News Analysis - Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad? - NYTimes.com this article says we "may" not experience that much damage and goes on to tell how bad other spills were. but they were in different areas and the Kuwaiti incident was primarily on land which is a completely different situation altogether. i ask; is this responsible journalism in an effort to provide "balanced" information or complete utter BS??
I vote for "mostly" complete and utter BS. Ultimately the article covers all the bases by making the obvious observation that the story of the Gulf Oil Spill is in progress and ultimate evaluation won't be possible for years and is contingent on how a lot of variables will play out. Yeh, that's true. But I agree, the rest of the article which strives to compare this specific disasterous tragedy to other enviromental tragedies is at best poorly presented. In my opinion you shouldn't really say on one hand, nobody can yet completely know what the impact will be, and then on the other hand, in the next breath, present how the impact shouldn't be as bad as other examples which are comparitively shaky at best. It seems like a desperate attempt to put a happy face sticker on a horrible event. You do have to question internal motive. How come we never saw the headline Toyota Recalls are Bad, but how bad? With a comparison to recalls of the past? But let Oil in unprecedented amounts contaminate and threaten unknown layers of our eco-system and suddenly....Hey it's bad...but not that bad...????? Right...sure...I'm not buying it...I only agree that disasters like this unfold as a process and we haven't defined and cannot yet define the entire picture...but comparison in an attempt lighten the situation, comparison to anything else is premature and unprofessional in my opinion.
It's a good article to me. I don't think it's an example of providing false balance. Unlike many articles that ask a question in the headline, the article is genuinely asking a question, and is asking generally-unbiased people who are experts in the field. To me the article does not give an answer to the question. And actually, I think the inclusion of the environmental group is incorrect. I'm not accusing Oceana of any misinformation, but it would have been better to ask a professor or similar expert like they did for the engineering and economic aspects of the piece (I'd bet they tried this and couldn't get anything else by press time. I'm not accusing the Times of anything, either).
You're entitled to your opinion, but just look at the headline. It's Bad...but how bad? You don't think that in of itself is weak? IMO it's not trying to answer any questions, because the ultimate presentation is that we cannot yet determine the final impact of a disaster that is in progress. Which I agree with. But then the article goes on to try to do, what it itself says you can't do, through comparison to other disasters. Yes the article doesn't go so far as to offer an answer, but through weak comparison it highly suggests that the disaster won't be as bad as feared. That's putting the cart before the horse, imo. If as this unfolds the reality becomes that the impact is minimized or reduced then fine, report it and we can all be happy about it, but to base an article on the philosophy that sometimes things aren't as bad as they seem...in relationship to a devastating ecological disaster..is imo weak.
the bottom line to the article is "wait and see" but the examples given simply mean nothing. one is a spill on land, the other a spill in a lightly populated coast where fishing is not a primary occupation then we have Alaska which essentially did incalculably horrible damage, but mostly to uninhabited shoreline and to land based animals and fowl that inhabited the area. unlike LA, the alaskan seafood industry is not located in the immediate area. also what the article fails to mention is that the Alaska Spill, although another water borne disaster was a SURFACE leak and provided a much easier opportunity for skimmers to scoop up a significant portion of it. another thing to look at, is after a few weeks of thinking about the resolution to the LA gulf problem, i get the distinct impression that most experts dont really know what to do.
Ok guys...........I live here in south Louisiana and yes, this is a happy sticker situation. We are not like Alaska; this is not a coastline issue like theirs. Louisiana's coast is a series of marshes and wetlands that make up the estuary here. We are the breeding grounds for almost 70% of migrating birds. We depend on shrimping, oystering and fishing for the livelihood of many of our people. Those in Plaquemine and St. Bernard Parishes would tell you a story much different than the one painted here. These people either work in the seafood industry or the oil industry. They totally understand the impact of oil exploration on our coastlands. We take the hit for a lot of the country who are just too "poo-poo" to allow drilling. The impact is yet to be determined here but for the short term, these people have lost the livelihood that they were just getting back after Katrina. I feel strongly about this as you can tell. I hate the "spin" that is put on this story by press people who have no earthly idea what is going on here. Stay informed; eat Louisiana seafood. All seafood is scrutinized before leaving here. Pray for our people and for the land that we so dearly love.
