BP seriously tweeted this at just past 7 p.m. Eastern.
If you click the link, you get an AP story on MSNBC, "Scientists think Gulf can recover." It's a survey of scientists who say that yes, the Gulf of Mexico can and likely will bounce back from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The story comes with a subhead: "Researchers described oil-stained ecosystem as 'resilient.' "
Which they did. There's more to the story, though, than BP lets on. Like this part:
[N]othing about the Gulf is simple. Just as often as scientists use the word "resilient," they use the word "stress."
We thought you should know.
Leave a Comment:
The last I heard BP was buying up scientists is the gulf. Looks like they got them.
Of course the gulf will recover. 100 years from now you won't even be able to tell there was an oil spill. The proof will be when the fishing trawlers start coming back to port.
We don't have any "scientists" in this country. Only a bunch of sell-outs who want their picture on the cover of People magazine.
Kinda like our politicians.
Oh, easy there, Larry. Don't lump us all in the same bunch. We do have to beg for grant money, that's true. But with regard to this post, you have to notice that BP is just trying to save face by tweeting (twitting?) one key word--resilient. They didn't tweet other key words like "stressed" or "worried" or "the dead zone is bigger than Massachusetts" or "Habitats are not as resilient as organisms are." Any good scienctist will be skeptical. They will question rushes to judgment. The bottom line is that we don't know what the long term impacts of this spill will be until we reach the long term. This basically means that we now have a ground zero for studying massive oil spills in open water and coastal regions.
Kudos to Rachel and the TRMS staff for seeking out experts on this issue. Rachel shines as a field reporter. She seeks out the right people and asks the right questions. I am sure she will continue to do so on this topic.
Apologies micro geek. I was in a venting mood, and I do recognize the hard-working real scientists.
Im a chemical engineer and the news reports about this spill have lit me up since the first week. One of my favorites was BP was going to estimate a flow rate from a satellite image.
I've seen pictures of dead whales and dolphins and other wildlife in the gulf-and that was a month and a half ago. Now it appears that BP and even the NOAA is starting to paint the picture that the spill wasn't nearly as bad as originally thought.
And now you have--I don't know--pick a number--of around 250 million gallons of crude plus 42 million gallons of dispersant used. But the dispersant is no more toxic than the crude oil--LOL. But we know it has a toxicity, especially in those quantities. So we're up to 292 million gallons of toxic substances in the gulf. But the gulf is a tough guy. It is "resilient".
The people in the gulf don't need these National Lampoon press releases. They need to know the truth so they can adjust their lives accordingly.
No worries, Larry. Actually, I feel your pain. I am not sure how most scientists feel about People mag, but I do know that quite a few get either wet or woody over the prospect of publishing in Nature or Science. LOL. Here's to keeping it real. Cheers.
LOL micro geek. I said People magazine because a lot of the "scientists" giving their opinions on this spill couldn't get published in a respectable scientific journal.
Cheers to you too.
People Magazine - lol. Although I generally avoid reading that rag, they did have a nice story about Rachel and Susan earlier this year.
When I Heard on the News that ONLY 26% of the Oil is Still Remaining, I did Not Believe One Iotta of This! I Would Love for this to be True, but Just Do Not Believe It!
It breaks my Heart when I See that Picture of the Sea Turtle. You have No Idea what South West Florida Has Done to Preserve these Almost- Extinct Creatures, Long Before this Oil Spill!!!
What About the Dead Zones? The Oil Plumes?
And Main Stream Media is Going Along with These Reports? I Would Love for this to be Positive, but Just do Not Think it Will Be.
Like Anne Thompson Said, ( We Pretty Much Lost Trust in BP )
Diana B
Please read the whole article. It is not exactly a bowl of cherries. But quotes can be cherry-picked. The dead zone is still there and will probably always be there due to run off from the Mississippi. From what I've heard, the oil is unlikely to contribute to it due to the spill's location. As for the oil being gone--one of the leading scientists from Purdue's oil spill initiative even questions that report. Check out their center for the environment website. One other thing--since I've heard this one the last few days--oil does not evaporate. The volatile organics will, but the other components will likely disperse in the water or sink into the sediments--which can't be a good thing. And microbes can eat the components in the oil, that is true. There is also such a thing as too much of a good thing and too much biodegradation leading to anoxic environments. We need to keep an eye on these habitats and study them from every angle.
Oil doesn't evaporate, not at those temperatures. And crude oil is not a pure substance. It's composed of several hundred different components. The process of refining is used to separate and purify those components for sale.
