The Effetcs of Oil Dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico

By : Shannon Gauthier


In the news article “is the gulf of Mexico safe” (5 November 2010). The two authors Jamail and Jazeera make the argument that dispersants have negative effects on both the environment and the seafood. Their main argument is “the dispersants contain chemicals that many scientists and toxicologists have warned are dangerous to humans, marine life and wild life” (Jamail and Jazeera 2010).

The evidence that they present is not all that strong they are using evidence from over 20 years ago as proof when our science and research has become a lot more advanced than before. The main point they are trying to get across is how unsafe dispersants really are. They used a report from 1987 saying that dispersants caused “depression, respiratory arrest, unconsciousness and death” (Jamail and Jazeera 2010). This is not the case anymore with oil dispersants, they may still be toxic but they are less toxic then the oil themselves. They have modified and used other chemicals to help reduced the toxic levels of the dispersants, but in the end they are the best way to deal with oil spills. Trying to prove that dispersants are toxic is not a hard thing to accomplish. Oil spills in themselves are a huge disaster, dispersants may be a tad toxic but they have come a long way from being as toxic as they were in 1987.
Another argument that was not strong at all in Jamail and Jazeera’s article was why the dispersants were being used. They mention that “the EPA believes that dispersants should only be used sparingly and when absolutely necessary” (Jamail and Jazeera 2010). They do not take into consideration that dispersants are the best and only alternative we have now, to try and correct this mistake. The main ingredient in dispersants is Corexit 9500, recently they posted the ingredients of Corexit 9500 and they found that “All six [ingredients] are used in day-to-day life—in mouthwash, toothpaste, ice cream, pickles” (Biello 2010). They are not putting chemicals that are unheard of or untested. The chemicals found within the dispersants are in things people use every day. Each of those chemicals have been tested and tested more then can imagine. But we do not see people not brushing their teeth because a chemical found within the dispersants in also in their tooth paste. People have a fear of dispersants because it is something that they think is unknown and not knowing is a scarey thing for human beings. But the truth of the matter is that the chemicals that are being used on the BP oil spill have been used in a lot of the aspects of our lives.
The third argument is that they believe that it affects our marine life and the ecosystems. This may be true but they do present any evidence at all to help support this. Simply stating that something is happening is not good enough support. Yes, dispersants are horrible for marine life and the ecosystems, but why now are we fighting to get rid of them. They are also mention that they are using the dispersants differently than they have in the past. But one again they have no evidence to help support this. If they would have used something like “dispersants are usually applied on an oil slick, but BP is applying them near the sea floor”( Brown 2010). Simply showing that they are doing things differently makes it known that the dispersants could be affecting more of the sea world then they have before. Applying oil on top means that it may not affect all the way to the ocean floor, but when you apply from bottom to top you are affecting systems that have never really been exposed to dispersants at that extreme.
Both Jamail and Jazeera have the right idea at hand, but they need to be able to further support both their own ideas and help with the facts that have presented. They know that oil dispersants are not 100 percent safe for the environment, but they need to look at and understand that they are the only way we have to help to try and protect ecosystems and animals and ourselves from the oil disaster that we have in front of us. Oil dispersants help with getting rid of the oil. The oil itself is a lot more toxic then the dispersants, we may be adding toxic dispersants to the ocean, but they have not as much damage on the environment as the oil does. It may not seem like the best possible solution but it needs to be understood that the dispersants are a lot better off than they were 20 years ago and the chemicals (ingredients) that are found within them are ones that we have seen for many years. The argument being present is not right or wrong; it has both positives and negatives. There are some things that must be taken into account when dealing with dispersants and other things that we may have to look past in order to help save and prevent harm to animals and ecosystems.

References

Biello, D. (2010) Is Using dispersants on the BP oil spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution, 18 June 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution. Accessed 8 Nov 2010.

Brown, J. (2010) Out of Sight. Time Magazine, 6 May 2010. http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/06/bp-dispersants-toxic-corexit-nalco/. Accessed 9 Nov 2010.

Jamail, D. Jazeera, A. (2010) Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe, 5 November 2010. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/11/201011465847225269.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2010.