Dispersing chemicals, in effect makes it impossible to pick oil out of water.

Control-Z

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:34 PM
Original message

Dispersing chemicals, in effect makes it impossible to pick oil out of water.

Aside from the obvious toxicity concerns, the use of dispersing chemicals made no sense to me since I first heard about them shortly after the BP oil explosion/eruption. It seemed logical to try and keep the oil slick areas as dense, small and controlled as possible for more quick and efficient removal.

This article does address dispersing chemicals from a scientific POV as well as other opinions and thoughts regarding the gulf disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/tech/main6506931.shtml

'Dr. Safina said it wasn't clear why dispersing chemicals are being used to break up the oil slick, in effect making it impossible to pick up out of the water.'

snip

'Dr. Mitchelmore said toxicology experiments on the effects of oil and disbursent chemicals have on life forms and ecosystems in the Gulf are extremely limited, and studied only short-term exposure. She said there is a potential for bioaccumulation of the chemicals - that they will passed up through the food chain - and cautioned that there have been studies that show dispersed oil - broken down into smaller droplets - is more likely to be taken in.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Teaser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:39 PM
Response to Original message

1. dispersants serve a legitimate purpose

if they can reduce the concetration of oil in one location. Oil in the ocean isn't a problem in and of itself, there is always naturally occurring oil in the ocean in small leaked quantities. The problem here is a large concentration of oil all in one location.

However, it may be the case that, in this instance, dispersants do more harm than good. I have no opinion on that matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Control-Z

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. Honestly, I have no scientific knowledge whatsoever

to even have an opinion. But, it was the first thought I had. The size of the "spill" alone seemed reason enough to want to keep it contained. Dispersing the oil seemed counterproductive.

I'm afraid this will prove to be just one of many horrible decisions/mistakes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stopbush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #1

9. Aren't these dispersants themselves oil-based products?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ruby the Liberal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message

2. Out of sight, out of mind. Less to clean up, less cost.

Not to mention, Coexit (or however its spelled) was banned in the UK some 20 years ago.

If it isn't visible and on the news, it must not be a problem, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Control-Z

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. I believe

that every decision made by BP - every word they spoke - every step they took - was about covering up the enormity of their crime, and recovering whatever they could from their precious oil well.

It was never about fixing the problem, saving the wildlife, saving our beaches and oceans, or caring about the people whose livelihoods depend on healthy ocean life.

I have so much anger right now - and hate - for these greedy bastards. I can't even begin to express how much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ruby the Liberal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Not to mention their $ per gallon fine

I am so pissed that these government agencies aren't DEMANDING more transparency or at the very least, doing their own tests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catherina

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message

3. It's just to hide the oil from view. They think we're really stupid

and have a short enough attention span that if they can just divert us for a few moments, they can announce that AHA! they cleaned it up!

I'm shaken over the amount of toxins they poured in OUR water.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

charlesg

(311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 06:43 PM
Response to Original message

4. It's the old sweep-the-dirt-under-the-rug trick

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

glinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-21-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message

8. They are doing it on purpose. I do not doubt this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:48 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.