Dispersant Made 2010 Gulf Of Mexico Spill Up To 52 Times More Toxic

[News_Editor]

Dispersant made 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill up to 52 times more toxic < br />

2012-12-02 08:19:36 GMT+7 (ICT)

ATLANTA, GEORGIA (BNO NEWS) -- A dispersant used as part of efforts to clean up oil from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster is believed to have made the spill up to 52 times more toxic, according to new research. The ecological disaster was the worst U.S. oil spill in history.

The dispersant, Corexit, is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for clean up following oil spills. But researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes (UAA) in Mexico found the dispersant makes the oil up to 52 times more toxic when they are mixed.

"Dispersants are pre-approved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters," said UAA's Roberto-Rico Martinez, who led the study. "But we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion."

In toxicity tests in the lab, the mixture's effects increased mortality of rotifers, a microscopic grazing animal at the base of the food web in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to causing mortality in adult rotifers, as little as 2.6 percent of the oil-dispersant mixture was needed to inhibit rotifer egg hatching by 50 percent.

The researchers, whose findings were published online on Friday and will appear in the print edition of Environmental Pollution in February, said inhibition of rotifer egg hatching from the sediments is important because these eggs hatch into rotifers each spring, reproduce in the water column, and provide food for baby fish, shrimp and crabs in estuaries.

"What remains to be determined is whether the benefits of dispersing the oil by using Corexit are outweighed by the substantial increase in toxicity of the mixture," said Georgia Tech School of Biology Professor Terry Snell. "Perhaps we should allow the oil to naturally disperse. It might take longer, but it would have less toxic impact on marine ecosystems."

On April 20, 2010, BP's Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded, killing eleven men and ultimately releasing an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. BP was finally able to seal the well with cement 18,000 feet (5,486 meters) below the sea in September 2010.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-12-02

[pacovl46]

Great!!!

[mania]

Corexit simply made the oil loose its cohesive bond with itself causing it to sink.

It cleaned up nothing & actually increases the area of the oil.

That is was developed by Exxon should come as no surprise.

They released something like 45 million plus gallons of it into the Gulf.

They also air sprayed it by airplane. They should watch if there are other

side effects to more than sea life.

The main ingredient of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol, known to cause human health

problems that can affect the liver, the central nervous system, and the kidneys,

also toxic to the blood.

[vijer]

It's the case of out of site out of mind. If we disperse the oil so it cannot be displayed on national TV then there isn't any oil spill. To think stupid republicans want to kill environmental protection and limit government controls. Morons

[maidu]

Yet again, man-made, man-applied chemicals causing big problems in the environment. The amount of destruction of species and habitat caused my humans is atrocious, and nearly all of it is not seen and/or not cared about. During the 14 years I've resided in northern Thailand, I've noticed a marked decrease in some species: owls, tarantulas, squirrels, giant worms, legless lizards, .....and in increase in other species: leaf-eating moths, to name a few. Before I moved to reside here, there were monkeys, bears, tigers, leopards, turtles, elephants, deer and other beautiful beasts. Now there are no wild mammals in this region, except bats and rats. Even gated retirement communities in the US have more animal diversity than the remotest places in Thailand. You could talk to 10,000 Thais about that, and the most response you'd get is, "Really? Oh, too bad. Listen, when can we go to the mall, I need some more whitening cream."

[mania]

It's the case of out of site out of mind. If we disperse the oil so it cannot be displayed on national TV then there isn't any oil spill. To think stupid republicans want to kill environmental protection and limit government controls. Morons

I think it is probably not that black & white.

Remember even Obama received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry during the 2008 campaign.

I think the Oil & Gas Industry like the Financial/Banking Sectors have their strings in place on both sides of

the aisle.

Getting back to Oil I also think that we are in a time of diminishing resources or past "peak" oil.

More & more risks will be taken & allowed as long as demand is still there. Since no alternatives

have really been put forth I expect more of this in the future.

Remember at the time of this accident that was the deepest drilling in History.

