Talk:Oil dispersant

To do

1. Wikify article
2. Extend History section
3. Find photographs e.g. of Torrey Canyon (may need Non-free usage rationale)

Removed misleading statement

I removed the sentence "Two years after the spill, studies showed Corexit increased the toxicity of the oil by 52 times." and the associated Science Daily article, because the scientific paper it refers to was later criticized in the same journal (Environmental Pollution journal) for drawing improper conclusions based on unrealistic methods. Below, link to the original Science Daily article, the paper it referred to, and the subseqent critical paper. Finally, I quote from the abstract of the critical paper.

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130110518.htm

2. Roberto Rico-Martínez, Terry W. Snell, Tonya L. Shearer, Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera), Environmental Pollution, Volume 173, February 2013, Pages 5-10, ISSN 0269-7491, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.024. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749112004344)

3. Gina Coelho, James Clark, Don Aurand, Toxicity testing of dispersed oil requires adherence to standardized protocols to assess potential real world effects, Environmental Pollution, Volume 177, June 2013, Pages 185-188, ISSN 0269-7491, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.004. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113000705)

"Recently, several researchers have attempted to address Deepwater Horizon incident environmental fate and effects issues using laboratory testing and extrapolation procedures that are not fully reliable measures for environmental assessments. The 2013 Rico-Martínez et al. publication utilized laboratory testing approaches that severely limit our ability to reliably extrapolate such results to meaningful real-world assessments.

The authors did not adopt key methodological elements of oil and dispersed oil toxicity standards. Further, they drew real-world conclusions from static exposure tests without reporting actual exposure concentrations. Without this information, it is not possible to compare their results to other research or real spill events that measured and reported exposure concentrations."

Kjhuston (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That does not discredit the GIT study, nor render it inadmissible in Wikipedia articles. At an encyclopedia, we add rather than subtract information. petrarchan47tc 09:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It does discredit the GIT study, but I agree adding is better than subtracting. Better to have both.

Kjhuston (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not discredit the findings of the study insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, because we go by WP:RS. This study and it's findings were widely reported, if it had been discredited we would be hearing about it. You can make the claim once RS does. Until then we go with RS: that is that the mixture of oil and Corexit made the spill up to 54 times more toxic than if it had been left alone. petrarchan47tc 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So apparently you have attempted to remove this study based on a commentary made by a firm hired by BP. This is the very reason we have to wait for secondary sources at Wikipedia, because editors/articles can be influenced by the resources a large company can bring forth to get their side of the story told, and remove that which goes against it = quite contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From the BP oil spill talk page:

"The authors of the "comment" on Rico-Martínez, et al. are all employed by Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., "an environmental consulting firm under contract to BP," and they've been saying the same thing since, at least, August 2010.

Secondary sources showing support for the opinions expressed in the "comment" are required if we are going to use it to rebut Rico-Martínez, et al."

I was well aware of the Coelho et al. affiliation, hence why I included the name of the consulting firm in my original addition to the Wiki article. Environmental consulting firms are going to consult groups involved in environmental disasters - government and oil industry in this case. Anyway, the commentary makes a weaker statement than the review article by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho in the discussion at Talk:Corexit. It's a peer-reviewed secondary source. It looks at a large number of studies and demonstrates that studies that don't actually measure concentration mostly (92%) find Corexit makes oil more toxic, whereas studies that do actually measure concentration mostly (78%) find Corexit does not make oil more toxic. And Bejarano, lead author, is not only a consultant, but also adjunct faculty at University of South Carolina. Kjhuston (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thermodynamics section

Does this add anything to the understanding of oil dispersant? I'm not sure why the article discusses the critical micelle concentration in such detail -- there's no mention of micelles outside the thermodynamics section. Then again, I don't see this information elsewhere on Wikipedia, so maybe there's a better home for it. Kjhuston (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding toxicity statement

I removed the statement "Dispersants themselves may also be toxic, though most are less toxic than the oil they disperse" from the Lede with the edit summary "that's a meaningless statement...since the dispersant is meant to be mixed with oil, toxicity of dispersant alone is irrelevant". I want to clear up what was meant:

Toxicity of dispersant alone is relevant to this article, just not in this context, because of the word "though". This is an argument (WP:OR) and is considered WP:SYNTH. Dispersants alone are toxic. Let's face it, degreasers, especially ones strong enough to break apart the chemical bonds of crude oil are quite notoriously toxic.

When one writes "though they are less toxic than the oil they disperse", the reference is to oil in the environment, so one assumes the toxicity of dispersant in the environment is being compared with oil. Dispersants aren't used in the environment sans oil under any conditions, so the comparison is misleading and appears to have been meant to paint dispersants in a brighter light. This type of editing is considered WP:POV. petrarchan47tc 07:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I had trouble seeing why it's a misleading comparison at first, but I suppose someone new to the subject might think the oil just vanishes when it's "dispersed".

The EPA reference cited states, "Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil," so I don't see the OR or SYNTH.

Anyway, I'm happy with the lede as it stands now. Kjhuston (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, if the source made the comparision, it isn't OR/SYNTH. It is misleading, because it isn't relevant and is meant to confuse people. It isn't talking about "dispersed oil", rather, "the oil they disperse" is referring to the oil prior to dispersant application. To say that dispersant is less toxic than (un-dispersed) oil is an empty statement, because there is no scenario in the real world (where toxicity matters) where these materials would exist simultaneously in an individual state. The statement at best is as meaningless as "red is different from yellow", at worst it is whitewashing ("spin"). petrarchan47tc 20:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)