Bush won't let Scientists investigate Gulf Spill

[thundley4]

I mean Obama won't let them.

amborin   (1000+ posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:14 PM
Original message
Obama Administration Prevents Independent Scientific Analysis of Gulf
   
DOJ gags scientists studying BP disaster

In an explosive first-hand account, ecosystem biologist Linda Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date.” Hooper-Bui writes:

It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

Hooper-Bui’s depictions of samples confiscated by US Fish and Wildlife officials and expeditions blocked by local law enforcement is consistent with the steady stream of reports about obstruction, censorship, and confusion under BP’s private army of contractors. A full and open scientific assessment of the effects of the BP disaster is crucial for the health of the ecosystem and the residents of this American jewel

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/scientists-bp-gag/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8924507

Poboy   (310 posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, but **** no! How can ANYONE support this?! -k&r -nt
   

Someone will, because he is The Won.

theoldman (1000+ posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Almost all scientific studies are funded by the organizations that have the most to lose.
   
The current situation is nothing new. Eventually someone will make an honest study but that will be years from now.

Well, that Obamapologist didn't take long to show up.

VMI Dem (1000+ posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Whats the problem. They've told you exactly what is going on.
   
All the oil is gone.

 

Lorien   (1000+ posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. If Gibbs doesn't want Obama compared to Bush then he should stop acting like him
   
****ing disgusting! Is there any limits to corporate whoredom?

Blue Owl   (1000+ posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. So in this instance, is Obama resembling Bu$h, or not? Yes or No?
   
Did GWB's DOJ suppress independent scientific study? Yes.

Did Obama's DOJ just suppress independent scientific study? Yes, according to the article.

If Mr. Gibbs or someone here can disprove the above, I am all ears.

femrap   (1000+ posts)             Wed Aug-11-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ain't fascism grand? nt
   

[Chris_]

Poboy   (310 posts)           Wed Aug-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, but **** no! How can ANYONE support this?! -k&r -nt

"I won.  Deal with it."

[true_blood]

Of course they won't let anyone investigate the spill. Lord Zero and his red diaper doper baby DOJ will sue anyone that intervene. That's all they know how to do. Sue, sue, sue!
Oh, that and destroy/disgrace the U.S.A. in general.

[Godot showed up]

As usual, the libs don't know what they're talking about. The comparison to President Bush is knee-jerk and specious. As the oil spill has been frequently called "Obama's Katrina," lets take a look at scientific studies of the results of Katrina after Katrina:



Published July 2006:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:4vnvD26wuckJ:scholar.google.com/+hurricane+katrina+2005+2006&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000

Hurricane forecasts with a global mesoscale-resolving model:Preliminary results with Hurricane Katrina (2005)
B.-W. Shen, R. Atlas,3 O. Reale, S.-J. Lin, J.-D. Chern,1,4 J. Chang, C. Henze, and J.-L. Li8
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L13813



Published in 2006:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR369.pdf
The Repopulation of New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina
 
By: Kevin F. McCarthy, D. J. Peterson, Narayan Sastry, Michael Pollard [a RAND corporation study]


Published in 2006:

Experiences of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning
Mollyann Brodie, PhD, Erin Weltzien, Drew Altman, PhD, Robert J. Blendon, PhD and John M. Benson, MA

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/8/1402



Published in 2006:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/296/5/585

Mental Health and Recovery in the Gulf Coast After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Richard H. Weisler, MD; James G. Barbee IV, MD; Mark H. Townsend, MD

JAMA. 2006;296:585-588.




Published in August 2006:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764149/

Mold and Endotoxin Levels in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A Pilot Project of Homes in New Orleans Undergoing Renovation
Ginger L. Chew, Jonathan Wilson, Felicia A. Rabito,3 Faye Grimsley, Shahed Iqbal, Tiina Reponen, Michael L. Muilenberg, Peter S. Thorne, Dorr G. Dearborn, and Rebecca L. Morley


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


I could go on and on. There are 1000s of studies of Katrina; some of them with ideological axes to grind, some of them genuine scientific studies of some aspect of the disaster. Many, many more--and probably better ones--came out in later years, but I just wanted to post a few from 2006 to demontrate that studes of Katrina came out as soon as could possibly be expected, since Katrina made its second hit on the mainland--in Louisiana--on August 29, 2005.  Some time is required to gather, analyze, and write up data, if you're doing something more than a middle-school science project. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal rarely occurs faster than 2-3 months post-acceptance, so the first study I listed was actually officially closed just 7 months after Katrina hit (it was accepted in March 2006).

The liberals are blind to reality. Blind. President Bush blocked no indpendent scientific research of Katrina at all. AT ALL.




