Is this really possible this quickly? In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes

[Peacetrain]

In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_healing_marsh

BARATARIA BAY, La. – Shoots of marsh grass and bushes of mangrove trees already are starting to grow back in the bay where just months ago photographers shot startling images of dying pelicans coated in oil from the massive Gulf oil spill.

More than a dozen scientists interviewed by The Associated Press say the marsh here and across the Louisiana coast is healing itself, giving them hope delicate wetlands might weather the worst offshore spill in U.S. history better than they had feared. Some marshland could be lost, but the amount appears to be small compared with what the coast loses every year through human development.

[kestrel91316]

1. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Coastal marshes are for the most part places where the effluent

from all man's excesses over hundreds of years has been getting flushed. They are the planet's liver and kidneys, designed to deal with all sorts of toxic crap (in much smaller amounts, of course).

People may be pleasantly surprised over time to see how the wetlands respond.

[demosincebirth]

2. Who's taking credit for that?

[izquierdista]

3. It does get hot there

And that will get the microbial action working a LOT faster than it does in Prince William Sound.

I still say it should be the impetus for a mangrove planting program to stabilize and expand the barrier islands.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Ivor van Heerden, a BP-hired environmental scientist, said....

the damage may be even less than that.

How many of the other scientists interviewed are realizing monetary compensation from BP?

[Igel]

8. Try the same kind of reasoning but flip it around.

That'll demonstrate how sound it is.

The scientists that said it was horrible were standing to reap large amounts of money--summer funding, extramural grants. The worse it was, the faster and sloppier BP and the government would be in their haste to fund research.

The groups that said it was catastrophic garnered great PR and lots of donations and volunteer time.

At the same time, the scientists and enviro groups scored big PR points in painting BP and the oil industry as baddies. They raised awareness of their importance.

Therefore, it could be predicted that they'd say it was bad, even if it wasn't.

BP wanted to hire all the faculty in one dept. The dept. chair said that BP wanted a confidentiality agreement, and then said the agreement was unacceptable because they didn't even want to be have their reputations associated with BP. Follow that reasoning: The confidentiality agreement wasn't unacceptable because of sqelching publication, it was unacceptable because it would besmirch their reputations by association. Internalized McCarthyism.

Then there are the researchers who claim that their the object of government gagging because they were told, upon having a couple of sample, to not say that the dispersed oil plumes were huge and from the BP well. The problem was, that when they were saying the plumes were huge and from the BP well they didn't actually have any *evidence* they were huge and the tests to determine the source of the oil hadn't been done. But asking them to stick to the facts was a "gag order." Why? Because blaming BP was a good thing; ratcheting up the enormity of the mess was a good thing.

But, of course, these people, who might well be acting out of self-interest, are good because like us they think BP does environmentally destructive things because all the BP employees hate Gaia.

In other words, we start from the conclusion we want and work backwards: Those who say we're right are good, and trustworthy, and incorruptible. Those who say we're wrong are bad, therefore untrustworthy and corrupted.

Yes, critical thinking would be asking, "Are the facts on the ground actually true? How could we account for them? Let's look at the explanations and see if they make sense." It would work from there to then establish whether the scientists are telling the truth and are correct. But ad hominem reasoning is so much simpler.

[quaker bill]

5. Unsurprising

Estuarine marshes are the most productive environment. Most of the plant species that grow within them are highly adapted to deal very well with harsh edaphic conditions and frequent perturbation. Southern marshes in particular are high energy - high base productivity environments. This is exactly why they are important and produce so much of the life we come to eventually call seafood.

Folks love to think of wetlands as "delicate", in fact, this type of wetland is rather tough and resilient. We have been losing them, but not because they are "delicate" but because they have been deprived of sediment through the ACOE management of the Missippii River These areas are relatively easy to restore as mom nature does almost all the work, as long as the sediments are there. Oligotrophic freshwater wetlands on the other hand can be a bit "delicate" and tough to restore.

We are currently near the peak of the growing season, the fact that these areas are showing the first signs of recovery should be expected, and exactly not surprising.

[ibegurpard]

6. Of course it is! the oil all evaporated!

jesus, get with the program.

[Yeahyeah]

7. Now BP's planting stuff in the middle of the night and spraying Miracle Grow from choppers.