Talk:Corexit/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

My OR interpretation and what I'd like the article to reflect

As stated in the heading, this is just my personal reading of existing sources and common sense applied to the article using RSs but also about sources that might be out there (or not?) that show some benefits of such chemicals, like being the lesser evil in some circumstances. Are they out there? I don't know although they should.

• Corexit is, just like most chemical oil-brake-uppers proven to be toxic to marine life and other, yet in some cases can prevent far worse impacts at some shores. Regarding the BP spill it seems likely and in part is proven that it was sprayed in unprecedented quantities most likely to hide the oil from sight and was wasted as useless in case of the oil gushing well head since the pressure and thus turbulence already broke up the oil in small droplets thus Corexit's potential benefit was deemed useless at this point. There is of course a change that spraying Corexit helped in part that some of the oil didn't reach the shores where it might have done more long term damage than in deep waters. We just don't know this as of now and have to wait for further independent studies that confirm such thoughts. Basepoint is, it's sure toxic, more than oil alone and that can be verified by studies and secondary sources. The rare but then important benefits of such chemicals, being it Corexit or other should be covered too in this article, although I admit there are no sources of confirmation brought up so far. Again, that doesn't mean they're not out the [Some European countries pretty much banned such chemicals and allow its use only as a last resort].
  Based on the above, I'd think finding more independent sources that lay ou pro and contra would be a great help in making the article more comprehensive, neutral (not that I think it has a lot of POV at current state) and better understandable for average readers so to make up their own mind based on the information we collect and give. Of course and again, this is a general view of the state of the article only but might help "pushing" it in the right direction where there might be a compromise at the end of the tunnel.

Hope that helps and if not, bits are cheap.TMCk (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Add on: I'm also surprised that the mainstream media hasn't brought up much comparison to the Exxon Valdez oil spill where large amounts of Corexit were used. Did I miss some sources? Also to my knowledge there where some studies that would apply to this incident too IMO.TMCk (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been studying the corexit situation as a layperson (aka, WP editor) for 4 years, and have much to add to the above. For now, however, my two cents is that we don't seek an artificial neutrality where none exists. If, as some in DC have suggested, the use of corexit in the gulf was akin to Agent Orange, then this article will simply not be pretty. Right now, we have not sought to summarize that which hasn't already been summarized in RS, namely, the overall outcome. It was an experiment, and that was admitted by the EPA. Now, we record the results as they roll in. The article has a rundown of studies to date and allows the reader to investigate further, and to draw their own conclusions. I would add that I have been the most active contributor to this article only by default, as it hasn't attracted much attention until just last month (for a reason we may never know). It could use the loving care of editors looking to help tidy and organize. I have not given it the time it deserves in this regard and could use some help once editing is again allowed. I do not look forward to having every damning study or comment regarding corexit to be challenged, but as we have almost a year before the Clean Water Act trial begins, I am going to wager that this and related articles will continue to receive some specific attention. With this in mind, I would ask NPOV editors to keep an eye out. One would hope this information isn't viewed as some conspiracy theory, but rational thinking. When you've got Billions of dollars on the line, it's likely you'll have an interest in controlling information that would affect the outcome of the trial, one of the largest of its type in history. petrarchan47tc 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

COI and money reasons aside for now, not that at least the latter might be a concern, I'd like to focus on one issue you've pointed out above:
"It was an experiment, and that was admitted by the EPA."
I think I remember a source saying so and w/o looking at the article as it stands right now, Could you please provide that source here and elaborate + if not in the article yet, propose an edit based on that source? IMO EPA is not exactly the most trustable source in this issue as they screwed up big time at the time thus such source could be quite important when it comes to EPA.TMCk (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources I added below are a start to answering some of these questions. I do think we have proof that the EPA allowed untested, off-label (it is only meant for surface use in small oil spills) use of a chemical they knew for decades was toxic. The story of the EPA's role in this could be better told in our article. As for finding sources that would allow for a more 'neutral' presentation, ie, showing that there are some benefits, I am looking, and have asked researcher-friends. For now, from what I have seen, it was quite a disastrous choice. EPA's Lisa Jackson called it 'choosing between two evils' and said she choose to 'save' the marshlands in lieu of poisoning the sea. I would call it a disastrous choice because the marshlands are in horrible shape, and now we have dispersed oil imbedded in the sand as far as Southern Florida. What our article doesn't say is that undiluted oil can be recovered - Corexit-oil cannot be removed from the environment. The insect population on the barrier islands is dwindling because of the toxic fumes. But I imagine there must be something positive we can say about it, just looking for a source. petrarchan47tc 22:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This, however, isn't encouraging. We may never know. petrarchan47tc 22:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I said I was done with the article, but since you asked, the necessary references are already in the article. The ref numbers here are probably no longer accurate. I'm just dumping this here in case it is of some use:

Corexit helps disperse oil droplets from the surface and into the water column, thus distributing toxic oil in three dimensions rather than two.[69][70] The use of dispersant following Deepwater Horizon was unprecedented. Subsea injection of dispersant, developed by Exxon, had never been performed previously on an oil spill. The EPA has asserted that use of dispersant is a net ecological benefit over allowing oil to surface and land ashore.[10]

