This headline caught my eye. Unfortunately… well, you know where this is going, don't you 🙂
First of all, the article you link to is a retelling of this HuffPo story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/nasa-data-toxic-rain_b_830481.html
Let's break down the headline of the story you posted…
NASA report: Leifer is not affiliated with NASA. Sounds like he was a part of a NASA research mission which is not quite the same. The report? To be released. Kinda hard to read into it any more.
confirms toxic dispersants DID rain down on Gulf Coast: Totally false.
Leifer says:
Clearly, spraying dispersants near populated areas is a bad idea. If dispersants are aerosolized that is a bad thing as well. I do not have data on the dispersants so I will speak to what I do know.
So what does he know? Hydrocarbon volatiles i.e. oil. That's what he is talking about. Not dispersants.
Furthermore, hydrocarbon volatiles were detected in clouds, not rain:
I don't have documentation on the rain.
A technicality, however: I think it is reasonable to assume those volatiles rained out.
In essence this headline is just another example of how non-experts completely fuck up science reporting. Read critically.
Final note: although the headline is terribly inaccurate the BP oil spill obviously caused a tremendous amount of harm. I am on board with what Leifer is saying… I'm only critical of the game of telephone that is happening here.
