Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 10 April 2014

Chemistry Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Composition

According to the Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9527A is composed of 2-Butoxyethanol, Organic sulfonic acid salt, Propylene Glycol.

According to the Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9500 is composed of Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light, Propylene Glycol, Organic sulfonic acid salt.

--92.193.35.135 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

More data revealed; source already cited, but need to incorporate specific chemicals into this section: "This afternoon Nalco added a release to its website that matched up the chemical components of Corexit with the common household substances that it had named last month as sharing common ingredients with the dispersant. According to Nalco, ioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate is also used as a "wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin, beverages"; sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs is found in body and face lotion; sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs is used in mouthwash and baby bath products; and sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate is found in body shampoo and juice."

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/09/09greenwire-ingredients-of-controversial-dispersants-used-42891.html

Note articles on Sorbitan and Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate; (ioctyl etc not found in PubChem: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez )

Cf., Nalco news releases: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=182822&p=irol-news Paulscrawl (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sea-Brat

Sea-Brat 4 is in the news in relation to this product... is there comparison data between the two? 70.29.210.155 (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing

This article needs significant work. The tone and style needs to be nearly entirely rewritten. Someone with knowledge of this subject would do well to heavily edit this article. Michaelh2001 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is new and being developed as a result of the product's toxicity and heavy use in the BP oil flood situation. It's taking shape as a result of the concerns and interests of editors. It's unlikely to see attention from 'experts' on a proprietary and presently controversial industrial chemical. The article will (preferably slowly) develop as more people assimilate the story and the nature and history of the product.Twang (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone is objective and style is neutral. Be specific, please. Or be bold. Of course it needs work, as do all necessarily technical articles on the 5 newsworthy and notable dispersants rejected by BP after the 2010-05-20 EPA directive to switch to safer alternatives and cut down on their use altogether. Those are reliably sourced notable facts. Last reference may help track down more relevant details. All such notable dispersant articles should follow same structural format for NPOV.

The EPA released further data on its chemical composition, including 2-butoxyethanol, identified as a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

---

1. Schor, Elana (2010-06-09). "Ingredients of Controversial Dispersants Used on Gulf Spill Are Secrets No More". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-06-09.

Paulscrawl (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• removed a couple of highly biased and totally unsourced claims. The facts are friendly; let's respect them. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Any updates on the copy editing thing? What work still needs to be done? Are there still specific complaints? Thanks! delldot ∇. 00:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive re-adding of non-encyclopedic content

I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this kind of problem, so I'll just post my thoughts here. Dear 195.238.137.32, posting links to YouTube detailing your favourite alternative usually does not qualify as encyclopedic content. If you can find reliable sources that also advocate the use of your alternative, you might include it text-only. However, including movies inline is usually not a good idea. This is not a forum, it's an encyclopedia. Note also that this talk page is not a forum either, but a discussion page for improving the article. Thank you. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the following bit that was added along with the youTube edit might be of interest, or otherwise usable:

It is not known whether Corexit was responsible for symptoms including nausea, high blood pressure, and shortness of breath in seven workers that took ill during the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Removed it from the article since a factoid starting with "It is not known whether …" doesn't strike me as useful in an encyclopedic article, sounds by itself like a conspiracy theory, and would at the very least require rewording. Amalthea 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added that, Amalthea. The direct quote from the cited source is this: "Acknowledging the risks of human health exposure listed on the products' material safety data sheets, Fyrwald said there was no evidence to suggest whether Corexit was responsible for the reported complaints of seven workers involved in the spill cleanup of nausea, shortness of breath and high blood pressure." I guess what I took from that was "it's suspected but not supported by evidence that this has something to do with their illness". Do you think there would be a way to reword this, or is it too tenuous? delldot ∇. 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, removed by Fat&Happy, added back during the edit war by the IP.
I'm useless as an editor, but I'd tread carefully here and stay very close to the sources, by mentioning who suspects the substance of causing those effects, and who says that there is no evidence to support that. When I read that sentence it sounded quite odd and somewhat suggestive to me, but that might simply be because I hadn't heard the claims before and the allegation didn't appear due to me without any evidence. But by all means, if this was a bigger story than I'm aware of add it back, I've left the sentence here right because I wasn't sure about it. Amalthea 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

