BP Denies Oil Plumes Exist; Blames Illnesses on Food Poisoning

[BP]... denied the existence of giant underwater plumes of oil. The oil company claims that if those plumes do exist... the plumes are not from BP's use of chemical dispersants to sink the oil. BP officials also claimed that the nine oil cleanup workers who have been hospitalized might have contracted food poisoning; it denied the workers' claims the dispersants made them sick Full Story »

Posted by Glenn LaBauve
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 24 (as of 2010-06-02)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Glenn LaBauve - Jun 2, 2010 - 7:49 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Elizabeth White-Nadler - Jun 2, 2010 - 8:48 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jack Dinkmeyer
4.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Jun. 2, 2010

Although this excellent article quotes workers accusations, along with BP’s amateur-night rebuttals, it’s really a sort of first warning about how BP intends to handle the fallout of what the company and the other culprits caused: the worst political debacle in America’s history. In other words, we’d better get our BS filters cleared and ready.

Food poisoning? Since when did denial in the presence of a smoking gun become truth?

See Full Review » (20 answers)
Elizabeth White-Nadler
4.1
by Elizabeth White-Nadler - Jun. 2, 2010

Valuable information from observers who can get "up close and personal." The anecdotal case of the worker who says his clothing was confiscated is particularly noteworthy.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Richard Riehl
2.7
by Richard Riehl - Jun. 3, 2010

This is mediocre journalism. The issue is extremely important and relevant, but it simply reports that which has been reported elsewhere. The writer needed to consult with scientists by name to investigate the plumes, not "scientists" say. As for the sick workers, checking with doctors would have been a good idea, rather than simply reporting the difference of opinion over what caused the workers to get sick.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Glenn LaBauve
4.2
by Glenn LaBauve - Jun. 2, 2010

Once again BP is following the deny, deny, deny defense. Their first answer is no, then they ask what the question was. This well wasn't leaking, then it was barely leaking, then 5,000 barrels a day, now estimates are up to 10 times that. Who are you going to believe?

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Barry Grossheim
3.4
by Barry Grossheim - Jun. 2, 2010

This is rich: BP claims there are no underwater oil plumes; but if there are, they are not the result of BP's use of chemical dispersants on the massive oil spill they created.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 6 reviews (72% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
4.2
Fairness
3.5
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Sourcing
3.5
Style
3.5
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
4.0
Context
3.2
Depth
3.2
Enterprise
3.2
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.8
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.7
Credibility
3.6
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!