This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 January 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 04:33, 23 December 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amypeterson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Chloezampetti,
AlgalBloom34. Peer reviewers:
Shancully,
Madison.platow.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Posted by an IP here
--cut and paste starts--
Much of what has been written above is speculative with phrased like "May" or "may have". The problems is that much of the research so far is unco-ordinated and has not been independently verified. Furthermore contrary research carried out by scientists on behalf of BP is embargoed due to the outcome of legal cases and the NRDA process.
Therefore it is too soon for a seemingly definitive article such as this to be published as it may give a wholly or partially incorrect impression of the situation
--cut and paste ends--
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
A lot of the refs don't appear to be very good going by the three I've examined. One is simply a footnote, one is a claim about a lawsuit that appears to have no further reference on the website of the suing party.
This one is an opinion piece.
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Can we change "largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." to "largest accidental marine oil spill." (I'm presuming the deliberate Kuwait spills are larger.)
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
I looked at both the refs. While there is a list, I see nothing saying what the status of these refuges was. If they were "at risk" is this significant? Should we perhaps say "47 wildlife refuges were listed as 'at risk'" and the following XX were eventually directly affected by the spill?
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Should food safety belong here? Possibly useful ref.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
FDA Allowed Unsafe Seafood Onto Market After BP Oil Spill Disaster
Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279457/
Scientist Questions Safety of Gulf Seafood: "[Subra] is concerned about cancer-causing chemicals called Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAH's. And after the oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised the allowable amounts of those chemicals in the seafood they test. And FDA established these levels specifically for the spill and in some cases they are ten times higher than the levels that were already on the books," said Subra." petrarchan47 t c 08:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Generic FDA media responses
FDA's standards for Gulf seafood may be lower than those in past oil spills petrarchan47 t c 06:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't based on someone's blog. I'm not sure what you're talking about. TIME Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children?
FDA Risk Assessment of Seafood Contamination after the BP Oil Spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Solomon Respond petrarchan47 t c 06:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Here the DOI is, among other things, requesting funds for a survey "Baseline Mortality in Breeding Bird Colonies" which will be completed in summer 2013, on the basis that the colonies will be back to normal by then. This will enable the DOI to calculate the excess mortality in 2010 due to the spill, and hence plan the actual remedial work. I think that qualifies for a Facepalm. (They are asking for $58m for these projects.)
However there is good stuff in here about Kemp's ridley turtles, loggerhead turtles, great egrets and most importantly I think submerged oil mats.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/researchtools/subjectguides/dwh.html
Something for the "mutations" section - genomic expression. http://www.esl.lsu.edu/research/publications/abs/Whitehead_PNAS_2011.abs
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
Why was this change made today?
After this edit (summary: Remaining oil: "Nature is a better RS than CBS for this")
At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as one-third of the oil released during the spill may still be in the gulf. Researchers described a phenomenon called "dirty blizzard": oil caused deep ocean sediments to clumped together, falling to the ocean floor at ten times the normal rate in an "underwater rain of oily particles". The result could have long-term effects on both humans and marine life. Commercially-fished species feed on sediment creatures, meaning oil could remain in the food chain for generations. CBS
Became
At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as 30% of the oil released during the spill may be precipitated into the sediments on the floor of the gulf. Evidence from Rebekka Larson, a sedimentary geologist at Eckerd College showed that the rate of precipitation of plankton and other material at many sites was ten times normal. Uta Passow, biological oceanographer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, has demonstrated in the lab that weathered Deepwater Horizon oil causes clumping unlike fresh oils. Concern was expressed for commercially fished species such as tilefish which burrow in the sediment and feed on sediment dwelling creatures. NATURE
Nature might be "better", but if the effort is to build an encyclopedia, the article would have include both. petrarchan47 t c 02:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason the 1200 sq mile "bathtub ring" "bigger than Rhode Island" mentioned on http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2d91393eee1e497e8ee677ff8b596c58/bp-spill-left-big-oily-bathtub-ring-seafloor is not mentioned in this wikipedia article? I don't find this information widely distributed and wonder if it's been discredited. 99.133.161.229 ( talk) 04:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Arturo and I am an employee of BP. As part of my work for the company I have been involved in talk page discussion on article's related to BP since last year. My aim is to improve the accuracy and quality of BP article's on Wikipedia. Though I have been actively in discussion on the BP talk page, this is my first time posting here.
I was recently reading through this article and noticed something minor I would like to suggest be fixed. The following sentence appears word-for-word in both the Timeline and Dolphins sections. I would suggest that it be removed from the Timeline section.
I appreciate you reviewing this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons already have their own article, with a section on their toxicology. I think that that would be a better place to put the recent Science content on the mechanisms of their toxicity, which is not directly relevant to this subject. The specifics of precisely how PAHs kill fish isn't important. If you're doing an article about somebody that died from poisoning, there's really no need to include the latest breakthroughs in biology on how that particular poison works. Geogene ( talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, I noticed two recent edits by an IP added incorrect information when the editor changed the date at the beginning of Timeline. Per the source used, the correct date should be October 22, 2010, as you can see in this version of the article. Can someone fix this inaccuracy? I am an employee of BP and do not edit articles directly. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2284When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 January 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 04:33, 23 December 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amypeterson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Chloezampetti,
AlgalBloom34. Peer reviewers:
Shancully,
Madison.platow.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Posted by an IP here
--cut and paste starts--
Much of what has been written above is speculative with phrased like "May" or "may have". The problems is that much of the research so far is unco-ordinated and has not been independently verified. Furthermore contrary research carried out by scientists on behalf of BP is embargoed due to the outcome of legal cases and the NRDA process.
