Talk:Corexit/Archive 2

The rebuttal indeed was in reference to the joint study between researchers at Georgia Tech and the Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes. Since the reverter was confused, it's evident this Corexit article misportrays the single study as if it were multiple studies. 5 news articles are cited that all just refer to the same study, which seems a bit overkill:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130110518.htm http://www.news.gatech.edu/2012/11/30/gulf-mexico-clean-makes-2010-spill-52-times-more-toxic http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/study-mixing-oil-with-dispersant-made-the-bp-oil-spill-worse/ http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/chemical-dispersant-made-bps-gulf-oilspill-52-times-more-toxic

All of these refer to the same study by Rico-Martínez and colleagues at GTech and UAA at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.024

Furthermore, both the Rico-Martínez et al. study and the rebutting commentary were published in the same journal. If the very journal you publish in later prints an article declaring your study seriously flawed, then that is either worth mention in the lead, or the Rico-Martínez study needs to be removed from the lead, which I have done.

Regarding the Woods Hole re-addition, my issue with that paragraph is plagiarism, as per the pattern pointed out above by Geogene. Someone went through a news article and picked out pieces, some verbatim without quoting, and the resulting paragraph is all over the place. It confuses degradation of the dispersant with degradation of the oil or ineffectiveness of the dispersant. It attributes the non-degradation-of-Corexit evidence to Woods Hole, when if you read the article, that evidence came from the Florida Institute of Oceanography. I suspect this confusion is because of the order of sentences a Wiki editor was copying from the news article -- too busy managing the barest of paraphrasing to read, understand, and reformulate into original text. This is lazy editing and not-too-subtle plagiarism.

Kjhuston (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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) Geogene (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

One commentary criticizing the study does warrant mention in the body (not the lead), but in no does any argument that this means we should remove the study from the encyclopedia warrant serious consideration. petrarchan47tc 01:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Since the reverter was confused" - I reverted my own mistake almost immediately, so your argument is invalid. Why are you reaching so hard to remove this study? Why all of the sudden? I do realize BP's clean water act trial is coming up, and that the date for it was set only this month. I expected activity like this. petrarchan47tc 01:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have warned you about your conspiracy theories, as have others. You're always asking, "Why now?" and reminding us about ongoing litigation. When will that court case be over, anyway? Geogene (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think that removing Rico-Martinez from Wikipedia is on the table, or is what was suggested above. I for one would like to know more about what the scientific community thinks about it, so we can weight it properly. But as I mentioned that would require sources that might be tough/impossible to find. Geogene (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hardly invalid, but I'm glad you did actually look into the matter. Please don't accuse me of being an oil industry shill. Kjhuston (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, you took an issue similar to this to a noticeboard last time. Would you feel keen to take this question to the noticeboard? I haven't time, but would rather it be dealt with there than here. Thanks petrarchan47tc 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this article should be added at all, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." See WP:RS. There has been no secondary sources discussing this commentary, and I believe one is required so that we know how much weight to give it.

From WP:NOTRS "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

To cite this commentary and then claim that it holds equal weight to the study, which has ample secondary sourcing, is a mistake. To draw from a read of this primary source that the study has been discredited in any way, is an example of WP:SYNTH. petrarchan47tc 03:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. If we want to specifically mention the rebuttal, the rules say we need to have secondary sources that refer to it first. That will be difficult; in practice it's unlikely that a rebuttal is going to have as much coverage as the paper it responds to. I think the easiest way to qualify what we say about the paper is to keep an eye out for some secondary sources that mention general limitations of the original paper's methodology, and if we find them we can mention them in the body of the article. But if this is that controversial, it would be nice to able to present it truthfully as such. Geogene (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat biased because I attended a science conference where this issue was frequently discussed. Unfortunately it doesn't make for an eye-catching story. I'll have to see if it recieved any media coverage. Kjhuston (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just spoke with someone who was at the recent EPA meeting in Florida about the use of Corexit, among other things, and it is still in the oil spill response plan. This study has not been discredited, and the commentary does not deserve mention in this article until it has been reviewed and we can cite secondary sources. petrarchan47tc 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's funny because the other day over at Oil Dispersants you said something to the effect of, "This is an encyclopedia, we don't remove things". That was when content you don't like was being removed. Now you're saying that this can't be added because you want to suppress this peer-reviewed journal study. There's a word for what you are doing. It is "wikilawyering". You are committed ideologically to opposing Corexit and are exploiting the Wikipedia rules in order to break WP's intent of writing a neutral article. I could present a lot of diffs to show your activist editing against BP, nuclear power, the US government, Monsanto, etc., but there's no need, I think it's obvious to everyone here what you are doing. This is not some new discovery or insight of mine, but I thought it was time to throw it out there that I know you aren't here to write an encyclopedia. You are here because you think that you can influence a US Federal court case that you seem to be obsessed with. I can show the diffs where you repeatedly accuse me of doing that, but I think you doth protest too much and show your own intent. The game is up. Anyway I support following the rules scrupulously, but I am disgusted to see what you're doing with this. Geogene (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it has to do with proper sourcing. We do remove improperly sourced things. But you've been here a month, I don't expect you to be an expert on these things. petrarchan47tc 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a secondary source (review article) on the subject (from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2501):