Thundley: I know you were being humorous at the libs' expense; but they really believe their own ignorant shit.

[AllosaursRus]

Of course they won't let anyone investigate the spill. Lord Zero and his red diaper doper baby DOJ will sue anyone that intervene. That's all they know how to do. Sue, sue, sue!
Oh, that and destroy/disgrace the U.S.A. in general.

It's the only form of politics the "1", knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Even the DUmbass DUmmies know that! He's too damn young, without experience, to know anything else!

[Texacon]

As usual, the libs don't know what they're talking about. The comparison to President Bush is knee-jerk and specious. As the oil spill has been frequently called "Obama's Katrina," lets take a look at scientific studies of the results of Katrina after Katrina:



Published July 2006:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:4vnvD26wuckJ:scholar.google.com/+hurricane+katrina+2005+2006&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000

Hurricane forecasts with a global mesoscale-resolving model:Preliminary results with Hurricane Katrina (2005)
B.-W. Shen, R. Atlas,3 O. Reale, S.-J. Lin, J.-D. Chern,1,4 J. Chang, C. Henze, and J.-L. Li8
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L13813



Published in 2006:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR369.pdf
The Repopulation of New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina
 
By: Kevin F. McCarthy, D. J. Peterson, Narayan Sastry, Michael Pollard [a RAND corporation study]


Published in 2006:

Experiences of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning
Mollyann Brodie, PhD, Erin Weltzien, Drew Altman, PhD, Robert J. Blendon, PhD and John M. Benson, MA

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/8/1402



Published in 2006:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/296/5/585

Mental Health and Recovery in the Gulf Coast After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Richard H. Weisler, MD; James G. Barbee IV, MD; Mark H. Townsend, MD

JAMA. 2006;296:585-588.




Published in August 2006:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764149/

Mold and Endotoxin Levels in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A Pilot Project of Homes in New Orleans Undergoing Renovation
Ginger L. Chew, Jonathan Wilson, Felicia A. Rabito,3 Faye Grimsley, Shahed Iqbal, Tiina Reponen, Michael L. Muilenberg, Peter S. Thorne, Dorr G. Dearborn, and Rebecca L. Morley


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


I could go on and on. There are 1000s of studies of Katrina; some of them with ideological axes to grind, some of them genuine scientific studies of some aspect of the disaster. Many, many more--and probably better ones--came out in later years, but I just wanted to post a few from 2006 to demontrate that studes of Katrina came out as soon as could possibly be expected, since Katrina made its second hit on the mainland--in Louisiana--on August 29, 2005.  Some time is required to gather, analyze, and write up data, if you're doing something more than a middle-school science project. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal rarely occurs faster than 2-3 months post-acceptance, so the first study I listed was actually officially closed just 7 months after Katrina hit (it was accepted in March 2006).

The liberals are blind to reality. Blind. President Bush blocked no indpendent scientific research of Katrina at all. AT ALL.




[lib rant] There is no comparison.  Katrina was a Cat 8 hurricane, unprecedented.  It made a direct hit on New Orleans again, unprecendented.  It lasted a full week at Cat 8 force.  The people who stayed had NO warning and no way of evacuating. 

When all was said and done there was $100 Trillion  in damage in the French quarter alone and no one would help those people.  They FORCED some folks to move on over to Houston but were given no help at all.  They had to pay their own way.

Still to this day there is too much radiation for the real people of New Orleans to move back. .... I mean too much ... I mean .... err. ..... not enough money for ..... Oh hell they can't move back so they must stay in the Hilton until the recovery is complete.

[/lib rant]

Sorry.  You touched on a very sore spot for me.

KC

[cavegal]

Still to this day there is too much radiation for the real people of New Orleans to move back.

when did it get hit with a nuke..?

[Texacon]

when did it get hit with a nuke..?

Sorry, I was being very, very sarcastic. 

KC

[miskie]

when did it get hit with a nuke..?

Well, Duh.....  The hurricane was the effect of American imperialists detonating softball sized nukes underwater to hide the evidence of the return of Atlantis and its space alien overlords. Atlantis never 'sunk'--  the aliens just shifted it so it is out of phase with the way we experience time and space. When they returned it to normal space and time, BOOOOSH nuked them.

[cavegal]

I thought as much you 2!!!!

[Texacon]

Well, Duh.....  The hurricane was the effect of American imperialists detonating softball sized nukes underwater to hide the evidence of the return of Atlantis and its space alien overlords. Atlantis never 'sunk'--  the aliens just shifted it so it is out of phase with the way we experience time and space. When they returned it to normal space and time, BOOOOSH nuked them.

Said better than I could have.

KC