However, many have called it an experiment in the Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said the EPA was not prepared to responsibly authorize BP's use of Corexit, but did so anyway.[41] The EPA had not tested toxicity of approved dispersants - they left toxicity studies to dispersant manufacturers. Nor did the EPA have an official toxicity limit to bar approval.[41] During the spill, the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil was unknown, as was the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant.[40]

Public concern about Corexit's toxicity was high. During a Senate hearing on the use of dispersants, Senator Lisa Murkowski asked EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson whether Corexit use should be banned, stating she didn't want dispersants to be "the Agent Orange of this oil spill".[49][50][51] Prior to the 2010 Gulf spill, the majority of studies performed on Corexit tested for effectiveness in dispersing oil, rather than for toxicity.[37] The manufacturer's safety data sheet states "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product," and later concludes "The potential human hazard is: Low."[38] Compared with 12 other dispersants listed by the EPA, Corexit 9500 and 9527 are either similarly toxic or 10 to 20 times more toxic.[18] In a preliminary EPA study of eight different dispersants, Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water.[40] None of the eight dispersants tested were "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator.

The influence of Corexit on microbiological communities is a topic of ongoing research. [45] USF scientists found that the untested undersea application of the dispersant created abundant oil plumes in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.[66][67] In 2013, it was reported that everywhere along the track that a plume had drifted, a massive die-off of benthic foraminifera was left in its wake.[68] A 2012 study showed that Corexit-dispersed oil is highly toxic to early life stages of coral.[57] From the paper, "Even at a low concentration (0.86 ppm) of oil-dispersant mixture diluted over 96 hours, most of the mountainous star coral did not survive".[58] Alabama researchers found that the dispersant killed plankton in a simulated ecosystem, and thus may have disrupted the Gulf of Mexico's food web, noting it was "like the middle part of the food chain has been taken away".[52]

Studies from Florida showed toxic effects of the oil and Corexit mixture on phytoplankton as well as on larger species, including conch, oysters and shrimp.[62][63]

A point of contention has been whether Corexit and oil combined is more toxic than the sum of its parts. In late 2012, a study from Georgia Tech and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes in Environmental Pollution journal reported that Corexit used during the BP oil spill had increased the toxicity of the oil by 52 times.[53][8][54][55] The leader of the study, Roberto Rico-Martinez (UAA), said “Dispersants are pre-approved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters....but we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion”.[8] Others have said that Corexit and oil are probably not more toxic in combination. Environmental consultants Adriana Bejarano, James Clark, and Dana Coelho, whose employers have served government agencies and oil industry including EPA and BP, published a survey of toxicity studies on Corexit and oil. Of the studies they examined which reported nominal (not measured) concentrations of oil and Corexit 9500, 92% found Corexit increased the toxicity of oil. Whereas of studies which reported measured concentrations, only 22% found Corexit increased the toxicity of oil.

Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said that oil mixed with Corexit is "more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface" because the dispersant allows the oil to stay submerged below the surface of the water.[42]

In 2010, Nalco material safety data sheets said that Corexit 9527 had low potential for bioaccumulation and that Corexit 9500 may bioaccumulate. The material safety data sheets have since been modified to read,

"Based on a review of the individual components, utilizing U.S. EPA models, this material is not expected to bioaccumulate."

Because Corexit causes oil to form into small droplets in the water, fish are more exposed to oil; these fish may be harmed when they eat oil droplets.[43] Predators who eat smaller fish with oil in their systems may end up with even higher levels of oil in their flesh.[43]

A study released by Florida State University and Utrecht University, Netherlands in November 2012, found Corexit made oil sink faster and more deeply into the beaches, and possibly groundwater supplies.[56] The researchers found that Corexit 9500A allowed the toxic components of crude oil (PAHs) to permeate sand where, due to a lack of sunlight, degradation is slowed. The authors explained, "The causes of the reduced PAH retention after dispersant application has several reasons: 1) the dispersant transforms the oil containing the PAHs into small micelles that can penetrate through the interstitial space of the sand. 2) the coating of the oil particles produced by the dispersant reduces the sorption to the sand grains, 3) saline conditions enhance the adsorption of dispersant to sand surfaces, thereby reducing the sorption of oil to the grains".[55]

Surfrider Foundation released preliminary results of their study "State of the Beach"[61] in which they found that Corexit appears to make it tougher for microbes to digest the oil. Organic pollutants (PAH's) stay above carcinogenic levels by NIH and OSHA standards due to Corexit inhibiting the microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in crude oil.

