Talk:Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Gap report

The more I work on the article the less this information tends to fit anywhere. I have not yet read the GAP report and hopefully we can use it more effectively than the way it is written up here. I'm going to park it here for now.

In August 2011, The Government Accountability Project (GAP) began a survey of the health effects of the oil spill on cleanup workers. Reports included "eye, nose and throat irritation; respiratory problems; blood in urine, vomit and rectal bleeding; seizures; nausea and violent vomiting episodes that last for hours; skin irritation, burning and lesions; short-term memory loss and confusion; liver and kidney damage; central nervous system effects and nervous system damage; hypertension; and miscarriages". Cleanup workers claimed to have been threatened with termination when requesting respirators, because it would “look bad in media coverage,” or they were told that respirators were unnecessary, as Corexit was “as safe as Dawn dishwashing soap”. Cleanup workers and residents reported being sprayed directly with Corexit, with skin lesions and blurred eyesight as the result. Dr. James Diaz, writing for the American Journal of Disaster Medicine, said these ailments appearing in the Gulf reflected those reported after previous oil spills, like the Exxon Valdez. Diaz warned that "chronic adverse health effects, including cancers, liver and kidney disease, mental health disorders, birth defects and developmental disorders should be anticipated among sensitive populations and those most heavily exposed". Diaz also believes neurological disorders should be expected. Gandydancer (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The latest addition from the GAP report:

A 2013 GAP report found "BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment."[22]

is problematic as it is not about the health effects but about the GCCF and litigation. Therefore it does not belong in this article. It may belong to Gulf Coast Claims Facility if supported by additional RS. Beagel (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I will park this GAP info here as well as I am in the process of working on the claims section and it is not ready for this sort of information:

A 2013 GAP report found "BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment." Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Health claims settlement

This article is named 'Health consequences ...' and therefore should deal with health consequences. However, claims settlement is not 'health consequences'. The information is relevant in the Deepwater Horizon litigation but in this article it just shifts the focus from the core of the topic. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see your logic, however to my way of thinking this information is a reasonable inclusion in this article. Residents and workers affected by the spill may, or may not, have funds to deal with any illness they experience as a result of the spill. Hopefully others will give feedback and we can make a decision. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lies and Respirators

The article implies that BP did not allow workers to wear respirators for PR reasons. Nonsense. There are good reasons any US employer might not allow employees to wear regulators: Under the Code of Federal Regulations section 29 you'll find, and I can't remember the subsection since I haven't been quizzed on this in a while, (1) Employers have the right to ban the use of respirators in any situation where respirators are not needed (2) Employers may allow the use of respirators by employees in situations where they are not warranted only if use of the respirator will not itself create a safety hazard, such as in any environment where limited visibility may be an issue or in any situation where heat exhaustion may occur (3) Employers that allow use of respirators, warranted or not, are required to establish medical examinations of all personnel to prove they are physically fit enough for their use beforehand.

Further, see the NIOSH report that specifically states that personal protective equipment, such as respirators, that are not necessary SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED due to the threat of heat exhaustion and accidents. The reason is that respirators are inherently dangerous: they are disorientating, they greatly increase accident rates (ie, falling overboard) by reducing the field of vision, as well as considerably increasing the effort necessary to breath (because you have to pull every breath through a filter cartridge). This quickly leads to exhaustion and can be fatal.

I suggest reading this primer: http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2011/05/01/Voluntary-Use-of-Respirators.aspx

I'm going to delete that nonsense from the article. Geogene (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Misleading through WP:SYNTHESIS

Here's an example from the article:

"At high doses some crude-oil components cause respiratory, hepatic, renal, endocrine, neurologic, hematologic, and other systemic effects, while even very low doses can cause mutagenic effects, with cancer of particular concern. The carcinogens of concern in crude oil are benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are present in oil and in the air as a result of offshore controlled burning of crude oil.[10] During the 2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill, an estimated one of every 20 barrels of spilled oil was deliberately burned off.[24][25] Routes of exposure include contact and inhalation.[10]"

Since we know that "scientific evidence is scant", and we know that NIOSH and the CDC did a lot of air monitoring and found nothing, an editor decided to resort to WP:OR and present three facts to try to lead readers to a desired conclusion: that there were dangerous levels of airborne contaminants. This is a type of original research known as WP:SYNTHESIS, the presentation of facts from various sources to try to create a desired, but untrue, conclusion--that people were exposed to "high doses" of carcinogens from burning--that is not supported by any RS. It's disingenuous and I'd like to encourage the editors around here to refrain from WP:ADVOCACY. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than delete these useful but misleadingly arranged facts, I added the reminder that NIOSH and the CDC were air sampling and never found excursions over PELs. That should neutralize the OR. Geogene (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10348/The
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623085715/http://www.iom.edu/Activities/PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/2010-JUN-22.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/Activities/PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/2010-JUN-22.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004183318/http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/sphb/programs/gulfconsortium/index.cfm to http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/sphb/programs/gulfconsortium/index.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712223806/http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/ to http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113023620/http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report to http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724114936/http://www.meriresearch.org/Portals/0/ScienceInsightforweb.pdf to http://www.meriresearch.org/Portals/0/ScienceInsightforweb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Long-term health study

I will park this link here for now and add the new long-term health info as time permits. [1] Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous

At the height of operations (summer of 2010), response vessels numbered about 7,000 and personnel numbered over 47,000; as of January 2013, that figure has dropped to about 935

2607:9880:1A18:33:5042:CC4D:CF0E:F598 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)