Photo: Getty images
Truthsquad on the BP Oil Spill
The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared.
Jacqueline Michel, Geochemist on the BP Oil Spill
Source: Time
Editor Findings
-
Mostly TrueWe find this quote to be "Mostly True" - but with caveats. Because this quote is so vague, it was hard to render a verdict - particularly since it is an opinion about an opinion, rather than a verifiable 'statement of fact'. The damage is certainly much greater than BP officials originally described. But we have not seen enormous swaths of oil washing up on miles and miles of beaches. It's too early to conclusively describe the damage caused by the spill. That will take years. However, it appears true that many many scientists and other experts say out loud that they are pleasantly surprised by the resiliency of the gulf, the beaches and the wetlands. There have been hundreds of oil-soaked birds, not thousands. Oil on the beaches has washed up in much smaller amounts than predicted. Very few injured or dead mammals have been recovered. The oil appears to be breaking down and evaporating more quickly that was thought possible. These effects are described in detail in the NPR Science Friday interviews that are provided in the supporting links. So the environmental impact of the spill is in fact not as bad - at this point in time - as experts thought it would be. However, almost every respectable expert qualifies that statement by cautioning a wait-and-see attitude. There is still a large amount of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and experts are uncertain about what will happen to it. -- Kelly McBride on behalf of the Truthsquad Editors
Community Findings
Show:
-
Jon Mitchell
Not SureThis is a hard quote to fact-check, because it is not concrete. How do we factually account for "everyone" or what their level of "fear" was or is? At the same time, the most important fact to ascertain in this statement is the "impact" of the spill, and I think it's clear from the references that Michel is premature in her assessment. The Ecology section of the Wikipedia page is much more thoroughly sourced than the Time article, and the clearest conclusion I drew from it is that it's much too early to tell what the impacts of the spill have been. -
Fabrice Florin
Not SureI need to research this a bit more before I can give you an answer. This is a tough one to prove or disprove, because we first have to establish what exactly "everyone feared", then compare that to what we now know has happened. -
David Fox
Not SureMaybe less than everyone feared so far, but I don't think the final results will be in for months, maybe years. -
Joey Baker
FalseI'm going to go with false based on several points: • Though we're not seeing this quote in context, it is far too early to tell what all the impacts of the oil spill actually have been. • It's a nebulous statement because we have no idea what impacts everyone feared. • It's also nebulous because we don't know which impacts she's referring to. -
Kaizar Campwala
Not SureIn the spirit of scientific skepticism, I'm answering not sure. The bio-dynamics in the part of the Gulf where the spill occurred, the depth at which it happened, and the amount of oil that has been released, is unlike what has been seen in other oil spills. This makes predictions about impact, either feared or otherwise, difficult to pin down. However, the NPR's Science Friday link I added (worth checking out) suggests that the Gulf area should be able to recover. -
Kristin Gorski
Not SureThe sources I found either presented statistics without context (Visual Economics infographic) or information saying that the impact is still being assessed (Guardian UK article). -
Subramanya Sastry
Not SureBy itself, the quote is unclear ("much much less", "everyone feared") -- but in the context of the article from where the quote was lifted, it feels less nebulous. I say unsure because it is still too soon to know all the impacts of the spill -- given the extent of the oil spill. It feels too soon to make a definitive statement on all the impacts (ecological, human, economic, political, etc.). -
-
Jim Lang
Not SureCould be true but hard to determine in the absence of an informed debate and some scientific consensus. -
Steve Myers
Not SureFirst, it's too early to tell. The slick is smaller now that the well has been capped. But this New York Times story talks about how the dispersants have shifted the impact of the oil from the surface and shorelines to the organisms living underwater. This statement is hard to judge because it's so broad. Whose fears? What impacts? To seabirds? To fish? To the overall environment of the Gulf? -
William Owney
TrueCertainly the possibility of unknown, long-tern effects remain, but the statement deals with two contingencies, the actual damage vs. what had been feared. I seem to recall a certain doomsday mood to the conventional wisdom as it was expressed over the past 100 days: Massive underwater plumes, it would smear the Atlantic Coast, destruction of the shellfish industries. That clearly did not happen. -
Eric Yendall
Not SureWho exactly is "everyone"? There were lots of fears, speculations, guesses, analyses of the effects of the spill. I have not seen a comprehensive objective and scientific review because it is premature to reach definitive conclusions about the long-term effects of the spill. But obviously it is better than some have maintained and worse than others have hoped. Was it a complete and total environmental disaster? Apparently not. -
David Cohn
FalseMaybe it is true - but I think if we've erred it's probably on the side of not knowing enough of the damage it will cause. -
-
Deborah Plummer
FalseI have heard most of the dead sea creatures are at the bottom of the sea: Out of sight/out of mind. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Liz Scott
FalseWe don't know what the effects will be ultimately. But what we have seen is certainly worse than many of us feared. -
-
-
Christian Bertolaccini
FalseBecause of how unique this situation is, having no reference in other disasters with any sort of comparable scale (the Valdez spill is the only thing even remotely close to this disaster, but it is still not in the same league and therefore can not be used as a total and complete predictor) I do not think that it can be easily concluded that the effects of this spill were "much, much less than everyone feared." On the first level, it is impossible to know the long-term effects of the oil will have on future generations of wildlife, and whether it will contribute to adverse reactions, mutations, etc. But on another level, it would be very difficult (impossible, really) to prove that the impacts have been much less than EVERYONE feared. When speaking in such total terms, it cannot be proven one way or another. It is like saying that "everyone was surprised by the movie"; it is too subjective to assert credibly. -
-
-
Arthur Roshon
False -
-
-
-
Wendy Wallace
TrueTrue, it's too early to tell. But after initial reports, I feared oil on the beaches around Tampa Bay within weeks. That obviously didn't happen. Given the currents, the disbursements, the depth of the well, the impacts SO FAR do seem less than everyone feared. -
-
-
-
-
Steve Andrews
Not SureThere are so many tricks in this statement that determining its meaning and the conditions for its truth is almost impossible. (Maybe there should be a fourth possible response: True, False, Not Sure, Meaningless) It's the time issue that is most problematic - did "everyone" expect specific effects as of this time in the calendar of events? Or were they fearing effects without a time-line - in which case, these effects could still come to pass... -
-
-
Maryanne Sobocinski
Not SureI have kept up with this environmental disaster since it began. The statement above is partially inaccurate. The illegal toxic dispersant used and the millions of gallons of oil polluting our Gulf may have long-term effects on the future ecosystem of the Gulf for years to come. The "plume" of oil that BP denied does exist well below the surface of the Gulf. This fact was confirmed by USF scientists two weeks ago. The long term effects of this "plume" could be devastating to the economy, environment, wildlife, fishing industry, tourism and may even threaten the safety of our future water supply from the Floridian aquifer. -
Josh Brown
True -
Roger Morris
Not Sure -
-
Look for verifiable facts about this claim.Try to check at least three different sources.
SUPPORT (3)
OPPOSE (8)
-
The Cost & Effects of the BP Oil Spill
-
BP oil spill's impact on upcoming waterfowl season a big unknown right now
-
Congress probing use of dispersants in Gulf: WSJ
-
Gauging the Long-Term Impacts of the BP Oil Spill
-
Oil Spill Dispersants Shifting Ecosystem Impacts in Gulf, Scientists Warn
-
Riki Ott: Oilgate! BP and All the President's Men (Except One) Seek to Contain Truth of Leak in the Gulf (PHOTOS)(VIDEO)
-
New Flow Rate Estimates Match an Earlier, Unpublicized Number Used by BP
-
“Missing” the Point
COMMENTS (4)