The human health impact of BP's wrongdoing has been completely ignored by the government other than an in-progress survey and the ever-parsimonious Feinberg, head of BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility, has turned down all health claims. There are not physicians in the Gulf expert in toxicology to treat people even if they are fortunate enough to be able to afford health care. The Waterkeeper's reports highlights this aspect of the ongoing tragedy.
A coalition of Gulf Coast environmental groups said in a report released today that last year’s oil spill is still a “developing disaster,” as they called for government officials to reinstate a moratorium on new deepwater drilling and rethink claims that Gulf of Mexico seafood is safe to eat.
“Across the Gulf Coast, oil continues to wash ashore along beaches and wetlands,” the Waterkeeper Alliance report said. “Local and state economies and household budgets are still suffering, and health impacts, potentially from exposure to the mixture of crude oil and toxic dispersant, are being reported.”
...
The report was produced jointly by Mobile Baykeeper, Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper, Louisiana Bayoukeeper and four other Waterkeeper groups, from Seabrook, Texas, to Apalachicola, Fla.
...
Even some in the science community have questioned the severity of the spill, with former Dauphin Island Sea Lab Executive Director George Crozier calling its impact east of Louisiana “minor.” [With $5 million in hand from BP, the Dauphin Island Sea Lab is mapping out a plan to study the long-term environmental impacts of the oil spill, according to George Crozier, the sea lab's executive director.]
“I can’t bring myself to exaggerate effects that I can’t document,” he told the Press-Register in June.
Environmental advocates came to a very different conclusion in the report.
Seafood samples from the Gulf, tested by Waterkeeper officials, turned up oil-related compounds that could pose a health risk, the report said.
“These results call into question the efficacy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s seafood testing and their proclamation that Gulf seafood was and continues to be safe for regular consumption,” the report said.
“Based on our test results, we consider the ‘all clear’ for consumption of Gulf seafood to have been premature and based on flawed levels of concern.”
Meanwhile, oil continues to hit Gulf Coast shorelines, the report said.
“If there is a problem, we need to address it and fix it. Not hide it,” said Mobile Baykeeper’s executive director, Casi Callaway.
The report said officials should continue to study the spill and its impact well into the future, noting that the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill have continued for decades.
...
The report listed a litany of health problems that fishermen suffered in the wake of the spill and continue to experience, including severe headaches, vomiting and nausea, fatigue and difficulty breathing.
“At the time of this writing, Gulf Coast communities remain without adequate diagnosis or treatment for these health concerns,” the report said.
Meanwhile, BP has continually tried to minimize the spill and its effects, according to the Waterkeeper Alliance.
“Throughout most of 2010 and 2011, it has been evident that BP is running a public relations campaign, more than a recovery effort,” the report said.
...
“The basic, underlying message of this report is: There is a lot more work to do,” Callaway said.
“The oil is not gone. We have to clean it up; we have to put methods in place to never let this happen again; and most importantly, we need to do significant restoration.”
Read the full document: Waterkeeper Alliance report.pdf
Hundreds of different PAHs commonly occur as mixtures in the environment, and toxicological data available on these mixtures are limited. Most studies focus on individual PAHs, and therefore assessing cumulative risks for more than one PAH is a challenge. However, based on the available toxicological data, some PAHs have been classified as probable or possible carcinogens. Naph- thalene is not currently listed as a probable or possible carcinogenic PAH (cPAH), although recent studies by the National Toxicology Program have concluded that there is clear evidence of its carci- nogenic effects in animals.27
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) established levels of concern specifically for the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon disaster and will not necessarily be applicable after all fisheries closed due to oil contamination are reopened for safe harvest. In developing the parameters for levels of concern (LOCs), adjustments for smaller individuals, children, and pregnant women were not taken into account. The seafood consumption rates of Gulf Coast communities also were not taken into account. Residents of the Gulf Coast tend to consume far more seafood than was taken into consideration. In particular, many of the lower-income coastal communities rely on subsistence fishing as a way to supply a significant portion of their dietary requirements.
A study published by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives took a close look at the testing done in the Gulf and compared it to that in other oil spills and to the science on oil-spill contamination.29 Some of the noteworthy findings include:
1 Gulf seafood should be tested for heavy metals.
2 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed a higher level of contamination to be considered “safe” after the BP disaster than following other oil spills.
3 A long-term comprehensive testing plan is needed that covers all types of seafood, includes an adequate number of samples from all impacted areas, and measures all of the relevant contaminants (PAHs, metals, and dispersant chemicals).
4 Improvements are needed in community engagement and communication.
5 Guidelines should be developed to standardize seafood safety assessments and make them more protective of health.