It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dispensing Misconceptions on BP's Oil Dispersant

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:07 PM
I am posting this mainly as a humorous read. I find the entire article completely nonsensical and at times completely untrue. But it's boldness in doing so results in funny, imo.


If environmental safety was a real concern for activists, they would have been wise to consult scientific data and recently-conducted research before advocating the limitation of dispersants in the Gulf. For starters, the safety data report for COREXIT 9500 clearly states that none of the substances in the compound have been found by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to be carcinogenic. What is more, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded peer-reviewed, independent study of the toxicity of dispersants recently used in the Gulf. In a press release this month, EPA stated, “These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other available alternatives.” Additionally, in a report to EPA, BP stated that the COREXIT deployed was the least toxic dispersant currently available.

I adore that logic. It's not toxic because it no less toxic than everything else on the market!

it continues...

dispersants are chemical compounds that are sprayed from the air and settle onto the effected body of water, where they break apart oil slicks into tiny drops. This then allows water-borne bacteria to digest the oil; this feeding allows the bacteria to multiple rapidly and, thus, consume larger amounts of oil at a quickening pace.

And yet it provides no evidence of this actually occurring, nore does it even attempt to combat the myriad of concerns relating to its toxicity.

I've seen some reasonable arguments for why corexit is 'no big deal'. but this sure aint it.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:17 PM
There is a certain humor in these statements. Not more or less toxic...
That could read that Corexit is as toxic as any dispersant ever used in the Gulf. Drilling there has been happening since 1891. God and the EPA only know what chemicals made up the competition for the toxicity test.
We do now know for certain that Corexit was as toxic as any.
But not worse than the worst.
There was no mention of who took the prize for total volume of dispersants used in the Gulf.
On the subject of microbes: It would seem that zillions, maybe even a google, of microbrobes are now in the GOM, happily eating oil and dispersant. Supposedly growing in number every day.
When this is all finished, are they going to disappear like the oil, or start looking for other food sources? EPA says they are adaptable.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:07 PM
Not more or less toxic, this is the telling sentence. Lawyers write up this stuff to be vague. It's very misleading.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by dead shrimp blues

exactly. It isnt toxic!*

*In comparison to other equally toxic compounds

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:49 PM
Although i DO think that the case can be made that it is relatively 'benign' as 'getreadyalready' has postulated (and BP claims)

Yes, 'getready'... i am fishing for your contribution to this thread...

new topics

top topics

log in