Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...




Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Actions:
Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog





Blog item: A Lethal Concentration

    Email a Friend     See Related

7 comments, last: Jun-4-2010   Add a comment   Author: GuestWriter (Jun-2-2010)    Play a Video
Categories: Pollution, Wildlife and Nature

Trying to clean oil after the Exxon Valdez disaster; click to read about illnesses at Exxon Valdez cleanup and Gulf cleanupBy Deborah Blum

The standard toxicity test for chemical compounds is called the LD50. LD stands for Lethal Dose and 50 indicates 50 percent. In other words, LD50 means the lowest dose at which a material kills half of the test subjects.

The results are usually given in milligrams of compound per kilograms of body weight. Many of these tests are conducted on laboratory rats. To give you a few rat results: the LD50 of table sugar (sucrose) is 29,700 mg/kg. For table salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) it's 3,000 mg/kg. Really poisonous substances, though, measure in the single digits: Sodium cyanide (NaCN), for instance, possesses an LD50 score of 6.4 mg/kg.

Basically, the lower the number, the deadlier the compound. Poisons in water and air are usually measured in lethal concentration rather than dose - in other words an LC50. Which got me wondering about the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's shattered oil rig. Not to mention the chemical dispersants being used in attempt to break down the spreading oil. What kind of lethal concentration might be building up in those waters?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data on dispersants provide the LC50 in parts per million. Of course, these tests aren't done on rats but sea creatures, in this case Menidia, a small silvery fish that likes to hover near the water's edge and Mysidopsis, a tiny brine shrimp.

As has been earlier reported, Corexit, the compound chosen by BP, has some of the lowest LC50 numbers on the list, meaning that it's among the most poisonous. Also, it's among the least effective on Louisiana crude (the type flowing from the Deepwater break). Why the EPA went along with this choice remains a mystery to me - or maybe I just think the answer would depress me - but under public pressure the agency has now ordered BP to find an immediate alternative.

Nearly 700,000 gallons of Corexit have already been poured into gulf waters. But that pales, obviously, beside the amount of Louisana crude, now estimated at a minimum of 6 million gallons. So, I wondered, what is the LC50 of Louisiana crude on small salt water dwellers?

Of course, I realize, that comparing lethal concentrations is not straightforward. The results differ by species and by time as well as by amount of poison, The EPA numbers for Corexit 9500 (the formula used most heavily by BP) show that at 2.62 ppm, the dispersant kills half the silver fish in 96 hours/ four days. At a slightly higher concentration - 3.4 ppm - the compound kills half the little shrimp in two days.

As for crude oils, a very decent analysis by the American Petroleum Institute shows that all are toxic, but their effects vary with thickness and with the different chemistry seen in say, oil from the Gulf of Mexico and oil from Kuwait. The best estimate I've seen for South Louisiana Crude - after hours of exasperated research - comes from thesis work done at Louisiana State University several years ago. For instance, the study found that Louisiana crude had an LC50 of 4250 ppm for the warm-water loving killifish.

This suggests that crude oil is less acutely poisonous than chemical dispersants. But here's the really interesting finding in that terrific little study. Adding a dispersant - specifically Corexit 9500 - made the oil more poisonous. A lot more poisonous.

The "dispersed" oil had an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects. The study found a similar worsening for white shrimp, although not quite as dramatic. "Dispersed oils were more toxic than crude oils," noted the report.

Deborah Blum, authorOh, definitely. Still, you might argue that this is only a master's thesis conclusion. But as it turns out there are plenty of other studies raising very similar warnings and they go back quite a ways. A report in the journal Environmental Toxicology a decade ago concluded that "LC50 values indicate that dispersed oil combinations were significantly more toxic to these organisms than .. crude oil." Another study, this time of snails and amphipods reached exactly the same conclusion.

To be fair, a study of the Australian octopus found no increased toxicity. But don't you wonder what we're doing out there in the fragile environment of the Gulf, whether we're reducing the spill damage or just turning the whole area into one ever-more poisonous bowl of toxic soup?

