Talk:Corexit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

For deeper study

Because I am not a scientist, I'm asking for some help from one, and have copied their response (and their emphasis in bold) here: petrarchan47tc 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The whole problem is that since Lousiana Crude and Corexit was mixed at sub sea level and in the water column that to determine toxicity as it washed ashore in the sand, which was impacted by the sun/UV resulting in photo toxicity, and how salinity and water temps effected the new chemical property, it is literally impossible to determine the impact. Science looked at specific PAH (16) compounds, they have not researched Oxygenated PAH's (cost is prohibiting this- about $20k per sample). This is why each study is a piece of this puzzle. It is a fact that Corexit increased PAH levels. It is a fact that animal reproduction has been hampered. It is a fact that sea life was impacted during travel. It is a fact that these compounds have been found in loons and pelicans who wintered in south, but live in the north. It is a fact that dolphins have been impacted in multiple ways by this mixture of chemical compounds.It is a fact that there has been genotoxic and mutagenic alterations in cells. Which gets back to the chemistry question. what is happening to wildlife, sea life, ecosystem and humans? It is very difficult to pinpoint.

Several reasons why.

Pressure at deep sea. This has never been documented before.

The fact that oil/corexit plumes have been migrating in the Gulf. Oceanographers are very worried about this.

Another study brings up many points discussed above: http://www.crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/tjeerdemabejeranoedge.pdf

"For instance, during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill dispersants were quickly employed when it became apparent that other means of response were insufficient2. However, there are usually consequences for both hydrocarbon bioavailability and toxic impacts, thus environmental tradeoffs must be evaluated. For instance, while undispersed oil generally poses the greatest threat to shorelines and surface- dwelling organisms, most dispersed oil remains in the water column where it mainly threatens pelagic and benthic organisms. This tradeoff was a prime consideration during the DWH spill3." http://www.crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/tjeerdemabejeranoedge.pdf

PG 9:

Given such high species richness, it is virtually impossible to assess the effects of dispersants and dispersed oil to most receptors. Furthermore, for most taxa, including deepwater and benthic species, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of their spatial and temporal distributions, their basic biology (rates of growth, reproduction, and recruitment) and ecology (community structure and trophic interactions), and their sensitivity to stressors. Benthic habitats in the Gulf of Mexico (mesophotic and deep water coral reefs, other hard bottoms and soft bottoms) may be the ultimate sink of oil dispersed at the wellhead, as oil particles flocculate with suspended particles or are excreted with fecal pellets and settle out of the water column. In these habitats sessile and small species with limited mobility were likely unable to escape the cloud of chemically dispersed oil, and may have experienced long term, sub-­‐lethal effects. These communities may have also been exposed to less weathered oil than biological communities at the surface. The poorly understood behavior of dispersed oil at depth (effects of high pressure and low temperature), and the lack of understanding on the biology of deepwater species, makes it difficult to assess short- and long-term effects. In addition, potential issues associated with the collection of soft bottom samples for toxicity testing (i.e., disruption of the surface micro layer containing dispersed oil droplets), and the lack of standard deepwater test species further complicate these assessments. Information on the long-term effects of the DWH oil spill is being assessed under subject-specific NRDA technical working groups (TWGs). Funded research projects are also underway to assess the effects of dispersants, dispersant

Pg 10

Questions still remain as to how oil and dispersants affect microbial communities. Hamdan and Fulmer28 have shown that, even at prescribed concentrations, the dispersant Corexit EC9500A is toxic to microbes involved in hydrocarbon bioremediation, but the levels of cell death from exposures differed among species. Widger et al29 revealed that microbial population in water and soil samples exposed to oil and dispersant related to the DWH event showed reduced biodiversity, reduction in oxygen producing microorganisms and increased oxygen consumption by hydrocarbon metabolizing bacteria. In addition, selective degradation of hydrocarbons by different bacterial species can either increase or decrease toxic components in oil and the use of dispersant could enhance this toxicity30. These results indicate a species-specific tolerance of oil and dispersant and that the presence of hydrocarbons may enhance or reduce dispersant toxicity for some species of bacteria28. AND…increased phytoplankton biomass attributed to the DWH oil spill31. It should be noted that this data is based on correlation and not direct evidence due to a scarcity of field observations before and after the spill. The region in which this phytoplankton bloom occurred overlaps with the Gulf’s hypoxic zone32, leading to concerns about the impact of the oil spill and dispersant use on the Gulf’s Dead Zone33. Bacterial decomposition of algae reduces oxygen and the presence of dispersed oil increases the abundance of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes which also consume oxygen, which could lead to further hypoxia. Dispersed oil may also be toxic to zooplankton grazers, resulting in increased algal blooms. However, dispersed oil could show toxicity to the algae itself, which may have a mitigating effect on hypoxia. Further research is required to fully understand how dispersed oil affects hypoxic systems.

There are 58 References to this document, which clearly states: determining specific findings is difficult. There are many pieces to this puzzle, too little research has been done, etc…

1. NRC Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects; National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2005; p 377. 2. Schmidt, C. W., Between the devil and the deep blue sea: dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives 2010, 118, (8), A338-A344.

