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...
