A new study, published in the journal Environmental Pollution, has found that the dispersants used to clean up oil spills actually make the entire situation much worse and cause far more damage to the environment than the crude oil itself.
As part of the clean up proceedings for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill more than 2 million gallons of the oil dispersants Corexit 9527A and 9500A were dumped into the Gulf of Mexico in order to break the oil up into tiny droplets; a move that is intended to speed up the degradation of the oil and prevent it from reaching shore.
The study has worryingly discovered that when Corexit is mixed with oil it becomes up to 52 times more toxic than the original oil on its own.
Related Article: Offshore Drill Rigs at Threat from Computer Viruses
Terry Snell, a biologist at Georgia Tech and co-author of the study, said that "there is a synergistic interaction between crude oil and the dispersant that makes it more toxic." The dispersant works in as much as it makes the oil effectively disappear, but the microscopic particles that are left are "more toxic to the planktonic food chain."
Snell explained that "the levels in the Gulf were toxic, and seriously toxic. That probably put a big dent in the planktonic food web for some extended period of time, but nobody really made the measurements to figure out the impact."
Related Article: Energy Efficiency May Help Pay for Mortgages
Plankton is the base food source of the ocean, the bottom of the food chain. If the population of plankton in the gulf is killed off enough then the population of larger animals will be effected, all the way up to whales.
The dispersants put the oil out of site. 'Out of sight, out of mind.' The public forgot about the oil once they could no longer see it; but it doesn't mean that it is gone, that the ocean is clean and safe for life.
By. Joao Peixe of Oilprice.com
Joao is a writer for Oilprice.com More
Comments
Our Government DIRECTED BP to NOT USE COREXIT. BP continued to use it anyway – of course. WHY? BP’s fines were based on the amount of oil spilled. THINK. Who had the biggest reason to “disappear the evidence”? …with no serious concern for ongoing effects to Gulf seafloor/other ecosystems or long-term resource damage!! BP gained nothing except higher fines by mopping/salvaging oil.
The reason for sinking it was NOT to ease concerns by quick cleanup. Scientists knew ezxaxtly the effets of Corexit.
I really get tired of folks hanging blame on the government.
I did not allude to the fact that corexit is not harmful! I was being facetious when I said
"Mmmm corexit gulf shrimp."
I've had my hands plenty oily and I know for a fact what
I'm talking about, I don't need to tell you where you can still find oil do I?
Don't have to be snide or cocky do you?
Come get your hands a lil oily before you go acting like you know what really is going on.
are doing! That was the intent sink the oil using Corexit. Does anyone know that BP had a contract with a
company called mopsolutions which used all natural product to soak up oil in water, once the oil is soaked into the solution, it is picked up and the oil can be squeezed out and reused.
Check this out yourself. The mess had to be cleaned up quick, so they sunk it.
Don't you just love the commercials advertising how clean the gulf is and how wonderful the food is.
Mmmm corexit gulf shrimp.
I know what they're doing. Making money. That's all that counts and as long as the public doesn't make too much of a fuss about it, destroying nature is not a problem.