In this account of the ecological effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill on Prince William Sound, the story is told of a region where natural disturbance is normal. While the spill had toxic short-term effects, the author concludes that the cleanup efforts perpetrated more damage than the oil.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
An examination of the ecological effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, arguing that nature would have largely repaired itself in the wake of the disaster.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
Although this book focuses on the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the biota of Alaska's Prince William Sound, science writer Wheelwright also uses the Good Friday earthquake that devastated this area 25 years earlier to explore the broader concept of how ecosystems accommodate cataclysmic events. He describes the confusion of scientists and government officials when confronted with an oil spill of this magnitude; after viewing the sound and reviewing the data on the rescue/cleanup effort five years after the incident, Wheelwright questions the need for much of what was done. He details the effects of the oil on organisms ranging from bacteria to the sound's Native peoples, with special emphasis on sea otters. Wheelwright's sanguine views on ecosystem resiliency provide a pleasant counterpoint to the more commonly encountered doom-and-gloom predictions. While not so readable or clearly written as John Keeble's more general Out of the Channel: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound (LJ 4/15/91), this book is recommended for libraries with considerable ecology collections.
Lynn C. Badger, Univ. of Florida Lib., Gainesville
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Lynn C. Badger, Univ. of Florida Lib., Gainesville
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Jeff Wheelwright is a freelance journalist and the former science editor of Life magazine. He is the author of Degrees of Disaster, The Irritable Heart, and The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess. He lives on the Central Coast of California. More information is at jeffwheelwright.com.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Many mysteries faced the scientists who came to investigate the worst oil spill in American history, who arrived with hundreds of pet theories to explore and promote. But even greater challenges arose with the arrival of the politicians, enviro-activists, Exxon executives, and, of course, federal bureaucrats; they had to choose, and finance, measures to contain and perhaps "reverse" the environmental damage. Were otters and salmon as threatened as they appeared? Would the poison work its way up the food chain, to the bald eagle and man? Would the cold climate doom their efforts? Or should nothing be done? What, finally, did "environmental recovery" mean?
To explore these questions, Jeff Wheelwright decided to tag along with the scientists. Sometimes awestruck, sometimes antagonistic or even macho - in one place he licks raw oil off his finger to silence a heckler - Wheelwright got unusually close to his subjects, which highlights both the strengths and the drawbacks of his approach.
On the positive side, he examines issues in the infant science of ecological disaster and recovery. Many assumed, for example, that animal populations were severely harmed. This seemed natural, but were they?
Sea otters, who sustain their high metabolisms through ravenous eating, were judged extremely vulnerable to breakdowns in the ecological chain. To help them, some scientists captured and scrubbed the oily otters clean, then implanted radio transmitters in their bellies to monitor their progress. But soon others claimed that a quick wash removed their natural insulation, worsening their chances in the wild. In the end, no one could determine whether the surviving otters were even ill. It was harder still to measure the impact on game fish populations: estimates of salmon returning to their Prince William spawning grounds vary from one to twenty million each year. In the face of such uncertainty, how could scientists plot the oil spill's precise impact?
The same was true for the toxicological damage of the spill: some petroleum compounds are more poisonous than others; some evaporate and disperse immediately; and some may sink to the seabed, a deadly long-term legacy of the accident. For example, inside the gashed hull of the Exxon Valdese, scientists were astonished to discover it was teeming with life. Dodging globs of oily matter in the wounded bulkhead, salmon, herring, and shellfish were flourishing; even the cloudy water, upon closer inspection, was revealed to be dense with bacteria and other microorganisms. This miniature ecosystem, perhaps ten times richer in biota than the water outside, should have been a poisoned and stagnant pool. But it wasn't.
To investigate these observations and their toxicity scenarios over time, scientists painstakingly heated oil samples, electrically charging the vapors that boil off with each increase in temperature; the amount of charge - how much of each vapor sample there is - indicated the exact chemical constituents. Unfortunately, writes Wheelwright, the scientists had virtually no idea what their readings meant. For all their chemical statistics, it was like they had a map but didn't understand where it began.
These are valuable portraits of the grunt work that is the bread and butter of scientific research. It is a messy business, full of half-answered questions, ambiguous results, and healthy disagreement. Unfortunately, by continually lamenting that the experts cannot agree and that "objective" measures don't exist, Wheelwright gets lost in the details and even seems to misunderstand the nature of the scientific enterprise. It is a symptom of the deeper flaws in his book.
Wheelwright seems to assume, with surprising naivete, that the right answers are out there if only we'd let the scientists be scientists. In one of the cheapest shots in the book, he complains about the "bureaucrats" who are blocking scientists, influencing the press, or withholding vital information. Yet Wheelwright makes virtually no attempt to uncover what motivated the bureaucrats, what concerned them, or what directives may have come from Washington, DC; he completely fails to appreciate that they must make decisions quickly, however spotty and incomplete the evidence, and without the benefit of hindsight. As such, he does not explore the political context in which the scientific questions were formulated.
Even worse, Wheelwright blithely concludes that it may have been better to do nothing. Attempting to help, he often argues, hurts more than allowing nature to "take its course". Yet if Wheelwright admits that experts cannot agree, on what basis can he advocate that doing nothing is better? On none, it turns out, except his own assumptions that the environment can "tough" it out. It's not as if you can run the disaster over like an experiment in a test tube!
