EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dispersant 'May Make Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill More Toxic'
Scientists fear chemicals used in oil clean-up can cause genetic mutations and cancer, and threaten sea turtles and tuna
By BP's own account, it has mobilised a third of the world's supply of dispersant, so far pouring about 140,000 gallons (637,000 litres) of the cocktail into the Gulf as of today. Some of the dispersant has been injected directly into the source of the spill on the ocean floor, a technique never deployed before, deepening concerns about further damage to the environment.
A dispersant plane passes over an oil skimmer as it cleans oil from a leaking pipeline that resulted from last week's explosion and collapse of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Louisiana Tuesday, April 27, 2010. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) The dispersants are designed to break down crude into tiny drops, which can be eaten up by naturally occurring bacteria, to lessen the impact of a giant sea of crude washing on to oyster beds and birds' nests on shore. But environmental scientists say the dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, add to the toxicity of the spill. That exposes sea turtles and bluefin tuna to an even greater risk than crude alone. Dolphins and whales have already been spotted in the spill.The dangers are even greater for dispersants poured into the source of the spill, where they are picked up by the current and wash through the Gulf.
The high demand for dispersant carries an additional risk. As BP runs through stocks of the chemical, called Corexit, scientists fear it will fall back on older stockpiles in the developing world that are more toxic than those approved for use in the US. "You are trying to mitigate the volume of the spill with dispersant, but the price you pay is increased toxicity," said Richard Charter, a scientific adviser to Defenders of Wildlife. "There are no good answers in a mess of this size."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

65 Comments so far
Show AllI'd noticed a reference to "dispersants" in another article, and hoped it was a misprint.
After all, isn't "dispersing" the very negative outcome they're trying to counter?
But I figured there might be some counter-intuitive technical justification for it, so I decided to suppress still another smart-ass remark.
In the light of THIS article, I hereby put my smart-ass remark right back on the table!
So: DISPERSANT? WTF?
I understand that this toothpaste ain't going back in the tube, but is spraying and slathering it with anti-toothpaste chemicals really a remedy? Perhaps I'm overly influenced by growing up in a teevee culture that sternly asserted that using Brand X would only cause Waxy Buildup.
The dispersant is a detergent-like compound, like the way hosehold detergents "cut" the grease from a pot or from oil spilled on clothes. It basically breaks down the oil into tiny droplets that become soluble in water. Once dissolved in the water, it dilutes and ultimately gets broken down by aerobic bacteria. This is a better situation than the oil floating ashore on top of the water.
But, as the article states, the dispersants are toxic too.
Putting aside questions about the toxicity of the dispersant, is there any reason to think that there are enough bacteria to eat this much oil?
I haven't seen any claim that the dispersants ultimately make the oil "soluable".
All scientific summaries say something like this one…
"Reduction of the interfacial tension between oil and water by addition of a dispersant promotes the formation of a larger number of small oil droplets when surface waves entrain oil into the water column. These small submerged oil droplets are then subject to transport by subsurface currents and other natural removal processes, such as dissolution, volatilization from the water surface, biodegradation, and sedimentation resulting from interactions with suspended particulate material (SPM)."
The oil spreading throughout the water column, like in 3 dimensions, seems to me a worse solution, pardon the pun, than the oil going to the surface where at least it can be seen and dealt with. Most deep ocean life wouldn't be affected, but with the dispersants creating tiny droplets of oil throughout, it seems to me, that many more sea creatures will be affected by the oil, and that doesn't even take into consideration the toxicity of the dispersants.
Also, how is it, that the dispersants aren't toxic to the bacteria that supposedly have the munchies for crude oil? And don't dispersants make the transfer of oil up the food chain more likely, and not less so?
I don't know all of the answers, these are not rhetorical questions.
Very good questions. What matters on the action front, though, is whether or not the general population are asking the same questions. If they are not, then we are guaranteed to push through with some stupidity in order to make the problem invisible.
Remember if it is not seen it does not exist!
