Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by mattie_p on Saturday February 15 2014, @06:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the want-some-sashimi? dept.
janrinok writes:

"The BBC reports that scientists believe tuna swimming in the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may have experienced heart damage.

Lab research has demonstrated how crude oil chemicals can disrupt heart function in the fish.

The study (Paywalled Article), published in Science magazine, is part of the ongoing work to try to understand the impacts of the disaster. The gulf is an important spawning ground for bluefin and yellowfin tuna. Tracking studies have indicated that many of these fish would have been in the area during the 2010 disaster.

Scientists have long known that certain chemicals in crude oil – such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) – can be harmful to the hearts of embryonic and developing fish. These molecules, which have distinct ring-like structures, cause a slowing of the heart, irregularities in rhythm and even cardiac arrest at high exposures.

The report was being discussed at annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS)"

Related Stories

End of Day 1: Systems Update 149 comments

So, as I write this, day one has officially come to an end. I'm still somewhat in shock over it. Last night when I was editing the database to change over hostnames and such, I was thinking, man, it would be great if we got 100 regular users by tomorrow. Turns out I was wrong. By a factor of ten. Holy cow, people. I'm still in a state of disbelief, partially due to the epic turnout, but also because our very modest server hardware hasn't soiled itself from the influx (the numbers are, well, "impressive" is a way to put it). Anyway, I wanted to do a bit of a writeup of where we stand now, what works, and what doesn't. Check it out (and some raw numbers) after the break! Warning, it is a bit lengthy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Saturday February 15 2014, @06:49PM

    by mtrycz (60) on Saturday February 15 2014, @06:49PM (#165)
    While it's obvious that an oil sill is never a good event, it's nice to have some hard data on it's effects.
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday February 15 2014, @06:55PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 15 2014, @06:55PM (#166) Journal

    Probably bad form commenting on my own submission, but one particular item of interest jumped out at me after reading TFA a second time. The pollutants that are responsible for damaging the tuna's heart are the same as are found in areas where vehicle and industrial pollutants are high. It is considered possible that they could be responsible for cardiac problems in humans. This might lead down various paths.

    The first would be additional knowledge regarding the dangers of smog or vehicle exhausts in general which could lead to developing methods of reducing the specific harmful constituents of the exhaust.

    Secondly, knowing the cause of cardiac disease and linking it to a specific pollutant might lead to medical research being able to arrest the disease, and perhaps eventually help to identify avenues that might lead to a cure.

    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by combatserver on Saturday February 15 2014, @07:59PM

      by combatserver (38) on Saturday February 15 2014, @07:59PM (#170)

      "The pollutants that are responsible for damaging the tuna's heart are the same as are found in areas where vehicle and industrial pollutants are high."

      I can't help but think this might actually be passing the buck in terms of blame--perhaps it is the oil-dispersants that are the problem, rather than the oil. I also noticed that the study linked in the second article was removed--odd, considering how recent that article is. Intentionally removed for PR reasons?

      I hope I can change this later...