"A similar pattern was observed for oil chemically dispersed with Corexit 9500, for which a larger number of records were available. Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF [meaning Corexit + oil in water] LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF [meaning just oil in water] values (lower or equal toxicity). In cases in which CEWAF LC50|EC50 values were less than WAF values (greater toxicity), these were between 1.55-fold and 8.09-fold smaller, but most (76%) were within 3-fold of WAF values. By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values."

In other words, in papers which only reported nominal concentrations of oil in water (i.e. not an actual measured concentration), 93% found a synergistic effect between oil and Corexit; whereas in papers that actually measured and reported the oil concentration in water, only 22% found a synergistic effect. This is pretty damning for the synergy argument. And this review has already been cited in a publication co-authored by an EPA scientist (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es500649v). In citing it, they agree with the review's conclusion: "The practical use of existing oil toxicity data has been limited by the general lack of standardized laboratory practices, including differences in media preparation."

So how do we want to handle this? Kjhuston (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We want to handle this on the talk page. The secondary source does not support the addition of your commentary. You need secondary sources that specifically address it in order to add it. Your conclusion that this study agrees with the conclusion of the commentary may well be true, but isn't admissible per WP:SYNTH. petrarchan47tc 23:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what it is you expect. Are you waiting for a news headline to say "that one story about Corexit making oil 52x worse might've not been right after all"? The review may not support the addition of the commentary per WP:SYNTH; but it makes a much stronger, general statement about toxicology experiments on Corexit. It says that most studies (78%) which followed good methodology found Corexit doesn't increase oil toxicity. There is no WP:SYNTH there -- that's what it says. So why keep this one particular study? It is after all a primary study that happened to get a lot of press. Kjhuston (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't about where I am coming from or what I expect, and I do know this can be frustrating. We add studies that "happened to get a lot of press" at Wikipedia because this is how we determine validity and weight issues. If many have covered it, is deserves due weight here. If no one has mentioned it, it doesn't get included at all. Our job as editors is just to give the reader a fair assessment of what reliable sources are saying about any given subject. We may sometimes be wrong, but our default is to assume that if a study is widely covered, that shows its significance. If the rebuttal hasn't been mentioned, that also shows its significance or lack thereof. This isn't a perfect scenario, but it's the best we've got. We rely on WP:RS and really don't give any credence to arguments held on talk pages that aren't backed up by RS (these are often WP:OR. petrarchan47tc 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and YES, we are literally holding out for the newspaper reports that the most oft-cited study about Corexit may not have been right after all. If the rebuttal has validity, we will see these articles without a doubt. Maybe it's a matter of waiting. petrarchan47tc 23:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Frustrating is right. Well, thanks for explaining it to me. I think continuing to highlight the Rico-Martínez study is a disservice to the general public and members of the scientific community who turn to these pages. I understand though Wikipedia is not the place to influence public discourse, but it must wait for public discourse to catch up. Kjhuston (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not put too much credence in the followup commentary. Of the three authors I could find other articles for only one of them, and only one article for that one. Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? Sorry if this seems like piling on, but a cursory search on Google Scholar shows a whole lot of work from the review authors, one of whom (Coelho) also co-authored the commentary:

Hartwell, S. I., Dawson, C. E., Durell, E. Q., Alden, R. W., Adolphson, P. C., Wright, D. A., Coelho, G. M., Magee, J. A., Ailstock, S. and Norman, M. (1997), Correlation of measures of ambient toxicity and fish community diversity in Chesapeake Bay, USA, tributaries—urbanizing watersheds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 16: 2556–2567. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620161218

Michael M. Singer, Don V. Aurand, Gina M. Coelho, Gail E. Bragin, James R. Clark, Michael Sowby, and Ronald S. Tjeerdema (2001) MAKING, MEASURING, AND USING WATER-ACCOMMODATED FRACTIONS OF PETROLEUM FOR TOXICITY TESTING. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 2001, Vol. 2001, No. 2, pp. 1269-1274.

