Gee,I wonder why? by Niki2

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Why do you think they ignored the order to stop using them? So that the oil would go underwater, not be seen, and make it look like less of a disaster to the simple minded who didn't think beyond what they could see. It worked, too, didn't it? All the stories about "it's not as bad as we think" prove their little tactic worked like a charm!!!

Said it before and I'll say it again...

It's worse than we know....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 8:49 AM

KANEMAN

If you took out the smarmy in this post I would think you nailed it. It is Obama's fault. He handled this whole disaster how you would expect someone with zero experience.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 9:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Damn straight, Raptor. Not only was it worse than BP said, initially and all the way through, but if they get away with the "out of sight, out of mind" trick, it'll be even worse because the Gulf will get LESS help than otherwise, and they'll try to use it to pay less reparations...sigh...

Did anyone notice that the camera no longer points at the well itself? Gee, I wonder why...

RivKaneZit, you must live in the same fantasy land that Wulf does. I referenced the original disster as having been the result of collusion between the MMS and BP, and the huge use of dispersants being the fault of the Coast Guard and BP...I never mentioned the "handling" of the disaster. Unless you really believe Obama sent down a memo to the Coast Guard saying "Let them use all the dispersants they want, let's really fuck it up", which you probably do.

But I know, everything and anything bad in the entire globe is Obama's fault in your mind, I understand...

And oh, gosh, I just thought of it; I'm SURE McCain would have handled it perfectly, he's not close to Big Oil or BP at ALL...he'd probably have handled it just as well as Dumbya did Katrina, right?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 9:19 AM

America loves a winner!

At best, Obama is only the current 'ruler' of an over bloated, ineffectual, out of control bureaucracy.

Neither he nor Bush had any real intention of cutting back in the size, power or inefficiency of the Federal Gov't.

But that's another issue, one that is only compounded when one looks at the Gulf disaster.

BP ? On the one hand, they could have been a LOT more forth coming in what the hell is going on , what caused this, and what will be done. My gut tells me they were really in " oh shit! " mode, and were basically making it up as they went along, which precluded them from being able to come out and fully brief the public about - ANYTHING. While it would have been beneficial for someone to step up and say " yes, this is bad, very bad, but unprocessed light sweet crude will break down faster than other forms of oil.... " I can see how the corporate spin doctors would nix this idea, no matter how factual and sincere it may have been, to inform the public.

As for the public spin doctors ? They're every bit as loathsome scum.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 9:24 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
New documents released by a congressional subcommittee indicate that Coast Guard officials allowed BP to use excessive amounts of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP used the chemicals to break up oil after the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion sent millions of gallons of crude gushing into the Gulf.

Despite a federal directive restricting their use, the Coast Guard routinely granted exemptions, said Rep. Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Coast Guard, ordered the oil giant to stop surface application of the chemicals during the oil spill except in rare occasions, according to a House subcommittee on energy and environment.

In rare cases, exemptions had to be requested, documents show.

"BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it," Markey said in a statement Saturday. "After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the Gulf in this manner."

The exemptions granted "were in no way rare," Markey said in a letter to retired Adm. Thad Allen, the former commandant of the Coast Guard who is now overseeing the federal response to the oil spill.

The Coast Guard approved more than 74 exemptions in 48 days, Markey said. In one instance, Coast Guard officials allowed the oil giant to use a larger volume of dispersants than it had applied for, he said.

Dispersants are "a toxic stew of chemicals, oil and gas, with impacts that are not well understood," Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in the letter to Allen.

Markey said the findings are based on an analysis by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

The report brings into question the total amount of dispersants used in the Gulf. BP says it has used 1.8 million gallons to break up oil flowing from the Deepwater Horizon's ruptured well.

"The validity of those numbers are now in question," Markey said.
Calls to a BP press office and the Joint Information Center were not immediately returned.
Jezus, I thought it was only 1 million gallons they admitted to! I wonder how much it actually was!? I wonder if we'll ever know? (Not!) Sickening!

Why do you think they ignored the order to stop using them? So that the oil would go underwater, not be seen, and make it look like less of a disaster to the simple minded who didn't think beyond what they could see. It worked, too, didn't it? All the stories about "it's not as bad as we think" prove their little tactic worked like a charm!!!

