LAT: Gulf Oil Spill: Bacteria mainly ate the gas, not the oil

[Generic Other]

Bacteria that attacked the plumes of oil and gas from the Deepwater Horizon gusher in the Gulf of Mexico mainly digested natural gas spewing from the wellhead — propane, ethane and butane — rather than oil, according to a study published in the journal Science.

<snip>

The team observed other chemical changes that suggested the bacteria were at work digesting gas. They saw that types of propane and ethane that bacteria prefer to digest — ones containing carbon-12, a lighter isotope of carbon — were depleted in samples.

And they found that the levels of oxygen (which bacterial populations consume as they grow) in the water fell in step with the falling levels of propane and ethane. They concluded that 70% of oxygen depletion was the result of microbial digestion of these natural gas chemicals, suggesting that most of the bacterial action was against gas, not oil.

<snip>

"This paper is opening the door to other questions," said Camilli, who was not involved with this research but published a paper in an August edition of Science on the size of the gulf spill's oil plume. "If it's disproportionately natural gas that's being degraded, what's going on with the crude oil components?"

MORE
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/gulf-oil-spill-bacteria-mainly-ate-the-gas-not-the-oil.html

[Vincardog]

1. what's going on with the crude oil components?" They seem to be forming into tar balls and covering

the bottom of the ocean. Killing what little survived at the bottom of the food chain.

But any qualified people looking for it are actively resisted by the Oil er I mean Obama administration.

[Generic Other]

2. While the scientists have to study what is covering the Gulf seabed

we are left studying who is covering up the story!! I suspect BP has a handpicked commission in place doing most of the investigating. Letting the wolves guard the henhouse is not the best strategy. But this seems to be the modus operendi.

[jobycom]

3. I hadn't heard that. Obama is forbidding scientists to investigate the oil spill?

[Vincardog]

4. Check this thread

< ://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x505615 >

[jobycom]

12. That's pretty interpretive, but worth a look.

You've got the interpretation of two men on what they say the intent of a call was about. I've seen some ludicrous fear-mongering BS in the area (who was the peak oil guy who was claiming the whole Gulf was already dead? he died recently), and some gullible people lapping it up. I've seen a lot of ignorant nonsense in the region--like people claiming the Mississippi beaches were under a foot of oil (there was no oil on the Mississippi beaches--I was there), or the peak oil guy with his idiotic claims. I saw a lot of nonsense from CT types. But I also have long felt like BP was jerking the Obama people around and getting their way too often.

Then there are the local politicians and business people, who want everything declared clear and clean so people will start buying seafood again. It's always a shame when someone begins shouting "Shark!" when there is no shark. Of course, the problem is that people try to shut them up even when there is a shark.

I guess it's worth an investigation, but I don't see it as proof. I googled the two researchers. Both seem pretty credible but also prone to exaggerated interpretations. Both work for watchdog groups or testify against the government in court cases, so they are both likely to see government interference in everything. Doesn't mean there isn't.

I don't know. I'll watch for more info, since you've mentioned it. Hopefully others are testing everything, too, so we can get more than just a couple of bits of data--both from groups with agendas--to rely on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. No.

More Bill Sawyer tinfoil.

Black helicopter shit.

[Generic Other]

6. The only tinfoil I see is the stuff you are trying to get the rest of us to chew

Sawyer's vitae vs. your unsubstantiated claim:

Dr. William R. Sawyer, Ph.D. D-ABFM, Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Medicine

Education

Indiana University School of Medicine
Indianapolis, Indiana
Robert B. Forney, Ph.D. Committee Chairman
Ph.D. Toxicology, 1988

1983 - 1988
State University of New York at Geneseo
Edward Ritter, Ph.D. Committee Chairman
M.A. Cellular & Molecular Biology 1982

1979 - 1982
State University of New York at Geneseo
B.S. Biology 1978

1976 - 1978
State University of New York Agricultural and
Technical College at Morrisville
A.S. 1976

1974 - 1976
Professional Experience

Chief Toxicologist
Toxicology Consultants & Assessment
Specialists, LLC., Sanibel, FL
(Registered d/b/a 1990, Incorporated January, 1994)


http://www.toxicexpert.com/cv.htm
************************************************

Oh what? Loyola University finds him credible enough to be part of a panel discussion today? Wow. Tinfoil University?

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law presents “The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill—A Billion Pound Dossier,” a legal and environmental examination of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The symposium will be held on Friday, Sept. 17, from 1:15 – 5:30 p.m., in Loyola’s College of Law, 526 Pine Street, Room 405. It is free and open to the public. A reception will follow.

