iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Scientists Find Evidence That Oil And Dispersant Mix Is Making Its Way Into The Foodchain

First Posted: 07/29/10 07:27 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:15 PM ET

Crab Larvae

Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the foodchain.

Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them "in almost all" of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. -- more than 300 miles of coastline -- said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely in the Deepwater Horizon

"It does appear that there is a Corexit sort of fingerprint in the blob samples that we ran," Erin Gray, a Tulane biologist, told the Huffington Post Thursday. Two independent tests are being run to confirm those findings, "so don't say that we're 100 percent sure yet," Gray said.

"The chemistry test is still not completely conclusive," said Tulane biology professor Caz Taylor, the team's leader. "But that seems the most likely thing."

With BP's well possibly capped for good, and the surface slick shrinking, some observers of the Gulf disaster are starting to let down their guard, with some journalists even asking: Where is the oil?

But the answer is clear: In part due to the1.8 million gallons of dispersant that BP used, a lot of the estimated 200 million or more gallons of oil that spewed out of the blown well remains under the surface of the Gulf in plumes of tiny toxic droplets. And it's short- and long-term effects could be profound.

BP sprayed dispersant onto the surface of the slick and into the jet of oil and gas as it erupted out of the wellhead a mile beneath the surface. As a result, less oil reached the surface and the Gulf's fragile coastline. But more remained under the surface.

Fish, shrimp and crab larvae, which float around in the open seas, are considered the most likely to die on account of exposure to the subsea oil plumes. There are fears, for instance, that an entire year's worth of bluefin tuna larvae may have perished.

But this latest discovery suggests that it's not just larvae at risk from the subsurface droplets. It's also the animals that feed on them.

"There are so many animals that eat those little larvae," said Robert J. Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary.

Oil itself is of course toxic, especially over long exposure. But some scientists worry that the mixture of oil with dispersants will actually prove more toxic, in part because of the still not entirely understood ingredients of Corexit, and in part because of the reduction in droplet size.

"Corexit is in the water column, just as we thought, and it is entering the bodies of animals. And it's probably having a lethal impact there," said Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute. The dispersant, she said, is like " a delivery system" for the oil.

Although a large group of marine scientists meeting in late May reached a consensus that the application of dispersants was a legitimate element of the spill response, another group, organized by Shaw, more recently concluded "that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover."

One particular concern: "The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it easier for them to move through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other structures."

Perry told the Huffington Post that the small size of the droplets was clearly a factor in how the oil made its way under the crab larvae shells. Perry said the oil droplets in the water "are just the right size that probably in the process of swimming or respiring, they're brought into that cavity."

That would not happen if the droplets were larger, she said.

The oil droplet washes off when the larvae molt, she said -- but that's assuming they live that long. Larvae are a major food source for fish and other blue crabs -- "their siblings are their favorite meal," Perry explained. Fish are generally able to excrete ingested oil, but inverterbrates such as crabs don't have that ability.

Perry said the discovery of the oil and dispersant blobs is very troubling -- but not, she made clear, because it has any impact on the safety of seafood in the short run. "Unlike heavy metals that biomagnify as they go up the foodchain, oil doesn't seem to do that," she said. Rather, she said, "we're looking at long-term ecological effects of having this oil in contact with marine organisms."

Diaz, the marine scientist from William and Mary, spoke at a lunchtime briefing about dispersants on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Dispersant, he explained, "doesn't make the oil go away, it just puts it from one part of the ecosystem into another."

In this case, he said, "the decision was to keep as much of the oil subsurface as possible." As a result, the immediate impact on coastal wildlife was mitigated. But the effects on ocean life, he said, are less clear -- in part because there's less known about ocean ecosystems than coastal ones.

"As we go further offshore, as the oil industry has gone offshore, we find that we know less," he said. "We haven't really been using oceanic species to assess the risks, and this is a key issue."

(Similar concerns have been expressed about the lack of important data that would allow scientists to accurately assess the effects of the spill on the Gulf's sea turtles, whose plight is emerging as particularly poignant.)

Diaz warned of the danger posed to bluefin tuna -- and also to "the signature resident species in the Gulf, the shrimp." He noted that all three species of Gulf shrimp spawn offshore before moving back into shallow estuaries.

Diaz also expressed concern that dispersed oil droplets could end up doing great damage to the Gulf's many undersea coral reefs. "If the droplets agglomerate with sediment," he said, "they could even settle to the bottom."

Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Center at the University of New Hampshire, said the use of dispersants in this spill raises many issues that scientists need to explore, starting with the effects of long-term exposure. She also noted that scientists have never studied the effects of dispersants when they're injected directly into the turbulence of the plume, as they were here, or at such depth, or at such low temperatures, or under such pressure.

