Reply #7: "Nobody knows what happens when you do that. This is really the first time."

[mhatrw]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127105863

"And so, you know, spraying may protect some things near the surface but they're still going to be releasing this stuff into the stream of oil coming off the ocean floor, and nobody knows what happens when you do that. This is really the first time. So, that's going to distribute maybe a more diluted form, but it's going to be all over the Gulf, because the stuff is coming up through 5,000 feet of water and has a chance to get into all the currents that take it everywhere." ...

"The thing to remember is that dispersants take oil places it's not otherwise going. So, what that means is you bring oil, which is itself very, very toxic, to other places. So, when you put oil to the surface, you might bring oil to, say, eggs that are just beneath the surface. And so by not spraying on the surface you might protect them. On the other hand, so now you're putting this into the column of oil coming off there and it's going to go far, far away. So, tiny creatures we don't even know about may be exposed and we have no idea what that's going to do."

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/toxic-soup-gulf

Jacqueline Savitz, director of pollution campaigns at the oceans advocacy group Oceana, says it's a lose-lose situation: Both the chemicals and the oil in the water are environmental nightmares. "These chemicals are toxic. It would probably be illegal to dump them in the ocean under any other circumstances," she says. "It's a trade-off between oiling the shoreline and oiling the ocean." The dispersants may protect the coastline and its ecosystems, but the chemicals and the oil remnants will affect sea life, like the blue fin tuna (which is currently spawning in the region), shrimp, oysters, and crabs. The combination of dispersed oil and chemicals is actually more toxic than the oil alone, and can also spread out farther in the Gulf, says Savitz. "Whether or not you think dispersants are a good idea depends on whether you're a shore bird or a fish."

Dr. Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist and former commercial fisher in Alaska at the time of the Exxon Valdez spill, has been in the Gulf area meeting with fisherman and communities to discuss the potential impacts. While Exxon used dispersants to clean up the Alaska spill, which have had long-term impacts on herring and salmon, what's going on in the Gulf now is unprecedented, she warns. "We've never released them at this rate before, so much, so fast," said Ott. She said lab tests on the toxicity of the dispersants don't reflect the reality of how these agents can affect an ecosystem. The use of the chemicals in such large volumes, she said, "has the potential to cause intergenerational harm." ...

The bigger issue, says Oceana's Savitz, is that the dispersants are used to enable offshore drilling, with little attention given to their potential impact until a major spill necessitates their use. Oil companies will point to the chemicals as a potential option for mitigation in the event of a spill. "We're enabling risky offshore drilling that we shouldn't be doing in the first place," said Savitz. "If we deemed the toxicity of dispersants as unacceptable, it would be harder for them to get approval."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/epa-bp-dispersants

But environmental experts have warned that Corexit could add to the ecological disaster in the Gulf rather than alleviate it. Oil companies designed the dispersants to reduce the amount of oil hitting land. That may spare BP the PR nightmare of oil-coated birds washing up on Louisiana’s shorelines. However, as scientists such as marine toxicologist Dr. Riki Ott point out, BP's chosen dispersants will simply push the problem underwater. The chemicals, says Ott, have "the potential to cause intergenerational harm" to marine life. Corexit has been banned in the United Kingdom due to environmental concerns.

" want to make the visible part of the oil spill disappear—for political reasons, for limiting liability to the spillers," says Richard Charter, government relations consultant for Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. "If we were looking at food chain impacts and biomagnification in the marine ecosystem, we probably never would have invented Corexit."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100524/sc_livescience/whyisthegulfoilslickred

The reason for the reddish coloring of the oil slick has to do with how the oil mixes with water, but scientists are puzzled as to why the colors coating the Gulf water are so bright.

"We believe that the reddish brown color is indicative of the formation of a water-in-oil emulsion, called a mousse," said Edward Overton, professor emeritus at Louisiana State University. "These oil slicks typically have colors other than black, but with this oil, the colors are fairly vivid."