Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Administration's Scientists Admit Alarm Over Dispersants
Environmental Protection Agency experts expressed concerns to superiors about use of dispersants, says whistleblower group
The US Environmental Protection Agency has come under attack in Congress and from independent scientists for allowing BP to spray almost 2m gallons of the dispersant Corexit on to the slick and, even more controversially, into the leak site 5,000ft below the sea. Now it emerges that EPA's own experts have been raising similar concerns within the agency.
A plane releases chemical dispersant over the Gulf oil spill. Photograph: Reuters Jeff Ruch, the executive director of the whistleblower support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he had heard from five scientists and two other officials who had expressed concerns to their superiors about the use of dispersants.
"There was one toxicologist who was very concerned about the underwater application particularly," he said. "The concern was the agency appeared to be flying blind and not consulting its own specialists and even the literature that was available."
Veterans of the Exxon Valdez spill questioned the wisdom of trying to break up the oil in the deep water at the same time as trying to skim it on the surface. Other EPA experts raised alarm about the effect of dispersants on seafood.
Ruch said EPA experts were being excluded from decision-making on the spill. "Other than a few people in the united command, there is no involvement from the rest of the agency," he said. EPA scientists would not go public for fear of retaliation, he added.
Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who introduced a ban on dispersants pending further testing in an oil spill bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, said the EPA had failed in its duty to protect the environment.
"We are undertaking a huge uncontrolled experiment with the entire Gulf," he said. "They have fallen down on the job very substantially because they allowed BP to use dispersants. Even when they told BP not to use dispersants they allowed BP to ignore their advice."
Independent scientists also criticized the EPA for claiming that the combination of oil and dispersants posed no greater danger to marine life on its own.
On Wednesday, a toxicologist from Texas Tech University is scheduled to tell a Senate hearing that the unprecedented use of dispersants "created an eco-toxicological experiment".
"The bottom line is that a lot of oil is still at sea dispersed in the water column," said Ron Kendall. "It's a big ecological question as to how this will ultimately unfold." Previous studies, including a 400-page study by the National Academy of Sciences, have warned that the combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than oil on its own, because the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms more susceptible to oil.
The EPA issued a report on Monday, based on a study of how much of the mixture was needed to kill a species of shrimp and small fish, just two of the 15,000 types of marine life in the Gulf. The EPA test did not address medium- or long-term effects, or reports last week that dispersants were discovered in the larvae of blue crab, entering the food chain.
"It was only one test and it was very crude. We knew going into this and the EPA knew that this mixture is highly toxic to many, many species. There is a whole weight of literature," said Susan Shaw, the director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, who has been organizing on the issue. "It is not the whole science. It's the convenient science."
Hugh Kaufman, a senior EPA policy analyst, dismissed the tests as little more than a PR stunt. "They are trying to spin this limited piece of information to make it look like dispersants are safe and that the Corexit dispersant is safe."
EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It is under fire from Congress for allowing BP and the coast guard to ignore its order last May to cut the use of dispersants by 75%. Documents released by the Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey this week show the EPA allowed spraying of dispersants 74 times over a period of 48 days. At times, the EPA gave advance approval for the use of dispersants for up to a week. The documents also showed the EPA allowed BP to spray 36,000 gallons of Corexit in a single day. The controversy surrounding EPA's role in the oil spill marks a turning point for the Obama administration, which came to power vowing to repair the frayed relationship between scientists and government under George Bush and promising a new era of transparency.
Nine leading scientists have written a public letter calling on BP and the Obama administration to release all scientific data related to the spill, including wildlife death. "Just as the unprecedented use of dispersants has served to sweep millions of gallons of oil under the rug, we're concerned the public may not get to see critical scientific data until BP has long since declared its responsibility over," said Bruce Stein of the National Wildlife Federation.
101 Comments so far
Show AllWho in the world would trust any information coming from BP and, now that there has been so much dispersant emptied into the Gulf, who in the world would trust any seafood coming from that area????
No one, particularly our government, is giving the public any credible data regarding the safety of such seafood!
No more seafood for me!!!!!
"Who in the world would trust any information coming from BP"
We don't need to, we can trust our elected government to give us the truth.
Oh wait ... uhh ... never mind.