↑ Moot with your new sources I guess. :) Amalthea 23:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

True. That sentence from that source was kind of vague, so might as well leave it out. Good point about attributing the allegations to the people who make them. I was looking for something else that said something similar but didn't really find it. But it looks like sources are all pretty well agreed that it's somewhat toxic and it's not known what all the health effects are. delldot ∇. 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact the CDC says the following here: "Oil spill dispersants break an oil slick into small drops. For most people, brief contact with a small amount of oil spill dispersants will do no harm. However, longer contact can cause a rash and dry skin. Dispersants can also irritate your eyes. Breathing or swallowing dispersants can also cause health effects." I would like to include this in the article, but unfortunately the CDC does not -explicitly- name Corexit. Thoughts, anyone? Should I worry about the deduction 'dispersant'->'Corexit' being original research? Andreas Willow (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem--I want to add something like "the idea of using Corexit is to keep the oil from reaching the shores, break it up, etc..." under uses or somewhere near the beginning of the article, but everything I find uses the more general "dispersants". I think whether you can conclude that Corexit is included under that rubric would have to be case by case, but I think it's pretty weak there, because it's talking about the health effects of a variety of chemicals. Given that there's so much being published now about the health effects of these specific chemicals I would think we should stick with Corexit-specific mentions. But if you do want to do something like "the health effects of dispersants such as Corexit..." I wouldn't whine too loudly. delldot ∇. 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The toxicity of Corexit has been researched by several countries. I will find those results and provide links to them, in a day or so (current computer problems with all browsers)

I do not find the tone of this article to be neutral, it seems to be anti Corexit. The Wiki article was cited today in a post on the BP website and their copy included things that are incorrect about Corexit.

Cairenn Day (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Toxicity

I would dispute the balance of the toxicity section.

"The relative toxicity of Corexit and other dispersants are difficult to determine due to a scarcity of scientific data"

This, although cited, is total nonsense since the four ingredients are commonly used chemicals and the toxicity of them should be well known.

The ingredients of both types of Corexit are found in many common household products and are only toxic if consumed in large quantities. It is a truth that only the does makes the poison and the dose for these chemicals is large. Stating the toxicity of large does without putting it in to the context of the dose is alarmist.

• Question: Can it evaporate? Shanjaq (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tyrerj (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that household products aren't toxic? When millions of gallons of corexit are used in relation to oil spills, it seems strange to suggest that highlighting toxic affects of large doses is alarmist. What context do you want it put in? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply because many of the ingredients are found in household products does not mean that it's safe when:

• Millions of gallons are used
• The bio-accumulation effects are unknown
• The effects on the ecosystem as a whole when used at extreme depths are unstudied

Toxicity can result from many factors that are contextual and difficult to predict. For example, even if corexit were completely non-poisonous by itself, but when used in massive amounts causes a bacterial bloom that consumes all the oxygen in the water at a critical time in the life cycle of some important organism, we might end up with a huge sub-surface dead zone that wouldn't otherwise be there.

Remember that ecosystems are quite complex, and the ripple effect of knocking out a single organism (or creating conditions that promote one over all others) could very well turn into a big problem. This effect has been seen in many contexts, and is an entirely legitimate thing to investigate.

JonDePlume (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if my first edit was awkward. =P I am a graduate student whose thesis topic is oil dispersants in general and the Corexit formulation in particular, and I had read these recent toxicity studies just before visiting this article.

I am hoping to come through in the near future and significantly expand this article (there is a lot of public information on the history and composition of Corexit which I think I could add). You know, now that I reread that toxicity study, I will withdraw my initial objection that it doesn't actually show that the *oil* itself becomes more toxic (I think it shows that Corexit speeds the dissolution of the existing toxic components of the oil into the water) because my particular expertise is in dispersant chemistry, not in environmental toxicity, and thus I probably shouldn't write my personal critique of their conclusions into Misplaced Pages. My bad.

