Dispersants Can Make Chemicals from Oil Airborne ... Exposing Coastal Residents to Toxins

→ Washington’s Blog

PhD toxicologist Chris Pincetich says that - even with a very good pilot spraying Corexit - the dispersant drifts onto land:

(Dr. Pincetich also says that the dispersant evaporates and then moves around).

The air force sprayed Corexit from C-130 military cargo planes.

And Corexit is apparently still - to this day - being sprayed in the Gulf. See this, this, this, this and this.

But drift is not the only manner in which dispersants sprayed in the Gulf can expose coastal residents to toxins.

It is well-known that microscopic droplets can easily become airborne.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month:

Oil from the ruptured well, broken down by sprays of chemical dispersants and held at depth by water pressure, has formed microscopic droplets ....

Two mechanical engineers from the University of Miami demonstrated in 2001:

When oil is spilled at sea, aerosols containing oil or chemical
dispersants (when they are used to combat the oil spill) can be formed
... This may result in oil aerosol exposure to response workers or the nearby public.

***

In
the case of oil spills in the sea, oil aerosols can be generated from
wind-wave interactions, wave/ship interactions, and some other attendant
natural or mechanical cleanup operations, just like usual marine
aerosols. Those aerosols can contain volatile and toxic components.
Another important factor is the use of chemical dispersants. The
dispersing agents are used to break up the oil slicks into tiny droplets
to provide bite-sized bits for oil-eating bacteria. The dispersants
break down the interfacial tension between the water and the oil,
causing the dispersant to enter the water column.
During the initial stage of the dispersant application (maybe as short
as minutes), it is possible for the dispersant and/or the oil dispersant
droplet to become aerosolized.

They assume that the amount of material aerosolized might be doubled under 15 mile per hour winds.

In
other words, the use of dispersants in the Gulf may have caused toxic
chemicals within the crude oil (and the dispersant itself) to become
airborne. With even a slight onshore breeze, this could be enough to
expose coastal residents to toxic chemicals.

In addition to causing toxic chemicals to become airborne, the use
of dispersants in the Gulf has also been counter-productive because:

• The use of dispersants prevented clean up of the oil by skimming, by far the easiest method of removing oil from the water
  

• The crude oil which does not become aerosolized sinks under the surface of the ocean, and can delay the recovery of the ecosystem by years or even decades

• PhD
  toxicologist Ricki Ott says that dispersants make the toxins in crude
  oil more bioavailable to sealife, and scientists have found that
  applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil releases 35 times more toxic chemicals into the water column than would be released with crude alone

• The overwhelming majority of studies find that dispersants slow the growth of oil-eating microbes

• Dispersants cause Gulf fish to absorb more toxins and then make it harder for the fish to get rid of the pollutants once exposed

• Dispersants may bioaccumulate in seafood

• Blood tests show elevated levels of toxic hydrocarbons in Gulf residents

Given that the use of dispersant in the Gulf has so many negative affects, why was it used in such massive quantities?

In the video above, Dr. Pincetich explains that it was used because applying Corexit in the Gulf was simply cheaper for
BP than actually cleaning up the oil.  In other words, it cost less in
the short-run for BP  to buy a bunch of Corexit and dump it into the
Gulf to break up and hide the oil than to pay people to clean up the
oil.

And a senior EPA analyst says that government agencies have acted as "sock puppets" for BP.

And by using dispersants to break up and hide the giant oil slicks, BP and the government can pretend that it is "mission accomplished"
... even though the use of Corexit may in reality ensure that the
recovery of the Gulf, its seafood industry and its residents is delayed
by many years.

Comments

[quasimodo]

Not sure I believe this story. I read at a very credible website that microbes are happily munching up the spill and not even depleting the O2. It's all good folks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39044655/ns/us_news-environment/

[Cistercian]

I am glad you mentioned this, since I have heard this story all day.

 It is propaganda.It is false, a lie,dissembling, etc etc.

 Like rockford, augustus et al provide.

 It is BP paid programming.

 The media is for sale, all day every day.

 Anyone that parrots this comforting story for the scientifically illiterate is either complicit, idiotic or both.

[George Washington]

From Good News for a Change, Or More Faulty Science? Newly-Discovered Species of Bacteria Claimed to be Breaking Down Oil in Deepwater Plumes in the Gulf:

However, as Science News points out, not all experts agree with the new report:

The team reports data from late May to early June showing that those deep-sea plumes enticed a hitherto unknown cold-water–adapted bacterium to rapidly chow down on the oil.

Indeed, [lead author Dr. Terry Hazen, co-director of the Earth Sciences Division of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories] says, those bugs have been so voracious that for one plume of oil his team had been following, “within the last three weeks we no longer detect a deep plume. At all.” It went away approximately two weeks after the well was capped on July 15, he observes. Its oil “is completely undetectable.”

Also, the unusual population of oil-digesting bacteria that had inhabited that plume — and that would ordinarily be expected to stay with it as it moved — remained behind in a vestigial microbial cloud. “Doesn’t that suggest biodegradation?” he asks.