Just to be clear, I'm not at all defending the use of dispersants - just trying to explain the logic of them.
I suspect their main effect is to change the problem from acute to chronic.
What is the purpose of dispersants? To make the slick unphotographable? Who is making these decisions? BP?
Joe
NEVER suppress a smart-ass remark!
The Greek economy has been shocked. Next comes the doctrine. They, too, will need plane loads of dispersant.
Sarah sez 'You can't trust a foreign company' - like Halliburton??
With all these mutant causing chemicals will we have a new Godzilla?
MAN NOT SPIRITUAL -- JUST A BIG BRAIN MAMMAL
Part of the fake morality generated by the rich, to protect the excessive
wealth of the rich, is the illusion that man has a “spirit” and is gifted with
an infinite amount of untapped knowledge, intelligence and ability to
create something out of nothing.
The root cause of this Gulf oil spill actually, a full speed ahead with
abandon feeling that man is god-king over all the laws of nature and
dynamic forces govern our environment. But absolutely everything
was controlled by profit, all safety precautions bypassed if they in anyway
harmed profit and now that all has exploded in a convulsion, all Obama
and the rich want to talk about is how best to minimize any damage to
future profit.
Truth is, man is the absolute reverse of spiritual, just a soul like all
animals, just some organic matter together with a breath of life to
keep him among the living.
And so, one of the grand purposes of this worlds is to establish
physical man for what he is, just a big brain mammal so inflated
by pride that he pokes holes in things with the illusion that he can
handle an infinity of catastrophes that it will surely bring.
The other animals are spiritual. I think my cat knew when something was about to happen to him (he got in a fight with a raccoon and lost).
In my timberland abode I have two stray cats and a pet raccoon I keep alive, all most friendly and peaceful acting toward each other. You could have something there, as they kill only to survive, never for sport or for pleasure.
I was just reflecting this morning, and not for the first time, how much I enjoy my engagements with my cat on a mental and emotional level...she clearly understands, and conveys, many emotional states, including various levels of play, from rather violent to gentle and relaxing, all with an undertone of complete trust and companionship...
if she wants to play rough, she sneaks up and nips my leg...no mistaking that...
no mistaking her happiness when she purrs, either...
she would never think to fake it...
I love the animals. Early this morning, 2ish, the coyotes were partying and sounded like a bunch of drunken sailors. Makes me smile every time.
We need to define ecology as not just corporate-funded preservation of how things look on the outside.
The Gulf near the mouth of the Mississippi is a dead zone. Nitrates dumped into the river by thousands of farms, feedlots and septic tanks cause bacteria to eat all the oxygen in the ocean water, killing all fish. The oil slick reduces oxygen uptake into the water. In that respect the dispersant does something useful.
However, there's a problem with dumping dispersant where a shrimp boat was two weeks ago. We eat the shrimp. Then our cancer rate goes even higher.
Why isn't eliminating American human sacrifices to the god of profit more important than oil appearances? If the shrimp live but they're poisoned, what's the point?
It's worse than just the shrimp being poison. Fish and birds, etc, eat the tainted shrimp passing the toxins up the chain where the toxins bio-accumulate. The whole ecosystem has been poisoned.
yes, brother buck...
this is so simple, yet so easy to overlook in our distracting world...it needs to be emphasized daily...
nothing happens in isolation...this is the problem with so many current notions about compromise regarding ongoing industry and energy use...
no matter what we wish to create, from a windmill to a copper wire to a plastic comb to a computer, it has to be ripped from the living world...
even if the ripping happens in, oh, say, China, it still happens, and the chemical damage enters the global system...
it moves!
there is no safe place to do this stuff, there is nowhere else to dispose of the toxic waste created, and there is no other place for any earth-living to go...
so, ha ha, happy thursday, and peace to you, brother buck!
what a mess we're in...
i have an idea, though...
dubet, people just don't get the idea of reducing. They live in a world of silly string and styrofoam. I keep it to a minimum. Today I used my two favorite tools; a shovel that is kept sharper than obsidian flakes and an old duller than beans butcher's knife that is used for just about every task around the garden. Both were bought used.
