John, My point is that I trust folks who give facts, and couch those facts in reality.. Yes the article can say the guy has ethylbenezene in his blood.. but I would bet that you do as well, because of where you live. Nothing is said about the amounts nor is anything said about the standard amounts.. Looking at an article from AlJazeera (or CNN for instance) or the Center for Disease Control, I would tend to have more trust in the CDC article, which has data to show the impact of the facts. I didn't say I was biased toward Big Oil, I said I was biased toward reporting things in a way that reflects reality. Your reality is different from mine and biased as well.. I live and sail in places that the spill affected .. and I am not pleased that it happened but I think that an honest effort is being made to remediate the residual problems. Consider this.. many (not all) private fishermen do business on a cash basis.. Much of that income is not reported so that taxes aren't paid.. Now a spill happens and BP says it will reimburse for lost income.. but income was not reported (a practice that I am not entirely against, but there is risk) so there is no lost income to report. Another way that a person could be compensated would be to file suits against the company that have a lot of emotional appeal but little proof of the cause and effect.. I am not saying that is the case reported in your article but the article does not report enough so that a person can make a decision, hence my jaded look at this.