Speaking of deep-sea plumes, “I’ve heard rumors they might have gone missing,” notes David Valentine, a microbial geochemist at the University of California, Santa Barbara — but currents might simply have moved them into hiding. It would be nice to think the oil has been removed, he says. “But if it sounds too good to be true,” he cautions, “it probably is.” And yes, “This sounds too good to be true.”

***

Hazen’s interpretation has its skeptics. “Most of the science associated with this spill has been oversimplified,” says John Kessler, a chemical oceanographer at Texas A&M University in College Station. In a good-faith effort to make sense of what’s going on, many researchers look to offer interpretations based on too few data, he charges.

For instance, he says, “what Hazen was measuring was a component of the entire hydrocarbon matrix,” which is a complex mix of literally thousands of different molecules. Although the few molecules described in the new paper in Science may well have degraded within weeks, Kessler says, “there are others that have much longer half-lives — on the order of years, sometimes even decades.”

Moreover, he points out, many of the tools traditionally used to gauge biodegradation don’t work well in the field. A few teams have lately begun transitioning to use of more sensitive probes, he says.

And data from those more sensitive tools are fueling his skepticism of Hazen’s report that microbes have been erasing deep-sea plumes. As recently as August 22, Kessler says, “I spoke to some of those researchers out there [in the Gulf], and they told me they were still seeing plumes.”

Similarly, as Reuters notes:

According to WHOI oceanographer Richard Camilli, the plume could already be hundreds of miles from its previous location, and Hazen’s team could simply have missed it. “The plume is not a stationary object,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

***

University of South Florida microbial ecologist John Paul, part of a recent study that found oil in Florida fish spawning beds and contradicted federal claims of the oil’s disappearance, wasn’t convinced by the new results.

The differences in bacterial abundance, diversity and hydrocarbon degrading potential are “slight” between plume samples and regular Gulf seawater, said Paul. He also said that the gene-tagging technologies used by Hazen’s team are used by few researchers “because they are often problematic in execution and interpretation of results.”

According to University of Maryland aquatic toxicologist Carys Mitchelmore, Hazen’s team only measured the breakdown of select compounds in the oil. “There’s lots of other chemicals in the oil,” she said.

She also stressed that it’s essential to identify what happens when oil is degraded. That catch-all term implies that it just vanishes, but “sometimes things can be degraded into more toxic components,” said Mitchelmore. The latest study did not make those measurements, nor did it test how microbes interacted with chemical oil dispersants used during the disaster.

“The big take-home is that we don’t know much about many things related to this spill, the oil fate and its effects” said Mitchelmore. “There are huge data gaps and uncertainties, conflicting data from many aspects, and this will continue to happen based on the huge complexity of studying this.”

“Above all,” said Mitchelmore of the latest study, “note this is all based on 17 sample sites from the field.

As Lawrence Berkeley Labs notes, the research was funded by BP:

Hazen ... conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP.

Reuters also picks up on the potential conflict of interest:

Funding for the study was provided by the Energy Biosciences Insitute, a joint project of the University of California, Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of Chicago at Illinois-Champaign and BP, who gave the EBI a $500 million, 10-year grant. Terry Hazen sits on the EBI’s Executive Committee, as does BP executive Tom Campbell. Conflicts of interest are rarely as black-and-white or simple as they seem, but this ought to be mentioned.

And Democracy Now notes:

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has extensive ties to both BP and the US government. In 2007, the lab received the bulk of a controversial $500 million science grant from BP. The Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s director at the time, Steven Chu, now heads the Department of Energy, which also partially funds the lab.

[bingaling]

 Seriously? Do you actually read anything on this site . MSNBC is not considered a reliable source here . Especially if the company under question buys advertising from them .

[quasimodo]

Never heard of sarcasm?

[bingaling]

Sorry bout that mate .I thought you were on the "Corporatist's team" .

B2A5DE8E-17C4-29EB-4B06-4C8A89D4ED7D 1.02.28

[Augustus]

Geo Wash finds all of the most reliable information from the chief source of Before It Is News.  Then Geo Wash compares to GodLikeProductions to get confirmation.

The scare claims are nonsense. 

[Cognitive Dissonance]

I understand The Onion is looking for help. You're a natural.

http://www.theonion.com/jobs/

Austin Onion Promotions Internships

The Onion began as a college humor newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin in 1988. During the ensuing 15 years, it expanded to five markets (Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Denver/Boulder, and New York), launched a popular website, and published a best seller book titled, "Our Dumb Century". Three years ago, Wall Street investor David K. Schafer purchased The Onion. Since that time the Onion has expanded tremendously, with revenues increasing more than three-fold, and four new print markets (Twin Cities, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin), with expansion plans for an additional five markets. Today, The Onion is the world's most popular humor publication online and in print, reaching 5 million people each month online and 2 million each week in print.

The Onion is seeking a Business & Promotions Intern in our Austin office. These unpaid internships will include work in our advertising sales and promotions departments, client relations, and promotional events in the Austin area.