Im with you on the seafood thing too. I heard that .gov says that 75% of the oil from the gusher has already "disappeared", taken away by the oil fairy I guess. I am very suspicious of a statement like that, so I'll also be suspicious when they say the fish is OK to eat too.
I heard that on "progressive" new station NPR this morning- most of the oil has just plain disappeared. Amazing. Do they think we are complete idiots? Wait- don't answer that question.
"EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It is under fire from Congress for allowing BP and the coast guard to ignore its order last May to cut the use of dispersants by 75%."
Who is in charge of protecting our environment during a crisis like this -- the EPA or BP? Apparently it is BP giving the orders. Are they taking payoffs from BP for their craven subservience to it, or are they just a bunch of incompetents?
"Seventy-four percent of the oil that leaked from the well that sank into the Gulf of Mexico in April has been collected, dispersed or evaporated, according to a government report released Wednesday."
Do you believe this report? Will you eat Gulf seafood?
I answer: No, and no.
The cure for poison is more poison. I'm not sure I understand this, but it will be strange to eat Washington oysters in New Orleans. Sure won't be eating them, or shrimp, or fish harvested from the gulf.
JETT: The U.S. foreign policy operates on the axiom that the cure for violence (terrorism) is more violence (terrorism). This is the logic associated with Mars rules, the ethos that puts the MIC before any sane or humane societal ideal. Our nation is reaping the rewards of this M.A.D philosophy. One can see it at work in lots of places and on lots of faces.
2.1 Military. Coast Guard was taking orders directly from BP administrators.
Joe
Yes, Joe. That is the apparant order of command. If only we can use this as a way to finally get the masses to 'see'. But i am afraid that is exactly what they are covering up.
One of the deepest levels of this multilayered situation is the reality that BP probably owns the u.s. government, in ways i am not in any position to speak to. But undoubtedly, there are those who would know.
It puts me in mind of Iran Contra hearings. I followed them on CSPAN religiously. I had the idea that this would blow the lid off the reality of the 'shadow government'. Not that i was that naive. Although, i did think the possibility was there. But we all know how that turned out......
The thing is....Would most people even care? Even if they knew. And there are many, many people who will say they don't trust the government or the corporations, etc. But they still believe what they hear on CNN. It is quite a case of dissonance. There is an attitude of "That is the way it is and there is nothing we can do about it, anyway. So why even go there."
I know people who are very aware, and they avoid reading or hearing too much, because they feel it is focusing on negativity and that isn't healthy for themselves or anyone else. What i tell this type of individual, (and i just gave someone a roadmap a few days ago), is to face the rage and grief about all of it and emote it. Alone. This allows us humans, to transform those feelings into creative energy. It works with global as well as very personal issues. It is all about emotion. And that is the energy that drives the human system. It is where the mind and body come together.
And it opens us to new ways of looking at the situation. "No problem can be solved by the consiousness that created it." This is the hands on way to change consciousness. And it works immediately. Yet it is an ongoing process of transformation.
I will stop here, although i could continue for much longer along these lines. The belief that human nature is flawed, and we are all killers underneath it all, and there is nothing we can do about it. That is all false mythology. It prevents people from facing their own emotions. And it has been the basis of every mainstream organized religion i know of. That is why people don't trust themselves and look for authorities to interpret reality for them.
The answers to the disasterous world we have created are within us. But, if people don't believe it, it is guaranteed that we will be extinct soon enough. We need to radically redefine what it means to be a Human Being. And honestly. I think that cynacism is not helpful. Skepticism, yes. But cynacism works to the advantage of empire. It keeps people stuck. I know only too well. It makes us feel empowered, on one level, because it says "You aren't fooling me, i 'see' what is happening."
And yet it doesn't take us anywhere new. It is a different kind of acceptance of the status quo. It just suggests that we aren't fools.
O.K. I will end here. This is not just for you , Joe. I didn't know i would write more than a sentence or two.
Peace.
rita
RITA: You raise many vital points... but my dear, it's not disasterous, it's disastrous. (Several in the forum make this error). And it's not cynacism, it's cynicism. Also, it's not apparant, but apparent. I know YOU went to college... and I realize you're far more interested in healing people than presenting yourself as a professional scholar; but these types of errors in my view compromise the otherwise solid arguments being offered (and that applies to anyone's posts).