Hartwell, S. Ian, Celia E. Dawson, Eric Q. Durell, Ray W. Alden, Peter C. Adolphson, David A. Wright, Gina M. Coelho, and John A. Magee. “Integrated Measures of Ambient Toxicity and Fish Community Diversity in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries.” Ecotoxicology 7, no. 1 (February 1, 1998): 19–35. doi:10.1023/A:1008803600614.

Jennifer Kraly, Robert G. Pond, Ann Hayward Walker, LCDR John Caplis, Don V. Aurand, Gina M. Coelho, Buzz Martin, and Michael Sowby (2001) Ecological Risk Assessment Principles Applied to Oil Spill Response Planning. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 2001, Vol. 2001, No. 1, pp. 177-184.

Don V. Aurand, Gina M. Coelho, Robert G. Pond, Buzz Martin, LCDR John Caplis, Jennifer Kraly, Michael Sowby, and Ann Hayward Walker (2001) Results from Cooperative Ecological Risk Assessments for Oil Spill Response Planning in Galveston Bay, Texas and the San Francisco Bay Area, California. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 2001, Vol. 2001, No. 1, pp. 167-175.

Don V. Aurand, Gina M. Coelho, and Alexis Steen (2001) Ten Years of Research by the U.S. Oil Industry to Evaluate the Ecological Issues of Dispersant Use: An Overview of the Past Decade. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 2001, Vol. 2001, No. 1, pp. 429-434.

Richard R. Lessard, Don Aurand, Gina Coelho, Chris Fuller, Thomas J. McDonald, Jim Clark, Gail Bragin, Robin Jamail, and Alexis Steen (1999) Design and Implementation of a Mesocosm Experiment On The Environmental Consequences of Nearshore Dispersant Use. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 1999, Vol. 1999, No. 1, pp. 1027-1030.

Don Aurand and Gina Coelho (1999) Using Laboratory, Mesocosm, and Field Data In Ecological Risk Assessments for Nearshore Dispersant Use. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 1999, Vol. 1999, No. 1, pp. 1023-1026.

Don Aurand, Robert Pond, Gina Coelho, LCDR Mark Cunningham, LCDR Amy Cocanaur, and Leigh Stevens (2005) THE USE OF CONSENSUS ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS TO EVALUATE OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPTIONS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM WORKSHOPS IN NINE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: May 2005, Vol. 2005, No. 1, pp. 379-386.

Chandler, G. Thomas, Tawnya L. Cary, Adriana C. Bejarano, Jack Pender, and John L. Ferry. "Population consequences of fipronil and degradates to copepods at field concentrations: an integration of life cycle testing with Leslie matrix population modeling." Environmental science & technology 38, no. 23 (2004): 6407-6414.

Dávalos, Liliana M., Adriana C. Bejarano, Mark A. Hall, H. Leonardo Correa, Angelique Corthals, and Oscar J. Espejo. "Forests and drugs: coca-driven deforestation in tropical biodiversity hotspots." Environmental science & technology 45, no. 4 (2011): 1219-1227.

Bejarano, Adriana C., and Jacqueline Michel. "Large-scale risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in shoreline sediments from Saudi Arabia: environmental legacy after twelve years of the Gulf war oil spill." Environmental Pollution 158, no. 5 (2010): 1561-1569.

Bejarano, Adriana C., Anneli Widenfalk, Alan W. Decho, and G. Thomas Chandler. "Bioavailability of the organophosphorous insecticide chlorpyrifos to the suspension‐feeding bivalve, Mercenaria mercenaria, following exposure to dissolved and particulate matter." Environmental toxicology and chemistry 22, no. 9 (2003): 2100-2105.

