Skip to main content


I, for one, hope that this is true, and will be further substantiated:


Study: Petroleum-eating microbes significantly reduced gulf oil plume
David Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer -- Tue, August 24, 2010

Petroleum-eating bacteria - which had dined for eons on oil seeping naturally through the seafloor - proliferated in the cloud of oil that drifted underwater for months after the April 20 accident. They not only outcompeted fellow microbes, they each ramped up their own internal metabolic machinery to digest the oil as efficiently as possible.

The result was a nature-made cleanup crew capable of reducing that reduced the amount of oil amounts in the undersea "plume" by half about every three days, according to research published online Tuesday by the journal Science.

The findings, by a team of scientists led by Terry C. Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California [...]

[... Continuing with today's breaking news ]

The findings point to a different conclusion from that drawn by readers of a study published last week, also in the journal Science. That research by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found no reduction in the oxygen content of the gigantic oil plume, suggesting that microbes were consuming the oil very slowly.

But, but wasn't there a Science Study just last week questioning whether the Oil-eating Microbes were even working, in the deep water Plumes?

There was.

Yet members of both though conflicting studies, are now saying that the studies really don't contradict each other, because of different focuses and methodologies used.  As I recall the Wood Holes study was inferring the "lack of Microbes activity" due to the unexpected "abundance of Oxygen" they found in the Deep Plumes.

This article tries to reconcile the different findings:

Oil's well that ends well: report suggests microbes have gobbled up Gulf spill
By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News, montrealgazette.com -- August 24, 2010

[...] The two reports — both published online by the journal Science — have plenty of people shaking their heads.

But the scientists insist both reports are correct, and have been working the phones to try to quell the confusion caused by their conflicting studies, statements and speculation.

"We don't see that there's a contradiction," says marine ecologist Terry Hazen, leader of the team at the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"Our findings are consistent," says Richard Camilli, who leads the Woods Hole team and is also trying to downplay the contradictions in the fast-evolving story of what has become of all the spilled oil.


The question still remains to be answered, How Toxic is the Dispersant Corexit to the Oil-consuming Microbes?

Especially since the activity ingredient in the "early stronger" version of Corexit, 9527 has as one of its states uses:

2-Butoxyethanol

Use Type: Adjuvant,  Fungicide, Microbiocide,  Solvent

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/...

Nice stuff -- NOT!


The "latter weak" version of Corexit, 9500, does not have this Lipid-damaging ingredient, as far as I can tell.


Another question still remains to be answered, How Much of the "early stronger" version of Corexit, 9527 was actually used?  

and where?

Well if you "read between the lines" of EPA Director, Lisa Jackson's statements (in this next quote)

it sounds like
400,000 / 2  gallons of Corexit 9527 was used, or a "mere" 200,000 gallons.


BP: Dispersing Oil or Criticism?
Toxic chemicals helped the oil giant save face, but their health and environmental impacts are unknown
By Terry J. Allen --August 13, 2010

BP has used two dispersant formulations in the gulf—Corexit 9500 and 9527. The older formula, Corexit 9527—which contains 2-butoxy ethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses—is more toxic.

BP used "limited" quantities of the more dangerous formula to fill the gap until his company could ramp up production of the "improved" formula, Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor told In These Times. But Pajor refused to quantify the amount applied.

In mid-May, Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson said she didn’t know for sure how much of each formulation was deployed, but she understood that use had been "roughly 50/50." At that point, BP had applied at least 400,000 gallons of Corexit.
[...]

The EPA was reluctant to challenge BP. "If you’re going to tie our hands, then we don’t own this spill," BP Vice President David Rainey warned.

In a corner, Jackson told BP to "establish an overall goal of reducing dispersant application by 75 percent from the maximum daily amount." That wording allowed BP to use the day of highest dispersal—70,000 gallons—as the benchmark. Jackson was then able to accurately (but misleadingly) claim that BP had reduced dispersant use by 68 percent. In fact, the average daily use had only gone down slightly, from 24,700 gallons before the directive to 22,600 after it.


Another question still remains to be answered, In what ways are we going to guarantee that "BP continues to own this spill?"

Afterall even if the Oil is rapidly degrading, the local damage from disaster is just beginning to be tallied.  Damage on so many fronts, ecological, economic, quality of life, local health problems, endangered species loss, ... etc. etc.

If we look at just the damages to the traditional Fishery industries alone, $20 Billion is no where close to covering it.

What 'Legitimate Claims' look like -- It's time to Raise the 75M Cap  
by jamess -- May 24, 2010


Afterall it's NOT like BP, CAN'T Afford it:


Instead of wasting a Billion on an Image-make-over Ad Campaign ... Why can't we "compel" BP to fund the ramp-up of FDA Labs, to "ensure the safety of the Seafood", that their recklessness, has put into serious Jeopardy, and doubt.

THAT would be a REAL step to taking a hold of that "Ownership of the Problem" for BP.  

For Starters!


And that is another Question, that we should be asking;
In my opinion, of course.

... while we are patiently waiting for the follow-up Scientific Studies to trickle in, and be reconciled.


And I, for one, hope against hope, that today's Good News is for Real, and will be further substantiated, by additional studies, like Lawrence Berkeley's Study -- which ACTUALLY counted the Microbe Population abundance in the water columns.

What a novel Idea -- actually counting.   Who Knew!

========================

Updated:  Please see comment link provided by Boatsie

http://www.dailykos.com/...

for prior BP Funding ($500M) of another Dept at Lawrence Berkeley, in 2007 --
which could possibly cast doubt, on the current Study's findings?

We need follow-up confirming studies, to be sure, as I previously stated.

===============

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 07:56 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (248+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, Kitty, JekyllnHyde, Aexia, fladem, Alma, TXdem, northsylvania, fcvaguy, itsbenj, hester, askew, Powered Grace, madmsf, RunawayRose, kpardue, OLinda, eeff, Matilda, BillyZoom, goObama, deaniac83, sardonyx, Dumbo, concernedamerican, joynow, bronte17, conchita, Agathena, carolina stargazer, mkfarkus, peraspera, Major Tom, splashy, CheckRaise, antirove, wader, SneakySnu, psnyder, Winnie, Miss Jones, virginislandsguy, gmb, NYFM, niteskolar, GN1927, defluxion10, TX Scotia, Catte Nappe, hazzcon, Greg in TN, kalmoth, riverlover, alizard, walkshills, JayBat, zerelda, WisVoter, Schwede, Pozzo, Marc in KS, sebastianguy99, libnewsie, G2geek, jrooth, yuriwho, jiffypop, mjd in florida, PBen, Flint, kamarvt, snacksandpop, where4art, GreyHawk, ivorybill, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, sodalis, coolbreeze, LivesInAShoe, begone, Knucklehead, esquimaux, BalanceSeeker, myboo, Kingsmeg, sherlyle, MeMeMeMeMe, Ky DEM, mr crabby, deha, luckydog, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, boatsie, sceptical observer, Demena, AndyS In Colorado, dirkster42, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, frankzappatista, blueoregon, kurt, Statusquomustgo, CharlieHipHop, Pandoras Box, bigchin, Drama Queen, One Pissed Off Liberal, lightfoot, uncomfortably numb, Bob Guyer, dmh44, Alfonso Nevarez, Sydserious, Via Chicago, Matt Z, Jimdotz, ezdidit, DWG, joyful, Uwaine, BobTrips, jayden, ubertar, millwood, yella dawg, uciguy30, Terra Mystica, TomP, jwinIL14, MKinTN, condorcet, Louisiana Fiddle Gal, wayoutinthestix, MikePhoenix, poligirl, OleHippieChick, Involuntary Exile, Fe Bongolan, Akonitum, beach babe in fl, LarsThorwald, sandav, smartdemmg, geomoo, icebergslim, bluesheep, Ladyhawk, meldroc, phrogge prince, matching mole, Support Civil Liberty, allie123, Executive Odor, Nica24, Quilldriver, pilotmama, palantir, ekyprogressive, dmhlt 66, Mike Taylor, Diogenes2008, squarewheel, lostboyjim, 1BQ, Louisiana 1976, DeepLooker, Tomsank, snackdoodle, greengemini, Skeptical Bastard, bsmechanic, Carol in San Antonio, be the change you seek, RandomActsOfReason, notrouble, h bridges, War on Error, NWTerriD, asym, post partisan in Cali, blueocean, jfromga, citisven, lompe, hatecloudsyourthoughts, swaminathan, methinshaw, confitesprit, awcomeon, marabout40, KroneckerD, patrickz, TFinSF, miss SPED, LaughingPlanet, publicv, estreya, Susan from 29, jethrock, angelajean, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, Kristina40, Yasuragi, orlbucfan, Floande, science nerd, pstoller78, Pakalolo, BrowniesAreGood, Colorado is the Shiznit, heart of a quince, I love OCD, Lost Left Coaster, ozsea1, freesia, ontheleftcoast, FarWestGirl, princesspat, Late Spring, mrsgoo, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, Escamillo, BarackStarObama, Mother Shipper, jgnyc, curtisgrahamduff, randomfacts, JL, Jantman, blue aardvark, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, just another vortex, zenox, DRo, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Auriandra, MichaelNY, PrometheusUnbound, Han Shot First, Only Needs a Beat, Nena20409, TheLizardKing, seethruit, Miep, Th0rn

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

    •  Great diary (35+ / 0-)

      and well deserving of the rec list.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:03:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Gulf Watchers (27+ / 0-)

      are a cause, and a group

      worth supporting:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      thx!

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:26:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  BTW a slight more accurate title would be (20+ / 0-)

      "NEW Study Infers Microbes ARE rapidly consuming the Gulf Oil"

      "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

      by yuriwho on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:59:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...there is always geologic time... (24+ / 0-)

      so reminded of Weisman's The World Without Us...

      the parallel between plastics decomposing and the oil .....
      from his 9th chapter Polymers are Forever

      Not only was the amount of plastic in the ocean increasing, but ever smaller bits of it were appearing—small enough to ride global sea currents.
      ...Thompson’s team realized that slow mechanical action—waves and tides that grind against shorelines, turning rocks into beaches—were now doing the same to plastics. The largest, most conspicuous items bobbing in the surf were slowly getting smaller. At the same time, there was no sign that any of the plastic was biodegrading, even when reduced to tiny fragments.

      "We imagined it was being ground down smaller and smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller could lead to bigger and bigger problems."

      (snip)

      Egyptian pyramids have preserved corn, seeds, and even human parts such as hair because they were sealed away from sunlight with little oxygen or moisture," says Andrady, a mild, precise man with a broad face and a clipped, persuasively reasonable voice. "Our waste dumps are somewhat like that. Plastic buried where there’s little water, sun, or oxygen will stay intact a long time. That is also true if it is sunk in the ocean, covered with sediment. At the bottom of the sea, there’s no oxygen, and it’s very cold."

      He gives a clipped little laugh. "Of course," he adds, "we don’t know much about microbiology at those depths. Possibly anaerobic organisms there can biodegrade it. It’s not inconceivable. But no one’s taken a submersible down to check. Based on our observations, it’s unlikely. So we expect much-slower degradation at the sea bottom. Many times longer. Even an order of magnitude longer."

      An order of magnitude—that’s 10 times—longer than what? One thousand years? Ten thousand?

      No one knows, because no plastic has died a natural death yet. It took today’s microbes that break hydrocarbons down to their building blocks a long time after plants appeared to learn to eat lignin and cellulose. More recently, they’ve even learned to eat oil. None can digest plastic yet, because 50 years is too short a time for evolution to develop the necessary biochemistry.

      What did you do when you knew? boatsie

      by boatsie on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:29:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  did you know that Lawrence Lab received a huge (17+ / 0-)

      grant from BP? When Chu was there?

      What did you do when you knew? boatsie

      by boatsie on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:29:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did not know that (9+ / 0-)

        is that true?  (any links, boatsie?)

        If so that puts a whole new slant on the story,
        doesn't it?

        I may need to post a counter diary, on the funding of this Science --

        maybe someone else will ...

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not so sure that corporate funding (15+ / 0-)

          always leads to bad science, especially at a place like Lawrence Livermore.  Sometimes it does... sometimes not.  Where this is more of an issue is when grants are linked to non-disclosure agreements, which was the case with more recent BP grants, and which undermines science in general.  BP had to back down from that.