Therefore it is too soon for a seemingly definitive article such as this to be published as it may give a wholly or partially incorrect impression of the situation
--cut and paste ends--
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
A lot of the refs don't appear to be very good going by the three I've examined. One is simply a footnote, one is a claim about a lawsuit that appears to have no further reference on the website of the suing party.
This one is an opinion piece.
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Can we change "largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." to "largest accidental marine oil spill." (I'm presuming the deliberate Kuwait spills are larger.)
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
I looked at both the refs. While there is a list, I see nothing saying what the status of these refuges was. If they were "at risk" is this significant? Should we perhaps say "47 wildlife refuges were listed as 'at risk'" and the following XX were eventually directly affected by the spill?
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Should food safety belong here? Possibly useful ref.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
FDA Allowed Unsafe Seafood Onto Market After BP Oil Spill Disaster
Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279457/
Scientist Questions Safety of Gulf Seafood: "[Subra] is concerned about cancer-causing chemicals called Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAH's. And after the oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised the allowable amounts of those chemicals in the seafood they test. And FDA established these levels specifically for the spill and in some cases they are ten times higher than the levels that were already on the books," said Subra." petrarchan47 t c 08:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Generic FDA media responses
FDA's standards for Gulf seafood may be lower than those in past oil spills petrarchan47 t c 06:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't based on someone's blog. I'm not sure what you're talking about. TIME Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children?
FDA Risk Assessment of Seafood Contamination after the BP Oil Spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Solomon Respond petrarchan47 t c 06:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Here the DOI is, among other things, requesting funds for a survey "Baseline Mortality in Breeding Bird Colonies" which will be completed in summer 2013, on the basis that the colonies will be back to normal by then. This will enable the DOI to calculate the excess mortality in 2010 due to the spill, and hence plan the actual remedial work. I think that qualifies for a Facepalm. (They are asking for $58m for these projects.)
However there is good stuff in here about Kemp's ridley turtles, loggerhead turtles, great egrets and most importantly I think submerged oil mats.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/researchtools/subjectguides/dwh.html
Something for the "mutations" section - genomic expression. http://www.esl.lsu.edu/research/publications/abs/Whitehead_PNAS_2011.abs
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
Why was this change made today?
After this edit (summary: Remaining oil: "Nature is a better RS than CBS for this")
At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as one-third of the oil released during the spill may still be in the gulf. Researchers described a phenomenon called "dirty blizzard": oil caused deep ocean sediments to clumped together, falling to the ocean floor at ten times the normal rate in an "underwater rain of oily particles". The result could have long-term effects on both humans and marine life. Commercially-fished species feed on sediment creatures, meaning oil could remain in the food chain for generations. CBS
Became
At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as 30% of the oil released during the spill may be precipitated into the sediments on the floor of the gulf. Evidence from Rebekka Larson, a sedimentary geologist at Eckerd College showed that the rate of precipitation of plankton and other material at many sites was ten times normal. Uta Passow, biological oceanographer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, has demonstrated in the lab that weathered Deepwater Horizon oil causes clumping unlike fresh oils. Concern was expressed for commercially fished species such as tilefish which burrow in the sediment and feed on sediment dwelling creatures. NATURE
Nature might be "better", but if the effort is to build an encyclopedia, the article would have include both. petrarchan47 t c 02:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason the 1200 sq mile "bathtub ring" "bigger than Rhode Island" mentioned on http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2d91393eee1e497e8ee677ff8b596c58/bp-spill-left-big-oily-bathtub-ring-seafloor is not mentioned in this wikipedia article? I don't find this information widely distributed and wonder if it's been discredited. 99.133.161.229 ( talk) 04:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Arturo and I am an employee of BP. As part of my work for the company I have been involved in talk page discussion on article's related to BP since last year. My aim is to improve the accuracy and quality of BP article's on Wikipedia. Though I have been actively in discussion on the BP talk page, this is my first time posting here.
I was recently reading through this article and noticed something minor I would like to suggest be fixed. The following sentence appears word-for-word in both the Timeline and Dolphins sections. I would suggest that it be removed from the Timeline section.
I appreciate you reviewing this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons already have their own article, with a section on their toxicology. I think that that would be a better place to put the recent Science content on the mechanisms of their toxicity, which is not directly relevant to this subject. The specifics of precisely how PAHs kill fish isn't important. If you're doing an article about somebody that died from poisoning, there's really no need to include the latest breakthroughs in biology on how that particular poison works. Geogene ( talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, I noticed two recent edits by an IP added incorrect information when the editor changed the date at the beginning of Timeline. Per the source used, the correct date should be October 22, 2010, as you can see in this version of the article. Can someone fix this inaccuracy? I am an employee of BP and do not edit articles directly. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2284When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)