So now we can blame the Coast Guard along with MMS for OUR side of it...oh, no, wait, Obama's in charge of the Coast Guard, isn't he? He must have personally given directives to ignore BP's continued use of them, just like he must have told the MMS too fake inspection reports. Yes indeedy: It's Obama's fault!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Naw, it's not Barry's fault, because he did nothing and let BP do what they wanted. BP did it as cheaply as they could.

Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Jezus, I thought it was only 1 million gallons they admitted to! I wonder how much it actually was!? I wonder if we'll ever know? (Not!) Sickening!

Why do you think they ignored the order to stop using them? So that the oil would go underwater, not be seen, and make it look like less of a disaster to the simple minded who didn't think beyond what they could see. It worked, too, didn't it? All the stories about "it's not as bad as we think" prove their little tactic worked like a charm!!!

So now we can blame the Coast Guard along with MMS for OUR side of it...oh, no, wait, Obama's in charge of the Coast Guard, isn't he? He must have personally given directives to ignore BP's continued use of them, just like he must have told the MMS too fake inspection reports. Yes indeedy: It's Obama's fault!

...Niki, ask any environmental scientist how you do clean-up for an oil spill, and the first thing they'll say to you is dispersants. You'll remember it's the first thing *I* said to you.

Now, I'm wondering just what dispersants they were using, because none of the ones I know of are toxic. Nor do I know of any that would "make oil sink." What they do is make the oil more soluable in water, with the hope that as you dissolve the oil in a larger volume of water and as the oil becomes more mobile, you decrease the local concentration of oil. Concentration and dose are what kills. This also makes it easier for bacteria to break down the chemical.

The Democrat making a stink about this is not a scientist, and has I doubt they've done work in the environment clean-up industry. If there were unanticipated side-effects to using a common oil clean-up chemical in such large quantities, it was just that: unanticipated.

Really, this accusation and letter just comes off as a political move on the democrat's part, trying to look like they're tough on big oil. There's worse transgressions happening here, and uninformed fear-mongering like this congressman just distracts from them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 11:35 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

Naw, it's not Barry's fault, because he did nothing and let BP do what they wanted. BP did it as cheaply as they could.

If that were truly the case, shouldn't the right-wing "free market invisible hand" people be cheering Obama right now for a laissez-faire attitude and a business solution to a corporation's problem?

I thought you lot were against government intervention and spending.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 4:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

On "Talk of the Nation Science Friday" this week they discussed the effects of the spill on the coastline. A specialist on marsh grasses and shoreline noted that most of the grasses will survive as long as there is any green exposed to sunlight, and that the oil generally gets caught in the first grass it hits, protecting the marshes further inland.

listen here. http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201007304

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 1, 2010 4:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 3:32 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

Naw, it's not Barry's fault, because he did nothing and let BP do what they wanted. BP did it as cheaply as they could.

If that were truly the case, shouldn't the right-wing "free market invisible hand" people be cheering Obama right now for a laissez-faire attitude and a business solution to a corporation's problem?

I thought you lot were against government intervention and spending.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

I'd have to say no. This is a huge disaster on a scale that rarely ever comes along. The government had to take control because it threatened the whole region. However, they should not set a limit as to how much people can sue for destruction of property and livelihood(i'm not claiming they are setting limits). That is how the free-market remedies this type of mishap....SUE SUE SUE BP till it's out of business. The market and industry would see what happens and the next rig will have a functioning blowout preventer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 9:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Damn, I collected info and lost the post. I’ll find it again. So as to your questions, Byte:

Regarding the oil “sinking”, from what I found it’s not that, it’s that the dispersants themselves were used underwater extensively, so dispersants and oil both are underwater as a result. I found this:

Quote:
"Dispersants were meant to be used at the surface of oil spills. The millions of gallons of Corexit used at the Macondo wellhead site to prevent the oil spill from surfacing have caused as much as 70 percent of the spill to remain hidden from view.

