Oil Spill: Gulf Water Sample Explodes When Chemist Tests For Toxicity (VIDEO)

In this video, WKRG News 5 investigates the toxicity levels of local public beaches that have been populated with people swimming and children playing in the water in Alabama. Their search ends with some explosive results.

WKRG teams up with Bob Naman, an analytical chemist with almost 30 years in the field. Naman tested WKRG's various samples for petroleum, and said he expected to find no more than 5 parts per million (ppm). Instead, Naman finds results that far exceed his expectations: 16 ppm from waters at Katrina Key, and 29 ppm at Orange Beach.

The most shocking results came from a sample of water collected near a boom at Dauphin Island Marina. When Naman combined the sample with an organic solvent that separates the oil from the water, which he did for all the other samples as well, it exploded in his lab, breaking the container and destroying the sample in the process. Naman thinks the reaction was caused by the presence of methane gas or Corexit, the dispersant that BP has been using in the Gulf.

WATCH the exploding Gulf ocean sample:

WKRG.com News

Comments

[Tomas C]

02:35 PM on 07/31/2010

Hopefully this will stop discarded cigarette butts from trashing the beaches. The exploded body parts will increase the food supply for the surviving fish.
Tomas

[KingKrub]

07:58 PM on 07/22/2010

What the heck is wrong with people/parents to allow their families to swim in a chemical stew that is clearly harmful? I fear an explosion of cancers in the next few years and much of it related to marinating in that very same stew.

[groosemoose]

09:48 PM on 07/23/2010

They're already blaming dengue fever. Wait.

[AbeMartin]

08:24 AM on 07/22/2010

The Food and Drug Administration has conducted tests and determined that the seafood harvested from the gulf and the salt water of the Gulf are safe for human consumption.

[Bogey907]

05:09 PM on 07/22/2010

And...

- The check is int the mail

- I'll start my diet tomorrow.

- We service what we sell.

- Give me your number and the doctor will call you right back.

- Money cheerfully refunded.

- One size fits all.

- This offer limited to the first 100 people who call in.

- Your luggage isn't lost, it's only misplaced.

- Leave your resume and we'll keep it on file.

- This hurts me more than it hurts you.

- I just need five minutes of your time.

- Your table will be ready in a few minutes.

- Open wide, it won't hurt a bit.

- Let's have lunch sometime.

- It's not the money, it's the principle.

[groosemoose]

11:31 AM on 07/24/2010

Don't forget:
And this politician is -different-

[groosemoose]

09:49 PM on 07/23/2010

And aspartame is harmless even if it's a neurotoxin.

So is fluoride.

Oh, and high fructose corn syrup is no different than sugar.

[cybersense]

09:35 PM on 07/21/2010

these chemicals that they are spraying are toxic, but what most people do not think about or realize is that when you spray these chemcials - they actually become more harmful.

When you spray chemcials, they become smaller particles. The smaller particles can reach lower into your lungs and do more damage, and they can cross the blood brain barrier - causing damage in the brain - then to the central nervous system. When you hear of coughing, and of those people feeling dizzing and agitated to regular everyday chemicals we use, such as perfume and gas - they have been affected. This is not psychological or something not to worry about. Although those who have the symptoms do become more upset and are affected by worry about what is going on, there are real biochemical affects. Please encourage them to stay away from all chemicals for a long time. This is not something they are dreaming up.

[haljett]

01:13 PM on 07/21/2010

As someone who lives in the gulf region, this scares me a lot.

[agxphoto]

09:57 AM on 07/21/2010

Is it really so outrageous that someone found 29 parts per million of petroleum products in the samples? It would be 29 / 1,000,000. That would be near 0.003%; that's three ten thousandths of one per cent.

I notice also that some comments about how the methodology of the sample collecting was flawed failed to point out an obvious condition not accounted for: that the contamination in bulk forms colloids and mixes when compounded in natural water.

Like, there's a real thick blob of oil in some parts, but water with almost normal physical characteristics near those thick blobs. If his sample wasn't indicative, it'd be because that the samples were conservatively collected.