(maybe still is?) It was beyond the specifications

of the equipment being used. But sadly I think these risks will continue as resources diminish.

[ronz28]

Fracking chemicals used by oil and gas drillers are killing cows on land too. Starts will their tails falling off or they just die within a couple of days of injesting these highly toxic chemicals. Think about what this toxic brew is doing to our water supply as there is no way to get it all back out of the well hole and safely dispose of the millions of gallons needed to frack a well. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/171504/fracking-our-food-supply

[mania]

Fracking chemicals used by oil and gas drillers are killing cows on land too. Starts will their tails falling off or they just die within a couple of days of injesting these highly toxic chemicals. Think about what this toxic brew is doing to our water supply as there is no way to get it all back out of the well hole and safely dispose of the millions of gallons needed to frack a well. http://www.thenation...our-food-supply

That is weird & scary

Also this from the article,

Cattle that die on the farm don’t make it into the nation’s food system.

(Though they’re often rendered to make animal feed for chickens and pigs—yet another cause for concern.)

But herd mates that appear healthy, despite being exposed to the same compounds, do

Isn't that how the whole Mad Cow thing got going?

[Rancid]

Remember at the time there were a lot opposed, including many experts, to that dispersant as claimed it would make it worse, naturally they were ignored. No doubt whoever organised it will get a promotion and pay rise, seems the reward these days for stupidity, incompetence and fraud. Once you are in the club only good things come your way.

[radiochaser]

Remember at the time there were a lot opposed, including many experts, to that dispersant as claimed it would make it worse, naturally they were ignored. No doubt whoever organised it will get a promotion and pay rise, seems the reward these days for stupidity, incompetence and fraud. Once you are in the club only good things come your way.

Quote from the article:

"The dispersant, Corexit, is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for clean up following oil spills."

[mania]

Remember at the time there were a lot opposed, including many experts, to that dispersant as claimed it would make it worse, naturally they were ignored. No doubt whoever organised it will get a promotion and pay rise, seems the reward these days for stupidity, incompetence and fraud. Once you are in the club only good things come your way.

Quote from the article:

"The dispersant, Corexit, is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for clean up following oil spills."

I think the bottom line is the EPA requires a dispersant to be available by the oil & gas industries.

Like the coast guard require a boat to have a life saver.

Generally, the use of dispersants is restricted under the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Dispersants must be on the US EPA Product List,

As to how that is approved I have no idea. The EPA is after all a US Government Agency

Not very confidence inspiring considering how most government agencies run.

Just look at this article, Now, they find it increases toxicity 52% when mixed with oil??

Now they find this out? Or when they approved are they only looking at one thing?

When they approve things like Corexit they saw a mortality rate ( In small scale testing ) & found it acceptable.

For the highest concentration of oil tested, only 7 % of the the inland silverside, the small estuarine fish, died.

To estimate the LC50 – the goal of this standard toxicity test – 50% mortality is needed.

http://www.epa.gov/b...ml#toxtestqanda

The govt would not allow any outside groups in to do any testing during & for some time after

the use of corexit.

Instead I would have preferred at least independent scientist, oceanographers

be allowed to do tests asap after first release.

But instead the Government issued a warning that it would be a felony to enter the area.

Edited December 5, 2012 by mania

[ronz28]

As with the Nuclear Power Industry, University and other supposedly independent scientific study lead investigators are often on the take from industry sources to taint the outcome of studies regarding their operations. Here is a recent example of fracking investigators caught with conflicts of interest. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/texas-energy-institute-head-quits-amid-fracking-study-conflicts.html

I have been fooled by misleading study results in the past and will have to rely more on common sense in the future than to believe these paid shills.

