Talk:Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 January 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

United States Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment Unassessed

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment cut and pasted from tail of article

Posted by an IP here

--cut and paste starts--

Much of what has been written above is speculative with phrased like "May" or "may have". The problems is that much of the research so far is unco-ordinated and has not been independently verified. Furthermore contrary research carried out by scientists on behalf of BP is embargoed due to the outcome of legal cases and the NRDA process.

Therefore it is too soon for a seemingly definitive article such as this to be published as it may give a wholly or partially incorrect impression of the situation

--cut and paste ends--

Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Refs.

A lot of the refs don't appear to be very good going by the three I've examined. One is simply a footnote, one is a claim about a lawsuit that appears to have no further reference on the website of the suing party. This one is an opinion piece. Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Based on the above I have removed the threatened endangered species section, as far too poorly sourced. Should there be independent commentary, form Woods Hole, for example, then by all means reintroduce it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

What did you remove? Can you leave a diff or the removed text here? petrarchan47 t c 03:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The source was Defenders of Wildlife. We quote Greenpeace in many articles. Let's leave it in until we can find more independent sources, unless you seriously doubt the content? petrarchan47 t c 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from a merge that editors agreed to, there is no reason to remove it as there is no space problem. Maybe just put a tag for better citation. petrarchan47 t c 08:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Can we change "largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." to "largest accidental marine oil spill." (I'm presuming the deliberate Kuwait spills are larger.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

National Wildlife Refuges at risk

I looked at both the refs. While there is a list, I see nothing saying what the status of these refuges was. If they were "at risk" is this significant? Should we perhaps say "47 wildlife refuges were listed as 'at risk'" and the following XX were eventually directly affected by the spill? Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Certainly, when we have the science. petrarchan47 t c 08:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food

Should food safety belong here? Possibly useful ref.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279436/ doi:10.1289/ehp.1103695

Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Secondary sources are good to add, especially when citing government studies. (In the case of this spill, the US govt was shown to be covering up for BP and squelching science):

FDA Allowed Unsafe Seafood Onto Market After BP Oil Spill Disaster

Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children?

Scientist Questions Safety of Gulf Seafood: "[Subra] is concerned about cancer-causing chemicals called Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAH's. And after the oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised the allowable amounts of those chemicals in the seafood they test. And FDA established these levels specifically for the spill and in some cases they are ten times higher than the levels that were already on the books," said Subra." petrarchan47 t c 08:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that these articles add a lot, they are effectively media pieces based on a press release about the blog of one of the researchers, although they do provide a little balance. Note that the first article quotes Wikipedia without attribution. The back-and-forth continues in the media here for example. Would be good to have the FDA's offical response if there is one.

I can't see any claims that the FDA were covering up for BP. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Useful information

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/upload/Final-DOI-2nd-Interim-Partial-Claim-for-2013-October-4-2012.pdf

Here the DOI is, among other things, requesting funds for a survey "Baseline Mortality in Breeding Bird Colonies" which will be completed in summer 2013, on the basis that the colonies will be back to normal by then. This will enable the DOI to calculate the excess mortality in 2010 due to the spill, and hence plan the actual remedial work. I think that qualifies for a Facepalm. (They are asking for $58m for these projects.)