Table 5
The Legacy--Key Lessons Learned from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Shifting Paradigms: Oil Causes Persistent Harmful Effects1. Oil acted like the persistent, bioavailable, toxic (PBT) pollutant that it is; it took over a decade for researchers to reach a new understanding of oil effects on humans and marine ecosystems.
2. Cleanup workers appear to have been overexposed to oil mist, PAH aerosols, and other chemicals relative to NIOSH recommended exposure limits, a more conservative standard than the OSHA permissible exposure limits.
3. There was a higher prevalence of acute respiratory symptoms, stomach distress (poisoning), and potential neurological symptoms among 1989 cleanup workers compared to those reported by the Alaska workforce in 1987; there is a higher prevalence of chronic airway distress, neurological symptoms, and chemical sensitivity among 1989 cleanup workers who were at a higher risk of oil and/or chemical exposure than less exposed workers.
4. Oil is harmful to fish and wildlife at 1,000 times lower levels than those thought to be the toxicity threshold in the 1970s; PAHs concentrations in the low parts per billion cause persistent and measurable population-level harm to fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.
5. Public policies (laws) on oil pollution are grossly under-protective of life.Reassessing our Indicators of Individual Health
1. Risk assessments are bogus: they cannot deliver on their promise of worker/public protection because they are not based on realistic parameters.
2. We do not know the full and true adverse health effects from crude oil exposures, one of the oldest known human health hazards; we do not know the full and true adverse health effects of most chemicals on our markets--and in our environment--today.
3. Traditional medical training does not prepare doctors to recognize, diagnose, and t reat chemical-induced illnesses and diseases; because of this, our worker/public health policies and our legal system do not support victims of chemical exposures and illnesses; because of this, we feign ignorance of chemical illnesses at the expense of worker/public health and the environment.
4. Biomarkers are effective and accurate diagnostic tools for subtle chronic and systemic effects of crude oil, solvents, and many other environmental pollutants.Assessing Population Health
1. Unrealistic risk assessments and short-term bioassays are not the proper tools to assess population-level and ecological harm to people and wildlife from crude oil, solvents, and other environmental pollutants.
2. To most accurately assess effects of environmental pollution, biomarkers should be used in concert with epidemiology or ecosystem-based (population) studies.
3. Effective population studies involve a holistic approach with five elements: collaborative efforts among multiple scientific disciplines and among scientists and the public; an inclusive and comprehensive planning process; identification and selection of key (sentinel and indicator) species (or subgroups of human population); and comparisons over time and geographic areas.
4. Wildlife scientists fully utilized the "opportunity" presented by the Exxon Valdez oil spill to complete the circle from individual to population-level health effects, which resulted in a new understanding of oil effects; medical researchers have not yet conducted parallel studies on human health effects from this spill. The opportunity is still there.Science, Politics, and the Public Interest
1. Scientific advancements through paradigm shifts are a confusing messy business for all involved, including the public, as starkly demonstrated by the polarized interpretations and conclusions of Exxon scientists and public-trust scientists from their EVOS studies.
2. It is, unfortunately, quite an accepted practice for entities with interests vested in t he old paradigm to resist change by conducting bad science or "tobacco science" to subvert the public process (which depends upon public understanding of the risk/issues) and stall undesirable policy changes; this drama is still in play in the case of the EVOS wildlife science. (Given Exxon's track record, it is anticipated that a similar drama would begin should an independent epidemiology study commence on EVOS cleanup workers.)
3. When scientists disagree and technical controversies spill into the public arena, the media is largely unable to sort out the truth and relevant details--the media focuses instead on the controversy itself; whenever scientists duel in public, it is time for the public to pay attention and try to understand what is at stake for the public interest, irrespective of media reports.Designing Laws to Deter Spills
1. Spillers should not be left in charge of the cleanup; they have a basic conflict of interest between their economic self-interest and the public interests of environmental restoratio n and protection of worker/public health.
2. Human health problems are likely not unusual for spill responders and should be anticipated for any oil spill cleanup that involves people working on beaches or with dispersants (i.e., products with solvents or hazardous chemicals); this liability is largely unrecognized at this point because response efforts largely focus on the environment.
3. Laws designed to prevent and respond to spills and to protect workers' health during oil spill cleanups do not work to protect the public interest when rich corporations spill oil. Further, they actually create situations in which the spiller can recover significant sums through accounting and tax strategies: this clearly undercuts the goal of deterrence.
4. Industrial self-reporting of spill volumes should be verified by the U.S. Coast Guard with independent surveyors.
