-Exxon commentator?
-Exxon commentator?
March 23, 1999
Mr. Trevor Nelson
CBS News-60 Minutes
555 West 57th St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10019
.
.
.
"Turning now to the poor herring fishery of the last 6 years, you neglected to tell your viewers that only 1% of the herring spawning areas in Prince William Sound were heavily impacted by the oil. PWS had the most intensive ongoing shoreline oiling surveys done by the Federally-led cleanup effort of any spill in history. Analysis of the 1989 data from these shoreline surveys show that about 96% of the total herring spawn length of shoreline (158 km) in the spill zone occurred along shorelines with no oiling, and less than 1% of the 1989 total shoreline herring spawn length occurred along shorelines with moderate to heavy oiling. As with the salmon, it is hard to conceive of a plausible way that any impairment of 1% of the herring spawning areas could have a Sound-wide catastrophic effect. These are uncontroversial facts about where the oil actually went in 1989 that 60 Minutes ignored."
"I also wonder how your viewers would react if they knew that 60 Minutes had totally ignored these following facts which undoubtedly have more bearing on the plight of the Cordova fisheries than anything you mentioned in your program."
.
.
.
"It is very easy to incorrectly blame any post-spill event on an oil spill. The problem is that natural and human-induced changes quickly overwhelm any lingering effects of any oil spill. For example, the El Niņo event of the period since the spill has had profound and not wholly known impacts on the entire ecosystem of the Gulf of Alaska, of which Prince William Sound is a part. To ignore this natural event in your coverage, including the rise in summer water temperatures in the region of around 3 degrees over the last 10 years, and attribute all changes in the ecosystem to the oil spill is irresponsible. I am sorry that 60 Minutes chose not to present a more objective presentation of the state of Prince William Sound in 1999."
Sincerely yours,
David S. Page
Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Bowdoin College
| cc: | Ed Bradley Don Hewitt 12-17-02 Please send this message to Don Hewitt, Ed Bradley and Trevor Nelson.... On
the scathing letter from David Page, 3-23-99 which they downplay, as usual! This theory makes more sense & is most likely the TRUTH www.valdezlink.com/inipol/no.htm There is an important story about an abuse of workers... www.valdezlink.com/inipol Can you help find the bioremediation workers of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup? www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/run.htm
Suggested newspaper ad: WANTED: People from Exxon Valdez oil-spill cleanup: The VECO men in Exxon's bioremediation experiment, Aug 1989-1990, who used surfactant, Inipol EAP 22 with 2-butoxyethanol, a dry cleaning solvent. Extremely poisonous. Contact 1-888-853-5333 or www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/ad.htm
|
Check this theory on the herring decline ... no one gives any thought to the chemicals that don't bioremediate -
'Twas a surfactant, Inipol EAP 22 was! *
... but at 4 degrees centigrade and colder, even chemicals that would otherwise biodegrade, DON'T http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/no.htm
'Mother Margaret'
& guess what? . . .
After Exxon's not testing either inipol EAP 22 or Corexit prior to the experiment *
of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup...
Exxon wants to test a variety of Corexit * in Alaska waters Dec, 2002 - Maybe not?
with the approval of MMS
Can you figure out what's going on? *
Where are the lawsuits today? *
Exxon is paying out 100 million NOW!
Contact * regarding Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Cleanup Workers