Moreover, the pollutants are transmitted along the food chain and from a generation to another. Thus, the surprising detection of high concentrations of some toxic contaminants (including metals like mercury, chromium, and aluminum) in the tissue of the studied whales lead to only one conclusion – the contamination of whale body comes from the ocean water and other sea animals on which the whales were feeding! This finding has potentially serious health implications since it raises serious questions as to the quality of the seafood in general – which is a major source of food for us humans, too!

Marine Pollution as Reflected in Whale Tissue Threatens the Quality of Seafood Posing Danger for Humans!

Marine pollution may come from many sources as the oceans and seas act as sinks for many land-produced pollutants. Some common examples of marine pollution sources include (but are not limited to):

• Accidental and intentional spills from transport ships and marine drilling platforms (e.g., the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico);
• Ship/vessel maintenance operations;
• Industry emitting pollutants in the air (e.g., having furnaces) – although the environmental regulations all over the world become stricter every year, the legacy of more than a century of industrial activities, unregulated for most part, has left a strong imprint in our oceans and seas;
• Mining and smelting operations from the coastal areas;
• Rainwater runoff and other discharges in the marine environment (including from water bodies discharging into the oceans-seas – such waters collect pollutants along the way from various locations some of which could be quite far from the discharge point).

Although the sources and potential for marine pollution are well understood, it is still unclear the extent in which extremely large water bodies such as oceans and seas may be currently contaminated. In most cases, the general belief is that pollutants are usually close to their sources and their concentration drops substantially dissipating away from the source. Recent findings contradict such belief, pointing out the danger that can come not only from the contaminated ocean waters, but especially from polluted seafood as a direct result of contamination.

In this context, the recent study conducted by the biologist Roger Payne, founder and president of Ocean Alliance, is raising major questions and has pointed out the fact that probable ocean water is extensively contaminated with human-made pollutants, even in remote regions such as Arctic regions. The study aimed to investigate persistent and bioaccumulative toxic pollutants including metals in the tissue of a certain whale species called sperm whale. Of note is that such whale species is on the very top of aquatic food chain as it consumes a series of large fish including sharks and swordfish.

The study collected samples from 955 whales in various areas of the ocean and found surprisingly high concentrations (some of which were previously shown to kill cell grown in the lab) of certain metals including: chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), aluminum (Al), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), silver (Ag) and titanium (Ti). As much as 16 parts per million (ppm) Hg was found in whales, while a concentration of Hg of only 1 ppm recorded before in sharks and swordfish was considered quite high, which is why pregnant women and children were advised to avoid these types of fish.

While it is unclear how the high pollutant concentrations may actually be affecting the health of the studied whales, the implications of the study (published in the Scientific Journal Chemosphere) are both concerning the environment and human health and include a series of conclusions such as:

• Land-produced contaminants can travel very long distances and end up contaminating marine waters even from remote locations (far from any point source of pollution) – thus marine contamination seems to be quite extensive
• The rather extensive marine pollution poses serious dangers to both marine life and humans who take part of necessary proteins from seafood.

Further research is needed to confirm the findings and check other fish species. Yet, the current study clearly pointed out the real danger for whales and humans and the possibility that much of our seafood is or may become polluted and dangerous for our health.

Of note is that this study was conducted before the major BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico happened. This oil spill does not add important concentrations of metals in water but may add other persistant pollutants such as PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) that can accumulate in fish and seafood endangering people’s health.

Read more about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill here.

• the formation of underwater oil plumes
• the danger from the dissolved contamination
• the impact of oil plume on the sensitive gulf coastal wetlands

While the oil continues to be spilled and scientists struggle to investigate and better understand and address, the long-term impact of the spill on environment, ecosystems and humans remains hard to predict.

Some Environmental Issues Raised by BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

The long-term effect of the spill on the quality of marine water, marine organisms and humans remain hard to predict as the oil continues to be spilled unabated since the April blowout of Deepwater Horizon BP’s drilling rig - about 52 miles offshore of Louisiana and in nearly 5,000 feet of water.