          I think the grants and the research need to be examined on a case by case basis just to be sure... but corporations may well fund University-based scientific research for a number of different reasons and may not have that much control over research outcomes or distribution. Their motives may vary - they may be funding research because they want information relevant to risk management, for example, that may actually show a fairly grim outcome to some of their business practices.  They may be funding primary research into alternative energy because they may want a leg up on expanding their product line outside of hydrocarbons.  They may even fund research for PR purposes - good corporate "citizenship" and all.  Our friend Tony has been a BP public relations disaster, but prior to that, BP pumped massive amounts of money into PR and alternative energy research in order to paint themselves as a "green" company. Some of that research may actually have had value.

          My wife raises a lot of money from corporations for a university, and I write a fair number of grant applications too.  Not all the research is tainted, and sometimes one can view this sort of fundraising as a Robin Hood type activity, as long as the University gets more out of it than the company does.  Or you can think of grant writers as great big oil-eating bacteria, turning obscene corporate profits into something a little tastier and less toxic - professorships, student assistantships, primary research. I don't always have a problem extracting resources from corporations, even bad ones, as long as I don't end up working for them.

          "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

          by ivorybill on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:14:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was wondering about funding as I read the diary (6+ / 0-)

        though I had no facts.

        Getting to the truth, no matter what it is, is what's important.

        I hope that's possible.

        •  It's quite difficult (8+ / 0-)

          to analyze and research every angle of
          a breaking story like this, in a short time.

          They haven't even posted the study yet,
          let alone the source of its funding

          that's what follow-up diaries are for, I guess
          (and "Updates" in the current diary.)


          I suspect this Study will become News,
          in either case, of BP Funding or No.

          the News Media, being what it is.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:02:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's also worth considering (11+ / 0-)

        the information that Bob Cavnar brought forward on Sunday (his analysis and infor from a WaPo article) about who has been calling the shots during the process of testing, drilling and closing the well. I think it's worth taking this into consideration when looking at the whole picture here.

        Fishing On the BP Well: So, All This Was the Government's Idea?

        My regular readers know that I have been critical of both BP and the government in their management of this catastrophe, and that I have been often baffled about some decisions that are made.  There have been surprise, last minute decisions, such as the "well integrity test", and the unexplainable delays in the real solution here, the relief wells.  The erratic decision making, lack of consistent direction, and unclear chain of command has confused the media and the public, and caused this story to drag on far longer than it should have.

        ...

        With the lack of industry experience on the government side, I naturally assumed that BP was bullying the government into agreeing to these steps, but was always confused about why they were slowing down the relief well, which has never made any sense.  Well, now we apparently have the answers to at least some of these questions.  

        It seems that Steve Chu, the Nobel Prizing-winning Secretary of Energy and his staff of advisors have been making these calls, exercising what I consider to be questionable risk management, and making decisions based on advice from those who, it appears, have little oil well crisis management experience.  We know that the government and BP have formed an Odd Couple kind of marriage, one that was cemented after BP agreed on June 16 to pony up $20 billion for damages from its blowout.  It was in the government's best interest, after all, to keep BP viable, and in the company's best interest to shift as much blame as possible to the government if something went wrong, so a mutually beneficial arrangement was formed.

        •  Not exactly surprising (0+ / 0-)

          And I don't think Chu is particularly important in this situation.  IMO, if it wasn't him, it would be someone else.  I think the phrase I've been using is still appropriate: BP and their government.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:45:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was wonder about that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, blueoasis, miss SPED

        Especially after what I read yesterday:
        www.counterpunch.org/mcclintock08232010.html

        Apparently the EPA gets its info about the oil spill from CTEH, who are being paid by BP.

        Barack Obama: The Republicans wonder if he is a Muslim. I wonder if he is actually a Democrat.

        by methinshaw on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:16:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes in 2007..... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, jamess, I love OCD

        so it isn't any kind of quid pro quo.  This is a nationally known microbial ecologist with over 200 published papers as well.  The implication that this is a payoff is premature.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:41:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks a Million boatsie (16+ / 0-)

        from that link:

        UC Berkeley's BP Deal Tainted By Oil Spill: $500 Million Research Agreement At Stake
        TERENCE CHEA | 07/31/2010

        The oil giant gave UC Berkeley a $500 million grant in 2007 to create the Energy Biosciences Institute, which works to develop new sources of plant-based fuel. The 10-year deal, believed to be the largest-ever corporate sponsorship of university research, has outraged many students and professors who worry the global oil company will exert too much influence over academic research and damage the university's reputation.
        [...]
        "Now that we can see what BP is responsible for in the Gulf, we demand that the contract between UC and BP be re-looked at," activist Stephanie Tang said, speaking to onlookers through a megaphone.

        But UC Berkeley officials say the institute has nothing to do with the Gulf spill, and the university has no plans to end its research partnership with BP.

        "The horrible events in the Gulf should only strengthen our commitment to find alternatives to fossil fuels," said Graham Fleming, UC Berkeley's vice chancellor of research. "Why would anyone's interest be served by stopping this research?"

        Sounds like a different Dept,
        but the funds, may be co-mingled.

        We definitely need independent follow up Studies, then.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:38:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should really consider mentioning the funding (8+ / 0-)

          in the diary, as an update - even just a quick link pointing to this comment thread.

          Thanks.

        •  this was just the tip of it, i think (5+ / 0-)

          just found this messing around with Chu and BP for my off the wall diary during the Gulf Rescue blogathon. I am quite sure there is a lot more to be unearthed here.

          What did you do when you knew? boatsie

          by boatsie on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:49:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sheesh.... (8+ / 0-)

            unearth something that you want to spin this as a conspiracy.  The journal Science is very legitimate as is this scientist.  Ask for confirmation- be skeptical.  That is what scientists do when they doubt fresh new data.  Don't just make up some goofball conspiracy theory and blog while you speculate. Everyone can see what your speculation leads to- spin to make the situation fit your preconceived notions.

            I doubt if these bacteria are a magic bullet to fix the gulf.  They are interesting and hopeful, but frankly no one knowledgeable about oil spills doubted they would appear.

            Worry about the fish larvae and the cycle of larger organisms like bluefin tuna.  Bacteria are going to take care of themselves.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:51:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hazen has been (7+ / 0-)

              one of the top scientists in the field of microbes to biodegrade oil and other toxic substances for a long time.  He probably knows as much about this as anyone in the country.   That he would sell out an entire career for a grant that isn't directly germane to his area because of being with the same research facility stretches things in my opinion.

              If the oil is biodegrading, and the oxygen levels are not being depleted at the levels predicted, it could mean that in a large open body of water, oxygen isn't the same delimiter because of some other factor.  Either group's research may have a flaw, or the world may be about to learn something new.   Right now its an open scientific question, not a conspiracy.

              •  the oil is very dilute in a plume..... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jfromga

                10 miles from the well head.

                When this blog discussed how dilute it was, people were concerned that stating how dilute it was let BP off the hook.

                BP shouldn't be left off the hook.  Damage has been done.  But folks should recall that the last big gulf spill was broken down naturally in 2 years, by some estimate.  That was 1979 and dispersants weren't used and it was very shallow.  But it was a lot of oil.

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:30:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I wasn't trying (0+ / 0-)

                  to say BP should be left off the hook, I don't think we have any understanding yet of all the damage even dilute oil will do in this quantity.  I don't think we know how much wildlife has died directly, will die indirectly, will be unable to breed at satisfactory levels because of residual side effects, how much damage workers have sustained, etc.

                  Its just that the microbes actions are part of what science needs to study, that it can provide answers eventually, and that we don't need to treat Hazen's work as tainted because the facility that employs him got a grant three years ago from BP to study and develop alternative fuels.

        •  Money is fungible (5+ / 0-)

          but the people who work there all know each other and know from where their biggest funding comes, I'd think.

          So maybe the money for this exact study was budgeted from somewhere else, and the accounting looks pristine, but ...

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:01:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  consider Huffington Post cautiously..... (3+ / 0-)

          when reading science and medicine.  They advocated against vaccines and for sweat lodge new Age spiritual healers.  Try googling the actual author of the study and looking at his credentials at his institution.  

          http://esd.lbl.gov/...

          http://esd.lbl.gov/...

          The Hazen Lab is a diverse group of scientific engineering associates, post doctoral fellows, research associates, technicians, and students in microbial ecology and environmental engineering that are led by Dr. Terry C. Hazen. The primary research emphasis of the lab is basic and applied field microbial ecology, especially as it relates to bioremediation, biofuels, enhanced oil recovery, and water quality. The overarching vision for the lab is understanding the fundamental concepts of systems biology and environmental stress response pathways from the molecular to the ecosystem level to improve our knowledge of biogeochemistry.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:47:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody is saying Hazen isn't a good scientist (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo, 1BQ

            Just bear in mind that BP paid for most the research being discussed here.

            From LBL's News page:

            Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.  He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP.

            And here's the Governance board for EBI; they define EBI's research direction and appoint EBI's director:

            George Breslauer,UC Berkeley

            Graham Fleming, UC Berkeley

            Paul Alivisatos, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

            Ravishankar Iyer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

            Charles Cameron, BP

            John W. Pierce, BP

            Jackie Mutschler, BP

            Phil New, BP

            •  BP gave a program endownment.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayBat

              to work on future energy issues.  Is everyone getting NOAA funding going to say what NOAA wants?  Are you presuming some credible scientist would lie to please BP?  I think not.

              You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

              by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Spurious comparison, NOAA != BP (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greeseyparrot

                Murray, I think you know that comparison is a little dodgy, right?

                I'll start worrying about NOAA biasing the direction of science research about the time that NOAA becomes a corporation that does weather forecasting, environmental satellites and marine fisheries, whose sole goal is to maximize profits from those activities.

                But since NOAA is a government agency whose goal is to benefit all citizens, protect lives, and protect the environment, I'm not worried so much.

                BP on the other hand is a corporation whose sole goal is to maximize profits from selling energy, mostly oil and gas. They've funded a science research institution and ensured that 1/2 the governance board is BP employees. It would be foolish in the extreme to assume that BP is doing anything other than biasing the direction of research at EBI; it's only natural for them to do so, it's their money.

                You would expect such bias to be both hard and soft. "Hard" would be appointing the director, for example; he sits there at BP's pleasure, after all. "Soft" would be flying senior EBI researchers to London for presentations to BP's board, pleasant expensive dinners at BP's expense, etc.

                I don't think anybody is accusing EBI researchers of "lying to please BP", that's silly. But it would be silly to expect that EBI researchers don't direct areas of research and emphasize particular results (like in this case) in ways that please those BP representatives they personally have day-to-day contact with.

                -Jay-

                •  then why are folks..... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JayBat

                  so quick to dismiss the results because of the funding?

                  If BP wants to study alternate energy and oil cleanup, why is that so horrid?  Their ulterior motive is better information for their company to make more money in what, alternative energy and bioremediation?  Sounds like the sort of thing we want companies to do.

                  You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                  by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:35:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Peer review process at Science (6+ / 0-)

          is among the toughest for any scientific journal in the world. Regardless of the funding source, if the science did not hold up to scrutiny, the article would have been rejected.
          It is important to know the source of funding, hence the conflict disclosure rules in which authors must provide not only the source of funding but explain whether the funding source contributed to writing, analyzing or interpreting the findings. You will find this information at the end of anybarticle published in a reputable journal.

          I'd like to strike you of course, but you speak the truth...Frasier Crane circa 2003

          by smartdemmg on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:36:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A little more on the funding: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo

          The bacteria were discovered by Hazen's team working aboard research vessels leased by BP. From May to June, the scientists visited 17 sites to collect more than 200 samples of the plume at depths of between 3,600 and 4,000 feet.
          [...]
          The group's work is supported by part of the $200 million grant that BP gave to an environmental research project jointly run by UC Berkeley, Hazen's team, the Berkeley lab, and the University of Illinois.

          "We're a Department of Energy national lab," Hazen said, "and our work is completely independent of any funding source." (SFGate)

          I can't say this makes it any clearer. They were "working aboard research vessels leased by BP" but their "work is completely independent of any funding source." It almost sounds as though he knows people will question his motives, if not his results.

          I did find something more helpful:

          The research was supported by an existing grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, a partnership led by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP. Other support came from the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Oklahoma Research Foundation. (AP)

          This sounds more like scientific research being funded by various public and NGO sources.

