Really BP....again??

[Mer_Adella]

Another oil spill has happened from BP. And unless you read the news...it wasn't in the ocean this time. This time it was in Lake Michigan one of the Great Lakes that touches at least 4 states (Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin)

The Michigan Coast Guard estimates that about 755 gallons of Crude oil was spilt into the lake. Now I understand that this isn't as bad as some other oil spills, or accidents that have happened in the last Century. But still....AGAIN? AND BY BP OIL??? Plus there are the animals, fish, and humans that use that water that you have to think about. For the story here is the link to read up on it. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/03/up_to_755_gallons_of_crude_oil.html

[Marlin]

If you count the one caused by a marlin in the Atlantic just a little while ago- this is the second one this year.

[Echidna]

It's high time to stop with the oil nonsense.
Sooner or later, it will all be gone anyway.

There are other ways. And no, I don't mean frakking that poisons the water supplies, or oilsand exploitation that leaves a toxic wasteland.

These corporate guys need to stop thinking in "me and my money today, damn tomorrow"-fashion :mad:

[teeth4u]

This is ridiculous! Indiana and Illinois already struggle with dirty beaches on their side of Lake Michigan.

[Mer_Adella]

I like how they say "well at least the fish are still in deeper water and aren't exactly going to be harmed by it" dumb**s

[Marlin]

Well... to be fair, that same principle works with Red Tide down here. Fast moving fish typically aren't affected by it. It's still cold up there. What I'm saying is: the principle is sound, but it does not detract from their mistake, nor does it make what they did ok.

[Alcyone]

that's such a shame!! are there any regulations in case of damages like this to the underwater life?

[Aziara]

:gah:Really, BP?! Must you cover the WHOLE WORLD in oil?!

[Starfrit]

Good job, BP. Good job. :rolleyes:

I'm side-eyeing the hell out of their "The fish aren't going to be harmed by it because they're in deeper water!" thing-- During the Gulf of Mexico spill they tried to prevent the toxic spill from reaching the bays and beaches on the coast by using a "dispersant" called Corexit, which actually emulsifies oil into beads that sink to the bottom of the water, ignoring the fact that Corexit on its own is highly toxic to marine life, but also that that toxicity in creases sevenfold when combined with oil-- Research found toxins at three THOUSAND times the acceptable level in seafood harvested from the gulf.

Even years after the fact researchers and fishermen are still pulling up sick, deformed and dying creatures of all kinds, and since 2012 researchers have found dead dolphins in record numbers, 60% of coral on platforms have been killed, entire populations of blue craps wiped out completely, all of which is attributed to this Corexit+oil combination. Divers who took water and marine samples after the Corexit was sprayed into the spill are now suffering horrific illnesses as a result of having been exposed to it.

All the while, BP's Chief Executive Bob Dudley defended the use of Corexit, saying it's harmless to marine life and about as toxic as dish soap.

(Sources: TakePart.com (http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/24/corexit-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-effects-marine-life) and The Cultureist (http://www.thecultureist.com/2013/04/26/three-years-after-the-bp-oil-spill-takepart-study/).)

So basically, even if the fish aren't going to be harmed right away, which is what I feel like they're implying? There are definitely going to be serious long-term effects of this spill that they're going to try and avoid taking accountability for, and that's what infuriates me. Yes, this is a significantly smaller spill than the Deepwater Horizon incident, but it's still going to do a lot of damage.

I am so freakin' done with BP.

[Mer_Adella]

Ok so now they are saying that it's not 755 gallons as they first thought but at least DOUBLE that!!! 1600 gallons!!!!! Here's the latest http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/03/estimate_of_lake_michigan_oil.html

[Starfrit]

Oh gods. :/ Is that because they underestimated the amount of oil spilled before, or is it because it's still leaking out? I couldn't see anything about why the number change is so drastic.


"Philip Willink, senior biologist with Chicago's Shedd Aquarium, earlier said based on information released, Lake Michigan wildlife should not suffer any long-term effects."

I'll be honest, I'm really wary of this statement in the newest article; while I do feel somewhat relieved at the possibility that there won't be any long-term effects to the wildlife, at this point I feel more nervous and skeptical than anything. After all, biologists really vastly underestimated the damage BP did in the Gulf of Mexico, too. I know the two spills are vastly different from each other in a lot of different ways, but... I don't know. :/ I'll be keeping a really close eye on this.

[AptaMer]

I'm side-eyeing the hell out of their "The fish aren't going to be harmed by it because they're in deeper water!" thing-- During the Gulf of Mexico spill they tried to prevent the toxic spill from reaching the bays and beaches on the coast by using a "dispersant" called Corexit, which actually emulsifies oil into beads that sink to the bottom of the water, ignoring the fact that Corexit on its own is highly toxic to marine life, but also that that toxicity in creases sevenfold when combined with oil-- Research found toxins at three THOUSAND times the acceptable level in seafood harvested from the gulf.


Hi Tieri,

I'm afraid I'm going with the more cynical interpretation of why Corexit was used by BP.

Corexit didn't really prevent the oil from reaching shores, as attested by the beach cleanups that were necessary all over the Gulf of Mexico.

What BP really objected to was people reporting on the extent of the disaster. They actually hired security companies to kick people off beaches where they were cleaning up oil and threatened reporters who tried to go into oil slick areas with boats to report on the oil slick.

The one thing they couldn't do, though, was stop reporters and environmental monitors from flying out over the spill to photograph and report on it. It became a high priority for them to get the oil slick below the surface so pictures of it would stop appearing on the nightly news, and they could start their cycle of trying to get the whole affair out of the public eye.

Also, they were hoping to spend less money doing this, because spraying on a chemical so that it "disappears", at least from the public's eye, is much cheaper than using boats to skim the oil and separate it, actually removing it from the water.

[Starfrit]

Y'know, AptaMer, you're probably more on the right track than I am with that speculation. With how straight-up seedy BP is, I really wouldn't be surprised if that were the real reason they'd been using it. They've always been more focused on minimizing any damage to their company's reputation than worrying about how harmful their product really is to the environment. :/

I'm surprised I didn't think of that possibility sooner, you brought up a really great (albeit depressing) point!

[Echidna]

always the same story.
"out of sight, out of mind- let's dump it in the ocean"

garbage, sewage, atomic leftovers, warfare stuff.

too bad they don't realize even if you dump it in the deepest abyss, eventually it's going to come back and bite humanity in the ass.

(about half of the world's oxygen is produced by ocean plankton)

[Mermaid Galene]

Recent research has revealed that there is still a thick layer of oil on the sea floor from the last spill. And tar balls still wash up on beaches. Make no mistake, marine life continues to be seriously impacted by BP's disasters and will be for generations.

[MerEmma]

Ugh, BP. We never, ever, ever support their business in any way. They are true rubbish. The last oil spill was SO bad, for everyone. Why can't they just go out of business already? How can anyone support them after that massive mistake, and now this one? It's like they're not even trying.

[AptaMer]

How can anyone support them after that massive mistake, and now this one? It's like they're not even trying.

It's worse than them not trying, MerEmma. They're actually trying to target people spreading information with nasty attacks, and using Public Relations (PR) firms to convince people nothing is wrong anymore, so that they can spend as little as possible and do as little as possible, no matter how much destruction the oil and chemicals they left behind are doing.

This video describes what they've been doing


http://youtu.be/1JMRqygyCMs http://youtu.be/1JMRqygyCMs