I feel sorry for the kids. They haven't a clue what the future holds for them.
I've had an idea kicking around for a while, but can't manifest it. Guess I'll go on dreaming.
Good gardening to you and yours
shrimp eat shit anyway.
Are they using a lot of antique DC-3's - original radial engines and all - to spread the dispersant?
Damn! Those suckers are still flying AND working? DC-3(C-47)s and Mars rovers! Once in a while we get something right.
How very, very sad. I do not live anywhere near the Gulf but I feel the pain of you and the creatures. We all share our Mother Earth and this desecration in the name of money is beyond heartbreaking--when will they ever learn...
DISASTER CAPITALISM IN THE MAKING? -- Another 9/11 by the rich?
Most fictional fantasy is the 9/11 conspiracy theory thrown at us by government, for as their conspiracy goes, the group that benefited the least did it, Al Qaeda which suffered the absolute most executed it in grand style all on their own.
Problem is, indicative of most government conspiracy theories, this one violates the rules and regulations that govern all theories of conspiracy. Namely those who got the richest from it, by all the probabilities know to man, they are to be declared most guilty until they can show proof positive that they be innocent.
Comes now this oil spill, and after it has destroyed all Gulf fishing and tourism for 100 years to come, Ok is it to drill, drill and drill some more.
Much glory now for our military as they are entering the mix in a big way, much glory for Obama and all the corporations that shall save the day.
Who knows what Wall Street, high finance and the corporate rich have planned for such a disaster, capitalism enrichment in its finest hour.
what a dumb theory...they don't need to kill ocean life so they can drill more.
they can do whatever they want whenever they want. If the powers that be want 500 platforms in the gulf they will get it. These big companies own most this planet. And they will buy the rest. they can bend all to their will. Even you and me and everyone else here. As bad as we know they are...we still underestimate them.
their power is beyond the need to create conspiracy.
500! There are already 3,800 oil platforms along the gulf coast of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana an Texas.
I need to go throw up now
Here is the really maddening information
It looks like all that toxicity is unnecessary.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/
Stupid Government!
Yeah, lets throw more crap into Mom, the world Ocean. There's already plastics of every type and particle size, nuclear waste, industrial waste, acidity from rising CO2, sewage (the least of our worries), all sorts of raw oil, garbage, oil-fed nutrient-drunk agricultural and urban runoff, and anything else we can't or don't want to deal with. Needles, Condoms, Shoes, Duckies, Oscar Meyer rings.
Happy Mother's Day.
And the Ocean Mother looks very small now. We are approaching 7 billion inadequately wired, but ingenious, primates.
Oh well, I'm sure OilCorp is profiting from Dispersal Production. Good for the Economy. Maybe more Cars will be sold. I can maybe build a huge house, with a Jacuzzi in every room....
You're as bloody sarcastic as even this bloke! Ha! Here are some of me posts that posted elsewhere:
Maybe Gaia will simply shut down all life support systems for the pest that classifies itself as Homo sapiens. It looks as though the species is hard at work in the Gulf of Mexico to move this process forward. A truly Silent Spring waits.
What oil leak? Let's keep our focus and remain petrified with fear, and more fear of rabid Islamic hoards!!!
At this rate, several tens of millions of gallons of oil could be released by the time the leak is shut off. In the worst case scenario, the oil will continue to spill out until the entire reserve is drained. BP has not provided estimates for how much oil this could involve, but the reserve is estimated to have a capacity of tens of millions of gallons.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m03.shtml
Perhaps the next step would be to inject the oil with genetically modified oil eating bacteria? Which would then grow out of control, get into all the ocean's oil wells, eat up all the oil on the planet.......?
(Ice 9)
It's already been predicted in a 1995 book titled "Ill Wind" by Anderson and Beason. Their premise was air born bacteria, but the consequences are the same.