However, I stand by my initial concern that simply putting the conclusion of this one study in the introduction gives the (incorrect) impression that, to the best of our knowledge, Corexit probably did poison sea life near the spill. I have cited a recent article from PNAS in which, among other results, it is reported that EPA testing for rotifer toxicity at the actual spill (note: the Georgia Tech study was, in a laboratory setting, also measuring rotifer toxicity) did not reveal significant mortality during treatment of the blowout with dispersant. If you would prefer, I can link an additional review in which it is reported that various different studies of dispersant toxicity have reported LC50 values ranging over multiple orders of magnitude, from "toxic" to "benign" values. Thus, I think that a balanced mention of Corexit's toxicity in the introduction would state that it is still the subject of public and scientific controversy and investigation. Thanks for keeping this article updated, and I hope to be back in a few weeks once the semester's over! Drock221989 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My friend, the way Misplaced Pages works is that we HAVE to stick to what the reliable sources say, regardless of an editors superior understanding of the subject. I would also caution your reliance on government science and please do some research about the coverup during the Gulf disaster. Here are two references to support my warning: EPA whistleblower and NOAA suppression of independent science. Also to better understand the dynamics of Misplaced Pages and the reliance on Reliable Sources, see this (basically, an author couldn't correct the summary of his own book on Misplaced Pages because it wasn't written up in "RS"/secondary source). petrarchan47tc 23:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did cite a reliable source, and I do not appreciate you removing it. How is "sticking to the independent science" not YOU imposing your "superior understanding" of the subject on the article? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and to justify your removal of it from the page you cite an activist news site and the Tampa Bay Times? How are they "Reliable Sources"?

I am sorry if I sounded like I was trying to pull rank as an "expert" or something--I just wanted to explain why I chose to get involved with this page (I do research on the subject and have a good sense of reliable sources to cite, especially for some of the sections that are threadbare or non-existent, like history and composition). Obviously, anything that I add or change will be well-cited, as was my original modification. I do have concerns over the neutrality of your statement in the intro, though. That study is one data point among many, and I don't see how presenting that fact (siding with neither pro-dispersant nor anti-dispersant scientists) is not the most informative option here. That's all I'm trying to accomplish--informing people that experts disagree on Corexit's toxicity in the environment.Drock221989 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry too, if I sounded snotty. I really meant that you do have superior knowledge of this subject, but that at Misplaced Pages, secondary sources are preferred. Please do look at the last link I shared about the author, as well as the Misplaced Pages guidelines for reliable sources and secondary sources. Do you have recent-ish secondary sources which state that the science is still out on Corexit toxicity (sources not affiliated with BP/NOAA/EPA)? I haven't seen any since 2010. I was unaware there was any longer a question as to whether Corexit was toxic. I understand your being upset about the removal of your reference, but nothing here is personal. The reference you shared is not from independent scientists. The government's review of their own job predictably flowery. Lubchenco and NOAA were found to be less than friendly to science and not quite truthful during the spill. Please see the last section on this talk page regarding Lubchenco. petrarchan47tc 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, see WP:NOR. When looking for a source to add, make sure that it says what you have stated: there is still debate as to whether Corexit made the spill more toxic. This can't be something you expect the reader to surmise, it has to be stated clearly in the source. From WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" petrarchan47tc 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source for the Lubchenco report, however it doesn't support what you are trying to say. petrarchan47tc 20:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry--had to go home for the holidays and didn't see your responses here. OK, so by my reading of the definition of "secondary source", this PNAS article *is* a secondary source, and your study is not. The PNAS article is itself a review paper, as described in WP:NOS. By contrast, the article you reference is a piece of original research--a primary source--and it seems to me like the news articles you're citing are not really secondary sources--just reports of the existence of a primary source (again, from WP:NOS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.")

But that doesn't seem to be our real issue here--the issue is that you consider NOAA, the EPA, and, really, PNAS itself to be biased and inherently unreliable on this issue. This is a pretty serious claim to level. Are you saying that PNAS, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world (and not government-run or funded--see WP:PNAS) does not reliably select independent reviewers for all of its articles? That the EPA and NOAA have pulled the wool over their eyes and convinced the PNAS editors to publish a false and unsubstantiated conclusion? That the EPA, PNAS, and NOAA are *colluding* to fool us all?