We get gasoline, motor oil, plastics, synthetic rubber components (for tires), industrial solvents and a whole range of rotten substances used in industry from crude oil.
The oil hasn't evaporated, as we are lead to believe. Using 42 million gallons of dispersant it's dissolved into the water-but that doesn't make it less toxic-now we just can't see it. And biological degredation is not that fast.
And there is a mile between the surface and the well and no one knows what's deep in the ocean.
Now isn't the time to be selling people a bill of goods. Evidence of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska is still apparent up there, 20 years later.
Yeah, I know, it's crazy how the public gets misinformed. When I heard the report that a certain percentage of the oil had "evaporated" I was astounded. I hate to say it, but we need to quit feeding the fast food mentality of the States and just tell the truth.
I for one will never eat anything fished out of the gulf ever again.
then you had best find a way to get the FDA to start labeling stuff with that in mind, it is likely you (we) will never know, especially now.
Let's not forget other prime tidbits from this same article,
BP'd rather ignore:
The gulf is resilient?! My 70 pound rescue dog, is resilient. She was confiscated from owners who kept her in a closet with no food or water. When she was found she had nearly no muscle tissue. She was still only 24 pounds when I adopted her more than a year later. She had no hair, when she was found She had to be carried away on a stretcher because she was frozen in a fetal position. Yet she was alive, and she was resilient.
From this same article:
When do we see the "tipping point"?!
"When do we see the "tipping point"?!"
1980 maybe?
Pensword, that story about your dog is heart breaking. You called her a rescue dog, so I'm thinking that is what she is now. You are obviously an amazing person to bring her from that state of indignity by humans to a level of rescuing humans in return. We could all learn from her determination and courage to live in the hope of a better day.
I can only, in behalf of animals everywhere, thank you for her salvation. I hope her previous 'jailers' got what they deserved. They have to be horrible, horrible people and don't deserve to ever have any contact with another animal.
I certainly would not want them as neighbors.
Look at the Stockholm Resilience Centre or the Resilience Alliance to learn about the type of ecological resilience the scientists are talking about. They're kind of correct in saying the Gulf is resilient- in that it has good response diversity within essential functional groups and amazing biodiversity. Additionally, if millions of gallons seep into the gulf each year then presumably the gulf has processes in place to deal with it.
However, none of that explains how the gulf will handle over 4 times the amount of oil seeping into the gulf yearly in the localized BP spill. This is a huge shock to the social-ecological system of the gulf and should not be underestimated.
It's a very sad story about your dog, but you've totally misunderstood social-ecological resilience.
Hey, would you send a picture of that dog? I'd love to see it.
I might have to upload it to your upload site, my email will not send my photo files, HD quality. It keeps saying the file is too big.
I'll send oil spill pictures too, if you want.
I also have exclusive video commentary about the spill, by Billy Nungesser, and David Vitter, made August 7, 2010.
the fact that BP has successfully kept the real numbers of gallons spilled under wraps is significant to all of this. And the spin is incredible. 'Only a quarter of all spilled left and will disperse!' Surely this sounds very optimistic if you forget the simple fact that that "one quarter" left is still 4 times greater than the Exxon Valdeze spill..................ugh
Your lucky dog! as for resiliency, i recall seeing a documentary a while back that said one of the herring fisheries destroyed in the exxon-valdez oil spill has still not reopened, 20+ years later.
I was really sort of shocked tonight while watching you on my computer on your webshow and saw a BP Commercial about how they were committed to cleaning up the Gulf. I don't want to watch that propaganda on my computer, that is why I don't watch T.V. to begin with.
If you are smart enough to watch Rachel in the first place, you should be able to think past the commercial reality of cable TV, and it's inevitable constraints and contradictions, that she endures to get her message out here.
I don't appreciate all the glamorous ads for sleazy candidates that are popping up all over the web, even at the most progressive blogs and sites, but I know that to survive and prosper, and provide you and me with the real story that the MSM in general refuses to convey, they must play that money game.
Like I said, it is likely that anyone who tunes into to Rachel has proven already they are at least resistant to the brainwashing, if not wholly immune.
Not that I like it, by any means, it really is a nuisance factor, but there simply is no alternative.
that was meant as a reply to cedarflame, I'm still a neophyte on the Maddowblog, but I'll get it down eventually...
There is always an alternative, I think it is the words :No, we don't want your filthy propaganda money.
And I do watch Rachel everynight on the computer, I don't own a television mainly because of the trash on it.