"BP's use of dispersants deep underwater, and on such a large scale, represents the first time these chemicals have been used in this manner. Normally, dispersants are applied in small quantities at the surface and the chemical toxins of their use become sufficiently diluted over time so as to pose only minimal health risks. However, because of the volume of dispersants applied, the volume of oil involved, and because the dispersants were applied deep underwater, what remains afterward can be dangerous to human life and deadly with respect to marine reproduction.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dispersants-Used-in-Oil-prnews-194198585
3.html?x=0

As to toxicity: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-06-use-of-toxic-chemical-dispersa
nts-to-fight-the-oil-spill-a-murky/

Quote:
We finally know the main two dispersants that BP and the U.S. government are using to treat the ongoing Gulf spill. Both, by their maker's own admission, have the "potential to bioconcentrate," and both have "moderate toxicity to early life stages of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks," according to a study by Exxon ( http://www.iosc.org/papers/00020.pdf), the company that originally developed them. Their use may be the least-bad course, given the importance of minimizing oil's effect on coastal wetlands. But a little digging into the chemical makeup of these two substances, which are being dumped in vast quantities into the Gulf, reveals that they could potentially do far more harm than good, both to the Gulf and to humans who later eat from it.

As ProPublica reported Monday, information about dispersants is "kept secret under competitive trade laws." I've spent the last several days trying to confirm what many in the ocean-ecology and public health worlds seemed to know, but no one would say officially: that two different dispersants sold under the banner of Corexit were being used in vast quantities. The Corexit brand is owned by an Illinois-based company called Nalco, which entered the dispersant business back in 1994, when it merged with Exxon's chemical unit. (By 2004, Exxon had divested and Nalco was a standalone company, according to Nalco's company history.)

Last night I finally got my confirmation. A spokesperson for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finally pointed me to the website of Deepwater Horizon Response, the U.S. government's "ongoing administration-wide response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill." The link took me to a "fact sheets" page, where I was able to download Nalco's Material Safety Data Sheets for "Dispersant Type 1," Corexit 9500 (PDF); and "Dispersant Type 2," Corexit 9527A (PDF). These product numbers matched the ones that had been identified unofficially by my sources.

There is a lot more detail at that site, and I posted the link to the Exxon study. It would probably be science-speak and mean nothing to me, but hopefully it’ll answer your question.

Perhaps your belief that dispersants aren’t toxic might be explained by this:

Quote:
And just how toxic is this stuff? The data sheets for both products contain this shocker: "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product"

However, they obviously do know there is toxicity involved, given:

Quote:
They do appear to have toxic properties. Both data sheets include the warning "human health hazards: acute." The MSDS for Corexit 9527A states that "excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver."

It adds: "Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE [butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys."

I’m not sure if toxicity to “non-humans” was ever taken into account, or if the quantities used by BP increase the toxicity to a level dangerous for marine inhabitants, but I would be the former was not and the latter is true. However, it adds “For petroleum distillates, the International Chemical Scorecard has similar indications about exposure for humans, and adds this unsettling line: ‘The substance is harmful to aquatic organisms.’”

I understand your feelings about politics, but if you google questions on these things, you get lots and lots of hits. Over time, they represent assurances from BP that the dispersants are safe, worries that they’re not, and a fair amount of information on the now-known details. What you believe may also be that given, from what I have found, companies tend to keep the ingredients “proprietary” for the most part. “For the other substances, the data sheets listed what's called a CAS number, which allows researchers to look up specific information. For organic sulfonic acid salt, the word "proprietary" appears in place of a CAS number.” But in June,

Quote:
U.S. EPA has quietly released a full list of ingredients in the two controversial dispersants BP PLC is using to combat the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, following weeks of complaints from members of Congress and public health advocates that the dispersant manufacturer had kept its complete formula a secret from the public.

The mysterious appearance on EPA’s website of the specific chemical components in Corexit 9500 and 9527 — more than 1.1 million gallons of which have been sprayed in Gulf since the disaster began — came as a surprise to environmental groups as well as to Nalco Holding Co., the producer of the dispersants. Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said the company was first informed about the full release of Corexit ingredients by Greenwire, not EPA.

http://freepressinternational.com/2010/06/ingredients-of-controversial
-dispersants-used-on-gulf-spill-are-secrets-no-more/

I know that the second article I linked said that “It may be that, while nontoxic in smaller amounts, the fact that

Quote:
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson says it is the largest volume ever used in the country.

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/epa-in-hot-seat/906295/Jul-
15-2010_9-18-pm/ might help explain the concerns.

I don’t think this is just a “Democratic scare tactic”, from the research I did. It appears to be a serious concern; people didn’t know about what was in it previously; and now that they do know, toxicity definitely seems to be something important, especially given the volume and how it was utilized.

