever been monitored. Things like some small percentage of a fish population being "sick" are far more likely to be noticed now. In addition to being more likely to be noticed, incidents like that are much more likely to be empahsized in the news media.

That's nice, John. Think I'll pass on the Gulf seafood for a while longer anyway..

The best shrimp are Georgia White Shrimp anyway. Good choice.

That's nice, John. Think I'll pass on the Gulf seafood for a while longer anyway..

Well you're free to do that but there's no reason to. There was never any threat to the health of consumers of seafood; not even during the height of the event. I could link you some NOAA documents published prior to this most recent event expressing the conclusion that it's not likely that an oil spill is going to result in a threat to the health of seafood consumers. But it's probably pointless because this is one of those things people refuses to believe regardless of what the data say.

But the truth is you take more of a risk eating grilled hamburgers, steaks, or salmon than you ever would've taken by eating Gulf seafood during the Deepwater Horizon thing because those grilled foods are going to contain levels of "harmful" polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are orders of magnitude higher than anything you would have gotten from that Gulf seafood (unless, of course, you grilled it).

I am with you on that houndawg. Glad it seems nature was able to handle the spill, but gonna wait a few cycles before I have some.

Ok. In the meantime enjoy all the other stuff you eat that has way higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. That is unless you don't eat any grilled foods or otherwise cook things in ways that causes that black stuff.

I worked my first major oil spill in 1986 (Amazon Venture). At the time the conventional wisdom was that oil spills do not represent a threat to the health of seafood consumers. In fact the conventional wisdom was that oil spills aren't that big a deal period. And that's the conventional wisdom among those who know what they're talking about to this day.

As far as seafood safety goes: Once again, extensive sampling...maybe the most extensive sampling ever...supported the conclusion that there was never any threat to consumers of seafood. Not that that was unusual. That's the same thing sampling suggested after other major oil spills including the Exxon Valdez spill.

But reality doesn't matter to consumers spooked by environmental whackos. Thus you have this quote from "Managing Seafood Safety After an Oil Spill," a document providing a summary of seafood safety assessments for historical oil spills through the Exxon Valdez spill:

There were significant cultural conflicts in defining seafood safety and edibility. A spill that impacted so many animals and habitats was perceived to also have significant impacts to human health, regardless of the information provided on actual health risks to consumers in the impact area.

People just WANT to believe it's dangerous even though it's not. And when you're fighting that kind of "cultural" problem it gets to the point where you just throw up your hands and say, "Reality doesn't matter to people."

JohnStOnge wrote:

I am with you on that houndawg. Glad it seems nature was able to handle the spill, but gonna wait a few cycles before I have some.

Ok. In the meantime enjoy all the other stuff you eat that has way higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. That is unless you don't eat any grilled foods or otherwise cook things in ways that causes that black stuff.

I worked my first major oil spill in 1986 (Amazon Venture). At the time the conventional wisdom was that oil spills do not represent a threat to the health of seafood consumers. In fact the conventional wisdom was that oil spills aren't that big a deal period. And that's the conventional wisdom among those who know what they're talking about to this day.

As far as seafood safety goes: Once again, extensive sampling...maybe the most extensive sampling ever...supported the conclusion that there was never any threat to consumers of seafood. Not that that was unusual. That's the same thing sampling suggested after other major oil spills including the Exxon Valdez spill.

But reality doesn't matter to consumers spooked by environmental whackos. Thus you have this quote from "Managing Seafood Safety After an Oil Spill," a document providing a summary of seafood safety assessments for historical oil spills through the Exxon Valdez spill:

There were significant cultural conflicts in defining seafood safety and edibility. A spill that impacted so many animals and habitats was perceived to also have significant impacts to human health, regardless of the information provided on actual health risks to consumers in the impact area.

People just WANT to believe it's dangerous even though it's not. And when you're fighting that kind of "cultural" problem it gets to the point where you just throw up your hands and say, "Reality doesn't matter to people."

I get what you are saying, but I am a foil hat person and would wait anyway. Still don't have wifi in the house because there was "talk" it might be harmful to children.

Anyway, I am not putting too much into the hydrocarbons. Not that I don't believe they might be harmful, just don't trust most of the nutritional research in America to be of much value (more foil hat stuff).