I did read the links you posted, but frankly, there is no real evidence in any of that. It's just two guys making claims that the EPA and NOAA have "suppressed" them, and some small media outlets willing to publish their claims. They provide no actual evidence that the data cited in the PNAS paper is false or unreliable. The DemocracyNow guy refers to unnamed studies that support his position, but...look, there needs to be a good secondary source contradicting the conclusion of the PNAS paper. Do you have any of those? With real data showing that the Corexit:oil mixture did, in fact, poison marine life in the Gulf during the spill? If not, I cannot see a good reason to exclude the Lubchenko article as a source from this page. Drock221989 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, you are right that my "compromise sentence" would qualify as "original research". We will just have to put the assertions of the PNAS article into their own sentence, as they exist in the original review paper. Drock221989 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's been so long... can you be more specific? What "compromise sentence", and what primary and secondary sources are you referring to? If you could link or reprint everything it would be helpful. That NOAA was found to be supressing science during the spill is actually not disputed at all. But we don't need to get into that, you can post the study and just make sure to say who is the head of it, so people realize where it's coming from. You can say something like "In 2011, NOAA head Jane Lubchenco along with Chu... put out this study" and leave a link to it. petrarchan47tc 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I did wonder whether that was specific enough...well, basically, as is recorded in the edit history, I had tried to synthesize your study (citations 6-8 in the article, which present evidence that Corexit is toxic) and my study (Lubchenco_et_al., which presents evidence that it may not be) into one "Experts disagree on the toxicity of Corexit" sentence which cited both studies, thinking that this would be an acceptable compromise. Reading the Misplaced Pages policy on "original research" now, though, I see why that would be unacceptable by WP editorial standards.

Yes, (when I get time) I will write something about how this PNAS study from Lubchenko reviews NOAA and EPA reports indicating that Corexit may not actually have been toxic in the environment. Glad we have reached consensus on this. :) Drock221989 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is the inherent bias that may well exist in any review coming from the very government that OK'ed and helped to spray Corexit, and is being sued for it. But as long as it's stated that this is coming from Lubchenco, et al, that's probably good enough. Here is what I found in the review: " Results indicate that none of the dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine-disrupting activity (30); dispersants alone were less toxic than dispersant–oil mixtures. SLC oil alone was generally similarly toxic to both test species as dispersant–oil mixtures, and the toxicity of Corexit9500A was generally similar to the toxicities of other available dispersants. Additional studies are required before a more complete understanding of tradeoffs with use of dispersants is known (SI Text), including potential impacts of dispersants, dispersed oil, and oil alone on the plethora of other species in the Gulf, especially plankton and juvenile stages. "

You wanted to say that there was question as to whether Corexit is toxic. But the statement you were changing was about the "oil-Corexit mixture" that apparently this study did not address. The Gulf didn't ever deal with Corexit alone, it should be noted. Most would hear of this review and think "Oh good, the shrimp are unharmed". Corexit alone is less toxic than the Corexit-oil mixture (which is many times more toxic than crude alone). The review is acknowledging the Corexit-oil mixture is toxic, but they didn't say how toxic. Maybe a clear distinction should be made in the article dealing with Gulf-related studies/info and Corexit-alone studies/info by making separate sections. petrarchan47tc 05:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian Doomsaying?