She also said it will be essential for the federal government to accurately determine how much oil made it out of the blown well. A key data point for scientists is the ratio of dispersant to oil, she said, and "if you don't know the flow rate of the oil, you don't know what you dispersant to oil ratio is."

After a series of ludicrous estimates, the federal government settled last month on an official estimate of about 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day, but BP is widely expected to contest that figure and some scientists think it is still a low-ball estimate.

There seems to be no doubt that history will record that the use of dispersants was good for BP, making it harder to tell how much oil was spilled, and reducing the short-term visible impact. But what's less clear is whether it will turn out to have been good for the Gulf.

*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP...
Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,076
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
06:48 AM on 08/04/2010
John wrote
“Do you really think a video showing "a school of fish cavorting about a skimmer boat that was having trouble finding oil to skim" is proof that there's no concern over oil below the surface? Or that those fish haven't consumed enough oil in that water to make them inedible by humans?”

I replied
“Apparently not enough to even make them sick.”

So OpenMindedGuy got technical.
“Carcinogenesis doesn't happen in a couple of weeks.”

No comeback; End-of-thread

I will just await the end of the world as we know it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Openmindedguy
to differences of opinion but not deceit
06:16 PM on 08/03/2010
Oh yummy orange blobs - better living through chemistry no doubt
08:51 PM on 08/02/2010
Are you people there at HP stupid or do you lack any training at all in even basic ecology?

Duh, once again.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
01:17 PM on 08/01/2010
I was one of the voices who said HELLNO to putting these dispersants in in the first place - literally from the first I heard of it. I REPEATEDLY called the White House, I called my senators and representative, I even called the company, and I backed those calls up (in most cases) with letters, both electronic and on paper.

I am quite sure I was not alone.

ONLY AN IDIOT would think it could possibly help. The ONLY purpose was to try and hide liability - food chain and all be damned.

Further, the COAST GUARD does NOT have the authority to give permission on the use of dispersants - that would be the EPA, folks, and the EPA said NO.

We have been screwed again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnSawyer
arglebargy
07:43 PM on 08/02/2010
Thanks for doing that work, even if only, by rejection of it, it demonstrated what kind of monolith we're up against.
01:28 AM on 08/01/2010
If it is proven that larvae of blue crabs and fiddler crabs sampled from Louisiana to Pensacola are contaminated with oil and corexit dispersant, (as one expert put it) “the effect on fisheries could last for years probably not a matter of months” and affect many species.

SO we just stop eating crab and it will be OK right? Wrong!

It all comes down to understanding the food chain. The food chain is the sequence of who eats whom in a biological community (an ecosystem) to obtain nutrition.

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-for-dinner.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:48 PM on 07/31/2010
The fact that it is reported that oil and dispersant is making its way into the food chain means that humans WILL be being served this toxic cocktail, it is just a matter of time.

NO, BP has not been served well by the use of the dispersants. Just wait until the proofs and the lawsuits start hitting the company. This stuff was NEVER found within any close proximity to our food chain. It took a heartless, careless corporation to PUT it there.
07:31 PM on 07/31/2010
http://www.projectgulfimpact.org/?post_type=pressReleases&p=132
Thousands in Gulf Suffer from Misdiagnosed Skin Lesions

Now it starts.
06:53 AM on 08/01/2010
Before we question doctors diagnoses with years of understanding symptoms, would it not be advisable to provide evidence of exposure to the dispersant?

The article quotes "thousands" but only showcases 2 incidents. Hardly rigorous science.
08:45 PM on 08/01/2010
A reasonable statement. More information will come out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/the-big-lie-bp-government_b_638369.html
The real question is why BP was allowed to dump over a million gallons of Corexant
into the Gulf?
06:09 PM on 07/31/2010
Everyone really NEEDS TO READ: "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson... the book that caused JFK to create the EPA... you'll understand the problem with ABSOLUTE CLARITY... once you've finished the book.
We need to hold BP accountable for poisoning the food-chain... and outlaw the dispersants.
04:29 PM on 07/31/2010
As to the use of dispersants in the Gulf, follow the money:
BP Oil Spill and EPA: It's 9/11 $Deja vu$
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P3w1qJRiM
05:19 PM on 07/31/2010
Watch this video. Strong, brief summary. Fanned & Faved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CherokeeGirl
one pissed off Indian.
03:55 PM on 07/31/2010
At least the EPA wasn't watching porn all day....or WERE they? I've been helplessly and hopelessly watching them aid and abet B.P. and frustrated that nobody would listen. I've called the WH several times about it, and my senators and congress rep. It feels like the twilight zone when everybody just gets so over saturated with bad things happening, that we get overwhelmed and paralysed. I guess we'll have to have a "hearing" on this too, so everyone can make excuses.
10:45 AM on 07/31/2010
In rebuttal to a quote from a scientific journal article, elsewhere on this blog, the person offered the following SCIENTIFIC references.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-bp-oil-plumes,0,6370403.story

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/24/887127/-Studies-confirm-huge-undersea-oil-plumes-are-from-BP-gusher

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/one-undersea-oil-plume-stretches-50-miles-from-well-water-nearing-levels-of-acute-toxicity

http://news.discovery.com/earth/2010/06/08/oil-plume-278x225.jpg

http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-mexico-dead-zone-oil-spill.html

This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that we have entered the realm of HERESAY science.