Kintisch, E., An audacious decision in crisis gets cautious praise. Science 2010, 329, (5993), 735.

Lin, C.-Y.; Tjeerdema, R. S., Crude oil, oil, gasoline and petrol. In Encyclopedia of Ecology,

Volume 1: Ecotoxicology, Jorgensen, S. E.; Fath, B. D., Eds. Oxford, UK, 2008; pp 797-805. 5. Singer, M.; George, S.; Lee, I.; Jacobson, S.; Weetman, L.; Blondina, G.; Tjeerdema, R.; Aurand, D.; Sowby, M., Effects of dispersant treatment on the acute aquatic toxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 1998, 34, (2), 177-187.

6. Lin, C. Y.; Anderson, B. S.; Phillips, B. M.; Peng, A. C.; Clark, S.; Voorhees, J.; Wu, H. D. I.; Martin, M. J.; McCall, J.; Todd, C. R., F. Hsieh, D. Crane, M. R. Viant, M. L. Sowby and R. S. Tjeerdema, Characterization of the metabolic actions of crude versus dispersed oil in salmon smolts via NMR-based metabolomics. Aquatic Toxicology 2009, 95, (3), 230-238.

7. Van Scoy, A. R.; Yu Lin, C.; Anderson, B. S.; Philips, B. M.; Martin, M. J.; McCall, J.; Todd, C. R.; Crane, D.; Sowby, M. L.; Viant, M. R., nd R. S. Tjeerdema, Metabolic responses produced by crude versus dispersed oil in Chinook salmon pre-smolts via NMR-based metabolomics. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2010, 73, (5), 710-717.

8. Singer, M. M.; Smalheer, D. L.; Tjeerdema, R. S.; Martin, M., Toxicity of an oil dispersant to the early life stages of four California marine species. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 1990, 9, (11), 1387-1395. 9. Singer, M. M.; Smalheer, D. L.; Tjeerdema, R. S.; Martin, M., Effects of spiked exposure to an oil dispersant on the early life stages of four marine species. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 1991, 10, (10), 1367-1374.

10. Singer, M. M.; Aurand, D.; Bragins, G. E.; Clark, J. R.; Coelho, G. M.; M.L., S.; Tjeerdema, R. S., Standardization of preparation and quantification of water-accommodated fractions of petroleum for toxicity testing. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2000, 40, 1007-1016. 11. OSAT Operational Science Advisory Team. Unified Area Command. Summary report for sub-sea and sub-surface oil and dispersant detection: Sampling and monitoring; December 17, 2010.

12. JAG Review of R/V Brooks McCall Data to Examine Subsurface Oil; National Incident Command Joint Assessment Group, June 20, 2010: 2010; p 58. 13. JAG Review of Preliminary Data to Examine Subsurface Oil In the Vicinity of MC252#1 National Incident Command Joint Assessment Group, July 20, 2010: 2010; p 73.

14. JAG Measurement of Concentration and Size Distribution of Surface and Subsurface Small Particles Using LISST-100X at the Deepwater Horizon Spill Site; National Incident Command Joint Assessment Group, unpublished report 2011; p 85. 15. Benner, J. R. A.; El Said, K. R.; Jester, E. L. E.; Flurer, R. A.; Boyd, B. L.; Gamble, B.; Gratz, S.; Mulligan, K. J.; Heitkemper, D. T.; Burrows, D. G. Investigation of Corexit® 9500 Dispersant in Gulf of Mexico Seafood Species; Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2010; p 22. 16. USEPA Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. EPA-600-R-02-013; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC., 2003; p 175.

17. BenKinney, M.; Brown, J.; Mudge, S.; Russell, M.; Nevin, A.; Huber, C. In Monitoring Effects of Aerial Dispersant Application during the MC252 Deepwater Horizon Incident International Oil Spill Conference, Portland, Oregon, 2011; Portland, Oregon, 2011; p 7. 18. Hemmer, M. J.; Barron, M. G.; Greene, R. M. Comparative Toxicity of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development: 2010; p 11.

19. Judson, R. S.; Martin, M. T.; Reif, D. M.; Houck, K. A.; Knudsen, T. B.; Rotroff, D. M.; Xia, M.; Sakamuru, S.; Huang, R.; Shinn, P.; Austin, C. P.; R.J., K.; Dix, D. J., Analysis of eight oil spill dispersants using rapid, in vitro tests for endocrine and other biological activity. Environmental Science and Technology 2010, 44, 5971-5978.

