Now using poison shit to "clean-up" oil

[lonestarnot]

http://www.azfamily.com/home/Local-businesses-feeling-financial-fallout-of-SB-1070-92553844.html

Even if the materials, called dispersants, are effective, BP has already bought up more than a third of the world’s supply. If the leak from 5,000 feet beneath the surface continues for weeks, or months, that stockpile could run out.

On Thursday BP began using the chemical compounds to dissolve the crude oil, both on the surface and deep below, deploying an estimated 100,000 gallons. Dispersing the oil is considered one of the best ways to protect birds and keep the slick from making landfall. But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.

The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.


ok now I have to go!

[wtmusic]

1. Anything to keep it off the beach

where people might actually see the damage it's doing. :eyes:

[texanwitch]

2. Goodbye Gulf of Mexico, thanks for all the good times.

I am still sad after Ike, this is the killing blow for the Gulf.

If this hole isn't sealed and the oil keeps flowing goodbye oceans.

Just think $500,000 device would have kept this from happening.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

8. Can't have no $500,000 cutting into their profits now can we?

:sarcasm:

[northernlights]

3. the dispersents, by their nature, will end up very, very diluted

to levels where they won't hurt anybody, and it won't take long for that.

COREX is polar at one end and non-polar at the other. That enables it to bind simultaneously to oil and water, and allows the resulting tiny oil droplets to mix freely with water. So it will be some hundreds of millions of gallons of oil+disperser but in tiny droplets mixed with entire oceans of water.

[flamingdem]

4. Then why do the locals sound so worried about damage to shrimp beds? nt

[northernlights]

9. because it wasn't until like yesterday that BP "discovered" the dispersers

and because there probably isn't enough disperser available to make a dent in the amount of oil gushing out. And because it's only having limited success where they've used it, anyway.

My point is that the potential for toxic effect from the disperser being used are nothing compared the damage if it isn't used, or if it's used and doesn't work.

And the fishermen and shrimpers aren't worried about the disperser. They're worried about oilslick-coated and oil-poisoned fish and shrimp.

[flamingdem]

10. okay point taken on the dispersers not being the problem (or solution) nt

[Junkdrawer]

19. And biologists (and fishermen) are worried about killing the eggs in the water column...

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/3/bp_oil_spill_worsens_with_no

[retread]

11. Doesn't the dispersibility of oil decrease with weathering and photooxidation?

The longer the oil slick exists the less effective a disperent? Also depends on the structure of the oil slick and the composition of the oil itself?

Are the same people who just recently assured us this could NEVER happen going to be doing the application?

[lonestarnot]

17. Just a prettier way to hide dead stuff, trouble is how are they going to hide the dead stuff killed

by the solvent?

[Junkdrawer]

18. Not true...

http://us.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/01/nr.ott.oil.debate.cnn

[jpak]

5. They should just make the Mississippi River discharge further east, all that nitrogen and phosphorus

would make bacteria go nuts and eats up all that thar oil

yup

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. You should go there and tell them your better alternative.

I'm sure this "chemicals are bad" theory of yours will be indispensable to all those chemical engineers.

[nealmhughes]

7. If not chemical, then the only alternative is the world's largest kitty litty box.

What they have seen already in the LA marshes and mud flats is just sheen, the light stuff. Wait until the dark crude tarry starts coming ashore. That is one step from tar, basically. It is difficult to ignite. Ever try to start diesel alight? Hard. The light stuff is easy. Big boilers usually are started with natural gas and then the diesel/fuel oil sprayed to make it ignite. Now imagine, that is already refined to a degree! Start thinking motor oil, roofing tar and other thick noxious substances. That is raw crude.

Why they did not start a ruddy New Dunkirk a week ago is beyond me.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. BP denied a problem a week ago, and for several days after that.

Look at this time line map:
where it shows the oil was very containable for several days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8254048

[wtmusic]

14. The swells in the Gulf rule out the use of pontoons

so I'm not sure how they'd contain it, and they'd have to stanch the flow first or it wouldn't matter anyway.

[SoCalDem]

20. yep..those floating "barriers" don't seem to help at all

This whole things makes me so upset..and I know that BP will emerge in fine fashion..but the locals & the wildlife & the gulf..not so much:(

and BP is not even claiming "responsibility" for the "accident".

What would happen if you went to your neighbor's house, poured oil all over their brand new couch..and in their pitcher of orange juice & then offered them a q-tip for them to clean up your mess?

[lonestarnot]

16. I don't believe that this thing was containable at any point.

Lied about yes, but containable, no. :shrug:

[Old Troop]

13. I thought that they had developed a bacteria that ate spilt oil

[wtmusic]

15. That's one of those news items that pops up every now and then

but they probably pursued the research, because a huge oil spill would never happen again. Until now.