Probably in another generation, we'll have children whose parents ate fish from the Gulf being born with 3 ears.
A good interview this evening on the PBS News Hour about the effect of dispersants on the sea itself, microscopic organisms and the newborns of the food chain. The oceanographer was nervous and not as effective as she might have been, but she got it said. Making toxins invisible is like painting over chicken pox. They can't stop the geyser, but they can ruin the photo ops until the panic blows over. The video of that poor turtle they had to leave swimming in sweet crude is worth a thousand words. And no one is more in favor of invisibility than BP and its hirelings in Washington.
It's not words but pictures that change hearts. If you live down there along that beach keep a camera with you.
Would the tribes have produced the great masterpieces of art, symphonies, novels, films, trips to the moon and beyond, discoveries of science and works of philosophy?
The average life expectancy in these Indian tribes was what, 35? Do you want to go back to that?
Progress has a price. The answer from now on is to use mankind's ingenuity and adopt clean energy, wind and solar, so we can try to save what's left of the planet.
Complexity does not equal progress.
There has been a serious argument made that man's 'ingenuity' and inventiveness peaked in the 1700s, and has been in decline ever since.
And by the way, the 'clean energy' technologies are still dependent upon hydrocarbons (coal, oil, and natural gas) for the extraction, refinement, manufacture and transportation of the natural resources and final product.
I notice those that want clean technologies, and the products to run via them, don't say they're ready to rip up their own property, or poison their own wellwater, to create them...
If I had to choose Between the negatives and Positives the Tribes win overwhelmingly.
The bottom line is do have what you need for a happy quality life.
The tribes had fine art, everday utilitarian art, oral literature, extensive medical knowledge and some tribes somehow knew of unseeable Stars.
Perhaps they did not go to the moon ( did we ?) but their affinity, respect and love for all creation overshadows any arbitrary milestones.
As far as life expectancy, the people of the Hunza Valley recently were among those of greatest longevity and USA longevity is now regressing.
I guess you have never seen bead or basket work, petroglyphs, effigy mounds, nor listened to a wooden flute. Novels? Stories on paper. They had an oral tradition, where you listen to a story teller. Films? Lies on celluloid. Where is the value in a trip to the moon when the planet you live on is being wrecked?
Philosophy? Now, you really have missed the boat. We would never have gotten to this insane condition with Native philosophy.
Your post is Euro-centric exceptionalism. How ironic as this mess was caused by western culture.
100% agreement here.
Joe
Whatcha gonna do? We cannot reproduce that old way of life, but we should try to understand it and start using it as much as we can. Respect and simplicity are in too short supply.
If we do not examine our ways, we are surely doomed to make this planet uninhabitable, by humans at least. Roaches and viruses will probably be fine. They know how to adapt.
Joe
There is serious chatter that the only way to plug this monster is a nuclear device detonation, tactical or better.
Why not?
The only thing better than crude oil in your seafood is radioactive crude oil in your seafood.
Watching right-wing idiot news like Faux has far reaching consequences (not you Galen). The viewers never watch documentaries about the consequences of nuclear contamination and fall for Faux arguments in favor of using tactical nukes to fix everything.
Global Warming?
Hey let's make a Nuclear Winter!
brilliant, just brilliant
TJ
(glad I got to see the gulf before they ruined it. glad I'm on the other side of the world).
Idiotic chatter.
Joe
BP= Beyond Petroleum. What's beyond petroleum? Death.
And the sad thing is with current US law BP might only have to pay 75 million dollars.
Dilution is the solution!
That's how our society treats all toxins, poisons, wastes. Human excrement flushed with huge amounts of clean water to dilute it and move it through a very complex and costly system of underground pipes often times releasing into waterways or sometimes making its way to expensive, and too often, insufficient, inefficient watertreatment plants. Or ... the excrement is flushed with huge amounts of clean water to a septic and leach field system ... diluting and allowing it to magically and slowly disperse through soils eventually finding its way to groundwater or other water sources. Simply get it all away from the source/sources. Dilute it as much as possible and everything will be just fine. Dilute it enough so it falls within acceptable limits. Dilute it enough so it suddenly becomes 'undetectable'.
