Oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Am I the only person who reads/listens to this and is sceptical of the findings? (If you can call these statements "findings")
Many other oil spills have happened in coastal regions, some of which had a far greater volume of liquid hydrocarbons spilled in a much smaller area.. and virtually no reports of animals with deformities being linked to any of the previous spills.
I'm sorry but you have to consider the origins of this report (Al-jazeera = anti-american), and that there really is no scientific evidence being presented... at least not in a way that would be considered accetpable by the scientific community.
Not enough time has passed to conduct the neccesary research to determine the extent of changes in population, affected species, types of defects, number of defects, relation of defects to species, defects to geographic location, etc.. there is a million variables to look at before you can establish that an oil spill is linked to physical (environmental or genetic) defects in aquatic life in the Gulf as a result of the BP spill.
Having said that, BP is the sole party responsible for the spill IMO, the reason for the failure was the use of seawater as drilling mud, the fact that the BOP failed is secondary.. and the use of seawater as drilling mud was a decision made by BP, not RIG.
Anyway, I just encourage people to look a little deeper than the story these people are presenting to you, it's no different than PETA showing cute baby whitecoat Seals and saying they are being slaughtered.. when in reality they are only killing the adult seals who happen to be the cattle of the sea and are devastating to fish populations.
I'm not saying million of barrels of oil could possibly be good for the aquatic life, just saying that there is no possible way that these findings could be considered anything more than preliminary and assumptious.