Why is the EPA watching BP dump tons of chemical dispersants into the water, not knowing what will happen?
Question by _______: Why is the EPA watching BP dump tons of chemical dispersants into the water, not knowing what will happen?
A) We KNOW how to clean up oil
B) We DON’T KNOW the long term effects of using large amounts of this chemical dispersant.
So WHY is the EPA (supposedly protectors of the environment) letting BP dump lots of dispersants into the water while ADMITTING they don’t know what the ultimate ecological impact could be?? (The UK ALREADY banned this dispersant [Corexit] out of environmental concerns)
It’s obvious the Federal Government has very few capabilities to stop the flow of oil………….but couldn’t they at least try to limit a potentially WORSE environmental disaster??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_dispersant_concerns#mwpphu-container
A large undersea cloud of dissolved hydrocarbons discovered last week near the Gulf of Mexico oil spill raises fresh questions about toxic chemicals used to fight the spill and their environmental impact.
David Hollander, a University of South Florida oceanographer, headed a research team that discovered the six-mile (10-km) wide “oil cloud” while on a government-funded expedition aboard the Weatherbird II, a vessel operated by the university’s College of Marine Science………………In a statement issued on Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the underwater use of dispersants appeared to have been effective so far in breaking up oil from the BP spill and did not seem to have had any significant impact on aquatic life.
“EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard are taking steps that could reduce the volume of dispersants applied in the Gulf. While we do know dispersants are less toxic and shorter-lived than the oil, much remains unknown about their impact on the environment when used in these unprecedented volumes,” the statement said.
Roughly 850,000 gallons (3.2 million liters) of dispersant had been used to combat the Gulf spill as of Thursday, including 150,000 gallons (570,000 liters) released below sea level.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/epa-bp-dispersants
This week, lawmakers are grilling BP executives and government officials about the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But they should be asking tougher questions about the recovery effort, too. BP’s critics say the company is spraying hundreds of thousands of gallons of harmful chemical dispersants into the Gulf when less toxic options are available. Which raises the question: Why is the Obama administration allowing a company whose poor safety record led to the spill make crucial decisions on the chemicals used for the clean-up?
Dispersants are compounds used to break down oil into smaller globs so that it sinks and biodegrades more quickly. The two primary dispersants being used in the Gulf are Corexit 9500 and Corexit(R) EC9527A—compounds created by an Illinois-based company called Nalco. According to the Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, the unified command office set up to deal with the spill, approximately 600,000 gallons of dispersant had been deployed by Sunday, most of it sprayed over the spill site from the air. Last weekend, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave BP the green light to apply dispersants directly at the source of the spill—the first time this method has been used. BP has stockpiled a third of the world’s supply of dispersants; Corexit comprises the vast majority of this supply.
But environmental experts have warned that Corexit could add to the ecological disaster in the Gulf rather than alleviate it. Oil companies designed the dispersants to reduce the amount of oil hitting land. That may spare BP the PR nightmare of oil-coated birds washing up on Louisiana’s shorelines. However, as scientists such as marine toxicologist Dr. Riki Ott point out, BP’s chosen dispersants will simply push the problem underwater. The chemicals, says Ott, have “the potential to cause intergenerational harm” to marine life. Corexit has been banned in the United Kingdom due to environmental concerns.
Best answer:
Answer by The Taxpayer
Probably waiting for the environmental impact study.
Give your answer to this question below!
They are so desperate right now they are GUESSING at whatever may get rid of their mistake. They probably figure if the chemicals do damage, oh well ,the oil would have done damage also. They are trying to save face. I have an e-mail with 2 guys demonstrating the effect hay straw has on oil and I’ve got to say ,it is an amazing thing, that oil sticks to the hay like glue, it is drawn to it. They said as it hits the beaches they can scoop it up like seaweed.without any deposits in the sand. Such a simple solution and environmentally safe for all wildlife. But, it’s to simple of an idea for them to consider. Sometimes the solution is the simple common sense approach.