Smokestacks and auto exhaust pipes spew toxins, poisons, wastes into the atmosphere and all the while accepted because it simply gets diluted within the atmosphere. Corpo-man has corpo-think again ... that it may be bad at the source but it ain't so bad once it's dispersed.
The same corpo-crazy-think is going on here with the dispersants. No thought to the impact/consequences of the dispersants alone, nevermind the compounded impact of the dispersants combined with the toxic crude oil. Yup ... disperse it all in the large volume of ocean water ergo rendered harmless. Harmless to whom, what? Can't see it now can you! To 'hell' with anything and everything else. Talk about a monumental 'Watergate'(no pun intended) twisted, swine ploy and cover-up!
Someone's comment here pointed out that man is simply a 'big brain mammal'. True, very true.
Not one given to believing in a 'heaven' or a 'hell', neither 'God' nor 'devil' ... lately though, I have a feeling corpo-man is 'devil' incarnate in desperate pursuit of creating 'hell' ... corpo-world.
I cannot come up with any reasonable explanation for the rampant sociopathic beliefs of, and psychopathic outcomes created by, corpo-man.
For all the 'knowledge' and 'technology' we have available, seems to me, have only contributed to the problems. There appears to be no true understanding and implications of the 'knowledge' and 'technology' available and/or utilized. 'Knowledge' and 'technology' are great, but only great, if the 'big picture' is considered with a large dose of 'humanity' in the decision making process.
The legal requirement of corporations to maximize profits(money, money, money) is the driving force behind what we see happening in corpo-land. Why can't the legal requirement of 'maximization of profits' be balanced by other requirements that protect against the ramifications of it?
Why can't laws be passed, or ammendments be made to existing laws, that can rein in the innate, built-in destructiveness of corpo-man with corpo-crazy-think in corpo-land?
Problematic also is the deference of regulatory action or inspection by existing regulatory agencies to industry(whatever industry, take your pick) to monitor itself, to inspect itself, to regulate itself. We already know this does not work out for anyone or anything other than corpo-man and its corpo-regime.
Does BP have to pay for clean up of the oil that is dispersed into the water column? Where are the models that indicate this is a safe practice? Why does it seem that containment and removal is only being planned for just off shore?
Is the US Coast Guard running the show? Is the EPA being consulted in matters of clean up vs use of disperant?
Some questions to consider.
First of all, I am not sure if you are asking questions in search of answers/opinions or if your questions were rhetorical. Anyway ... I'm going to go ahead and give you what I've got.
To my knowledge, there is no available technology for clean up once dispersants have been introduced into an open environment that is in constant flow and flux. Once the crude has been broken up by the chemical dispersants it now moves more easily with the currents and tides, moving/pushing the contaminants to larger and larger areas and most will then be in the process of sinking. Some gets eaten by microorganisms. Some will get swallowed by fish, aquatic mammals and birds during feeding.Some will enter fish through their gills.Some will sink to the ocean floor and contaminate all the life forms residing there ... clams, oysters, scallops, lobsters, and so many more living creatures, but those are a few that are of particular interest for most people because they eat them.
BP, at this point is only responsible for $75 million of the cost of clean up. To my knowledge, the House and the Senate are trying to quickly pass legislation to remove the liability cap.
The Coast Guard is definitely involved, but your guess is as good as mine as to who exactly is running the show.
The containment at this point is limited. Yesterday, I heard that the disaster, at that point, covered an area as large as the state of Delaware. So ... protecting the coastline and putting all efforts on that is probably something you could call a 'Hobson's Choice'.
I am sure the EPA has some people in the Gulf coastal areas but I'm not sure how far out into the ocean their responsibilities go.