          "Separate but equal" isn't. Anyone kept involuntarily separate can't possibly be considered "equal."

          by 1BQ on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:40:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  and i'm guessing (6+ / 0-)

        that you don't buy those studies funded by the oil industry that deny climate change, either!

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:55:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  that's a damn lot of bacteria (9+ / 0-)

      Wonder what the effect will be on the ecosystem...

      Laws of physics say you'd have to have a huge proliferation of these oil-eating bacteria what with the new food supply and all.  That's got to throw something out of whack.

      Still good news, though, I suppose.

      •  Just think of it as rearranging carbon compounds (6+ / 0-)

        the bacteria are rendering the volatile compounds into less dangerous compounds. When the food supply runs out, the bacteria die, drift to the bottom of the sea, and form the same sort of sludge that created the oil in the first place. Eventually they will be buried, pressurized, and turn back into oil.  Then, 60 million years after we drive our own species to extinction, some future dominant life form will drill up the oil, spill huge amounts of it, and the cycle will renew itself.  

        For what it's worth, I'm hoping the next dominant life form evolves from crows or coyotes.  

        "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

        by ivorybill on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:01:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          For what it's worth, I'm hoping the next dominant life form evolves from crows or coyotes.  

          Just curious.

          •  Well crows and coyotes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, Matt Z, MichaelNY

            are way smart and way adaptable.  Generally, after mass extinctions, the species that adaptively radiate in interesting directions are the generalists - animals that have wide environmental tolerances, are opportunistic and eat everything, and manage to survive at the margins.  Crows and coyotes thrive despite humans and not because of them, and you have to admire the sang-froid and intelligence of both crows and coyotes.  Just as a personal matter, I'm rather fond of both species, and if my own species goes extinct it is comforting to imagine a world left wide open to these two survivors.

            "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

            by ivorybill on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:35:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Also (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          Is there any way those microbes could make it into my gas tank?  Or any large oil storage facility?

          •  I think they are aerobic bacteria (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, yuriwho, KenBee

            and require oxygen. Not sure about that, but if true, they would not be able to survive in a tank of gas.  On the other hand, a plume of tiny particles of oil suspended in oxygenated water is pretty close to an ideal environment for them and they could explosively proliferate.  If they are aerobic bacteria, they would eat tiny particles quickly, but only form a scum on the surface of tar balls and take a long time to degrade them.  

            "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

            by ivorybill on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:37:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  they are the ecosystem..... (0+ / 0-)

        ain't Darwin grand?

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:52:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If true (0+ / 0-)

      doesn't this also mean that the oxygen in the water is being depleted at the same time?

      I hope it's true, the down side of it is, the oil companies will use this information to lobby drilling wherever they please.

    •  Jamess (6+ / 0-)

      I don`t know the appropriateness of putting this here, but this just came out.
      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      I`m already against the next war.

      by Knucklehead on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:36:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm all about Transparency (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayBat

        and the Free Press,

        as my posting history shows.

        thanks for that news Knucklehead

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting how context... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayBat, Uwaine, jamess

          ...makes this statement:

          thanks for that news Knucklehead

          a polite statement rather than a rude one.

          ;-)

          I admit, I had to do a double take to see that the other commentor was actually named Knucklehead.

          Teh intertubez is a strange place.

          The GOP: The Party of Failure. Pass it on.

          by Stephen Daugherty on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 08:31:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Show me the increase in biomass in their predator (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocGonzo, jamess

      species and I'll believe it.

      My politics are my own, no party controls them. Ideas do.

      by angry liberaltarian on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:17:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very nicely done. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      But I do also wonder about organisms that interact with the microbes.  I need to read up on the chemistry of exactly how those little suckers work.

    •  Let me unsubstantiate this for you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      This is a department that is funded heavily by BP and the U.S. Gov't. This is another case of academics being bought off. I'm going to link to an LSU scientist who wrote a letter to the New York Times. BP continues to use Corexit in the Gulf, and I will link to another article on huff post today. I can substantiate those claims as I am in contact with fishermen who have witness the continued use of corexit. James, I'm going to insist you retract this diary, or present alternative views:

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      But BP, which controls access to the Deepwater Horizon site and vast stretches of the water around it, seems unconcerned about those principles. Some suspect that the oil company is focusing its research on gathering material to support its legal case; we can’t know for sure, though, because researchers who get money from BP must sign strict three-year confidentiality agreements. In any case, whatever research comes out of BP’s efforts will be tainted by secrecy.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      First, a chemist named Bob Naman claims samples he received from Orange Beach Alabama waters tested positive for the dangerous neurotoxin pesticide 2-butoxyethanol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9527A. The government has been claiming they discontinued the use of that version of Corexit in the Gulf. Now, Naman says he's worried because BP called him and "threatened him."

      Next, Dr. Nyman of Louisiana State University, who began comparative tests early May to determine the impact of oil and the impact of Corexit laced oil on maritime life, says, while marine life may recover quickly from oil exposure, the same cannot be said about exposure to Corexit.

      THe lab is a U.S. Energy Lab:

      A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Operated by the University of California

      http://www.lbl.gov/...

      I don't have links to their funding...yet. But as soon as I do I will pass it on to you.

      •  thanks for digging those up scorpiorising (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scorpiorising

        and posting the contrary info.

        we need more studies for sure --
        independent peer review studies.

        I was happy for a glimmer of good news for a change,
        from Scientists, I thought were, independent,
        initially when this writing this.

        at least this news got people engaged in the Gulf Story again,
        many with a sharp focus on the actual Science being done.

        getting people cross-checking the Science,
        is usually a good thing, it seems to me.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:23:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary and good news, (15+ / 0-)

    if so. Evolution, sort of.  

    Pooties and Woozles unite; you have nothing to lose but your leashes!

    by TomP on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:04:59 PM PDT

  •  If BP doesn't own this spill - should we own BP? (19+ / 0-)

    We shouldn't even be talking about caps here.  The fine should be debarment from working anywhere in the United States, and then all of their personnel, facilities and assets should be nationalized.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:07:36 PM PDT

  •  I've seen a couple of these reports (17+ / 0-)

    earlier today. I'm going to remain skeptical of the whole thing. What irks me will be the RW noise-machine is going to latch on to this preliminary report and start screaming, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" like there was no spill in the first place.

    Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:08:28 PM PDT

    •  Inject the microbes into the undersea reserves (7+ / 0-)

      Then let Crazy Sarah and her bastard hordes drill for all the fishfood they can pump.

      Apocalypse? I'd prefer Wax Lips.

      by dryfoo on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:13:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are they anaerobic bacteria? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess

        That would be kind of interesting.  You might end up with huge living colonies thousands of meters down in the sediments.  However, I suspect these bacteria need oxygen to survive, no?

        "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

        by ivorybill on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:47:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they are aerobic..... (4+ / 0-)

          I believe.  Concern has been for dead zones as people have predicted expansion of these populations.

          New species is discovered because of new technology used and frankly, who has been looking here before.  The diversity of microbes is extensive.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:57:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mostly... (0+ / 0-)

            If they're aerobic, that only means they're mostly aerobic.  We know that one thing bacteria do really well is mutate, swapping genes like crazybands. Even if, currently, only the tiniest fraction are just partially anaerobic (and the evidence might indicate better than that) given the current conditions, I'd expect those to flourish.

            This might be the best public example of bio-remediation since War of the Worlds.

            Apocalypse? I'd prefer Wax Lips.

            by dryfoo on Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 02:51:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I am remaining (20+ / 0-)

      cautiously optimistic.

      This problem is nowhere close to being over.

      Best Case scenario -- according to Samantha Joye --

      it would take at least a year for the Microbes to "clean all the deep water oil an methane"

      if they didn't starve themselves of O2 first.

      (or perhaps maybe find the Corexit Toxic?)

      those are a lot of if's.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:16:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lots of ifs, that is for sure (6+ / 0-)

        However we know they're will also be plenty of "butts" injected into the discussion come tomorrow. I dread hearing the F*X headlines screaming we should give BP their $20 billion back and apologize. Just wait, it'll happen.

        Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:20:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jamess (8+ / 0-)

        I don`t believe one word of this.
        There is no way "oil eating" bacteria, can reproduce this fast that they could accommodate an increase of oil of this magnitude in such a short time.
        I have experience in bacterial reproduction & I find this premise impossible.
        One has to remember that the bacteria has to also deal with the ongoing flow of oil that has been seeping for hundreds of thousands of years.
        A sudden influx of millions of gallons of oil will have overwhelmed the bacteria & the oxygen needed to sustain them.
        I`m only a layperson but I`m not stupid.
        "Reducing it by half every three days" is fundamentally flawed & ignorant.
        This is only my opinion but jesus, let`s be real here.
        There`s no way this can happen naturally.
        It`s simply impossible.
        Someone is lying.
        I don`t care about how many "if`s" are involved, It`s a blatant lie.
        Prove me wrong.
        (Not you personally, Jamess)

        I`m already against the next war.

        by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:07:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I found that incredible too (5+ / 0-)

          "Reducing it by half every three days"

          but then I thought,

          I've always had a hard time visualizing "Half-Lives" anayways --

          which I read somewhere else was the concept, they were after,

          Half of "what's left" gets consumed in each "cycle" --


          It is incredible, if true.

          thanks Knucklehead  for weighing in.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:18:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Half life (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, blueoasis, Matt Z, jamess, Mike Taylor

            This might help.
            It`s incredible in scope but not meant to be compared to the idiots claiming a 3 day half life of the oil in the water, due to bacteriological degradation, which is delusional on it`s face though.

            Plutonium (chemical symbol Pu, atomic number 94) is a radioactive, metallic chemical element that is part of the actinide series. It is the element used in most modern nuclear weapons. The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,110 years. It can be made from natural uranium and is fissile, meaning it can readily break apart to become lighter elements. The most stable isotope is 244Pu, with a half-life of about 80 million years, long enough to be found in extremely small quantities in nature. In fact, 244Pu is the heaviest atom naturally occurring in traces in the Earth's crust.

            I`m already against the next war.

            by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:49:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Long Half-life is good in radioisotopes (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z, jamess, Mike Taylor

              It is the short ones that decay rapidly and send out huge amounts of radiation/particles.

              •  Sandino (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino, blueoasis, Matt Z, jamess, Mike Taylor

                I hope you are well.
                I was only showing an example of half life to jamess, & included the provision that it was not comparable to the oil half life.
                I am glad you commented on this, since I`ve also learned a bit more in my quest for knowledge, although to get a better handle on this new knowledge, I`d have to have a better understanding of "radioisotopes" & "radiation/particles".
                All I can glean from my little quote, was that Plutonium seemed dangerous for a lot longer than I`d care to have it left on my porch.
                I can see I have a lot of reading/studying to do.
                Peace

                I`m already against the next war.

                by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:24:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pretty well, thanks (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Matt Z, jamess, orlbucfan

                  The faster the stuff decays, the shorter the half life. Each decay event sends off a particle (or more), and these particles can hit a bit of DNA and turn a cell cancerous. Plutonium decays fast enough to be dangerous, and slowly enough to be around for quite a while.  

                  All decay processes occur with an exponential fall off, since each atom has a random chance of decaying at any moment, when you have a pile of them, the overall number of decays depends on how big the pile is. It is like reverse compound interest, and we abbreviate the uninteresting exponential factor with something a bit easier to grasp: the amount of time it takes for half the stuff to decay.  This is similar to seeing your interest described as an annual percentage, even though it is really computed with a daily or monthly exponential factor.

                  I think the bacterial digestion is a similar process mathematically, since  the more bacteria there are, the more tiny little baby bacteria they can make. Growth of bacteria, or other critters in the presence of sufficient resources is thus also exponential, so presumably people talk about population doubling times, or even food half-lifes.

      •  Beats the hell out of (4+ / 0-)

        a few decades as in Prince William Sound.

        Make. Them. Filibuster.

        by NWTerriD on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:34:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "if they didn't starve themselves of O2 first" (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreenPA, Knucklehead, Matt Z, jamess, miss SPED

        and they will kill everything else when all the O2 is gone. It will still be a dead zone.