[Potosi]

The article is missleading. Crude oil isn't 'toxic', it doesn't harm wildlife by poisoning it, but causes other kinds of damage. The article states "In addition to causing mortality in adult rotifers, as little as 2.6 percent of the oil-dispersant mixture was needed to inhibit rotifer egg hatching by 50 percent." 2.6% of what? 97.4% seawater and 2.6% of the mixture? I don't think there is this sort of concentration in a body of water as large as the Gulf, maybe a couple of ppm. If the oil isn't dispersed and broken up, it continues to float on the water and to cover shorelines for months. That's worse, no question.

Dear right wing, your attempt to blame environmentalists for the effects of the Gulf Oil Spill doesn't fly.

[mania]

If the oil isn't dispersed and broken up, it continues to float on the water and to cover shorelines for months. That's worse, no question.

I wonder

Not sure I can say it is worse on a shoreline than chemically broken down & mixed into someones home/Marine Ecosystem

I understand your argument of ppm but what do we really know of collateral damages & who are we to decide.

Will be interesting to see what becomes of that region in the future. Also what the effect on Humans will be as products from that region will

surely still reach market in some form or other.

Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists

[Potosi]

The dispersant is a dish liquid, it allows the oil to mix with water. The dispersant itself is broken down reacting with the oil in the same way when you wash greasy hands. Lots of dish liquids, detergants etc. reach the sea anyway, probably in larger quantities. Didn't Deepwater Horizon sit in the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone from the Mississippi mouth, anyway?

[mania]

The dispersant is a dish liquid, it allows the oil to mix with water. The dispersant itself is broken down reacting with the oil in the same way when you wash greasy hands. Lots of dish liquids, detergants etc. reach the sea anyway, probably in larger quantities. Didn't Deepwater Horizon sit in the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone from the Mississippi mouth, anyway?

From my previous post..

This active ingredient makes up 60% of the volume of Corexit.

Corexit also contains Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and Cyanide.

I do not think you will find those things in your dish soap

The neurotoxin that is in Corexit has been banned in the UK since 1998

The main ingredient of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol, known to cause human health

problems that can affect the liver, the central nervous system, and the kidneys,

also toxic to the blood.

[Potosi]

I looked up a couple of things myself. First that they used 1 million gallons of Corexit ec9527a to disperse the about 210 million gallons of oil that spilled. Then I checked the safety data sheet of Corexit ec9527a, and it doesn't mention Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and Cyanide. Were you talking about traces? I'm afraid they are in my Paracetamol pills as well.

And for 2-Butoxyethanol, the main ingriedient; the world production of the stuff is estimated to be 200 -500 kilotons per year. 380 tons of corexin were sprayed, say 200 of them were 2-Butoxyethanol. More than 1,000 times this amount in the same year were in paint, cometics, shampoo, dish liquids, soap, etc. etc. Everywhere, all pervasive.

I think to bury it in the Gulf is a good option, because you can't eat anything from the Gulf waters in this region. It's all been dead for decades by the pollution pouring in from the Mississippi.

I'm not happy about those chemicals and aware that the cases of cancer and allergies are on the rise, and of the toll on the environment. However, it is wrong to use one small and necessary application to defile environmentalism, and environmentalists. If you were honest you would demand a stop to the production of all that stuff alltogether.

[mania]

I'm not happy about those chemicals and aware that the cases of cancer and allergies are on the rise, and of the toll on the environment. However, it is wrong to use one small and necessary application to defile environmentalism, and environmentalists. If you were honest you would demand a stop to the production of all that stuff alltogether.

I think you have me confused with another poster.

I said nothing about environmentalist. Yes I would say no production

of things that cannot be safely disposed of.

But for the rest of your post

One Million gallons?

Even the culprit BP claims they used more 1.8 million gallons

I guess we will agree to disagree. You think it is acceptable I don't.

opinions are fine & everyone has one.

Anyone can simply google Corexit & read for days the results

But also as for that area being dead for decades??So it did not matter?

There is quite a large fund set up by BP to pay fishermen & others

If I remember right it was part of their fine

The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries

BP will pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments and plead guilty to 11 felony ... BP still faces payouts to thousands of fishermen, businesses and others

wiki quotes

That is a lot of $$ for a dead zone.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mania