ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
About the same time the Aug. 23 issue of C&EN arrived, my copy of the Aug. 13 issue of Science (2010, 329) did as well. It also had an article on the plume of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, on page 734. The following is an excerpt:
“Perhaps the most muddled calculation involves the fraction of oil that went into the dreaded subsurface plumes. The media ‘created an image of an underwater river of oil,’ says Steven Murawski, NOAA’s chief scientist for fisheries in Silver Spring, Maryland, who is overseeing spill science for NOAA. ‘In a glass, [plume water] looks like clear seawater.’ He says that measurements of oil reveal a principal plume confined to depths of 1000 meters to 1300 meters that in spots contained 1 to 2 parts per million of oil (1 or 2 milliliters in a cubic meter of seawater). Most parts of the plume, however, had lower concentrations; farther than 10 kilometers from the wellhead, concentrations were in the parts-per-billion range.”
When I read my copy of C&EN, I expect scientific objectivity and all the facts. Your article (Aug. 23, page 11) appears to have sensationalized as badly as the popular media. Since crude from the Gulf is generally of low density, a river of oil is highly unlikely.
Mike McHenry
Washington, N.J.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter