English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Immediate damage from an oil spill is usually obvious (oiled birds, oiled shoreline), but long-term damage to either fauna or habitat is more subtle, difficult to measure, difficult to evaluate, and hence often controversial. The question is, are too many of response decisions such as dispersant use or shoreline cleanup based on short-term acute toxicity models? Have long-term damage scenarios been discounted because of the inherent difficulty in deriving definitive answers? Experience with the Exxon Valdez oil spill is shedding new light on the potential for long-term damage. Government-funded studies demonstrated that oil persists in certain habitats for extended periods of time, such as the intertidal reaches of salmon streams, in soft sediments underlying mussel beds, and on cobble beaches armored with large boulders. Observation of long-term persistence of oil in some habitats is not new, but an increasing number of studies indicate that fauna may be chronically and significantly exposed to oil in these habitats. The toxic components in oil responsible for much of the long-term effects are believed to be the larger 3- and 4-ring polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can induce cellular and genetic effects rather than the narcotic monoaromatic hydrocarbons (MAHs) responsible for acute mortalities. Observation of long-term persistence of Exxon Valdez oil, coupled with adverse effects on sensitive life stages, leads to the conclusion that strategies based on minimizing acute mortalities immediately following a spill probably do not provide adequate protection against long-term damage. When making environmental decisions in response to a spill (prevention measures or restoration measures), more weight should probably be given to long-term issues rather than discounting their significance. Total environmental cost is the sum of short-term damage and long-term damage, and long term-damage to habitats and sensitive life stages probably needs more consideration even though it is very difficult to evaluate and compare to the relatively obvious acute issues.

Long-Term Biological Damage: What is Known, and How Should that Influence Decisions on Response, Assessment, and Restoration?