      •  Questions Remain: (9+ / 0-)
        1. What are the breakdown products of these new microbes when their feast ends? How toxic are they?
        1. What components of the oil do they consume, which do they leave in the environment?
        1. How much influence does BP's funding of this lab have on the way their results are presented?
    •  i have heard the microbe arguement (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocGonzo, Matt Z, jamess, ontheleftcoast

      for other things, like styrofoam.

      skeptical, too

      •  The one thing this has over that (16+ / 0-)

        is oil does naturally seep into the environment and has for millions of years, even at a much, much lower rate. Life doesn't let a free meal go to waste, ever seen the species of worms that evolved to feast on skeletons of dead whales? But I have to wonder if we've seen this with other spills like Santa Barbara in '69 or Ixtoc in '80 and if so, what impact did the microbes have and will the Corexit have any effect on them. But nothing operates in a vacuum, so what do the microbes need to function? Oxygen? Maybe, maybe they're used to working in an ultra-low oxygen environment so work anaerobically. And what happens with the quadrillions of microbes when all that food is used up? Do they simply sink to the ocean bottom? Do the zöoplankton eat them? Do they have any toxins in them that will concentrate in the food supply? So damn many questions, so few answers. And those ignorant anti-science bastards will trumpet, "Scientists say Gulf oil eaten by microbes". Without understanding anything about what that means. We truly are in the Age of Stupid.

        Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:40:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be amazing (14+ / 0-)

          what we could accomplish as a country --

          IF we actually were Science-driven.

          Imagine!

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:43:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hear! Hear! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, Matt Z, jamess

            Yes, science-driven rather than narrative-driven (see some of the comments below).

            Imagine!

            One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble ... Murray Head

            by virginislandsguy on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:37:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  we went to the Moon with less computer power... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marko, Matt Z, jamess, Blubba, pstoller78

            .... than most people have in their mobile communications devices.  

            The computers got smarter, we got stupider (and stupider).

            The 1960s anti-science backlash by the counterculture set the stage for the religious extremist anti-science movement of more recent years.

            Even among progressives this BS continues: anti-nuclearism being a stellar example.  

            If we were a science-driven culture we would have our energy & ecological problems solved by now.  

             

            •  Not too sure about that (6+ / 0-)

              re the counterculture anti-science thing, I don't think you have it right. Having lived through those times myself, I'm fairly certain that the present anti-science attitude has far more to do with religious fundamentalism that it does with anything from the hippies of the 60s.  

              I don't think it set the stage as you say, but it did set the stage for people being more conscious of what they eat, strengthened the environmental movement, and a fostered a greater appreciation of nature in general.  The negative heritage of the counterculture might be new-age-ism which can be very anti science and pro superstition in some circles.  

            •  What Counterculture Anti-Science Backlash? (0+ / 0-)

              The 1960s anti-science backlash by the counterculture

              What are you talking about? The counterculture embraced science. It was in love with the space programme, "better living through chemistry", media analysis, public TV shows like Nova and the rest.

              Show me some evidence of this backlash you claim, or retract it.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 11:23:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  crystals..... (0+ / 0-)

                megavitamins....auras....harmonic convergence....antivaccine groups...sweat lodges...Protests against Genetic Engineering in Cambridge and Madison WI in 1970s.  

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:04:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pseudoscience (0+ / 0-)

                  Er, you have "pseudoscience" confused with "anti-science" on crystals and auras And you have the 1980s confused with the 1960s on megavitamins and harmonic convergence. "Pro-tradition" confused with "anti-science" on sweat lodges. And you have "counter-intuitive" confused with "counter-cultuer" on anti-vaccine, not to mention the 21st Century with the 20th. And you have protests against genetic engineering confused with "antiscience".

                  Really, you're just punching the imaginary hippie.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:30:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  We were at one point. sigh n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  something tells me these microbes (9+ / 0-)

          thrive on bs

          ;)

        •  Gosh, all that stuff... (6+ / 0-)

          Is covered in the article.

          The natural seepage rate is 40-50 million gallons per year.  

          One would not expect microbes to necessarily be present everywhere around the globe.  But certainly in zones where major oil seeps has been going on for eons.

          The overall amount of Corexit was small.  1.2 million gallons?  In a 643 quadrillion gallon body of water.

          There does not seem to be a huge increase in the number of these microbes.  The ones already there just got very, very busy.  Chowing down like a houseful of hungry relatives at Thanksgiving.

          They've existed for eons.  Most likely other stuff down there has learned how to put up with them.

          We don't have to be in the Age of Stupid.

          We could just read what's laid out in front of us....

          Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

          by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:44:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've seen the article but statements like this (6+ / 0-)

            There does not seem to be a huge increase in the number of these microbes

            Just don't work for me. It flies in the face of everything we know about microbes. They don't just eat, they eat and MULTIPLY. And they so until the food runs out. This is interesting but incomplete information. Like any real problem in science the answers often produce more questions.

            Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

            by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:11:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Folks were still seeing the signs of the Ixtoc (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayBat, DocGonzo, jamess, ontheleftcoast

          spill more than 20 years later in TX ..

          Bacteria exist naturally, but they couldn't handle Ixtoc.

          http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/...

          Two decades after the Ixtoc disaster, marine biologist Wes Tunnell sank his diving knife into an area where he had spotted a tar patch just after the spill. The blade came out black and tarry but the hardened surface of the patch was under sand, shells and algae that had completely covered it.

          Let's guess, the Coreexit must have 'activated the bacteria' and created 'magic'.

          •  No magic--just increased oil/water surface area. (0+ / 0-)

            The hypothesis I read was that Corexit, a dispersant, breaks up large globules of oil into microscopic droplets. This increases the surface area of the oil/water interface, which increases the amount of oil accessible to the bacteria for consumption.

            •  And Kills Them (0+ / 0-)

              The Corexit is also toxic to the microbes. So while exposing surface area to them, it also destroys the microbes.

              Microbes have had 20 years to eat the Ixtoc oil, over 60x as long as the time to eat the BP/2010 oil, yet the Ixtoc oil is still out there.

              I'm going to need a lot more corroboration than from a study from an org that was funded to the tune of hundreds of $millions by BP, which has spent more than that just this Summer on lies about this spill.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 11:31:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How do you know? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DocGonzo, jamess

                Sounds like these are microbes that haven't been observed before. Did they even exist 20 years ago? If Corexit kills them, why were they especially abundant in the oil plumes where Corexit was used?

                I agree there need to be more studies, but it's just as premature to say this study is bunk as it is to say it's true. And it certainly isn't necessary to invoke "magic," which was the sole point of my comment above.

  •  Thanks for daring to inject facts (23+ / 0-)

    into ideologically-bound discussions, even if the facts don't support the prevailing narrative here.

    Facts matter, and we cannot develop effective policies without ALL the facts - the ones we like, and the one's we don't.

    Yes, it seems a bit silly to make a big deal about this, but, so often, the diaries here seem overwhelmingly polemic and propagandistic, and so rarely thoughtful and humble.

    As Yevgeny Yevtoshenko said,

    One day posterity will remember these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:15:59 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for reporting. (7+ / 0-)

    We all really hope that we catch a break.

  •  BP nonsense. (7+ / 0-)

    Magic microbes safely and cleanly disposing of millions of gallons of oil. Obviously they have the best scientists --and publicists-- money can buy.

    British Petroleum: I think that means it's foreign oil.

    by Bensdad on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:26:12 PM PDT

  •  From the science mag article (13+ / 0-)

    The magical creature is called - gammaprtobacteria.

    Read about them here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  Bacteria that eat oil... (4+ / 0-)

    amazing.

    "There are some mistakes only someone with a Ph.D. can make" -- Sen. Daniel Moynihan

    by Han Shot First on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:33:17 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Jamess! I hope it's true too. nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, Matt Z, jamess

    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth". Albert Einstein

    by Sydserious on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:43:09 PM PDT

  •  The new paper did not measure any actual activity (15+ / 0-)

    of microbes degrading oil. They isolated all the DNA from microorganisms in the water samples and identified a higher percentage of organisms that might be able to degrade oil in the plume samples than the non-plume samples (~2x more). They have no evidence that oil degradation is actually occurring in the gulf (it most certainly must be) nor do they measure it. However the study is important since they have now genetically identified the most abundant microorganisms from oil plume water samples that was previously unknown and this will allows scientists now to isolate and grow that organism from sea water and study it.

    If anyone could e-mail me the pdf of the Science article, I comment on which components of the oil are likely to be degraded and give my full assessment rather than this primer based on the abstract and the science mag news article/a few media reports I have read.

    "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

    by yuriwho on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:15 PM PDT

    •  Just sent it to you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yuriwho, jamess

      Sorry I couldn't do it sooner

      "We are normal and we want our freedom" - Bonzos

      by matching mole on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:36:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thx, my first take on the paper (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, jamess, matching mole

        main points:

        about 2x as many overall microorganisms in plume relative to non-plume samples.

        the microorganisms in the plume are >= 95% members of Oceanospirillales order, <=5% of the non-plume microorganisms are from this class. Showing high correlation of potential oil degrading bacteria with the oil plume in sampling areas 5 and 10 km from well head.</p>

        Would need to see the supplementary info to comment on which enzymes appear to be most active but it appears this data is somewhat weak since they are surveying 6000-8000 probes of genes known to be involved in degrading oil components using the Geochip

        They also see dissolved Oxygen drop a little bit where the plume is (59% saturated in the plume vs 67% outside).

        There is no evidence provided to suggest these organisms use anything besides oxygen to degrade oil components.

        The half life degradation data is very weak and should not be considered definitive of anything IMO. It's really just some additional data that appears to potentially support the idea that the plume is being degraded but on it's own, the data would never be accepted as showing anything of note.

        What is clear from this paper is that organisms with the potential to degrade oil were growing in the plume and these organism were a much smaller subset in non-plume waters (ratio of about 36:1 in cell numbers).

        Overall very good evidence that microorganisms are selectively growing in and likely degrading the plume. No no clear evidence on how fast or how effectively.

        It also should be noted that the microbes are largely absent in the plume at 1.65 km from the well head, but appear by 5 km from the well head and are still present in the plume at 10 km.

        I think the next step would be to culture this organism to investigate how it degrades oil in sea water.

        My overall assessment is that it is slowly munching on the oil but not quickly enough to greatly affect dissolved oxygen. Which could be a near ideal scenario: slow steady degradation without killing all the other wildlife through oxygen depletion.

        "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

        by yuriwho on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:12:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yuriwho

          for that independent educated peer-review, yuriwho

          I appreciate you insights.

          I thought that "half life degradation" rate,
          was kind of hard to accept, just on the face of it.

          Sounds like it was a sketchy conclusion.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:33:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Except they didn't eat the oil (8+ / 0-)

    The salient point I picked up was that they were aiding in dispersion (smaller droplets, perhaps some other transformations) rather than actually consuming it.  This was reflected in the lack of oxygen depletion.  Had they metabolized the oil the oxygen depletion would have been observed.  

    It's funny that some other diarists are ready to claim a victory for a microbe that was previously unknown and whose effect was undetermined when they declared victory much earlier.  

    Note to Democratic leadership: I'm all out of carrots, but I still have my stick.

    by Celtic Pugilist on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:20 PM PDT

    •  Not entirely true (5+ / 0-)

      it's possible that the organism does not degrade the oil use using oxygen. I'll need to get a copy of the paper to tell you what they really know about it.

      "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

      by yuriwho on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:47:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You missed "transformations" (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, yuriwho, Matt Z, jamess, DeepLooker

        It isn't clear from the summaries I've read what the end result is, other than it not being the same oil droplets they were looking for.  But the lack of oxygen depletion is telling us something.  It may ultimately be the very best news, or it might be delayed bad news.  

        It's really premature to declare victory with such a result, because it is not yet understood.  I've been through this on development projects a few times.  Our research chemists would often get the cart before the horse.

        Note to Democratic leadership: I'm all out of carrots, but I still have my stick.

        by Celtic Pugilist on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:55:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  those are wel considered Cautions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigchin, Matt Z, lenzy1000

          the Study is just preliminary.

          O2 levels need to be explained.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:06:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From what I've read... (7+ / 0-)

            This strain of bacteria is aerobic; therefore, there should be some oxygen depletion. Furthermore, I read that this strain of bacteria actually do degrade the crude oil, and that the final product of such degradation should be Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  

            •  Major Tom (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jamess, lenzy1000

              Which will kill life underwater.

              I`m already against the next war.

              by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:25:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How much? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                virginislandsguy, DollyMadison

                (With only a little bit of googling, you too can do the math.)

                Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:49:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  DO (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jamess

                  With no dissolved oxygen, it becomes a dead zone.
                  Google "dead"

                  I`m already against the next war.

                  by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:56:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Google the size of the Gulf... (5+ / 0-)

                    600,000 square miles.

                    Google the size of normally occurring dead zones.

                    6500 to 8500 square miles.

                    Good the size of this plume.

                    Perhaps as large as 80 square miles.

                    Do the math.

                    80/6500 * 100 = 1.2%
                    80/8500 * 100 = 0.9%

                    That's the apparent size increase in the total dead zones.  If, in fact, the plume/microbes cause an oxygen depleted dead zone.

                    If you had read the article before going into expert mode you would know that oxygen levels don't seem particularly low in the plume area.

                    (The internet - all sorts of facts right at your fingertips....)

                    Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                    by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:09:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  BobTrips (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis, Matt Z, DeepLooker

                      I`m not your enemy.
                      I know a little about volumes & volumes about little.
                      I apologize if I came of as in "expert mode".
                      It was most certainly not my intent.
                      I do though, have to ask you this, especially after having read the article,
                      "oxygen levels don't seem particularly low in the plume area."
                      If the oxygen levels aren`t being depleted in the plumes, please explain the metabolic process by which the bacterial degradation is happening in them by a half life of three days, without depletion of oxygen.
                      Peace

                      I`m already against the next war.

                      by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:35:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, sorry if I jumped to that conclusion... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        virginislandsguy, Matt Z, DeepLooker

                        Here's what the NYT report says...

                        Left in the plume's wake are flocks of cellular debris, likely the remains of a mass die-off of bacteria that followed the purging of the plume's oil, though that needs to be confirmed, Hazen said. In the Gulf's cold, deep waters, the debris looks like marine snow, he said, and oxygen levels have dipped, indicating that the microscopic life has begun to feed on itself.

                        A dipping in oxygen levels.  

                        And from the Science article published today...

                        Another concern has been that the oil-eating microbes could deplete oxygen within the plume. That's because the bacteria must extract oxygen from the water around them, which could spell disaster for local fisheries trying to get back on their feet. But neither study detected a dangerous drop in oxygen within the plume. "It would be very hard to establish a dead zone in this plume just because of microbial degradation," Camilli says.

                        There's a nice outtake of the paper here.   About six comments down from the top.

                        Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                        by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  a stab at the math for O2 consumption (0+ / 0-)

                        1 billion gallons of oil is about 4 * 10^6 m^3 of oil.

                        Each atom of C binds with a molecule of O2, and equivalent volumes hold about 1000 times more atoms in a solid/liquid than molecules in a gas, so it would take about 4 * 10^9  m^3 of O2, or 4 km^3 of O2.

                        If seawater normally has 15 ml/L of dissolved O2, it would take about
                        600 * 4 km^3 of water, or 2400 * km^3 of water to hold that much O2.

                        So an area of of 2400 km^2 (24 km by 100 km) that is 1 km deep could hold about enough O2 to combine with a billion gallons of pure carbon.

                        Adjust for the actual amount of oil, actual volume of the plume, etc. and you might have a ballpark estimate of expected O2 depletion percentage.

                        This ignores the fact that oil is a hydrocarbon, so a better estimate would take into account whatever is happening to the hydrogen atoms.  To the extent they displace C atoms, less O2 is needed, but to the extend they combine with O2 to make water, four times the volume of O2 is needed (H2O vs. CO2).  All-in-all this probably increases the O2 consumed.

                        And presumably the microbes are turning some of the carbon, etc. into new microbes, so knowing how much O2 is combined in doing that  would be useful to know, but all-in-all that probably reduces the O2 consumed.

                        That's a roadmap to an estimate, but someone with more time (or instant familiarity with the biology and chemistry) would need to refine it.

                        •  Why did you start with a billion gallons? (0+ / 0-)

                          The plume has been estimated to be about 42 million.

                          Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                          by BobTrips on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  simpler math (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BobTrips

                            cube root of 1 billion is 1 thousand, so I started in that range

                            When you get to the end, divide by 25.  

                            Also, I'd been up 30 hrs under a bit of a deadline, and was a bit frazzled, so didn't bother to find the real value.

                            As I said, it was just an outline for calculating a rough estimate -- adjust and refine accordingly.

                    •  BobTrips (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis

                      Upon further review, you fail to include in your calculations the millions of gallons of oil added to the gulf & the fact that the bacteria is already tasked with the normal flow of oil into the gulf due to natural seepage.
                      And what I failed to recognize was your attitude.
                      I don`t mind reasonable discourse, if that`s your thing also.
                      Peace

                      I`m already against the next war.

                      by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:40:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's your breathless recitation that's the error (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        virginislandsguy, Matt Z

                        You get all worked up over this, when it really appears that all the angst last week was a simple misreading of the Woods Hole study.

                        And the NY Times article from the Energy and Environmental Journalists there, something that no one who has been deep into this event seems to have diaried, was dismissed, and I was called a troll and worse.

                        •  DollyMadison (7+ / 0-)

                          I`m bothered that you were called a troll, so the "and worse" makes it that much saddening.
                          I`m sorry you had to be subjected to that. Really.
                          I didn`t realize I was trying to get to the bottom of the premise with "breathless recitation".
                          I don`t believe in expenditure of energy, without loss of matter.
                          That`s all.
                          It is a law of physics, no.
                          At the same time, I`ve never been rude to anybody on any site I frequent, & I mean ever ever.
                          If I sounded "breathlessly reciting", I should & will step back.
                          My apologies to anyone in this diary that I may have offended.
                          That goes for you, DollyMadison, BobTrip & any other unnamed persons.
                          Thank you for considering my heartfelt apology.

                          I`m already against the next war.

                          by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:02:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Mr. Head... (3+ / 0-)

                            Or should we call you Knuckle?

                            Did you give the NYT article a good read?  It's really got a ton of good info in it.

                            Link

                            And you might want to read through the comments on this diary.

                            (I'm not pimping my diary.  I'm pimping a couple of good comments by others, including a very interesting C&P from the Science article just published.)

                            Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                            by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:07:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, that's funny (4+ / 0-)

                            I posted a similar comment to this one (from your link)...

                            "For the last three weeks, we haven't been able to detect the deepwater plume at all," said Terry Hazen

                            maybe even the same quote, and was basically told that I didn't know what I was talking about.

                            I told people here that they couldn't even find the plume anymore, and they didn't believe me. I told people that scientists believed it had been broken up, and they doubted the previous NY Times article by this same group.

                            It's this hysteria, this group-think, these CT'ers who don't seem to be open to other alternatives, that have really gotten my goat!

                          •  Big problem on this site... (7+ / 0-)

                            We have a group of very dysfunctional people who seek the worst in everything they encounter.

                            Give them a bit of good news and  they react as if you have dosed them with cyanide.  

                            Point out a ray of hope and they cry that it's a train rushing to crush us.

                            Many of us have encountered the occasional individual in our jobs and communities.  They serve to disrupt and discourage, but as long as there is only one they can generally be dismissed.

                            Here, it seems, we have collected a herd....  

                            Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                            by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:43:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BobTrips (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueoasis, Matt Z, jamess, DeepLooker

                            As I said up thread, I`m always on a quest for knowledge & have never "Mooed" with others.
                            The linked times article is very informative & I do feel encouraged by the findings reported.
                            This could be the best news I`ve heard, regarding the gulf.
                            I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the findings, but do have one caveat.
                            I hope that because the findings may be true & correct, we don`t allow free rein to drilling companies to go ahead & drill, since we`ve got the solution in case of future spills. No one ever wants a repeat of this, I`m sure.
                            I`ve experienced bacterial "blooms" before, understand how some work, & how to control their changes.
                            I also understand the beneficial qualities of the desirable ones versus those that can kill a whole ecosystem, from one of 10 gallons to one of several thousand.
                            My concern for the gulf & indeed all our oceans is one that weights heavy with me.

                            I`m already against the next war.

                            by Knucklehead on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:07:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Head (7+ / 0-)

                            First you can lose the "Mr.".
                            People call me "Head", "Knuck", "KH" etc.
                            But don`t call me late for dinner, a party or a toke.
                            You would find no more an ecstatic person than myself, if the oil was gone & the gulf was saved from a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.
                            I would like to know how it happened. That`s all.
                            I`ve been posting diaries every Friday with images from my tanks.
                            I promised to do this till the Gulf situation was resolved.
                            I`m so looking forward to posting different images.
                            I want this to be over, please believe me, but I don`t want a hasty retreat, until I understand where & how the oil went away.
                            I don`t use the word "retreat" as in a battle.
                            I`ve been promoting our marine life for years to get people to appreciate the subsurface life many never get to see, nor maybe know it even exists.
                            My concern is for our oceans, not that I should win an argument.
                            Please see where my heart is by clicking my username & take a look at what I have living in my house.
                            Don`t comment rec tip or whatever, since I`m not pimping my diary either.
                            I am so open to the gulf being saved.
                            I shall now go through your provided links.
                            Peace
                            The oceans are the heartbeat of the planet.
                            Photobucket

                            I`m already against the next war.

                            by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:45:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your reply reminds me of the comedy routine (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Knucklehead, BobTrips, jamess, Escamillo

                            that goes:

                            Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Junie, or you can call me Ray J, or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ, or you can call me RJJ Jr. but you doesn't hasta call me Mr. Johnson!

                            One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble ... Murray Head

                            by virginislandsguy on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:56:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Some guy named Robert Zimmerman... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            virginislandsguy, jamess

                            used that routine in a song, as I recall....

                            Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                            by BobTrips on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:01:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This, me too... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jamess

                            I would like to know how it happened.

                            I'm looking forward to the investigative process and the report so that we know how the spill occurred.  There's been so many people posting 'the real truth' when we really don't know what actually happened.

                            It could turn out that BP did not cause the problem.  It could have been the fault, for example, of someone who put the blow out preventer together wrong back at the factory.  It could have been a flawed part that failed.

                            We just don't know jack yet....

                            Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                            by BobTrips on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:05:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BobTrips (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueoasis, DeepLooker

                            Sometimes people test those things.
                            Come on.
                            Flawed part.
                            The O-rings on the Challenger.
                            I understand we don`t know how it happened or why, but I`m not stupid.
                            As soon as each party starts blaming the other party, someone screwed up.
                            So I`ll say that I know for sure, someone screwed up.
                            Now einey miey miney moe, it`s one of them.
                            It wasn`t me, nor ,you, nor you, nor you.
                            It was one of them.

                            I`m already against the next war.

                            by Knucklehead on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:12:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Normally 40 to 50 million gallons per year... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        virginislandsguy, jamess

                        natural seepage.  Roughly  the same amount as the plume.

                        It's feast time for the microbes.  As the article points out these sort of microbes generally hang on eating low quality food until some good stuff turns up.

                        I've very surprised to head a 'half life' of less than a week.  But I had no idea that there was anything down that low that could eat oil.  I thought the oil-eating microbes were limited to warmer waters.

                        (My math above was about trying to put the 'worst case' scenario into perspective.  Some people are turning this very bad event into the Death of the Gulf!!!!.)

                        Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

                        by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:55:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Jamess & Celtic Pugilist (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, jamess, happymisanthropy

            I`m starting a breeding/training program for bacteria, that will bypass the drilling process.
            If you want to invest in my program, you can get in on the ground floor since you seem to have more brains than some.
            My plan is to inject reservoirs of oil with these microbes, have them eat it, then come to a predetermined location to disgorge it.
            Since they seem to not need Oxygen (I can only assume that from their report diaried here) there is no loss of energy, so we could have a perpetual motion system.
            The crazy part of my new venture is we only have to sell this system to the oil companies without them realizing that if it`s perpetual motion we`ve figured out, who needs oil.
            How much are you guys in for.
            Let`s get together & discuss a strategy for an IPO.
            We`ll kill.

            I`m already against the next war.

            by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:23:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  p.s. if anyone has access to the pdf (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, G2geek, blueoasis, jamess, orlbucfan

          and can e-mail it to me. (e-mail in my profile) I'll review and translate their actual findings for you. I am a research chemist/biochemist so this is an article i'll be able to review. I have no access to the original paper from where I am right now.

          "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

          by yuriwho on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:11:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the inference (4+ / 0-)

      that struck me in the New Study

      was how the Oil-eating Population was much greater
      in the Oil Plumes

      that they were in the surrounding "clear water";

      (about 2-3 X greater, I think I read).

