Talk:Corexit/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Corexit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sea-Brat

Sea-Brat 4 is in the news in relation to this product... is there comparison data between the two? 70.29.210.155 (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Composition

Repetitive re-adding of non-encyclopedic content

I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this kind of problem, so I'll just post my thoughts here. Dear 195.238.137.32, posting links to YouTube detailing your favourite alternative usually does not qualify as encyclopedic content. If you can find reliable sources that also advocate the use of your alternative, you might include it text-only. However, including movies inline is usually not a good idea. This is not a forum, it's an encyclopedia. Note also that this talk page is not a forum either, but a discussion page for improving the article. Thank you. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the following bit that was added along with the youTube edit might be of interest, or otherwise usable:

It is not known whether Corexit was responsible for symptoms including nausea, high blood pressure, and shortness of breath in seven workers that took ill during the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.^{Paul Quinlan (May 28, 2010). "'We Have Nothing to Hide,' Oil Dispersant Maker Says". nytimes.com. New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2010.}

Removed it from the article since a factoid starting with "It is not known whether …" doesn't strike me as useful in an encyclopedic article, sounds by itself like a conspiracy theory, and would at the very least require rewording. Amalthea 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added that, Amalthea. The direct quote from the cited source is this: "Acknowledging the risks of human health exposure listed on the products' material safety data sheets, [Nalco CEO] Fyrwald said there was no evidence to suggest whether Corexit was responsible for the reported complaints of seven workers involved in the spill cleanup of nausea, shortness of breath and high blood pressure." I guess what I took from that was "it's suspected but not supported by evidence that this has something to do with their illness". Do you think there would be a way to reword this, or is it too tenuous? delldot ∇. 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, removed by Fat&Happy, added back during the edit war by the IP.
I'm useless as an editor, but I'd tread carefully here and stay very close to the sources, by mentioning who suspects the substance of causing those effects, and who says that there is no evidence to support that. When I read that sentence it sounded quite odd and somewhat suggestive to me, but that might simply be because I hadn't heard the claims before and the allegation didn't appear due to me without any evidence. But by all means, if this was a bigger story than I'm aware of add it back, I've left the sentence here right because I wasn't sure about it. Amalthea 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

↑ Moot with your new sources I guess. :) Amalthea 23:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

True. That sentence from that source was kind of vague, so might as well leave it out. Good point about attributing the allegations to the people who make them. I was looking for something else that said something similar but didn't really find it. But it looks like sources are all pretty well agreed that it's somewhat toxic and it's not known what all the health effects are. delldot ∇. 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact the CDC says the following here: "Oil spill dispersants break an oil slick into small drops. For most people, brief contact with a small amount of oil spill dispersants will do no harm. However, longer contact can cause a rash and dry skin. Dispersants can also irritate your eyes. Breathing or swallowing dispersants can also cause health effects." I would like to include this in the article, but unfortunately the CDC does not -explicitly- name Corexit. Thoughts, anyone? Should I worry about the deduction 'dispersant'->'Corexit' being original research? Andreas Willow (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem--I want to add something like "the idea of using Corexit is to keep the oil from reaching the shores, break it up, etc..." under uses or somewhere near the beginning of the article, but everything I find uses the more general "dispersants". I think whether you can conclude that Corexit is included under that rubric would have to be case by case, but I think it's pretty weak there, because it's talking about the health effects of a variety of chemicals. Given that there's so much being published now about the health effects of these specific chemicals I would think we should stick with Corexit-specific mentions. But if you do want to do something like "the health effects of dispersants such as [or including] Corexit..." I wouldn't whine too loudly. delldot ∇. 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The toxicity of Corexit has been researched by several countries. I will find those results and provide links to them, in a day or so (current computer problems with all browsers)

I do not find the tone of this article to be neutral, it seems to be anti Corexit. The Wiki article was cited today in a post on the BP website and their copy included things that are incorrect about Corexit.

Cairenn Day (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Toxicity

I would dispute the balance of the toxicity section.

"The relative toxicity of Corexit and other dispersants are difficult to determine due to a scarcity of scientific data"

This, although cited, is total nonsense since the four ingredients are commonly used chemicals and the toxicity of them should be well known.

The ingredients of both types of Corexit are found in many common household products and are only toxic if consumed in large quantities. It is a truth that only the does makes the poison and the dose for these chemicals is large. Stating the toxicity of large does without putting it in to the context of the dose is alarmist.