There are a whole lot more, but I think you get the idea. Adriana Bejarano is a University of South Carolina professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, now apparently also with Research Planning, Inc. which was involved in the response in the Gulf. Gina Coelho is with HDR Ecosystem Management and Associates, which looks to be another environmental consultancy. These are people whose job is to directly inform decisionmakers. They certainly look to be experts. (edit: forgot to sign again) Kjhuston (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, turns out the review did get a tiny bit of press: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm

"Bejarano's goal was to bring to light some of the common misconceptions and challenges in existing data, and to encourage decision makers to consider data quality when making decisions on the use of dispersants. 'Data comparability is difficult because of the mixed messages coming from the scientific literature. Many believe that dispersants make oil more toxic, when in reality existing data generally do not support these claims. Being critical would be beneficial to the entire decision-making process.' " Kjhuston (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rico-Martinez is getting too much weight in these articles. It's just a single paper, after all, that contradicts 20 years of scientific consensus and government policy on the use of dispersants. It should be mentioned as a contrarian view to the EPA's dominant view. It should not presented as the dominant view of the scientific community, as it is here. The science standards for RS warn about giving one paper that much weight. Geogene (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work Kjhuston! My mistake was to check only the site that published the work. I did see the ScienceDaily site and ignored it because it has been criticized as a poor source--not that I always agree with that. What do you think--remove it all together or add the critcism? Gandydancer (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The secondaries for Rico-Martínez are mostly the same quality -- copy-pasted from Georgia Tech's media page. The Mother Jones article adds a few original sentences. The LiveScience article is the only one that seems to have had significant thought put into it -- the writer actually bothered interviewing a couple scientists, imagine that. Kjhuston (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Coelho and others also work for a consulting firm that has been hired by BP. An editor mentioned that a little while ago in the DWH Oil Spill talk page. I don't have a problem with that because we are already using advocacy groups (GAP, Surfrider) as sources, but that would need to be mentioned I think. Geogene (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coelho's employing consulting firm has also advised the EPA, NOAA, and military branches. Their job after all is to provide environmental consultation to the entities involved. As for Bejerano (lead author of the review article written with Coelho), her extensive history of ecological study in academia (see examples above) prior to involvement with consulting clears any suspected conflict of interest, in my opinion. I can understand the suspicion, but anyone connected to actual decision making is going to be connected to BP and the government... that's inevitable. Kjhuston (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to tell the USG/BP/EPA/NOAA side of the story as if it's RS. We give the entire story, but independent sources are preferred, and if the one questioing this study was hired by BP, that information should be given to the reader, who would want to know. There are also sources which say the government agencies worked in collusion with BP to hide some truth about this spill. Therefore, these sources should be taken with a grain of sand. We really should add a section on these allegations, as has been suggested before at the BP oil spill talk page.

I'm copying the details about this commentary: petrarchan47tc 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From the BP oil spill talk page:

"The authors of the "comment"^[1] on Rico-Martínez, et al.^[2] 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.^[3]

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."

The EPA is not a reliable source? Are you really sure you want to go down that road? "Independent sources" are not preferred, quite the opposite, they're minority viewpoints. And the fact that you want to suppress these peer-reviewed papers is troubling in itself. We use advocacy groups (GAP, Surfrider) extensively in these articles already. I'm going to have to get outside comment on this (again) if you insist on your weird personal viewpoints and conspiracy theories. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, I didn't say the EPA was not RS, but it isn't unquestionably so, and with regard to this oil spill and the use of Corexit, the EPA has come under fire from one of its own employees who claims they have known all along how toxic Corexit is, and that the EPA flat out lied. I am not suppressing EPA science in any article, but as I said, the whole story is told in an encyclopedia. Independent science not tied to a corporation or government is definitely preferred, especially if the corporation or government agency has been caught lying in the past. What peer-reviewed paper are you referring to? (And please, the insults are getting old.) petrarchan47tc 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to conspiracy theories in how you choose to weight content. I find that absolutely unacceptable and it goes against my entire understanding of how WP is supposed to operate and everything I believe in about scholarship in general, not just this site, and though I may be wrong I will have to do my part to oppose it if that's the road you want to go down. The fact is that regulatory agencies should be given the most weight in terms of authoritative sources, because that's what generally what is done in the real world. It's not just because they have the force of law behind them but because they tend to use a very large volume of scientific literature in reaching policy decisions, that tend to more closely reflect scientific consensus than a single paper or report. That's not to say they're perfect, of course. I don't mind mentioning important whistle-blowers or giving contrarian views, but that should be in proportion to the credibility that the real world gives them. Corporations are completely different and you are right that readers should know about their relationship with BP. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong because of their link to BP, that would be bad logic, but I think the readership would expect us to disclose that. But lumping together the government's views and corporate views is strange to me. We shouldn't take it for granted that EPA or OSHA or NOAA is as untrustworthy as a corporation that's trying to slime its way off a hook. As for "independent science" I don't know what you mean. Do you mean something like the State of the Beach report that was done by a scientist that had been hired by an environmental advocacy group and did not go through a peer review process? Is that really "independent" in your book? Geogene (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Coelho's criticism of Rico-Martinez. I mistakenly called it a peer-reviewed work, hence your confusion. Sorry about that. I believe it is just a commentary piece, but I'm not sure. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I added that to my list at ANI. I think most would see that as an example of blatant POV pushing. Geogene (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The commentary by Coelho, Clark, and Aurand in Environmental Pollution (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.004) may have only needed editor approval. Unclear if commentaries in that journal require peer review. The review article by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2501/full) should have received peer review:

"Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed initially by the editor-in-chief to verify that the work falls within the scope of the journal and is otherwise appropriate for peer review. All manuscripts are subject to review by at least 2 scientists." - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1552-8618/homepage/ForAuthors.html

I'll add the review article was funded by NOAA and the University of New Hampshire's Coastal Response Research Center, Grant Number: 13-034, if that adds any credibility. Bejarano looks to be very credible and independent. Her CV is here: http://www.researchplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Adriana_Bejarano.pdf

"Dr. Bejarano is an Adjunct Professor at the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of South Carolina, an active member of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and a reviewer of numerous scientific journals...."

Granted, I'm sure she wrote her own CV, but these aren't things she can just lie about. And just in case someone wants to argue it, NOAA funding is not a conflict of interest. Most university research in the US is funded by the federal government (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10329/). Kjhuston (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Coelho, Clark, and Aurand might actually be a secondary source for our purposes, since it is a commentary on a primary source (Rico-Martinez) "one step removed" from the event. WP:SECONDARY makes it pretty clear that articles that review the primary literature and make claims based on it are secondary sources, that seems to make Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho secondary for our purposes. I don't think anyone can dispute that these are scientists that are leaders in their field. It is an irony that it is leaders of their fields that major players would have hired as consultants in the first place and therefore the most knowledgeable are considered by some to be the most suspect. Geogene (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Petrar, you said above:

We're not here to tell the USG/BP/EPA/NOAA side of the story as if it's RS. We give the entire story, but independent sources are preferred, and if the one questioing this study was hired by BP, that information should be given to the reader, who would want to know. There are also sources which say the government agencies worked in collusion with BP to hide some truth about this spill. Therefore, these sources should be taken with a grain of sand.

I don't think that you are correct with this. Check RS guidelines and I think you will find that the EPA, USG, etc., are at the top of the heap of what we'd consider RS. It matters not one bit how many times they have been suggested as being too cozy with BP, for instance even the president noted that problem at one point. Independent sources are not preferred. As for a mention that the authors of the commentary are in the employment of BP, I believe you are right that that should be mentioned. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New secondary source on study by Canadian scientists: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html

" 'The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity,' says Dr. Hodson." Kjhuston (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Geogene called it ironic that BP had such expert help. It's not ironic at all. They hadn't even plugged the well yet and they were out signing people up: For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation. Some news stories at the time said they tried to buy up every major university in the area. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that was not what I said. Geogene (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's chill. The issue at hand is essentially toxicity vs. exposure. Corexit makes oil harm water-borne life because it puts oil into water. The Bejarano et al. review says that a lot of studies mistake increased exposure for increased toxicity because they don't measure how much oil is in the water without Corexit -- they assume it all goes in ("nominal concentration" vs. "measured concentration"). Then when critters in water are exposed to more oil, they claim there's a synergistic toxicity when there's (probably) not. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. This isn't about whitewashing. It's about clearing up confusion, because exposure and toxicity have been conflated. So we have the review article by Bejarano et al. We can say they're consultants contracted by BP. And we have the study by Canadian scientists from Queen's University in Kingston, ON described in a secondary source here affirms what I've said. So I'm waiting for Petrarchan to confirm that this is now sufficient to criticize the Rico-Martínez study in the article, and decide whether it should still remain in the lead. Kjhuston (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not "toxicity vs exposure", it is that you tried to remove a study with a source that is unacceptable. The study has not been discredited, and until it is, we have nothing more to talk about. Bringing in random science that states 'The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity' is a waste of our time, and not relevant to the issue at hand (Corexit, specifically, and this study, specifically). Again, this is why the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH guidelines were written. petrarchan47tc 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Random science"? The Rico-Martínez study claims Corexit makes oil 52x more toxic. This Canadian study that claims Corexit does not make oil more toxic. You emphasize "could be". First of all, all these primary studies "could be" true. But more importantly, you're warping his meaning and taking "could be" out of context. You protest because Dr. Hodson in the secondary article is quoted,"'The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity,' says Dr. Hodson." I think it's clear what he means, but let me quote directly from Dr. Hodson's paper to clear up any possible confusion about his intent in saying "could be":

"Contrary to Rico-Martínez et al. [6], neither experiment in the present study was consistent with synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersant in dispersed oil mixtures. Rather, the dispersant in the mixture increased the exposure of embryos to hydrocarbons, without changing or contributing to their toxicity."