      Somethings "boosting" their populations.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:49:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The sound you hear, Obama DKOS chorus. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Celtic Pugilist

      It's funny that some other diarists are ready to claim a victory for a microbe that was previously unknown and whose effect was undetermined when they declared victory much earlier.  

      Like the recession, Obama was claiming Victory in the Gulf from day one, putting out the bogus 5,000 barrels vs. the 60,000 the scientists estimated. Now Obama and BP are partners in the cover up.

      The new miracle bug story from BP funded scientists is printed up to counter the Woods Hole Scientists finding that the plumes, deprived of the sunlight and O2 needed by bacteria to aerobically break down oil aren't there in the Obama EPA/BP "plumes",

      Nothing to see hear, super bugs got in under control, move along, move along.

  •  BP will have plenty to answer for even if the (18+ / 0-)

    microbes outperform everyone's wildest dreams.  Thanks for acknowledging that MAYBE, just MAYBE we're catching a break. No doubt there will be lots of seriously negative impacts that we don't even know about yet.  But I don't think it improves our environmentalist creds to sound like we absolutely catagorically reject that anything could possibly go better than expected.  I, for one, don't want to be a cheerleader for maximum destructiveness scenarios.  And, in any case, the facts is the facts.

    Just as an aside, I had a very small and insignificant personal experience with the power of microbes.  For years, I had nothing but murky water problems with my fish pond - it was only a foot deep and I never saw the damn bottom - ever.  I had a pump and a filter and resorted to trying all sorts of algae or water treatment products.  My fish survived both the turbid water and the products.  But about 4 years into "managing" my pond, I tried something called Sludge Away (or something like that) that seeded the pond with nitrogen-eating microbes.  Voila!  Two days later I had totally clear water.  I've only innoculated the pond a couple of times in the last 6 years.  I haven't used any toxic products and my water is clear 100% of the time and the fish are fat and happy. It was my best science experiment ever!  Sorry to bother you with my story but how often is there even the slightest excuse for sharing my sludge-eating microbe story!

    All right, then, I'll go to hell. - Mark Twain

    by seethruit on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:47:44 PM PDT

    •  great story (5+ / 0-)

      illustrates what they can do, in the right situation.

      thanks seethruit

      I too, and glad for this tiny bit of hopeful news --

      I hope it pans out.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:51:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  seethruit (6+ / 0-)

      Brag about it all day long, please.
      I build ponds & keep coral reef tanks, so I know a little about denitrifying bacteria, & their capacity to keep their levels at optimum levels.
      I`m happy you finally got your pond at equilibrium.
      It can be discouraging.

      DSCN1065

      I`m already against the next war.

      by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:35:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  seethruit (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martini, Matt Z, jamess, seethruit

      What I do in my ponds is create a biological filter.
      I make a closed area over the intake to the filter system.
      I make a pipe manifold so the intake is spread over this area.
      I put a plastic screen over this.
      I then fill the area with pea gravel.
      The water going to the filter must go through this layer of pea gravel, where your bacterial bed resides.
      The bacteria will only reproduce to the needed levels.
      If you add more fish, the bacterial level will grow to the needed level to account for more fish waste.
      When you clean this pea gravel area, only do half at a time.
      Let the bacteria regroup, then clean the other half. (two weeks).
      If you clean the whole bacterial pea gravel bed at once, there is no bacteria left & could result in loss of fish.
      This system I advocate is exactly such as an under gravel filtration system in a fresh water aquarium which I`m also very familiar with.
      Check my username & see what I do with coral reef tanks.
      I`m not pimping anything, only showing that I know what the heck I`m talking about.
      I love ponds.
      Contact me if you want more info.
      I`ll be glad to share.

      I`m already against the next war.

      by Knucklehead on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:10:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Germs saved the earth (7+ / 0-)

    Yes, that was in War of the Worlds.  I prefered the Gene Barry version to that of Tom Cruise. So it would only be fitting that Microbes were the organisms that destroyed it. Oil dripping microbes, the Godzilla of the 21st Century.

    Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez Spills Compared
    The United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, , recently announced that a majority of oil from the BP spill has been captured or mitigated through the federal response effort http://www.newslook.com/...

    and there's no Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) to save us this time. Unless Dr. House is in the House.  

  •  Excellent diary! Thank You! Sure hope that it is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, jamess

    true also. That corexit thing still has me wondering about the safety of the seafood though.

    "I have ferrets with fins" - African Cichlids. And 3 pooties too! Ren, Stimpy (15 yrs) and Rocky (3 yrs)

    by mrsgoo on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:51:36 PM PDT

    •  the FDA (8+ / 0-)

      really has to start testing the Seafood Supply --

      the Sniff Test -- just doesn't pass the Laugh Test,

      if you ask the average consumer --

      FDA has been slow to get the message though:

      The FDA is reviewing the NRDC letter, but officials are confident in the protocols, said agency spokeswoman Meghan Scott.

      The main issue with oil contamination is potential cancer-causing substances called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. These are pollutants that show up in other foods as well, such as grilled meat.

      If there is contamination, fish metabolize it fastest, oysters and crabs slowest and shrimp are somewhere between.

      Testing includes "sniffers," who check for traces of oil and lab tests on ground up seafood to check for signs of contaminants.

      http://www.google.com/...

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:57:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  best news ever on this story/ thanks diarist! n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, Major Tom, jamess

    "Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled through snow." Jeff Valdez

    by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:59:57 PM PDT

  •  Not to be a wet blanket, but... (13+ / 0-)

    From an article about the study posted at the Berkeley Lab web site:

    Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.  He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP.

    Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

    by Big Tex on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:16:48 PM PDT

  •  Ma Nature cut us some slack, again. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, jamess, orlbucfan, freesia, FarWestGirl

    So this time we managed to avoid major ecosystem catastrophe, as in, a huge patch of dead ocean, phytoplankton and all.   Instead we get the comparatively mild punishment of trashed local ecosystems and economies.  

    This is what Lovelock meant by Gaia: the interlocking set of limiting-feedback systems that maintain conditions favorable to the existence and ongoing evolution of organisms and ecosystems.   One doesn't need to mythologize or personify any of it.  

    Yet one has to wonder.  Mother Earth and Father Sky, a metaphor that speaks to the heart, and perhaps contains a seed of truth: nature is far wiser than we are, and far more capable of managing itself than we are.  

    There isn't an infinite amount of slack to be had, an unlimited number of "get out of jail free" cards for all of our impacts.  To put it in religious terms, there will come a point where the forgiveness stops and we will be held accountable for the consequences of our sins.  

    •  Mother Nature (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, blueoasis, Matt Z, orlbucfan, freesia

      will not always be so kind.

      The Climate Change warning,
      are down right dreadful.

      All I see there are mostly positive-feedback loops,

      except for the negative ones:

      increased Cloud Cover,
      and the ceasing of the Gulf Stream conveyor current.

      those will cause havoc, no doubt, too.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:23:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Got a study not associated with BP funding? (13+ / 0-)

    The extraordinary claim that a new creature with only positive, fortuitous, qualities has been discovered would need a bit more than just one study by dependents of BP, I would think, given the circumstances.

    The research was supported by an existing grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, a partnership led by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP. Other support came from the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Oklahoma Research Foundation.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:34:36 PM PDT

    •  that does Taint the results, doesn't it? (8+ / 0-)

      see thread above:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:43:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it doesn't "taint" the results... (14+ / 0-)

        You're talking about a leading scientist in the field whose area of study includes oil spills.

        He's working in a world class institution affiliated with a world class university.

        Oil companies are certainly going to be interested in things that clean up spills, it would not be surprising that oil companies would contribute funds for this sort of research.  Companies of all sorts contribute to basic research projects which might yield information they can use down the road.

        This study was published in a very major scientific journal.  The editors of journals such as Science are not chumps and would have paid extra attention to the fact that BP had contributed funding.  That would have created an additional level of scrutiny.

        This paper would have been reviewed by a number of other leading researchers in the academic area.  They, also, would have looked even more closely because of the grant source.

        Someone who has made it to this level in their field is highly unlikely to piss away their career by faking data just to maintain a grant.  You get this high up the food chain and grants are not at all hard to get.

        This study - major researcher, major institution, major journal - should be taken very seriously.

        But like any other single piece of research, one should wait for corroborating work before betting the farm.

        Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

        by BobTrips on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:04:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The science is the science. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, jamess, smartdemmg

        Either the methodology holds up or it doesn't.

        Gotcha games on the blogs are not a valid way to peer review scientific examinations and hypotheses.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:01:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And that's why we know tobacco is safe. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess

          Because scientists said so, doncha remember?

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:57:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those tobacco studies (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess

            were junk science that never withstood peer review.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And this report has no peer review as (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geekesque

              of this moment, therefore it doesn't yet qualify as a scientific fact.

              You'll also recall that Depleted Uranium was found to not be a problem by Sandia National Labs, and the same for Agent Orange by other governmental/official studies.

              There's a very very long track record of industry and government dependent "science" being skewed to serve the interests of industry and government.

              So until someone confirms the fact that a brand new life form exists which just coincidentally backs up the BP/government claim and amazingly doesn't behave like other, similar, known forms of life (in use of oxygen, etc) it is really untenable to claim that this report is "science." Even if it is scientists claiming it.

              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:51:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jim P

                My point is that it's rather, well, pointless to debate news articles on scientific studies as if we can assess their merits either way.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 11:09:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  the journal Science is peer reviewed.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jamess

                and surely this important research is reviewed.

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:22:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It just came out today. (0+ / 0-)

                  Who were the peers who reviewed it? And who supplies their bread & butter? And the papers might be reviewed, but has the science been replicated by independent researchers?

                  There's a very long history of "official" science just making up shit to protect business and government, so caution is in order.

                  As to Science Magazine, they've been fooled in the past:

                  Science encountered another controversy in 2006 when papers by Hwang Woo-Suk on cloning human embryos from stem cell research were withdrawn by Seoul National University due to apparent scientific fraud. A committee set up by Science to study the matter found that the journal's procedures had been followed, and the journal could do little in the face of deliberate fraud. ...

                  Kennedy defended the peer review system, pointing out that catching fraud would require "costly and offensive oversight on the vast majority of scientists in order to catch the occasional cheater".

                  Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

                  by Jim P on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:57:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  peers are selected by the editors..... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jamess

                    and are anonymous experts to keep it independent.  For example, if someone turns you down, you might be angry or if someone approves you, you might be grateful.  Grant peer review is anonymous too.

                    Scientists count on the ability of others to reproduce their results.  The Korean study couldn't be reproduced and neither could cold fusion.

                    I realize you mustn't understand how this process works- but it is stringent and fair.  Beleive it or not, getting a grant doesn't get you much more money- you might get summer salary or to travel to a conference to report results.  What it gets you is more workers and students to do rearch with you.  In biotech you might spin out a company worth millions, a temptation for the Korean cloning scientist.  But an environmental microbiologist?  Not likely.  Probably his biggest thrill in this is making a discovery and getting it published in the most prestigious, hard to publish in journal.  Fraud would be stupid, in the opinion of this practicing scientist.

                    The visceral negativity here on what might be some good news is troubling me.  Attack what you know, fine.  But if you don't know much about science and you attack someone's results just on "principle" then ask yourself if you are open minded enough to judge anything.

                    I don't take one piece of possible good news as a happy ending and neither does anyone realistic about the damage oil causes.  There will be lots more bad news, never fear.

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:22:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  BPs been buying the scientists. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martini, blueoasis, Matt Z, condorcet

      Blacklash Grows Against BP Efforts to "Buy Up" Gulf scientists

      As for the new, super duper never seen on planet Earth oil eating bacteria, wish it would go and clean up the Exxon Valdez spill, that's still killing the environment 20 years later.

      We might have to put the super bug in amber next to "It's only 5,000 barrels a day" and "we'll be more careful on East coast" and "Hey, no photographs of oil soaked beaches" and other highlights government collusion with BP to minimize cost to BP and government.

    •  And it doesn't deplete oxygen (0+ / 0-)

      And the microbe works without significantly depleting oxygen in the water

      Eureka, that explains why the Woods Hole scientists thought was no significant consumption when they did their measurements!