On another note, since exposure rates will vary, and in some instances prove quite covert--and thus difficult to prove, the chain of legal liability will be far too slippery for BP to be held accountable. I'm speaking about those cancers that may take five or more years to form. Well-trained lawyers will be able to set up a chain of plausible deniability due to the fact that many OTHER toxic agents exist in our everyday environments. A case can be made that these exposures are the culprits responsible for compromising once-healthy cellular tissue. So not only is the oil being made to disappear, so is the chain of accountability.
Sioux, i appreciate your editorial advice, and actually do know better. I can get rather sloppy in these posts and i applaud you for holding to a higher standard.
Also, i totally agree with the plausible deniability angle. It is happening already, isn't it? Also, it seems they are suddenly not so enthralled with the relief wells.....What is that about?
rita
Something's rotten Rita, that's for sure. Reports that huge fissures were leaking on the Seafloor by guys on "the Oildrum.com" have never been aknowledged. And will the bottom kill work if the ocean bottom has fragmentated?
My spelling and grammar (especially tense forms) is terrible, I know: I'd like to ask Sioux Rose and others to correct it at the bottom; it would not offend me, on the contrary, it would be a great service.
For example, maybe at the bottom:
Challenged form:
Acknowledged, not aknowledged
Sea Floor, not Seafloor
fragmented, not fragmentated
Cheers,
TJ
HI, T.J. I check the dictionary at times. The English language has so many anomalies when it comes to spelling patterns. One word will sound like another but require a different spelling. What I find unbelievable are posts that can't differentiate between they're and their, or it's and its. I mean this is grade school stuff! There is one poster who is just Mr. Sloppy and I think CD should actually pass out awards. He'd qualify for the "Poorest Speller and Proud Of It" award.
Anyway, although I don't hear Miles Davis, it's "After Midnight" and I need to head to "dream time" to see if I can gain any insights from that dimension. I had a tsunami dream the other night, and I hope it just spoke in symbolism. I have had a few extemely clairvoyant dreams over the years...
Sioux, perhaps it was related to the "Solar tsunami" that has come our way the past several days. I wanted to mention that to you, and forgot.
sweet dreams,
rita
test
T.J., i will have to check that site you mentioned. Thank you for that information.
Peace.
rita
That's the spirit, Rita. If I make a mistake with a quote (granting it to the wrong author) or statistic, I do not mind being corrected. There are people in the forum who say they are teachers and they cannot spell! And there are a few who are impossible when it comes to childish spelling errors, and we're not talking typos. I really believe it's a good thing to set standards. 2 + 2 = 4. If someone demands "the right" to say it's 5, is that a "free choice" worth arguing for?
I feel touchy, naturally, about this Corexit thing since most weather systems travel West to East which means the precipitation/cloud cover over the Gulf will rain down where I live. Last week I wrote a "letter to the editor" asking if Florida's universities were conducting any air or water quality studies of their own. So far, to my knowledge, no one pubished this letter. We are utterly in the dark. When I was in Peru I met a man who posts a popular website in London and he advised me to get out, even if it meant selling my properties at a loss. So far I see no evidence that the toxins have come this far... but as many of us realize, and as Exxon-Valdez demonstrated, this type of ecological calamity takes decades to heal.
The emphasis on relief wells is probably a pre-emptive strategy. By showing that these oil firms can correct their damaging mistakes (ha!), they grant themselves cover (and PR) to keep on doing what they're doing when the probability of more ecocide is all but inevitable. Who will stop THE machine?
I really dont think spelling or grammatical errors compromise solid arguments.
I remember having a discussion about intolerance of grammatical errors with some Malaysian Chinese. They pointed out that in Kuala Lumpur, people there speak Cantonese, Malay, Hindi and Mandarin. Very few people can speak perfect anything, and yet practically everyone can communicate with each other. What is important is whether you can be understood.
I agree 100% with what you say about corexit, health and deniability, and I would like to add that while the spill happened in the gulf, the water is not stationary. The gulf stream will take the poisons to England, Nothern Europe and Africa. And from there, the rest of the world.
