Talk:Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fixing references

As soon as possible, the references need to be fixed. I will begin shortly if anyone else would like to help please do, it would be a great help.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I luv bots.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Working on this article

I will be working on this article for a few days. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Conference in New Orleans

I replaced the text: Over 1,000 scientists gathered in New Orleans in January 2013 to discuss the effects of the disaster. According to reporter Mark Schleifstein from the Times Picayune,

“ Even two years after the spill, people are still dealing with a variety of mental health issues. And that seems to be the most significant problem that’s been discussed here. There also are reports of skin problems, people still having problems with breathing issues, coughing, those kinds of things...and headaches. A much larger study of people who worked in cleaning up the spill, which The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has started, they have found biomarkers two years after the spill that are matching the oil from the BP well, still in the bodies of people who worked cleaning up the spill. ”

with the following text:

Two years after the spill the study started by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found biomarkers that are matching the oil from the spill, in the bodies of cleanup workers. Other studies have reported a variety of mental health issues, skin problems, breathing issues, coughing, and headaches.

Reasons for this were:

• While the conference may have notability itself, it was presented as it was about the health issues related to the spill. In fact, it was about all consequences of the spill and health issues was only one small part of this. Giving the number of participants makes a false impression that they were all persons dealing with health consequences;
• The quote was removed as, first, it was a journalist and not an expert who was quoted; and the quote itself was not encyclopedic. Instead, all health issues said in the quote were listed in the changed paragraph.

Beagel (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Sources

Just noting that I removed some material (diff) that needs a MEDRS-compliant source. I haven't checked the whole article, so there may be other material that would benefit from other sources too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following section:

On 26 May, all 125 commercial fishing boats helping in the clean up were ordered ashore after some workers began experiencing health problems.[8] On 29 May 2010, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All but two had been hospitalized suffering from symptoms emergency room doctors diagnosed as dehydration. At a press briefing about the 26 May medical evacuation of seven crewmembers from Vessels of Opportunity working in the Breton Sound area, USCG Captain Meredith Austin, Unified Command Deputy Incident Commander in Houma, LA, said that air monitoring done before beginning work showed no volatile organic compounds above limits of concern. No respiratory protection was issued, said Austin "because air ratings were taken and there were no values found to be at an unsafe level, prior to us sending them in there."[9]

I do not believe that four sick workers is significant. The second section re ten workers--the ref is no longer available. and the third section with ref #9 is not, as far as I can see, a RS. Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to help out on this, but can someone please point me to a definition of an MEDRS-compliant source? Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. :-) I would put it "in a nutshell" as follows: when sourcing health-related statements on Wikipedia, you should use scientific literature (generally peer-reviewed scientific journals), avoid the popular press, and give much more weight than you usually would to secondary and tertiary sources (e.g. textbooks, academic reviews) relative to primary ones. Pubmed is usually a good place to look. You can also restrict your search to academic reviews by (after typing in your search) selecting "Review" under "Article types" on the left side. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

For example: a search for "Deepwater Horizon" which gives 163 results as I write this, all related to the biological sciences. Filtering by review gives five (higher-quality) results. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you dear hearts for your patience as I continue to work on this article! Special thanks to Beagle for fixing the refs. I still want to figure out how to possibly group the information better and I still have more reading to do. I look forward to input from Core who said he will help when time permits. Gandydancer (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is a particular area that needs to be sourced, any gap, please let me know what specific area and I'll see what I can find that is peer reviewed. I may be able to get access to that. Coretheapple (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I went through a long list of what has been published and found next to nothing. It is not possible to write a study on long-term effects after only three years. Using the abstract, I have included this one [1] in the article but if you can read it that would be great. Not surprisingly, I have already been warned that it can not be used because it is a primary source. However, primary sources are sometimes OK if used correctly. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research). When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said that it can't be used (or intended you to interpret my comment as a "warning") - I was just reminding you to use it carefully. The paragraph you quote is telling you that as well. :-) I would especially note the last two sentences: When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight. As a general rule (regardless of the topic), I would consider a paragraph on a single primary study to be too much. But of course, you may proceed as you wish. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you thought I'd need a reminder. I've been editing since 2006 and many of the articles I edit are medical-related. Rather than say anything else I will bite my tongue. Gandydancer (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)