The New Orleans port was closed down last week when a tanker collided with a barge, sinking the barge and spilling 419,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River. On the scale of oil spills it was relatively small and contained, but it still had effects. Right now ecologists are most worried about the wetlands in the area.
So far few animals have been affected by the spill, but there are still some birds and other wildlife that required rehabilitation. Obviously, aquatic life is going to be the most affected. Who breathes oil? Oiled birds' feathers lose their ability to waterproof and some of their buoyancy, as well as their thermal capacity. Land animals are going to try to clean the oil off themselves, which will wreak havoc with their digestive systems.
I can't help but remember the Exxon Valdez spill and the fact that things aren't really back to normal, even 20 years on. Officials expect this to be cleaned up by July 30. Only time will tell what the long-term ramifications are likely to be.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Is this a science organization or what?
*Coming to you from Washington, DC, where the author has taken yet another temporary biology job*
I usually read the Friday edition of the Washington Times. The headline on July 11 stated that the EPA would not do anything about global warming this year because it needed more time to gather evidence of the effect of warming on human health. A week later (July 18), the EPA announced that global warming did significantly impact human health, but it still wasn't planning to do anything about it. Someone told me recently that an organization is only as good as its leader, and given that this administration is adept at micromanaging I shouldn't be surprised. Bush thumbed his nose at the rest of the world at the G8 Summit, saying, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!" Goodbye? What's that supposed to mean? Sounds like our dear old lame-duck president is withdrawing us from G8 and just about any responsibility from anything. But as this has been his MO from the start, I really shouldn't be surprised. Yet even Bush has acknowledged that global warming is occurring, but of course it isn't his fault, so he shouldn't have to do anything about it.
There are plenty of scientists hammering away at their jobs, trying to get the administration to listen, but either failing completely or getting fired for their pains. With families to feed, it is difficult for many scientists to risk job loss. People like me, on the other hand, who are single and cannot get a full-time job to save their lives, worry a little less about telling the government exactly what we think (as evidenced by a few letters I have sent to my Congressional officials that do not mince words). Why should we give respect if we don't get it? Congress seems to operate with insults these days, so I figure I'm just playing the game. I understand why other scientists don't--after all, you do catch more flies with honey than vinegar--but we're not getting anywhere, anyway.
A prominent scientist once asked me, "Aren't you a little young to be so cynical?" Maybe, but at the same time I can't help thinking, "Haven't you seen enough of the way the U.S. is going to be so hopeful?"
I usually read the Friday edition of the Washington Times. The headline on July 11 stated that the EPA would not do anything about global warming this year because it needed more time to gather evidence of the effect of warming on human health. A week later (July 18), the EPA announced that global warming did significantly impact human health, but it still wasn't planning to do anything about it. Someone told me recently that an organization is only as good as its leader, and given that this administration is adept at micromanaging I shouldn't be surprised. Bush thumbed his nose at the rest of the world at the G8 Summit, saying, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!" Goodbye? What's that supposed to mean? Sounds like our dear old lame-duck president is withdrawing us from G8 and just about any responsibility from anything. But as this has been his MO from the start, I really shouldn't be surprised. Yet even Bush has acknowledged that global warming is occurring, but of course it isn't his fault, so he shouldn't have to do anything about it.
There are plenty of scientists hammering away at their jobs, trying to get the administration to listen, but either failing completely or getting fired for their pains. With families to feed, it is difficult for many scientists to risk job loss. People like me, on the other hand, who are single and cannot get a full-time job to save their lives, worry a little less about telling the government exactly what we think (as evidenced by a few letters I have sent to my Congressional officials that do not mince words). Why should we give respect if we don't get it? Congress seems to operate with insults these days, so I figure I'm just playing the game. I understand why other scientists don't--after all, you do catch more flies with honey than vinegar--but we're not getting anywhere, anyway.
A prominent scientist once asked me, "Aren't you a little young to be so cynical?" Maybe, but at the same time I can't help thinking, "Haven't you seen enough of the way the U.S. is going to be so hopeful?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)