The difference in your example is that we aren't in here speaking to each other. We're writing, and written text is expected to conform to certain rules or the meaning can easily become garbled or incomprehensible. If spelling or grammar or punctuation really don't matter in writing, then we are at sea concerning any common meaning being accessible. What a person writes will end up having different meanings for different people, or no particular meaning for anyone. What you're implying is a free-for-all, and many others agree with you, in which we each carry away from one writes whatever personal message we feel was conveyed.
It's bad enough expecting to be understood when we speak to each other, because that's also a rarity these days, but if we have no right to expect agreed upon standards in writing, and spelling, etc. are all up for grabs, anything goes, then meaning goes down the same haphazard trail. Maybe Sioux Rose and I finally are expecting too much. Maybe the language is going the way you spelling and punctuating anarchists support and there's nothing retired English teachers, writers and editors can do about it. If confusion is upon us already, we can only expect further confusion in the future, and that's a GOOD thing. Up is already down, war is peace, so why not invite chaos into the language as well.
Correcting people on their spelling, grammar, and language in general isn't always a bad idea. On one of my posts under the topic on "teacher's worth", I was given an interesting explanation on one of my sentences being a bit too condescending and I didn't realize it. See post "TiaHillary August 4th, 2010 10:47 pm" under http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/04-6. Sometimes, pointing out this and other errors can make people like me calm down and admit what I and probably others are really angry about.
"I know people who are very aware, and they avoid reading or hearing too much, because they feel it is focusing on negativity and that isn't healthy for themselves or anyone else."
I agree but even progressives can be negative and no one wants to hear a new idea or invention, then what's the purpose of being negative? It's like parents being too harsh on their children and telling them they'll be nobodies. I had that before but a few good friends bailed me out with positive ideas. My experience suggests that it's good to be hard on truth without taking a negative too far and it's good to be positive without pushing it to ignorance. You should see the way Democratic followers and Republican worshipers are united and social. Too much negativity or too much ignorance is all it takes to guarantee acceptance of the status quo.
Hi Rita. Thanks for your concern. Are you saying that I am so cynical and angry that it is counter-productive? "It is a different kind of acceptance of the status quo." I'll think about that. In person, I am actually quite different. Perhaps it is the disembodied forum that emphasizes the intellectual, the factual, the smart-ass, and not the warm, tactful and motivated side.
Joe
It's ok to be angry and cynical but if it doesn't go towards influencing the current status quo, then history won't pick up on it. Like I would often say, you progressives need to seriously organize and have some enjoyable meetups. Forums alone won't do everything. We're nowhere close to a progressive French revolution.
Being educated and intelligent doesn't mean anything if all one does is brag and boast about it to make others feel inferior.
"Seventy-four percent of the oil that leaked from the well that sank into the Gulf of Mexico in April has been collected, dispersed or evaporated, according to a government report released Wednesday."
Magic disappearing oil? I would like to see the author of the report make a big batch of Koolaid for his kids using Gulf water.
Pertaining to the headline...a little late I'd say.
For a real explanation see Visiting Professor August 4th, 2010 11:27 am.
"Previous studies, including a 400-page study by the National Academy of Sciences, have warned that the combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than oil on its own, because the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms more susceptible to oil." ...
...Don't you mean, the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms more susceptible to death?
Dr. Chris Pincetich -Marine biologist and toxicologist - Project Gulf Impact, "Oil, bi-lipid layers, next to each other are the very basis of life. Each of us is made out of cells. Those cell are nothing more than an oil layer, surrounding our DNA, RNA and all the other molecules talking to each other. You put in a chemical that directly disrupts that basic biological structure, and you are setting yourself up for risk."
Great...just freaking great.
Check out this utube video, a scientist with water in 2 beakers, adds oil, adds 3-5 drops of corexit to one, shakes, and the oil "disperses". In the other beaker, the oil stays on the surface of the water...Yuck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0uephJsrRQ
Officials at the Obama administration, including the prez himself, and officials at the Environmental Polluting Association, should all have to stand in the same docket as BP execs and decision-making operatives who caused this disaster. They should ALL be on trial for wrecking the ecosystem of the gulf, the economy of Gulf states, the health of wildlife and humans, along with the slowly but surely increasing deaths of same, and they should be imprisoned for life. But none of this will happen since they're all the same criminals who would be empowered to make arrests and carry out such trials. Two or three lawyers in Louisiana attempting to bring charges against BP in class or civil action suits will get nowhere against the roadblocks the government will set up, the teams of millionaire lawyers BP will dispatch, the judges that would be paid off, and the media support that will come to aid of all the criminals, as it inevitably does. When will The Fucking People rise up and take action against these insults to everything that lives and breathes? Will we EVER do anything except bitch about all this shit? What will it take, if this unparalleled disaster isn't enough? Suppose we start nuking Iran in a month or two. Will we still be typing to each other how outrageous it is?
Ephraim, What should we do, what action should we take? We are all puzzled by that question. It appears that the establishment is ready for such an uprising. It appears that they could kick our pitchfork wielding asses. It appears that there is nothing that we can do, that we have no chance of stopping them. You know, they have a very organized network. Very powerful, with virtually unlimited resources. I think I can pitch in 20 bucks. How much do you have? They have us under their boots. They want us to go extinct so they can have the earth for themselves. How do you fight an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere at once? The layers of their network go deep within all societies. I fully understand your frustration, but...am I missing something? What should we do?
Uninvent the dollar seems the best course of action --
let's figure out a way to do that!
Capitalism is exploitation of nature -- natural resources -- animal-life --
and even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority."
Capitalism is suicidal --
Patriarchy/Organized Patriarchal Religion/Capitalism --
the Unholy Trinity!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Good questions but tough to answer. The Democrats already have Netroots to organize. Even the Republicans meet each other in person. I visit this site and other progressive blogs every once in a while just to see the progress. Nothing, nada, zilch ! I can't dream of dating a progressive ! Steve Greenfield nailed it a while back.
To quote Steve Greenfield from another post I kept in my files:
"We progressives never do stuff like the two parties. We don't want to. We're more interested in being right than being effective. We will not "party" with anyone who doesn't support 100% of what we each support, and for the exact same reasons we support it. 95% is not an "A" with progressives. We are all "parties of one" and that's how we like it. So we pretend we're victims of media blackouts, shun anyone among us who's gotten coverage as sell-outs, the whole nine yards. We don't do it.
Look, I hate these BS artists as much as any of us on these boards. We can talk about hating the Democrats and Republicans until we're all blue in the face. But just once I'd like to see some discussion here about how to organize, instead of everyone just complaining about how "the system" is rigged and can't be beat. The truth is, hardly any of us have tried. I've tried, and although I and the people with whom I organize can't claim perfect and uninterrupted success, in my town "the system" has been beaten regularly, and with plenty of media attention.
We can learn a lot from the organized organizations. Not their politics, of course, but the mechanics of being an organization, of being, as business people say, a going concern. I haven't seen any discussion of that. I've read hundreds of thousands of paragraphs here about all the reasons why we can't, or won't, or shouldn't, but nary a peep about that we should or how we can. Anyone?"
I fully concur with you and Greenfield. I'm way out in the country, not even in a town, so it's hard for me to do much in such circumstances. I used to try, along with a handful of others back in the Reagan '80s. Except for that small circle, I may as well have been talking to trees and writing sermons to the wind.
Thanks for the polite reply. I'm out in Fargo myself. I've been scratching my head this afternoon trying to figure out the behavior in the progressive blogosphere. I visit these sites including this one once in a while and some of the comments and people throw me off. I apologize for those who are unable to find people to socialize with and come here to let it out. I would too but I just can't get over the Republican ordinaries in my town still being able to come together. I had met a young lady who was a progressive just like everyone else here but she'd never go out with me and always told me that she had friends to visit. I left her late last year and decided to take my chances in Fargo. I had a list of her favorite progressive sites including this one. I don't want to misunderstand everyone here but I think progressives are being too harsh with their young. I like to meet people who have higher education and more life experience than a 26 year old like me but some of them act exactly like college professors who used to put students down with their "if you didn't learn this in high school, then you will have no idea as to what I am talking about" attitude. I wish progressives well. As for me, I don't know which ideology I belong to anyway.