Application Evaluations Conducted May 17-27, 2010 2010; p 16. 22. Hemmer, M. J.; Barron, M. G.; Greene, R. M. Comparative Toxicity of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil (LSC) and Chemically Dispersed LSC to Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development: 2010; p 13. 23. OSAT Operational Science Advisory Team. Unified Area Command. Summary Report for Sub- Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection: Toxicity Addendum; July 8, 2011; p 35. 24. USEPA Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th Edition, October 2002. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.; 2002. 25. Hamdan, L. J.; Fulmer, P. A., Effects of COREXIT® EC9500A on bacteria from a beach oiled by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 2011, 63, 101-109. 26. SETAC In Meeting Program, Gulf Oil Spill SETAC Focused Topic Meeting, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemisitry, Pensacola, FL, 2011; Pensacola, FL, 2011; p 51. 27. Felder, D. L.; Camp, D. K., Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota: Biodiversity. Texas A&M University Press 2009; Vol. 1. 28. Hamdan, L. J.; Fulmer, P. A., Effects of COREXIT® EC9500A on bacteria from a beach oiled by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 2011, 63, (2), 101-109. 29. Widger, W. R.; Golovko, G.; Martinez, A.; Ballesteros, E.; Howard, J.; Xu, Z.; Pandya, U.; Fofanov, V.; Rojas, M.; Bradburne, C.; Hadfield, T.; Olson, N. A.; Santarpia, J. L.; Fofanov, Y., Longitudinal metagenomic analysis of the water and soil from Gulf of Mexico beaches affected by the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. Nature Precedings 2011. 30. Lindstrom, J. E.; Braddock, J. F., Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons at low temperature in the presence of the dispersant Corexit 9500. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2002, 44, 739 – 747. 31. Hu, C.; Weisberg, R. H.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, L.; Daly, K. L.; English, D. C.; Zhao, J.; Vargo, G. A., Did the northeastern Gulf of Mexico become greener after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Geophysical Research Letters 2011, 38, (9). 32. Rabalais, N. N.; Turner, R. E.; Wiseman, W. J., Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, A.K.A. "the Dead Zone". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2002, 33, (1), 235-263. 33. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Links Between Gulf Hypoxia and the Oil Spill. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=812. 34. Chen, J.; Denison, M. S., The Deepwater Horizon oil spill: environmental fate of the oil and the toxicological effects on marine organisms. The Journal of Young Investigators 2011, 21, (6), 84 - 95. 35. Graham, W. M.; Condon, R. H.; Carmichael, R. H.; D’Ambra, I.; Patterson, H. K.; Linn, L. J.; Hernandez Jr, F. J., Oil carbon entered the coastal planktonic food web during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environmental Research Letters 2010, 5, (4), 045301.

Mascarelli, A., After the oil. Nature 2010, 467, 22 - 24.

Schrope, M., Deep Wounds: Impacts of GoM Oil Spill. Nature 2011, 472, 152 - 154.

Greer, C. D. Toxicity of Chemically Dispersed Crude Oil to Herring Embryos. Queen's

University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 2011. 39. Milinkovitch, T.; Ndiaye, A.; Sanchez, W.; Le Floch, S.; Thomas-Guyon, H., Liver antioxidant and plasma immune responses in juvenile golden grey mullet (Liza aurata) exposed to dispersed crude oil. Aquatic Toxicology 2011, 101, (1), 155-164. 40. Bue, B. G.; Sharr, S.; Seeb, J. E., Evidence of damage to pink salmon populations inhabiting Prince William Sound, Alaska, two generations after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1998, 127, (1), 35-43. page17image33768

41. Carls, M. G.; Rice, S. D.; Hose, J. E., Sensitivity of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: Part I. Low-level exposure during incubation causes malformations, genetic damage, and mortality in larval pacific herring (Clupea pallasi). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1999, 18, (3), 481-493. 42. Camilli, R.; Reddy, C. M.; Yoerger, D. R.; Van Mooy, B. A. S.; Jakuba, M. V.; Kinsey, J. C.; McIntyre, C. P.; Sylva, S. P.; Maloney, J. V., Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon. Science 2010, 330, (6001), 201-204.

43. Diercks, A. R.; Asper, V. L.; Highsmith, R. C.; Woolsey, M.; Lohrenz, S. E.; McLetchie, K.; Gossett, A.; Lowe, M.; Joung, D.; McKay, L., The discovery of deep oil plumes at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill site. In American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, San Francisco, California, USA, 2010.

44. Thibodeaux, L. J.; Valsaraj, K. T.; John, V. T.; Papadopoulos, K. D.; Pratt, L. R.; Pesika, N. S., Marine oil fate: knowledge gaps, basic research, and development needs; a perspective based on the Deepwater Horizon spill. Environmental Engineering Science 2011, 28, (2), 87-93. 45. Haddad, R.; Murawski, S. Analysis of Hydrocarbons in Samples Provided from the Cruise of the R/V WEATHERBIRD II, May 23-26, 2010; Silver Spring, Maryland, 2010; pp 1 - 14.

