Expert Gulf conservationist admits he and others overreacted to Gulf oil spill..

[DCBob]

from the Chattanoogan..

One Expert Admits Overreaction to Gulf Oil Spill
by David Ranier, Ala. Dept. of Conservation
posted August 13, 2010

For the past 40 years, Dr. George Crozier has been monitoring the amazing ecosystem called the Gulf of Mexico from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab. He's witnessed the peaks and valleys, usually dished out by Mother Nature, but also from human interaction. And, Crozier admits he played a role in what he now believes was an overreaction to impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Gulf of Mexico, Crozier insists, is accustomed to dining on oil tidbits. However, when the well was not capped soon after the disaster, he feared the Gulf's capacity to deal with an influx of oil of this magnitude would overwhelm the ecosystem. Not to minimize the impact of the spill, he realizes now that restraint would have been the better course of response.

"This is not and never was the death of the Gulf of Mexico," Crozier said of the spill, estimated at 4.9 million barrels. "That's a simple fact. And I have to admit that in the initial stages of this I and everybody else contributed to the problem. "We created the disaster beyond the bounds that it should have been articulated. Hindsight is as cheap as dirt."

For the last two months Crozier has been making presentations to groups like Rotary clubs, Kiwanis clubs and other groups and now is fully aware of the impact the media coverage created.

more: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_181886.asp


If some of you doubt this guy's credentials please see below..

George F. Crozier, Ph.D.
Dauphin Island Sea Lab, 101 Bienville Blvd, Dauphin Island,AL. 36528 [e-mail]

Current Positions:
Senior Marine Scientist and Executive Director, Dauphin Island Sea Lab and Director, Coastal PolicyCenter
Associate Professor of Marine Science, Department of Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama
Associate Professor, Adjunct, Department of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Previous Positions:
Assistant Professor, Biology Department, University of Southern Mississippi (1966-68)
Assistant Director, University of Alabama. Marine Science Programs (1968-75)
Director, University of Alabama Marine Science Program (1975-76), and
Associate Director, Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium (1975-1979)

Educational:
Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 1966, Marine Biology.
B.S., Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1963.

Recognition/Honors:
American Men of ScienceLeaders in American EducationFAO Registry of Experts
Alabama Science Teachers Association - 1991 Friend of Science
Alabama Wildlife Federation - 1993 Conservation Educator of the Year
Legacy Award - recognizing BAYWATCH, citizens water quality monitoring program (1994)
NOAA, Walter B. Jones Coastal Steward of the Year Award (1999-2000)
Alabama Academy of Science - Wright A. Gardner Award (2000)
25-year Coastal Stewardship Award – ADCNR and NOAA (2004)
Mobile United “Green” Award – Lifetime Achievement

Professional Positions/Memberships:
Marine Affairs & Policy Association
Associate, Environmental Law InstituteBoard of Directors, Alabama Coastal Foundation
Board of Directors, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant CollegeMember, Forever Wild Board of Trustees

http://www.gulfbase.org/person/view.php?uid=gcrozier
http://cosee-central-gom.org/online_presentations/2007/02/pres02_vita.pdf

[AndyA]

1. Tell that to all the dead fish, gulls, birds, etc.

It was fatal to them.

Tell that to all the families on the Gulf coast who have had their livelihoods devastated by this disaster. Not many in today's economy can go without an income for months at a time.

Perhaps this was a warning to all of us. Next time it could be worse. Next time it could be two or three wells spewing into the ocean. Hopefully, this will result in changes being made to make the operations safer. Hopefully, we won't just keep on like we did after the Exxon Valdez disaster.

[DCBob]

2. I would suggest sending your concerns to Dr Crozier..

Here is his email: [e-mail]

and his phone number: 251-861-7505

He would be better qualified to respond to your comments.