We all have our own disastrous observations about the oil spill and its environmental impact. There is just no way that the gulf can come out of this unscathed, but it will come out of it, we all know that, as well. Natural healing is evident every day in our own bodies. We are living on an amazing planet and are walking with an amazing anatomy. Even our omnivorous appetites in the use of our environment cannot escalate to the point of destroying its ability to reconstruct and survive. There are always cockroaches.
Having said that; BP made a terrible mistake in an area where mistakes turn into grave consequences. But; we use oil everyday. And; we don't seem too interested in moving away from that use in our energy commodities. If we were, then we would be shouting just as loud to free the world of fossil fuels and look up for our energy instead of underground. We expect the planet to give up its millions of years of accumulation so we can run around on top in our fancy little cars and stay warm and cool when the temperature dictates. We need to change our focus. We have to change our focus. Maybe Mother Nature has a mind and is trying to get something into our thick heads that is future oriented instead of our narcissistic 'now' and the heck with the future.
Just saying!!!!
'Authorities,' in situations like this don't dare tell the truth. They're bought and paid for. The 'big lie' repeated ad nauseum is the standard 'plan of the day.' Listen to it and figure the opposite.
Gulf seafood is now astronomically contaminated. It will be that way for decades.
Damn greedy fools in industry destroying the environment instead of doing things right. One must maximize and continually increase the holy profit margin. They don't give a damn about anything else.
Amen, stoney. And the republicans want less regulation and more business running wild.
Greed has to be regulated.
was prince william sound resilient?
sodona --- mother nature has an immune system too; natural selection. the weakest of the environment die. get your g'byes outa the way. maybe the next incarnation of a carbon based biped will evolve intelligently.
BP did not make a "mistake." BP committed a series of acts of criminal negligence. BP has proven itself over the years to be a cesspool of corporate corruption.
The people responsible for this should be indicted and if convicted they should be jailed for their actions including 11 counts of criminally negligent homicide.
Disappearing Oil and Gulf Seafood: Passing the Sniff Test
http://bobhiggins.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/the-sniff-test-disappearing-oil-and-seafood-testing/
Well, the semantics could be debatable, Bob. I can't believe BP deliberately caused a leak in their oil well. I can believe that the leak was caused by negligence that has, in unplanned circumstances, escalated into criminal territory.
When you point to "the people responsible for this", then we have to include the government officials who were not doing their job in auditing the well safety procedures. Then we could go back to the oil market, of which we are a part of, and surmise the need for oil for fuel is also to blame.
The gulf is not actually owned by anyone. It is a free flowing part of nature and belongs to the planet. BP, however, is privately owned and subject to laws and restrictions. They, also, are fallible and in danger of their own mistakes. The disaster in the gulf is a disaster caused by human hands, but it wasn't deliberately improvised. It was a mistake that caused a disaster.
BP did not deliberately cause a leak...they deliberately built a corporate culture of profit over safety, of profit over worker health, of profit over the public interest. Among the travesties here is the fact that so much of this was done on the public dime.
Read a few of the reports coming out of the congressional hearings and in Gulf newspapers and you will learn that they were 43 days behind schedule the day of the explosion (the lease on the rig was 1/2 mil a day) and were taking ridiculous and dangerous shortcuts to hold down costs.
The disaster was caused less by human hands than by human minds, in boardrooms and executive suites, human minds perched on necks wearing silk neckties which I hope are soon replaced with stout manila rope.
BP is, simply put, a major criminal organization. The fact that it is one of many in our corporate culture and that it has managed with the complicity of the idiot right to corrupt government oversight excuses nothing .
Bob Higgins
You seem to see 'corporations' as an institute beyond human participation. I do agree with your last paragraph. The Republican congress has, obviously, sold out to corporate agendas. Money has bought their vote and their loyalty. BUT, that agenda has its own agenda. It is not a one sided situation. There is pressure to perform to a certain time table. Pressure brings mistakes, not disasters. Mistakes bring disasters. There is a lot of mistakes going on in our government. Some of them are going to create a 'criminal organization' paid for by our own money as taxpayers. AND, we're going to see more disasters.
Hanging them all would take a lot of rope and we would soon run out of people to do the hanging. We need to stop blaming and start changing.
There are so many 'social' issues separating our country that it has lost a lot of the cohesiveness that was the purpose of its founding. When that happens we loose tolerance for each other and live in fear. BP has become the 'indians' of our frontier. We consider them infringing on our land and our waters when, in reality, no-one owns or controls either. Fishing and 'vacationing'?????? are important to the coast because it makes money. Oil drilling is important because it makes money. It's all relevant.