There is no misinterpreting that. Kjhuston (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

All righty, well this is a blast and all, but I do think I would rather discuss this at a noticeboard and get more eyes on the argument you two are trying to make. petrarchan47tc 06:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to be sure we understand each other first. You think not 1) the commentary 2) the review article or 3) the Canadian study deserve mention in this Wikipedia article, even with known conflicts of interest disclosed? If so, then yes, I think a noticeboard is necessary. Kjhuston (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. And it isn't about what I think, it's a very simple matter of following WP:RS guidelines. I think a noticeboard would help us sort out what is admissible from the arguments and resources you're wanting to add, and what should be said about them. petrarchan47tc 08:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it to the Reliable Sources NB. What is the proposed content we want to add, and which specific sources do we want to use for it? Geogene (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kjhuston please note that what I mean by random science, is that the sources you're presenting are not directly related to the issue at hand - your goal to remove or discredit the 52X study. Until a rebuttal appears in WP:RS, our hands are tied and there really is nothing more to discuss. Hopefully this will help clear things up:

From WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. petrarchan47tc 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Corexit_.28Rico-Martinez_et._al..2C_and_synergistic_toxicity_of_oil_and_dispersants.29 Petrarchan I think you should explain your view there yourself so it'll be fair. Kjhuston, they may want more specific examples of the content to be added to the article. I'm also not 100% that I covered that correctly. Geogene (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added my view of the sources and examples of the kind of content I'd like to add. Kjhuston (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's semi-true that Corexit has been "banned" in Sweden, but only in the sense that Sweden does not allow any dispersants at all. So despite being factually true, inclusion of this statement as it is is misleading because it implies that Corexit is so notably bad that Sweden passed a special rule to "ban" it. No, it's just that the policy of their environmental regulators is anti-dispersant in general. Since this article is about Corexit, I think that should be removed from the article. I'm marking it with a dubious tag. Geogene (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the Bonn Agreement source as it is helpful reading for anyone interested in dispersants and I feel a short para would be a good idea. I agree that Sweden info should be removed. I'll wait a day and see if there is any disagreement about removing Sweden. Gandydancer (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That not all governments approve of dispersants is fair game. It shows a less US-centric perspective, and shows that their use is controversial, which it obviously is. My only concern was the context of how it is presented. I realize this did come directly from sources. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What do others make of that Bonn Agreement page? Am I reading it correctly when I see only France (Corexit 9500) and Belgium (9527) with approval for Corexit? I note that the countries listed are much more conservative in their use of any dispersant. Gandydancer (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Table 1 at http://www.bonnagreement.org/eng/html/welcome.html I see eight countries listed. Of the eight listed, I see one (Sweden) with a policy to use no dispersant. The UK uses dispersant as a first option. Norway, France, and Belgium use dispersant as a second option (after what, I don't know). Denmark, Germany, Netherlands use it as a last resort (again, after what I don't know). Of the eight countries, only three keep lists of approved products: Denmark, France, UK. Germany uses products approved by UK or France (which presumably includes Corexit 9500 then). Netherlands uses something if it's on one of the approved lists (so presumably open to Corexit). Denmark, in addition to its own list, will use dispersants on two other approved lists. So although there are three countries that will use Corexit 9500 (France, Germany, Netherlands), Denmark will not since it's only on one of the three approved lists. And Belgium is a wildcard, but it does have stocks of Corexit 9527 (the more toxic of the two). That's my read of it. (edit: forgot to sign...) Kjhuston (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

PS evidently that website uses frames, so the link doesn't take you right to the table. From that page click "Specific Policies", followed by "Chapter 23: Dispersants". That page has the Table 1 I referred to. There is text above that table too, but I haven't read it. Kjhuston (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work and making it so easy to understand. Here's what Nalco says: Do you think we should put a paragraph in the article about your summary? Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No more feedback here? Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for petrarchan's input. Condensing my summary down:

Of the eight European countries in the Bonn Agreement, France, Germany, and the Netherlands have provisions to use Corexit 9500 in an oil spill. Belgium and Norway do not have lists of approved dispersants, but Belgium has a stockpile of Corexit 9527. The UK and Denmark keep lists of approved dispersants and have not approved of Corexit. Finally, Sweden does not use dispersant at all.

