{"id":803,"date":"2010-07-02T08:51:13","date_gmt":"2010-07-02T13:51:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=803"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:02","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:02","slug":"not-so-fast-why-dispersants-epa-ranks-as-practically-non-toxic-are-still-a-concern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2010\/07\/02\/not-so-fast-why-dispersants-epa-ranks-as-practically-non-toxic-are-still-a-concern\/","title":{"rendered":"Not so fast: Why dispersants EPA ranks as “practically non-toxic” are still a concern"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>, is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

To judge by the headlines and leads of stories that ran on the websites of the New York Times<\/em> (\u201cThe E.P.A. on Dispersants: Cure Is Not Worse Than the Disease<\/a>\u201d) and the Washington Post<\/em> (\u201cOil dispersant does not pose environmental threat, early EPA findings suggest<\/a>\u201d) reporting on an EPA conference call held Wednesday<\/a>, you\u2019d think the first round of test results on dispersants conducted by EPA answered all outstanding questions and gave their use a clean bill of health.<\/p>\n

Hardly.\u00a0 (Despite the misleading headlines and leads, the rest of these stories were more nuanced and more accurate.)<\/p>\n

As I reported in a post Wednesday<\/a>, the new acute toxicity data were from tests conducted on the dispersants by themselves, rather than mixed with oil<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 which is what the environment sees.\u00a0 Moreover, the new data did little more than confirm already available data<\/a> showing that currently listed dispersants exhibit relatively low acute toxicity to fish and shrimp, and that by themselves they are less toxic than oil by itself.<\/p>\n

So despite the hoopla, the new data from this first round of testing are of very limited utility in answering any of the more profound questions surrounding the use of dispersants.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Those questions include:<\/p>\n