Is the cure for the BP gusher in the Gulf of Mexico worse than the problem?

According to Wikipedia, it usually decomposes in the environment within a few days and has not been identified as a major environmental contaminant. It is not known to build up in any plant or animal species. That being said, earlier in the wiki it does say that it can be harmful to some animals.

I think the threat of the oil is a bigger threat than the 2-Butoxyethanol.

2-Butoxyethanol is a non-toxin, but still scares the crap out of me… Maybe it’s that this isn’t cleaning the oil at all, or maybe it’s just a feeling that they’re “cheating” somehow. But I sort of settle in the middle, that it’s better than the oil being all over the place, the wildlife, etc, and as long as the responsible company becomes more responsible as a result, and not less, due to the “easiness” of cleanup, then it’s okay…ish.

@JeanPaulSartre The info I glean about it shows the opposite and it is a regulated toxic material…Let’s watch out for locals with odd symptoms in the next few weeks…

Proper Shipping Name: TOXIC LIQUIDS, ORGANIC, N.O.S. (2-BUTOXYETHANOL)
Hazard Class: 6.1
UN/NA: UN2810
Packing Group: III
Information reported for product/size: 4L

Health Rating: 2 – Moderate (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 2 – Moderate
Reactivity Rating: 1 – Slight
Contact Rating: 3 – Severe (Life)
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES & SHIELD; LAB COAT & APRON; VENT HOOD; PROPER GLOVES; CLASS B EXTINGUISHER
Storage Color Code: Red (Flammable)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Potential Health Effects
—————————————————

Inhalation:
Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include sore throat, coughing, headache, nausea and shortness of breath. High concentrations have a narcotic effect.
Ingestion:
Causes irritation to the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Toxic! May cause systemic poisoning with symptoms paralleling those of inhalation.
Skin Contact:
May cause irritation with redness and pain. May be absorbed through the skin with possible systemic effects.
Eye Contact:
Vapors are irritating and may produce immediate pain, redness and tearing. Splashes can cause severe pain, stinging, swelling.
Chronic Exposure:
Prolonged or repeated exposures can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, lymphoid system, blood and blood-forming organs.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin disorders, eye problems, impaired liver, kidney, blood, respiratory or lymphoid system function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance.

Oil is very dirty, and very toxic. Coal is dirty and deadly. The far less dangerous solution is nuclear power.

@Cruiser ewie. I wonder what it’s toxicity is relative to crude… Nah it doesn’t matter. I retract my previous half support of this chemical.

@UScitizen plutonium and nuclear waste are also toxic and pretty dirty. I agree in principle that they are better than slicing off the tops of mountains to get coal or living on a prayer that oil doesn’t leak out of whatever means we’re using to transport it, but I don’t think another toxic solution is viable, which gets back to this question, in an interesting way. So I agree, but think we can do much better.

If we look at the international Material Safety Data Sheet (page 2, “Environmental Data”) it specifically states: “This substance may be hazardous to the environment; special attention should be given to the water environment and the aquifer.”

My question pertains in part as to whether BP is really trying to clean up by dispersing, or clean up the aerial and satellite photos so the spill is not so obvious.

On a related note, does anyone know what happened with the idea of burning the oil? One day I was listening to a radio show talking about how Canadians had successfully burned an oil spill without it affecting wildlife, resulting in it not reaching the shore, it sounded like the whole deal was a go, then a couple days later I hear it’s coming ashore, when the whole point of burning was to keep it from coming ashore. I must have missed a day or two of news on this, anyone know what happened there to make them not burn the spill?

@JeanPaulSartre Actually in terms of hazardous materials this one comparatively really is quite tame but still toxic none the less.

@dalepetrie I haven’t read anything official about why they didn’t burn it off, but I am willing to guess that it’s due to a few things. There have been high winds and rough waves and according to one story I read, the type of oil does not burn well. According to the wiki “The type of oil is a heavier blend which contains asphalt-like substances, and once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, doesn’t rinse off as easily, can’t be eaten by microbes as easily, and doesn’t burn as well.”

@JeanPaulSartre plutonium is not a byproduct of commercial nuclear (power generation) reactors. Plutonium is manufactured specifically for weapons in reactors specifically designed for the purpose.

As for the spent fuel waste from commercial nuclear power, that almost literally rests in the equivalent of one Olympic-size swimming pool per plant in the US. That’s currently not a difficult containment, but it is admittedly inadequate for long-term storage (long-term on the order of “centuries”; for “decades” it has been adequate).

@dalepetrie I just read this story that says they were able to burn off some of the oil successfully for the first time in a week. So I’m guessing they’ve been having some problems getting it lit. This story also says that they are holding off on using a different chemical than mentioned in the original question due to environmental concerns.

@CyanoticWasp Right, it’s enriched uranium used to generation nuclear power. In terms of danger to a human, though, not much change. And agreed on storage. I’m definitely pro-nuclear short term – but not as a continuous solution at all.

@JeanPaulSartre no, not at all “same-same”. Plutonium is one of the deadliest toxins there is, quite apart from its radioactivity. Enriched uranium is radioactive, but it’s not a toxin on top of that. (I admit that when a thing is radioactive I don’t know why that doesn’t make it ipso facto “toxic”, but I didn’t write the definitions.)

@CyanoticWasp Heh – fair enough, that’s new information – still neither are something I want around too much. I mean saying “Oh it’s okay, this radioactive material isn’t toxic” still doesn’t make me sign right up to have it used in my backyard.

@JeanPaulSartre I would. I already have. For about ten years I lived approximately midway between two nuclear power plants on the shore of Lake Michigan (in Michigan), and they were good neighbors.

I’ve worked at a fair number of ‘hot’ nukes. While no administrative, security or engineering system devised by man is perfect, I feel safe enough next door to any of the commercial US nukes that I know. By extension, I’d feel ‘safe enough’ next to the US nukes that I don’t know personally.

OK, the company is now capping the thing off with an underwater tower to contain the oil.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/06/explainer.oil.containment.cnn

I’ve been doing a bit of asking around and apparently, this accident should have NEVER happened, but because the companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico don’t have the same safety mandates as The North Sea or off the coast of Brazil, the company never installed a secondary safety device to stop the explosive gas reaching the surface and blowing up the entire rig. If they had a riser management system they accident may never have happened.

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KOGT/Products/RiserManagment/RiserManagementTechnology.aspx

These are mandatory in other oil fields, but Cheney and Co. gave the oil industry a free pass as far as spending money on safety technology… so, to save half a million dollars, they killed 11 people and devastated the environment.

Americans, I URGE you to write to your Congressmen and women and demand that the same or stricter safety protocols are put in place off your shorelines. Tell them, you love your shores and fisheries as much as Europeans and South Americans do theirs! They are going to keep drilling. DEMAND they have the safety technology in place.

@Seaofclouds – thanks for the info!

Damned if they do, damned if they dont…. basically the Gulf is gonna be fubar for a decade whatever they do.