4 ms·

It's a link to Boston's BigPicture. I'm curious why you gave reddit credit for the link.

• jacquesm 16y ago
  Because that's where I found it. Absolutely shocking images, this really rams home the scope of what is going on there. I fear this is just the beginning though. One thing I can't understand, and this is not an armchair oil spill cleanup attempt, why are they so trying to avoid the oil coming to the surface, isn't that the only chance you get to contain it and to deal with it? Dispersing it underwater seems to me to make it much harder to get rid of it. Can someone with more technical insight here explain that?
  • _delirium 16y ago
    The typical reason to use dispersants, at least as I understand it, is that most of the damage, or at least most of the damage people care about, is done by oil washing up on shore and coating everything, which can be partly avoided if the oil is dispersed into a dilute mixture in the water.
    • jacquesm 16y ago
      Ok, but doesn't that mean that any chance at cleaning it up is blown and that the oil will be spreading all throughout the eco-system ? I can see that BP might think that's a 'cost savings' measure, if you can't see it you won't have to clean it up, but that seems rather irresponsible.
      • _delirium 16y ago
        Well, it'll eventually get broken down by various kinds of oil-metabolizing bacteria, so e.g. the same amount of oil in the Exxon Valdez spill would've caused much less damage if it weren't in a big clump near shore. Typical spills are admittedly a lot smaller than this one, though, so even dilute oil might cause problems-- one that's been suggested is that it'll lead to a bloom of the oil-eating bacteria, which will deplete the gulf waters' oxygen.
      • jgg 16y ago
        >...but that seems rather irresponsible. Imagine that.
  • tokipin 16y ago
    the explanation some scientist gave at a hearing was that the dispersion is BP's attempt to curtail the bad PR that images of thick black globs of oil would bring