46. Reddy, C. M.; Arey, J. S.; Seewald, J. S.; Sylva, S. P.; Lemkau, K. L.; Nelson, R. K.; Carmichael, C. A.; McIntyre, C. P.; Fenwick, J.; Ventura, G. T.; Van Mooy, B. A. S.; Camilli, R., Composition and fate of gas and oil released to the water column during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011. 47. Kujawinski, E. B.; Kido Soule, M. C.; Valentine, D. L.; Boysen, A. K.; Longnecker, K.; Redmond, M. C., Fate of dispersants associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1298-1306. 48. Bandara, U. C.; Yapa, P. D.; Xie, H., Fate and transport of oil in sediment laden marine waters. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 2011. 49. Ramseur, J. L. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: The Fate of the Oil; Library of Congress: Washington, DC, 2011. 50. Hazen, T. C.; Dubinsky, E. A.; DeSantis, T. Z.; Andersen, G. L.; Piceno, Y. M.; Singh, N.; Jansson, J. K.; Probst, A.; Borglin, S. E.; Fortney, J. L.; Stringfellow, W. T.; Bill, M.; Conrad, M. E.; Tom, L. M.; Chavarria, K. L.; Alusi, T. R.; Lamendella, R.; Joyner, D. C.; Spier, C.; Baelum, J.; Auer, M.; Zemla, M. L.; Chakraborty, R.; Sonnenthal, E. L.; D'Haeseleer, P.; Holman, H. Y.; Osman, S.; Lu, Z.; Van Nostrand, J. D.; Deng, Y.; Zhou, J.; Mason, O. U., Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil- degrading bacteria. Science 2010, 330, (6001), 204-8. 51. Kessler, J. D.; Valentine, D. L.; Redmond, M. C.; Du, M.; Chan, E. W.; Mendes, S. D.; Quiroz, E. W.; Villanueva, C. J.; Shusta, S. S.; Werra, L. M.; Yvon-Lewis, S. A.; Weber, T. C., A persistent oxygen anomaly reveals the fate of spilled methane in the deep Gulf of Mexico. Science 2011, 331, (6015), 312-5. 52. Valentine, D. L.; Kessler, J. D.; Redmond, M. C.; Mendes, S. D.; Heintz, M. B.; Farwell, C.; Hu, L.; Kinnaman, F. S.; Yvon-Lewis, S.; Du, M.; Chan, E. W.; Garcia Tigreros, F.; Villanueva, C. J., Propane respiration jump-starts microbial response to a deep oil spill. Science 2010, 330, (6001), 208-11. 53. NRC, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003. 54. Scarlett, A.; Galloway, T. S.; Canty, M.; Smith, E. L.; Nilsson, J.; Rowland, S. J., Comparative toxicity of two oil dispersants, superdispersant 25 and corexit 9527, to a range of coastal species. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 2005, 24, (5), 1219-1227. 55. Clark, J. R.; Bragin, G. E.; Febbo, R. J.; Letinski, D. J. In Toxicity of physically and chemically dispersed oils under continuous and environmentally realistic exposure conditions: Applicability to dispersant use decisions in spill response planning, Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida, 2001; American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.: Tampa, Florida, 2001; pp 1249-1255 56. George-Ares, A.; Clark, J., Aquatic toxicity of two Corexit® dispersants. Chemosphere 2000, 40, (8), 897-906. 57. Anderson, B. S.; Arenella-Parkerson, D.; Phillips, B. M.; Tjeerdema, R. S.; Crane, D., Preliminary investigation of the effects of dispersed Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil on developing topsmelt embryos, Atherinops affinis. Environmental Pollution 2009, 157, (3), 1058-1061. 58. Ramachandran, S. D.; Hodson, P. V.; Khan, C. W.; Lee, K., Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2004, 59, (3), 300-308.

Could you trim the amount of this bulky, copyrighted document you have reproduced above? Now, it would be nice to sample a much wider range of PAH hydrocarbons but the figure I saw cited was $20,000 per analysis. Well, the standard analysis for PAH's is EPA Method 8270, which costs about $120 per analysis. So with $20k I can take about 170 samples that cover a particular PAH range, or I can take one sample that covers more analytes. The reason the analysis favors certain compounds is that those are the most common and/or toxic. PAHs are not all the same in their toxicological properties. Naphthalene usually heads that pack. Now, as for the conclusions you cited, that there's a lot we don't know, the work is difficult, and more research needs to be done. I wholeheartedly agree with all three of those points. Where is the money to do that research going to come from? There's really only one government science agency that isn't getting cut these days the NIH, the rest of them are being pulled back dramatically. NASA is about to terminate a successful mission because they can't keep the lights on at JPL. They shut down the government last fall. It's disgusting. But there it is. Politics. There is only so much money to do only so many analyses, and research has to be prioritized. This paper is basically arguing that there isn't enough money to spend on this research...hear, hear. Now what? Geogene (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adriana Bejarano, the environmental consultant who wrote the review with Coelho and Clark, helped write this report. Hopefully we agree that she's a reliable source now. I think this is a good find, and it makes sense to include general conclusions about the potential for harm and poorly-understood consequences rather than cite a hodge-podge of isolated studies. I think this ties in well with the claims that deploying dispersant was an "experiment" in the Gulf and the EPA was " 'woefully unprepared' to make the decision to allow BP's use of Corexit." I'm more comfortable with that than throwing out numbers about how many more times toxic X is than Y that may oversimplify the issue. I think the toxicity section needs a significant overhaul for this to happen. I might have time to propose a change Sunday, but I'll probably be too busy the next couple weeks. Kjhuston (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's not either-or, it's and. We chronicle here. There is science on both sides of this issue, and the editors arent't here to decide which ones are added - if they meet RS requirements and due weight considerations, we add them all. Essentially, we don't know the effects of the chemicals on the gulf - and we can say that with the source above - but we also offer the various studies. People use Wikipedia as a source for further research. If this article becomes too long, "Corexit use during the DWH" could be created. petrarchan47tc 04:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well. Honest question though not meant to be snarky -- is this the general consensus of Wikipedia, or is it your inclusionism? Kjhuston (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is how WP articles are built. When you took the issue of the BP-funded commentary to the noticeboard, we learned that because it is published in a respectable journal, inclusion with attribution is warranted. You are arguing now that you'd like to remove the study in question because you'd be more comfortable not mentioning numbers. This is the general consensus of WP: (no snark) what you personally feel is irrelevant and a waste of editors' time. I am obligated to assume good faith, which means that I assume you are here not with any particular point of view, but because you have a burning desire to improve the Project, and have agreed to edit with a neutral point of view. Inclusion of studies is based on their appearance in RS, and their relative weight. The 52X study is mentioned often when the spill is discussed, and while this may give you problems due to terminology, etc., that is not a problem that WP needs to deal with or even know about - we default to what is written in reliable sources. To argue that RS has it wrong, and should be removed or reworded, is original research (trying to override RS). We've gone to two noticeboards now over this study, and no one has seen any issues that would preclude its placement in the article. Please start making arguments based on our guidelines, and not your personal research or opinion or feelings - that would make it easier for us to assume good faith on your part. After you removed the study from the oil dispersants article based on this commentary, but did not reveal its source, and because you are still trying to find an argument to remove the study, it is looking as if your goal is not necessarily to adhere to the guidelines and help to build an article, but rather that you may have a particular agenda. petrarchan47tc 07:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you believed I'm a shill from day 1 ("I do realize BP's clean water act trial is coming up, and that the date for it was set only this month. I expected activity like this."), but that's fair. I acknowledged I made a mistake initially removing the study from Oil_dispersant. And I immediately responded, "...I agree adding is better than subtracting. Better to have both." That was a week and a half ago. When I first posted on this talk page, I wanted to 1) include criticism and 2) remove the study <bold>from the lead</bold>, not from the article as a whole. I wasn't careful about keeping my aims consistent and clear throughout, and I'm sorry about that. We won't talk about removing the 52X study anymore. I do have an agenda for this article - which is to balance it toward NPOV and improve its readability by putting all the claims of toxicity and non-toxicity into the perspective of uncertainty we're now talking about. Kjhuston (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