Kjhuston (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess that's up to you. Four days of waiting seems more than ample--I would have waited no more than a day if another editor was actively editing other topics. Gandydancer (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the dubious Sweden sentence with the summary I wrote above, minus "Finally, " Kjhuston (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusations and evidence of coverup and lying. This needs to be taken into account when looking at using the EPA, NOAA and BP-funded studies/remarks:

• MSNBC

KAUFMAN: Some of the toxicologists who have experience and education, were trying to get [EPA] management to pay attention to the data that EPA had and has had for decades, but to no avail. There was a political decision made to let BP take the lead as opposed to the government being proactive, as we used to be.

O‘DONNELL: Now, when you say a political decision, are you saying that that decision was made by EPA administer, Lisa Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee? Or was it made outside of the EPA?

KAUFMAN: The decision was made outside of the EPA, by political appointees.

• Kaufman (DemNow report) "the administrator of EPA, in answering Senator Mikulski’s question at the hearing, said that EPA has tested the water up to three miles out and onshore and found that it’s safe. And then, a few days later, the television station in Pensacola and in Mobile document with their own limited testing that that statement was false, misleading and/or inaccurate by the administrator, under oath, to Senator Mikulski in that hearing. "

• Kaufman explains to Al Jazeera that NOAA and FDA admit to doing a coverup with regard to Corexit/seafood testing

• Private (independent) seafood tests reveal toxins missed by feds

• The Big Fix reveals: Many of the government agencies involved are bending over backwards to make sure that BP and oil extraction in the Gulf do not suffer. BP in particular gets special treatment as the largest supplier of oil to the US military. In an interview at The Big Fix' press conference, Jean-Michel Cousteau noted that revenues from US oil leases are second only to those collected by the IRS. Losses in tourism revenue to the Gulf States could essentially shut the state governments down, resulting in enough liability to bankrupt BP, whose stock is the most-owned by UK pensioners.

• EPA lies outright about Corexit toxicity "BP told the public that Corexit was 'as harmless as Dawn dishwashing liquid'," Dr Susan Shaw, of the State University of New York, told Al Jazeera. "But BP and the EPA clearly knew about the toxicity of the Corexit dispersants long before this spill."

• EPA Accused of Violating Clean Water Act Through Approval of Corexit in BP Gulf Oil Cleanup Not only was the EPA well aware of dangers of Corexit, but they were actively involved in covering up the dangers

• Cleanup or coverup? During the response to the spill, BP frequently compared Corexit to Dawn dishwashing detergent. And the government marveled at how quickly the oil had been cleaned up. After the well was capped NOAA announced that Corexit had worked its chemical magic and 70 percent of the oil “had been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed [or] was in the process of being evaporated.” The agency quickly withdrew this hasty assessment after scientists discovered extensive underwater plumes resulting from the use of the dispersant.

• NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes

• The hearing came amid mounting criticism against the EPA and NOAA by lawmakers and advocacy groups, who say the Obama administration is not being candid with clean-up workers and the public about lethal effects of dispersants.

• NOAA lies about Corexit toxicity After his first two dives, “I asked (NOAA) staff specifically if the Corexit was toxic, and they said ‘Corexit only has a 90-minute half-life,’ ” Kolian said in the affidavit. “This was reassuring to hear,” he said. “As long as we were not seeing any planes flying around we thought we would be ok.” Government officials “endorsed a policy to deny the toxicity of Corexit,” he continued, and they “purposely misled people: NOAA, EPA and FDA knew that Corexit and oil was a very toxic combination.” The EcoRigs team made 36 dives for NOAA. “We were seeing things that other people were not documenting,” Kolian told TakePart. They collected samples from mid-July to mid-September 2010, but could not obtain lab results from NOAA. Eventually, the divers began withholding samples. Kolian sent repeated requests for the data, but only received a verbal response that some samples were positive for oil, though not from BP’s MC 252 well, he said. “We started to figure that (NOAA) was going to screw us in some way,” Kolian said in his affidavit. EcoRigs managed to have some of their samples independently tested, and found PAH concentrations that were up to 1,000 times higher than EPA safety standards. The samples’ fingerprints correlated with MC 252 oil.

