Dispersants are useful and essential chemicals to help break up large amounts of oil into smaller droplets as seen in the video from the previous post. Although these chemicals are indeed intended to create beneficial and positive effects, it is also possible that these chemicals can cause harm.
An article by the PR Newswire addresses the issue that the dispersants could be causing more detriment to the environment than helping clean up the oil. The dispersant primarily being used by BP was Corexit 9500; the chemical makeup of this dispersant is toxic and can lead to health problems of not only volunteers and workers, but also wildlife and marine species if exposed. This dispersant was used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the workers reported health issues after being in contact with such chemicals, validating the risk of the dispersants. According to another source, the “Corexit 9500 is four times as toxic as the oil itself”. Because of the level of toxicity, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, mandated that BP stop using the Corexit 9500 dispersant and find a less toxic and more effective one chosen from a list of approved dispersants. Since the Corexit 9500 being used is harmful to the environment and people, I think it is a good thing that the chemical was identified and banned. I think a more eco-friendly alternative is more beneficial to reduce the impacts on both the workers and the species. The oil in itself caused much damage to the environment; therefore, doesn’t it make sense to combat the detriment by using chemicals that will have the least long and short term effects?
Although it did baffle me to see how much BP was using the oil dispersant and depending on it, when so little it known about its potential effects on the environment and people who come in contact with it, I can’t fully agree with your view on not using it. I do think that a more eco-friendly alternative would be extremely better, yet at the time of the spill we had little resources to be able to do that. With the rushing of the oil, something needed to be done. If what the video you posted stated is true, I believe that the dispersant did help, though I do see that there could be potential harm in its excessive use. Basically, I am satisfied with its use as an alleviator while the problem is being permanently solved, yet I do not approve of its exorbitant use. Hopefully we will not have to cope with additional environmental problems as a result of the dispersant in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the dispersants are needed to help break down the oil to process it as the video showed. However, the argument in this post focuses on how the primary dispersant, Corexit 9500 was extremely toxic and resulting in further damage to the environment and even to workers. This is the reason the EPA ban this specific dispersant and mandated that they find a less harmful dispersant. By using a an alternative and more eco-friendly dispersant, it will reduce the amount of detriment instead of create more while performing the same process as any other dispersant. Again, I completely agree that these dispersants are necessary to cope with the oil in the ocean, but I do advocate for a dispersant that will be beneficial instead of harmful.
ReplyDelete