Panelists include Stuart H. Smith, J.D. ’86, a longtime Loyola supporter and environmental advocate (Smith Stag, L.L.C.), Joel Waltzer (Waltzer & Wiygul) and Mitch Crusto, an expert on disaster and environmental management (College of Law, Loyola University New Orleans).

Public health, as well as coastal ecosystems, marine life, plant and wildlife will be the focus of the second panel (approximately 3 pm). Particular emphasis will be placed on documenting environmental contamination and natural resources damages. Panelists include William R. Sawyer, Ph.D. (Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, L.L.C.), Marco Kaltofen (Boston Chemical Data Corp.), Anthony Ladd, Ph.D. (Department of Sociology, Loyola University New Orleans), LuAnn E. White, Ph.D. (Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health) and Paul Barnes, Ph.D. (Department of Biological Sciences, Loyola University New Orleans).

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/LOCAL_TV_STATION_FINDS_OIL_SPILL_COVERUP_CONGRESSMAN_CALLS_FOR_INVESTIGATION/33602

***************************************************
Scientists allege oil commission attempted to stifle research

Two scientists, hired by a New Orleans law firm to conduct independent research in the Gulf, say they recently received some intimidating phone calls from attorneys representing the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. WWL-TV in New Orleans reports that Dr. William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist, and Marco Kaltofen, a scientist and head of Boston Chemical Data in Massachusetts, began receiving calls from the commission after posting data online that showed alarming levels of toxic hydrocarbons in water column. The researchers were both hired to conduct their studies by the New Orleans-based Smith Stag law firm, which specializes in environmental and personal injury law and has been assisting landowners and commercial fishermen in filing claims against BP. Sawyer and Kaltofen claim the commission attorneys asked if there research was meant to disprove findings by the federal government or impugn the commission and then began questioning whether the scientists had all the necessary permits to continue their work.

The oil spill commission was established by President Obama in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy to study the cause and impact of the spill, and make policy recommendations based on their findings. In response to the accusations, Commission Press Secretary Dave Cohen released a statement to WWL noting that Sawyer was "...One of many experts with whom we were having discussions to gain insights and possibly serve as expert panelists before the commission.... We deeply regret if any question we may have asked created a misunderstanding."

The incident has already prompted Congressman Joseph Cao of New Orleans to call for a Congressional investigation into the matter. Cao released the following statement in a press release last night:

Today, I was informed that attorneys from the President's oil spill commission were contacting independent researchers who are studying the Gulf's toxicity and possibly attempting to suppress their findings by questioning the researchers' permit status. I also found out WWL-TV has uncovered information which appears to contradict statements made just yesterday by federal representatives that there is no contamination in Gulf seafood. The public has a right to know whether or not the water and our seafood are safe based on the best data available. I’m concerned the Administration is not taking this issue as seriously as it should be. So I have decided to call for an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I sit.

http://www.theind.com/news/6946-scientists-allege-oil-commission-trying-to-stifle-research

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. You wouldn't know tinfoil if you saw it.

Also, "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy.

[Generic Other]

9. Peer reviewed science vs. ad hominem attacks

You called the man's credentials into question, not me. You attacked his credibility, not me. You are the one making the unsupported claims. Pull the illogical boogers out of your own nose before you pick on mine.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. What peer reviewed science?

Bill Sawyer's a liar and a fraud. DU's been over this several times already.

You want to hitch your wagon to this joker, fine. But don't get mad at me.

[jobycom]

14. To be fair, you haven't mentioned any peer reviewed science.

You give some credentials that prove he learned the basics. That gets my attention, but I've seen a lot of paranoid delusional idiots with impressive degrees. I couldn't find enough on Sawyer to decide much. The other guy had some good credibility, i thought, but it was as much as an activist as a field researcher, or rather, his success rate as an activist seemed so impressive that his field research was not often questioned. From the stories I read, most of the people who review his work are government agencies or trial lawyers. In other words, his research usually seems to about proving a case for someone, not objectively analyzing a situation to find the truth.

Scientists can be wrong, and often are. Science is a lot more political than people want to accept. Sure, some scientists do obscure research in laboratories on meaningless subjects just to find the Truth. Bless them, they are the true artists of the world. But most funded science sets out to prove a point, and that point is based on political or financial goals, and the most you can hope for is that they will be honest if they accidentally stumble across evidence that contradicts their goals. For years I had a newspaper article pinned over my desk. It was about a cell phone study linking phones to brain tumors. The last paragraph was someone from the cell phone industry saying "Their findings are wrong, and are going to commission a study to prove it." THAT's how way too much science is done. The conclusion is dictated, and the research is made to fit it. Both Sawyer and Kaltofan have long worked in areas where they already know the conclusions they are trying to prove. That makes me not accept their findings without seeing their methods and listening to other commentary on them.