In 2012, researchers for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources found evidence of petroleum compounds and Corexit components in the eggs of nesting pelicans that had migrated to the Gulf of Mexico and back to Minnesota. Because Corexit is an endocrine disruptor, researchers said the chemicals can disrupt hormone balance and affect embryo development.[63][64]

Health Hazards

The EPA considers Corexit 9527 to be an acute health hazard. According to a NALCO manual obtained by GAP, Corexit 9527 is an “eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure ... may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.” The manual adds: “Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.” It advises, “Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing,” and “Wear suitable protective clothing.” For Corexit 9500 the manual advised, “Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing,” “Avoid breathing vapor,” and “Wear suitable protective clothing.” Both Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 may also cause internal bleeding. [43] During the Gulf oil spill cleanup, workers received neither the protective gear nor the NALCO manual, according to FOIA requests obtained by GAP.[28][46][47][48] According to BP data, 20 percent of offshore workers had levels of 2-butoxyethanol (a component of Corexit 9527) two times higher than the level certified as safe by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.[28]

Researchers with Surfrider Foundation used 'newly developed' UV light equipment to detect PAH's in sand and on human skin. Corexit, they said, accelerates absorption of these chemicals into the skin, where they cannot be wiped off. The mixture of Corexit and crude absorbs into wet skin faster than dry.[62][65] Chemist Wilma Subra expressed her concern about the danger of the Corexit-crude mixture, telling GAP investigators, “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory....long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.”[28] A study of 247 BP oil spill clean-up workers, released in September 2013 by the American Journal of Medicine, showed the workers were at an increased risk of developing cancer, leukemia and other illnesses. The study concluded that "clean-up workers exposed to the oil spill and dispersant experienced significantly altered blood profiles, liver enzymes, and somatic symptoms.[69][70]

Kjhuston (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Umh. Kjhuston, if I want to read the article in it's current state I can do so w/o having it pasted on the talk page. Guess I'm sure you meant good but there's no need for that. If you have anything to say from your own side please do so and I'll try to respond within a reasonable time. Right now I've to start getting dinner ready so any resply might be later or far later. Guess you understand ;) TMCk (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the article in its current state. Also not representing a "side". First few paragraphs may be useful for the edit you recommended. Kjhuston (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Some initial research for improving the article: petrarchan47tc 00:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• This article slams the EPA testing procedures.

• Jackson noted that BP's use of Corexit below the surface of the Gulf was unprecedented, as is its use of massive quantities of dispersants, and she remarked that the environmental impacts of these practices remain an open question:

We don't have the science that talks about what happens when you use dispersants in the deep sea. We don't have the science that talks about when you use, you know, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersants on a single response. And so we're having to make those decisions, and sometimes the best answer we can get is, we will do the testing.*

• The EPA, while recognizing that long-term effects on the environment are unknown, has said that the federal government will regularly analyze the effect of dispersants, and that it will discontinue the application of dispersants underwater "if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits." In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K. <--(The UK ban was removed from the article by Geogene)

• Sen Ed Markey (Mass): science experiment is being conducted without having any idea what the impact on marine life long term will be," said Markey

• "Marylee Orr, executive director of Louisiana Environmental Action Network, said, “I went to the Incident Command Center, and it was NOAA and BP and the Coast Guard and EPA. And, I assure you, I very soon got the sense that the people who were in charge were BP, not EPA, not NOAA, not any other agency from the United States.”" The mess the oil made video report

• Some have criticized test runs of deep-sea dispersant use at the Deepwater Horizon site by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the grounds that research so far has focused on the impact of dispersants in the upper parts of the ocean....The EPA admits that the impact of underwater use on the environment is "still widely unknown". However, after the initial test runs, the go-ahead was given this week for further underwater applications. Nature

• DC voices: "At a White House press briefing last week, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the commander of the Gulf effort, and Carol Browner, a White House aide on energy and climate change, dismissed qualms about Corexit. "We know there is some toxicity with dispersants, but it is far less than the toxicity of the oil," Allen said. Browner compared Corexit to dishwasher detergent: "If you have a oily pan and wash it, you squirt some Dawn in, right?... So in your kitchen sink, you have the oil starting to break up and you're seeing that biodegrading process right in front of you. That's what happens." Mother Jones

• White House: On June 17, a reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs if the administration is "comfortable with the amount of dispersant that is being released into the Gulf" and "with the substance itself," noting that "a lot of marine biologists that we've talked to say that this is a very toxic chemical, that this could actually be more harmful to wildlife in the Gulf than the oil itself." Gibbs referred to the EPA directive to reduce dispersants by 75 percent—without noting whether BP was abiding by that limit—and said, "I think far and away the most harmful substance that is being emitted into the environment in the Gulf is the oil." The reporter followed up: "Do you think at the current quantity it's safe to release that dispersant into the water?" Gibbs replied, yes. According to Jackson, the real answer is, we don't truly know. *

• "Since dispersants simply shuttle oil from one ecosystem to another, using dispersants imposes what Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator at the time of the spill, called a “tradeoff.” According to Jackson, the quality of tradeoffs in this particular spill put EPA “in a position with no perfect solution.” During her congressional testimony Jackson recalled with anguish sitting in a meeting with fishermen and having to explain that her decision to use dispersants represented the better “of two very evil situations:” forced to choose between poisoning fish’s wetland nurseries or poisoning their open-ocean habitat, she chose to save the wetlands. Even thirty years after dispersants first became integral to oil spill cleanup, scientists still don’t fully understand how dispersed oil affects plankton or larvae. Unfortunately, Jackson was operating under a serious information deficit. Even thirty years after dispersants first became integral to oil spill cleanup, scientists still don’t fully understand how dispersed oil affects plankton or larvae. Most alarmingly, dispersants’ long-term impacts on marine ecosystems remain completely unknown. Not knowing the precise nature of those impacts made it almost impossible for EPA to make a well-informed decision. As Jackson said, “It would be my wish that no one ever has to make the same risk-management decision with the same level of science.” Using dispersants is illegal in the marine industry: if I used even a bottle of dish soap to disperse a thin film of gasoline, the Coast Guard could revoke my captain’s license. But somehow the same Coast Guard authorized the use of 1.8 million gallons of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon spill. *

• Not enough is known about how the Corexit products will affect marine life, says Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for marine programs with Defenders of Wildlife, an advocacy organization in Washington. Not only is the size of the spill unique, but the Gulf environment presents conditions that EPA testing would not necessarily replicate in a lab. “You now have a giant chemistry experiment being done in the Gulf of Mexico,” Mr. Charter says.

• Kolian said he was contacted by a NOAA contractor, who asked divers “to collect samples and submit a research proposal” for studying water quality, and another proposal for evaluating marine life on offshore platforms. After his first two dives, “I asked [NOAA] staff specifically if the Corexit was toxic, and they said ‘Corexit only has a 90-minute half-life,’ ” Kolian said in the affidavit. “This was reassuring to hear,” he said. “As long as we were not seeing any planes flying around we thought we would be ok.” Government officials “endorsed a policy to deny the toxicity of Corexit,” he continued, and they “purposely misled people: NOAA, EPA and FDA knew that Corexit and oil was a very toxic combination....So far he is not filing suit against the government, even though GAP discovered, through the FOIA process, that EPA and NOAA knew it was dangerous to dive in Corexit-laced water but said nothing, Kolian said.”*

• Rob Kendall, director of Texas Tech’s Institute of Environmental & Human Health, says:

This is a catastrophe of enormous proportions. To me, this is the biggest environmental toxicology experiment we’ve ever conducted.

• Kim Withers, a coastal ecologist at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi:

It's like the biggest science experiment ever. Unfortunately, it's a completely uncontrolled experiment.

• As they struggle to plug a leak from a ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and federal officials are also engaging in one of the largest and most aggressive experiments with chemical dispersants in the history of the country, and perhaps the world. NYT

• “We don’t know what the broad ecosystem effects will be,” says David Andrews, a chemist at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. “That’s still a big unknown, and we’ve made the Gulf of Mexico a giant science experiment.” source lists Corexit ingredients EPA lists them here

• EPA, for its part, did not show the best understanding of toxicological data in making its recommendations, urging BP to use dispersants with less than a certain cutoff of toxicity (pdf). Of course, in toxicology the lower the concentration the more toxic a given substance is. "They completely got that wrong," Mitchelmore says. SciAm

We're discouraged from WP:SOAPBOXING on Talk pages. And just because someone in Congress compared it to Agent Orange doesn't make it so. Being elected to Congress pretty much eliminates any claim to scientific credibility as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see studies than quoted opinions. Geogene (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're perhaps seeing this from the viewpoint of a scientist. But this article is only partially about science, it's also about the story behind Corexit, and the story of its use in the gulf, in which the politicians played a big role. Many readers would want this information as well as the science, I imagine. petrarchan47tc 02:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's helpful to have potential sources listed. That's not soapboxing, it's directly related to improving the article. We can't just rely on scientific sources, especially when they they require interpretation by Wiki editors. I'm surprised to hear about that ProPublica article being removed. Was there a problem with it? Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes--it's wrong, on account of being four years out of date. Corexit is not "banned" in the UK, as of last December, when it was re-added to the MMO Approved Dispersants list. Therefore the article shouldn't claim otherwise. Petra would still like us to claim otherwise, for some inexplicable reason. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Add link to MMO approved dispersant page: [1]. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But that list shows only 9500A being approved. What about the other one,EC9527A, which was also used in the Gulf? Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how were you aware of this? Perhaps there is some secondary source that discusses the subject in greater detail. We don't want to publish something that is, apparently, half incorrect, or do so blindly without context. Yet this is a primary source, and it's always preferable to utilize a secondary source. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I Googled "Corexit approved dispersants UK", or something like that. It probably took all of five minutes. Yes, it's a primary source so I didn't include it in the article. But it was misleading to say that Corexit was banned in the UK, so I took it out on that occasion that Petrarchan mentioned. Later, that got re-added, so the article should now still say that it's banned in the UK, because I'm just too lazy to take it out a second time. Besides, I had a dialog with Cjhuston on it above and he thought it's probably best to wait and see if more information comes out. Somewhere I see (from checking the page history) that you mentioned there are different kinds and only one is approved. That would be 9500. The other kind, 9527, is still not allowed. Both kinds were used in the Gulf. So you could also say that one type of Corexit used in the Gulf is still "banned" in the UK, in the sense that it is not on the UK approved products list. But the article has never made that distinction between 9500 and 9527, so the statement that I removed ("Corexit banned in the UK") was still false, or at least highly misleading. That's my side of the story on why I removed it, I'm only telling it because you asked why I removed it, following Petra's accusatory remark. I don't care if it remains in the article or not. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Edit comment: I would like to have more information about the UK regulatory process towards Corexit. I haven't been able to find that information, but I'm sure it would be interesting, with the stuff disappearing and then reappearing on their list. Geogene (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What's in that primary source is important. I'm trying to figure out a way of getting it reflected in the article. Use of primary sources is discouraged but not prohibited. I don't see offhand why it can't be used. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, I would rather if editors focussed on fixing as opposed to removing information. That 9500 'was' until last year banned in the UK is encyclopedic (historical) information. It makes no sense to remove it altogether because it has become 'misleading' by virtue of 'one' of the formulations having since been re-approved. There was no need for a distinction at the time since both formulations were banned. It seems misleading to argue that your change was more in keeping with the facts and an overall improvement to the project. petrarchan47tc 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You could also say it was banned in the UK at the time of the DWH oil spill, but that would be a little odd because this article isn't directly about the DWH spill. As for encyclopedic information, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure that it's notable that 9500 wasn't allowed in the UK in 2010 but is allowed now. I don't see a greater meaning in that information because we don't know why its status changed. It might be because of some revision the regulations there that has nothing to do with Corexit itself. Geogene (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You can argue this many ways, but what matters to the article is whether RS considered it noteworthy. I don't know whether you were studying the spill at the time, but RS mentioned this fact over and over. It's a part of the BP spill story and a part of the overall Corexit history. Please restore the useable material, thanks. petrarchan47tc 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The manufacturer's website[2] seems to be saying that Corexit was never banned in the UK. That differs from ProPublica. This points up why an independent secondary source would be nice in terms of clearing this all up. We have to be reluctant to interpret, on our own, what primary sources (or the manufacturer) say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, you're not going to find a secondary source, because ProPublica is not going to print an article that says "Corexit Now Approved in the UK". It's not news like "Banned Dispersant in Gulf" is news. The question here is whether this article should continue to say things that are known to be untrue because of a lack of sources. I'm not going to push this either way, but it's an interesting situation. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Argh... That's not what I had in mind...

...when I started that section. I thought it could be a start for working together by laying out what I consider undisputable facts and yet, the long term WP-usual "I'm right-you're wrong" is still prevailing. Everybody here is right up to a certain point. The goal is to make the article as good as it can be made, even GA material at the high point. But that won't happen if two sides are locked into their personal believes. I'm done with this for now and will keep watching until some common ground is found or even thought about... Cheers, TMCk (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. Things are usually not just black and white but if they are like in this subject, both shades need to be covered in proportion.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the most productive discussion we've had on this page in quite some time. Just throwing that out there. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll second that. I thought TMCk's posting was good, and also that things aren't really all that bad in terms of this discussion. I've seen worse. Plenty worse. Psychotic worse. Don't get me started..... not talking about anything BP related Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible you've been misunderstood. What I am hearing you ask for is more evidence on the 'other side' so we can list pro's as well as con's. I have made an effort to find sources but haven't received any yet, however what I'm told is that there does exist science on both sides, but that they do come down on the 'hurt, overall' rather than that corexit helped. So if this is true, then we will have to figure out how to tell that to the reader, or at least lay out the science in a way that will show the true story without our summarizing it. I may have misunderstood your EPA question as well, but my two cents is that I don't think we can make a determination about their reliability. I would rather we tell the story of their role in the spill and Corexit use, and we can add whatever science they have put forth, as it will have proper context. TMC, do you think you've been misunderstood? Can you clarify if so? petrarchan47tc 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Towards neutrality

OK, this is the response I got when asking specifically for non-negative (positive or neutral) studies. Essentially, it's saying that little has been researched. petrarchan47tc 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The abstracts supporting the above were highlighted, I've copied them: petrarchan47tc 22:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Formation of Oil-Associated Marine Snow: An Effective Transportation and Distribution Pathway for Spilled Oil in Marine Environments Presenter: Uta Passow Marine Science Institute, UCSB Authors: U. Passow; Marine Science Institute, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA. Abstract: It has been hypothesized that after the Deep Water Horizon (DWH) spill in 2010, marine snow markedly influenced the distribution of oil within the Gulf of Mexico. We investigated conditions inducing the formation of oil-associated marine snow experimentally, focusing especially on the effects of oil type, photochemical aging of oil, and the presence of phytoplankton and dispersant. The oil that accumulated at the sea surface after the accident induced the formation of large, mucus-rich marine snow. This bacteria-mediated formation of oil-based marine snow in the absence of particles > 1µm, represents a unique formation pathway different from that of the physical coagulation of particles. However, phytoplankton aggregates formed by physical coagulation also incorporated oil-carbon. Whereas any type of oil was incorporated into phytoplankton aggregates, only oil that was weathered triggered the formation of oil snow in the absence of particles. The ubiquitous formation and rapid sedimentation of marine snow can explain the high sedimentation rates of oil-contaminated material observed after the DWH spill. The dispersant Corexit 9500A (Corexit: oil ratio = 1: 100) inhibited the formation of oil snow. Future justifications for using Corexit 9500A will likely require a close examination of these diverse mechanisms.(GRIIDC ID: R1.x132.139.0004)