Question: Can it evaporate? Shanjaq (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tyrerj (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that household products aren't toxic? When millions of gallons of corexit are used in relation to oil spills, it seems strange to suggest that highlighting toxic affects of large doses is alarmist. What context do you want it put in? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply because many of the ingredients are found in household products does not mean that it's safe when:

Millions of gallons are used
The bio-accumulation effects are unknown
The effects on the ecosystem as a whole when used at extreme depths are unstudied

Toxicity can result from many factors that are contextual and difficult to predict. For example, even if corexit were completely non-poisonous by itself, but when used in massive amounts causes a bacterial bloom that consumes all the oxygen in the water at a critical time in the life cycle of some important organism, we might end up with a huge sub-surface dead zone that wouldn't otherwise be there.

Remember that ecosystems are quite complex, and the ripple effect of knocking out a single organism (or creating conditions that promote one over all others) could very well turn into a big problem. This effect has been seen in many contexts, and is an entirely legitimate thing to investigate.

JonDePlume (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if my first edit was awkward. =P I am a graduate student whose thesis topic is oil dispersants in general and the Corexit formulation in particular, and I had read these recent toxicity studies just before visiting this article.

I am hoping to come through in the near future and significantly expand this article (there is a lot of public information on the history and composition of Corexit which I think I could add). You know, now that I reread that toxicity study, I will withdraw my initial objection that it doesn't actually show that the *oil* itself becomes more toxic (I think it shows that Corexit speeds the dissolution of the existing toxic components of the oil into the water) because my particular expertise is in dispersant chemistry, not in environmental toxicity, and thus I probably shouldn't write my personal critique of their conclusions into Wikipedia. My bad.

However, I stand by my initial concern that simply putting the conclusion of this one study in the introduction gives the (incorrect) impression that, to the best of our knowledge, Corexit probably did poison sea life near the spill. I have cited a recent article from PNAS in which, among other results, it is reported that EPA testing for rotifer toxicity at the actual spill (note: the Georgia Tech study was, in a laboratory setting, also measuring rotifer toxicity) did not reveal significant mortality during treatment of the blowout with dispersant. If you would prefer, I can link an additional review in which it is reported that various different studies of dispersant toxicity have reported LC50 values ranging over multiple orders of magnitude, from "toxic" to "benign" values. Thus, I think that a balanced mention of Corexit's toxicity in the introduction would state that it is still the subject of public and scientific controversy and investigation. Thanks for keeping this article updated, and I hope to be back in a few weeks once the semester's over! Drock221989 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My friend, the way Wikipedia works is that we HAVE to stick to what the reliable sources say, regardless of an editors superior understanding of the subject. I would also caution your reliance on government science and please do some research about the coverup during the Gulf disaster. Here are two references to support my warning: EPA whistleblower and NOAA suppression of independent science. Also to better understand the dynamics of Wikipedia and the reliance on Reliable Sources, see this (basically, an author couldn't correct the summary of his own book on Wikipedia because it wasn't written up in "RS"/secondary source). petrarchan47 t c 23:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did cite a reliable source, and I do not appreciate you removing it. How is "sticking to the independent science" not YOU imposing your "superior understanding" of the subject on the article? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and to justify your removal of it from the page you cite an activist news site and the Tampa Bay Times? How are they "Reliable Sources"?

I am sorry if I sounded like I was trying to pull rank as an "expert" or something--I just wanted to explain why I chose to get involved with this page (I do research on the subject and have a good sense of reliable sources to cite, especially for some of the sections that are threadbare or non-existent, like history and composition). Obviously, anything that I add or change will be well-cited, as was my original modification. I do have concerns over the neutrality of your statement in the intro, though. That study is one data point among many, and I don't see how presenting that fact (siding with neither pro-dispersant nor anti-dispersant scientists) is not the most informative option here. That's all I'm trying to accomplish--informing people that experts disagree on Corexit's toxicity in the environment.Drock221989 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry too, if I sounded snotty. I really meant that you do have superior knowledge of this subject, but that at Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred. Please do look at the last link I shared about the author, as well as the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and secondary sources. Do you have recent-ish secondary sources which state that the science is still out on Corexit toxicity (sources not affiliated with BP/NOAA/EPA)? I haven't seen any since 2010. I was unaware there was any longer a question as to whether Corexit was toxic. I understand your being upset about the removal of your reference, but nothing here is personal. The reference you shared is not from independent scientists. The government's review of their own job predictably flowery. Lubchenco and NOAA were found to be less than friendly to science and not quite truthful during the spill. Please see the last section on this talk page regarding Lubchenco. petrarchan47 t c 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, see WP:NOR. When looking for a source to add, make sure that it says what you have stated: there is still debate as to whether Corexit made the spill more toxic. This can't be something you expect the reader to surmise, it has to be stated clearly in the source. From WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" petrarchan47 t c 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source for the Lubchenco report, however it doesn't support what you are trying to say. petrarchan47 t c 20:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry--had to go home for the holidays and didn't see your responses here. OK, so by my reading of the definition of "secondary source", this PNAS article *is* a secondary source, and your study is not. The PNAS article is itself a review paper, as described in WP:NOS. By contrast, the article you reference is a piece of original research--a primary source--and it seems to me like the news articles you're citing are not really secondary sources--just reports of the existence of a primary source (again, from WP:NOS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.")