• Emails expose BP's attempts to control research into impact of Gulf oil spill Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials discussing how to influence the work of scientists

It seems prudent to take these things into consideration. petrarchan47tc 05:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Being sarcastic here, but where in WP:RS do you find the advise that any government agency that have been found to be lying should be judged as less reliable when it comes to their RS status? Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice that nearly all of those sources are websites, indy media, opinion/commentary, or outlets that acknowledge having a Progressive political tilt? Geogene (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

if we consider BP to be a biased source, and if indeed the USG has been working in tandem with BP, as has been alleged and proven (and it doesn't matter where these allegations are printed if the source is RS, like Kaufman), then we might imagine that these agencies might be biased also, and just double check their claims. This is also a section that needs to be added to the related articles petrarchan47tc 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer mentioned that President Obama talked about government agencies and BP being too cozy. I do think that should be in DWHOS somewhere. Geogene (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone misread the NYT article it comes from. This needs to be fixed. Kjhuston (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is here: . The analysis was on all of the 57 chemicals that are ingredients in any of the 14 EPA-approved dispersants, so the toxicity issues may or may not be applicable to Corexit. It's a factual error, it's off-topic to the point at hand and I think it should be deleted. If someone feels like reverting please reword to express that those chemicals might or might not apply to Corexit. But I think once you do that it looks like it doesn't belong here. Oil Dispersants would be okay for it. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan reverted my deletion three minutes later. Geogene (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, petrarchan's revision was not a fix. It's fine to say they tested the "full chemical composition of Corexit", but you can't then refer to the numbers that were found X and Y ("33 are associated with skin irritation from rashes to burns; 33 are linked to eye irritation; 11 are or are suspected of being potential respiratory toxins or irritants; 10 are suspected kidney toxins; 8 are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms; and 5 are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish") because these numbers are of the 54 components of all 14 dispersants analyzed. The result is not only WP:SYNTH, but it's also very clearly wrong. Kjhuston (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a big deal, after the chemicals were secret for so long. You're arguing that we can say nothing of this? petrarchan47tc 17:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No. If someone wants to sort out the numbers for Corexit, the information for the 6 components of Corexit 9500 and 7 components of Corexit 9527 is listed here:

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Corexit+9500

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Corexit+9527

I'm arguing (and Geogene and Gandydancer agree) that the original dubious statement, the revision, and the re-revision (that you did retract, thank you) misinterpret the NYT article. The NYT article says 57 chemicals from 14 dipersants were tested. You cannot then say all 57 of these chemicals are in Corexit. That is wrong. Kjhuston (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that 9500A is approved in the UK for offshore use, as of 12/17/2013. Source is primary (Marine Management Organisation). http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf Geogene (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The Bonn Agreement page says that the UK's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs is responsible for approving dispersants. It looks like the Marine Management Organization is part of DEFRA. Just to be sure we understand this, we probably want to wait until a change is shown on the Bonn Agreement page, which was last updated in September 2013. Kjhuston (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have had a reshuffling of government. But there are natural concerns about using one primary to contradict another, agreed. Geogene (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we really think this guy is credible? I've collected some of his quotes.

Well, we‘ve seen anecdotal information of mammals in the water, like dolphins, bleeding from their orifices; some of the workers who have done the spill cleanup are having the same problem. The dispersant and oil mixtures are supposed to atomize materials like oil. Well, if that gets into your system, that atomizes your cells, and that‘s why there‘s hemorrhaging.

But then the next question — I’ve only seen one article that describes it — who owns BP? And I think when you look and see who owns BP, you find that it’s the majority ownership, a billion shares, is a company called BlackRock that was created, owned and run by a gentleman named Larry Fink. And Vanity Fair just did recently an article about Mr. Fink and his connections with Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers and others in the administration. So I think what’s needed, we now know that there’s a cover-up.

EPA has all the information on what’s in —- the ingredients are. The largest ingredient in Corexit is oil.(same as above)

On top of it, the contamination in one of the samples was so high that when they put the solvent in, as a first step in identifying how much oil may be in the water, the thing blew up, just as he said, probably because there was too much Corexit in that particular sample. (same as above)

This guy is an expert? Geogene (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A minor point. An EPA page suggests these are the same thing . I also see "Corexit EC9500" or "Corexit 9500A" around the web. Do we know if the EC and A mean anything? And if not, do we want to pick consistent names to use for the article? Kjhuston (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)