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