      That research by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found no reduction in the oxygen content of the gigantic oil plume, suggesting that microbes were consuming the oil very slowly.

  •  The Republican Party would disappear if only (8+ / 0-)

    we had microbes that ate bullshit.

    I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

    by hcc in VA on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Oh, you mean you're not an ideologue. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, jamess, Mike Taylor

    I thought you said only things about how bad the oil spill is.  Now you are saying something positive.  I find this very confusing.  Would you state once and for all:  are you for or against this oil leak?

    Wait a sec, I bet you're one of those "scientists."

    Don't believe everything you think.

    by geomoo on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:06:15 PM PDT

  •  What do the bacteria excrete? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, condorcet, happymisanthropy

    They eat the oil and turn it into what?

    ---
    Mr. Rogers taught us to be better than this.

    by VelvetElvis on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:29:29 PM PDT

  •  Can we revoke BP's corporate charter? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, jamess
  •  I will wait to hear from some of the universities (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, JayBat, Indiana Bob, KenBee, Pakalolo, southof

    in the Gulf Coast region.

    When the NOAA report came out on August 4th, accompanied by a huge propaganda blast through every media outlet known to man, it was reported that the local university scientists, who have been highly engaged, had no idea about the NOAA report when they were asked about it by reporters the day before the report was released.

    We heard some responses from them after they saw the report.  I remember the term "wild-assed guess" being used.  But it took them a good two weeks before they were able to put together a response, and before the Science article came out last week.

    So, while I also hope very much that microbes have consumed more oil than expected, I want to hear from some others who we know have the best interests of the Gulf Coast in mind -- for example, the scientists who, from the start, were questioning BP's and NOAA's 1000 BPD and 5000 BPD flow rate estimates, early on.  I believe that Ian MacDonald is one of those scientists, but I know there are more.

    My concern is that there was great embarrassment to the government when they released the NOAA report on 8/4, and Carol Browner told the media that 3/4 of the oil was gone.  There were problems with calculations being based on a surface spill situation when much of this oil never made it to the surface.  There was immediate push back on the report and the figures, then last week, the peer reviewed article said that much, much less of the oil was gone (may have even heard numbers like 20%?  I don't recall exactly).  So this was a very bad situation for the government.  They have a big motivation to try to smooth over what appears to be a huge gaffe by NOAA, or failed propaganda attempt.

    There has been just too much disinformation during this whole process for me to believe this sudden news that microbes ate 200 million gallons of oil in a few months.

  •  Thanks so much for this Jamess (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, Matt Z, gulfgal98
    It's going to be a while before we have a definitive take on things.

    Research takes time to do right.

    It's why I find myself refusing to get into an uproar at the latest snippet of information.

    There's just too much we don't know yet.

    Like you, I hope this report is confirmed.

    Power to the microbes!

    "I get up, I walk, I fall down. Meanwhile, I keep dancing." Daniel Hillel

    by Onomastic on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:28:51 AM PDT

  •  That's all evil CT activism by the scientists,.. (0+ / 0-)

    of course they knew that Corexit would definitely destroy all bacteria that would love eating oil. I mean who would stage an oil leak without thinking of the consequences of mother nature's bacteria just being a game spoiler.

    And of course it's for sure that there is an ABUNDANCE of oxygen that is responsible for the "lack of Microbes activity".

    ???????????

    Call me very confused, if I had time to read the reports, I wouldn't snark here, but without coffee in the morning, I just need to love me my CTs to get up and running.

    Sigh.

  •  Wait, what ? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Matt Z, jamess, orlbucfan

    I love science. That love doesn't give me the capacity to understand it or a masters degree, what it does do however is give me the ability to be not so easily convinced .
    It seems very convenient that microbes are eating the oil, saving BP billions. It would lead me to ask; Did API or any other such organization fund this study ? Are either study or university heavily 'granted' by Exxon, BP, Chevron or whomever ? Who is on the university board ?
    Maybe  I am skeptical but the use of a dispersant which is illegal in the rest of the world because it keeps the oil under water and impossible to find, had no effect because microbes ate all the oil .
    I may not be grasping the reports (I stated that) but it seems all to simple a solution ., and it seems like a very cost effective solution for BP .

    you can't remain neutral on a moving train

    by rmfcjr on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:07:22 AM PDT

    •  dispersant isn't illegal..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobTrips, jamess

      it is regulated and used where appropriate.

      Dispersant breaks down chemically in the environment.

      This blog decided dispersant was a cover-up- but not all agreed- including me.  50 plus experts met with the EPA and agreed dispersant was a good idea.  
      EPA was concerned about deep water dispersant use.  It was discontinued and then allowed on a day by day basis by the Coast Guard.

      How horrible is it if it turns out using dispersant was a good thing, not a bad thing?

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:34:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess

        The dispersant USED in the Gulf is illegal in Europe, 100% illegal. It is also illegal in the Gulf Of Thailand and in the Indian Ocean .
        It is legal to use off the coast of the United States though.

        It is not regulated in Europe, it isn't allowed to be used because of major issues off the coast of Spain and , if I recall correctly, Ireland

        you can't remain neutral on a moving train

        by rmfcjr on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 02:38:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Finding places where "oil eating" bacteria live.. (6+ / 0-)

    It is very easy to substantiate a claim that oil-consuming bacteria have been proliferating.

    Just look for a dead zone.

    In order to digest hydrocarbons, these bacteria also need a lot of oxygen; anywhere they have performed this so called miracle, there will be a zone where fish cannot live, because there is no oxygen.

    Conservation of Matter and Energy, people.  Things don't just disappear; life and chemistry are not magic, they are just processes.  You can't make a toxic soup disappear without some pretty dire consequences.

    "Confunde et vince." Come visit our chickens at http://bigmyrtle.blogspot.com

    by Walden Ponderer on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:25:36 AM PDT

  •  How about (5+ / 0-)

    a microbe that eats tea-baggers...

  •  This would not be the case in the Arctic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, murrayewv, jamess

    We should not become complacent about drilling elsewhere if it turns out we have dodged a bullet in The Gulf.

    Cold waters have very different resident microbes.

    "One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity nothing beats teamwork." - Mark Twain

    by greendem on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:50:49 AM PDT

    •  Just wondering... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      These newly discovered guys have been living in very cold water.  

      Oil seeps are not uncommon.

      Wonder if we'll find oil-eating microbes in Arctic water once someone takes a look?

      Obama quote count - "Hold my feet to the fire" (3) - "Help me work for a better America" (137) --- [Phony numbers, real message]

      by BobTrips on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:56:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good for the environment, bad politically. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, orlbucfan, nervousnellie

    If indeed this is true, it's wonderful for the environment, far better news than we could have hoped for.  But from a political standpoint, it will be used to allow BP and other comapnies to continue to maintain poor response plans, as they can now claim that much of any oil spill will be taken care of 'naturally', and they won't need to 'deal with it'.

    Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:00:12 AM PDT

    •  Who gives a shit about the politics? (5+ / 0-)

      We're talking about the potential of avoiding a complete catastrophe, for humans and sea animals alike.

      I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

      by doc2 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whether or not you 'give a shit' (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lockewasright, jamess, orlbucfan

        the microbes will either do their job or not, so we might as well figure out how it will be used by the Republicans to allow them to more easily create additional disasters in future.

        I'm not saying that them gobbling the oil is bad, I'm merely looking ahead to how Republicans will twist this to allow them to escape greater regulatory oversight in future.  It's easier to head them off from such if you fight from the start then it is to wait until it's already in their plans, and try to take them retroactively.

        Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:34:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's likely the bacteria produce methane as they (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    consume the oil. Any mention of methane levels?

  •  There's either oxygen, or there isn't. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland, lockewasright, jamess

    Something is not right with these reports.

  •  Magic .. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    southof

    http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/...

    Two decades
    after the Ixtoc disaster, marine biologist Wes Tunnell sank his diving knife into an area where he had spotted a tar patch just after the spill. The blade came out black and tarry but the hardened surface of the patch was under sand, shells and algae that had completely covered it.

    out of sight, out of minds

  •  Dispersants aren't persistent (4+ / 0-)

    The various compounds in the dispersants, including small ones like butoxyethanol or the bigger polyethylene glycol ones are very tasty to bacteria. You don't stay drunk for a week after you drink ethanol (an alcohol) and butoxyethanol, with a free alcohol group will be eaten by just about anything it comes in contact with. They are not persistent. Remember the dose makes the poison. All of these dispersants are toxic, just like drinking dish washing detergent is toxic. But they should be gone by now. Unlike oil, which is hard to break down.  Only a relatively small number of microorganisms will metabolize it. Oil is bad in a lot of ways. The question is did dispersing oil do more harm than letting hugh concentrated patches wash onto shores (since even with perfect skimming the weather will make sure oil makes landfall).

    •  even IF (0+ / 0-)

      even IF "dispersants are no worse than oil"

      August 5th, 2010

      Goodell said, "Oil is highly toxic." He added, "Saying that dispersants are no worse than oil - is like saying the disease you have is no worse than cancer."

      The dispersant breaks up the oil up into smaller particles that are more "bio available and allows it to be taken in more widely in the food chain," Goodall added

      http://www.examiner.com/...

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:57:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly How Big is the Plume? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    since some scientists (of the independent variety) are not being allowed access to the Gulf, just how credible are the "official" reports regarding the size of the plume?

    and what about the oil sitting on the bottom? are microbes eating this as well?

    "It's pretty clear human beings aren't improving". Spencer Greenberg - Rebellion Research

    by Superpole on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 05:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Bless their gluttonous little hearts, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance

    do they themselves end up in the food chain and with what effect? And as others have asked do they take in the corexit as well?

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:00:55 AM PDT

  •  got to run now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan

    thanks all

    for the intelligent discussion.

    good questions raised.

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:07:09 AM PDT

  •  But if microbes ate all that oil (2+ / 0-)

    there must be a whole lot of microbes out there.

    Billions and billions of them.

    Looking for their next meal.

    I, for one, welcome our new microbial overlords!

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:19:36 AM PDT

  •  microbial action will account... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, orlbucfan, southof

    for most of the degradation we'll see, but after decades of studying oil spills all over the world, results seem to be consistent: a significant amount toxic oil residue remains, which does not seem to degrade further. This was measured and documented as late as 2002 in a coastal marsh in West Yarmouth, MA, where a survey indicated that the amount of residual oil remaining is identical to what was last measured in 1973 (which was four years after the initial spill).

    As I commented on this story yesterday, that residue is still toxic today - burrowing fiddler crabs will not dig through it, for example, and when they do come into contact with that oil, they are put into observable distress. Understandable. To this day, that 40 year old still smells.

    *     *     *

    I notice in the NYT story on Hazen's report, a direct link from Oceanospiriallis to oil degradation has yet to be established, though I've little doubt it will be, but as Hazen himself says: a lot of work still needs to be done.

    So it's way too soon to start celebrating. We won't know for certain what the effects are until the entire northern Gulf has been both chemically and biologically surveyed, probably several times over. Expect what people have been saying for months now: the effects of the DWH blowout will endure for a period measured in at least a single lifetime.

    Will we find ways to live with those effects? Well, thanks to BP (and I hope Tony Hayward enjoys his stay in sunny Moscow for a long time) we don't have much choice. What we do have some control over is whether we can enact some sane energy policies to get us off fossil fuels.

    What has a "political realist" done for you lately?

    by papicek on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 06:22:00 AM PDT

  •  I hope these oil-fed microbes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance, jamess

    will then proceed to mutate into some giant powerful entity, who will then proceed to exact revenge on BP and its ilk.  

    Just need a name.  Toxic Avenger is already taken.  Fossil Fury?

  •  Excellent work n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    The Republicans are not conservatives, they are radicals. Something the Dog Said [#p2 hashtag for Radical Republicans]

    by niteskolar on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:07:12 AM PDT

  •  We Have heard that before, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    PCBs in the Hudson River. But the end products of the bacteria could be worse.http://www.cleanupge.org/pcbs.html

    American Heart Association: Diet Soda can cause type 2 Diabetes.

    by jeffrey789 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:15:16 AM PDT

  •  1950's Tokyo Cinema View... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Floja Roja

    Professor Takagira, do we have anything to fear from the American oil spill?

    Unfortunately, yes, white-coated assistant researcher.  It seems the Americans have allowed somewhat dormant killer microbes a huge feast, and in the act of gorging themselves, these microbes have undergone a metabolic change allowing each individual bacterium to consume more and more petroleum, to the point of bursting.  