[jobycom]

32. He didn't deny that, he just said the extreme claims were exagerated.

People were claiming the Gulf was dead, that the whole ocean system was in danger, that the fish were poisoned forever. It was a major disaster and the wetlands especially will take years to fully recover, but the Gulf handles that much oil every year (a million barrels a year seep naturally into the Gulf). The gusher was a danger to overwhelm the natural defense systems, so the overreaction wasn't a bad thing, I don't believe. But now the Coast and the families you mention are being harmed more by the overreaction, as people are afraid to visit or buy seafood (two of the biggest sources of income for the region--the other big source is the oil industry itself).

He's not saying it wasn't a major disaster, if you read the article, he's just saying that they greatly underestimated the Gulf's ability to clean itself up once the oil stopped gushing. There's still a lot of cleanup--no one is saying there isn't--but the Gulf isn't dead for a generation, as some were claiming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Read the WHOLE article

try to comprehend what he is saying and WHY, chiefly, he is apologizing.

[Cetacea]

87. And the potentially extinct gulf sperm whales.

We been allowed to learn of one fatality. Just three can put them past the tipping point. It's not difficult to imagine that they lost more than that as their habitat is in the same area as the Horizon. And it's not a good sign that it was a juvenile, as dolphins and whales will mourn and stay with their dead young to the point of starvation. There were no other whales near it. (allegedly)

[stuntcat]

107. a turtle too

I can't remember which species but there was a threatened turtle who could be pretty much wiped out by a few deaths, and during the season they want to lay eggs.

I don't care if this was just a little mishap, one of many booboos that's bound to happen when we've drilled hundreds of wells in the Gulf.. if this ONE things causes us to wipe out whole species forever then who will say that's no big deal?

[G_j]

3. say hello

to the guys at BP for me.
:hi:

[DCBob]

4. dumb.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

16. and to our friends in the White House

[HCE SuiGeneris]

59. What's dumb is asserting that it's not all that bad before the true fallout is ascertained. n/t

[ThomThom]

100. we do not no what the results will be of sinking all that oil to the bottom

of the gulf. Is he on the payroll now or what?

[L0oniX]

5. I welcome you to eat some Gulf of Mexico crab, grouper, red fish, shrimp, etc.

[backwoodsbob]

49. can you send me say...ten pounds of each?

thinking of throwing a shindig sunday

[madrchsod]

6. well i`m happy to know everything will work out fine for....

the people,the critters,and especially BP and the rest of the oil industry.

[BeFree]

7. Heh

He actually claimed this?
"This was the death of the Gulf of Mexico," ??

He sure did go overboard.

The death of the GOM would have meant there was no life left.
So, he was wrong then, and now what is he saying?
Is he saying there is nothing to be concerned about?

Methinks BP greased his skids.

[zipplewrath]

8. Read the whole thing

It starts out with "I over reacted". But by the end the only thing in the over reaction was that we didn't permanently kill the gulf. After that, he talks about alot of long term consequences that are going to have to be dealth with. The dispersant is a big one, but also long term fluxuations in the animal populations as various organisms recover from the effects. He also makes an early reference to the impact on the local economy. No one over reacted to that.

[DCBob]

10. I agree with that.. no doubt there are many unknowns relating to the long term impact..

but the worse case scenarios did not happen and will not happen and that's a good thing.

[zipplewrath]

12. For the gulf

One has to be sensitive to the fact that the "worst case scenario" for alot of individuals did, and is, happening.

[snooper2]

14. Some people can only see things in black and white...

Naunce is not a popular trait these days...

Some people see anyone associated with anything that could be remotely considered "postive" for BP- they are an evil corporate sell-out. Just like teabaggers think that any government program for "assistance" for anyone means Obama is a socialist trying to destroy America.

[Gold Metal Flake]

17. "I over reacted" is the headline. That is all the corporate media needs.

"I over reacted" is all anyone needs to know.