Track: Impact of Gulf of Mexico Physical Processes on Chemical and Biological Transport Type: Poster 3-12 Oil Biodegradation Cooled Down By Marine Snow!? Presenter: Shokouh Rahsepar Wageningen University Authors: S. Rahsepar, M. de Klerk, A. Langenhoff, M. Smit, H. Rijnaarts; Wageningen University, Wageningen, NETHERLANDS. Abstract: Biodegradation of spilled oil in the marine environment is influenced by many factors. The influence of the formation of marine snow on the biodegradation of crude oil and dispersant in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon accident was so far never studied. Oil pollution and dispersant application probably led to a stress response by marine phytoplankton resulting in release of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). EPS can capture oil droplets and dispersant, and play a role in coagulation and aggregation of oily particles and other natural occurring suspended particles. It was observed at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that these aggregates form oil-associated marine snow, resulting in a high sedimentation and accumulation on the sea bed. We hypothesize that the biodegradation of oil in the water column is limited by available electron acceptors and the bioavailability of the oil for bacteria. Also the settling characteristics and therefore the time which is available for biodegradation remains poorly understood. The objective of this study is to understand the biodegradation of chemically dispersed oil in presence of EPS and suspended particles, as well as oil-associated marine snow. We are studying the oil biodegradation in batch experiments with synthetic sea water containing phytoplankton and/or suspended solids inoculated with oil degrading bacteria. The results of these experiments will be presented and discussed in the presentation.

Track: Impact of Gulf of Mexico Physical Processes on Chemical and Biological Transport Type: Poster 3-27 Sub-lethal oil dispersant concentrations make algae produce marine snow Presenter: Justine S van Eenennaam Wageningen University Authors: J. S. van Eenennaam1, M. Asadi1, G. Manyika1, Y. Zhang1, M. Zeinstra-Helfrich2, A. J. Murk1,3; 1Wageningen University, Wageningen, NETHERLANDS, 2NHL University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, NETHERLANDS, 3IMARES, part of Wageningen UR, Wageningen, NETHERLANDS. Abstract: Greatly increased production of marine snow enhanced sedimentation of oil, particles and surface plankton during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The resulting thick toxic oil layer on the deep sea sediment currently still persists and prevents the benthic ecosystem from recovering. Within the C-IMAGE research consortium, we study the hypothesis that oil spill dispersants contributed to the observed enhanced sedimentation of oil through induction of marine snow formation by stressed algae, followed by interaction of the excreted extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) with oil droplets and particles in the water. This mechanism of marine snow formation will be missed in oil fate experiments performed in clear sea water. The presented research reveals to what extent non-lethal dispersant concentrations can induce excretion of EPS by marine phytoplankton. In addition, the composition of the EPS is characterized. Phytotoxicity and EPS excretion tests with Corexit 9500 were conducted with four quite different species of marine algae. Produced marine snow flocks were chemically analyzed for their protein and polysaccharide composition and content. The dispersant indeed induced EPS excretion by all four phytoplankton species tested, and this marine snow greatly enhanced sedimentation of oil and particles. The results support the hypothesis that application of dispersant enhanced the sedimentation of biogenic material and oil to the ocean floor during and after the oil spill.

Track: Impact of Gulf of Mexico Physical Processes on Chemical and Biological Transport Type: Poster 3-87 Sorption/desorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with Gulf Coast marine sediments: Effects of oil dispersant, oil, temperature and pressure Presenter: Xiao Zhao AUBURN UNIVERSITY Authors: X. Zhao1, Y. Gong1, Z. Cai1, S. O’Reilly2, D. Zhao1; 1AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AUBURN, AL, 2Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, LA. Abstract: This work investigated effects of dispersant Corexit EC9500A and dispersed oil on sediment sorption/desorption of model polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), naphthalene and pyrene, under simulated Gulf coast surface and deepwater conditions. Batch tests showed that the dispersant at 18 mg/L enhanced naphthalene and pyrene uptake by ~3% and 18%, respectively; and the presence of the dispersant during desorption hindered desorption of the PAHs and resulted in a desorption hysteresis. The presence of oversaturated oil (1 g/L) and water accommodated oil (prepared at oil:water=1:200)increased naphthalene uptake by 5% and 3%, respectively, and the presence of dispersant further increased the PAH uptake by ~2%. The same hysteretic effect of the dispersant on PAH desorption was observed in simulated deepwater conditions (4 °C and 160 atm). In all cases (22 °C+1 atm, 22 °C+160 atm, 4 °C+1 atm, or 4 °C+160 atm), increasing the initial dispersant concentration nearly linearly enhances the naphthalene uptake. However, the extent of enhancement varies remarkably with temperature and pressure. While the deepwater low temperature enhances uptake of PAHs, the high pressure reduces the sorption. Overall, the temperature effect outweighed the pressure effect, resulting in an elevated PAH uptake under deepwater conditions than under surface water conditions. This information is useful for understanding roles of dispersants on the fate and transport of petroleum PAHs in marine systems.