But that doesn't seem to be our real issue here--the issue is that you consider NOAA, the EPA, and, really, PNAS itself to be biased and inherently unreliable on this issue. This is a pretty serious claim to level. Are you saying that PNAS, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world (and not government-run or funded--see WP:PNAS) does not reliably select independent reviewers for all of its articles? That the EPA and NOAA have pulled the wool over their eyes and convinced the PNAS editors to publish a false and unsubstantiated conclusion? That the EPA, PNAS, and NOAA are *colluding* to fool us all?

I did read the links you posted, but frankly, there is no real evidence in any of that. It's just two guys making claims that the EPA and NOAA have "suppressed" them, and some small media outlets willing to publish their claims. They provide no actual evidence that the data cited in the PNAS paper is false or unreliable. The DemocracyNow guy refers to unnamed studies that support his position, but...look, there needs to be a good secondary source contradicting the conclusion of the PNAS paper. Do you have any of those? With real data showing that the Corexit:oil mixture did, in fact, poison marine life in the Gulf during the spill? If not, I cannot see a good reason to exclude the Lubchenko article as a source from this page. Drock221989 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, you are right that my "compromise sentence" would qualify as "original research". We will just have to put the assertions of the PNAS article into their own sentence, as they exist in the original review paper. Drock221989 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's been so long... can you be more specific? What "compromise sentence", and what primary and secondary sources are you referring to? If you could link or reprint everything it would be helpful. That NOAA was found to be supressing science during the spill is actually not disputed at all. But we don't need to get into that, you can post the study and just make sure to say who is the head of it, so people realize where it's coming from. You can say something like "In 2011, NOAA head Jane Lubchenco along with Chu... put out this study" and leave a link to it. petrarchan47 t c 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I did wonder whether that was specific enough...well, basically, as is recorded in the edit history, I had tried to synthesize your study (citations 6-8 in the article, which present evidence that Corexit is toxic) and my study (Lubchenco_et_al., which presents evidence that it may not be) into one "Experts disagree on the toxicity of Corexit" sentence which cited both studies, thinking that this would be an acceptable compromise. Reading the Wikipedia policy on "original research" now, though, I see why that would be unacceptable by WP editorial standards.

Yes, (when I get time) I will write something about how this PNAS study from Lubchenko reviews NOAA and EPA reports indicating that Corexit may not actually have been toxic in the environment. Glad we have reached consensus on this. :) Drock221989 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is the inherent bias that may well exist in any review coming from the very government that OK'ed and helped to spray Corexit, and is being sued for it. But as long as it's stated that this is coming from Lubchenco, et al, that's probably good enough. Here is what I found in the review: " Results indicate that none of the dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine-disrupting activity (30); dispersants alone were less toxic than dispersant–oil mixtures. SLC oil alone was generally similarly toxic to both test species as dispersant–oil mixtures, and the toxicity of Corexit9500A was generally similar to the toxicities of other available dispersants. Additional studies are required before a more complete understanding of tradeoffs with use of dispersants is known (SI Text), including potential impacts of dispersants, dispersed oil, and oil alone on the plethora of other species in the Gulf, especially plankton and juvenile stages. "

You wanted to say that there was question as to whether Corexit is toxic. But the statement you were changing was about the "oil-Corexit mixture" that apparently this study did not address. The Gulf didn't ever deal with Corexit alone, it should be noted. Most would hear of this review and think "Oh good, the shrimp are unharmed". Corexit alone is less toxic than the Corexit-oil mixture (which is many times more toxic than crude alone). The review is acknowledging the Corexit-oil mixture is toxic, but they didn't say how toxic. Maybe a clear distinction should be made in the article dealing with Gulf-related studies/info and Corexit-alone studies/info by making separate sections. petrarchan47 t c 05:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian Doomsaying?