All over the Net have been copies or quotes from a report submitted by Russian scientists of the Ministry of Natural Resources (apparently a real organization) which states there is a chance that in the heated waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the vast quantities of Corexit might transition to a gaseous state, be absorbed into clouds, and spread toxic rain all over eastern North America; even worse, a major hurricane might result in even wider dispersal, bring death to all life, everywhere on Earth. A Google search will show that there many more results for the 'Use of Corexit in the gulf coast oil spill is going to kill us all' variety than the 'There isn't really that much to worry about.' Of course I'm well aware that (a)Widespread rumors, paranoia, and conspiracies are rife on the Net and (b) online articles supposedly quoting Russian scientists are not 'verifiable' by Misplaced Pages standards. However, considering that the oil spill and Corexit supposedly have the potential to destroy everything that lives--I can't avoid wondering whether it's the business of Misplaced Pages's editors to determine if there are, in fact, verifiable sources regarding what Russian scientists might or might not have predicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWMcCalvin (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My further searches, for 'Gulf oil spill rumors and conspiracies' ultimately led to information that the supposed report from the Ministry of Natural Resources cannot be found, and that it was most likely a hoax perpetrated by one David Booth writing as 'Sarcha Faal.' Both this revelation, and the aforementioned accounts of Russian scientists' predictions are on the Web, so I'm not sure any of it can be verified by Misplaced Pages standards. At least, however, the statement that the report is apparently non-existent, and has a dubious origin seems to be a reasonable explanation. Therefore, I might remove this section after a few days--unless I can't, or there's some reason not to--since the concerns and issues it raised seem to have been dealt with. (This is also the reason for not linking to any references: I question whether it's worth it.)

JWMcCalvin (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with David Biello's Scientific American article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution

Just a note to those citing the above article:

He writes : "the EPA ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants on the oil slick on May 26." If reading quickly, one gets the false impression that BP was ordered to stop subsurface use. The article also neglects to mention the EPA's allowances for exemptions in specific circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.197.115 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Connection to sickness?

I just read this article and wonder if there is a connectionto Corexit? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/17/mystery-illnesses-plague-louisiana-oil-spill-crews/

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The article on Dispersit claims that:

Corexit, the oil dispersant used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is rated at 54.7% effective against South Louisiana crude oil and three times as lethal to silverfish and more than twice as lethal to shrimp.

This claim refers to an article on wired.com. The wiki article on Corexit#Effectiveness claims the exact oposite refering to an EPA document from a single study by the EPA research lab which states:

The rank order toxicity of the eight dispersants was generally similar to the information provided in the NCP Product Schedule. For both test species, Dispersit SPC1000 was the most toxic and JD-2000 the least toxic.

When you look into the EPAs NCP you find confirmation of the claims in the wired.com article.

No matter what is wrong here, this should at least be consistent in the wikipedia.

I put this comment in the discussion page of both articles.

--88.78.140.189 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

_________________________________

________________________________ The NY Times article claims that Corexit is more toxic than Dispersit SPC 1000 just like the EPA report cited above( the one last modified 2011) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1323394256-SghOZVOf96RQi+SKT4a/LA.... I don't really understand why there is such a large discrepancy between 2 EPA Studies...

It also mentions that up to 60k gallons of Dispersit can be produced a day, which shows (at least in my mind)that BP wasn't choosing Corexit for its availability, which is another salient point that should prob be added to the article

Also please forgive me if this is formatted poorly - i'm new to editing wiki articles. 74.105.15.108 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Money Times" reference

Hi there, I found this statement attributed to "The Money Times", an investment magazine. This doesn't seem like a good source. I've removed the information until a better source can be found:

"Sea Brat 4, the only effective alternative that is available in quantities large enough for the spill and is less toxic, was rejected by BP because of the risk that components would break down into nonylphenol, which persists in the environment and is toxic to marine life."Source petrarchan47tc 00:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionable credibility - NOAA caught suppressing science?

NOAA and Lubchenco are not exactly credible when it comes to the BP oil spill. Please see this report. petrarchan47tc 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Damning update

• Hertsgaard, Mark (April 22, 2013). "What BP Doesn't Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Newsweek. The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 20, 2013. 'It's as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid.' That's what Jamie Griffin says the BP man told her about the smelly, rainbow-streaked gunk coating the floor of the "floating hotel" where Griffin was feeding hundreds of cleanup workers during the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The article is dated Apr 22, 2013 4:45 AM EDT. —Pawyilee (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been added as a reference, but has yet to be be added to the article. petrarchan47tc 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Theories Template