    In a Darwinian microsecond the bacteria evolved to form colonies in which they band together, in effect forming a giant pillow, cushioning each other against rupture.  In addition they have become much more elastic, allowing individuals to grow exponentially.  

    In effect the Americans have created a giant, greasy, pillow-monster.  The process was undoubtedly facilitated by atomic radiation from an unknown source deep in the ocean.

    As the pillow monster grew, it began to evolve in a manner rapidly mimicking the evolution of all life on earth, i.e., it developed eyes and fins, with the fins eventually evolving into limbs, extremities, toes until, as you might have guessed, having watched numerous Godzilla movies, it developed the ability to walk on the sea bottom and to move onto land masses at will.  

    It is reportedly walking toward Japan, in order to be closer to its own kind, i.e., creatures spawned from man's unwise meddling with atomic energy, not to mention tea-bag inspired offshore drilling.

    It...ah...it...why is it suddenly dark outside?  It's as though a giant cloud had blocked the su... Oh, my God, IT'S HERE!!  The giant oil pillow feathered man-beast is here.  It's coming this way...it's...it's...RUN!!...TOO LATE!!...aaahh-AHHHHHHHHH!! (Squish-Glug-Glug-Glug)

    "A man of true science uses but few hard words, and those only when none other will answer his purpose..." - Melville

    by ZedMont on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:40:09 AM PDT

  •  Was this not part of the report provided by the (0+ / 0-)

    ADM weeks ago?

    Some scientists came out disputing the results as not accurate?

    Now another team of reputable scientists are pretty much back up what had been reported.

    I kind of figured out that the ADM might be right when Jindal was not on the tube pointing out pools of oil.

    When Carville and his wife were muted to silence.

    When MSM were no longer sending out their reporters to film oil pools and birds coated with oil.

    If the narrative doesn't fit the flame, MSM must move on to the next best thing, Pres Obama and Dem bashing 24/7.

  •  Thoughful diary, thanks ! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    Gives me something positive to think about while I work my seasonal govt job.....

    Two jobs equal one normal income. Welcome to neofeudalism.

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    Thanks for the good news! (or hope for good news!).

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 07:57:16 AM PDT

  •  On the funding for the Lawrence Berkely study (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance, jamess, matching mole

    of microbe

    Everyone can draw their own conclusions if the funding poses a conflict of interest

    New microbe discovered eating oil spill in Gulf

    The research was supported by an existing grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, a partnership led by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP. Other support came from the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Oklahoma Research Foundation.

  •  Let Real Peer-Review Begin and Continue! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    An article in this week's Science, referenced above, comes to a different conclusion from an article in last week's Science magazine.

    A study by a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory in California came to a different result from a scientific team from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute regarding the rate of degradation of oil in plumes - and hence potentially different estimates of the amount of oil that's still in the Gulf.

    Lawrence Berkely Scientists Methodology and Investigation

    Lawrence Berkely scientists' findings conclude that:

    Petroleum-eating bacteria - which had dined for eons on oil seeping naturally through the sea floor - proliferated in the cloud of oil that drifted underwater for months after the April 20 accident. They not only outcompeted fellow microbes, they each ramped up their own internal metabolic machinery to digest the oil as efficiently as possible.

    The result was a nature-made cleanup crew capable of reducing the amount of oil in the undersea "plume" by half about every three days, according to research published online Tuesday by the journal Science.

    Both referenced studies agreed that oxygen depletion was not enough to

    draw down oxygen to such a degree that it would affect fisheries and create dead zones.

    Woods Hole Methodology and Investigation

    It was low oxygen depletion that led the Woods Hole scientists to assume slow, rather than fast, oil depletion:

    The scientists said that when they studied [the plume], they saw little evidence that the oil was being rapidly consumed by the gulf's petroleum-eating microbes. The plume was in a deep, cold region where microbes tend to work slowly.

    "Our data would predict that the plume would still be there now," said Benjamin Van Mooy, a Woods Hole researcher.

                    -------------------------

    The scientific method starts by observing and investigating phenomena, and then developing an initial hypothesis of the workings of the observed phenomena;

    from there continual testing either confirms part or all of the initial hypothesis or it shows the hypothesis to have been mostly or completely wrong;

    if only part of the hypothesis seems correct or the hypothesis is incorrect then the hypothesis is either refined in the former case or it is replaced by a new hypothesis in the latter case;

    in either case further observation, investigation, and/or refinement hopefully bring the hypothesis or theory to a closer approximation of how phenomena works, develops, and potentially changes over time.

    Scientific teams from Lawrence Berkely, from Woods Hull and many other places through competition, through comparison, and through cooperation help bring any phenomena, over time, to a closer approximation of the developing theory in explaining how the given phenomena works in reality.

    What we have here is meticulous anaylsis as opposed to instantaneous conjecture!

    What we have in the two Science studies are the beginning of a thorough-going analysis, investigation, discussion and debate about microbial activity and its effect on the massive oil/gas/Corexit toxic brew in the Gulf, not a conclusive ending.

  •  Fascinating, if true. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, southof

    Solid scientific studies take months or years to plan and execute.  So, it makes little sense to debate this study vs that without based on news articles.

    Science and the 24-news blog/cable cycle mix like, well, oil and water.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 08:59:32 AM PDT

  •  I don't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance, BlueDragon

    believe a word of it.

    Our media, our scientific and educational institutions are all captured by corporations.

    The odds that this is propaganda is very very high.

  •  Thanks for this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    I'm pretty science-challenged; thanks for laying out the explanation so clearly.

    climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

    by GN1927 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:22:43 AM PDT

  •  Comment on the funding (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    murrayewv, jamess

    The BP Grant in question is a large scale grant doled out several years ago by BP.  Researchers at the University of Illinois, where I worked at the time were also recipients of the grant.  The grant was. presumably, part of BP's campaign to be (seen as) a green company.  It predates the oil disaster.

    The research done in this paper was actually funded by other sources: the paper states that the funding came from the US Department of Energy and from the University of Oklahoma (several of the authors are from the University of Oklahoma).

    Given the high profile of this issue it is likely that additional investigations will be done by other research teams.  I think it is good to be aware of the funding issue and possible conflicts of interest but drawing the conclusion that these researchers are in BP's pocket is premature to say the least.

    "We are normal and we want our freedom" - Bonzos

    by matching mole on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:45:05 AM PDT

  •  the problem with the point we have reached (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox, jamess

    is that I am not likely to believe anything at this point.

    spending endless hours tracking down who bought whom and when is an exercise in futility.

    when everything is stacked, it is easy to know where to stand: against the people who stacked it.

    Gaia is heartbroken.

    by BlueDragon on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 10:50:09 AM PDT

  •  Great! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    Now we can go back to deep sea drilling.  We don't even need BOPs, the sea will take care of itself.  

    /sigh

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 11:09:30 AM PDT

  •  Hi jamess, isn't that cool ? (0+ / 0-)

    Look at this: Deepwater Oil Plume in Gulf Degraded by Microbes, Study shows. It explains a bit the study done at Berkeley Labs and the new "super-oil-eating microbe".

    This device I think is really cool stuff...

    a unique credit card-sized DNA-based microarray that can be used to quickly, accurately and comprehensively detect the presence of up to 50,000 different species of bacteria and archaea in a single sample from any environmental source, without the need of culturing.

    I was confused about the oxygen level in the depth of the water, but think this explains it a bit.

    One of the concerns raised about microbial degradation of the oil in a deepwater plume is that the microbes would also be consuming large portions of oxygen in the plume, creating so-called "dead-zones" in the water column where life cannot be sustained. In their study, the Berkeley Lab researchers found that oxygen saturation outside the plume was 67-percent while within the plume it was 59-percent.

    "The low concentrations of iron in seawater may have prevented oxygen concentrations dropping more precipitously from biodegradation demand on the petroleum, since many hydrocarbon-degrading enzymes have iron as a component," Hazen says. "There's not enough iron to form more of these enzymes, which would degrade the carbon faster but also consume more oxygen."

Meteor Blades, Thumb, Kitty, JekyllnHyde, fladem, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, buffalo soldier, Alma, tmo, TXdem, fcvaguy, itsbenj, hester, slinkerwink, askew, Geenius at Wrok, Powered Grace, madmsf, mimi, RunawayRose, krwada, Wintermute, kpardue, OLinda, eeff, red moon dog, BillyZoom, goObama, deaniac83, sardonyx, RumsfeldResign, concernedamerican, bronte17, Doc Allen, Agathena, CoolOnion, boadicea, Bensdad, carolina stargazer, mkfarkus, vmibran, roses, peraspera, Boston to Salem, Southern Bell, Cedwyn, antirove, wader, SneakySnu, psnyder, danthrax, marko, Miss Jones, virginislandsguy, gmb, jaywillie, NYFM, GN1927, Steven Payne, defluxion10, MmeVoltaire, Greg in TN, kalmoth, lcrp, JayBat, econlibVA, Curt Matlock, Kitsap River, Lefty Mama, JayDean, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, lyvwyr101, rickeagle, Schwede, Marc in KS, sebastianguy99, environmentalist, Gowrie Gal, libnewsie, G2geek, jrooth, el dorado gal, yuriwho, mjd in florida, PBen, kamarvt, YucatanMan, where4art, Inland, GreyHawk, Overseas, ivorybill, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, SBandini, serrano, sodalis, coolbreeze, LivesInAShoe, loggersbrat, peacestpete, kkjohnson, RainyDay, begone, reddbierd, martini, Knucklehead, BalanceSeeker, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, sherlyle, MeMeMeMeMe, ferallike, tobendaro, Ky DEM, mr crabby, koNko, KenBee, deha, luckydog, hideinplainsight, blueoasis, gpoutney, bubbanomics, sceptical observer, Demena, AndyS In Colorado, Dinclusin, SingerInTheChoir, ilyana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, frankzappatista, blueoregon, kurt, shaharazade, Statusquomustgo, CharlieHipHop, BentLiberal, ammasdarling, Drama Queen, One Pissed Off Liberal, uncomfortably numb, dmh44, ninkasi23, moodyinsavannah, Sydserious, Via Chicago, Jimdotz, ezdidit, deepeco, DWG, joyful, Strabo, BobTrips, jayden, mauro7inf, millwood, OIL GUY, owl06, yella dawg, uciguy30, JML9999, willb48, Terra Mystica, TomP, jwinIL14, mconvente, Louisiana Fiddle Gal, poligirl, OleHippieChick, Involuntary Exile, Fe Bongolan, filby, VL Baker, Lujane, smartdemmg, geomoo, icebergslim, bluesheep, meldroc, matching mole, bob zimway, a night owl, doppler effect, allie123, Executive Odor, priceman, Quilldriver, pilotmama, palantir, ekyprogressive, Ellinorianne, dmhlt 66, Mike Taylor, Diogenes2008, squarewheel, lostboyjim, Fiddlegirl, 1BQ, Louisiana 1976, Fonsia, snackdoodle, greengemini, bsmechanic, CanyonWren, be the change you seek, notrouble, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, bigmikek7, War on Error, asym, The BBQ Chicken Madness, Joeytj, IreGyre, sfarkash, Nonconformist, jfromga, futureliveshere, citisven, lompe, swaminathan, confitesprit, awcomeon, patrickz, miss SPED, Susan Grigsby, jethrock, angelajean, trixied13, gulfgal98, CayceP, ItsSimpleSimon, juturna, Yasuragi, sharonsz, Pay It Forward, elengul, MsGrin, Floande, science nerd, Quote Me, Berliner2, weathertom, Onomastic, BrowniesAreGood, Colorado is the Shiznit, heart of a quince, I love OCD, nicethugbert, La Gitane, poorbuster, FarWestGirl, princesspat, Jed Lewison, Late Spring, boomerchick, mrsgoo, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, Escamillo, thomask, BarackStarObama, KVoimakas, Mother Shipper, MRA NY, jgnyc, IL JimP, Imhotepsings, Frameshift, curtisgrahamduff, randomfacts, Jantman, just another vortex, zenox, Regina in a Sears Kit House, MichaelNY, PrometheusUnbound, Han Shot First, Only Needs a Beat, Nena20409, gnostradamus, TheLizardKing, NJMaverick, Miep, Skritchard, Th0rn

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site