P's behavior here and at many other places across WP are illegal. A good guideline essay on it is WP:CONSPIRACY. She is currently WP:CANVASSING an administrator's talk page regarding "two WP:SPA editors" vandalizing the Corexit page [1]. I currently have a thread at the Administrator's NB requesting mediation, this has been completely ignored, except for one remark that it is "mind boggling" that her behavior is being tolerated. I'm seriously considering not contributing to WP, or taking a harder option towards requesting administrative action to address these long-term problems. Just so you know. I'm hoping that we can continue to keep these articles productive while that mess plays out elsewhere and I'm pleased at what has been accomplished here of late. Geogene (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are her words on that Admin's page: What I know from my standpoint is that right now the Corexit article is being attacked by two SPAs who are being treated like dinner party guests, while one of them takes me to an ANI after only a few weeks of experience here. The other thing I know is that there exists no language to address this. There are stricter rules against pointing out obvious malfeasance than there are against it. We are bending over backwards here to accommodate SPAs and their daily list of grievances at the dispersant articles, whilst I have had my wrists slapped for even bringing up the timing of this sudden interest in prettying up Corexit with regard to the announcement of the Clean Water Act trial. A commentary criticizing a damning study done on Corexit was used by one of the SPAs to delete the study from the oil dispersant article. Little did we know this commentary was funded by BP. Wikipedia expects, as the rules are currently written, for independent editors to be able to adequately fight type of activity. I think we are woefully inept as the guidelines actually work against us. 22:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC) So, yes, Petrarchan47 is not actually interested in working with us, in my opinion. This is difficult since we are required to Assume Good Faith. Geogene (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been here very long, but I'm still optimistic we can all work together to improve the article. Kjhuston (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a copy vio Petrar. Trim it and provide a link. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. The link is already added. petrarchan47tc 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The same rules that apply to articles apply to talk pages. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the toxicity section again, and we had

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse claimed the EPA was "woefully unprepared" to make the decision to allow BP's use of Corexit. He noted that EPA's "approved" list of dispersants required only that the manufacturer nominate itself and provide data proving its efficacy. The dispersant manufacturer must provide its own toxicity data, however no threshold exists that would disqualify a dispersant.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just nitpicking. I'm looking through these sources while thinking about how to re-organize them (without removing any) into a more coherent form, and I just noticed this problem.

Senator Whitehouse didn't use the words "woefully unprepared" - the article did. The rest of it is really closely worded to the source, so I tried rewriting it:

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse claimed the EPA was not prepared to responsibly authorize BP's use of Corexit, but did so anyway. He noted that manufacturers could nominate themselves to EPA's list of approved dispersants. Although they had to provide data on both efficacy and toxicity, there was no official toxicity limit to bar approval.

