They are using the wrong kind of sweetener on the iced tea

NYT: Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup

But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

I used to tell people that since the pink stuff was carcinogenic and the blue stuff was linked to Alzheimer's, every morning coffee presented the same dismal choice. I always went for the pink stuff. My reasoning for that, I would argue, was at some point when I'm lying in a hospital bed, at least I'll be able to say to myself, "Wait, what's happening? Oh yeah I'm dying of cancer. Wait, why? Because I had too much of the pink stuff." That's fine. But the alternative result of too much blue stuff being a semi-aware state of child-like consciousness struck me as unbearable. I mean, that's too close to an actual description of my regular work day as it is. And the thought that basically nothing will have changed by the time I'm ready to check out... well there's real horror there. Anyway, I stopped worrying about any of this when they came out with the yellow stuff. Nobody knows what the hell that might do to you and I hope they never find out. Otherwise it's right back to the daily dismal decision.

Which is what, I guess, BP was thinking about their use of Corexit. Everybody knows oil on the beaches is bad but the effects of the dispersant are less well-known and so given the choice between a known known and a known unknown most people feel safer if they just don't know. Except now it turns out that EPA knows a bit more than we knew they had known. And now it's even less clear that BP knows anything about anything. Obviously they could use a little help here. Perhaps EPA should use all of this data to make stronger recommendations. Isn't it their job to prescribe guidelines for safe usage of these products they're evaluating?

EPA has not taken a stance on whether one dispersant should be used over another, leaving that up to BP. All the company is required to do is to choose an EPA-approved chemical, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters yesterday during a conference call aimed at addressing questions about dispersants being used in efforts to contain the Gulf spill. "Our regular responsibilities say, if it's on the list and they want to use it, then they are preauthorized to do so," Jackson said.

One explanation for BP's reliance on Nalco's Corexit, which its competitors say dominates the niche market for dispersants because of its industry ties, was its availability in large quantities at the time of the Gulf spill.

"Obviously, logistics and stockpiles and the ability for the responsible party to pull the materials together," Jackson said. "I'm sure that has a lot to do with the ones that they choose."

Of course. Silly me I almost forgot about how bad all that government regulation type stuff can be compared to the wise efficiencies generated by one company's dominance of a niche market. Carry on, I guess.

Meanwhile, clearly desperate, state officials are considering going back to natural sweeteners. Don't they know what that stuff does to your teeth? Or for that matter your oysters?

Oyster fishermen, normally concerned about fresh water hurting their harvest, may now prefer it to oily dispersant creeping up all across the Louisiana marsh.

Slight post-publication edits to this post may have occurred.