SeattleGriz wrote:
I get what you are saying, but I am a foil hat person and would wait anyway. Still don't have wifi in the house because there was "talk" it might be harmful to children.

Anyway, I am not putting too much into the hydrocarbons. Not that I don't believe they might be harmful, just don't trust most of the nutritional research in America to be of much value (more foil hat stuff).

I would like to see Cap'n Cat, a food industry veteran, let us know how contaminated our food actually is. Like JSO said, there is a certain amount of contamination that is legal, whether it be insect parts per million or chemical levels. Unless you grow your own food, we are not isolated from the contamination. Even Organic food growers still uses chemicals, just not chemical compounds made by man.

Ho hum....I believe I said nature would take care of it self....but I was the crazy fuck back then wasn't I?


To go on the not so organic organic food method....Whole Foods

http://www.tradereform.org/2012/01/whol ... after-all/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone that shops at whole foods needs a swift kick in the throat.

grizzy's Subject heading: "Oil makes fish sick...who knew?"

Grizzy's own article:

grizzaholic wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fish-s ... 51853.html

BARATARIA BAY, La. (AP) —
The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. The biggest question is whether contaminants from the BP spill are causing the problems. For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

Yup, there's nothing quite like bending non-specific information to present a biased version of an argument. Looks as though dal-boy has some company.

-
BHO's fault

Obama vows to drill ‘everywhere we can

The Hill ^ | March 21, 2012 | Ben Geman and Amie Parnes

“If you hear anybody on TV saying that somehow we are against drilling for oil, then you will know that they either don’t know what they are talking about or they are not telling you the truth,” Obama said, against the backdrop of oil production facilities outside Maljamar, N.M. “We are drilling all over the place,” Obama added.

get what you are saying, but I am a foil hat person and would wait anyway. Still don't have wifi in the house because there was "talk" it might be harmful to children.

I understand. But the main thing to know is that the event did not cause a perceptible increase in the level of hydrocarbons in the "sentinel" organism (oysters). If you were living in a cave and just watching results of oyster samples come in, you would not even know anything had happened. The levels of hydrocarbons in oysters along the Gulf coast were well within the range of the historical range of variation.

Oysters are good sentinels for several reasons. Motile species tend to avoid oil. They swim away. Oysters cannot. Oysters live by filtering and concentrating what's in the environment around them. And, finally, oysters do not metabolize oil as well as finfish and crustaceans so if they are contaminated it persists for longer in them than it would in finfish and crustaceans. So if you don't see something going on in the oysters, you're not going to see anything going on in the finfish and the crustaceans.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, as was the case with all other major oil spills historically, was a "non event" as far as contamination representing a threat to the health of seafood consumers goes. The only problem that ever existed was one of perception on the part of consumers. They believed there was an issue when there really wasn't any.

Cluck U wrote:

grizzy's Subject heading: "Oil makes fish sick...who knew?"

Grizzy's own article:

grizzaholic wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fish-s ... 51853.html

BARATARIA BAY, La. (AP) —
The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. The biggest question is whether contaminants from the BP spill are causing the problems. For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

Yup, there's nothing quite like bending non-specific information to present a biased version of an argument. Looks as though dal-boy has some company.

Sorry.

Great story on CNN this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/us/gulf-d ... ?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

∞∞∞ wrote:Great story on CNN this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/us/gulf-d ... ?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He would probably have better luck if he stuck that boat in some water and not tried to catch fish on land.

Gil Dobie wrote:Just took my fish oil pill

grizzaholic wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fish-s ... 51853.html


BARATARIA BAY, La. (AP) — Two years after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, scientists say they're finding trouble with sick fish that dwell along offshore reefs and in the deep waters — especially in places where the oil spill hit the hardest.
The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. The biggest question is whether contaminants from the BP spill are causing the problems. For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

Sounds like fish gonnorhea.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fish-s ... 51853.html


BARATARIA BAY, La. (AP) — Two years after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, scientists say they're finding trouble with sick fish that dwell along offshore reefs and in the deep waters — especially in places where the oil spill hit the hardest.
The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. The biggest question is whether contaminants from the BP spill are causing the problems. For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

Sounds like fish gonnorhea.


Sent from the center of the universe.

It's never good to sleep with the fishes.