Kjhuston (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

New Wording in Lead

"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic, and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more harmful to plankton.[5][6][7][8]"

Again, this fails to establish that the toxicity directly relates to plankton. An opinion at the RS noticeboard was that we should avoid using Rico-Martinez for interspecific toxicity claims at all, but I think that limiting it to plankton is fine since that was clearly the intent of those authors. However, implying that it applies to anything larger than plankton is misleading and is not supported by opinions at the NB we just took this too. I find it particularly objectionable to include that after we took it to the NB and got outside opinions against using it.

Other long term effects include longer persistence in sediments

Show me that source, please.

"reduced biodegradation"

Show me that source too.

"and photo enhanced toxicity."

This is sourced but I think someone misread that abstract. Are you sure that Corexit caused photochemical reactions in the oil?

Further studies have suggested that Corexit did not break up the oil

Source of that study, please?

"and that its use was unnecessary"

Source of that study, please?

This appears to be unsourced material. Including it all in the lead also introduces POV. Geogene (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly just happy the lead no longer says Georgia Tech found adding dispersant "made the oil spill" worse based on a single toxicity study. A potential source for longer persistence in sediments can be found here[2], but it's ambiguous on the effects (two suggested possibilites):

"(1) the deeper penetration of hydrocarbons may slow their degradation due to the decreased concentration of oxygen in deeper sediment layers and thus extend the time these hydrocarbons stay in the environment"

"(2) in fully oxygenated sands, a deeper penetration may increase the number of microbes involved in the hydrocarbon biodegradation and thus accelerate the decomposition."

so a source that shows likelihood of one possibility over the other is probably needed.

Geogene is right about attributing enhanced phototoxicity to Corexit. The experiment they ran[3] is (light)+(Corexit) vs. (no light)+(Corexit). It's not (light)+(Corexit) vs. (light)+(no Corexit). It might seem like a minor difference, but the text as worded now makes it sound like they performed a different experiment.

A source suggesting that Corexit's use was unnecessary is here[4]. Kjhuston (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And just in case someone notices, yes, both reports say at the bottom: "This research was made possible in part by grants from BP/The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative".

However, on the FAQ page:[5]

"To ensure scientific integrity, GoMRI uses National Science Board peer evaluation protocols to select funded research. Independent reviews are performed by scientific peers, not affiliated with institutions who propose projects or with BP to avoid conflicts of interest in the selection of funded research. All peer reviewers sign conflict of interest and non-disclosure agreements. BP has no role in the peer review process or selection of awards." Kjhuston (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I accept those sources. I would imagine that BP would much rather that money go somewhere other than science, but I can't speak for them. It still concerns me that we are using individual papers that apply to specific environmental conditions to make global claims, for example, a paper showing Corexit helps PAHs sink deeper into beach sand means that Corexit "slows biodegradation". I also think it's weird that reading the Lead makes one wonder why anyone would use dispersants, ever, because they are Bad. But I do note that there are some more scientific sources in the new wording, and I approve of that. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Struck sentence about wondering why dispersants used, noticed opening. Geogene (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Plankton (Rico-Martinez)

My mentioning that RM applies to plankton got reverted by Petrarchan47, the reason given was "stick to secondary source wording, not primary source wording, we've been over this".

• I see nothing that would indicate that RM was not about (or intended to be about) the toxicity of Corexit as specifically applies to small or planktonic organisms
• I see no reason we have to stick with a secondary source wording on it
• I'm not sure that the press release from the school you're using is a secondary source itself
• I have secondary sources that indicate it specifically is applied to plankton anyway
• "52 times more toxic" has an implicit meaning different from "52 times more toxic to plankton"
• I believe that failure to mention the plankton is actively misleading.
• I see no legitimate reason to oppose mentioning plankton
• I'm not sure what to do now after two different noticeboards.
• I think that most of WP would probably agree with me on this.
• Up to now everyone except Petrarchan47 seems to have seen it as applying to plankton.
• Petrarchan47 has been beating this horse since February.
• I don't understand why anyone would still be arguing this.