That took a while and is all the time I'm willing to spend on it; I'm sure you can find all the information you seek from the links in that second article, it seems scientifically-based and gives a number of scientific links.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 11:47 AM

IREMISST

Just FYI, my mum went to the panhandle part of Florida over the weekend and she said you could definately tell there is this weird "sheen" floating everywhere, *sigh*.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 12:00 PM

Quote:
Perhaps your belief that dispersants aren’t toxic might be explained by this

No, because there are many different kinds and brands of dispersants I know of. Cool whip, used on desserts, is a food grade dispersant (specifically a surfactant), and non-toxic. Most of the ones I know of are non-toxic. Well, relatively speaking, because everything is toxic at a high enough dose, even water.

This is a question of science. Articles from the press aren't helpful; information in the press represents what can get an audience and what pushes an agenda, and people upset about the oil spill and the response will eat up rumours about the dispersants.

That study will likely be helpful, I'll give it a look over. I'm also going to have to dig up the chemical datasheets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 12:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, and Geezer is just a little late in saying "It's not as bad as we think".

Well, you're right Geezer, it's not as bad. it's WORSE.

It's not just marshes that are impacted, it's the entire column of water and everything it touches: from the surface of the water to the "benthic" zone (where the Great Dead Zone resides).

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/

But AFA marshes are concerned: The marshes have been chopped up for decades by canals to make way for ships and pipelines. Between the dredging, boat wakes, and salt-water intrusion, the marshes are pretty much history. This last episode is another nail in the coffin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 12:05 PM

...100 ppm for LC50 is not very toxic. As a comparison, the copper LC50 for rainbow trout is 0.02 ppm. Copper is more toxic than the dispersants being used.

You have a point about the sheer volume being used, and the underwater use (maybe? I thought they were spraying on the surface) but what I'm getting is that there's a lot of concerns and accusations about the toxicity and use of the dispersants without anyone having any real proof positive there's a problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 1:10 PM

Byte: They were spraying it on the surface, but they were ALSO pumping it DIRECTLY into the oil at the well-head, where it was coming out. If you saw the footage of the oil pumping out of the fractured blowout preventer, you probably noticed the occasional "flashes" or bright yellow/orange stuff in the oil; that was the Corexit being pumped directly into the oil flow.

Last I heard, it was over a million gallons of dispersant being used in that manner.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 1:40 PM

Hmm, in that case, even though the crude is an LNAPL, what you've got is very similar to a modeling a point source DNAPL release from the specified depth, with some body of oil in the water column, and pooling on the surface as opposed to on the aquitard. With dispersivity thrown in.

I don't have access to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMS_(software) anymore, but I could still try to run some numbers on this. All you need is the initial concentration at the point source. Put the numbers into GMS and you could model the plume and maybe figure out approximately what concentrations of crude you're looking at.

Then, looking outside the high concentration areas to the dispersed areas, I'd imagine the dispersant would scale with the incidence of crude from the initial concentration right when the dispersant was introduced, which would be known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 1:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and Geezer is just a little late in saying "It's not as bad as we think".

Well, you're right Geezer, it's not as bad. it's WORSE.

Of course, I'm the one who said that, MONTHS ago....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 2:04 PM

And they JUST said on the news that "a study has shown that the dispersant used in the Gulf oil spill is no more hazardous than the oil." Gee. Fucking BRILLIANT. I don't think the question was whether it was MORE toxic than the oil, but rather, whether it was TOXIC. So it's no more hazardous than the oil; I note for the record they didn't say it's no LESS hazardous than the oil, either.

All of which ignores the fact that THEY WERE ADDING ANOTHER MILLION-PLUS GALLONS OF TOXINS INTO THE GULF!

And I swear, the fucking idiot reading that news had a smile on her face when she said it.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 2:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And I swear, the fucking idiot reading that news had a smile on her face when she said it.

".... and in other news, scientist say an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, due to strike our planet in the next few minutes. But first, here's Claudia with the weather! "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 3:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of course, I'm the one who said that, MONTHS ago....

Yes indeedy, you did. And you've been saying all along. You love the Gulf, Rappy. Good on ya.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And I swear, the fucking idiot reading that news had a smile on her face when she said it.

".... and in other news, scientist say an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, due to strike our planet in the next few minutes. But first, here's Claudia with the weather! "

Yup, pretty much just like that.