For these kinds of reasons, and several others, I strongly disagree with the unfair attacks on this chemist's labwork. If you are any kind of scientist, and you were subjected to the kind of treatment you are providing this man, then I daresay you couldn't come up with a lab experiment to prove whether or not it had just rained outside.

Science does not need a lawyer to report the truth. What this chemist showed us is likely to be observably true, confirmable, testable, and reportable. While no test is perfect, it looks to me like his conclusions are well within the plausible limits of his methods.

It's not outrageous to say that there are trace amounts and small proportional volumes of petroleum products in the Gulf after this oil spill. That chemist is right on.

[agxphoto]

09:25 AM on 07/21/2010

I categorically disagree with many of the disparaging comments made about this chemist, his sampling and his lab methods. Some of these comments below, attempting to outline how some Internet poster knows better about what he was doing are, quite frankly, breathtakingly unscientific.

Before you try to tell us about how you know he was wrong, why don't you start by providing us a detailed lab report on what he did? I don't think it's the word limit on the comment box that's the limit; I think the truth is some people are talking about how he is wrong, when, in practice, they don't know themselves.

It's clear: there was an environmental disaster in the area. The chemist's conclusions that there are these amounts of contaminants present are, quite frankly, below surprising. It's no surprise that those amounts of those contaminants were discovered.

And, just because there was an accident in the lab doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Sometimes those happen.

One thing he did do that was more right than a lot of commenters below was to not make a bunch of pronouncements about how he had exclusive knowledge over what was right and wrong. The chemist reported what he observed. He does not need to do better in order to make a legitimate contribution, because he already has.

He processed at least one more sample than some of you.

[mrJJ]

10:27 PM on 07/20/2010

Source: examiner.com

Over 100 scientists and academic institution, research laboratory, conservation organization leaders plus human rights defenders from as far away as Norway and Greece signed the Scientists Consensus Statement on the Use of Chemical Dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico calling for the Obama Administration to immediately halt chemical aerial spraying in the Gulf region. A public petition to end dispersant use is also gaining momentum.

Non-consensual human experiementation

Scientists expressing grave concern about the unprecedented aerial spraying of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico region believe a large-scale, uncontrolled non-consensual human and environmental experiment is being conducted in the Gulf region according to reports sent to the writer including one from the "Ocean Doctor" David E. Guggenheim, Ph.D.

more: http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d20-Censored-Gulf-news-Stop-spraying-dispersants-Call-for-scientists-plublic-action?cid=examiner-email

[Tasmansdaddy]

01:21 PM on 07/20/2010

Hard to believe this guy had been doing this for 30 years. There is NO way the water sample simply exploded. What happened was that the organic solvent created vapor pressure within the separatory funnel and he simply didn't vent it in time. We do this on a daily basis at my lab and we know that extreme pressures can build up even with tap water. A weak spot or a crack in the glass blew out because of vapor from the organic solvent (most likely dichloromethane).

[getsgarth]

08:16 PM on 07/20/2010

thanks for adding real world experience. he made a freshman chemistry type of mistake and its not some super explosive water.

[laud]

08:43 PM on 07/20/2010

Yeah, oil spills are no danger to the water in which it now resides.

It is almost good for the gulf.

[agxphoto]

09:44 AM on 07/21/2010

Care to present us with any facts that show you know what he was doing in his lab at the time he had his accident? I suspect that you don't know any more details about his lab activities than the rest of us. The procedure was not described in the report above. Your conclusions about his errors are no different than any other fiction we might invent about your lab activities.

The truth is, you don't know what he did or what happened.

[Tasmansdaddy]

10:24 AM on 07/21/2010

I suspect that I do know a lot more than "the rest of us", especially you. I have been a chemist in an analytical lab for 23 years and do this type of extraction on a regular basis. How many times have you held a sepratory funnel? hmmmm? There may be heaps of oil in these samples, but I sure don't trust his results.

[Socalman]

11:00 AM on 07/20/2010

This is sad. I do environmental work for a living. I have collected and had analyzed literally thousands and thousand of water and soil samples for petroleum hydrocarbons. I have no idea what "testing" they had done in this clip, but I do know that their "expert" did not use any EPA accepted methodology of which I am aware.