So I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies of which you speak. I grew up down there. I've been on shrimp boats--two of my best friends owned them. I've fished and crabbed and floundered and even swam (rarely) in the Gulf off Mississippi, and taken boats out to the island. The damn thing has always been polluted (which is why we rarely swam in it). But I love the place, and hope to retire back there. I'd move now if I could. I want truth. I don't give a rat's pahookie about political goals or personal paranoias here, and there are way too many of both.

[Generic Other]

16. Doesn't his vitae state that his work has been peer reviewed?

"Final work products including scientific methods and validation, forensic documentation and written reports are used in both forensic and routine (non-judicial) assessments to multiple nationwide clients."

He seems to have included quite a long list of peer reviewed publications in his vitae. He has worked at some major research institutions. His credentials looked fairly impressive to me, and I have been on numerous academic hiring committees.

I take exception to simply dismissing him as a conspiracy theorist or tinfoil hatter as some have tried to do.

[Generic Other]

8. NEW ORLEANS TV STATION FINDS OIL SPILL COVERUP; CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

The Oil Spill Commission seems to be changing their tone a bit as this news report suggests.

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/LOCAL_TV_STATION_FINDS_OIL_SPILL_COVERUP_CONGRESSMAN_CALLS_FOR_INVESTIGATION/33602

[jobycom]

13. The caps really don't help. And that headline is pretty blatantly false

I listened to the WWL report. It did not "FIND OIL SPILL COVERUP." You can't listen to that story and think they claimed they found a coverup, which means the whole article is suspect from the headline down.

What the station says is that two scientists think they were being pressured by a government panel after posting results that contradict the government. WWL did not claim they found evidence to prove anything either way.

Listening to their explanations of the threats, I don't know. They sounded paranoid and manipulative, like they were trying to twist normal questions into threats. But maybe they are just not used to explaining themselves, i don't know. They found evidence that others haven't, so it would be natural for a government panel to want to learn about their methods and qualification. I'd like to learn about them, myself, and I'm not threatening them.

There was an Alabama TV station who did their own "scientific" tests and published a story about a water sample exploding, and them finding high levels of petroleum in their samples. The story was so ridiculous a high school chemistry major could have debunked it, but I saw some people here take it seriously. At one point they took a sample from a hole a kid was playing in, and were surprised to find slightly elevated petroleum levels in the water. Never once did they mention that sunscreen would register as elevated petroleum levels. Then they took a sample from a marina, where boats cough exhaust and fuel and lubricants into the water all day, and were again shocked, shocked, to find petroleum in the water? Really? Anyone who grew up near the water knows that you don't swim or fish in marinas or harbors because the water is contaminated.

So I'd like to see more of how these guys did their research, and see it compared to other research and research methods. They could be right, or they could be paranoid and manipulative, especially since both have made a lot of money by being professional witnesses in lawsuits. That doesn't disqualify their evidence by any standard, but it does mean they aren't exactly neutral investigators in most cases.

Worst, though, was that headline from your Cypress Times. I can rule them out as a source from now on, if that's what they consider reporting. Maybe FOX can hire them.

[Generic Other]

15. Sorry the caps were in the original headline -- I should have re-typed

Still, if the scientists felt as if they were being pressured, one would have to ask why. They seemed to have concluded they were being leaned on to keep their findings to themselves. On the other hand, the Commission said they were merely interested in what the scientists had to say, that they simply wanted some evidence to support their findings. That's certainly reasonable. Somewhere in between lies the truth, I guess. I linked to this site because they had a full clip of the news report, the first I had seen today. I normally try and link back to the original Youtube posting minus any secondary commentary. In this case, I didn't. I was more interested in hearing the full news report. I hope as you say, the news reporters and the scientists give us more information. More information is what a lot of people are looking for.

When it's not forthcoming, people are left with anecdotal evidence. And paranoia or whatever.

I think some of your questions about the validity of oil samples seem totally reasonable. Of course, at this point any sheen is going to make folks panic. At the same time, there's enough of the real stuff floating around that it doesn't really matter whether it's being tested or not. It just needs to be cleaned up. That much we should all be able to agree on.

Your comment about people being "neutral" witnesses/observers is interesting. Seems we all clearly have motives for the positions we take. Good reminder that one should be honest about their own motives in posting stories. I can categorically state that I support environmental causes, am anti-big oil and have loved ones in the Gulf area that I am worried about. These things fuel my fears and reflect my biases. I don't always have enough science knowledge to sort through the biases/hidden motives of others although I think I can detect BP apologists, and overly defensive government officials whose motives are suspect. I appreciate your posting your thoughts Joby. You always seem a very astute DUer with a keen analytical mind, and I always appreciate your posts. I tend to be more of an emotional chicken little. Glad there's room on DU for both of us!

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Generic Other.