You have no idea how close I came to putting my foot through the TV.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 2, 2010 4:08 PM

Quote:
I don't think the question was whether it was MORE toxic than the oil, but rather, whether it was TOXIC. So it's no more hazardous than the oil; I note for the record they didn't say it's no LESS hazardous than the oil, either.

On the other hand, this doesn't actually give any new information. Not saying whether it's more or less toxic than the oil is outright lazy, claim either one way or the other, they shouldn't hedge their bets and waffle. Suggests they don't know and they didn't do the research. And in my experience, again, oil is much more toxic than LC50 100 ppm.

Of course, I *AM* working off the study Niki posted, it's possible that Exxon released results that had LC50 at 100 ppm, while the commercial chemical datasheet has a more conservative LC50.

Anyway, any option you take in a clean up workplan has pros and cons. Using a dispersant, you break down the oil a lot faster, and it can work under anaerobic conditions. On the down side, stuff like oil becomes somewhat more toxic as you increase the soluability, and, well, that's kinda what a dispersant does. So with the right balance you can get rid of the oil fast, and reduce the long term impact. But, theoretically, if you go overboard, there's consequences as well. If you want to complain about toxicity, that's the direction I'd come from.

The fact that the dispersants are toxic at 100 ppm is going to get you a "so?" from the EPA and any scientist who doesn't hear the word toxic and go "OMIGOSH it's toxic they want to kill us all!" It doesn't matter, what matters is concentration and dose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 8:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Last I heard,BP "claims" they used 1.8 million gallons of dispersant. Of course, given BP's previous "claims", who knows, except that it's MORE than 1.8 million.

Essentially, all we can is pray. If you've got dolphins bleeding from their orfices, folks, which is what the warning is about potential toxicity to humans, I for one am betting it's toxic! (And yes, same has been seen.)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 9:22 AM

Ooh, if we can rough-estimate the volume occupies, we can figure out a rough estimate of the average concentration, and figure out if it exceeds the LC50. It won't be as exact as my modeling idea, but it can do for now and we don't have access to those resources anyway.

To wikipedia!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 9:28 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte:

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:39 AM

My model and data are as follows. Deepwater horizon is a technical term that refers to the point where the continental slope becomes the abyssal plain in a body of water. Looking at satellite pictures the contamination is generally moving towards shore. So, ignoring for now dispersivity and the effect of currents on the end volume, you can model this as a wedge.

The minimum estimated surface areas is 6,500 km2, the depth of the water at deepwater horizon was about 1.5 km. So this makes a cube with a volume of 9,700 km3 (9.7E3 km3). Which translates to 9.7E12 m3. Imagine the corner of the cube is at the well. Halve the volume of the cube horizontally corner to corner to make a wedge results in a wedge of water with a volume of 4.9E12 m3. Halve it again from the top corners to the bottom center corner to represent the water above the continental slope surface (2.5E12 m3)

1.8 million gallons of dispersant is 6840 m3 of dispersant. Cancel out the cubic meters and divide 6840 m3 by 2,500,000,000,000 m3, and I just moved the decimal places for both until the water volume was 2.5 E6 (definition of parts per million or ppm), which made the dispersant volume 6.8E-2. Result: 3E-8 ppm

Obviously, within this volume there's going to be plumes of high concentration material, and this is only the average concentration for the whole volume, outside high concentration plumes, concentration will be low. I doubt this is useful for anyone here, but it did occupy me for a while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 1:45 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I for one found it interesting, tho' yes, I didn't understand it much. What would be your conclusion, then, about the toxicity and how it is affecting marine life? Is there a concern? What I have heard concerns ME, but I don't have your knowledge. The oystermen and crab fishers seem to think there's a problem and that distributors won't buy their shellfish because they will be tained for a long time to come.

So what say you? Are marine life forms endangered? Will it sink to where it affects bottom dwellers more than others? How long before one can feel safe eating foodstuffs from the areas of the Gulf hit hardest?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 2:11 PM

I heard that some parts of the gulf were going back to fishing, though that's probably dependent on whether the spill reached them or not.

The fact is, no matter how much we skim, there's probably going to be some contamination left over. The good news is that contamination will eventually bioattenuate and break down, and this can happen either aerobically and anaerobically thanks to bacteria. The question of how soon that will happen is largely dependent upon the concentration of the oil.