Where to begin--well much of what has been said in this talk page is a good start actually. While I think that the properly sourced, science-based criticism presented here about whether spraying hundreds of thousands of gallons of that stuff was really a good idea seems to be RS:V, the article looks like an attack piece. Allegations of government coverup and poisoning are made in the "Criticism" section (the article itself is a criticism section) and a lot of human health claims are made pervasively throughout that don't appear to meet the med rs criteria. If this template draws in interested editors, I'd invite them to review some of the several other articles about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, pretty much all of which have similar problems, but usually not so extreme as this one. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Per our discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, it appears that Dr. Ott's mention is not fringe, as long as we make it clear that what she says is coming from her, and not us. I'm not going to push for the Fringe template on this article at this time. Geogene (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sweden

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)

Copyvio

Phrases from sources that were copy-pasted into the article include a Pensacola newspaper abstract and the Mother Jones synopsis of the State of the Beach report. Also the opening sentence from this source appears in the article I don't think these are isolated incidents. I'm less inclined to blank them myself since last time I did so in a DWH article it was reverted and I was accused of POV for removing it. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

re: (Removed misunderstanding - rebuttle was not in reference to GeorgiaIT study cited) ... and re: (Re-added criticism; re-added Woods Hole)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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" on Rico-Martínez, et al. 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.

1. Coelho, G.; Clark, J.; Aurand, D. (2013). "Toxicity testing of dispersed oil requires adherence to standardized protocols to assess potential real world effects". Environmental Pollution. 177: 185–8. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.004. PMID 23497795.
2. Rico-Martínez, R.; Snell, T. W.; Shearer, T. L. (2013). "Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)". Environmental Pollution. 173: 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.024. PMID 23195520.
3. Schmidt, C. W. (2010). "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico". Environmental Health Perspectives. 118 (8): A338–44. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a338. PMC 2920105. PMID 20675260.

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. , 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 Misplaced Pages 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. "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/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)

EPA=

It should be noted, the EPA is being sued over the use of Corexit. The agency may be a questionable source with regard to the BP spill:

Per Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response – and former the EPA ombudsman’s chief investigator:

"Corexit is one of a number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force it down the water column so that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case, these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill, BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher that’s been going on for almost three months.

We have people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.

Who saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP... The sole purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines. That’s the purpose of using the dispersants, not to protect the public health or environment. Quite the opposite." petrarchan47tc 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuit appears to have been thrown out nearly a year ago . Also, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, the existence of a suit doesn't mean that the suit has any particular validity to it. According to your source some say that that suit was motivated to prevent a different oil company from drilling in the Arctic. And what you have there is a whistle-blower's opinion, admittedly a high-ranking one, being repeated by a highly political, somewhat fringey website. It's not enough to tell us we shouldn't give the EPA the weight it's due as the national environmental regulator in the US. It'd be like trying to write a medical article and saying we can't use the FDA. Geogene (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from my arguments above about weighting, if there are enough sources, and if those sources are good, then I see nothing wrong with writing a section somewhere on criticism of USG's handling of the spill, mentioning the lawsuits, etc, so that independent points of view are covered. It's not that I'm opposed to including contrarian sources, it's just that I want to weight perspectives the way they seem to be weighted in the real world. But I don't think we should make the starting assumption that the independent sources are more valid. Geogene (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing one's own edit several days later

Most of the following copy was removed today:

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)

We all say things we wish we could take back but in my experience we are stuck with our words, even when we later wish we would have reconsidered our thoughts/feelings before posting them. Other editors may see it differently but I lose respect for an editor that does it as I consider it sneaky. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And I thought that cleverly labeling that edit "retracting some of my invective" would surely cause no suspicion that I decided to remove unhelpful statements from my post, because I'm sneaky. Foiled again! Geogene (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very irritating that you are attempting to turn this around to try and make it seem that I am the bad guy here and am being unreasonable. You seem to be aware of just about every other policy around this place but it seems that you have somehow forgotten this one:

In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't. That goes for fixing spelling errors, typos, run-on sentences, or any other minor wording changes, no matter how trivial. At Misplaced Pages, a talk page is essentially a transcript; no matter how well-intentioned you are in your editing, other editors aren't going to see it that way.

