Of course the EPA can’t be reached for comment. The studies conflict with their version of reality.
Didn’t we go through something similar during the Exxon Valdes cleanup? Harm of the cleanup?
Wash a sink of dishes with Dawn (the same degreasing used in BP leak) and let it sit for several hours. Drain the water and feel the bottom of the sink, it will be covered with grease because it breaks it down, then it sinks.
Now imagine the bottom of the Gulf.
This was already known at the time.
Obama ordered the dispersant used in large quantities, because it was made in a factory owned by his Chicago cronies.
Obama also seems to have done everything he could to slow the repairs down, although that also could have been the incompetant Coast Guard commander who was put in charge. Other countries offered to help, but Obama refused to let them in.
The first thing I thought was why is this person writing this? What are his motives. Then I questioned the “science” behind it. Is this some more junk science like global warming?
how many million gallons of sea water is in the gulf? In the end, how many parts per Trillion is the dispersant vs sea water? I suspect that if you drank the water in the gulf, the salt would kill you long before you were affected by any chemicals.
To have a government enviromental agency report that they find toxins is like paying the wolf to guard the hen house.
Foolish, at best.
Petroleum is a natural organic compound. Bacteria love the stuff. Natural bacteria would have taken care of it. But then you can’t call it a crisis and not let it go to waste.
Yet AFAIK scientists are presently unable to quantify any significant damage to the Gulf’s ecosystem as a result of the spill.
I’m not averse to the idea put forward here, but suspect the authors’ agenda is not to find better ways to clean up spills, but rather to ban all offshore drilling as too dangerous for the environment.
I recall reading an article in 2010 about this. It was known from European experience at the time about the toxicity of the dispersants, but they were used anyway.
Somewhere in the archives is an article on that very matter. It was posted here at Free Republic for those of you who enjoy doing research.
So this research could be validated by going to the Gulf and determining whether there were any live animals in the Gulf, correct?