EPA Dispersant Tests “of Very Limited Utility”

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The EPA on Wednesday released the first round of information on the testing the agency has been conducting on chemical dispersants. The agency concluded that, in general, the eight dispersant products it tested have “roughly the same impact on aquatic life” and are less toxic than the oil itself. But as other scientists have pointed out, the first results were on the dispersant products alone, not on their toxicity when mixed with oil.

The EPA tests concluded that Corexit 9500, the dispersant BP has been using most in the Gulf, WAS “practically non-toxic” to fish and “slightly toxic” to shrimp. Yet Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, notes that the chemicals were tested alone, rather than in combination with oil. The EPA already had most of this data on short-term toxicity, as companies are required to test that before submitting products for approval. Other studies, however, have found that the oil-dispersant combination is more toxic and thus presents more of a threat to Gulf ecosystems than the dispersant alone.

These tests also only studied how much of a dispersant is needed to kill half of the organisms exposed to it for a relatively short amount of time. Gulf organisms, however, will be exposed for much longer periods. Denison concludes that this first round of testing is “of very limited utility in answering any of the more profound questions surrounding the use of dispersants.”

Of course, the EPA cautioned this is just the first round, and there will be more in the coming weeks. But in the meantime, we don’t know a whole lot more about the impact of the chemicals BP has been dumping into the Gulf in record volumes.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest