iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gulf Oil Spill Dispersants 'Sticking Around,' Long-Term Effects Remain Unclear

SETH BORENSTEIN   01/26/11 05:32 PM ET   AP

Gulf Oil Spill

WASHINGTON — Dispersants injected deep in the Gulf of Mexico to counter an oil gusher last spring seemed to keep some oil from fouling the water's surface, but the chemicals lingered underwater, raising concerns about long-term problems, a new study found.

The first extensive research into what happened to 770,000 gallons of dispersants used a mile deep near the busted BP well found a mixed bag of results. The new research appears in the journal Environmental Science & Technology and focused on the fate of the controversial chemicals rather than their toxicity.

Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts found circumstantial evidence that the chemicals guided some oil into underwater currents, stopping it from bubbling up to the surface, where it would do more damage, said marine chemist Elizabeth Kujawinski.

That would be considered a good thing, keeping marshes and beaches from getting more tarred, Kujawinski said.

But she added, "the dispersant is sticking around," which is worrisome. The chemicals didn't seem to biodegrade the oil and gas as fast as basic chemistry would predict. Her study said the key chemicals in dispersants underwent "negligible or slow rates of biodegradation." Other studies have found that the oil – not the dispersant – broke apart quickly.

How fast chemicals degrade is important because of potential long-term damage from chronic contamination, she said.

And when it comes to the basic question of whether using the dispersants worked, Kujawinski said it is still too early to tell.

Larry McKinney, who directs a Gulf of Mexico research center at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi, said the government's use of the chemicals was "successful in avoiding the most serious damage to wetlands marshes. That did work. But there's likely a price to be paid for that success."

A federal study last year found that in the short term, dispersant is no more dangerous to aquatic life than oil. However, the long-term effects to aquatic life remain unknown.

The new study illustrates how little scientists know about using dispersants in deep water, said Florida State University marine scientist Ian MacDonald.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Dispersants injected deep in the Gulf of Mexico to counter an oil gusher last spring seemed to keep some oil from fouling the water's surface, but the chemicals lingered underwater,...
WASHINGTON — Dispersants injected deep in the Gulf of Mexico to counter an oil gusher last spring seemed to keep some oil from fouling the water's surface, but the chemicals lingered underwater,...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 163
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
06:16 PM on 02/06/2011
Clean air, clean water, safe food.....

We all need it to live.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margie Kronewitter
04:14 AM on 02/02/2011
To whomever blamed President Obama for personally approving dispersants. He took his daughter swimming in the Gulf. Unless one is unconventionally educated about the dangers of dispersants and other toxins, then one is not aware and alarmed by toxins that do not affect the majority of citizens in Real Time. Many will not be sickened until they contract cancer years from now and will not make the connection.

Remember, the American Cancer Society & AMA deny knowing the CAUSES of many cancers. The Benzene/Leukemia connection has been made, but DISPERSANTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXTENSIVELY STUDIED. They will NOW be studied as to the effects on marine organisms, but studies will not and cannot be done on humans without having previously done toxicological "base line" studies.

Without "studies" DISPERSANT DANGERS cannot be confirmed and neither the manufacturer nor the government can be blamed. Unlike Europe, where a chemical must be proven safe before it is approved, the U.S. allows corporations that manufacture chemicals to be "innocent until proven guilty" and does not require testing previous to marketing to the public.

OUR President does not have the leisure of worrying about dispersed chemicals. I'm SURE his advisors told him that is what dispersants were created for...if the Question even came up. Compared to the Oil Gusher or Nuclear Weapons, dispersants are not put on the President's radar in the W.H. Bubble.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:52 AM on 02/02/2011
So your arguing that the Obama is ignorant to the use of dispersants? Not buying it. Are you on the reelection team? Seriously?

The EPA states that BP used a Nalco dispersant called Corexit 9500. The MSDS on that material is more than enough to raise an alarm about its use. Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts raised the alarm and got the EPA to put a use "scale back" order. This order was essentially useless because the Coast Guard under Thad Allen gave BP 74 exemptions in 48 days. This was a major political fight in OBAMA's schoolyard. He was supposed to protect us. He didn't. He caved to the political and financial power of BP. Straight up cowered. If this dude is a stooge then he needs to be held accountable. As do every single weak ass politician without the back bone to fight for the American people. Especially Obama. I voted for him. He seemed like he would fight for us. But every day he looks just as bought and sold as every other politician in D.C. It's time American hit the reset button, just like Egypt and Jordan!