All over the Net have been copies or quotes from a report submitted by Russian scientists of the Ministry of Natural Resources (apparently a real organization) which states there is a chance that in the heated waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the vast quantities of Corexit might transition to a gaseous state, be absorbed into clouds, and spread toxic rain all over eastern North America; even worse, a major hurricane might result in even wider dispersal, bring death to all life, everywhere on Earth. A Google search will show that there many more results for the 'Use of Corexit in the gulf coast oil spill is going to kill us all' variety than the 'There isn't really that much to worry about.' Of course I'm well aware that (a)Widespread rumors, paranoia, and conspiracies are rife on the Net and (b) online articles supposedly quoting Russian scientists are not 'verifiable' by Wikipedia standards. However, considering that the oil spill and Corexit supposedly have the potential to destroy everything that lives--I can't avoid wondering whether it's the business of Wikipedia's editors to determine if there are, in fact, verifiable sources regarding what Russian scientists might or might not have predicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWMcCalvin (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My further searches, for 'Gulf oil spill rumors and conspiracies' ultimately led to information that the supposed report from the Ministry of Natural Resources cannot be found, and that it was most likely a hoax perpetrated by one David Booth writing as 'Sarcha Faal.' Both this revelation, and the aforementioned accounts of Russian scientists' predictions are on the Web, so I'm not sure any of it can be verified by Wikipedia standards. At least, however, the statement that the report is apparently non-existent, and has a dubious origin seems to be a reasonable explanation. Therefore, I might remove this section after a few days--unless I can't, or there's some reason not to--since the concerns and issues it raised seem to have been dealt with. (This is also the reason for not linking to any references: I question whether it's worth it.)

JWMcCalvin (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with David Biello's Scientific American article

Connection to sickness?

Inconsistency

Removed "Money Times" reference

Questionable credibility - NOAA caught suppressing science?

Damning update

Fringe Theories Template

Copyvio

Removing one's own edit several days later

Most of the following copy was removed today:

The rotifer study? I was aware of it being mentioned twice in two consecutive sentences in the lead, but didn't want to remove it, for reasons you may soon become aware of. Ah, I see you've met. Add by edit: another issue here is the overuse of quotations. Somebody copy/pastes sources into articles, puts quotations around parts they like, and often forgets to delete the rest, or alters the wording ever-so-slightly (but the text is still recognizable as a derivative work). Just so everyone knows, the correct procedure is to read a source, understand it, then write the information into the article in your own words. The copyvio here is less obvious than some of what you see elsewhere on WP, but I anticipate requesting a CCI on someone in the near future, since this has clearly been a long term problem that is manifest in several different articles. Geogene (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We all say things we wish we could take back but in my experience we are stuck with our words, even when we later wish we would have reconsidered our thoughts/feelings before posting them. Other editors may see it differently but I lose respect for an editor that does it as I consider it sneaky. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And I thought that cleverly labeling that edit "retracting some of my invective" would surely cause no suspicion that I decided to remove unhelpful statements from my post, because I'm sneaky. Foiled again! Geogene (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very irritating that you are attempting to turn this around to try and make it seem that I am the bad guy here and am being unreasonable. You seem to be aware of just about every other policy around this place but it seems that you have somehow forgotten this one:

In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't. That goes for fixing spelling errors, typos, run-on sentences, or any other minor wording changes, no matter how trivial. At Wikipedia, a talk page is essentially a transcript; no matter how well-intentioned you are in your editing, other editors aren't going to see it that way.

