Ask the Expert: Ellen-Marie Whelan and Lesley Russell on the Public Health Effects of the BP Oil Spill

Ellen-Marie Whelan: Hi, I'm Ellen-Marie Whelan.

Lesley Russell: And I'm Lesley Russell. And we're here today to talk about the public health effects from the Gulf oil spill.

What are the major health concerns from the BP oil spill in the Gulf?

EMW: The first is the effect to the workers themselves, who may have contact with the oil. The oil is a combination of benzenes and hydrocarbons which can cause cancer and also can have damaging effects to the brain and the central nervous system. The second is an effect from burning off the oil, which is a problem for both the workers and the communities at large. When we aerosolize those oil droplets, they can be breathed in, which can be very damaging to the lungs and can be irritating to the eyes and the throat and can cause nausea and vomiting, so we're concerned about what's happening to the environment down there. The third is one of the most concerning because we actually don't know a whole lot about it. It's use of the dispersants, the chemical that is used to disperse the oil and hopefully have it evaporate easier. The dispersants are a toxic compound, and we're using unprecedented amounts of it now to clean up this spill. And the last is to the seafood. The Food and Drug Administration is looking at how we monitor the effect that the oil as well as the dispersants have on the developing seafood in the area.

What is the administration currently doing to address these concerns?

LR: Well the Centers for Disease Control have been in the Gulf from the very beginning in large part because they have responsibility for worker safety and worker training programs. So that was initially the first focus. But as the days went on, and we began to realize that workers were getting sick and people on the shore were also suffering ill effects, other agencies have come in. So there is the National Disaster Medical Service, which provides emergency treatment in areas where doctors are sometimes in short supply. The Food and Drug Administration is there working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) because they need to monitor the safety of the seafood, both the fish and the shellfish and the shrimp that are harvested from that area. And that will need to be an ongoing process. And obviously there are things like mental health issues that need to be looked after. So, there are quite a range of diverse health agencies in the Gulf at the moment, but not necessarily well-coordinated either with each other, with the other non-health agencies like EPA that are doing air and water monitoring, and with the state and local authorities.

What else can be done going forward?

EMW: Why would we trust an oil company to monitor the health effects? BP in particular has shown more safety violations than any other oil company over the past number of years. We believe that the federal government should be empowered to monitor the health effects both now in the emergency phase and as we do some more long term effects.

LR: And that doesn't mean that we're necessarily supportive of a new agency and brand new authorities. We believe that the current system has the potential to work very well. But what we do need is better clarity in terms of roles and better coordination so that we can make a seamless transition from what is often a period of watchful waiting as was the case in the first few days of the Gulf oil spill, through to now we have a real emergency and we must really ramp up our response and do that effectively, through to the next phase, which we've yet to get to in the Gulf, which will be long-term monitoring and surveillance and any treatments that may be needed if long-term health care effects show up. So, we're particularly interested in making sure that we have a system that can work with all of the relevant health care agencies and all of the other agencies that are involved at both the federal, the state, and the local level.