BTW look at Corexit 9500. The main ingredient appears to be Mineral Spirits. Put a single drop of mineral spirits in a puddle and watch it cover the whole surface. Then imagine 1.8 to 42 Million gallons of Corexit in the Gulf. The oil is now under the surface where the fish are.
01:57 PM on 02/07/2011
Yeah that's an unfortunate fact is that no studies are actually done on dispersants, let alone a lot of house hold chemicals. There just needs to be stricter regulation and more sound scientific testing of all products/chemicals period in the United States. Let's not forget how chemicals such as DDT where used extensively, but tests where not done on the possible effects of the chemical until after damage was done.

The cruel irony in this oil spill is that it gave many Americans and the people involved with the cleanup a wake-up call on the effects of dispersant chemicals and oil on a warm water marine environment. Overall this whole incidents heart breaking for the ecological toll.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:01 PM on 02/01/2011
It's telling that 157 people cared enough to comment on this yet thousands comment on Egypt. I get it, Egypt is more interesting and something is actually being done correctly there. Whereas here in the USA our own President gave the ok to keep the beaches clean by poisoning the gulf even more with dispersants, [indirectly through the Coast Guard of course]. This country is devouring itself for profit. It's scary. Are there any indications of vibrant long term sustainability to the US government?
06:26 PM on 01/31/2011
This is another example of policy makers not listening to scientists. Many independent scientists and research groups warned BP and other officials about the potential dangers and uncertainties of using the chemicals on the oil. Any moderatley literate person on chemistry could tell you that a chemical used to clean up oil (a nonpolar/hydrophobic substance) is very likely going to be toxic to animals and plants cells (which are also nonpolar and hydrophobic), which can easily enter through a cell's membrane and cause damage.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:22 PM on 01/29/2011
Bumble Bee seafood shutsdown processing plant near New Orleans Moves to Thailand Official blames oil disaster. In Florida oil spill news Jan 24th
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
07:07 PM on 01/28/2011
Why is the list of chemicals  in dispersants still being hidden? How about telling the truth about what it is?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tribilin219
A Proud progressive, and for the Green party,one o
11:38 AM on 01/28/2011
I will never eat sea food in my life again. Thank you very much BP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Diggsdad
Desperate labor is cheap labor
05:32 AM on 01/28/2011
Disclaimer on fish oil supplements, "Purified to remove mercury, PCB's and dioxins."
Who wants to go to Red Lobster?
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
04:31 AM on 01/28/2011
And my last post for the trolls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cArsxNzEtg&feature=related
This is the dead zone 35 miles from the DeepwaterHorizon blow out. Now tell me we aren't in deep doo doo along the Gulf of Mexico. Good luck guys.
06:26 AM on 01/28/2011
"NOAA scientists are baffled. It could be caused by warm water in the Gulf."

Any test results available from the dive, 3 months ago, showing oil and dispersant residue to report?
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
01:21 PM on 01/28/2011
Ah, yes, and now you, tlsa, who posts the same pov time after time once the oil issue resurfaces on Huffpost. But in your case, you claim to care about the environment, but it is clear you just want to protect the oil biz like the others.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:17 PM on 01/29/2011
www.floridaoilspilllaw.com
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
09:03 PM on 01/29/2011
And so many others will similar messages to those willing to feel and understand. Thanks, shilow, F&F. Check this out:

http://www.redandblack.com/2011/01/28/panelists-explore-questions-of-oil-spill/
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
04:25 AM on 01/28/2011
Whitebeach, Vegasyankee, Auntwilma, and oilfield: Check out these links to what scientists outside the government and BP now understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5N8xQLIG8&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0LTUvF6LwE&feature=related

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=89188&ct=162

Dr. Joye is not alone in her deep understanding of the long term impact this catastrophe means for much of the northern Gulf of Mexico coast.
06:31 AM on 01/28/2011
"http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=0n5N8xQLI­G8&feature­=youtube_g­data"

This woman is a scientist? She states she has no current evidence, but then goes on to speculate speculate, speculate. Looking for grant money I think.
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
01:38 PM on 01/28/2011
Dr Samantha Joye not a scientist? Once again, you loose. She is a highly regarded scientist who clearly reveals that the government has been pressuring her to tow the line about the BP oil well blowout - and she is refusing. Pay attention to her speculation and see how wrong you will be soon enough. Stay tuned.
06:43 AM on 01/28/2011
http://www­.whoi.edu/­page.do?pi­d=7545&tid­=282&cid=8­9188&ct=16­2

“had still not degraded some three months after it was applied.” Considering the amounts, it is clear that dilution to known non-toxic levels had commenced

“in May and June—in parts-per-billion concentrations--in the plume from the spill more than 3,000 feet deep. The plume carried its mixture of oil, natural gas and dispersant in a southwest direction, and DOSS was detected there at lower (parts-per-trillion) concentrations in September. And dramatically increased dilution by September.