If it wasn't that I was still trying to figure out what's going on here I would not have noticed your deletion. I've watched this article for months and was aware that a long "discussion" has been going on but have stayed away because one can take only so much of this sort of thing. I'd like to enjoy this a little more and your sarcasm sure does take the fun out of it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for citing guidelines. You are right. I won't do that again. Discussion ended. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a couple of other large chunks of copy as well. You need to return what you deleted and strike it out and then the discussion will be ended. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm restoring it wholesale. I don't care either way, I just thought it might improve the atmosphere around here for other people. Hah! Well maybe this is enough appeasement to satisfy your control issues. I wonder if that won't just encourage further domineering behavior from you. What I did by modifying my own comments isn't a rule violation, it's just (apparently) contrary to usual accepted practice. Fine, I already said I won't do it again. Even if it were it wouldn't be a burn-at-the-stake offense anywhere except in your own mind. Your "policy" quote (from "Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual") is advice that some editors might misinterpret my intent for editing my own comments. Contrary to what you seem to think, it does not give you a license to misinterpret my intent in editing my comments. You might also consider that I am exhausted by weeks of personal accusations of being a shill, accusations that are rule violations, and which I have gotten no apology for or retraction of (nor am I likely to, so I haven't asked). Well, contrary to popular belief nobody is paying me to put up with this bullshit. I have tried to be civil with you in letting you know this "discussion" had "ended". But it looks to me as though you are interpreting that as weakness. So enough kowtowing, here's the reply you deserve. When I say that a conversation is over, that means that I won't welcome further demands. Geogene (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to an older revision of this page, in case I overlooked something and am about to have my honor questioned some more. That only happens a couple times a day around here. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I frequently go back and edit what I say, to correct typos and for clarity. But I do so within a few minutes or even seconds after posting. Or, more usually, I'll add. I guess that's OK (if not, someone should set me straight). But the usual drill is to use strikeouts when editing pages after a period of time has passed, or to post additional stuff. Usually editing posts after there are responses is a big no-no, as doing so makes the responses seem queer or odd sometimes, as they are responding to text that is no longer there. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

True. Everything I've seen since researching this substantiates what you and Gandydancer are saying. What I removed did not seem to have been acknowledged but I should have known better. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that my habit of going back and copyediting my own posts is kosher! I haven't had any complaints, but there's always a first time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gandy above - I have a sick feeling in my stomach thinking about working on any of these articles because of the acidity of this editor we are suddenly forced to deal with. Intelligent yes, but obtuse when it comes to understanding context. petrarchan47tc 22:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why, I'm shocked by that. If this must continue, why don't we move it to my talk page? Geogene (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I generally don't pursue in an argument till I've had the last word, but I will not leave numerous statements regarding my editing without comment. Geogene said he restored the comments he had made thinking "it might improve the atmosphere around here for other people". And then he went right ahead and said he hoped it was "enough appeasement to satisfy control issues" but wondered if it wouldn't "just encourage further domineering behavior from " and added "Even if it were it wouldn't be a burn-at-the-stake offense anywhere except in your own mind". And then it just went further down hill from there. All this from him as a result of the fact that I asked that he restore the comments that he made to this talk page. Hopefully I won't need to waste any more time discussing this incident. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of comments are unwarranted. I actually just noticed them myself and would have talked up sooner if I had. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Core. BTW, reading my post I said, "Geogene said he restored the comments he had made" when I should have said he deleted the comments he made. At any rate, I think that you have very well proven my point: By deleting our comments at a later date we remove what may have been our own contributions to the bad atmosphere around this place, perhaps leaving future readers without a clue as to what (the hell) is going on. When a pot (G) is calling a kettle (P) black, it is hardly fair for the pot to later remove his own disrupting comments. And especially so when he says that it is an effort to improve communication. As I said, it's sneaky. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you finished, or did you want to make this page a referendum on me as well? I don't like you much either, frankly, but I'm trying to move this in a more useful direction. Geogene (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also want to state for the record that you called me "sneaky" twice above and you continue to insinuate that I am a liar. I take this fairly seriously. Geogene (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at reliability of BP/EPA/NOAA/FDA with regard to the BP oil spill

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 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 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)

Corexit does not have 57 chemicals

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)

• Start-Class Chemistry articles
• Low-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles
• Unassessed Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles