Comments on: Ecological impacts of Deepwater Horizon oil spill

By: Метастазы Мексиканского залива 13-3 - stream

Метастазы Мексиканского залива 13-3 - stream — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:14:13 +0000

[...] в экологическом журнале «Environmental Science & Technology» было уточнёно, что в состав корексита входит диоктилсульфосукцинат [...]

By: Метастазы Мексиканского залива. Часть 13-2 - stream

Метастазы Мексиканского залива. Часть 13-2 - stream — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:15:00 +0000

By: Ben Wisner

Ben Wisner — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:53:50 +0000

With power comes access to technology. For instance, images and water chemistry at very great depths, where BP was drilling, require sophisticated and expensive instrumentation. Local knowledge in this case requires only direct observation of the anatomy of the fish and crustaceans It’s interesting that local knowledge tends to be held in lower regard by ‘officials’.

By: IHRR

IHRR — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:55:01 +0000

It’s also important to distinguish this controversy from historical examples because it is more complex in some cases. It simply isn’t about local vs scientific knowledge in this case, but knowledge of those who have more political power (federal government, BP) and those who do not namely university research scientists and fishermen. But maybe this is over simplifying?
BreTT

By: IHRR

IHRR — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:49:05 +0000

All very good questions. You are aware of this I’m sure, but for those who are not there has been very good work done on this highly important issue of trust by Brian Wynne on the Cumbrian sheep controversy on local vs scientific knowledge http://www.bris.ac.uk/ias/resprogrammes/seminars/collins2002.pdf. Could there be a parallel with Gulf seafood and Fukushima contamination? It seems so. We will likely see more work done on these sorts of problems in the future, but whether it will feedback into policy or better communication from governments to the public about risk is another matter.
BreTT

By: Ben Wisner

Ben Wisner — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:10:43 +0000

Who do you trust? British authorities who claimed Cumbrian sheep were safe to eat after Chernobyl, Japanese authorities who claimed one could eat fish caught off shore of the crippled and leaking nuclear facility at Fukushima Dai Ichi, or US government experts who make similar claims? Why do such authorities think people are so ignorant and gullible?