Subscription Services: Subscribe | Change | Unsubscribe | RSS
Advertising Media Kit: Introduction | Rates | Testimonial | Contact
Miscellaneous: Reference Desk | Sitemap

NOAA Official Asks News Aggregator To Withdraw Story Questioning Safety Of Gulf Seafood

print this print      Bookmark and Share   RSS 2.0 feed

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A U.S. government spokesperson reacted sharply today to an EIN news story questioning the safety of gulf seafood, saying "the veracity of the federal government seafood safety protocol or results are not in question by any qualified scientist." EINNEWS said it stands by its story.

The official, Christine Patrick, the lead public affairs officer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanded that EINNEWS withdraw its story.

NOAA and the Federal Food and Drug Administration earlier this week issued a joint statement giving the "all clear" to the consumption of Gulf of Mexico seafood.

The agencies based their approval on what they said were tests on 1,735 tissue samples including more than half of those collected to reopen Gulf of Mexico federal waters.

The agencies said only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters. The test detects dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, known as DOSS, a major component of the dispersants used in the Gulf.

But contrary to Ms Patrick's claim that "the results are not in question by any qualified scientist," the scientific community has expressed concerns that the federal government has been too quick to help the Gulf fishery get back on its feet after the massive BP oil spill.

The DOSS safety "threshold" itself is controversial among scientists and represents a compromise with many authorities who believe it should be higher.

The Environmental Protection Agency asked BP to stop using the dispersant Corexit 9527's because of short and long term concerns about its toxicity. Following the Exxon Valdez disaster, Corexit 9527 was associated with severe health problems suffered by thousands of clean up workers.

The dispersants are known to kill incubating sea life.In humans, long-term exposure can cause central nervous system problems or damage blood, kidneys or livers, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Following the Exxon Valdez disaster, Corexit 9527 was associated with severe health problems suffered by thousands of clean up workers.

Despite the EPA's concerns, Corexit 9527 was used until supplies ran out, and then was replaced with Corexit 9500. Both are products of Nalco Energy Services LP, whose board of directors is made up of former and current BP, Exxon, Monsanto and Lockheed executives. Nalco is a corporate affiliate of BP.

The FDA-NOAA statement made no mention of tests for PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). These are cancer-causing chemicals in crude oil and can be taken in through fish and shellfish.

A recent assessment of long term effects of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska's Prince William Sound concluded that that chemically dispersed oil was far more toxic than physically dispersed oil and that PAH in the water column was the primary cause.

The FDA-NOAA statement also failed to discuss the heavy metals found in oil itself. Heavy metals are trace contaminants in the crude oil, but they bioaccumulate up the food chain. Larger, predator fish could potentially pick up a significant amount of heavy metals from the oil contaminants, and mercury and lead are toxic to the brain and nervous system.

Many scientists are concerned that levels of some of these chemicals will increase through the food chain over time, resulting in worse problems with food safety several years from now.

Based on available literature EINNEWS supports its original story, will not withdraw it, and invites members of the scientific community to offer their opinions.

Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of UnderwaterTimes.com, its staff or its advertisers.

Reader Comments

1 person has commented so far. cloud add your comment

So the NOAA coverup saga continues - this is so disheartening. It started with their collusion with BP at the beginning of the Gulf oil spill, issuing volumes of statements that everything was all right and under control; denying there was an underwater plume despite hard evidence from several university research teams; seizing and never returning samples taken by some of the researchers - and now this. Who are they covering up for, and why? What's next - denials that any global warming is occurring?
   comment# 1   - Karen Hanegan · Olympia, WA, USA · Nov 8, 2010 @ 6:42am
Add your comment


characters left

*required field.
Note: Comments are posted if they are not abusive and are compliant with our Terms and Conditions. Comments with foul language will be deleted without exception.

   


bottom_left
bottom_right
Privacy Policy     © Copyright 2019 UnderwaterTimes.com. All rights reserved