[zipplewrath]

19. To be quite honest

The folks for whom that one headline will suffice are the same people that would have forgotten all about it in about 2 months anyway. As soon as a celebrity wedding, or political sex scandal came along.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

55. It sounds like a corporate media feed

[Yeahyeah]

9. Alabama Dept. of Conservation?Is that an oxymoron?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. great so drill baby drill!

big pile of nothing much, right?

[damntexdem]

13. Overreacted? Or reacted approriately, but it turned out better? Or ...

just wait, it will yet be as bad as they thought.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

15. Well Paid, no doubt

and probably an EINO

(Environmentalist in name only)

[whistler162]

18. Yup a EINO for 40 years!!!

OI!

He no longer is screaming the entire collapse of the Gulf of Mexico so he MUST be in BP's pocket!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

35. maybe not for all 40 years

:smoke:

[Prometheus Bound]

36. Well BP did give him $5 million last week.

Dauphin Island Sea Lab to use $5 million to study oil spill's long-term effects
Published: Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 6:01 AM

With $5 million in hand from BP, the Dauphin Island Sea Lab is mapping out a plan to study the long-term environmental impacts of the oil spill, according to George Crozier, the sea lab's executive director.

The initial grant was part of $500 million BP will distribute over 10 years to different groups for an "open research program studying the impact of the oil spill."
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/dauphin_island_sea_lab_to_use.html

[Forkboy]

46. And there it is.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

61. $$$ DING $$$

We have a winner.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

AHA! I knew I smelled a rat

Great find.

[earth mom]

86. 5 Million out of 500 Million. Betcha the 5 Million is a down payment.

Money is the root of all evil. :grr:

I'm not buying this change of heart. :thumbsdown:

[TheKentuckian]

20. Sounds like a horrible mess to me with a side of but...but the Gulf isn't dead so drill, baby, drill

from the corporate friendly poster at least hinted at.

[SugarShack]

21. They reported today the Gulf Dead Zone has doubled in size, from Agri runoff

This zone has been there off the coast of Lousiana, long before the BP spill. It is from fertilizer runoff into the Mississippi River, and into the Gulf of Mexico. It is now doubled in size, reported today in the ST. Pete Times. The BP disaster will create another dead zone....where nothing swims, lives, there is NO air.

Where is the outrage for the other disaster in the Gulf???? Just because you cannot see it...like the oil.


This is also due to all the corn subsides brought about by Tom Daschle. We no longer need money for these farmers to grow corn. There is too much corn! Because there was no spring this year in the midwest, they went from winter to summer....the corn is ready EARLY. It's ready NOW. But the corn in Florida is ready too...and now we have too much...Florida corn is usually gone, when midwest corn is ready. So....time to end the subsides, and stop all the runoff from growing all of this into the Mississippi!

[asdjrocky]

22. So-

How's the fishing?

[ecstatic]

23. This was unrecc'd... I guess science is only convenient

sometimes? :shrug:

[DCBob]

26. Its a sad testament to many on this site.. they ignore science when it conflicts with their opinion.

reminds me of many rightwingers.

[CreekDog]

30. But cherrypicking it is okay...

:eyes:

[G_j]

52. Bullshit

eom

[eowyn_of_rohan]

73. BP just gave this guy a $5 million grant

And you call this SCIENCE? Hell, it probably conflicts with the "scientist's" true opinion!

[Stuckinthebush]

99. Sadly, I've discovered the same thing over the years

Extreme ideology of any stripe is useful in dealing with cognitive dissonance I guess.

Me? I'll stick with the scientific method. At this point the scientific evidence seems to suggest that the Gulf is repairing itself faster than we imagined possible. That is good news.

BP still sucks. However, I'm very pleased that their colossal mistakes and incompetence are being dealt with more efficiently than thought by mother nature. That doesn't get them off the hook, but it is a good thing for the gulf.