As far as this old Indian knows there isn't any law that you have to "Belong" to anyone's political "Ideology."
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.
Thanks sir and we could all use some forgiveness.
OK, you're young and have had some rough experiences here and there and haven't yet formed a clear concept of where you are politically. Fair enough. At least you're trying to figure things out. You came up during a time when education was at a virtual standstill, except concerning technology. It's still the same. I just responded to your posts on the McKibben article, because you were flaming people for "believing in" global warming while you're not sure what to believe. You said you studied chemistry and physics in college and encountered some professors who have doubts about GW and you can't stand all the "scare talk." It's a function of being 26, partly. I wasn't very sure of much then either, and I'm not sure of everything now, but I do know that 98% of scientists in the world aren't saying anthropogenic global warming is REAL because they have some political agenda. They're disinterested in the outcome of the experimentation and collection of data. That's one of the definitions of science. They aren't trying to advance some crackpot progressive agenda, they're doing science. You even said the corporations have been using "scare talk" to get everyone to believe AGW is really real and scary. This is utter nonsense and the opposite of the facts.
Anyway, keep researching and questioning, but don't be misled into thinking that to deny global warming you're being MORE scientific than those of us here resorting to Scare Talks. We're trying to wake up guys like you, who probably has a Good Heart, after all.
I saw yours and other responses and felt too overwhelmed to respond. My college education was a broken experience. Halfway through my third year, I had to take 2 years off because my parents were broke and unable to finish paying for my education. I had to get a job and ended up with a part timer. I also took what I had learned and became interested in trying to find new ideas and possible inventions. I came up with a couple of inventions but went nowhere with them. I later found out about patents and corporate control. My parents eventually recovered and I had some money of my own so we pitched in as I was struggling to patch up my degree. Overall, college was ok but some of the courses were poorly taught too and I ended up with a GPA of 2.65 but was glad I finished. I don't know if I had learned enough in college but I feel like college education was a waste. Why is it that my grandparents and seniors can brag and boast about being able to get a job with just high school education but that even a PhD today can't get one?
Edit: I posted a general response on that article. One more thing, I'm still a recovering conservative and you're right. I have a long ways to go. Still, I'll take your advice and try not to fall for the wrong ideas.
I hear you, and I don't know what to do either. Apparently no one does. We've been utterly unorganized for decades, and now this madness is upon us and we're just as unorganized as ever. We're totally fragmented, and no one person is going to get anything done. In his piece here today, Bill McKibben urges progressives and lefties to "work together" to stop global warming, a fine sentiment but not one especially within the range of high probability.
Unlike the misguided, mostly demented Tea Partiers, we don't even know who "we" are. And you're right: If we did miraculously manage to organize effectively and present a real challenge to the power elites, they'd crush us forthwith by applying goon squad high tech police tactics, or calling out the National Guard to mow us all down. No doubt both, and private mercenaries into the mix. So we're just summarily fucked and have nothing to do but watch our world disappear before our eyes. We can "fight the power," as the Black Panthers used to say, but their apparatus for inflicting violence is now so sophisticated they'll never even know we were fighting.
Being thus entirely unorganized, we have to admit to being utterly powerless. I was hollering 30 years ago about the need to organize, mainly workers organizing into new unions that would directly take on the capitalists at the workplace. But less than 1/100th of 1% ever listened to a word. Sheeple can't organize. All they can do is bleat and watch a lot of TV.
Well remember Ken Kesey's novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoos' Nest". At the end, it was revealed that McMurphy was actually one of the few non-voluntary residents, and after his death, the other characters left the institution, leaving Nurse Ratched with nothing. IMO, Kesey thought he was writing the next Moby Dick and was saying: that's the way out. If one doesn't feed the system, it will die. Join a Credit Union, Food Coop. Actively participate in local affairs.
My sentiments exactly. When will the people have enough power to do anything about the corruption going on throughout the entire government system, the media and the legal field that protects them all? I think it may be close to the time that we do what Ghandi did... civil disobedience. Let's just all STOP paying our taxes until the employees of our government are doing the quality of work that the rest of corporate America expects from the rest of us!
75% has disappeared ... out of sight, out of mind.