Instead of probing into the rich area where science meets government under pressure, Wheelwright chose to hang out in the scientific trenches. It is often interesting and gracefully written, but is a sadly incomplete picture. Lurching from story to story, Wheelwright's book rarely builds any narrative momentum, and leaves too many of the big questions unanswered. We never learn what "environmental recovery" should mean, or whether it took place in Prince William Sound.
I would not recommend this book except for those wishing for an introduction to the science - this is a four-star performance. The policy dimension - where the science is supposedly applied to remedy real-world problems - is ridiculously ignored; it rates one star in my view, and the author seems intolerably, arrogantly glib in his judgments and unsupported pronouncements.
To explore these questions, Jeff Wheelwright decided to tag along with the scientists. Sometimes awestruck, sometimes antagonistic or even macho - in one place he licks raw oil off his finger to silence a heckler - Wheelwright got unusually close to his subjects, which highlights both the strengths and the drawbacks of his approach.
On the positive side, he examines issues in the infant science of ecological disaster and recovery. Many assumed, for example, that animal populations were severely harmed. This seemed natural, but were they?
Sea otters, who sustain their high metabolisms through ravenous eating, were judged extremely vulnerable to breakdowns in the ecological chain. To help them, some scientists captured and scrubbed the oily otters clean, then implanted radio transmitters in their bellies to monitor their progress. But soon others claimed that a quick wash removed their natural insulation, worsening their chances in the wild. In the end, no one could determine whether the surviving otters were even ill. It was harder still to measure the impact on game fish populations: estimates of salmon returning to their Prince William spawning grounds vary from one to twenty million each year. In the face of such uncertainty, how could scientists plot the oil spill's precise impact?
The same was true for the toxicological damage of the spill: some petroleum compounds are more poisonous than others; some evaporate and disperse immediately; and some may sink to the seabed, a deadly long-term legacy of the accident. For example, inside the gashed hull of the Exxon Valdese, scientists were astonished to discover it was teeming with life. Dodging globs of oily matter in the wounded bulkhead, salmon, herring, and shellfish were flourishing; even the cloudy water, upon closer inspection, was revealed to be dense with bacteria and other microorganisms. This miniature ecosystem, perhaps ten times richer in biota than the water outside, should have been a poisoned and stagnant pool. But it wasn't.
To investigate these observations and their toxicity scenarios over time, scientists painstakingly heated oil samples, electrically charging the vapors that boil off with each increase in temperature; the amount of charge - how much of each vapor sample there is - indicated the exact chemical constituents. Unfortunately, writes Wheelwright, the scientists had virtually no idea what their readings meant. For all their chemical statistics, it was like they had a map but didn't understand where it began.
These are valuable portraits of the grunt work that is the bread and butter of scientific research. It is a messy business, full of half-answered questions, ambiguous results, and healthy disagreement. Unfortunately, by continually lamenting that the experts cannot agree and that "objective" measures don't exist, Wheelwright gets lost in the details and even seems to misunderstand the nature of the scientific enterprise. It is a symptom of the deeper flaws in his book.
Wheelwright seems to assume, with surprising naivete, that the right answers are out there if only we'd let the scientists be scientists. In one of the cheapest shots in the book, he complains about the "bureaucrats" who are blocking scientists, influencing the press, or withholding vital information. Yet Wheelwright makes virtually no attempt to uncover what motivated the bureaucrats, what concerned them, or what directives may have come from Washington, DC; he completely fails to appreciate that they must make decisions quickly, however spotty and incomplete the evidence, and without the benefit of hindsight. As such, he does not explore the political context in which the scientific questions were formulated.
Even worse, Wheelwright blithely concludes that it may have been better to do nothing. Attempting to help, he often argues, hurts more than allowing nature to "take its course". Yet if Wheelwright admits that experts cannot agree, on what basis can he advocate that doing nothing is better? On none, it turns out, except his own assumptions that the environment can "tough" it out. It's not as if you can run the disaster over like an experiment in a test tube!
Instead of probing into the rich area where science meets government under pressure, Wheelwright chose to hang out in the scientific trenches. It is often interesting and gracefully written, but is a sadly incomplete picture. Lurching from story to story, Wheelwright's book rarely builds any narrative momentum, and leaves too many of the big questions unanswered. We never learn what "environmental recovery" should mean, or whether it took place in Prince William Sound.
I would not recommend this book except for those wishing for an introduction to the science - this is a four-star performance. The policy dimension - where the science is supposedly applied to remedy real-world problems - is ridiculously ignored; it rates one star in my view, and the author seems intolerably, arrogantly glib in his judgments and unsupported pronouncements.
Format:Paperback
Though some are quick to wince and scurry from the depth and gravity of this fascinating work, those with true intellectual capacity will regard it as classic. Jeff Wheelwright writes with a type of fluidity and beauty that is rarely seen in science writing today. He should be praised and rewarded for Degrees.The continuous quality of Wheelwright's writing is astounding.
Format:Hardcover
Degrees of disaster contains a great deal of information. Because of the scientific nature of the material, I would suggest the addition of visuals to assist the reader. The inclusion of graphs and charts would help readers digest the vast quanity of statistics presented.
It seems that the authors sporatic attempts to "personalize" the text by romanticizing the Sound act to discredit. I'm referring to passages like "I had the strongest sense of th oil being incoporated by the Sound, even embraced." Descriptions such as this and others that appear on the following page(132) detract from the book. They don't appear to "mix" with the hard science text. This incongruence caused me to wonder who his intended audience was.
I think the book focuses on problems without offering solutions. The afterward seemed shallow, as if the author was rushed or tired. Wheelwright missed an opportunity for a heart to heart with his audience.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