Their "expert" says the sample may have exploded due to "methane in the sample". Well, since they collected the samples in jars that had considerable headspace (air above the sample) it is very unlikely that any methane remained in the water, if there ever was any.

This story is wrong on so many levels. What they should do:

1 - collect samples in accordance with the correct and applicable EPA Methodologies

2 - submit them to an EPA-certified Hazardous Material Testing laboratory for analysis of heavy end and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

I have had water samples taken from wells where there was 30 feet of gasoline floating on the water and the samples did not blow up. This guy is clueless and the "news" piece was based on flawed information and poor science. But hey, at least they got to go to the beach for the day.

[kgb999]

01:17 PM on 07/20/2010

You may notice the chemist also indicated that the reaction could not have occurred from GASOLINE in the samples. And you wouldn't recommend testing for BTEX complex compounds?

What's with all the self-proclaimed experts apologizing for BP on this thread? Oh, yeah, right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/bp-buys-up-gulf-scientist_n_649282.html

[Bike Commuter]

02:13 PM on 07/20/2010

How is someone pointing out the inherent flaws with this story somehow "apologizing for BP"?

Making accusations like you are doing is an ad hominem argument. Do you realize you are replying to a person who has been on HP longer than you have? Claiming they are a paid poster is Iudicrous.

By the way, in response to the accusation that you are likely to make about me, my comment history will clearly reveal to anyone that I am not a paid poster.

The simple fact is that the chemist in the story makes an unsupported guess about the possible cause. Much more likely he just messed up as several independent posters (some of them longtime posters) have suggested.

Most of the problems with the story aren't even with the chemist, but the collection methods and the conclusions that are made or implied. Seriously, one of the highest readings was from a hole that a child was digging in. That was sand that thousands of sunscreened people have been on. The child was probably coated in sunscreen.

The initial point of the story is good. that just because you don't see oil doesn't mean there isn't contamination. The problem is that they take a bunch of pseudo-scientific steps to try and illustrate that point.

[Tasmansdaddy]

01:33 PM on 07/20/2010

I'm with you. Any respectable lab would have not even accepted those samples.

[JackiChan]

10:31 AM on 07/20/2010

Corexit will prove to be much more harmful than the oil itself.

[laud]

09:47 AM on 07/20/2010

Anyone who says the study is askew is correct. It's not just the BP oil spill that is causing these readings, it is all the fossil fuels we are addicted to that are ruining our planet.

So, lets get greener and more efficient with renewable energy. Simple solution for both sides. LOL

[kgb999]

01:21 PM on 07/20/2010

Yeah. Because everyone knows when you put gas in your car it ends up in the Gulf of Mexico.

On the larger scheme of things you are correct about the solution. But the problems in the gulf right now are all BP. There is no other discharge within a relevant time period that could account for the concentrations. As BP says, the gulf is pretty darn big ... you've got to get one HECK of a concentration to register in the PPM.

[laud]

08:40 PM on 07/20/2010

What about these little gems...

http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/historys-10-most-famous-oil-spills?808

[LibertarianJon]

09:12 AM on 07/20/2010

And the #1 way you know that water is toxic??? When it explodes....

[throwcautiontothewind]

09:27 AM on 07/20/2010

Or starts on fire, a la Cleveland years ago.

[PocketWatch]

09:33 AM on 07/20/2010

The San Jacinto River near Pasadena, TX used to go up in flames on a regular basis years ago. Lots of petro plants nearby, including the largest in the world, Exxon's at Baytown, TX.

I lived right across the street from that plant for 2 years not long ago, and there is a huge difference now, I have to say. No smell, no effluents, a pretty clean plant.

[Aerows]

09:04 AM on 07/20/2010

I'm not sure why this is a shock to anyone - we all know BP has been lying their azzes off about the amount of oil being expelled into the Gulf. I wouldn't let my cats play in that water. They have ruined our coast.

[pbh493]

09:02 AM on 07/20/2010

And they have given the go ahead for fishing in Louisiana (state waterways)?
Darn federal government dragging their feet, testing and such.
Sometimes, taking the time to evaluate, assess and develop a comprehensive plan for dealing with issues is a good thing.