Track: Impact of Gulf of Mexico Physical Processes on Chemical and Biological Transport Type: Poster 3-91 Interactions between dispersants, dispersed oil and suspended sediment particles and their effects on particle settling and contaminant transport Presenter: Zhengqing Cai Auburn University Authors: Z. Cai, Y. Gong, X. Zhao, J. Fu, D. Zhao; Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Abstract: Sediments serve as important sinks for persistent oil components (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs) and interact with oil dispersants and dispersed oil. Using three model dispersants (Corexit EC9500A, Corexit 9527 and SPC 1000) and four model sediments, this study investigated effects of the dispersants and dispersed oil on the settling properties of suspended sediment particles under various environmental conditions. The results showed that all dispersants significantly accelerated the settling velocity of the sediments at neutral or alkaline pH, and the effects were more profound for sediments of a higher organic matter content. The nonionic surfactants (Tween 80 and Tween 85) in the dispersants played most critical roles for the enhanced settling rate. While increasing salinity in seawater remarkably increased sediment settling, the effect was alleviated in the presence of the dispersants. Combining the dispersant with humic acid showed synergistic acceleration of the settling velocity. The dispersant effect on sediment settling became less significant at the simulated deepwater temperature (4 °C). The presence of dispersed oil remarkably increased the settling rate. While all sediments were able to adsorb the dispersants, sediments of higher organic content offered much greater sorption capacity. The presence of dispersants and dispersed oil transferred more PAHs to the sediment phase and inhibited desorption of PAHs, which prolongs the transformation of PAHs.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fish: 2 years after the DWH oil spill Presenter: Isabel C Romero University of South Florida Authors: I. C. Romero1, D. J. Hollander1, W. F. Patterson2, S. W. Ross3, A. S. Kane4, S. Murawski1, E. Quintana-Rizzo1, E. A. Goddard1, J. J. Torres1; 1University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, 2University of South Alabama, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, AL, 3University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 4University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Abstract: Spatial and temporal variability in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of tissue (liver, muscle) sampled from reef and mesopelagic fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico were used to assess biological uptake and impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (DHOS). Mesopelagic fishes sampled during 2007 indicated a baseline level of muscle PAH concentrations of 0.3-1.3 μg/g dry wt, which increased in 2010 and 2011 up to 10-fold. Similarly, reef fishes sampled during summer 2010 indicated a baseline level of liver PAH concentrations about 0.3 μg/g dry wt, which increased in fall 2010 and in 2011 up to 20-fold. Furthermore, high variance was observed in each post-DHOS period sampled, indicating large differences among and within reef species related to trophic position. PAH levels (mean ± sd) observed post-DHOS in 2010 (4.1±10.9 μg/g dry wt, range: 0.2-50.9 μg/g dry wt) and 2011 (4.9±11.4 μg/g dry wt, range: 0.9-74.2 μg/g dry wt) were on average higher than the established threshold PAH levels for adverse biological effects (4.0 μg/g dry wt). Results suggest that both fish populations were exposed to hydrocarbons after DHOS. Mechanisms explaining elevated PAH concentrations and composition, relationships to trophic position, and PAH levels from 2012 are discussed.

Track: Integrated Understanding of the Impacts of the DWH Oil Spill on Fisheries: Exposure Vectors, Biological-Physiological Effects and Abundance of Fisheries Populations Type: Oral Investigations Into Sublethal Effects Of Crude Oil On Coastal Marine Zooplankton And Their Susceptibility To Fish Predators Presenter: Brad J Gemmell University of Texas at Austin Authors: B. J. Gemmell, R. Almeda, E. J. Buskey; University of Texas at Austin, Port Aransas, TX. Abstract: Copepods are key links in marine food webs and are the primary food source for small and juvenile fish. To combat high predation pressure, copepods have developed powerful escape responses to the presence of hydromechanical signals generated by approaching predators. Most crude oil toxicology studies with zooplankton have been focused on the lethal effects of crude oil, but little is known about the sublethal effects, such as behavior. In addition, sublethal effects relating to fish susceptibility and potential for bioaccumulation remain unknown. We investigated the effect of sublethal concentrations of crude oil (1-10 µL L-1) and dispersant (0.05-0.5 µL L-1) on the ability of copepods to escape from predators. Using high speed, 3-dimensional video techniques (2000 frames per second) we quantify the escape response of the copepod Acartia tonsa. We find that escape speed and distance were significantly lower for exposed copepods relative to controls. Maximum escape speeds drop from 674 ±45 mm s-1 to 452 ±92 mm s-1 and total escape distance decreases from 7.5 ±0.9 mm to 4.4 ±1.1 mm. Average escape speed falls below that of the strike speed of many planktivorous fish suggesting that fish will capture exposed copepods more frequently and the risk of bioaccumulation of hydrocarbons in the food web is discussed. Dispersed MC252 crude oil impacts behavior and development of queen conch and pink shrimp larvae at sublethal levels Presenter: Amber Garr EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Authors: A. Garr1, S. Laramore2;

1EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD, 2Florida Atlantic University - Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Fort Pierce, FL. Abstract: Impacts on behavior (activity, swimming, molting) and larval development of queen conch (Strombus gigas) and pink shrimp (Litopenaeus duorarum) were assessed for larvae exposed to sublethal levels of dispersed oil. While conducting acute toxicity studies, behavioral responses to solutions of MC252 crude oil, the dispersant (Corexit 9500A), and dispersed oil were recorded. Swimming activity and patterns were disrupted for conch larvae at concentrations lower then LC50 levels. Significantly altered behavioral responses (activity, molting) of mysis stage shrimp were also observed at sublethal concentrations. Responses varied with different larval stages, where newly hatched conch were more tolerant and postlarvae (PL) shrimp were the least effected. After completing acute toxicity studies, newly hatched conch and shrimp were exposed to a sublethal (LC10) concentration (50 mg/L and 23 mg/L) of dispersed oil for 24 hrs and cultured in uncontaminated water for the remainder of the larval cycle. Although displaying an initial lag in growth and development, by the third day of the larval cycle, queen conch larvae exposed to the dispersed oil displayed no differences in comparison to the controls. Shrimp development from nauplii V to zoea III proceeded at the same pace, yet development from zoea III into mysis 1 (day 5) was slower in the exposed groups, causing a subsequent lag in development in mysis 2 and mysis 3 stages (day 7-9). However, by day 11, both groups had reached PL stage.

Taking a lot of studies (or posters) and synthesizing a perspective from them is original research. But yeah, that's my understanding from skimming the literature, that there's a lot we don't know. Geogene (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sick of you disagreeing with every single thing I do. I was asked for this information, and no where along the line did anyone speak up and say 'no - don't bring studies to this page, and don't summarize them for us'. I'm going to a lot of effort here, and if you're just going to disagree no matter what I do, even when I'm looking for support for "the other side", I don't know what to say, frankly. petrarchan47tc 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not obligated to say anything. By the way, the huge block of copy/paste content you posted appears to be a copyright violation. Just so you know. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific, are you speaking of something I added to the article or talk page? Know that up to 4 paragraphs copied from any one source is safe. petrarchan47tc 00:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm sure you're referring to the above. Each is an abstract that can be found individually, so I believe there is no copyright violation here. petrarchan47tc 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive cut to Lede

... to a pre-edit war version circa July 2013. The article is short enough that the Lede doesn't need to be elaborate. The information is inches away. Please feel free to revert, or fix. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing objectionable in that material. Geogene (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's objectionable in that it doesn't adhere to WP:LEDE, which states that prominent controversies included in the article should be in the Lede, and that the article's contents should be summarized there. It's a lazy way to end an edit war, and the last sentence is complete shite as it says literally nothing. I expect someone along the way will help this article adhere to guidelines instead of POVs, but for now, I am done. petrarchan47tc 22:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether it adheres to every single guideline in WP if it lies to the readership in doing so. Priorities should be set in order. Geogene (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the WP:LEDE guideline and comment based on that, and your reflection of the current Lede. If you aren't interested in adhering to WP guidelines, again, I am at a loss. petrarchan47tc 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, it is just absolutely beyond me how Geogene can complain about Petrar's cuts to the lead with the reasons that s/he is using. The cuts were much needed and perhaps long overdue and certainly necessary to comply with WP lead guidelines. I am exasperated with Geogene's comments on this talk page which frequently seem more to complain about other editors rather than to improve the article. Geogene could be an excellent source of counter viewpoint, which is so important to build any article, but s/he is so often needlessly cutting in his/her remarks about other editors that I have had, for the most part, to walk away from this article.

I made a few changes in the lead and in doing so realized that very little copy has been devoted to the fact that Corexit was used at the spill's underwater gush site rather than only on the surface. This and that the plumes were believed to result from the underwater application is hardly mentioned in the article. Things like largest and first need to be well-covered. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the revulsion, but please stick around to help, if it becomes tolerable. As you can see from this talk page, there is a lot that hasn't been covered in the article. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to concur. A lead section like that belongs on a massive article. It's a bit like wearing a sweater that drops down to your knees. If any useful information was omitted it of course can be reinserted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The lede needs to indicate what is in the body. It had become a bit ridiculous though, as it was the result of a month or two long edit war. It seems better now, but as Gandy hinted, there is much that needs to added to this article. No one has given it the attention it deserves; it was built ad hoc, as most articles tend to be. Once the body is in better shape, the Lede will be an easy fix. The lede should, however, already give a hint about what studies are saying, ie, leaning towards damage rather than 'helpful' (or even effective) overall. This is what I'm seeing from the studies we have on the page (but to some these words will sound harsh - making this is a challenging environment in which to work). petrarchan47tc' 19:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the way you changed my wording--I was not very happy with it but it was a start. Yes, the lead now reads much better. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly it is so much easier with 4 eyeballs ;) :) petrarchan47tc 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WWF's submission re: Corexit 9500

May be suitable for expansion of this article: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/wwf-says-no-to-quick-fix-dispersants --Danimations (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, thank you! petrarchan47คุก 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

________________________________________________

Another source for article expansion

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/10/24/the-people-are-dying-evacuate-the-gulf-now/ --Danimations (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)