How's the oil clean-up going?
Well, here we go off topic but since you asked I'll go ahead and say that I keep trying to tell you guys that it's not as bad as depicted by the media (shocker). Like last week I got a report that analysis of oil entering coastal waters is characterized by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels that are "90 percent depleted relative to hopane." The short translation of that is that the oil reaching coastal Louisiana marshes may be ugly but most of the more toxic material is gone. I think it's very unlikely that it's going to "kill" the estuaries, etc. Also I've been out in the marshes, once specifically targeting the most heavily impacted system (Barataria estuary). It's not that bad. I mean, yes, it's bad and it'd be better if it wasn't happening. But it's not the end of the Gulf environment world.
I also think people need to bear the magnitude of the system the oil is going into in mind. Louisiana has about 40% of the estuarine area in the United States. The Gulf has a lot of water in it. It's warm water with lots of biological activity and biodegrading potential. As far as inputs go, consider that the average discharge of the Mississippi River is something on the order of 470,000 cubic feet per second (
http://www.lacoast.gov/landchange/basins/mr/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). That converts to about 3,515,844 gallons per SECOND. I've seen various estimates of the leak discharge rate but I think 1,000,000 gallons per DAY almost certainly overstates it. So let's use that.
If we do that means the input of water from the Mississippi River alone is somewhere in the general order of magnitude of around 300,000 times the discharge rate of the leak. And that's just one input that's not nearly as large as the inputs of ocean currents.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this experience for me is typical. I've been involved in a number of incidents over my lifetime that were covered by the media. And the impression I've developed is that the media almost ALWAYS make things look a lot worse than they actually are. And the only reason I qualified that with "almost" is that Katrina and Rita really WERE pretty bad. But, even then, the media had things going on like the stuff about the "toxic soup" being discharged out of the New Orleans area when in reality all of the data said there wasn't much of a pollution problem, seafood was completely safe to eat, etc. Even EPA water samplling IN the flooded streets of New Orleans didn't produce results indicating heavier than normal contamination. There was never a "toxic soup" but I'd bet to this day there are people who think there was because the media harped on that so much when the people involved had absolutely no idea as to what they were talking about.