Sunday 23 October 2011
Thursday 20 October 2011
Response to Corexit 9500 in the Bay of Plenty
The chemical dispersant Corexit 9500, used on the Rena oil spill in the Bay of Plenty, may have been shelved for now but it is still part of our Government’s tool kit, and there is no indication that it won’t be used again. Carys Mitchelmore (Cited in Raloff, 2011) of the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science says the jury is still out on the efficacy of dispersants, and that it remains unclear if they help degrade oil. But more importantly why was this toxic dispersant used considering the limited amount of scientific research on the potentially adverse, and long-term effects on human health and the environment. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (cited in McDonnell, 2011) has conceded that the long-term effects of dispersants on aquatic life are unknown. Given that environmentally friendly alternatives exist, keeping experimentation in the lab seems like wise advice. But fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and the fragile eco system of the Bay of Plenty has now become a testing ground for Corexit.
A recently released study of Corexit 9500 dispersant by Scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (Massachusetts, USA), the University of California – Santa Barbara (California, USA), and Stanford University (California) published “Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” in the 26 January 2011 Environmental Science and Technology “Articles ASAP” online. The subsequent report notes that; "Research focused on the core ingredient of Corexit, the anionic surfactant dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS)," and that (DOSS) "underwent negligible or slow rates of biodegradation in the effected waters." Elizabeth Kujawinski (cited in Oil Spill Intelligence Report, 2011) of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says this is bad news, and that Corexit 9500 didn’t go away as quickly as people had thought it might. The report concludes that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico will likely suffer long-term exposure to (DOSS), but because of a lack of toxicity studies, the impact of the dispersant on marine ecology remains unclear.
Charles W Schmidt (2010) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (USA), explains the action of dispersant on oil "Dispersants change the oil's physical and chemical properties, splitting it into tiny droplets that measure roughly 10 microns in diameter (naturally dispersed oil droplets are about 10 times larger)." Acording to Schmidt, dispersed oil droplets dont go away but instead "get pulled (or "entrained") into the water column." Carys Mitchelmore (cited in Schmidt, 2010) adds that as a result "Zooplankton mistake oil droplets for food and that's a dangerous scenario because zooplankton are crucial to the marine food web." Damage microbial ecology says Mitchelmore and the consequences spiral upwards.
Common sense dictates that the many endangered species of the Bay of Plenty should not be treated as lab rats, and so it is deeply concerning that the use of Corexit was our Governments first choice management strategy for this disaster. Assuming that our politicians do not suffer from cognitive impairment, reasons other than environmental concern should be considered when rationalising their decision to spray a fragile marine environment with a potentially dangerous dispersant. Sadly, our Governments heavy lobbying to attract the international oil industry to New Zealand waters provides a more likely motive for their rush to adopt shoddy oil industry standards. Environment Minister Nick Smith has said that Corexit is "no more toxic than dishwashing liquid," despite cautionary warnings from the scientific community who have expressed significant doubts about the efficacy of dispersants and there safety. Nick Smith's work output over the last three years has involved nothing to do with implementing protective and preventative measures for a situation like this (or similar to Deepwater Horizon) should the proposed Petrobras explorations go ahead. He has instead spent that time finding ways to legislate the corporate sectors out of their ETS obligations. Nick Smith’s endorsement of Corexit is a worrying indication of where his allegiances lie, corporate profiteering at the expense of health, safety, and the environment.
An EPA Whistleblower, Hugh Kaufman (Democracynow.org, 2010), has explained why dispersants like Corexit were used in the Gulf of Mexico, and why the use of Corexit is the favoured oil spill management strategy for big business. “Corexit is one of a number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force it down the water column so that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government — both EPA, NOAA, etc. — have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher.”
The clean up of the Rena oil spill is likely to create a precedent for how future spills are managed in New Zealand. If the public are not fastidious in their questioning of our Governments actions and motives, the future for New Zealand's marine environment looks anything but bright.
References:
'Dispersants Long-Lived, But Effects Unclear. (Cover story)' 2011, Oil Spill Intelligence Report, 34, 8, p. 1, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 October 2011.
Kaufman, Hugh (2010) Democracynow.org, Available: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
Kujawinski, E, Soule, M, Valentine, D, Boysen, A, Longnecker, K, & Redmond, M (2011), 'Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill', Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 4, pp. 1298-1306, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 October 2011.
McDonnell, D. (2011) Lawsuit Launched to Force EPA to Study Oil-dispersant Impacts on Endangered Wildlife. Targeted News Service, April 18, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 24, 2011).
Raloff, Janet. (2011) Dispersants persisted after BP spill
Science News. Washington:Feb 26, 2011. Vol. 179, Iss. 5, p. 8 (1 pp.)
Schmidt, Charles W. (2010) BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA DISPERSANTS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. Environmental Health Perspectives. Research Triangle Park:Aug 2010. Vol. 118, Iss. 8, p. a338-44 (7 pp.)
Hugh Kaufman on Radio New Zealand 11.11.11 discussing the dangers of Corexit.
New Zealand Herald Rena: Oil clean-up chemical worries Greenpeace
A recently released study of Corexit 9500 dispersant by Scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (Massachusetts, USA), the University of California – Santa Barbara (California, USA), and Stanford University (California) published “Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” in the 26 January 2011 Environmental Science and Technology “Articles ASAP” online. The subsequent report notes that; "Research focused on the core ingredient of Corexit, the anionic surfactant dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS)," and that (DOSS) "underwent negligible or slow rates of biodegradation in the effected waters." Elizabeth Kujawinski (cited in Oil Spill Intelligence Report, 2011) of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says this is bad news, and that Corexit 9500 didn’t go away as quickly as people had thought it might. The report concludes that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico will likely suffer long-term exposure to (DOSS), but because of a lack of toxicity studies, the impact of the dispersant on marine ecology remains unclear.
Charles W Schmidt (2010) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (USA), explains the action of dispersant on oil "Dispersants change the oil's physical and chemical properties, splitting it into tiny droplets that measure roughly 10 microns in diameter (naturally dispersed oil droplets are about 10 times larger)." Acording to Schmidt, dispersed oil droplets dont go away but instead "get pulled (or "entrained") into the water column." Carys Mitchelmore (cited in Schmidt, 2010) adds that as a result "Zooplankton mistake oil droplets for food and that's a dangerous scenario because zooplankton are crucial to the marine food web." Damage microbial ecology says Mitchelmore and the consequences spiral upwards.
Common sense dictates that the many endangered species of the Bay of Plenty should not be treated as lab rats, and so it is deeply concerning that the use of Corexit was our Governments first choice management strategy for this disaster. Assuming that our politicians do not suffer from cognitive impairment, reasons other than environmental concern should be considered when rationalising their decision to spray a fragile marine environment with a potentially dangerous dispersant. Sadly, our Governments heavy lobbying to attract the international oil industry to New Zealand waters provides a more likely motive for their rush to adopt shoddy oil industry standards. Environment Minister Nick Smith has said that Corexit is "no more toxic than dishwashing liquid," despite cautionary warnings from the scientific community who have expressed significant doubts about the efficacy of dispersants and there safety. Nick Smith's work output over the last three years has involved nothing to do with implementing protective and preventative measures for a situation like this (or similar to Deepwater Horizon) should the proposed Petrobras explorations go ahead. He has instead spent that time finding ways to legislate the corporate sectors out of their ETS obligations. Nick Smith’s endorsement of Corexit is a worrying indication of where his allegiances lie, corporate profiteering at the expense of health, safety, and the environment.
An EPA Whistleblower, Hugh Kaufman (Democracynow.org, 2010), has explained why dispersants like Corexit were used in the Gulf of Mexico, and why the use of Corexit is the favoured oil spill management strategy for big business. “Corexit is one of a number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force it down the water column so that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government — both EPA, NOAA, etc. — have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher.”
The clean up of the Rena oil spill is likely to create a precedent for how future spills are managed in New Zealand. If the public are not fastidious in their questioning of our Governments actions and motives, the future for New Zealand's marine environment looks anything but bright.
References:
'Dispersants Long-Lived, But Effects Unclear. (Cover story)' 2011, Oil Spill Intelligence Report, 34, 8, p. 1, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 October 2011.
Kaufman, Hugh (2010) Democracynow.org, Available: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
Kujawinski, E, Soule, M, Valentine, D, Boysen, A, Longnecker, K, & Redmond, M (2011), 'Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill', Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 4, pp. 1298-1306, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 October 2011.
McDonnell, D. (2011) Lawsuit Launched to Force EPA to Study Oil-dispersant Impacts on Endangered Wildlife. Targeted News Service, April 18, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 24, 2011).
Raloff, Janet. (2011) Dispersants persisted after BP spill
Science News. Washington:Feb 26, 2011. Vol. 179, Iss. 5, p. 8 (1 pp.)
Schmidt, Charles W. (2010) BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA DISPERSANTS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. Environmental Health Perspectives. Research Triangle Park:Aug 2010. Vol. 118, Iss. 8, p. a338-44 (7 pp.)
Hugh Kaufman on Radio New Zealand 11.11.11 discussing the dangers of Corexit.
New Zealand Herald Rena: Oil clean-up chemical worries Greenpeace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