If it wasn't that I was still trying to figure out what's going on here I would not have noticed your deletion. I've watched this article for months and was aware that a long "discussion" has been going on but have stayed away because one can take only so much of this sort of thing. I'd like to enjoy this a little more and your sarcasm sure does take the fun out of it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for citing guidelines. You are right. I won't do that again. Discussion ended. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a couple of other large chunks of copy as well. You need to return what you deleted and strike it out and then the discussion will be ended. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm restoring it wholesale. I don't care either way, I just thought it might improve the atmosphere around here for other people. Hah! Well maybe this is enough appeasement to satisfy your control issues. I wonder if that won't just encourage further domineering behavior from you. What I did by modifying my own comments isn't a rule violation, it's just (apparently) contrary to usual accepted practice. Fine, I already said I won't do it again. Even if it were it wouldn't be a burn-at-the-stake offense anywhere except in your own mind. Your "policy" quote (from "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual") is advice that some editors might misinterpret my intent for editing my own comments. Contrary to what you seem to think, it does not give you a license to misinterpret my intent in editing my comments. You might also consider that I am exhausted by weeks of personal accusations of being a shill, accusations that are rule violations, and which I have gotten no apology for or retraction of (nor am I likely to, so I haven't asked). Well, contrary to popular belief nobody is paying me to put up with this bullshit. I have tried to be civil with you in letting you know this "discussion" had "ended". But it looks to me as though you are interpreting that as weakness. So enough kowtowing, here's the reply you deserve. When I say that a conversation is over, that means that I won't welcome further demands. Geogene (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to an older revision of this page, in case I overlooked something and am about to have my honor questioned some more. That only happens a couple times a day around here. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I frequently go back and edit what I say, to correct typos and for clarity. But I do so within a few minutes or even seconds after posting. Or, more usually, I'll add. I guess that's OK (if not, someone should set me straight). But the usual drill is to use strikeouts when editing pages after a period of time has passed, or to post additional stuff. Usually editing posts after there are responses is a big no-no, as doing so makes the responses seem queer or odd sometimes, as they are responding to text that is no longer there. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

True. Everything I've seen since researching this substantiates what you and Gandydancer are saying. What I removed did not seem to have been acknowledged but I should have known better. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that my habit of going back and copyediting my own posts is kosher! I haven't had any complaints, but there's always a first time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gandy above - I have a sick feeling in my stomach thinking about working on any of these articles because of the acidity of this editor we are suddenly forced to deal with. Intelligent yes, but obtuse when it comes to understanding context. petrarchan47 t c 22:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why, I'm shocked by that. If this must continue, why don't we move it to my talk page? Geogene (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a noticeboard. petrarchan47 t c 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I generally don't pursue in an argument till I've had the last word, but I will not leave numerous statements regarding my editing without comment. Geogene said he restored the comments he had made thinking "it might improve the atmosphere around here for other people". And then he went right ahead and said he hoped it was "enough appeasement to satisfy [my] control issues" but wondered if it wouldn't "just encourage further domineering behavior from [me]" and added "Even if it were it wouldn't be a burn-at-the-stake offense anywhere except in your own mind". And then it just went further down hill from there. All this from him as a result of the fact that I asked that he restore the comments that he made to this talk page. Hopefully I won't need to waste any more time discussing this incident. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of comments are unwarranted. I actually just noticed them myself and would have talked up sooner if I had. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Core. BTW, reading my post I said, "Geogene said he restored the comments he had made" when I should have said he deleted the comments he made. At any rate, I think that you have very well proven my point: By deleting our comments at a later date we remove what may have been our own contributions to the bad atmosphere around this place, perhaps leaving future readers without a clue as to what (the hell) is going on. When a pot (G) is calling a kettle (P) black, it is hardly fair for the pot to later remove his own disrupting comments. And especially so when he says that it is an effort to improve communication. As I said, it's sneaky. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you finished, or did you want to make this page a referendum on me as well? I don't like you much either, frankly, but I'm trying to move this in a more useful direction. Geogene (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also want to state for the record that you called me "sneaky" twice above and you continue to insinuate that I am a liar. I take this fairly seriously. Geogene (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

EPA=

It should be noted, the EPA is being sued over the use of Corexit. The agency may be a questionable source with regard to the BP spill:

Per Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response – and former the EPA ombudsman’s chief investigator:

"Corexit is one of a number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force it down the water column so that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case, these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill, BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher that’s been going on for almost three months.

We have people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.

Who saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP... The sole purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines. That’s the purpose of using the dispersants, not to protect the public health or environment. Quite the opposite." petrarchan47 t c 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuit appears to have been thrown out nearly a year ago . Also, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, the existence of a suit doesn't mean that the suit has any particular validity to it. According to your source some say that that suit was motivated to prevent a different oil company from drilling in the Arctic. And what you have there is a whistle-blower's opinion, admittedly a high-ranking one, being repeated by a highly political, somewhat fringey website. It's not enough to tell us we shouldn't give the EPA the weight it's due as the national environmental regulator in the US. It'd be like trying to write a medical article and saying we can't use the FDA. Geogene (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from my arguments above about weighting, if there are enough sources, and if those sources are good, then I see nothing wrong with writing a section somewhere on criticism of USG's handling of the spill, mentioning the lawsuits, etc, so that independent points of view are covered. It's not that I'm opposed to including contrarian sources, it's just that I want to weight perspectives the way they seem to be weighted in the real world. But I don't think we should make the starting assumption that the independent sources are more valid. Geogene (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Related Articles