- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can anyone tell me the name of the dispersant being used?
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:45 pm to Tiger in Tejas
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:45 pm to Tiger in Tejas
No doubt it is the lesser of 2 evil in regards to keeping the oil from coating things (i.e. marsh, birds). They have recommendations for application to minimize the negative consequences, LINK but the risk is still there.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:52 pm to BatonRougeRugby
I really do not like this picture from your link
You would think the oil on the surface could be eventually removed after some effort. After the dispersant is used, the oil/water mixture looks completely mixed...maybe even permanent.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:53 pm to BatonRougeRugby
The additional benefit of the dispersant (besides removing it from the surface) is that by breaking it up into smaller particles there is more surface area for bacteria to consume/remove the oil. But you are still left with the potential toxicity of the product. 
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:56 pm to Decatur
Dispersants will no doubt significantly reduce the amount of time for mother nature to take care of the oil. The oil (carbon-based) will naturally break down in the environment. The dispersants break the oil up into tiny droplets or particles which increases the surface area with which natural forces can break it down into carbon and hydrogen. There is evidence that proves the benefits of dispersants. Scientific evidence to the contrary is inconclusive at best. I promise you, MMS, USCG, BP, and TransOcean all want the same thing as you and I....clean this up as quickly and with as little environmental impact as possible.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 11:51 pm to Tiger in Tejas
LINK
Well this does not sound good.
Nor this comment....course he is selling something
Well this does not sound good.
Nor this comment....course he is selling something
quote:
We at US polychemical hae a patented oil dispersant that is on third the toxicity of the Corexit product currently being used. Corexit has beed the 800 pound gorilla in the room for years keeping the enviormentally friendly products such as ours out of the stockpiles.
This post was edited on 5/3/10 at 11:54 pm
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:23 am to MoreOrLes
i think we're kind of at a point where we have to accept that either the coast or the gulf itself is going to be contaminated for a fairly long period of time.
the thing we have to decide is whether it is more to our advantage to protect the marsh or the water. IMO, mother nature can take care of the dispersed oil although it may take some time. if this oil coats the marsh there's no way to get it out.
the thing we have to decide is whether it is more to our advantage to protect the marsh or the water. IMO, mother nature can take care of the dispersed oil although it may take some time. if this oil coats the marsh there's no way to get it out.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:26 am to YatTigah
I agree with you but did not want to hear it.
This just flat out sucks. I will miss fishing in Venice.
This just flat out sucks. I will miss fishing in Venice.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:32 am to MoreOrLes
i think this cofferdam is a big deal. if this works i think you'll find that this disaster will have been much less damaging than first feared. that doesn't mean it still won't be a terrible disaster.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:20 am to YatTigah
I work for a chemical company in St. Charles parish and I know they were inquiring about buying out whole inventory of chemical for the oil spill. Not sure if they went through with it or not since I've been off of work for 3 days. I'll find out tonight.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:24 am to GEAUX DJ!
quote:
buying out whole inventory of chemical for the oil spill.
I read that BP has purchased 1/3 of the worlds total supply of dispersant for this.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:31 am to Decatur
quote:
Can anyone tell me the name of the dispersant being used?
SOAP.
Posted on 5/4/10 at 10:39 am to Placebeaux
Major topic on WWL this morning
Posted on 5/4/10 at 2:27 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
SOAP.
DAWN dish sopa to be more specific.
BTW: this is a media driven world and event. Not using dispersants is not a possibility. Unfortunately, out of sight is out of mind for most people. Not the ones questioning in this thread, but most others out there.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 11:14 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
As the Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard have conducted tests with Corexit 9500, a chemical designed to break oil slicks into globules that are more quickly consumed by bacteria or sink into the water column before hitting shore.
The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It’s known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.
But even as these arguments continue, with 230,000 gallons of Corexit on tap and more commissioned by BP, a superior alternative could be left on the shelf.
Called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.
Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish – used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing — and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries.
As for why Corexit is being used instead of Dispersit, authorities haven’t yet said. According to the Protect the Ocean blog, U.S. Polychemical executive Bruce Gebhardt said the government had used Corexit before, and was sticking with what it already knows. Corexit makes up most dispersant stockpiles in the United States for this reason, though dispersant manufacture can be easily ramped up.
In a 1999 letter, the U.S. Coast Guard told U.S. Polychemical that “product information from planning mode evaluations remain on file to facilitate rapid review in the context of a spill.” In that same year, the EPA added Dispersit to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, which determines what will be considered for use in an oil spill.
Relief agencies were not immediately available for comment about Dispersit. In a Tuesday press conference, Charlie Henry, the scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the potential effects of Corexit’s use in the Gulf are unknown. “Those analyses are going on, but right now there’s no consensus,” he said. “And we’re just really getting started. You can imagine it’s something we’ve never thought about.”
LINK
Posted on 5/5/10 at 11:26 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
DAWN dish sopa to be more specific.
Ever see what Dawn does to a sheen?
Ok folks, try this test. Put a little water in your kitchen sink(about two inches), on top of this pour a little cooking oil(Not much, just enough to make a few droplets). Then put a drop of liquid soap (Dawn or other) in the water.
Tell me what you see happen......
Posted on 5/6/10 at 7:15 am to LSUDad
Dad, did you tell them NOT to drink the sink water?
Now you are a party to this problem also.....got a lawyer?
Now you are a party to this problem also.....got a lawyer?
Posted on 5/6/10 at 9:44 am to lashinala
quote:
got a lawyer?
More than one.....
Posted on 5/6/10 at 10:01 am to Decatur
quote:
You would think the oil on the surface could be eventually removed after some effort. After the dispersant is used, the oil/water mixture looks completely mixed...maybe even permanent.
The solution to pollution is dilution.
A lot of the oil is concentrated in a .5 mm layer. What you think will happen if you let the mile of water below it get in on that action?
Popular
Back to top

2





