Many in Gulf are outraged at reports of vanishing oil

Yahoo News ^ | 30 July 2010 | Brett Michael Dykes

[Jack Hydrazine]

Now that BP engineers have managed to place a cap on the company's bleeding well in the Gulf, the sprawling oil slicks seem to have retreated from the water's surface, claimed many media reports this week.

"Where is all the oil?" an AFP headline asked. Time magazine ran a piece suggesting that the environmental impact of the spill has been "exaggerated." The New York Times ran a story that said the "Gulf oil spill is vanishing fast." And this very news organization ran a story suggesting that oil-gobbling microbes are eating up a lot the oil.

These reports have angered many — particularly those close to the disaster who are still, well, seeing lots of oil.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Tell that to shrimpers and anyone else who were exposed directly to a mixture of oil and Corexit dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico and suffered symptoms such as extreme itching, blisters, welts, sore throats, ear bleeds, bronchitis, muscle spasms, heart palpitations, headaches that last for weeks and bleeding from the rectum."

Anecdotal evidence. Totally meaningless.

"It may be as this marine toxicologist (Dr. Susan Shaw) has testified: “This stuff is so toxic — combined, it’s not the oil alone, it’s not the dispersant — the dispersed oil that still contains this stuff, it’s very, very toxic and it goes right through skin.

Sorry, but at these low levels, the stuff would have to be more potent than botulinium toxin to have any effect at all. There is simply not enough dose available to have an effect.

It doesn't matter whether it "goes through the skin" or gets breathed in, or eaten. At these low concentrations, it's harmless to humans, and even adult fish. It "might" kill some marine larvae, but that is all. And half of it disappears every 10-20 days.

[erlayman]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/testing-water

WKRG News in Mobile, Ala. recently ran an investigative report to see just how much oil and petroleum is in the water and sand. The lowest quantity of oil and petroleum found was 16 parts per million in water from Katrina Key, the highest being 221 parts per million in a sample taken from a pool of water in Orange Beach where a child was playing.

And something is seriously wrong when a water sample from Dauphin Island Marina exploded within seconds, breaking its glass container, probably the result of the presence of methane gas or a chemical oil dispersant in the water.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The lowest quantity of oil and petroleum found was 16 parts per million in water from Katrina Key, the highest being 221 parts per million in a sample taken from a pool of water in Orange Beach where a child was playing."

This is no more valid than the "health effects" anecdotal data. Without knowing precisely where and how the samples were collected, any result is completely meaningless. There is lots of oil scattered around many places, without identifying the source (which "is" possible) you simply can't say that the source is from the spill

I'm an analytical chemist, this is my career specialty. So I "do" know whereof I speak.

"And something is seriously wrong when a water sample from Dauphin Island Marina exploded within seconds, breaking its glass container, probably the result of the presence of methane gas or a chemical oil dispersant in the water.

Again, more completely meaningless anecdotal data. There is nothing in either the dispersant or the oil that will have this kind of effect. ANY analytical chemist knows that when you add a solvent to ANY sample in a separatory funnel, that the sample will cause a buildup of pressure, as the changed solubility constants will cause outgassing, even of dissolved AIR, and that you have to be careful to vent that pressure. It could well be that the particular sep funnel was scratched and simply couldn't take the normal pressure change.

Here's a couple of down-thread comments from CHEMISTS:

Retired chemist. Done more sep funnel extractions than I want to think about. It could have been methane (I'm assuming you meant methane not methanol). It could have been a small crack in the glassware after it was washed. It may be that the extraction broke up the associated hydrocarbon-dispersant molecules and created a strong entropic effect that caused expansion or contraction. I don't think a broken sep funnel is newsworthy but then a lot of the stuff on cable news is not worthy."

"The solvents used in extractions, like methylene chloride mentioned above and hexane, are very volatile and depending on the analyst, how vigorously the sample is shaken, how long before it is vented, and the condition of the glassware, this kind of thing could just as easily happen with a distilled water blank. On the other hand, the sample could just as easily be 250 ppm gasoline and not break one in a hundred samples."

[Moonman62]

I live in Northwest Florida,...

Further east towards Mississippi and Louisiana the picture is not good.

East?

[Moonman62]

Mandrake, Corexit is a communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

[Whenifhow]

Residents are angry with good reason: Video and pics of the skin lesions.

Censored Gulf eyewitness testimonies of coughing up blood and other horror stories

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Exclusive-Censored-Gulf-news-Coughing-up-blood-Eyewitnesses-horror-stories

BP : Grand Isle Town Hall Meeting: This is what main stream media won’t report!! July, 29 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzOz2KXdmo8

[angcat]

Actually hundred of birds and turtles and other animals have died. That is tragic and it is man's fault!

[Whenifhow]

The wildlife is not the major concern.

People are going to die. Read the article posted above.

Censored Gulf eyewitness testimonies of coughing up blood and other horror stories

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2562673/posts

[dennisw]

Its true that, for now at least, the oil remains concentrated in some smaller
areas, meaning they are much more polluted locally. But the ocean will disperse
the oil, much of it will be consumed by microbial action, and its concentration
will dissipate.

