Aerial shot of Deepwater Horizon Rig Following the Explosion, (AP photo, Gerald Herbert) |
Governor Bobby Jindal Visits the Oil Slicked Marshes, (Photo by AP) |
Media coverage of the spill ranged from the explosion itself, to drama regarding BP and its negligence, to the various environmental clean-up efforts that were going on. Needless to say, the oil spill received the undivided attention of the media. The nation watched for approximately ninety-six days as toxic oil spewed uncontrollably from the damaged well. Current official reports from the government estimate that the well leaked oil at approximately 2.6 million gallons per day and in total approximately 210 million gallons of oil ended up making its way into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to the oil, BP administered roughly 1.8 million gallons of chemical dispersants, the vast majority of which being COREXIT 9500, in hopes of dispersing the crude oil throughout the water column before it could make landfall along the ecologically sensitive coastline. To better imagine the amount of pollutants introduced into the gulf, an Olympic sized swimming pool can hold approximately 650,000 gallons, thus, the amount of pollutants would fill approximately 325 Olympic sized swimming pools to the brim.
A U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules Spraying COREXIT 9500, (U.S. Airforce Photo, Tech. Sgt. Adrian Cadiz) |
Like most people who casually watch the news the “out of
sight, out of mind” tendency hit me and after media coverage of the oil spill
stopped, I also stopped worrying about the gulf. In the two years since the oil
spill happened, I’m ashamed to say that I haven’t thought much about it until
this past month. A few weeks ago however, a friend shared an article with me
that was posted on Aljazeera that I found quite disturbing.
According to investigative journalist Dahr Jamail at
Aljazeera, there have been numerous reports of deformities and illness in
various species of shellfish and fish. Such deformities include, according to a
local crab commercial fisherman Tracy Kuhns, “eyeless crabs, crabs with their shells
soft instead of hard, full grown crabs that are one-fifth their normal size,
clawless crabs, and crabs with shells that don't have their usual spikes … they
look like they've been burned off by chemicals”. Along with Tracy Kuhns’ story,
there are various other recorded accounts and pictures of deformities found on
seafood, one of the most disturbing involving shrimp. Hundreds of pounds of shrimp
are being caught that are not only missing eyes, but also are missing their
entire eye sockets as well. This observation suggest either a genetic mutation
has occurred that has altered the shrimps genome, or something in the water is
preventing the normal development of the species eyes. Many believe that it is
either the oil, the chemical dispersant deployed by BP, or both that are at
fault. According to a fourth generation fisherman of the Mississippi coast,
Sidney Schwartz, “We’ve fished here all our lives and have never seen anything
like this”.
So what exactly
is causing these deformities and ailments? According to sources within the
article, two chemicals are likely to blame. First, is a class of organic
molecules that was released in large volume along with the crude oil, Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons or PAHs. Of the PAHs, the majority of which that was
found released into the environment was the simplest molecule, Naphthalene. Second,
is a substance found in the chemical concoction of the dispersant COREXIT 9500
called 2-butoxyethanol, the chemical formula of which is C6H14O2.
The article went into practically no detail about the chemistry or structure of
the compounds, so I decided to delve further into the matter.
I vaguely remembered learning about Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in my organic chemistry course, so I took to the web to
refresh my memory. I was quickly reminded that PAHs are a class of organic
molecules that contain fused aromatic rings and do not contain heteroatoms or
any substituents. The compounds tend to be hydrophobic, and dissolve much
easier in oil than water. The simplest of the PAHs is a compound called
Naphthalene, C10H8, which is the main ingredient in a
common household product, mothballs. The aromatic rings of Naphthalene can
undergo electrophilic aromatic substitution. Along with Naphthalene however,
PAHs actually can range from the simple two-ring structure to fairly large,
complex multi-ring structures. Several PAHs are known to be carcinogenic,
mutagenic and teratogenic, and several studies were referenced that
experimentally showed that cancer, reproductive failure, and lower child IQ is
associated with chronic exposure.
The Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons clockwise from the top left, Benz[e]acephenanthrylene, Pyrene, and Dibenz[a,h]anthracene |
It turns out that I actually worked with Naphthalene this
semester in my organic chemistry lab, in which we recrystallized the compound
to separate out soluble impurities. Currently being in an organic chemistry
lab, I’ve grown accustomed to initially checking the Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) of any chemical that I am unfamiliar with, and after doing so for
Naphthalene, I quickly discovered that there are indeed many warnings
associated with the compound. Such warnings include the fact that it is very
toxic to aquatic life and that it is carcinogenic.
Unlike PAHs though, I had never learned or heard anything
about 2-butoxyethanol previous to reading the Aljazeera article, so I took to
the web to find out more. It seemed that 2-butoxyethanol came under scrutiny
and was studied intently following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill when it was
widely used along with a similar but more toxic form of chemical dispersant
used for the BP oil spill, COREXIT 9850. According to the National Toxicology
Program’s study of 2-butoxyethanol however, it is simply an organic solvent
that is widely used in household products that seems to break down fairly
easily within the environment. It has also not been shown to bioaccumulate in
any plants or animals, which is good. This information conflicted with the
testimonial found within the Aljazeera report that claimed 2-butoxyethanol was
responsible for several health maladies experienced by the clean-up workers of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
One should keep in mind that the use of 2-butoxyethanol and
COREXIT 9500 by BP was not to purposely try to harm the environment or the
clean-up workers, they were simply responding to help alleviate the situation
as they saw fit. However, one cannot discount the possibility that regardless
of their intentions, their action of dispersing the oil throughout the water
column may have caused more harm then good. By dispersing the crude oil that
was flowing from the well throughout the water column. The risk that the crude
oil, in conjunction with the dispersant, could indeed be more toxic than the
crude oil alone is a possibility that cannot be discounted. Although there is
less oil floating on the surface and landing on the shores of the beaches, the
oil is now dispersed in tiny droplet form throughout a much larger area
underneath the surface of the gulf. Scientists have found huge “oil plumes”
which stretch for miles beneath the water that are not showing significant
signs of breaking down.
Full Size Image Can Be Found Here |
So again, back to the question, why are there multiple reports of seafood being caught with mutations and deformities that have never been seen before? It seems to be without question why; hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic carcinogens and mutagens have been exposed to the environment that is now accumulating in plumes throughout the water column. The species that normally inhabit the area have now been chronically exposed to the chemicals for nearly two years, and we are now simply just beginning to see the effects that the pollution is having on them.
Chronic Exposure to Carcinogens Takes Its Toll, (Erica Blumenfeld, Aljazeera) |
While much of these questions will remain unanswered for
years to come, it is clear that a great deal of effort will need to be made in
order to ensure the possible risks are well understood. As for the seafood
industry, it is apparent that the BP oil spill is already taking its toll on
the native species, and the presence of eyeless shrimp is simply a waving red
flag that we should be ever more vigilant in the following years to ensure the
quality and safety of the seafood that originates from the gulf.
-Vince Mui
-Vince Mui
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. It is so true that as time goes by major events are thought of less and even forgotten. I put the Louisiana oil spill far out of my mind and haven't even thought about the repercussions that are still effecting the wildlife today. I wanted to do a little more research after reading this post to see if any other wildlife has been effected and I found that there are many other species that are still paying for this accident. There are many fish that have lesions, growths, and other deformities such as no flaps that are over their gills. Dolphins are said to have very poor health conditions and are dying much earlier in life. Its so sad that the marine life is paying for our mistake.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nicole!
DeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Your paper reads very well and is very informative! I too am a HUGE seafood lover and am very disturbed by the thought of eyeless shrimp! Its scary to think about how great an impact the oil spill has had not only on the people in the area, but on all the wildlife and the environment. And I guess it's pretty true what you said about the "out of sight out of mind" mentality. The BP spill is still affecting countless living beings and it's pretty scary. Thanks for the interesting read!
Thanks Lauren!
Delete