I can't believe I am doing this. Writing a diary that mirrors the title of one currently on the rec list (just left the rec list I guess). But I feel compelled to write a bit on this topic as I have frequently been frustrated by the response of many here to the BP oil disaster. And the reversal of the title was too good to resist (and I should add that I have nothing but respect for the diarist in question). The responses tI refer to are understandable in view of the magnitude of the issue, the general political situation, and the lack of a coherent and open response from those in charge. But they are also somewhat self-defeating. I'll explain.
What I'm talking about is asymmetrical skepticism. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters, at least from where I'm sitting, to regard any information that might count as good news as evidence of a cover up while any bad news information is uncritically accepted. Now in all fairness, there have been a wide range of responses among Kossacks. For example, when there were reports of oil raining down from the sky quite a few people viewed what is a physically extremely unlikely event with the appropriate degree of skepticism.
But what I do see are statements in diaries where a single anecdote is used to express extreme skepticism about any findings that contradict preconceptions. There was a link posted to a story about corexit discovered in swimming pool in Florida. This is certainly very disturbing and somewhat mysterious. However the timing of the incident, the location of the incident, and the concentration of corexit indicate that the chemical could not have got into the pool from the gulf. Some local explanation must be the cause. This certainly may prove to be a serious issue with regard to safety but it doesn't really tell you anything new about the safety of eating Gulf seafood.
The real problem at this point is that the amount we don't know is vast. The gulf is a huge area that is physically and ecologically complex. The open ocean is a lot harder and more expensive to sample than a forest. The scientific response so far has not been very good but people are working on trying to get together a more coordinated response to gathering data on the impacts of the oil. Even when/if that happens there is going to be a lot of uncertainty. There are going to be a lot of reports with somewhat conflicting evidence. This is very common. In a complex environment you get conflicting results. Eventually they get worked out. It is not evidence of a conspiracy.
So am I suggesting we set around for years and years waiting for results and not doing anything? Of course not. We can press for increased and rapid funding for independent research. We can press the government and BP to take care of the damage we know has happened. We can press that the results of any BP funded research by made public. We can press for increased testing of seafood. And so on. But we should be reality based and we need to understand that our understanding of that reality in the gulf is very imperfect and that it will likely change over time.
I realize that a lot of people may find it hard to judge papers based on scientific merit. I would encourage asking questions. This site has people with a huge range of expertise. Ask them and be open to answers that may not always fit your preconceptions. And be prepared for the answer 'Nobody Knows'. It is not a great answer to hear or to have to give, but it is often the realistic answer.