Mystery illnesses in Gulf wildlife:
The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle lay belly-up on the metal autopsy table, as pallid as split-pea soup but for the bright orange X spray-painted on its shell, proof that it had been counted as part of the Gulf of Mexico’s ongoing “unusual mortality event.”
Under the practiced knife of Dr. Brian Stacy, a veterinary pathologist who estimates that he has dissected close to 1,000 turtles over the course of his career, the specimen began to reveal its secrets: First, as the breastplate was lifted away, a mass of shriveled organs in the puddle of stinky red liquid that is produced as decomposition advances. Next, the fat reserves indicating good health. Then, as Dr. Stacy sliced open the esophagus, the most revealing clue: a morsel of shrimp, the last thing the turtle ate.
“You don’t see shrimp consumed as part of the normal diet” of Kemp’s ridleys, Dr. Stacy said.
This turtle, found floating in the Mississippi Sound on June 18, is one of hundreds of dead creatures collected along the Gulf Coast since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded. Swabbed for oil, tagged and wrapped in plastic “body bags” sealed with evidence tape, the carcasses — many times the number normally found at this time of year — are piling up in freezer trucks stationed along the coast, waiting for scientists like Dr. Stacy, who works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to begin the process of determining what killed them.
Despite an obvious suspect, oil, the answer is far from clear. The vast majority of the dead animals that have been found — 1,387 birds, 444 turtles, 53 dolphins and one sperm whale — show no visible signs of oil contamination. Much of the evidence in the turtle cases points, in fact, to shrimping or other commercial fishing, but other suspects include oil fumes, oiled food, the dispersants used to break up the oil or even disease.
Is there no simple test to measure the level and make-up of toxins in the damned things, and then compare them to say, the tons of dispersants we’ve been dumping in the Gulf?
Jay in Oregon
Obligatory XKCD reference.
And the title of this article is pure genius.
Michael
Your hatred of industry, commerce and the wonderful world that is made possible through scientifical advances is noted, Cole.
You can expect to be summoned to Michelle Bachmann’s House Un-American Activities Committee after Congress reconvenes with its veto-proof Republican majority next year.
David in NY
I’m guessing not. It takes a month to do a toxicology test on Michael Jackson, and we know pretty much the kinds of stuff we’re looking for. See http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/alcohol-abuse/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests . Here, where the subject isn’t human, and we may not have done many autopsies on sea tortoises, etc., and where the toxins are also, say, “unusual,” it’s even more complicated. This ain’t TV, as the link above indicates. It’s real life, and it’s not simple.
stuckinred
Chemical Dispersants and Crude Oil – Efficacy and Toxicity
From the Oil Drum
This is a guest post by Dr. Stephen R. Humphrey, known on The Oil Drum as NatResDr. Steve Humphrey has been on the faculty of the University of Florida since 1971. Currently he is Director of The School of Natural Resources and Environment. He also was a member of the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission for 8 years.
trollhattan
I have been lectured, in no uncertain terms, that because I, myself, consume oil-sourced products and energy, I have no right to complain about the GOM gusher nor bad-mouth poor, unfortunate BP. You see, it’s really my fault.
So, sorry mister turtle, I’ll try harder next time. Now let’s get back to drilling more oil and mining more coal and killing more workers and environments, the way bog intended it when He placed these wonderful resources at our disposal.
/crappy snark
We have nothing against which to compare this disaster, cannot comprehend the damage done and being done and that will continue for decades to come–well beyond our own lousy lives. And yet, business as normal will be in place by, say, January.
Zifnab
It is going to be laughably ironic if the biggest lawsuits over the oil spill stem from the first, desperate, short-sighted attempts to clean it up.
kdaug
Flag back to your earlier post, John. There are extremely powerful and wealthy organizations with vested interests in ensuring that we don’t get the big picture.
Bad for the bottom line and all.
jibeaux
I’m not a scientist, but I don’t understand how “shrimping or other commercial fishing” causes turtles to die of weird illnesses, and just at present isn’t there right much LESS shrimping and other commercial fishing in the Gulf, and isn’t there still plenty of shrimping and commercial fishing going on all over the world that isn’t killing sea life? I need more details about that theory, because knee jerk, I’m inclined to go with the untested crap we’re dumping in the water, myself.
Bob L
Since oil is basically organic compounds it does sound logical that anything that breaks up organic compounds is going to be mighty toxic to any living thing. I suppose the only real question is how many more animal deaths would there be if the dispersant weren’t used?
Bill
As a chemist,
It’s pretty easy to do the toxicology, the trick is to push it to the front of the line. They can analyze fatty tissue which will suck up lots of the oil pre-mortem. It’s as simple as doing a gas chromatography – mass spectroscopy on the collected samples and control samples of oil residue, dispersants, etc.
David in NY
@stuckinred:
That’s a really nice article (if you skip the part on efficacity and go straight to toxicity). This paragraph struck me particularly:
Basically, we don’t have any idea WTF this stuff and its breakdown products do.
JGabriel
John Cole:
No. Think of it this way: We can eat a quart of maple syrup but it only takes a little hemlock to kill us. Take two tylenol for a headache, but take a hundred and you’re dead.
We don’t necessarily know what amounts of which chemicals are toxic to what creatures – and BP, et.al., will dispute that any of their dispersants are toxic at all.
So, absent a known toxin with known levels of toxicity for each of the animal species involved, there isn’t any simple test, even to prove what seems otherwise obvious – that the spill is responsible for a lot of wildlife deaths.