By BP's own admission Corexit has the potential for bioaccumulation meaning it has the potential to accumulate in the tissues of organism beginning with the first organism in a food chain. If you don't know about the accumulative effects of DDT in the food chain a basic education is here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT I quote- Along with the Endangered Species Act, the US DDT ban is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, from near-extinction in the contiguous US. Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics was later linked with widespread long lasting health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. The "Human Health Hazards" are said to be "Chronic" for Corexit EC9527A according to the EPA. So What Are These Dispersants Made Of That Makes Them Such a Powerful Neurotoxin Pesticide? The main ingredients of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol which can make up to 60% of the dispersant and is known to be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, and the central nervous system (CNS). 2-Butoxyethanol is also known to cause cancer, birth defects and has been found to cause genetic mutations and is a delayed chronic health hazard as well as an environmental hazardous material Corexit also contains Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and Cyanide. BP's latest oil spill response update for June 4th says the total amount of the dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico more than 1,021,000 gallons. But what most people don't know is that the active ingredient of the toxic chemical dispersant, which is up to 60% by volume, being sprayed by BP to fight the Gulf oil spill is a neurotoxin pesticide that is acutely toxic to both human and aquatic life, causes cancer, causes damage to internal organs such as the liver and kidneys simply by absorbing it through the skin and may cause reproductive side effects. In fact the neurotoxin pesticide that is lethal to 50% of life in concentrations as little as 2.6 parts per million has been banned for use in the UK since 1998 because it failed the UK "Rocky shore test" which assures that the dispersant does not cause a "significant deleterious ecological change" or to put that in layman's terms it can kill off the entire food chain. Corexit has also earned the highest EPA warning label for toxicity which means the effects of the toxic chemicals to the eye are corrosive resulting in irreversible destruction of ocular tissue and other tissue with corneal involvement along with an burning that can persist for more than 21 days and effects to human skin are corrosive resulting in tissue destruction into the dermis and/or scarring. Thankyou to ABC for this honest reporting- http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7465781 More info about Corexit- http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7465781
thank you
Bio-magnification is a process that crunches species higher up the chain. It works like this: phytoplankton are poisoned by a toxic substance, a single shrimp consumes a million tainted phytoplankton, a single sea bass consumes a hundred thousand tainted shrimp, a single tuna that consumes a thousand tainted sea bass now has the non-biodegradable toxic poison from every tainted creature back through the process.
Then people eat the tuna.
What corporate purpose did the use of dispersants serve? We know the answer-- to make the oil less visible, to make the spill's magnitude less obvious, to reinforce the initial claim that it would all be mopped up quickly. That fit the White House agenda too-- at least initially. They wanted to get it off the front page as much as the oil companies did at the start. That overrode any warnings given about the dangers of dispersants which were well known since they had been declared illegal in Europe due to there well known toxic neurological effects. Now they are rushing to open areas to shrimping and fishing. NOAA will undoubted declare the fish and the shrimp safe. If I were you I wold not eat a fish stick without knowing where it came from. They have lied about dispersants in the past for self serving, face saving reasons. They are probably, (I can't prove it yet) lying to us now about the safety of the fish and shrimp, and Barack Obama will undoubtedly lie to us again in the future because now he has more to cover up than ever.
I think in this case, Obama has been caught red-handed, and those who supported him will rapidly come to realize that temporary perception is just spin, just lies after lies. I don't see how Obama can survive this debacle. He could have, if he could just make sound decisions. I have no idea how he thinks anymore, nor do I care anymore. I voted for him thinking he maybe was a good guy, even though I had doubts. Hmmm - maybe the benzene has gotten to his brain?
Let me see: Maybe there are 3 ways to deal with any problem: The right way, the wrong way, and the Obama way. Maybe that's it. Anybody?
Hey Basil Fawlty always survived!
TAMMONS: Right on post!
I agree with everything you’ve said but there is another aspect regarding this particular dispersant that doesn't get discussed much but I’m sure factored into this particular corporate decision. BP’s biggest shareholder is a company called BlackRock. BlackRock also owns the 3rd largest shares in a company called Nalco Holding Company. Guess what Nalco manufactures. If you guessed Corexit you are correct.
Oh please, give us a break. Everyone on Capital Hill knew what was going on.