“Kujawinski said she would “be hard pressed to say it was toxic”

Kujawinski cautioned that “we can’t be alarmist” about the possible implications of the lingering dispersant. Concentrations considered “toxic” are at least 1,000 times greater than those observed by Kujawinski and her colleagues,”

So what is the story here? We want more grant money to chase a paper tiger.

‘Out of the mouths of babes’
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
01:29 PM on 01/28/2011
The story is that don't be surprised that you won't recognize the Gulf of Mexico next year. Or the year after, or the year after. Get ready to be surprised by the damage inflicted on the northern Gulf of Mexico. Don't worry, we'll be posting about this next year, and you'll still be in denial.
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
04:03 AM on 01/28/2011
The BP trolls are out in force tonight. Back with a vengeance. And with the same old old analogies. Don't believe the tripe.
06:44 AM on 01/28/2011
When you serve up such tripe, do you really wonder?
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
09:01 PM on 01/29/2011
It ain't me, Lord. It ain't me. It's him, Lord, it's him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margie Kronewitter
01:05 AM on 01/28/2011
Better living through Chemistry is propaganda that should be questioned DAILY. Humans are polluted by the chemicals they promote. Chemical concoctions are ALIEN to humans, fish, & natural oil eating bacteria. Of course Texas institutes of "higher learning" will side with Big Oil and it's subsidaries.
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:59 PM on 01/27/2011
There is now a problem with the lack of growth of oysters.
 
http://www.wwl.com/New-concern-about-baby-Louisiana-oysters/9075447
06:49 AM on 01/28/2011
But did I hear anything about oil pollution of the oyster beds in this remarkably short story? Or did I miss it?
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:16 PM on 01/28/2011
I'm not going to assume anything, but why are you asking that particular question? 
11:38 PM on 01/27/2011
Basic chemistry eh? When you have such a huge number of a planets inhabitants watching a disaster play out and wanting to do something; why just rely on basic chemistry? I am hoping this boils down to a poor choice of words during article composition.
08:06 PM on 01/27/2011
A little OT, but dang, had to pass this along. Obama , I will not vote for you in 2012. Nope , I'm done.
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-27-in-stunning-reversal-usda-chief-vilsack-greenlights-monsantos-al
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p456
Walking Tall.
11:50 PM on 01/27/2011
No you aren't you will vote for him again he is the only real choice in 2012.
12:30 AM on 01/28/2011
Obama is no choice. Read that link from oregon rain - Monsanto is doing frightening things with farming in this world, and genetic manipulation of seeds.

Obama's more of the same - tax cuts for the rich, big business controlling what gets regulated, bailouts for criminal bankers, more war, his entire financial team is Wall Street insiders who caused the recession. and on and on.

Even Dick Cheney recently has prasied Obama for 'getting it' on torture and spying on our own citizens and the unneeded Wars we are fighting.
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
03:36 AM on 01/28/2011
No, we won't. Monsanto is just the tip of the ice berg in President Obama's environmental sensitivity. Add the BP/White House effort to deflect and prohibit information about the oil well blow out catastrophe (the oil's gone and so is Energy advisor Browner) and there is no way we vote for the man or the party. The northern Gulf of Mexico is not going to recognizable to us any time soon; it was allowed to be polluted by indecisive action that only came way too late (a couple of months too late). So, stay tuned. You will be surprised in 2012. But you won't be alone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margie Kronewitter
01:11 AM on 01/28/2011
Our President could not possibly be aware of all the environmental issure that a President must deal with. He's listening to Vilsack. He just needs tha backstory to understand the depth of the problem. Don't give up, give information backed by solid facts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p456
Walking Tall.
09:38 AM on 01/28/2011
I just did I hope it gets through.

F&F! I'm #67
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
08:11 PM on 01/30/2011
Based on your post above this one, I am assuming that you think Vilsack is part of the problem, as I do. Vilsack has appointed many agribusiness types to the Department of Agriculture - many of those in support of Monsanto type food alteration with the active orchestration by President Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html

You really think all we need to do is to give Obama some more information and he will realize his mistake? If that is what your saying, I doubt any good can come of this: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/05/16/obama-s-latest-monsanto-pick-elena-kagan