I received an email from a good friend, who noted the beach in Destin was closed even though there was no evidence of oil. He asked how bad it could be with regard to oil and dispersants.
Using simple math, and cautioning that I am not a health expert, I provided the following thinking:
I don't know why the beach is closed, but let's say we have oil and detergent in a volume of water of 100 by 100 by 1 km water. That is 10,000 cubic km of water. That is 10,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water (10 EE12). We spilled something like 600,000 cubic meters oil and let's assume we dumped an equal amount of dispersant. (Unlikely, since that would be two VLCC's of dispersant) That would be .0006 cubic km of what is essentially detergent. At worst there would be .06 parts per million oil and the same amount of dispersant by volume. The stuff is not known to be bad. The kids will not drink it. I'd say you are OK.
Then driving home and listening to NPR, I heard that 75% of the oil has disappeared according to the government, but the segment was filled with scientists (and members of the public) who still proclaimed gloom and doom about lasting effects in the Gulf. There actually was one scientist who said that thing were bad and that no oil had been picked up because the spills was so large they could not find the oil!
Have any of these "scientists" run any numbers like this?
There is a big difference between oil floating on top (with a thickness of a few molecules up to, say, 6 inches which can really look and act like a mess) and oil that is dispersed in thousands of feet of water column. The stuff on top will be visible and impact life directly, the stuff in the water column, based on the above estimate cannot be the end of the world.
I'd much rather do without the BP spill, but do we really need all this scare mongering and why do I hear only scientists who proclaim gloom and doom?
Please tell where I am wrong on this. And if it makes sense, who is going to tell the media?