There's a lot of speculation about the long term impact of the oil left behind from the massive oil gusher in the Gulf. There are still questions about the relief wells, the cap and whether the oil will really be held at bay for the long term.
And then you have the millions of gallons of dispersant, Corexit, that was sprayed in the air and over water, it was used profusely in a way that hadn't been done in any previous spills.
There have been dairies about the health of the workers, the residents, etc. but not many. I wrote about the early diagnosis of the health issues facing workers and residents being a syndrome known as tilt. The people suffering are being shouted down by skeptics, you can see it my diary that I reference. The more doubt given to their symptoms and their health issues, the less BP, etc. will have to actually pay and be responsible for what they are doing.
So that's where Project Gulf Impact comes in. The main stream media, as we so lovingly refer to it, has really been missing the boat on this one.
One of the most important parts of getting attention to issues like this is telling the stories of the people who are being impacted and making sure they are getting access to health care, assistance and, if they want, somewhere to go other than the gulf and beyond.
Project Gulf Impacts mission is to document the economic, environmental and human health impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This project seeks to provide a voice for residents of the Gulf and hopes to capture the social, political and environmental climate surrounding one of the greatest environmental disasters of our time.
During this critical event in our country’s history, the world deserves complete transparency in the media more than ever before. We at Project Gulf Impact believe that communication of the truth is critical to reconciling the health of our planet and people. There is no excuse for inadequacy and no time for inaction.
So far, two of their parters are the Coffee Party and Citizen Global. But what they need now is a little help getting back to the Gulf to continue their project and to try to document what's happening to the people who are being impacted the most.
NOLA just released this, Monitoring health of residents affected by Gulf oil spill is urged by experts. But we also need advocates and we need people to tell stories that go beyond experts, and we need people who haven't been bought by BP.
Experts who convened in New Orleans on Wednesday for a second round of exploring the potential health effects of the Gulf Coast oil spill reiterated the need for a coordinated approach to monitoring and researching affected populations, but conceded the task is easier said than done.
Charged with advising decision-makers and the general public on health issues related to the spill, the Institute of Medicine corralled public officials, medical experts and academic researchers from the Gulf Coast region and across the country this week to discuss what is known about the potential health impacts of the spill and what information is needed to improve treatment and public education.
Their observations during two days of meetings seemed to converge on two key conclusions: Data gathered from previous oil spills is grossly inadequate in depth and chronological scope; and a massive, multilateral effort will be required to effectively treat, research and monitor affected populations along the Gulf Coast this time around.
But the concerns are varied, from not just the physical affects but the stress as well that can exacerbate health issues as well as the pitfalls of litigation that were a huge part of the Exxon-Valdez nightmare, where people became wary of speaking to experts. It's all a tangled web where voices can get drowned out by experts, litigation and the media mayhem.
I know, exploitation is another concern. Why do this? Who does it benefit? The hope is to make sure that their stories are told. It's an important project, it needs to be done.
Time has another story, Assessing the Health Effects of the Oil Spill and it illustrates what we're up against...
Still, there is the potential risk of toxic exposure to the oil and the chemical dispersants. Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), told Congress this week that oil could be irritating to the skin or the lungs and could cause vomiting if swallowed but "is unlikely to have long-lasting health effects."
Indeed, a retrospective study of cleanup workers involved in a 2002 oil spill on the coast of Spain — one far smaller than the Gulf catastrophe — found evidence of DNA damage, most likely from chemical or oil exposure, though it was of the sort that can be repaired by the body. If scientists hope to track spill workers and coastal residents who are currently encountering oil, studies must be launched right now. To that end, the Department of Health and Human Services has set aside $10 million to track oil-spill-related illnesses, while more than 14,000 BP spill workers — about half the total force — have volunteered for a NIOSH tracking system. "To be able to identify chronic effects, you have to start very early," Howard told Congress earlier this month.
But independent scientists worry that these studies are too small and that the data is insufficient. They are also concerned about the reliability of the data, especially that for BP's workers, whose claims of illness are screened by a private medical service paid for by BP. Given the fact that any evidence of serious health effects could be used against the company in the countless lawsuits we'll see filed in the coming months and years, the potential conflict of interest is obvious.
Workers also may fail to come forward out of fear of losing their job — they've already shown reluctance to talk to the press for the same reason. The researchers at the Institute of Medicine conference said they have already seen large gaps in the surveillance data to date. "It's kind of scary" that the cleanup response is being run by the company at fault, not the government, said Linda McCauley, dean of Emory University's school of nursing.
The lack of transparency can further lead to a lack of trust in the communities affected by the spill — and that suspicion can have a long-lasting, corrosive impact. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, the small Alaskan fishing port of Cordova saw a rise in domestic abuse, alcoholism and eventually suicide. Lawsuits eroded trust in the community, and clean data on the impact of the spill became almost impossible to get.
If people can speak out, feel safe in doing so and talk about what has happened to them, it can be used as a means to push for that transparency, for consequences if whistle blowers are fired and to urge the Obama Administration to also protect workers who are ill due to the long term exposure to either oil or the dispersants.
We have a responsibility, as a society, to speak out for those who fear retribution or fear losing their ability to get compensated for their health issues. We've been down this road before and there are people who know what has happened, Riki Ott is just one example of someone who has spent a great deal of time with the media trying to educate them about what went so wrong with the Exxon-Valdez and what we can do to avoid the same thing happening again.
The resources are there, we just have to use them and we must try to protect the people who live in the areas affected most by this nightmare so that they too can try to come back from this most horrific disaster.