Sure seems some estuaries and oyster beds have been fouled up. This will impact sea food products since fish and shrimp reproduce by the shores some of which got BP oil.. No one is out there fishing like last year. Charter boats are idle. We'll be finding out more, positive and negative

[dennisw]

As I stated on another thread, BILLY the EXTERMINATOR on A&E HDTV showed lots of oil in the water and on small islands in Louisiana. One area it was like a thick blanket.
Face it all, if W was still in charge, we would see TONS of oil pictures. But media is concerned this spill is hurting Obambi (and it is) so they are down playing it.

That's the way I see it. This story is a non-issue for the eco-obsessive media. You would have seen nightly nightly reports on the ABCNBCCBS news if GW Bush was president. They would have been screaming, lying and besmirching if this eco-damage took place under George Bush

I'm glad the BP problem well is no longer gushing but it has damaged lots of eco-sensitive shorelines. It will take a while to assess

[norwaypinesavage]

"Actually hundred of birds and turtles and other animals have died. That is tragic and it is man's fault!"

Millions of birds and turtles die naturally during the same period of natural causes. Far more live because of man's conservation intervention than have died because of the oil.

[Traveler59]

East?

Long day..... (sigh). But I did say east, I just didn't say how far east ;)

- Traveler

[erlayman]

Even Prof Overton has emphasized we can’t see right now what is going on under the surface of the water and won’t know for several years the extent of the damage or the long-term effects of the use of this much dispersant over such a large area for such a long period of time.

And OSHA may not have found anything approaching the minimum levels of toxic components of dispersants but their level is probably based much more short term, like a work week. Recovery workers working offshore are around the toxic chemicals almost 24/7. Workers on boats, rigs drilling relief wells, and others miles off shore also have constant exposure.

For heaven’s sake even the company CTEH contracted by BP to monitor air levels as they related to recovery worker safety has released data that shows disturbing levels of toxic dispersants, the same chemical blamed for chronic health problems in Exxon Valdez recovery workers, in 20% of offshore recovery workers and 15% of near-shore workers.

At least admit the long-term effects could well be both serious and potentially invisible to the public...

[Wonder Warthog]

"Even Prof Overton has emphasized we can’t see right now what is going on under the surface of the water and won’t know for several years the extent of the damage or the long-term effects of the use of this much dispersant over such a large area for such a long period of time."

I very seriously doubt that Ed said anything remotely like that. As I recall, he said that no studies of such releases have been done and the effects are unknown. But we "do" know that there will be ZERO "long-term-effects" from the dispersants, because they just don't hang around that long. What is it about "unstable in aqueous solution" that you don't understand?? Most of the dispersants put out have long since disappeared from the environment due to their natural degradation

"And OSHA may not have found anything approaching the minimum levels of toxic components of dispersants but their level is probably based much more short term, like a work week. Recovery workers working offshore are around the toxic chemicals almost 24/7. Workers on boats, rigs drilling relief wells, and others miles off shore also have constant exposure."

Your understanding of OSHA is zero. OSHA is specifically about long-term effects over many years. I worked for a MAJOR chemical company and I know this.

"For heaven’s sake even the company CTEH contracted by BP to monitor air levels as they related to recovery worker safety has released data that shows disturbing levels of toxic dispersants, the same chemical blamed for chronic health problems in Exxon Valdez recovery workers, in 20% of offshore recovery workers and 15% of near-shore workers."

I have seen no data published by CTEH. Post it. And yes, the greens have been trying to sell "chronic healt problems due to dispersants" for years. Zero proof. The greens are VERY good about dreaming up nightmare scare scenarios, most of which don't exist.

"At least admit the long-term effects could well be both serious and potentially invisible to the public..."

I will admit no such thing, because ALL the science says otherwise. The reason that are no long-term studies of dispersants is because they DISAPPEAR FROM THE STUDY SITE in rapid fashion.

[toldyou]

“I believe we’re going to regret ever allowing them to use these dispersants.”

Wow...someone on FR understands. Thanks. I have been run off threads because I believe the same. Many people here don’t believe it. Just wait.

[boycott]

Wow...someone on FR understands. Thanks. I have been run off threads because I believe the same. Many people here don’t believe it. Just wait.

---

All the dispersants did was sink the oil.

There is not much oil to clean up now. The reason they cannot find it is because the dispersants sank the oil. BP will now be able to say, “What oil?” Those 30 mile plumes of oil don’t exist to them.

When crews spotted oil on the surface, they would radio in and a boat would head that way to skim the oil. Before the boat would ever arrive, a plane would arrive and spray the surface with dispersants. The oil would be gone before the boats ever arrived. It became like one big joke to them.

I believe that, in time, we’ll all realize that we would have been better off not using the dispersants.

I live along the coast. I know people involved with EPA’s testing of dispersants. I also know a few very well respected marine biologists here along the coast. I’ll take their word vs. some of these posters on the Internet that I know nothing about.

A lot of folks are eco-idiots. They just don’t get it and they never will.

Everything about this situation makes me very mad.

[toldyou]

“Everything about this situation makes me very mad.”

I’m in the northeast, but have been following this closely. I know all about Corexit, who owns the most stock in Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit....the dangers of Corexit, etc.

Makes me mad, too.

[erlayman]

“Even Prof Overton has emphasized we can’t see right now what is going on under the surface of the water and won’t know for several years the extent of the damage or the long-term effects of the use of this much dispersant over such a large area for such a long period of time.”

I very seriously doubt that Ed said anything remotely like that. As I recall, he said that no studies of such releases have been done and the effects are unknown. But we “do” know that there will be ZERO “long-term-effects” from the dispersants, because they just don’t hang around that long. What is it about “unstable in aqueous solution” that you don’t understand?? Most of the dispersants put out have long since disappeared from the environment due to their natural degradation

___________________________________________________________
He is definitely a cheerleader for dispersant use as the lesser of two evils that kept the oil from beaches and marshes, but I haven’t seen a quote anywhere predicting positively zero long-term effects. Obviously adopting such an absolutist posture would seriously weaken the credibility of any expert testimony, which is why scientists normally hedge their statements in much more moderate terms.

“We don’t know whether it’s (dispersant use) affecting wildlife or not,” said Ed Overton of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. “We’re right in the middle of this. We really won’t know for a while yet.”

http://www.sce.lsu.edu/

OVERTON: We don’t know still, but the early evidence certainly doesn’t indicate that it’s (the spill) going to have traumatic, draconian, long- term damaging effects. So, I think that’s probably a stronger statement than I personally would have used. But I don’t want to underestimate the severity of the damage. I mean, most of the damage, remember, is not what we can see. We saw the dead pelicans and the dolphin and the other sea life and the birds, but there was a lot of damage that nobody ever saw, and we won’t know how severe that was for several years to come.

Well, I don’t know. I didn’t certainly overblow it. People that have been around an oil spill for a long time I don’t think overblow it. There was plenty of damage, is plenty of damage. We won’t know the total carnage for several years. This is part of the natural resources damage assessment effort. Also, there’ll be independent scientifically based programs that will try to understand and completely catalog the damage.

So, there was plenty of damage done. I don’t think we should underestimate that. It’s just that some people over speculated, let me put it like that, that the Gulf would die, things like this. And that’s just not in line with what normally occurs in an oil spill.

http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/29/acd.01.html

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/09/09greenwire-new-bp-data-show-20-of-gulf-spill-responders-e-82494.html

Why was this dispersant discontinued if it wasn’t showing negative effects ?
_________________________________________________________

[Wonder Warthog]

I'll explain this to you in simple terms. "Damage to wildlife" includes FISH and other marine life that gets its oxygen directly from water. Because the dispersants contain surfactants, the surfactants can damage the surfaces of the gill structure, and impede the ability to get oxygen, hence fish DIE if exposed to relatively low levels of dispersants. Species that breath air are not affected by this toxicity mechanism. This is somewhat similar to what happens when humans are exposed to low levels of hydrogen cyanide...the cyanide bonds to the iron atom in the hemoglobin molecule and prevents oxygen transport.

In order for species that BREATH AIR to be affected, the dispersants have to be AEROSOLIZED (made into very small droplets suspended in the air). Because the ingredients of the dispersants are highly polar molecules (except for the kerosene), they do NOT aerosolize easily. And in order to lodge in the lungs, the aerosol particles have to be in a VERY narrow size range. Too big and the natural filtration in the nasal passages removes them and expels them with the mucus. Too small and they don't "stick" in the lungs surface.

The individual compounds that make up the dispersants that "do" get into the body are destroyed by the body's natural defenses. For example, propylene glycol, one of the major ingredients in Corexit 9500, is removed from the body with a half-life of nine hours.

The reason there will be ZERO long-term effects is because after some reasonably short time, the dispersants are GONE, and not available to cause toxic effects.

Now, when I say ZERO long term effects, I am talking about to humans (and higher species). The dispersants are definitely going to kill some fish. But fish recover very quickly. "Unoccupied" ecological areas are rapidly recolonized from non-exposed areas.

You are being misled by the favorite tactic of the greens. They dig up an MSDS sheet and post it as "proof" that "we're all gonna die". What they don't tell you is that the symptoms of exposure listed are due to both acute exposure and to chronic exposure. But in the real world, the types of effects seen are strictly determined by the dose, with certain symptoms associated with short-term acute exposures, and others to long-term chronic exposures.

I'm not aware of ANY human being that has had a sufficiently high exposure from the spill to result in acute poisoning symptoms. All the data that I have seen puts the possible dosages well below the threshold of acute toxicity effects.

And both the EPA and OSHA scientists who have commented on the data say exactly the same thing.

[bert]

You consumed the koolade and it has corrupted your mind.

The moonbats always develop complex nonsense to strengthen or make a point. That nonsense in this case has no bearing on events in the water.