( CNN ) -- A rash of recent oil spills around the globe -- Bangladesh , Israel , Peru and New Zealand -- serve as reminders of the damage such spills can cause and of the important role responders can play in limiting such damage . Spill responders have several tools at their disposal , including chemical dispersants . However , the legacy of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico includes a public backlash against dispersants that stands to exacerbate environmental damage from future spills . Starting with Deepwater Horizon , dispersants seem to have become an environmental villain du jour , even creeping in to the popular vernacular . To control an oil spill that ultimately exceeded 40,000 square miles , responders released 1.8 million gallons of dispersant over 59 days -- an act that society has judged a bad idea . Even now when we talk about our research on this spill the loaded question inevitably surfaces : `` Just how bad was the dispersant ? '' Many think the dispersants amplified damage and are continuing to harm marine life ; some even believe that BP conspired with government responders to use them nefariously to conceal the most visible impacts of the spill . Based on our experience studying oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere , that 's a biased and incomplete understanding that may unduly influence decision-makers responsible for responding to future spills . Dispersants are not perfect , but they are certainly not new . Over six decades , they have evolved from highly toxic mixtures to safer formulations that have become a proven spill response tool . They work like dishwashing soap , by breaking apart oil into small droplets . When sprayed on an oil slick , the resulting microsize droplets freely mix into water , effectively breaking apart the gooey coating and diluting the oil over a greater volume . Both effects can be beneficial : Dilution of the oil reduces its overall toxicity , while breaking up the slick prevents oil from reaching coastlines , where oil is assumed to cause the greatest impact . But there are trade-offs . Dispersants contain hydrocarbons , emulsification agents and surfactants -- these could be harmful to marine life . Before the droplets get diluted to inconsequential levels , the dispersed oil can also be toxic . The chemical formulation of dispersants seems to elicit fear , but the reality is that most of these components are used for other common applications with minimal concern . For example , the principal active agent applied during Deepwater Horizon was dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate , or DOSS , which has other uses in over-the-counter medicines . Nevertheless , accidental spraying of dispersant on people can also cause harm if it is inhaled or swallowed though it can be washed from the skin with soap and water . Dispersants are but one example of chemicals used when responding to environment crises . Flame retardants provide another example . Yet few blinked an eye when responders released 1.1 million gallons of flame retardant over several weeks to fight a 150-square-mile wildfire in California a few months ago . In responding to Deepwater Horizon , decision-makers had years of experience with dispersants . They knew the risks and benefits of their application to the surface of the ocean . They also had invaluable resources in the form of two comprehensive reports in 1989 and 2005 on dispersants ' efficacy and effects , commissioned by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and prepared by leaders from academia , industry , government and even a retired commercial fisherman . But neither report addressed the way dispersants were to be used in the Deepwater Horizon disaster . For 87 days after the Deepwater Horizon exploded , oil gushed from a damaged well 5,000 feet under the sea surface , an unprecedented scenario . It demanded unprecedented mitigation approaches . Weighing the potential risks and benefits , responders made the decision to inject dispersants at the ocean floor as a means to disperse the oil even before it reached the surface . Public concern over this decision grew as the amount released in this way ultimately reached 771,000 gallons ( a little less than half of the total amount of dispersants released ) . In choosing to use subsea dispersants , decision-makers first evaluated their efficacy with a one-day test . Before-and-after photos showed that slicks near the well site diminished when the dispersant was injected and returned , as predicted , when the injections were stopped . As scientists , we hold to the repeatability of experimental results , but in this case the result produced immediate benefits in a crisis situation that trumped the value of conducting further experiments . The smaller slicks reduced toxic chemical levels in the air enough to allow personnel on about 100 response boats to work more safely . As a result , efforts to contain the spill could proceed at a faster pace with fewer negative health effects . The fact that we as independent scientists were granted safe access to within 1,500 feet of the well is partially attributable to the use of dispersants at the seafloor . What is lost on many people is that spill responders must decide quickly on whether to apply dispersants . Like those responding to forest fires , oil-spill responders are charged with reducing damages in the face of a crisis , and they do n't have the luxury to conduct a real-time case study on dispersants ' efficacy . Ultimately , usage is simply a question of net environmental benefit . Unfortunately , gauging the success or failure of dispersants , especially how toxic they make seawater , is n't easy . You can not give the Gulf of Mexico a CT scan . Moreover , we have only sparse data to inform our understanding of dispersants ' efficacy and chemical behavior in the deep ocean . In a recent study , our colleagues found traces of dispersant in oiled sand patties on beaches . But the proportion of dispersant in oil from the Gulf beaches was low compared with the proportion at which it was originally applied . That is , the dispersants were less likely to persist than the oil . It can be counterintuitive -- and frightening -- to add chemical dispersants to fight oil spills . But dispersants are tools that help stop a bad thing from getting worse -- not so different from dropping flame retardant on forest fires . Experience underpins the decision to use them , and research , so far , supports their use . Fear , ignorance and anger preclude an objective examination of dispersants . Let 's have a rational discussion about the best course of action in a crisis -- before the next oil spill hits our shores and clouds our judgment . Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion .
Authors : When oil spills happen , responders are faced with tough choices . To fight BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico , huge amounts of chemical dispersants were used . Authors say adding more chemicals to seawater is scary trade-off but can be worth it . Title: Why do we have a " right to privacy "?