Seeking Alpha

Heart defects in Gulf of Mexico tuna seen tied to 2010 BP oil spill

  • Oil spilled during the BP 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster caused severe defects in the developing hearts of tuna, and could have compromised tuna embryos and larvae, killing off some of the fish and shortening the lives of others, according to a new study that hints at long-term damage from the accident.
  • BP questions the methodology of the study, saying oil concentrations used in the lab experiments generally exceeded those in the Gulf of Mexico during the spill.
Comments (24)
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    The damages from these types of disasters always take years to fully comprehend. BP has brought untold devastation to the gulf that will take a generation or more to recuperate. All the more reason to start investing in renewables. Our only other option is to cede the race to sustainability to China.
    25 Mar 2014, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • Gedankonomist
    , contributor
    Comments (803) | Send Message
     
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

     

    http://bit.ly/1fXPfmo
    25 Mar 2014, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Well, given that you are quoting an (ahem) published research finding...

     

    just sayin'
    25 Mar 2014, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    And now for a more serious answer.

     

    I suggest you read the responses to this paper, as they will be more eloquent and experienced-based than I could ever be.

     

    As a general statement, while any system involving humans will never be perfect, I for one am not willing to dismiss "The Scientific Method" on the basis of one paper.

     

    Given that scientists wield such evil power over the world in their master plan to keep those massive grants coming (ever notice a typical scientist's net worth vs. a CEO's?) I suppose it is just safer to go along with whatever the corporation involved says, given how pure THEIR motives are?

     

    Seriously, what is being proposed as the alternative?
    25 Mar 2014, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2801) | Send Message
     
    whos to say its not caused by the chemical agents that were used to clean up the spill?
    25 Mar 2014, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1457) | Send Message
     
    Clayton, if there had been no spill there would have not been chemicals used to clean it up - BP still at fault.
    25 Mar 2014, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (591) | Send Message
     
    If the Mississippi didn't empty into the Gulf, we wouldn't have the area known as "Cancer Alley" or the "Dead Zone".

     

    http://bit.ly/1fY3KGK

     

    http://bit.ly/16XOtTr

     

    Can we blame that on BP also?
    25 Mar 2014, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    We can blame the tons of phosphate dumped into the mighty river from over fertilizing.
    25 Mar 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • UnStopaBull!
    , contributor
    Comments (178) | Send Message
     
    Good news for tuna heart surgeons
    25 Mar 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Same was found (though not in tuna) in the Valdez oil spill, effects are still felt today.
    25 Mar 2014, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • spike77
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    There is never any good news when comes to an oil spill of this size. But consider how individual companies are treated by the US Supreme Court. Exxon Valdez ended up paying the 38,000 litigants US$287 million in compensatory damages and a pathetic 75% of the final reduced punitive damages of US$507.5 million.
    BP. on the other hand have dealt with the Gulf oil spill in an exemplary manner but have been ripped to pieces by the Courts and the numerous litigants many who are still being allowed to make false claims. There is no absolute proof that the Gulf spill has caused this current alleged damage to the tuna stocks, but hell - just stand BP up against the wall for it anyway.
    25 Mar 2014, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • philli66
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Jeez- Well, I sure hope that the tuna fish are covered by Obamacare (aka The "Affordable" Care Act). After all, it may just classify as a pre-existing condition! Sure, probably the tuna are covered, as opposed to the 'regular' citizens of the country, who, after all the deductions etc, have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for ..... nothing! This may sound like a joke. But, then again, so is the "ACA".
    25 Mar 2014, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • LongT
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    The Gulf of Mexico areas that drilling occurs in was disgusting before the spill, IMO. I stopped swimming in the waters on the Texas side years ago; I'd come out too "oily" and that was well before the BP spill. Hate to tell ya, but there was already oil in the water before the BP spill. Do these scientists actually think that oil hasn't been leaking into the gulf for years? Give me a break.

     

    I'd be interested to know how this study narrowed down the cause for the heart defects in tuna to the BP spill (as suggested in this breaking news update). Sounds more like a study performed by a overly biased environmental group eager to heap the blame on big oil.

