Whatever you hear about the toxicity of the dispersants.......

[cleveramerican]

Remember the oil is worse, much much worse.

[ret5hd]

1. So, what you are claiming is that...

by dispersing the toxic oil with toxic dispersants you somehow magically reduce the toxicity of the oil?

[cleveramerican]

3. while you are arguing over which dispersant the committee likes best.....

time is being wasted.
Now is no time to call for delay

[ret5hd]

4. You didn't answer my question.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Magically? No.

Chemically? Yes.

[ret5hd]

11. How does chemically making the oil mix better with water make it less toxic?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It allows the oil to be broken down faster.

Light and marine organisms both break down oil. If it's dispersed and diluted it will break down faster. It's much more of a problem when it's in big giant globs and sticking to birds and seals and whatnot.

[Dont TS Me Brah]

25. nonsense. It's easier to skim oil from the surface and there are

no studies as to the long term effects on wildlife of these toxic chemicals.

I would have preferred that no chemicals were used and more oil was skimmed from the surface or cleaned at the shore with toothbrushes and towels. A floating glob is easier to clean that contaminated water.

:rolleyes:

[ShortnFiery]

31. Yes, that way you can actually REMOVE the oil and reprocess it.

I believe we should give a shout-out to ALL OTHER competing Oil Companies to come and skim as much oil as their tankers can hold. Let them keep it for processing. ;) :thumbsup:

[hedgehog]

2. I disagree- all the dispersants do is make the top of the water look pretty.

Below the surface, plankton, fish, shrimp, mammals and plant life now have to handle small oil globules and the dispersant!

[yella_dawg]

5. Perhaps...

But dispersants act to make the oil far more toxic.

[BeFree]

6. Another expert chimes in

Don't need no steenkin' links. Just take its word. Whatever you hear.....

Even though real experts say otherwise. Google Riki Ott.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. I'm more interested in what I've read about coagulants being more effective

which makes logical sense to me.

Just dump cornstarch on the slick.

[Lorien]

9. So the best way to fight a fire is to douse it with gasoline.

:eyes:

[me b zola]

10. I have two major concerns about the dispersants

1~ The toxicity. We simply have no idea how 10's of thousands of gallons will effect the food chain in the gulf

2~ Dispersants make it impossible to clean up the oil and are keeping the oil below the surface.

[Individualist]

12. because you say so?

[dgibby]

14. Not according to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8421977&mesg_id=8421977

[G_j]

15. it’s now dissolved and can get across the gills, get into the mouths of animals

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8435574&mesg_id=8435574

CARL SAFINA: Well, the dispersant is a toxic pollutant that has been applied in the volume of millions of gallons and I think has greatly exacerbated the situation. I think the whole idea of using a dispersant is wrong, and I think it’s part of the whole pattern of BP trying to cover up and hide the body. They don’t want us to see how much oil, so they’ve taken this oil that was concentrated at the surface and dissolved it. But when you dissolve it, it’s still there, and it actually gets more toxic, because instead of being in big blobs, it’s now dissolved and can get across the gills, get into the mouths of animals. The water below the floating oil was water. Now it’s this toxic soup. So I think that in this whole pattern of BP trying to not let people know what’s going on, the idea of disperse the oil is a way of just hiding the body. But it actually makes the oil more toxic, and it adds this incredible amount of toxic pollutant in the dispersant itself.

Carl Safina, the founding president of Blue Ocean Institute, warns the ecological fallout from the spill may be felt across much of the world.

[Lucky 13]

16. FALSE

If you read the scientific literature, many estimates are that dispersants are 4-5 times more toxic than crude oil. If you would like citations, I'd be happy to provide them.

[Lucky 13]

17. Crickets

[ret5hd]

18. No shit.

[Lucky 13]

19. Ridiculous.

It's as if people are talking out their ass just to try to make themselves feel better...

"It's all gonna be ok... it's all gonna be ok..." <Rocking back and forth in fetal position>

Ridiculous. A complete absence of scientific fact or reason.

[Dont TS Me Brah]

26. hehehehe... lots of crickets. nt

[Dr Morbius]

20. The oil is plenty bad, but the dispersant is acutely lethal.

Acute lethality means 75% of all life which comes into contact with the dispersant either die immediately or die later as a direct result of the toxin (it's carcinogenic, too). 75% lethality, and that's for turtles, fish, insects and mammals.

Humans should be barred from eating anything from the gulf over the next decade or two. This dispersant is SO lethal that if enough were dumped in the gulf, it would destroy all life in the oceans of the world. Obviously, and thankfully, BP doesn't quite have enough of the stuff for that.

But every ounce kills, and they are using millions of gallons of the stuff. Meanwhile, since it is dispersing the oil, it means the oil won't get cleaned up. It just gets spread around.

[EFerrari]

21. What does that even mean to you? The dispersants make the oil

easier for plant and animal life to inhere.

[undeterred]

22. The fish don't take the oily mess in through their gills

until after the dispersant is added.

[TheKentuckian]

23. What in God's name is the point of that excuse? How about we use the least toxic

and most effective dispersant rather than whatever works out best for BP's budget and steer clear of hanging on their nuts?

[TheKentuckian]

24. dupe sorry

[donheld]

27. can you back that up with evidence?

[defendandprotect]

28. Both are "worse" . . .

[underseasurveyor]

29. Not true

[ShortnFiery]

30. Uh, no. eom

[Are_grits_groceries]

32. One reason BP is probably going ahead with

that toxic dispersant is to try to reduce their liability. I know they have some ties with Corexit, but the money would be minimal.

Corexit is on the EPA's approved list for use. Every time somebody questions them about its use, BP points out that fact. They are trying to blur the line about what is really doing the damage. They will argue that it was on the list so the government has some responsibility. BP will ask how can you separate what caused the actual damage.

When BP refused to stop using it after told to do so by the EPA, they were directly defying the government. Allowing BP to do so was not only ecologically damaging, it also set a horrible precedent.

BP should have publicly had the shite slapped out of them when they defied the EPA. They should have been hit hard on their bottom line. I do mean hard.

As far as the legality of that goes, an order can be given to kill someone whom we deem as an enemy who is living in a foreign nation. Somebody certainly should be able to find a way to slap the shite out of them when they have openly defied the government. That shouldn't be nearly as hard to do legally. Send a drone after Tony Hayward. He is doing as much damage to that area as any terrorist could have.