While submerging the oil with dispersant may lessen exposure to marine life on the surface, it increases exposure for animals dwelling underwater, who may be harmed by toxicity of both dispersed oil and dispersant. Although dispersant reduces the amount of oil that lands ashore, it may allow faster, deeper penetration of oil into coastal terrain, where it is not easily biodegraded.
Sorry if I didn’t use the exact terminology you deemed appropriate. Either way I don’t find my description is incorrect. They used the dispersant to push the issue below the surface of the water.
Nice cherry picking.
Here, let me provide link, from the EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/dispersants
“Dispersants can be applied on surface oil or below the surface, closer to an uncontrolled release of crude oil from a well blowout source. In an oil spill, these smaller oil droplets disperse into the water column where they are transported by currents and subjected to other natural processes such as dissolution and biodegradation.”
There are plenty of arguments against the use of dispersants, not the least of which is the toxicity of the dispersant itself. However there is a strong argument that supports it as the lesser of two evils.
People should have gone to jail over the BP spill. So many flagrant safety violations and illegal behavior were identified.
But you’ll never forget the “submerging of the oil”.
If you are going to virtue signal, at least base it off a real issue.
The issue that the dispersant was controversial at the time and the jury is still out on if it helped or hurt? I’m glad we agree. I find it really weird how hostile you are
My point was BP didn’t care if it helped or it hurt, they knew it would hide the oil with either outcome.
