Oil dispersants' effects still largely a mystery

[n2doc]

September 9, 2010 By Amina Khan

In the wake of the BP oil spill, gaping questions remain about a key tool used during cleanup: the nearly 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants sprayed over the water or onto the gushing wellhead on the seafloor. Do the chemicals help recovery, hinder it -- or neither?

Just as dishwashing detergent breaks grease on dirty plates into bits, dispersants help turn a slick of oil into droplets a hair's breadth in size. In droplet form, oil is more easily pulled under by currents, away from birds, otters, seaweed and other marine life near the surface. And because droplets present a greater surface area of oil to water, dispersants should, in theory, permit microbes to chew up oil far faster.

Yet despite more than half a century of dispersant use in oil spill cleanups, the long-term effects that dispersants or dispersant-treated oil have on marine life remain as opaque as a layer of crude.

Scientists say they still don't know whether dispersants truly enable bacteria to digest spilled oil more quickly or whether dispersed oil is safer for marine life than untreated slicks.

They can't say whether it was a help or hindrance that BP decided to spray much of the dispersant not onto the water surface, as is more common, but over oil pouring out of the leaking wellhead 5,000 feet under the sea. Both the high pressure (151 times greater than at the surface) and the oil's temperature (100 degrees Celsius, or 212 degrees Fahrenheit) could have affected dispersant action, either for better or worse.

more

http://www.physorg.com/news203259575.html

[truedelphi]

1. Back when scientific research was truly scientific, researchers knew that

That a study could not be considered complete until you had examined the suspected chemical, product or program for at least a decade.

But with the Corporate Monstrosities calling the shots, the CDC, the EPA, and FDA make statements like "This product shows no evidence that it causes harm."

And of course that in a sense is true - without ANY evidence, you cannot point to any data that shows any harm.

With the news media also beholden tot he Corporate Monstrosities, you have the headlines about how it is safe enough to be used. And then the American people go around reminding each other of how harmless the substance is.

BTW if you want to hear what a serious researcher said about the dispersant, view the "dispersant" video in my sig line.