Geogene (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How about attributing the 52 times toxicity to plankton and add/clarify why rotifers (plankton) have been used as test subjects? A source for this "marine-lab-rat" fact is already in use: "Rotifers have long been used by ecotoxicologists to assess toxicity in marine waters because of their fast response time, ease of use in tests and sensitivity to toxicants."TMCk (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Would that look something like: "One study done on rotifers has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic to plankton. Ecotoxicologists have long used rotifers because they're sensitive to toxins and easy to culture in the laboratory?" As long it's clear that the study was intended to measure toxicity to plankton, I'll probably be content with the rest of that part. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This source [6] used in the article seems to imply that the intent of the study was to gauge (Corexit + Oil) on the base of the Gulf food web. I suspect that the plankton bit gets de-emphasized in media headlines for marketing reasons, but it actually gets into why this matters a lot. Geogene (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I also noted that on the existing thread in the RS Noticeboard, since this seems to be a use-of-sources issue. Geogene (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The study was intended to test for toxicity of the corexit/oil solution. The "52 times" result is limited to rotifers, toxicity increase in general is not. What is unknown is how much higher the toxic level for other (marine) life is, be it through the food chain or direct contact. The only "mistake" by some media is generalizing the "52 times". That said, something like your write-up is what I had in mind. Let's see what others think, including Petra.TMCk (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree we should wait for further input before changing the article. Incidentally, another option, a generalized statement that Oil + Corexit is more toxic than Oil alone, something along the lines of "Some studies have found that oil and Corexit may be more toxic than oil alone" would also be acceptable, if it doesn't have the specific "52 times" part that applies specifically to the rotifers/plankton experiment. I think the larger point is that the EPA's toxicity tests might be simplistic/the real world is more complicated than an aquarium. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 has reverted my edit. She apparently believes that mentioning plankton is "too technical", and "too detailed" to include in the lead ("52 times" however is still there). She also persists in claiming that we must use "secondary wording" which is rubbish--we are supposed to write all WP content in our own words. Shall I re-revert? Geogene (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Restored "plankton" to lead. I would like for the user to abide by WP:QUOTEFARM but I don't see any objection in content added to the body. Geogene (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We defer to secondary sources. Geogene has been trying to change the wording that is mimicked in countless RS in a way that makes this less understandable to the reader, and less clear. Perhaps is it because she is a scientist, but as a layperson, I can assure most won't know what "rotifers" are, or what that means to the larger picture. Luckily many sources have covered it, and use clear language that I have added to the Lede. I moved Geogene's more detailed information about the test subjects into the body where it belongs. I would suggest that if there are further issues with how reliable secondary sources have covered this study, it should be taken up with those media outlets and once they have offered a revision or retraction, then Wikipedia should do the same. But per WP:RS, it doesn't happen the other way around. If an editor has two months' worth of obsessing about changing a well-sourced bit of information, the problem does not lie with the information but with the editor. petrarchan47tc 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a refresher: Geogene's first edit was to tag this whole article "fringe". Shortly after, this change was made to the Lede. (That this is now termed "Petrarchan beating the horse" shows all statements made should be double-checked). We usually don't have an issue here at WP when we have such good sourcing, and so many instances, with repeating what is said, which is overwhelmingly that this study found the oil spill was made worse - to leave it at "worse for rotifers" leaves out the conclusions given in secondary sources. Why is this such a big (3 month) problem for editors now?? petrarchan47tc 23:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As Petrarchan was told on the RS Noticeboard, "we do not assassinate our brains" when interpreting sources. Critical thinking is required. As Petrarchan was told on the Fringe NB in February, 'clearly the article is referring to microbes'. Why does Petrarchan insist on saying it's "52 times more toxic" but not "it's 52 times more toxic to plankton"? What purpose does her insistence serve? I don't see this being against the rules, but even if it were, WP:IAR would apply in this case. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Petra's wording is "...up to 52 times more toxic" which is technically correct. Unfortunately we don't have data (studies) for a scale from "??? to 52 times more toxic", at least at present time.TMCk (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And I would very much like to see Petrarchan take her conspiracy theories to the COI Noticeboard. For some odd reason she refuses to do that. I wonder why? Geogene (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

While it's definitely a first in my experience for Wikipedia to second-guess or circumvent RS, I would favor removing the "52 times" from the Lede to end the edit warring. However any statement made generalizing findings on both sides of the "help or hurt" issue needs to accurately reflect the findings. Currently our coverage indicates the science is equally balanced - it is not. There is a mountain of evidence showing that the addition of Corexit made the spill worse, whilst the EPA has so far been, besides BP, the sole proponent for its use, to my knowledge. Our coverage is misleading. petrarchan47tc 18:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of studies (hardly a "mountain of evidence") that show that dispersants might make spills worse. That's fine to include them, because there's a lot of uncertainty in this work, but I don't think you can use this article as a bully pulpit to show that the EPA is wrong. I don't think that'll fly. Geogene (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the thread of this long and rather technical discussion. There is a widely reported study indicating that Corexit makes spilled oil more toxic. We include that, sourced to reliable secondary sources. It's been reported all over the place. What else is needed? Are there reliable secondary sources questioning that, and not included in the article? I saw this[7] cited as a secondary source, but it really is not. It's the "featured research" column of a scientific publication and it requires interpretation and original research to make it comprehensible. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The review article itself is the secondary source, and it's located here if you missed it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2501 It's pretty straightforward.

80% of studies that didn't report measured concentrations found Corexit 9527 made oil more toxic.

Only 11% of studies that did report measured concentrations found Corexit 9527 made oil more toxic.

93% of studies that didn't report measured concentrations found Corexit 9500 made oil more toxic.

Only 22% of studies that did report measured concentrations found Corexit 9500 made oil more toxic.

The relevant excerpts from the review article are:

"The present review of the toxicity of oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500 (CEWAF), and oil physically or mechanically dispersed (water accommodated fraction [WAF]), reveals large discrepancies between studies reporting measured versus nominal aqueous exposure concentrations (329 WAF-CEWAF paired-data for individual species from 36 independent studies..."

"In studies using the dispersant Corexit 9527 and reporting measured concentrations ... 89% of paired WAF-CEWAF data had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 80% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.1 and >1000 fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values."

"A similar pattern was observed for oil chemically dispersed with Corexit 9500, for which a larger number of records were available. Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values."

