Where is the American News Media?
It bothers me when I'm checking out news sites from around the world and in the Middle East I find out about something that's going on in my own backyard. In this case the Gulf of Mexico, it's not exactly my back yard, it's a hundred miles away, I shouldn't have to look 9,000 miles away, to find out something might be a problem. It's not the first time it's happened. Sometimes I think Al Jazeera might know more about what's happening here than our local news media. Seems there are some discrepancies between what the American people are being told about the safety of Gulf Seafood, and what the rest of the world is being told..
I'm not a biologist, a medical doctor or an expert on marine life, so I can't say who is telling the truth and who isn't. As much as I enjoy shrimp I've avoided it since the British Petroleum Oil Platform, Deepwater Horizon blew on April 12, 2010 and released several million barrels of crude into the Gulf over the next few months. I like my shrimp fried in cooking oil, not raised in crude. Lately the Federal Government has been telling us that except in the area still closed to fishing. Gulf Seafood is safe to eat.
This is the way Al Jazeera set the table.
WEB EXCLUSIVE, You Couldn't Pay Me To Eat The Seafood.
Suppose we start off with this video Interview: Dahr Jamail BP's blown-out well is long capped but effects of spill are still being felt, says Al Jazeera's online correspondent.
Sorry it extends past the edge of the page, but they didn't have an option to shrink it.
Then on the same page we find the next article, this one borders on scary, Is the Gulf of Mexico safe? Experts, fishermen and residents disagree with federal agencies' claims that the Gulf and its seafood are safe. Dahr Jamail Last Modified: 05 Nov 2010 13:31 GMT
In the article several scientists and government officials that exception to the governments Testing Methodology, Standards and Motives
Hugh Kaufman is a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) office of solid waste and emergency response. Kaufman, a leading critic of the US government's decision to use Corexit, told Al Jazeera this about the press release: "They say it perfectly clear: the purpose of the test they developed is to make the public confident, not whether the seafood was safe or not.
"They selected the one compound that doesn’t bio-accumulate, as opposed to testing for the toxic ingredients that have a low safety threshold and do build up in tissue. They are not looking for those."
Kaufman, who has been the EPA's chief investigator on several contamination cases, including Love Canal and Times Beach, said: "They want to be able to tell the public the seafood is safe. But if you are going to test seafood to see if it’s safe or not, you want to test for the ingredients of Corexit that have a low safety threshold and do bio-accumulate in tissue."
"However, if you want the public to think everything is fine, then you do what they said in their press release they are doing, which is to look for an ingredient with a high safety threshold that doesn’t build up in tissue."
They told you they are doing a cover up, how they are doing the cover up, and notwithstanding that, they still have some positive results for chemicals."
Chemist Bob Naman with the Analytical Chemical Testing Lab in Mobile, Alabama, has been testing samples from across the Gulf for oil and dispersant also takes issue with these recent government statements.
"500 ppm is an incredible amount," Naman explained to Al Jazeera, "I don't know what moron set that level, but 500 ppm is an extreme amount. It is probably 100 times too high. A reasonably insignificant number would be five parts per billion [ppb], not something being tracked in ppm."
Naman gave an example of a government standard that seemingly undermines information in the recent press release.
"The amount of chemicals the EPA allows in storm water draining from a site containing salvaged cars into a body of water is 15 ppm," he said.
"If the EPA won’t allow more than 15 ppm of that, why in the hell would they consider a number that is 33 times higher than that as acceptable for something you are going to put in your body? Their people that are setting that kind of number apparently don't have a clue what that number even means. The threshold limits they are setting are extremely absurd to a chemist like me. I'm appalled they would use such high numbers for their thresholds."
Don't forget, it's in the best interests of BP and the Federal Government to get as much of the Gulf reopened as possible, as soon as possible. The Administration doesn't want a Katrina type image hanging over it, and BP needs to minimize exposure as much as possible. The article also talks about Karen Hopkins who works for Dean Blanchard Seafood, a seafood distributor on Grand Isle, Louisiana. According to her the Feds have issued new regulations that would make the fisherman and the distributors liable if tainted seafood starts making people sick.
If the article is to be believed, there are widespread repostsrof dispersant related illnesses all along the Gulf Coast. The article goes farther suggesting that BP was ordered to cease using the dispersant's, but was issued waver after waver. There is a great deal of information in the article I haven't even touched on. I'd suggest you read it for yourself..