[jobycom]

33. Yeah, we have our own fundamentalist creationists, they just pick other topics to deny science over.

[Prometheus Bound]

41. No, the guy got $5 million from BP last week and he changed his mind this week.

That doesn't look very good and it has nothing to do with rejecting science.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. yeah but its SCIENCE

or somebody's well paid opinion

[eowyn_of_rohan]

71. we don't rec pseudo science

bought and paid for

[golddigger]

24. And when he finish writing this

he ran out the door with his $500,000.00 check from BP to deposit it into the bank.

[MilesColtrane]

25. If he's now aware of how his initial response was played in the media, surely...

he's aware how this statement will be referenced by those who want to continue to "drill, baby, drill".

[LostinVA]

27. And, here we go

:rofl:

[FedUpWithIt All]

28. BP and the government have been gagging and paying off scientists for some time.

The details of BP's oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico have been murky at the best of times, and it appears they will remain this way as BP is trying to control scientific research of the oil leak's ecological impact.

The company has contracted scientists from Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University, and Texas A&M to work on their account through the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process.

According to the Mobile Press-Register, these lucrative contracts, US$250 per hour, prohibit scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with their colleagues, or speaking about the data they collect for the next three years. A lawyer who analyzed the contracts said BP is "buying silence."

Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, refused to sign the contract -- BP wanted to hire the entire marine sciences department. "We told them there was no way we would agree to any kind of restrictions on the data we collect. It was pretty clear we wouldn't be hearing from them again after that."

http://www.energyboom.com/policy/bp-paying-scientists-stay-silent-about-gulf-oil-catastrophe

The Justice Department continues to impose stifling restrictions on independent scientists seeking to study the catastrophic effects of Gulf spill, according to one scientist.

In an opinion piece at The Scientist, ecosystem biologist Linda Hooper-Bui explains her frustration with corporations and government bureaucracies, both of which have been preventing independent scientists like her from accessing the Gulf of Mexico.

"I want to collect data to answer scientific questions absent a corporate or governmental agenda. I won't collect data specifically to support the government's lawsuit against BP nor will I collect data only to be used in BP's defense," says Hooper-Bui.

But doing so has been a difficult task.

In May, a US Fish an Wildlife officer took away ant samples from some of Hooper-Bui's PhD students because their project had not been approved by Incident Command, a joint program of BP and federal agencies.

"Because I choose not to work for BP's consultants or NRDA, my job is difficult and access to study sites is limited."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0811/gulf-scientists-hampered-restrictions-confidentially-agreements/

[Poboy]

37. Paying them off, or threatening funding is how silence or reversal

is achieved. Not saying this guy is either, but hey, the world isn't going to end, so everything is cool.

[CreekDog]

29. What about the people who underreacted?

:o

[jpak]

31. Horseshit - the science community has not assessed the impact to mesopelagic ecosystems

impacted by the spill.

Nor have they fully assesed oxygen depletion in the subsurface methane plumes.

Nor does anyone know the full impact of the spill on blue fin tuna, mahi mahi, whale sharks, bill fish, sperm whales and Kemp's Ridley turtles.

Nor does anyonehave a clue about the long term impact on the health of spill recovery workers or coastal residents exposed to oil/disperssent fumes.

The Sargassum and neuston communities in the central Gulf were heavily impacted by the surface slicks, dispersent and burning - over a large fraction of the Gulf Area.

Anyone predicting the "Death of the Gulf" was wrong.

But those claiming this spill was not an environmental calamity of epic proportion (BP, Limbaugh et al.) are utter fucking fools.

yup

[dipsydoodle]

51. not assessed

because they have yet to have the passage of time to be able to draw valid conclusions as opposed to theoretical ones made by some with about as much knowledge of the subject as a school kid working on a Walmart checkout.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

70. + 100000000

Thank you for expressing that so well!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

75. it just may be the death of the Gulf as we have known it, however

at least for the remainder of our lifetimes.

[Prometheus Bound]

34. His Dauphin Island Sea Lab just received a grant of $5 million from BP.

Just sayin.

