The EPA says Corexit 9500A, the chemical dispersants used to break up the oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill, are indeed toxic, but no more so than the oil itself. They're not something you'd put in the water if you didn't have to, but by breaking up the thick gooey oil, the dispersants reduce the mechanical/physical mechanism by which the oil suffocates or harms some wildlife. So, as is the case with so many environmental threats that trigger a knee-jerk "AAAIIIGGGH!", this one involves tradeoffs, and is more complicated than it seems at first, or than many environmentalists would like to admit.
The list of these, of course, is long. In fact, it's rare the environmental bogeyman that is only a threat.
So how are we to make sense of these risks? And why does the scary side always
seem to grab our attention more than the benefit side? Wouldn't weighing the tradeoffs be a smarter way to make a fully informed healthy decision?
Well, sure. But that's not how our risk perception system evolved. It's designed to keep us alive, not get straight A's in school. It developed to be on the lookout for danger, not benefit. When something potentially perilous comes along, we instinctively assess it for the harm it might do, not the gain. And the system is set on a hair-wire trigger that sounds the alarm instantly if there even might be a threat. Subconsciously, before our thinking brain has even gotten the raw data to thoughtfully analyze the tradeoffs and complexities, which takes time, the animal instinct/self-preservation parts of the brain do a quick initial scan of information and if there is even the hint of peril... "AAAAIIIGGGGH."
The problem is, the perils of the modern information/technology age are more complicated than the simple dangers our risk perception system evolved to cope with. We didn't have to think about tradeoffs when the wolf was howling, or the bad guys with clubs were attacking, or it got dark. It's not so easy to figure out how to deal with climate change, or nanotechnology, or genetically modified food. There are certainly lots of 'cons' involved in the products and processes of modern life, but there are often pros too, and if we don't consider the whole picture, the ways we choose to protect ourselves may make us feel good, but leave us at greater peril.
That moderate reasoned approach is easier proposed than accomplished, however, because as thoughtful as we humans like to think we are, the risk perception system is not a simple matter of factual analysis. It's a just what we think, but also how we feel, and we know from decades of research into the psychology of risk that not only do we tend to over focus on the negative, but also;
Follow David Ropeik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dropeik
Dana Ullman: Our Planet, Our Selves: The Earth's Symptoms and What to Do About Them
You are correct in identifying the cons associated with modern information age.
A society's progress is often determined by the risks it is willing to take. Risk perception amongst public affects regulations and can hamper innovation.
http://risk-safety.com/how-risk-perception-affects-regulations/
I.E., the more Nukes we build the more likely we loose control and poof! Thar she blows! TS Eliot was exactly right. We are the Hollow Men.
We need to stop this maddness if we want to survive.
The mess is huge and far-reaching, and BP – Transocean and their collaborators should be prosecuted so something like this is less likely to happen again.
Evidence of long term damage from the oil spill:
Scientists Deeply Concerned About BP Disaster's Long-Term Impact: http://www.truth-out.org/scientists-deeply-concerned-about-bp-disasters-long-term-impact61946
The article starts out: “Contrary to recent media reports of a quick recovery in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists and biologists are "deeply concerned" about impacts that will likely span "several decades".
Environmental and Health Impacts of the BP Gulf Oil Spill By Dr. Tom Termotto: http://oilspillsolutionsnow.org/?page_id=176
Scientists Find Evidence That Oil And Dispersant Mix Is Making Its Way Into The Food chain: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/scientists-find-evidence_n_664298.html
Prof: Gulf chemicals very concerning: http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/us_news/professor-says-gulf-chemicals-will-have-long-term-effects
This informative report, "Gulf Oil Spill Health Hazards", describes the toxicity of chemicals in crude oil and in the dispersants currently being used in the Gulf area. http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm
Sylvia Earle, the National Geographic’s explorer-in-residence and former chief scientist at NOAA, stated that “the instructions for humans using Corexit warn that it is an eye and skin irritant, is harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed, and may cause injury to red blood cells, kidney or the liver.” “People are warned not to take Corexit internally,” she said, “but the fish, turtles, copepods and jellies have no choice. They are awash in a lethal brew of oil and butoxyethanol.”
One problem with breaking down the oil is that it makes it easier for the many tiny underwater organisms to ingest this toxic soup.
Carl Safina, president and co-founder of Blue Ocean Institute, believes BP’s dispersant strategy has more to do with PR than good science. “It takes something that we can see that we could at least partly deal with and dissolves it so we can’t see it and can’t deal with it. It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It’s just to get it away from the cameras on the shoreline," Safina says.
For a better understanding of why toxic dispersants have been used by BP in such an excessive and unprecedented manner, visit:
http://renergie.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/bps-strategy-to-limit-liability-in-regard-to-its-gulf-oil-gusher/
and
http://renergie.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/bp-is-not-the-only-responsible-party/