I hear one of the underwater oil plumes was measured at 0.5 ppm... Which considering what my impression is of the toxicity of oil, is nothing to sneeze at. Let me consult my notes on a bioattenuation model I did before, and then I might be able to give you an answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 2:55 PM

Okay, so here's what some federal screening levels for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and component compounds are in aqueous solution. These are all in ppm.

Total Volatile Solids: 3,600
TPH: <25
TPH-G: 390-400
Naphthalene: 2.7
Benzene: <0.025
Ethyl Benzene: 3.7
Toluene: 0.13
Xylene: 25

Don't let the 0.5 ppm concentration I mentioned fool you, there's definitely a problem out in the gulf. I saw somewhere when I was browsing earlier looking for information for you that the EPA had actually posted some sampling data somewhere on their site, so I'll find that again, and we might get a better idea what the worse case contamination is out there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 3:08 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Damn. Well, do update us as you find out, please? As you know, anything to do with the Gulf spill I'm most interested in. Thanx for your efforts, by the way.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 3:52 PM

I should clarify about my model, since you asked. The reason it's not very useful is because it does not give any indication of what levels of contamination you might is in more bad off zones. It's very possible that despite the low average calculation, that concentration in some places may well exceed the toxicity suggested by the commercial manufacturer.

But I have an idea about how to get an estimation of that for the dispersant... I suspect that because the dispersant should have some direct correlation with the amount the oil disperses, and as such dilution of oil concentrations, that if I take a high oil concentration result, I could scale it by comparing estimated oil spill volume to injected dispersant volume to get an estimation of what the dispersant concentration might be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 4:01 PM

Here's the data I found. Going to try to grab the highest value for oil I can find here. Your dispersant sample data is here, too, so I won't need to estimate. :)

http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/water.html#data

Also, toxicity data for crustaceans: LC50 ϭ25.2 to 86.9 ppm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 5:06 PM

More information. About the bacteria and the bioattentuation, the bacteria use up oxygen, and this is why you get deadzones.

I also read that the 0.5 ppm is consistent with surface water samples. There's studies to indicate that only 98% of the oil plus dispersants mix will reach the surface, a lot of it dissolves into the water column in the 1.5 km. This probably operates exponentially through the water column.

Liquid waste samples I've seen put at about 10,000 PPM to well over 50,000 PPM, so that's like 10% to 50%. Almost pure product.

I'm having trouble to getting at my notes on the other computer, file conversion issues. I'll try again tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2010 2:49 PM

Just heard a better figure that's more specific to this particular spill. Only 8% of the oil has been dispersed by the dispersant, and only 26% of the oil has remained underwater.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2010 3:46 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx for the info, Byte. I didn't understand most of it, but I got the gist. Yeah, I heard about the dead-zone thing; I won't start or I'll begin to sound like Raptor...sigh...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2010 3:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and Geezer is just a little late in saying "It's not as bad as we think".

Well, you're right Geezer, it's not as bad. it's WORSE.

Interesting that you just can't even accept that there might be some good news about the Gulf. It's almost like you'd rather it be a total disaster because that fits in better with your worldview.

If you want to argue with NPR about their broadcasts, go ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, it's more that we're being cautious and cynical. We're not buying into BP's "everything's okay" and the government's "where is the oil? No oil, no problem" bullshit.

It will be years becoming evident just how much damage has been done, and the American people are notoriously short-sighted. Give 'em a chance to believe it's all okay and many, many of them will, just like the Repubs trying to do away with health care for the 9/11 Responders, and Exxon/Valdez being all but forgotten until something like this comes up.

Not only that, but I've posted every little piece of either good news or hopeful news that's come along with regard to the Gulf. Of COURSE we want good news...there just isn't much and what is put out as "good news" is usuall propaganda.

By the way, it's being shown now that that one single "live feed" of the well cap is being recycled...they're faking it again. Whether they want to do something down there without watching eyes or there's some leak we aren't being shown, I dunno, but there's SOME reason they're looping the "live feed" now and again.

For people so quick to disbelieve what the government says, I find it interesting that some now cheerfully accept the various minimizations given out by them. It IS worse than anyone recognizes even now; but the evidence won't show up for wome time. That's the fact.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:56 AM