Below we point out few particular environmental issues with the spill so far – each of them raising questions related to the long-term effects of the spill and the potential to affect humans, too:

• Formation of underwater oil plumes – as pointed out by several independent research teams in the last month. The teams used fluorometer equipment which detects the fluorescence signature of oil’s aromatic compounds – along with a sonar or light scattering instruments detecting oil droplets. Such observed underwater plumes include:
  1. A 6-mile wide oil plume between 3,200-4,400 feet below surface - this plume was observed on May 12, 2010 by a research team from University of Mississippi and it was located about 28 miles southwest of the wellhead.
  2. An even larger oil plume located about 42 miles northeast of the wellhead – pointed out recently by a research team from University of South Florida

It should be pointed that such observed plumes were not confirmed by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to NOAA, more testing is needed to confirm the presence of such underwater plumes. However, a University of Georgia researcher has taken ocean saples from the area of the observed pkume which proved to contain oil. Such plumes were originally attributed to BP’s underwater injection of chemical dispersants – a method tried for the very first time on the spill. Yet, such underwater plume may be caused by the spill itself due to natural dispersion. In fact, reports of such underwater plumes exist for other areas in the world where oil spill occurred. The plumes consist of oil and gas which pulls dense water from ocean’s depth as they rise toward surface of water. The denser water slows down the ascent of the plume toward the water surface. It seems that the underwater applied dispersants will reduce even more the speed of plume ascension toward the water surface. Some scientists believe that dispersed oil plumes may spend more than a week in water before reaching the top.

• Long-term dangers from dissolved contamination may be exacerbated by the presence of underwater plumes and could raise serious problems as such dissolved contamination is not easily detected. Let us first explain the difference between dissolved oil contamination and oil plume (as a separate phase). Oil is not soluble in water which is why it floats on the surface of water. However, oil is a complex mixture of thousands of individual components (mostly hydrocarbons) which have various degrees of water solubility. Some of the higher soluble hydrocarbons are aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene) which could be quite problematic to the health of marine life and humans (especially if ingested with water). The main issues with dissolved contamination versus separate-phase plume relate to:
  1. Increased mobility as pollutants travel with water without any delays
  2. Increased absorption in living tissues and possibility of creating adverse health effects as it may bioaccumulate in living organisms
  3. The difficulty of detection as compared to the easily distinguishable (even by naked eye) separate phase oil floating on top of a water body

  The positive part of dissolved contamination is that it is more subjected to biological degradation and thus less persistent. Underwater reported plumes seem to contain larger amounts of dissolved contamination. In fact, more toxic dispersed oil may be more problematic than less toxic un-dispersed oil – which is one controversy confronting the application of dispersants. This seems to be more significant than the potential toxicity associated with dispersants by themselves (that is probably less than the potential toxicity of oil and especially dissolved oil components).

• Effect on sensitive gulf coastal wetland is another important environmental issue raised by the recent oil spill pollution. This is partially due to the particular conditions of wetlands which may preserve the oil for very long periods of time also impeding its successful clean-up. Wetlands are important habitats for a series of species including common seafood (shrimp) which use the wetlands at some point in their life. The oil may have significant effect on their life cycles. The presence of dispersants complicates the problem even farther and it remains hard to predict how the delicate natural equilibrium of such sensitive wetland ecosystems may be affected on a long-term basis.

So far, EPA monitoring of oil spill potential pollution in air, water and sediments did not reveal concentrations of concern. An exception relates to the sediments, in which pollutants levels indicate that there may be risks to aquatic life, while it could not be established if that contamination was already present or if it is a result of the BP oil spill.

Air Monitoring

More details about air monitoring include:

• Location of air monitoring - air sampling and monitoring was performed in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi areas.
• Real-time air monitoring has been performed using self-contained mobile laboratories named “trace atmospheric gas analyzers” (TAGA)
• What was monitored – various air pollutants that may be associated with an oil spill:
  • Particulate matter (PM) both smaller than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers; ozone;
  • Total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – which may volatilize from the oil slick or may be associated with controlled burnings
  • Hydrogen sulfide
  • Air toxics

Coastal Water Monitoring

EPA monitoring of coastal water did found some of the chemicals associated with oil spills but the concentrations did not seem to pose increased risk to aquatic life or human health. Yet, EPA recommends the avoidance of areas affected by the oil spill. EPA also provides also updated information on condition of various beaches in the potentially affected area.

More details about water monitoring include:

• Location of water monitoring - water sampling and monitoring was performed in several coastal locations from Louisiana and Mississippi (within EPA Regions 6 and 4)
• What was monitored – 22 of the chemicals found in oil

Coastal Sediment Monitoring

As mentioned before, monitoring of sediment quality did reveal that there may be risks to aquatic life from pollutants in certain areas. It has to be mentioned that since sediments usually act as “sinks” for environmental contamination and the deposition and accumulation of pollutants in sediments generally takes some time, it is possible that the discovered contamination was already in the sediments, before the BP oil spill. A forensic investigation is needed in order to investigate the source of sediment contamination further.