And to answer a possible objection, looking earlier in the paper to see what two acronyms mean is not original research. I'm pretty sure nobody wants to go back to a noticeboard for this review article. Kjhuston (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that Wikipedia editors would have to interpret a very technical study, which this is, and that's just not our job. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to overuse primary sources. I haven't seen anything that says we can't use technical sources, which is a different matter. Geogene (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but in this case the writing is so technical that it requires editor interpretation. That's the problem that I have with it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I verified the content. Wikipedia has plenty of editors who can verify it, so I see no reason to shy away from it. This review was deemed "fine" when we went to the noticeboard. Kjhuston (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh no, if an article is so technical and jargony that it requires interpretation, we don't rely on editors to interpret it. I see one editor on RS/N saying "fine." Not exactly a ringing endorsement by a noticeboard. Has this been shopped to other boards as well? Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Formerly98 is the only person to weigh on at the RSN and at the previous one where Geogne brought similar concerns. petrarchan47tc 21:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, looks like one other person weighed in at the first RSN, TFD. Geogene was using the tried and true "MEDRS" complaint, to which TFD responded (I'm copying here because it's important to note) "MEDRS is a guideline not a policy and it is intended to ensure that information about health is properly sourced. But I do not think that the guideline is broad enough to cover this article. We are allowed to say for example that people were injured in an earthquake without waiting for a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies of the health impact, which would never come. Of course even the most reliable sources may contain errors which should not be included. Unless there are sources that say human health problems stopped at some point, then there is no reason to exclude that information. - TFD" petrarchan47tc 21:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just RS. What is too technical here? The acronyms are defined. There are a lot of parenthetical phrases, but "greater toxicity" and "lower or equal toxicity" are not technical jargon. This is not a jargony phrase: "oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500". Nor is this: "oil physically or mechanically dispersed". I can imagine a reasonable objection that they don't explicitly say the "oil physically or mechanically dispersed" doesn't contain Corexit. Granted, that's extremely obvious given the context, and I can probably find a direct quote from the article if the issue is pushed. Otherwise, I don't know what kind of interpretation you're talking about, other than combining words into meaning, which everyone is capable of. In the guidelines, I see "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." Is there an alternative interpretation you're worried is not being represented?

I have prelims coming up in two weeks, so I don't have time for a noticeboard now. I just wanted to chime in on the issue. Kjhuston (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"80% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.1 and >1000 fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values." That is as understandable as a block of granite. Thanks, but I'll wait for a secondary source to make sense of that. You interpret it one way, but another editor may interpret it another. I'd rather we not interpret at all. Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have more faith in the average editor's reading comprehension. But I don't have patience for this talk page's partisan dynamic, and my ability to WP:AGF has run out here, so I'm gonna stop editing this article. I think the best change someone can make is reorganizing the mess of a toxicity section into: 1) environmental impact 2) health hazards. I was working on such a reorganization, but I don't think it's worth my time anymore. At least the blatant errors seem to be gone now. Good luck. Kjhuston (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just ran across another scientist quoting the study without reservation "Cake cited a study which showed that the dispersants BP used made the oil 52 times more toxic than the oil itself" - from a Dahr Jamail report. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that truth-out.org is considered a reliable source is a big part of the problem that these DWH articles have. Surely this had enough news coverage that we don't need to go to the fringes to get information. Geogene (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Corexit banned

Just some references. If not helpful, no need to comment. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 00:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Corexit did not pass tests in the UK and was banned from being used to tackle oil spills in 1998.source

• The UK’s Marine Management Organization has banned Corexit so if there was a spill in the UK’s North Sea, BP is banned from using Corexit. In fact Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago. The Environmental Advisory Service for Oil and Chemical Spills at IVL, Swedish Environmental Institute, has, upon request of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency evaluated Corexit extensively and recommended it not be used in Swedish waters.

The Swedish study concludes: “The studies suggest that a mixture of oil and dispersant give rise to a more toxic effect on aquatic organisms than oil and dispersants do alone…source

• Yesterday the Petrotrin officials were grilled about the chemical, which has been banned in the United Kingdom and Canada. Concerns have been raised about it causing cancer and killing marine life after it was used in the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster of 2010.source

• It hasn't specifically been banned in the US. It has been banned in places in Europe and it has been banned in the UK. Timor Sea
• The chemicals that had been sprayed was said to be one of the world`s most dangerous chemicals, Tanoni added, and actually had already been banned.Timor

• Currently, COREXIT is banned in the United Kingdom because of its potential risk to cleanup workers.Science Daily 2013

• BP admitted to using at least 1.9 million gallons of widely banned toxic Corexit dispersants (which have been banned in 19 countries) to sink the oil. The dispersants contain chemicals that many scientists and toxicologists have warned are dangerous to humans, marine life, and wildlife. Jamail

• Corexit is banned in all of Europe because of its toxicity. Boston.com

• Corexit is made by the American company Nalco, and is famously banned in the UK and Europe on the grounds of its lethal toxicity. In April, shortly after the Deep Horizon blowout, Lisa Jackson of the EPA ruled that Corexit should only be used in “extremely rare” casesCounterpunch

• Never mind that the UK banned the dispersant’s use and the EPA said Corexit is more toxic and less effective than available alternatives.source

• [Corexit] was banned in Britain an entire decade ago for being too toxic as well as only dubiously effective.

source