Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

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)"
 
This discussion has been archived.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, 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...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3