The Unintended Consequences and Revenge Effects in the use of Corexit

  • Uncategorized

The Unintended Consequences and Revenge Effects in the use of Corexit

TheUnintended Consequences and Revenge Effects in the use of Corexit

Aboutthree years ago, the horizontal BP’S in the Deepwater begunleaking. Research shows they leaked about 210 million gallons of oilinto the Mexican Gulf. The management of the United States governmentafter that allowed the company to Corexit, a dispersant, that isknown to be chemically active to the developing oil slicks. This wasdone to stop the deadly filth from coming to the delicate beaches andmangroves since it impacts the marine’s life origin. Research hasshown that the Corexit application may have had an adverse impactthat was not anticipated, and the marine animals are paying thehighest price (Atkinson, 2013). It is also crucial to hold back thecomplaints since BP had the safety of the environment at the back oftheir mind and they did not critically evaluate the adverse effectsof Corexit. This essay evaluates some of the consequences and revengeeffects in the application of Corexit to curb oil pollution.

Theunintended impacts

Justafter the spill, the BP secured approximately a third of the globalsupply of the Corexit. It is evident that Corexit disintegrates oilinto small solid particles, and this results in the sinking of theparticles to the base of the sea. The beads of oil are further brokendown by wind turbines and wave action then the toxic compounds in theCorexit –oil mixture are concentrated through evaporation. One ofthe toxic compounds is the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that isinvolved with cancer. This is one of the unintended impacts of theuse of Corexit since the little adverse impact was evident at thetime of its application to the spill.

Anothermajor consequence associated with the BP oil spill and its remedialmeasure is the mutation of most if not all marine life. Scientistshave established that it is due to the Corexit application thatincreased number of mutated fish and crabs have been experienced.Later after treatment with Corexit, it was noted that some crabs didnot have eyes, and this was linked to the spill. Studies have shownthat the Corexit-oil mixture can rearrange the order of thenucleotides in the DNA thus leading to mutation of the organism(Magdoff, et al. 2011). This is an indication that conclusive studieswere not conducted before Corexit was applied and now the marine lifeis now paying the highest price.

Recentresearch has also indicated the death of the foraminifera, amicroscopic creature at the food chain’s base. Other studies havealso illustrated that because of Corexit and the oil, either theplanktons have absorbed PAHs, or they have been killed before othercreatures of the sea consume them. This is a huge consequence sinceit breaks the food chain especially at the bottom of it thus causinga huge impact to the other members of the food chain (LeMenager,2013). At the time of application, such a consequence was not thoughtof and thus it was only noted after the death of the planktons wasobserved. In the same study, the scientists observed that the levelof hydrocarbons in seafood rose, and this is not only adverse to thesea life but also to the consumers and in this case, human beings.Consequently, there were cases of sickness of the Gulf residents withthe symptoms such as bleeding from the ears, nose, breast and eventhe anus. Additional complaints were those related to cognitivedamage.

Besides,it is also crucial to note that before the use of Corexit, researchwas only done on the possible effects of this compound alone. At thistime, there was evidence of the positive impact that the compoundwill have on our environment. However, recent studies have revealedthat the combination of oil and Corexit even has an adverse impactcompared to either one of the two.

Researchalso has it that a mixture of Corexit and oil leads to oildegradation that is more harmful than any one of the twoindividually. Furthermore, it makes oil more bioavailable and thusplants and animals easily take it up (Magdoff et al. 2011) since therate of absorption increases once it is degraded. Scientists havealso proved that after the Gulf was treated with Corexit there was anincrease in the uptake of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons in most of themarine animals. This enhancement was associated with Corexit. This isan unintended impact since no evidence was there to show this effectbefore Corexit was applied to the spill. Despite the effect ofCorexit to clear the oil spill, the marine life has had to sufferthis effect, and it has even translated to the other members of thefood chain (Atkinson, 2013).

Conclusion

Typically,it is evident that the use of Corexit to treat the oil spills hadmore impact than BP previously thought it before using thischemically active substance. The marine life has had to pay thehighest cost of this. Additionally, one they get into the food chain,it has been noted that human beings take it up, and it leads to thesickness that has been evident for the residents of the Gulf.Therefore, it is important that much research should be done so thatthe negative effects of this event can be stopped and the safety ofthe environment to be guaranteed.

References

Atkinson,T. (2013). “Blood Petroleum”: True Blood, the BP Oil Spill, andFictions of Energy/Culture.&nbspJournalof American Studies,&nbsp47(01),213-229.

LeMenager,S. (2013).&nbspLivingOil: Petroleum Culture in the American Century.Oxford University Press.

Magdoff,F., &amp Foster, J. B. (2011).&nbspWhatevery environmentalist needs to know about capitalism.NYU Press.

Close Menu