Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave. Elkhorn Ranch, where the great Republican conservationist sat on his porch overlooking the Little Missouri River and conceived his then-progressive theories of conservation, is at risk of being despoiled by fracking.
Now sitting in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, you’d assume that Roosevelt's "home ranch" (as he called it) was protected from fossil fuel development. But the view from Elkhorn could...
read more























Comments
The oysters are not back yet either
There's another article that goes into greater depth and the impact on the affected Gulf coast shell fishers (is that what you call them?) at Food Safety News.
This is not a meaningful health threat
Sorry, but this is not a meaningful health threat. For the overwhelming majority of people this is not going to be a pathogenic bug. Even those who would be susceptible to it, people that are on immunosupressants etc., would have to somehow either ingest the tarballs or rub them in a cut.
From the article:
In fact, they discovered that the balls had up to 100 times more of that particular bacteria than the water they floated in and 10 times more than the sand they rested on.
At this point you've totally lost any concern from me about the health scare. 10x more bacteria than the sand? So what? A one log difference in bacterial counts is not going to somehow make these things more pathogenic than the sand they're sitting on!
I've seen these infections, even seen one kill a patient with liver disease that cut his toe on a seashell on a beach (many years ago before deepwater horizon). It's a bad bug for the wrong person, no doubt. But this level of contamination is barely above the background of the sand. There's no way that's going to result in higher pathogenesis, especially when it's unlikely that susceptible people people are going to be using tarballs as exfoliants or garnish on their salads. I'd worry about 100x fewer vibrio on a piece of broken glass than 1000x more on a ball of tar.
Lots of common bacteria cause far more disease in far more people than vibrio. Staph for instance, a ubiquitous bacteria that's on all of us and probably most the surfaces in our house, can kill these same susceptible individuals. Acinetobacter, also everywhere, can kill susceptible individuals. The mere possibility of pathogenesis does not necessarily mean increased bacterial counts represent a meaningful health risk.
You guys should take this down. Stick to climate, leave medicine to the docs, and don't take medical advice from PhDs.