Nothing Al Jazeera is saying seems to match up with what the Federal Government is saying, at the very highest levels. This Video, Open for Questions: Gulf Seafood Safety, with Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (from: whitehouse August 16, 2010) from the White House UTtube Channel is Public Domain,
Before you watch, you might want to grab a sandwich, this is a half hour long video of Government telling us how wonderful they are, without so much as a break for a Negative Political Commercial, If you want a little more specific and not watch the entire thing the White House was kind enough to provide an index to specific questions that that you can get to by using this link
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/17/what-you-missed-open-questions-gulf-seafood-safety-with-dr-lubchenco
Is it possible Al Jareeza has some hidden agenda that might be enhanced by slanting American News in a way that might be embarrassing for the Administration? Absolutely possible, our interests and those of the Arab Countries Al Jareeza serves are not always the same. Is it possible the Administration is taking a calculated risk in order to make things appear normal along the Gulf Coast. Yep, sure is, If Americans believe the Gulf has been restored to normal, the Administration has a huge talking point for the next two years. If it backfires he can blame the experts.
Right now, I'm still wondering why I'm hearing about what could be an issue affecting the entire Gulf Coast of the United States, from a foreign Media Outlet?
I was recently at a conference with some oceanographers (specialists in current modelling) and marine biologists who were at the spill response, and their basic "off the record" comments were that it's going to be a VERY long time before we can put together a big picture about the health of the Gulf after the spill. There are alot of stories that haven't yet been told, and alot of questions that are yet to be answered. Personally, after talking to them, I won't be eating gulf seafood for quite awhile.
ReplyDeleteGrumpy: If you buy shrimp at the supermarket, it's probably coming from China so I don't think you have to give up shrimp unless you are worried about the food safety regulations on imported food from China.
ReplyDeleteOn Gulf shrimp, I don't think we need any reporting or government analysis to use common sense. It's too soon for a recovery of the local shrimping industry and if people vacation in that area and want to eat local, then that's the choice they make. Having said that, the Gulf of Mexico is a large area and shrimp coming from the Gulf may have been sufficiently distance from the spill to make it okay. Some areas of the Gulf may in fact have safe shrimp. This may be true along the Gulf Coast to some degree depending on the area.
So far there's been no reporting on people getting sick in the short-term. Long term effects? It's an unknown. That's true on a lot of things.
It's odd that Al Jazeera would take an interest in shrimp. Their population does not eat shrimp as a religious practice. For those who are interested or have a concern, there's plenty of U.S. commentary through a regular google search. It's an old story on the U.S. media clock. That you're "hearing" about it from a foreign source doesn't mean it's got no US coverage.
I don't like shrimp very much, so I don't worry about that one at all. I wish the Gulf Coast well.
The shrimp we have from that area was caught before the spill and frozen right on the shrimp boat. What we have now is coming from Jacksonville. I'll post more later.
ReplyDeleteGrumpy, you could prepare a list of fish that do not exist in the Gulf of Mexico. I had some bad Talapia last night, but I don't even know where that fish comes from.
ReplyDeleteNext time I eat Shrimp, I'm going to bring one of those charcoal grill lighters with the real long flame and give it the fire test. If the fish lights up, it must have something in it.
Just hoping it does not somehow affect Trout, river or farmraised catfish, or N. Atlantic Cod. Would think the liberals among us would have complete faith in the FDA.
ReplyDeleteSOL, ALL tilapia, sold commercially, is farm raised. Most comes from SA.
ReplyDeleteMost trout is farm raised in Idaho. The cod is always wild caught. Catfish sold commercially is all farm raised usually in MS or AL.
BEWARE of that fish called BASA, farm raised Vietnamese Catfish. Just remember what we dumped in that water in the 60's. Course this crap is sold for fake grouper.
The FDA and NOAA people are a huge PITAss
Catfish is also imported from China.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/24/us-catfish-import-storm
Many other fish/shellfish comes from Chile, Peru, and Argentina. Normally on the label.
ReplyDeleteDFTTS, I was referring to the catfish we sell in our store. Be very suspicious of any fish sold in grocery stores. I'm still trying to figure out how wild caught Alaskan salmon can be a product of China. My best advice, read the label and make friends with your local fish monger.
ReplyDeleteFishygal: I was surprised when I saw the wild caught and then China on the back. Maybe the packers played with the words, who knows. I did not purchase it. I've made label reading part of my regular shopping routine. It takes a second, not a hassle really.
ReplyDeleteLong live fish markets!
According to my sources, the Salmon is caught in Alaska and processed in China. All I know is I'm not buying it. All of the shrimp in the big stores are farm raised in Asia. Not buying that either. I was at a wedding over the weekend. They had a beautiful shrimp platter from Publix. Shrimp had no taste at all. I know they paid a lot of money for that. I would have just done a peel and eat with Wild Florida Shrimp and probably for less money.
ReplyDeleteOff the subject of fish for a second. I found out a few years ago it was cheaper to harvest Appalcaian Red Oak in new Englant and ship it to China to make stair parts then in was to do the Manufacturing here,
ReplyDeletefishygal: Thanks for the info. I wondered if that was it. I won't buy farm-raised salmon from any country either, there's no health benefit. From time to time the real deal appears and it's pricey. I can enjoy a little bit. I have found frozen wild caught salmon and processed in Alaska. I have purchased that.
ReplyDeleteWe have to know a lot these days.