The definition is “If I read anything anywhere it is obviously true”
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:02 PM on 07/31/2010
Where are your contradicting references?
06:29 AM on 08/01/2010
All "news organizations ------- therefore hearsay.
06:40 AM on 08/01/2010
Sorry i cannot resist it.

You are asking me to respond to those "Fair and Balanced " organizations?

And what sort of agenda might those organizations be peddling?
photo
mrelmo
improvise, adapt, overcome...
10:01 AM on 07/31/2010
We live in Louisiana and are very concerned about our Gulf seafood. Though we want to support the local economy and fishermen, we don't want to ingest toxins. Anyone that has a brain should be able to see that these huge quantities of chemicals poured into the Gulf will be found in seafood in the future. Sad, but true.
06:46 AM on 08/01/2010
Unless those toxins are specifically formulated to biodegrade in time and lose their toxicity.

What surprises me about this whole spill affair is the presumption that both BP, and all the organizations trying to ameliorate this disaster, would engage in open criminal acts in plain view.

Think about it folks. If you want to kill someone, do you take them to a police station and in plain view shoot them dead?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:41 AM on 08/01/2010
Don't y'all mean desperate attempt to CYA for which there is no enforcement to protect the megatons of marine life dying in horrible agony every few days and the long-term effects on the food chain.

Folks like you should be fed nothing but a diet of dispersant treated seafood.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnSawyer
arglebargy
08:03 PM on 08/02/2010
You seem to be assuming that Corexit was designed to biodegrade and become non-toxic. I wouldn't assume that. In fact, its exact composition is an industry secret.

Also, the other main toxin that's been introduced into the Gulf, is the oil itself. Nature didn't somehow specifically formulate it to quickly biodegrade before it's done a lot of damage. It will eventually be broken down, but before then, it will be consumed by huge quantities of life in the ocean, and of those it doesn't kill outright, much of the rest will have their hormones altered to the point of sterility, mutations, etc., possibly greatly decreasing their population for years to come. Not to mention rendering vast amounts of fisherman's catches inedible.

If you believe that BP couldn't, and wouldn't, do criminal things in broad daylight, you haven't been paying attention. They've deliberately flouted laws regarding proper safety precautions for decades, resulting in not only the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the explosion at one of their refineries that killed even more employees, and many other things they should have been prosecuted for, but weren't. They've gotten away with these things. They make enough money to pay for cleanups (but try to go on the cheap about that), and to pay fines, etc. to get the authorities off their backs whenever they pull some crime in public. It seems you haven't studied BP's history, at least not with any objectivity.
09:41 AM on 07/31/2010
We need to stay away from big business in any form. They are so large it's hard to know who does what. I suppose that is what they want. Doing business with us little guys keeps things more transparent (to coin an overused word). If there's a problem you know who you can go to.
09:06 AM on 07/31/2010
You are not going to like this, folks

Jimmiek wrote (Edited)

“On ABC News last night they did a piece where they talked to several scientists about "Where did the oil go?" The scientists made the point that the oil eating bacteria can increase by as much as 1000 fold... which is enough to eat the oil... so maybe... Leaves the question of the CoRexit but possible... Doesn't solve the marsh problem - brackish water ... not full salt concentration.. maybe the critters are not as effective there.. still pondering”

I replied

It is gratifying to see the MSM realize that that they have been duped for the past 100 days by a feeding frenzy to capture part of that luscious 20 Billion dollars. That while the spill is an ecological disaster, it is not the end of the world.

It is also gratifying to see analysis of the natural protections that exist. The current Corexit formulation is itself now biodegradable and probably added to the food source for these bacteria. And the wonder is that when this food supply dries up, the bacteria population will subside to its normal level.

You are correct that the weathered oil in the marshes will be a slow cleanup process. Allegations that Corexit was sprayed in these areas are ridiculous. It is a dispersant and can only act on mobile oil, not aggregated weathered oil.

We are all learning. Have a great day, Jimmiek
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim1478
12:43 AM on 08/01/2010
The oil eating parasites die when they ingest dispersant. Try drinking a glass of milk with DDT in it and youll get what Im talking about.
06:34 AM on 08/01/2010
If your system is designed to ingest raw hydrocarbons, as the bacteria are, your analogy is ridiculous. Some of the concern raised about Corexit is that it contains some hydro carbons. They are there to facilitate the dispersion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:27 AM on 07/31/2010
How soon will this be seen in developing humans?