3 ms·

This thread is full of hindsight bias. The EPA defended the use of dispersants at the time: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article2458924

This thread is full of hindsight bias. The EPA defended the use of dispersants at the time: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24589243.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/articl... "The EPA said Monday those dispersants hastened the decomposition of the oil, a process that may also have kept vast quantities of oil from fouling the shoreline." Most of the concern was about the specific dispersant used, and if it might be toxic to marine life. But in general everyone thought dispersants would be effective. And it's been standard practice for cleaning up oil spills.

crygin 11y ago
Preauthorization for use of dispersants had already been withdrawn for Prince William Sound (the only zone in Alaska where they had been preauthorized) by the Department of the Interior in 2008 following this consensus report: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Spill-Dispersants-Efficacy-Effects/11283 http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Spill-Dispersants-Efficacy-Effect... This is also an interesting and well-known report discussing the non-mechanical response to the Valdez spill from 2006: http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/oil_spill_response_operations/Report%20on%20the%20Non-Mechanical%20Response%20for%20the%20Exxon%20Valdez%20Oil%20Spill.pdf http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/... I can't be clear enough on this -- the impact of dispersants on the environment and their lack of efficacy at actually decomposing oil (see: resurfacing) was well-known at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spill. There's ample discussion from the actual professionals in this field at the time of the incident regarding the obviously inadequate cleanup process. The responses from both BP and the EPA were meant to reduce metrics like visible sheen while ignoring the environment (it's even worse in the gulf since current variation at depth results in a much broader resurfacing pattern than simply leaving the oil on the surface would have done).
Havoc 11y ago
Well of course they'd defend it. The EPA would look like idiots if they admit they approved something that made a disaster worse.

crygin 11y ago

Preauthorization for use of dispersants had already been withdrawn for Prince William Sound (the only zone in Alaska where they had been preauthorized) by the Department of the Interior in 2008 following this consensus report: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Spill-Dispersants-Efficacy-Effects/11283 http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Spill-Dispersants-Efficacy-Effect... This is also an interesting and well-known report discussing the non-mechanical response to the Valdez spill from 2006: http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/oil_spill_response_operations/Report%20on%20the%20Non-Mechanical%20Response%20for%20the%20Exxon%20Valdez%20Oil%20Spill.pdf http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/... I can't be clear enough on this -- the impact of dispersants on the environment and their lack of efficacy at actually decomposing oil (see: resurfacing) was well-known at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spill. There's ample discussion from the actual professionals in this field at the time of the incident regarding the obviously inadequate cleanup process. The responses from both BP and the EPA were meant to reduce metrics like visible sheen while ignoring the environment (it's even worse in the gulf since current variation at depth results in a much broader resurfacing pattern than simply leaving the oil on the surface would have done).

Havoc 11y ago

Well of course they'd defend it. The EPA would look like idiots if they admit they approved something that made a disaster worse.