Qualifications:

• Strong written and verbal communication skills
• Must be reliable, organized and responsible
• Strong interest in print advertising and local promotions
• Available 10 to 15 hours per week

Compensation:

This is an unpaid position, but check with your college or university for possible class credits. Moreover, you will be gaining experience with a nationally recognized publication.

Interested and qualified applicants should forward a cover letter and resume to [e-mail]. Please, no phone calls.

The Onion is an equal-opportunity employer.

** THIS IS NOT A WRITING/JOURNALISM INTERNSHIP. PLEASE DO NOT EMAIL US YOUR WRITING SAMPLES.

[George Washington]

[Deleted].

[JW n FL]

George Washington,

You are a service to your fellow man, You Greorge inspire a Great many people and my only wish would be that everyone could read what You are sharing.

God Bless You George, God Bless Your Work and God Bless Your Loved Ones!

JW

[Mercury]

Does Corexit actually do anything positive or is it used for purely cosmetic purposes?

[gasmiinder]

Dispersant causes the oil to sink in small droplets.  The impact of the oil on coastal environments and wildlife is maximized when it impacts as large thick sheets on the surface.  The ability of the natural environment to break down the oil is maximized when it is in small droplets.

I am not arguing pro or con with the premise of the post but two FACTS should be understood in all the handwringing:

1) The decision to apply corexit subsea was made by a committee of non-BP and mostly non-government environmental scientists brought in to evaluate the best approach to minimize the environmental damage.

2) Impact of the vast amount of oil on the coastal wetlands would have been much worse had it not been applied.

The decision was clearly based on "lesser of two evils" thinking - and if you are going to refuse to allow non-union skimmers to remove oil from the surface it was clearly the RIGHT one to make.

[Mercury]

Thanks, that's helpful.  I haven't read all of GW's pieces regarding Corexit but this kind of thing should be included in any kind of survey/update of the situation.

[Pegasus Muse]

Scary shit.  If they can lie about it they will.  If they can cover it up they will.  If they can blame someone else they will.  If harms others they don't really care.  Move on, nothing to see here.

[Eternal Student]

Indeed they will. And if anyone is thinking that they won't be impacted, guess again, if you eat seafood.

Here's my experience. I went to a restaurant last weekend, a well-known one in a fishing town in California. Literally right next door to some fishing boats, on the water where fishing is big business. By all appearances, one would think that they got their seafood from the local catches. No, not a chance in the world.

Salmon: Farm raised, since the salmon season was cancelled this year.

Oysters: From Washingon! WTF!?! There are several commercial Oyster companies nearby.

Crabs: From Alaska, I think. Crab season is closed.

Clams: From the Gulf of Mexico, and the waitress had to dig hard through the codes on the box to figure it out.

I could go on, but none of this food was local, even though there were a ton of fishing boats in the harbor.

Watch what you eat in this era of globalization.

[Cognitive Dissonance]

What a choice. Either I can have my seafood flavored with GOM crude. Or I can have them genetically altered to grow twice as fast, but still plenty safe to eat. After all, my government assures me it's A OK.

Genetically modified salmon which grow at twice the speed of their natural counterparts are safe to be farmed and eaten, US regulators have ruled.

http://farmwars.info/?p=3995

[breezer1]

the president guarantees the flavor.

thanks GW.

[DaveyJones]

Like Monsanto's seed, impervious to RoundUp. With qualities like that, how could it not be good for you

[Cognitive Dissonance]

Personally I'm waiting for the salmon to be grown already de-boned and in the can.

BTW, for those who might object to my link above to the http://farmwars.info/ web site, here is the source, the more comforting mainstream media Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7983700/Fast-growing-GM-salmon-safe-to-be-farmed-and-eaten.html

[DaveyJones]

grow your salmon three inches in three weeks!. Sounds like perch porn

[breezer1]

would that work on my... well i mean what would happen if.. nevermind

[Cognitive Dissonance]

Yes, it will work.

Please have your credit card ready and call 1-800-Perch-Porn. For only $199.95 you too can have a perky perch in as little as three weeks. So don't delay, call 1-800-Perch-Porn NOW. Operators are standing by.

[DaveyJones]

Operators are not only standing by they're standing erect

[DaveyJones]

del

[Citxmech]

So if the well is "killed," why are they still spraying?

[downrodeo]

It seems to me that the spraying was only used to get the oil off the surface and out of sight (and therefore, presumably, out of mind). If they're still spraying, I would guess they're still finding oil patches on the surface. (I'm only speculating here)

[Sudden Debt]

Don't they have a chemical to do something about that to?

[knukles]

Yeah, but nothin' corexits duh problum.

[Rogerwilco]

Did you know that flushing a toilet creates an aerosol cloud that fills the bathroom with particles from whatever was in the bowl when the lever was pushed? Yes, if your toothbrush is sitting in the open air, you might as well have dipped it in the toilet before every use.

Just sayin'.

[RichardENixon]

So just stop brushing your teeth then. Jesus, do I have to solve everyone's problems for them?

[blindman]

or, as was suggested years ago, put the lid down

before flushing. 

[Robslob]

Rogerwilco a shill

Just sayin

[dogbreath]

priceless

[bugs_]

airborne plumes of evaporated chemicals