"Metabolize" is not the same as saying their bodies break down the
chemicals with no negative effects. All is says is their bodies process
the chemicals -- but the act of processing the chemicals or their
breakdown products may very well have harmful effects either right away
or at some point in the future.
I would ask Peterson to explain precisely what he means here.
Dave
On 8/11/2010 1:02 PM, Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
When I went on my Great Gulf Coast Road Trip recently, I visited with several
biologists at the Gulf Coast Research Lab in Ocean Springs MS and one of them, Mark
Peterson, told me that most fish actually metabolize oil (PAH). This abstract says
" These experiments confirm that the use of oil dispersants will increase the
exposure of ovoviviparous fish to hydrocarbons in oil." Now I'm not a
physiologist and so now that I've seen the abstract below, and started to think
about it, I'm not quite sure whether that means that they break it down into less
toxic substances and it does NOT really impact them negatively, or that their gut is
now exposed to this PAH/oil and that could potentially be harmful? Maybe I need to
read the paper...
Does anyone know? I'll be writing about this soon so I'd love to talk to
someone who knows a bit more about it (and yes I can follow up with Mark as
well).
I also met with Harriet Perry the lady who discovered that virtually ALL the
blue crab larvae (zoea) she was collecting daily had a little droplet of oil
under their carapace. They get it in there when they molt. So this raises the
possibility of it getting into the food chain. So that makes me curious - if
fish can metabolize PAH/oil in a way that does not harm them directly (as Mark
suggested to me), what about invertebrates like shrimp, squid, crabs etc? Is
there any evidence that they can metabolize PAH, and/or that there are any
sublethal impacts people should be looking for?
Best
Wendee
Blogs for Nature from the Bering Sea ~ http://tinyurl.com/2ctghbl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone
Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
~~ 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts Sep 4 (signup by Aug 28) ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m Animal Planet’s news blogger - http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:12 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Good news from the Gulf?
In response to Bill's discussion points, I would like to suggest the following
paper:
Jee Hyun Jung, Un Hyuk Yim, Gi Myeong Han, Won Joon Shim
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C 150 (2009) 218–223
Biochemical changes in rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli, exposed to dispersed crude
oil
Abstract:
This paper describes the response of the ovoviviparous rockfish, Sebastes
schlegeli, to hydrocarbons in the water-accommodated fraction (WAF) of crude
oil, in the presence or absence of oil dispersants. Concentrations
of cytochrome P-450 1A (CYP1A) and levels of its catalytic activity
ethoxyresorufin O-de-ethylase (EROD) in rockfish exposed to WAF at
concentrations of 0.1% and 1% were significantly increased by the addition of a
dispersant, Corexit 9500 after 48 h exposure. After 72 h exposure, the levels
of CYP1A and EROD activity were significantly increased in 0.1% and 0.01%
chemically enhanced WAF (CEWAF) (Corexit 9500 and Hiclean II
dispersant). Bile samples from fish exposed toWAF alone had low concentrations
of hydrocarbon metabolites, exemplified by 1-hydroxypyrene. After 72 h
exposure, hydrocarbon metabolites in bile from fish exposed to
WAF in the presence of either Corexit 9500 or Hiclean II were significantly
higher compared with fish exposed to WAF alone or control fish. These
experiments confirm that the use of oil dispersants will increase the
exposure of ovoviviparous fish to hydrocarbons in oil.
Cordially yours,
Geoff Patton, Ph.D.
2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536
--- On Wed, 8/11/10, William Silvert<cien...@silvert.org> wrote:
From: William Silvert<cien...@silvert.org>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Good news from the Gulf?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 4:58 AM
I confess that I posted this in large part because I was curious to see the
reactions. As expected, all replies (on- and off-list) were critical and
skeptical. However, although some responses were based on scientific arguments
about issues like long-term burial in sediments, many seemed to be based on a
deep suspicion of any good news about environmental issues and some relied on
conspiracy theories and guilt by association. Curiously no one mentioned that
although lighter fractions of oil dissipate more rapidly than heavier tars,
they tend to be much more toxic.
While I agree that the article paints an incomplete and misleading picture, I
am concerned about a broader issue, namely the willingness of the scientific
community to investigate the possibility that things may not always be as bad
as they seem. For example, some time ago a team of my colleagues investigated
the benthic impacts of bentonite (drilling mud) around off-shore rigs. To their
great surprise they found that the effects were minor and very localised. I am
sure that if they had found something serious they could have published in
Science mag, perhaps even with a press conference, but as it was I don't even
recall whether the work made it past an internal report.
Work on the benthic impacts of fishing has produced some very surprising and
counter-intuitive results. One colleague in the UK set out to study the impacts
of shellfish dredging, in which massive quantities of sand are sucked up,
pushed through a sieve, and dumped back on the ocean floor. Not only could he
not see anything worth reporting, but after 24 hours he couldn't even see any
evidence of the dredging - the smaller infauna were all present and seemed fine!
On the other hand, marks from the otter board of a trawler on the sediments of
the Bay of Fundy persist for months in this extremely energetic environment. I
was skeptical of this until I participated in some field work in an area where
the tides are fast and the tidal range is up to 16 m and it is impossible to
moor any kind of enclosure. We did monthly sampling, and when we returned to
the site we could see the marks made by our boots the month before. It works
both ways.
So while I agree in scientific terms with all the criticisms of the article I
posted, I am not comfortable with all the attitudes expressed. I think we need
to be more open-minded and not prejudge the impacts of events.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Silvert"<cien...@silvert.org>
To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: sábado, 7 de Agosto de 2010 11:44
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Good news from the Gulf?
The following article from TIME magazine offers an unusually optimistic view of
the BP spill which I suspect many will disagree with, but which is worth
considering. Bill Silvert
Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?
By Michael Grunwald / Port Fourchon, La.
President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," and so has just
about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and
MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after
some early happy talk, admitted that the spill was an "environmental catastrophe." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist
Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill - he calls it "the leak" - is anything less than an
ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype...
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