And don't you wish our officials gave any indication that they knew more about it than we do? I love doing this kind of research but in this case I'd much rather have our country's so-called regulators waving the LC50 red flag ahead of me.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/speakeasyscience/2010/05/a_lethal_concentration.php  
Related PlanetThoughts.org reading:
  Peak Oil - The Clear And Present Danger (Jul-3-2011)
  Anita Mangels 'Explains' That Greenhouse Gases A... (Sep-4-2010)
  WHOI Scientists Map And Confirm Origin Of Large,... (Aug-21-2010)
  Up To 80% Of BP Oil Still In The Gulf, Say Scien... (Aug-19-2010)
  BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - The Last Cement Job? (Jul-8-2010)
  Federal Memo: 'Gulf Oil Spills Pose Little Risk ... (Jul-8-2010)
  The Greening Of Labor Day (Jul-1-2010)
  T. Boone Pickens Oil Stop Prediction, And The Da... (Jun-16-2010)
  Reality Slips In When Least Wanted -- Revealing ... (Jun-9-2010)
  Apocalypse In The Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes) (Jun-9-2010)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
  
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-4-2010)   Web site
The human brain has intellectual capabilities that far outstrip its common sense capabilities at times! And the urge to have power and destroy can overcome the healthier capacities of our minds. It really is a battleplace of ideas out there.
  
Comment by: MarySaunders (Mary Saunders) (Jun-4-2010)   

In Willapa Bay, they were targeting a sea grass that is ironically protected in the Potomac. They sprayed herbicides, but a prominent endocrine-disruption site, TEDX, let us know that the allegedly inert ingredients and surfactants could possibly be more toxic even than the active listed ingredients. This spraying was done at taxpayer expense, with the facilitation of some non-profits that I now hold in negative regard. The Nature Conservancy was one of the prime movers. This had been a pristine area. Diseases not previously seen here showed up in some species. The target species was a grass. Damages to other species were sort of side effects, ancillary I guess.
  
Comment by: MarySaunders (Mary Saunders) (Jun-3-2010)   

BP has supplied 80% of the fuel for the military, according to http://www.truthout.org. This may be why they were in such a hurry to open the well and short-cutted best practice by ordering mud brought up even though there were indications the blow-out mechanism was malfunctioning. Previous criminal convictions for BP should have disqualified them from selling to the government, but the military would have invoked an emergency, which would have led to even less supervision. Using a highly toxic dispersant fits the pattern of corner-cutting and not best practice, but this was from convenience. I have to run. More later.

Mary
  
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-3-2010)   Web site

It sounds like you know something about this topic, Mary.

What do you mean about BP wanting to sell oil to the military? Is that related to the explosion and leak, or to use of dispersants, or something else? And, how is damage ancillary (secondary)? Ancillary to what?
  
Comment by: MarySaunders (Mary Saunders) (Jun-3-2010)   

Surfactants and dispersants can make everything in the water more toxic, including bacteria, because they can help foreign substances penetrate cell walls. I know this because of efforts of the north Pacific coast to use herbicides in marine environments. Possibly BP wanted to sell this oil as soon as possible to the military. BP is reported on truthout to have supplied 80% of the fuel used by the military. At least damage in the Gulf seems ancillary. Much research on surfactants has been done by the independent scientists who exposed endocrine disruption.
  
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-3-2010)   Web site

OK, AG. Are we sure what the real reason is? Did they simply have excess stockpiles sitting around? Could they have used a different chemical to do the same job better and with less toxicity? It seems that reporters just report "EPA asked them, and BP refused". This kind of non-analytic writing calls itself reporting, but is simply echoing the PR statements from two "opposing sides" of a question. There is rarely the real follow-through of investigative journalism to determine WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON WITH COREXIT, EPA, and BP? Who is right, what are the issues, etc. At the very least the people in the Gulf area deserve to know and understand these facts thoroughly. Instead there is the fog not of war, but of public relations.
  
Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Jun-3-2010)   

"Why the EPA went along with this choice remains a mystery to me - "

Because it's what they had sitting around. Humans always choose the most convenient solution unless someone or something forces them to choose the right one.

  
^ top 
About author/contributor GuestWriter

PlanetThoughts.org welcomes occasional articles and opinion pieces from writers who are not regular contributors. Their contributions will be listed under the "GuestWriter" name, and additional attribution will be shown in accordance with the agreement with the original writer and source of the PlanetThought.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet


We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

  PlanetThoughts
     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
EcoEarth.Info
Environmental News Network
EESI.org
GreenBiz.com
GreenHomeBuilding.com
Heroin and Cornflakes
NewScientist
ScienceDaily


* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
EcoGeek
Good Bags
Opposing Views


Valid my RSS feeds


We Do Follow

ClickBlog.org



  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2020 PlanetThoughts.org. All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.