More details about sediment monitoring include:

• Location of sediment monitoring - sediment sampling and monitoring was performed in several coastal locations from Louisiana and Mississippi (within EPA Regions 6 and 4).
• What was monitored – 29 of the chemicals found in oil

More about EPA monitoring of various media can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

Risks Ahead

Yet, the spill did reach the shore and the birds images covered in crude oil are haunting!

Although so far the EPA monitoring did not reveal concentrations of concerns of pollutants associated with oil spill, images of pelicans and other birds covered in crude oil (like in mud) are a reality being shown in the news. One cannot help but wonder how representative the EPA monitoring data is. It is also possible that the contaminants migrating away from the oil slick disperse fast without leaving a notable trace. However, the oil slick by itself is a problem for the environment and any life that gets in contact with it.

The cleanup of the oil spill takes advantage of the various methods available. Several cleanup methods are used in a concentrated effort to reduce the environmental, ecological and human-health potential impacts of the spill. The cleanup methods used to date include several proved “traditional” techniques/cleanup tools:

• Use of skimmers to adsorb spilled oil accumulated on the ocean surface – these are polyethylene mop-like pads which were placed on ocean’s surface;
• In-Situ burns of spilled oil (slicks) on the ocean surface – this was done in controlled delineated areas by fire-resistant booms. The method is quite effective to burn up to 90% of spilled oil from targeted areas; however it may only be applied in calm waters and very soon after the spill before the oil gets more mixed with water. This technique has several caveats including:
  • affecting air quality through the smoke and residuals
  • some heavy crude oil compounds are left behind (they do not burn well) such as sticky asphaltenes from which road tars are made
• Spray of dispersants:
  • from planes into the oil slicks on top of the ocean water - in order to break down the oil into small droplets which are more susceptible to natural degradation by marine microorganisms. The dispersants consist in mixtures of surfactants and solvents, cleaning the oil spills in similar manner soaps clean grease when washing. The application of dispersants on the ocean surface is the “traditional” application method.
  • Under water – this method has been tested by BP engineers in order to prevent the spilled oil to reach ocean surface. Since April 25, 2010, 3 tests have been performed by BP using operated underwater vehicles. The scattered oil was observed with underwater cameras. These results were considered encouraging.

It has to be mentioned that applying of dispersants has caveats, too. The main one relates to their possible toxic effects on coral reefs and other marine life – raised by some environmental groups such as Natural Resources Defense Council. EPA has also raised concerns related to the dispersants used by BP.

May 20, 2010, EPA issued a directive requiring the identification and use (by BP) of a less toxic dispersant. The dispersant of choice should be from the EPA list of authorized dispersants. Under this directive, BP is required to identify less toxic dispersant within 24 hours and begin to use it within 72 hours of submitting of the identified dispersant alternative. BP also had the alternative to provide explanation if not complying.

April 2010 - A massive oil spill happened in the Gulf of Mexico (starting on April 22, 2010) from a blown-out oil well on the ocean floor (about 5,000 feet deep under the ocean surface). The well exploited by the oil company BP is located deep into the ocean off the Louisiana coast. Massive amounts of oil (up to 5,000 barrels which equals 210,000 Gallons) extracted daily through the well operation are now freely pumped into the ocean as it seems to be problematic to shut off the well. Basically, the unfavorable conditions on the ocean floor along with the extremely high pressure of the extracted oil were impeding the attempts (using underwater robots) to shut off the well, while the oil continued to be pumped out into the ocean. It looks like the oil will continue to be spilled freely, causing water pollution, until another solution is implemented (i.e., covering the well with a giant inverted funnel that will capture the oil and channel it into a tanker ship at the surface). This spill is already considered the second worst oil spill ever after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 in Alaska. However, depending when the well is successfully shut down, it has the potential to become worse than the other spill. At the same time, considering that this spill threatens to affect highly populated areas, it may already be seen as one of the worst oil spills ever.

How is the Spill Behaving?

Once released in the ocean water at the bottom, oil is moving up until it reaches the surface of the ocean due to the release pressure. Once it reaches the surface of the water, the oil floats on water because it has a density below that of water (in other words it is lighter than water). Thus, the oil will cover the water surface expanding over large areas. The spilled oil looks thus created a sheen of “rainbow” colors on the surface of the ocean. Obviously, once on the water surface, due to currents and weather conditions, the spilled oil sheen is transported away. What is of great concern is that the spilled oil is heading toward the shores of Louisiana and other states in proximity, washing up the wildlife refuges and seafood grounds in the area.