.
stuckinred
@David in NY: yea, the Oil Drum is informative. It has it’s share of whacko’s but overall there is great information there.
Wayner
I believe most of these dispersants are in fact alkyl sulfonates, such as sodium lauryl sulfonates and other similar compounds (look at the ingredients on your shampoo bottle). Basically these “dispersants” are probably proprietary mixtures of really strong ionic and non-ionic detergents that allow oil and water to mix with each other. It would work just as any other detergent works, i.e. by dissolving the oil into water-soluble, microscopic droplets called mixed-micelles.
I wouldn’t think it would be good to be dumping tons of this stuff in the gulf, since the alkyl sulfonates will pretty efficiently also dissolve protein molecules as well as lipids. That is, in concentrated form, they would pretty much destroy your intestinal epithelium if you were to ingest some. But, given the massive dilution factor, I really don’t know how toxic they’ll be to the ocean critters.
At any rate, you’re not really getting rid of the oil, you’re just increasing the surface area to volume ratio of the mass of oil so that microbes will have orders of magnitude better access to it, so they can oxidize it and use it for an energy source. This also has the effect of massively depleting the oxygen content of waters where the oil is being metabolized by these bugs.
OK, I’m rambling. Just my $0.02
Lee
Whocoudanode?
trollhattan
@Wayner:
EPA finally released all the components, including those formerly hiding behind the “proprietary” wall (all the detergents).
[Apologies for what will doubtless be some crappy line wraps. Original here]:
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:
CAS Registry Number–Chemical Name
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
1338-43-8 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3 Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
29911-28-2 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of COREXIT 9500.
mnpundit
Remember Cole, the government can’t do anything more than its already done.
AMIRIGHT?
Wayner
OK then, now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks trollhattan:
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
***This is not acutely toxic, and would be quicly metabolized by about every bacterium in the ocean. Probably just a carrier for the detergents.
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
***Same as the propanediol.
577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
***This is a very potent alkylsulfonate ionic detergent, and would be by far the most toxic thing in the mix.
1338-43-8 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3 Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
***The sorbitan derivatives are environmentally benign non-ionic detergents that would be rapidly metabolized by a whole bunch of different bugs in the water column
29911-28-2 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
***These last two are probably just additives to make the detergents easier to disperse, and are probably not going to persist in the environment or be too terribly toxic.
The sulfonate detergent, though, is mean stuff.
Chris
@trollhattan:
So, to disperse petroleum, we add … petroleum? :-)
D-Chance.
In the meantime… they’re putting off capping the well because….
BP may now have to call off its plan to cap the leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico amidst fears that it could actually make the leak worse. The federal government is apparently worried that the cap’s piping and casing will not be able to withstand the pressure of the leaking oil. The oil, meanwhile, has been leaking into the Gulf unabated since Monday, when BP began to implement its current plan. BP has also ceased work on the two relief wells it is drilling.
Wonderful.
Robert Sneddon
@Chris:
The petroleum solvent in the Corexit dispersant in question is kerosene. It quickly evaporates when exposed to air at the surface.
The sea area directly above the blowout is colloquially known as the City of Ships, all of them busy about the business of trying to stop the leak and eventually shut in the well. At least two of the vessels have God’s Own Barbeque flares running 24/7 burning off oil and gas collected from the wellhead a mile below. The last thing anyone on that crowd of rigs and ships want is for the dispersant feed into the wellhead to be shut off so the escaping oil can reach the surface and form solid thick slicks where they are sitting.
Elie
I agree with the comments of trollhattan and many upstring about this unprecedented and horrible disaster. This adds to the already unbelievable damage being done to our oceans independent of this disaster — the toxic and just plain garbage islands floating around snaring fish and wildlife. I have been working on salmon restoration in the Northwest for years and have watched their numbers tank along with many of the herring and other feeder fish. For the first time, such previously plentiful fish such as Halibut, are seeing declines. We passed the “We are FU–ED” sign on the ocean health freeway a long long time ago.
We have created this situation. All of us. Not just BP ( or the ‘Gummint for our right wing brothers) Measuring the level of toxins related to the dispersants may be important scientifically, but what does it change TODAY about what we are doing? Not much is my guess.
We HAVE TO STOP THE LEAK ASAP. The leak is why we are spreading the damned dispersants, right?
Next, my reading at the Oil Drum primarily, has led me to believe that the dispersants are a horrible solution to a problem that has nothing but horrible options. The thought around using this shit was to break up the density of the oil to make it more accessible to the bacteria that will hopefully break it down — in time. The dispersant that has been used, CoExit, is supposed to be biodegradable — how fast, how much I cannot say and my guess is not fast enough or completely enough, but it will someday break down. The CoExit was used on this accident in such quantities because of the depth of the spill and they wanted to keep the oil down deep and break it up there to prevent as much as possible, it getting on the surface where most of the wildlife would be more “relatively” accutely impacted by it than down deep — “relatively” being the operational word here…
We are in a real real bad situation and no amount of whining about how we wish it wasnt happening is going to make it go away. We have to make choices for what to do from shitty, mysterious, dangerous and otherwise horrible options. Doing nothing is also one of the bad options so we have to actively do or choose something.
Are we screwing sea turtles, fish, crabs, birds and humans? YES.
What can we do after this damned disaster is resolved — hopefully at least stop the leak soon. THAT is where we had better start doing something different real quick. Other than that, we document the disaster, the losses —
and our grief and sorrow..