Dauphin Island Sea Lab to use $5 million to study oil spill's long-term effects
Published: Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 6:01 AM
With $5 million in hand from BP, the Dauphin Island Sea Lab is mapping out a plan to study the long-term environmental impacts of the oil spill, according to George Crozier, the sea lab's executive director.

The initial grant was part of $500 million BP will distribute over 10 years to different groups for an "open research program studying the impact of the oil spill."

Crozier said the sea lab and the 21 universities that are part of Alabama's Marine Environmental Science Consortium have until the end of the year to put together a proposal. He said BP has indicated they want the grant money awarded before the end of the year.

"The intent of this is to increase the capacity of the schools to compete for the $450 million still on the table from BP," Crozier said.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/dauphin_island_sea_lab_to_use.html

[MilesColtrane]

38. I was going to suggest checking his stock portfolio, but this explains it.

[Poboy]

40. VERY interesting. -nt

[DCBob]

42. Thats a severe accusation to make for someone with his background and credibility..

Do you have any evidence he changed his opinion because of this grant?

[Prometheus Bound]

43. I'm not accusing him of receiving the grant. He announced it himself in the article.

[DCBob]

56. Research organizations and universities get grants all the time from corporations..

Without them they would be hard pressed for funding the costly and important research they are doing. If you have evidence of "quid pro quo" then this is a story but if not it means nothing.

[Prometheus Bound]

58. Don't you ever get tired of this shit, Bob?

Don't you just want to say, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

[DCBob]

60. There is so much shit I am tired of I couldnt begin to write it all down.

[Forkboy]

47. If someone hands you 5 million dollars how eager would you be to criticize them, Bob?

[Prometheus Bound]

50. Especially with the enticement of $495 million more up for grabs!

[DCBob]

57. I used to do research at a university and we got money all the time from large corps..

to help fund it. I didnt and I dont think anyone else on our team was affected by the grants. We reported the results bad or good regradless who paid for it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

62. Sounds idyllic.

Not really the norm where corprat funding is concerned, but it sure would be nice if that were the case.

[DCBob]

63. its really not that difficult.. much of work is done by grad students and low-level researchers..

who know little to nothing about the funding.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

65. The corporate funding is there almost exclusively to benefit the donating company

Whether the reward comes as positive publicity, patents, or an ability to leverage decision making at a latter date, it has little to do with the low-level researchers and everything to do with the message.

[DCBob]

67. Companies do it for PR and get their name in the news and to promote their products..

Thats all legal and legit but it does not necessarily mean anything nefarious is going on behind the scenes.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

68. I beg to differ.

Especially in this instance. BP's very deep pockets have a way of influencing policy and opinion.

[DCBob]

69. I am sure they are trying to do that but I dont think this guy is falling for it.

From reading his bio, he sounds like the real deal and I suspect knows how to play the funding game... ie. get the money without the strings.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. And it IS a game

Jeesus age, a lot of folks are quite clueless, aren't they?

[Prometheus Bound]

80. YOU are calling US clueless?

You're naivety is stunning!

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. You are familiar with the racket that is getting funding?

I guess you are not.

And yes, MOST FOLKS outside of that bidnezz are quite clueless and make assumptions that are simply off base.

Most grants do come string free... but I am sure you did not know that.

There is more, many a grant is a combo of money from feds, state and corporate money.

We used to have a heavier emphasis on guv'ment, for medical for example, but YOU AND I through taxes, pay for a LOT of that research.

Yes there is politics... but jeebus... there are days!

And yes, most grunt is done by low level graduate and undergraduate students. It goes into silly shit like, for example, cages for rats and the supplies to wash the damn things. You think the lab department head washes them? I am using that as an example... this goes for most labs.

Now go ahead and call me naive, if you most. I actually have an interest, beyond just passing in public policy and how it is done in the real world.

[Prometheus Bound]

88. You must be working at a very low level to be that naive.

I've worked both sides of the table over the decades.

Almost all of this institute's funding comes from federal grants. Now suddenly it gets a grant from BP more than 50% larger than an entire year's Federal grants and its tone changes from hopeless to hopeful. In a week. And some of what he says doesn't make that much sense.

[DCBob]

92. Do you disagree with what he is saying? Most logical people would agree with it...

All he is basically saying is that the Gulf is not in danger of dying and many overreacted who were claiming that earlier. What's worng with that??

[Prometheus Bound]

93. He says contaminated fish is a long-term problem but not a short-term one.

Does that make any sense? Wouldn't it be the reverse?

[DCBob]

95. I agree with you on that. I would think the contamination problem would diminish over time..

but I guess he is referring to possible bio-accumulation effects. Not sure.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

82. And some folks completely overlook the obvious...

Talk about clueless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Which is... oh yes

they got a grant from a corporation... like that don't happen every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

:sarcasm:

If you have EVIDENCE of scientific misconduct, please bring it forth.

I will wait...

I guess since the gulf is not dead... and the end of the world ain't coming....

And damn it WE WERE NOT RIGHT.

Look there are times that you'd be right... see what I said about misconduct.

[Prometheus Bound]

64. That's you and your colleagues. And I'm sure there are many more like you.

But put yourself in this guy's shoes. You've got a Sea Lab that you think is doing important work. BP is offering half a billion dollars in research grants. Your board would is asking you to be a little more positive in your outlook for the greater long-term good of the institute and the Gulf. It would be pretty easy to convince yourself that changing your focus would be a good thing.

[DCBob]

66. Perhaps.. and I am sure it does happen.. but there is no evidence of it in this case..

This guy sounds like the real deal.. he has dedicated his life to research of the Gulf ecosystem. Also, I doubt he needs to lie or exaggerate to help his career.. he's already at the top.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. do you really think you are convincing anyone here?

The 'scientist' changes his opinion of the scope of the disaster one week after his research institute gets a 5M check from BP and you don't see the problem? Seriously?

The actual science on the scope of this disaster is still being done.

[DCBob]

90. I have no illusions of "convincing" anyone on this site about anything..

Most of you have "locked in" preconceived opinions about nearly every issue. FYI, researchers get money all the time from big corps. BP is now desperately trying to improve its image. They are giving tons of money to universities and research orgs all around the Gulf area... and a smart guy like Crozier knows how to get corp grant money without strings... he's been doing this stuff for decades.

[EstimatedProphet]

94. I used to do research at a university too

As I remember, there was a lab in our department that was funded heavily by pesticide manufacturers. It produced a number of grad students that talked about how safe pesticides are. Funny how that works out.

[DCBob]

97. Actually most pesticides are safe at the tiny levels found in our food.

The bigger problem is accumulation in the soil, ground water, lakes and rivers.

[EstimatedProphet]

102. So oil spills AND pesticides are OK with you, and the damage both do is overblown?

I can't wait to hear your stance on acid rain and global climate change.

[DCBob]

104. Never mind.. not worth the effort.

[EstimatedProphet]

105. You're right, it isn't worth bothering

Because what you described are the biological principles behind what allows biomagnification to occur, and almost cost us the Bald Eagle.

[DCBob]

108. all right, I guess you are worth one post.

You are talking about DDT which has been banned for decades in this country but is widely used in other countries especially in tropical areas since it is so effective against mosquitoes that carry malaria. There are thousands of pesticides in use in this country and the vast majority are safe and do not bio-accumulate. Pesticides are thoroughly tested for years before ever getting to market. Of course they cant test every possible effect, especially long term effects, but a risk/benefit judgment is made by EPA reviewers who approve the chemical for use.

Our food is also routinely spot tested for presence of pesticides and if found to be over a set tolerance the food is removed and the source determined. Most pesticides break down quickly after applied and there is typically little to no residue left on our food. The tiny amounts that are there are normally harmless unless someone has special sensitivities to chemicals.

There are toxins all over in our environment and most have nothing to do with pesticides. There are toxins in the air, in the water, in plastics, paper, metal, clothing, soaps, shampoos, perfumes, in almost everything that we touch, eat and breath. But they are in such low amounts they have little to no effect.

I am not saying there aren't problems but many overreact to the issue of pesticide toxicity. As I said before I think the most serious problem with pesticides is the accumulation in soil, ground water, lakes, rivers and ultimate the oceans. The Gulf is particularly affected by agri-chemical runoff which flows non-stop via the Mississippi river and is slowly killing it. If you want an issue to scream about, that would be one I would recommend.

[LanternWaste]

54. What accusation?

"Thats a severe accusation to make..."
What accusation?

"Do you have any evidence he changed his opinion..."
Who stated he changed his opinion?

Itchy (and defensive) trigger finger there, pardner...

[mike r]

39. Dr. Crozier, Apologize to BP - Now!

:sarcasm:

[bvar22]

44. And choco rations have been INCREASED by 4 grams!

Don't Worry.
Be Happy.
It IS your patriotic duty to !CONSUME!

[PufPuf23]

45. Dr. Crozier is either under a gag order or does not have access

to the data to make bold statements.

The Gulf of Mexico is dead was always hyperbol; that rare species have been harmed and a generational or more damage is pretty much for sure.

One would suspect Dr. Crozier is interested in funding or has been funded.

His resume is of establishment.

[dipsydoodle]

48. K & R

.

[SidDithers]

53. K&R...

Good news.

Sid

[Cetacea]

98. For whom, exactly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Didn't I refer to Ixtoc over and over and over again

There was a reason for that.

Hell the Bay of Campeche, which is a better model than the Texas coast, recovered fully, within ten years.

But I see the usual we don't understand science and of course the guv'ment is lying types are not understanding what they are reading.

By the way, lower catches for three to five years happened in Campeche... and yes they did use Corexit too... lesser amounts. So I hope their heavy use don't mean ten years.

My lord, the world is not coming to an end folks, it just it is not. Now global weather change has the potential to do far more damage long term, but that's another story.

[Poll_Blind]

79. Bought and paid for. n/t

PB

[Safetykitten]

83. So that dispersant stuff. All gone huh? Wow, who woulda thought?

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Try to read the WHOLE article

[Safetykitten]

106. I did, now he is glossing over the dispersant.

[Prometheus Bound]

89. OK, let's take a few lines from Dr Crozier. Does this make any sense to you?

"There have not been issues of fish kills from the oil spill. Fish are not stupid. Because the pressure is off, I expect fishing to be good everywhere. The issue of contaminated or tainted fish is a long-term issue of uncertainty that the scientific community and the government regulatory agencies will be struggling to deal with. Meanwhile, for the immediate future, there is simply no reason to be concerned about the fish."

[DCBob]

91. He does have an odd way with words.. alot good scientists are also very quirky..

My interpretation of that means we shouldnt worry too much about the fish.

[ibegurpard]

96. false alarm folks

everything's fine...go back to your regularly scheduled programming

[NJmaverick]

101. K&R No doubt about that

[northernlights]

103. three things pop into my mind:

One: there was no way to know, based on BP's secrecy, how much oil could potential spew from the oil. Until the well was successfully capped, there was potential for it to continue for more months and even years.

Two: hindsight is 20/20 vision.

Now that the well has been stopped, it is easy to look back and say "We overreacted."

However, there is no way to look back and see what might have happened had BP and the government been put under huge pressure. Certainly they did not give even the appearance of concern in the early days when they lied about it gushing, lied about the amount it was gushing, lied about the destruction.


and Three: tell it to the dead and dying birds, turtles, fish, dolphins, whales, algae, frogs, manatees, and whoever else has died as a result of this.