Remember the BP Oil Spill? Malformed Fish Do
A new study shows that sediments fouled with oil from the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico caused problems for fish embryos. David Biello reports
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Earth
You’ve heard of the canary in the coalmine. Well, a species called the Gulf killifish might be the fish in the oil well.
Three years ago, the blowout at BP's Macondo well spewed more than five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Despite attempts to recover it, much of that oil made it into sediments. And new tests show that such oiled sediments are bad for Gulf fish. The research is in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The Gulf killifish maxes out at about 18 centimeters in length and is ubiquitous all along the U.S. south coast. That makes it a good subject for testing the spilled oil's toxicity.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
When a consortium of researchers ran those tests, they found multiple negative effects. The oiled sediments were associated with delayed hatching of embryos, smaller newborns and heart defects. And fewer of the eggs hatched at all, even among those exposed to sediments collected a full year after the oil spill began. Adults captured in the wild showed an immune response to oil in their gills and livers.
These effects might be found in everything from other fish to the famous Gulf shrimp and oysters. We're just beginning to understand the full price of our oil addiction.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