If they plugged this leak tonight it would be one of the worst disasters ever. While the Valdez spill was really bad, one can not put it into words... It was quite far out of the way. It destroyed a huge amount of life and livelihoods but the number of people who saw the effects was limited by the location. That does not make it less of a disaster. This spill is going to destroy a huge number of livelihoods and lives. There are far more people involved. Not only fishermen, people who support tourism, beaches, restaurants, seafood markets and the boating industry will be effected. Think of how many people are in on the Gulf and florid coasts.
I'm not going to win any popularity contests with this question, but -- How does this spill compare to the natural oil seeps in the Gulf? ( ... ducking into flame suit.)
This UN-EP page has interesting links, though many broken links too. It appears that the Gulf is particularly bad for natural oil seeps. Santa Barbara isn't very good either, though there is some successful harvesting of seeping natural gas there.
Fuzzy....no need to duck!! There are constant, natural seeps in the gulf. They are disbursed by the movement of the waters in the gulf. Those go on all the time. This oil disaster is in no way comparable to seepage. The Valdez incident was one single rush of oil to the shoreline of Alaska. This is a continuous, ever-growing movement of oil to our beaches and shorelines. I am including a link to the local radio station in New Orleans that has been the most straightforward with their information. They also were the only link back home to New Orleans after Katrina. They never went off the air. Homepage - WWL - AM870 | FM105.3 | News | Talk | Sports I hope this helps answer some questions. The cartoon pasted several posts ago shows the sadness involved for all of us. But that guy pumping gas in the shadow of a burning gulf is not me..........it's the rest of the country that continues to demand their needs met no matter the cost.
didnt expect this from you. does it matter if its less or more than a naturally occurrence?? that is like saying a forest fire has less impact in the summer because it would be hot anyway??? as far as those "natural" oil seeps. is it coincidence that the worst areas all seem to have been previously drilled areas? makes me wonder; are they natural leaks or piss poor seal up jobs after the oil companies left them?
It does provide a very coarse guide to how much the local environment can handle without serious longlasting damage, though the concentrated nature of this spill limits the usefulness of the comparison. With many participants on all sides already proven proficient at unbounded hype and PR spin and over-the-top exaggeration, I'm trying to look for independent details. Not all forest fires are equal. I am far more concerned about frequent human-caused fires in areas that rarely burn naturally, than about infrequent human-caused fires in areas where regular natural wildfires are a normal part of the ecosystem. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with the Gulf to have a natural feel for it, but don't trust any of the current media or industry sources to be unbiased. But I do remember a long-ago science article about seeps there -- details of which proved useful in answering a final exam question for a completely unrelated grad course. What oil companies were drilling there before the arrival of white explorers? The colocation of seeps and drilling is not coincidence, but you have the causality backwards. Seeps mark the location of some natural deposits, flagging the drillers where to go first. In Santa Barbara, oil production has generally reduced the flow of nearby natural seeps, except where fluids have been pumped into the ground to increase production. Arco (a predecessor to BP, though these facilities are now owned by a different oil company) installed a couple tents over large natural gas seeps to collect the air polluting hydrocarbons. Though it sounds like this may have been more for pollution offset credits for their other facility plans than as a real gas source. Here are some natural seep links I found for SB, not for the Gulf: US Department of the Interior USGS County of Santa Barbara PS. An old source estimated that natural seeps dumped the equivalent of two Exxon Valdez spills into the Gulf each year. But the estimate seem crude (pun intended), and likely to swing an order of magnitude either way. I was hoping someone could point to newer better estimates.
Fuzzy; there was a study of Puget Sound and what it receives as far as toxins, oil, etc. from runoff that drains into the sound. the study estimated that every 5 to 7 years, we have essentially an Exxon Valdez spill as far as quantity. what damage that runoff is causing is difficult to quantify because it is slow slow, diluted and gradually changing the ecosystem. but its like taking vitamins. too much of a good thing is not good. too much of a bad thing will make us sick. colds are caused by germs and its been very widely proven that basic hygiene can greatly reduce the risk of getting one. our bodies are very good at fighting off germs, but they can only do so much. so what is the tipping point of health for the Gulf? who is to say that the seepage the Gulf has now is not affecting it? does anyone really know what the level of contamination that is "acceptable" for basic survival of the fishing industry there? what if over fishing, etc. is not to blame? what if the mild oil contamination is just enough to reduce the spawn and birth rate survival by say 10%? or 20%. do we have enough info to determine that?
