Misconceptions in the Wake of BP's Spill

Back in March, we spent some time on this blog discussing a few of the misconceptions students (and the general public) often hold about science and its process. We talked about the importance of understanding that scientists do not work in a vacuum, that disagreement is common -- our answers aren't always right, but it's not always because we're wrong -- and that scientific problems are not something you "solve." Today, we'd like to offer a gentle reminder of another misconception: what we hear in the media is not always true.

Yesterday, President Obama told students at Hampton University: "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter." Nothing could be more true in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill. It's easy to forget that the spokespeople we rely on each day for our national and international news have ideological biases. There is a stark difference, let's say, between the day's news reported by John Stewart and the same news reported by Bill O'Reilly. Regardless of political affiliations, we need to remember that each has a slant, a perspective they want to get across. (There is a reason journalists study persuasive writing.)

So as we watch the oil spill in the Gulf grow into the worst spill in US history and hear the latest reports on the efforts to clean it up, let's take a few moments to think objectively and use the science to questions some of the statements being bantered around in the media.

1: "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there... It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." [Rush Limbaugh] While Limbaugh's optimism is noteworthy, let us not forget that the natural earth cycles, like the carbon cycle, have a process that often takes millions of years. So, yes, while biological systems can accommodate for some degree of 'spillage', it's not quite the same as a man-made drill poking a hole in the earth's crust and releasing millions of gallons of crude oil in a heavy stream. Our ecosystems (aquatic or not) are not equipped to respond to such abrupt and significant changes. Also,  the term "natural" does not always mean healthy or good. Would he say the same if it were a sudden release of mercury into the environment?

2: "Way too much is being made of the oil that is coming out there in the Gulf. All of that will get cleaned up." [T. Boone Pickens] Again, noteworthy for the optimism, but a bit dismissive of the significance of the effect it has, and will continue to have, on the delicate ecosystems along the coast. Plankton, the tiny microbial organisms (plant and animal) living in water, are the basis for the wetland and oceanic food chain. Their die-off effects the long-term productivity of the ecosystem, throwing a big chink into the food chain. In the short term, larger creatures such as fish, turtles and birds are suffocating and dying from exposure as a result of coming in contact with the oil. The death toll from the Exxon Valdez was significant, in part, because of the slow response to clean up.

3. All fishing in the Gulf has been halted because the sea food is contaminated. [Reported by various national news agencies.] While a specific area of the Gulf has been closed off to fishing -- the area near the spill -- there is plenty of fishing going on in other areas. Obviously, with the effect on wildlife already starting to show, everyone is concerned about the quality of seafood coming from the region. But it is important to remember that fishing has only been closed off in areas where there is possible contamination. There is a significant area of the Gulf that has not seen oil contamination yet, and so the fishery stocks are untouched.

There are many statements being thrown around in the media, including this being an act of eco-terrorism from 'tree-huggers'. As we navigate the maze of opinion, let's remember to take each with a bit of skepticism and look for the elements of truth that can be supported by evidence. Rather than take a spokesperson's opinion as fact, do the research and figure out what really makes sense. Learn more about different biological processes and environmental cycles at Visionlearning.

Have a misconception that is bothering you? Share it with us here, or on our Facebook page.

When the Valve Doesn't Work and the Boom's Not Enough

"Oil spill" -- it's a dirty noun, and with good reason. For many of us who have been around for more than a few decades, it even triggers some residual trauma. Who can forget the images of dying fish and seabirds washing up on the shores of Prince William Sound, Alaska, courtesy of the Exxon Valdez? Or the ban on fishing that lasted for over 5 months in the fertile Narraganset Bay off of Rhode Island because of a tanker-tug boat collision? Yes, there are many serious consequences to oil contamination in our oceans, and this latest event in the Gulf of Mexico is going to be no exception.

Though the International Tanker Operators Pollution Federation Limited proudly explains how the incidences of oil spills -- regardless of their source -- has significantly declined in the last thirty years (see the graph at right), it doesn't negate the fact that when they do happen, the results aren't pretty. Efforts to stop the leak in the Gulf through the use of robot submarines (closing the well's valve manually) have been unsuccessful, and in the three days since they started trying, the oil slick has moved more than ten miles closer to the shore, threatening wetlands, beaches, and wildlife from Louisiana to Florida. As of Wednesday morning, the slick is 40 miles wide, 80 miles long, and growing by the hour.

The viscosity and density of oil is different than water, and so tends to float on top of it. That is why the early deployment of booms is an important first step in containing spills. Unfortunately, wave action churns crude oil under, creating what looks like "chocolate mousse", and then that oil sinks -- contaminating the delicate ecosystem.

Responses to such spills can take many forms. Boats crews with booms and skimmers can try to contain and mop up the oil before it spreads too far. Planes and helicopters can dump dispersant chemicals into the slick to help the oil break down faster and be less harmful to the ecosystem (think: dropping some Dawn into a sink full of greasy dishes). Pollution containment devices can be constructed at the source, such as a leaking well, to capture the oil. And the oil can be lit on fire, about 95 percent of which is released as carbon dioxide and water into the atmosphere.

While the efforts of the Coast Guard and BP are noble and appreciated -- they are trying a blend of all these techniques -- it appears that they are still weeks away from full containment, and a good three months away from stopping the leak permanently. In the meantime, the oil is expected to reach the Gulf shores as early as this weekend.

Are you using this important news event in your classroom and teaching? We would love to hear how. Share with us and other educators here, or on our Facebook page, how you are talking with students or colleagues about oil spills and cleanups. we would also love to hear about preventative measures folks along the Gulf can take now to protect their shoreline.