This is not from an anti-environmentalist skeptic but from Time Magazine<\/em>:<\/p>\n The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it\u2019s no leak; it\u2019s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It\u2019s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far \u2014 while it\u2019s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago \u2014 it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. \u201cThe impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,\u201d says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.<\/p>\n Yes, the spill killed birds \u2014 but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we\u2019ve heard horror stories about oiled dolphins \u2014 but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region\u2019s fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana\u2019s disintegrating coastal marshes \u2014 a real slow-motion ecological calamity \u2014 but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.<\/p>\n Marine scientist Ivor van Heerden, another former LSU prof, who\u2019s working for a spill-response contractor, says, \u201cThere\u2019s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good \u2014 I think they lied about the size of the spill \u2014 but we\u2019re not seeing catastrophic impacts.\u201d Van Heerden, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid from BP\u2019s spill-response funds. \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.\u201d<\/p>\n The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is unusually light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Alaska\u2019s Prince William Sound, is very warm, which has helped bacteria break down the oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water have helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. And finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient.<\/p>\n