What U.S. States May be Affected?

Apart from Louisiana shores, other states may be affected including Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

How Are the Residents Affected?

The residents of the listed states (especially those who live in the proximity of the shores) may be affected in a large variety of ways, including:

• Through breathing potentially contaminated air – some residents from coastal cities (e.g., New Orleans) already reported to have smelled sulfur compounds from oil – usually when such compounds reach the smell level, they may pose a threat to human health. Additionally, with all the controlled burning activities, the general air quality may be damaged, too.
• Through consuming contaminated wildlife – including fish, seafood and/or bird or other higher predators in the chain food; some of the oil compounds are bioaccumulative (e.g., a class of aromatic hydrocarbons known with the generic name of PAHs – polyaromatic hydrocarbons) – this means that those compounds will keep accumulating in living organism that take them from contaminated water; finally the compounds may reach concentrations in the animal or fish tissue much greater than in the ocean. Subsequently, by consumption of contaminated meat humans could be exposed to high amounts of pollutants (it is like extracting and concentrating pollutants from water and deliver them to human bodies). This is why it is critical that all fishing and seafood collecting activities cease in the affected areas – which triggers other unfortunate economic effects on the residents (see below).
• By not being able to fish in the area anymore – the people whose jobs consisted in fishing will likely be affected including the whole state economy.
• By not being able to enjoy the seashores – for obvious reason, swimming or bathing in contaminated or potentially contaminated shore water as well as other coastal activities should come at high risks to inhabitants and will probably be prevented at least until all testing denote no risks.
• By diminished home and land values in affected coastal cities – especially in coastal cities, the property values will probably decline substantially at least until the situation is resolved and everything gets back to normal which may take a while.
• Economically the whole affected states may suffer by the loss in tourism and collection/commercialization of fish and seafood, which is quite prevalent in state such as Louisiana
• Decreasing stock values – shares of BP and Transocean continue to decrease as investors fear raises with the significant clean up costs as well as other costs (e.g., from lawsuits).

Note: If you live in one of the affected coastal cities and believe you could be affected or have been already affected by the spill, please contact us. We will try our best to provide additional specific information applicable to your case and seek adequate legal support, as you may be entitled to compensation for your loss/damage.

Additionally, it is not clear yet how the spill may interfere with shipping channels in the area that may affect crude oil imports into the U.S. Yet so far, there are no sign that this activity is affected.

Protective measures

Protective booms. The authorities (U.S. Coast Guard) deployed protective booms along the coast of Louisiana and other potentially affected states in order to capture the spilled oil before it reaches the shore. Dozens of ships and aircrafts are already deployed in what seems to be one of the largest spill containment efforts.

Controlled Burning. The controlled burning of the oil sheen is also an alternative. Although it may be difficult to deal with the large areas affected, it may provide some local relief.

Final Solution. Ultimately, a solution is sleeked to cut the source of the oil (the broken underwater well). BP intends to cover the well with a giant inverted funnel that will capture the oil and channel it into a tanker ship at the surface. However four weeks or more may be needed to implement such solution. In between oil continues to be spilled and consequences to humans, wildlife and environment may be hard to predict.

One thing is sure though: this spill has put on hold for the time being (at least until the review of the current spill) Obama plans to expand off-shore drilling. Maybe it is “a wake-up call” from Mother Nature to prevent other catastrophic events, of which much can be learnt by all of us!

ON-LINE RESOURCES - EPA Monitoring of Events and Information Updates

EPA has established a webpage (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/) dedicated to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in order to provide updates on:

• Air quality and monitoring across Gulf of Mexico Coastline
• Sampling plans across the South and Southeast including water samples
• EPA response to BP spill

Listing nitrobenzene as known to cause reproductive toxicity implies that the following 2 criteria are met:

1. An authoritative body formally identifies the chemical as causing reproductive toxicity
2. The evidence considered by the authoritative body meets the sufficiency criteria contained in the regulations

Background Information on Nitrobenzene and Its Toxicity

Nitrobenzene is a chemical (organic compound) used in chemical synthesis as a precursor to aniline (approx. 95% of nitrobenzene use). It is also occasionally used as a solvent and as flavor in perfume (it is oily and has an almond like odor). It also occurs in shoe and metal polishes and soaps. Some special industrial uses are also known (but accounting for a very small percent of nitrobenzene use).

In high amounts, nitrobenzene is known to be a chemical pollutant. People may get exposed to nitrobenzene mainly through skin absorption (since it readily absorbs through the skin) and through inhalation of its emitted vapors or fumes (since it is a volatile compound). Ingestion is another exposure pathway, although less common.

Until recently, toxicity of nitrobenzene to reproductive system was not pointed out (before this notice of intent). So far, nitrobenzene toxicity is linked to the following various health effects:

• damage to central nervous system (due to prolonged exposure)
• damage of liver or kidney
• irritation of lung
• anemia
• impaired vision
• some common health problems including: headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, weakness in the arms and legs – could be due to exposure to the fumes of nitrobenzene (through inhalation)
• increase health rate and convulsions – may be caused by skin absorption of nitrobenzene
• vomiting and gastrointestinal irritation may be caused by ingestion of nitrobenzene

In very rare cases prolonged exposure to nitrobenzene may be fatal.

The study by Kounaves et al. (mentioned above) pointed out the discovery of perchlorate, one of the listed chemical pollutants, for the first time in soil and ice from several Antarctic Dry Valleys with concentrations up to 1,100 micrograms/kg (or ppb – parts per billion). The found perchlorate (from the driest valleys) correlates with atmospherically deposited nitrate suggesting its formation in atmosphere followed by deposition (a likely source of Chile natural perchlorate). This mechanism likely resulted in perchlorate accumulation in arid areas since little leaching with precipitation water happens in such areas. This study provides the first unambiguous proof of natural ubiquitous formation of perchlorate with accumulation in arid, especially hyperarid climates. The findings have also implications on the biogeochemicals interactions of perchlorate.

Background Information on Perchlorate

Perchlorate (ClO4 -) is a chemical used in rocket fuels, explosives, fireworks, road flares, as well as in many industries. This is due to its particular characteristics including: strong oxidation ability, stability (low reactivity), low volatility, affinity for moisture and high water solubility – to name some of them. Although in use for a long time, perchlorate became an emerging contaminant relatively recent due to our awareness related to both: (1) its potential to interfere with the normal function of thyroid gland (impeding the uptake of necessary iodine) and thus interfering with normal metabolism function in humans, and (2) its widespread detections in the environment (soil and water – both surface and groundwater).

In this context, perchlorate is undoubtedly a highly manufactured chemical. However, its natural formation has also been pointed out in arid environments. Yet, it is still questionable how much perchlorate is formed naturally in environment and how much might have come from human activity. Until this recent discovery of perchlorate in the Antarctic valleys, relatively few recognized natural sources of perchlorate were pointed out: in Chile (Atacama dessert nitrate deposits) and few other arid areas (such as in Texas and California). Additionally, except in Chile, the natural perchlorate pointed out in other areas could have been a result of human activities, too. Although various studies concluded the likeliness of natural formation of such perchlorate, the doubt persisted. This recent discovery points out that natural formation of perchlorate is much more widespread than originally thought.

The bullets are alleged to come from firearms training facility in North Chicago. This is an FBI facility also used by the Coast Guard, Navy and Marines. According to Steven Pollack, the Blue Eco’s Executive Director, in 2006 during some live-fire training exercises, a total of 62,584 bullets (equaling more than 800 pounds) were shot into all the Great Lakes. As a result of the bullet discharge in the lake, the lake lead level was reported three times higher than what is considered safe with potential to contaminate North Chicago water supply – according to a 2006 North Chicago Water Quality Report, therefore leading to water pollution.

Background Information on Lead and Its Toxicity

Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal (with highest atomic number of all stable elements) found in a series of natural minerals. It is used in bullets and shots, as well as in building construction, fusible alloys, and radiation shields (e.g., in nuclear plants). Lead was historically used in paint as well as in leaded gasoline, but not anymore.

Lead is toxic to humans and was proven to damage the nervous system by damaging the nervous connections and causing brain disorders (especially in young children). Thus, lead is a potent neurotoxin. Over time, lead may accumulate in bone and soft tissues.

Accordingly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is showing an increased concern related to the quality of air and how our children could be affected by announcing its intent to test the air pollution near schools. This will be done thorough a systemic approach aiming first to identify facilities/areas with potential air quality problems and, based on this, select up to 100 schools to be tested (in the risk areas). The testing is expected to start within 30 days and the monitoring will be conducted by state and local governments under EPA direction. The results are to be made available to the public. This will be useful for taking appropriate measures to mitigate pollution effects as well as avoid future occurrences. The immediate outcome of the study will be, according to EPA to “maximize its monitoring and analytical capabilities to develop a clearer picture of any potential risks to children from toxic air pollution.”