     

    25 Mar 2014, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • Qual n Quant
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    It is a very devastating thing that happened to the Gulf but BP has gone above and beyond to not only fix it but prevent it from happening in the future. Even sustainable Energy requires combustion to produce, so oil is still needed. "oil effects the Tuna's hearts" give me a break. Im sure the seewage isn't good for them either.

     

    "it's a really big ocean."
    25 Mar 2014, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • BioDoubt
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    "Even sustainable Energy requires combustion to produce, so oil is still needed."
    Apparently you are unfamiliar with solar and wind power?

     

    ""oil effects the Tuna's hearts" give me a break."
    Your understanding of marine biology and ecology is quite astonishing.

     

    "it's a really big ocean."
    Yep, that is some solid logic there...
    25 Mar 2014, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (591) | Send Message
     
    ""Apparently you are unfamiliar with solar and wind power?""

     

    Apparently, you are unfamiliar with manufacturing processes and products that requires the use of petroleum products.

     

    ""Your understanding of marine biology and ecology is quite astonishing.""

     

    Why haven't we seen mutant fish before? Natural oil seepage in the gulf has always been quite significant. Those oil deposits aren't in some sterile, sealed reservoir.
    26 Mar 2014, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (6259) | Send Message
     
    Time to knock (BP) down a few notches following the US government lifting its ban on them...

     

    "The Specialist" will have comment on this, I am sure.

     

    Two anti-BP stories in Breaking News so far today...but who is counting?
    25 Mar 2014, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • watermark302
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    On the brighter side, gulf fishing charters should boom due to slower tuna.
    25 Mar 2014, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • glf4mny
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    Great irony here. As a part of the big settlement, BP paid hundreds of millions of dollars to a litany of governmental agencies to fund various studies to determine the "effects" of the Macondo incident. Never before in the history of mankind has anyone cared whether or not a tuna, of any species, can even develop heart disease, let alone its cause, as if there is one outside of genetics. All previous studies recommend greater human consumption of tuna because of their good oils. The studies have failed to mention the "effects" of the tobacco that was dumped into the waters around the U.S. during the Revolutionary War. So, I say, tuna shouldn't smoke, it causes heart valve disease and don't eat em, their oil may be crude. What a joke of a study.
    25 Mar 2014, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Manitobatex
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Another reason to get into BP's vault.

     

    If BP was a USA co. the court awards would be 1/2 of what they are turning out to be.......very sad situation indeed.
    25 Mar 2014, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Capt.Infinity
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Worried about tuna ? Go after the commercial international long liners ,netters who rape and pillage under ooooooooo supervision! BP stockholder life long tuna sport fisherman. Capt. Infinity . Abaco, Bahamas
    26 Mar 2014, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • wondering while wandering
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    BP is a mega-giant and like every mega-giant corp, they don't pay fraudulant claims, they investigate and prosecute them. So whatever BP pays , they owe.
    Concerning Tuna heart attacks, an Engineer friend & Attorney, ( probably because he couldn't get into med school), stated we haven't seen anything yet.
    Where do YOU think the 200M gallons of chemically treated oil went? Think along these terms, a giant tar ball is slowly moving along the bottom of the gulf floor bottom, creeping ever so closely to the gulf stream. Hopefully, someone will sound the alarm before it heads to the Keys. If not, can you say eco-disaster on steroids?
    26 Mar 2014, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • nap.jerry
    , contributor
    Comments (62) | Send Message
     
    Yep. Oil concentrations in the Gulf is surely the cause. Just like when a 2 pound mouse is injected with 5 pounds of sugar.
    26 Mar 2014, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • r/rights
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Just a question I would like BP/ and the Coast Guard to answer, WHY, Why did they use an oil dispersant that was banned from use in the waters around the U.K. because it had adverse effects on living tissue? Why did they use it in the Gulf Of Mexico, were they new the fishing industry was the life blood for so many people.
    26 Mar 2014, 09:16 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs