Goddamn BP is using toxic dispersant that is banned in the UK
Johnny Asia
Dispersants Banned in the United Kingdom
BP is using two products from a line of dispersants manufactured
by Nalco: Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A[ii] .
Corexit products were removed from a list of approved treatments
for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago after the agents
were linked with human health problems including respiratory,
neurologic, liver, kidney and blood disorders,[iii] and "harmful
effects" on sea life.
Corexit is on the EPA's list of approved chemical dispersants, and
BP could have chosen any one from the list. The EPA's table comparing
toxicity and effectiveness shows that Corexit is toxic at much lower
levels than many of its competitors. Only 2.61 ppm of Corexit 9500 is
required to kill 50 percent of fish exposed to it within 96 hours.
Sayer Ji clarifies this by explaining that the Corexit itself actually
only has a toxicity level of 25.20 parts per million. The test oil the
EPA uses has a higher toxicity of 10.72 ppm. It is when you add the
Corexit to oil at a 1:10 ratio that the combined toxicity of this
third entity "dispersed oil" goes all the way to 2.6 ppm.
So, why would BP choose Corexit, given its higher toxicity and
poor performance in handling Louisiana crude?
As it turns out, BP has financial ties with Nalco, which explains
why they have now poured more than 1,021,000 gallons of it into the
Gulf and have another 805,000 gallons on order. Because of these
industry ties, Corexit is the only dispersant available in the massive
quantities "needed" for an oil spill of this size.
In fact, they used up all exiting stockpiles of Corexit 9527A, the
older and less desirable formula, and Nalco states it will be
discontinued, now that it has been used up.
And if it is toxic enough to be discontinued, why was it being
dumped into the Gulf of Mexico in the first place?
Of all 18 dispersants tested, Corexit 9500 and 9527A are the LEAST
effective, further confirming that BP's preferential use of these
products is motivated by profit, rather than their proclaimed
intention to "clean up the mess," as Sayer Ji points out.
Although using less toxic dispersants is a good idea, relative
toxicity is NOT really the issue. A far more critical point is the
inherently damaging consequences of dispersing the oil by any means.
Casting Dispersions of Doubt
As Ji states:
"Dispersing the oil into the water column accelerates the
poisoning of all marine life, deep throughout the water column and
seabed. Ultimately it results in "covering-up" the extent of the
disaster on the surface, while amplifying the damage within our
oceans.
Also, when the dispersants mix with the crude oil, a third far
more toxic product is produced called "dispersed oil." Dispersed oil
has been shown to be more toxic than the sum of its parts.
Dispersing simply keeps the oil deeper in the water column so
that it will not surface, into the light of public scrutiny."
Out of sight, out of mind... right?
Like blasting an asteroid into millions of smaller fragments, by
dispersing the oil, you multiply the damage over a far wider area.
They should be using mechanisms to remove the oil羊ather than
dispersing it.
Dispersants are up to 4.5 times more toxic to aquatic life than
the oil itself.
In fact, dispersants, as a group, have been shown to cause fish to
absorb toxic hydrocarbons 15 times faster than if they were exposed to
plain crude oil. As evidence of this, refer to the impressive list of
scientific studies about oil and dispersant toxicology on the
GreenMedInfo.com website.
In a letter written by Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, who
is leading an investigation into the Gulf oil disaster:
"The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals
into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and
aggressive experiment on our oceans. The information regarding the
chemical composition, efficacy and toxicity of the dispersants
currently being used is scarce."[iv]
Dispersants Have NEVER Been Tested for These Conditions
Little is know about how the oil and dispersants will react in
such a deep-water ecosystem蓉nder extremely high water pressure, very
low temperatures, limited oxygen and light.
The environment at the bottom of the Gulf could adversely affect
the bacteria that help break down the oil near the surface, as they
are less active in cold water than in warmer surface waters. If the
oil on the ocean floor is not degraded by bacteria, it may remain
toxic for much longer than it would near the surface, and its
persistence there makes it more likely to enter the food chain.
The massive dispersed oil further depletes the water of oxygen,
resulting in "dead zones"洋assive hypoxic areas that have started to
appear in the world's oceans. One hundred forty six of them were
counted in 2004 alone.
And environmental tests have already confirmed that oil
dispersants are bioaccumulative and can be stored in the fatty tissues
of living organisms[v]. Substances that bioaccumulate tend to move
from water into fish, then into predator fish, and on up the food
chain to YOU様eaving a trail of devastation along the way.
As dispersed oil collects on the seabed, the evaporation process
concentrates the toxic compounds left behind, particularly oil-derived
compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which kill
fish eggs and accumulate in many sea creatures, like mussels.
A study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill found
that PAHs damaged the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink
salmon embryos.
In fact, now, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, the herring
population is still completely devastated, with no signs of recovery,
according to an interview with Riki Ott, a Marine Toxicologist in
Alaska.
The Health Effects of Oil Dispersing Chemicals
Despite the EPA's claims that Corexit is safe[vi], there is an
abundance of data suggesting otherwise.
According to Carys Mitchelmore, a researcher at the University of
Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the detergent-like brew of
solvents, surfactants and other compounds are known to cause a variety
of health problems in animals, including:[vii]
* Death
* Reduced growth
* Reproductive problems
* Cardiac dysfunction
* Immune suppression
* Altered behavior
* Carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects
But it isn't just marine animals that are impacted by dispersants.
The toxic effects to humans are also well known. The MSDS for
Corexit 9527A lists the human health hazard as "acute," stating[viii]:
"Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects,
nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects. Excessive exposure
to 2-butoxyethanol (an active ingredient) may cause injury to red
blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. Prolonged and/or
repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with
EGBE (2-butoxyethanol) may result in damage to the blood and kidneys."
Corexit 9527A contains between 30 and 60 percent 2-butoxyethanol
by weight, according to the "maddeningly inexact" information obtained
by Grist's Tom Philpott[ix]. Haz-Map reports the following health
effects associated with this chemical:
"Severe hemoglobinuria and changes in the lungs, kidneys, and
liver are seen in mice after 7-hour lethal concentration studies.
Volunteers showed no evidence of adverse effects other than mucous
membrane irritation after 8-hour exposures to 200 ppm... For ethylene
glycol ethers, there is limited positive evidence of spontaneous
abortions and decreased sperm counts in humans and strong positive
evidence of birth defects and testicular damage in animals."
Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense
Fund, makes the point2:
"The biggest problem is that the vast majority of testing done
on these chemicals is that when it is done, it is at best limited to
very short-term, acute toxicity tests. The concern here is not
[short-term exposure] nearly as much as longer-term chronic toxicity.
The dispersants are going to get diluted, spread out over a large
area, and effects they're likely to exert would be due to relatively
long exposures over a long period of time."
And if you think the dispersant chemicals stay out at sea,
consider this.
According to a recent ABC report[x], a "brown slime" has appeared
on the shore of a barrier island off the coast of Louisiana. The
slime, which was thinner than oil, was determined to be a collection
of the dispersant BP has been pumping down into the area around the
hemorrhaging oil well.
Rainforests of the Sea
Dispersed oil is particularly deadly to coral reefs, beautiful
"underwater rainforests" brimming with life for many thousands of
years.
Yet they are disappearing faster than our rainforests[xi].
In coral reefs, thousands of species found nowhere else on Earth
live in a complex competition with each other. According to Australian
Institute of Marine Science biologist Terry Done[xii]:
"It's plant against plant or it's plant against animal. When
you think about it, in a given acre of coral reef, you've got
thousands of things trying to occupy this given acre. And the way they
do that is through some very novel chemical defenses. The chemistry,
which goes on, it could be the same source of chemistry and the same
sort of compounds that may be helpful for humans in medicine."
Here are just a few examples:
* The Great Barrier Reef holds the raw materials for a
chemical thought to have a role in slowing aging.
* Another chemical that produces a sunscreen more effective
than anything on today's market is found inside the reef's brightly
colored corals.
* Coral skeletons are used as bone substitutes in
reconstructive bone surgery[xiii].
Many of the sponges are stationary葉hey cannot swim away from
danger耀o they've evolved complex chemical defenses, and those
chemicals contain metabolites with the potential to cure human
diseases, including cancer.
As Go Coral Reefs, So Go We
In 2004, a study found that about 70 percent of the world's coral
reefs were either threatened or destroyed預n 11 percent increase since
2002. More than 20 percent were already "damaged beyond repair,"
largely due to human activities.
In December of 2008, Achim Steiner, executive director of the
United Nations, said we are "currently facing a sixth wave of
extinctions, mainly as a result of human impacts." The current
extinction period even has a name葉he Holocene extinction event預nd
may be the "greatest event in Earth's history."[xiv]
Are we the first species to name our own extinction?
Unlike prior extinction events, it is happening over the course of
decades, rather than centuries. Only time will tell if Homo sapiens
will be one of the species to survive.
Filling the ocean with chemicals is certainly not increasing our
chances!
One of the major factors in this extinction is warming sea-surface
temperatures and seawater acidification, due largely to increasing
levels of carbon dioxide dissolving into the oceans and combining with
water to form carbonic acid. The more acidic the water, the less
corals are able to rebuild their structure. Warmer waters lead to
"coral bleaching"葉heir ominous death throw before crumbling to dust.
According to Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist
regarded as the world's foremost authority on coral reefs:
"The future is horrific. There is no hope of reefs surviving
to even mid-century in any form that we now recognize. If, and when,
they go, they will take with them about one-third of the world's
marine biodiversity. Then there is a domino effect, as reefs fail, so
will other ecosystems. This is the path of a mass extinction event,
when most life, especially tropical marine life, goes extinct."
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event Revisited
Contemporary parallels have been drawn to the Permian-Triassic
extinction by a number of scientists.
These Scientists believe the Permian extinction of 250 million
years ago, a.k.a. the Great Dying[xv], was the Earth's most severe
extinction event in that 96 percent of all marine species and 70
percent of all terrestrial vertebrates met their demise.
Based on the geologic record, these scientists believe the
following factors were at play in the Permian extinctions:
* Significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (related
to volcanoes in Eastern Russia that spewed lava and gases for a
million years)
* Resultant global warming and anoxic seas (warm water is less
able to hold oxygen; atmospheric oxygen went from 30 percent to 15
percent during the Permian; dead organic matter flooded the seas,
pulling even more oxygen from the water)
* Frozen methane hydrate welling up from the ocean floor
escaped into the atmosphere (methane is an extremely potent
"greenhouse gas")
* Deadly bacteria took over, which produced hydrogen sulfide
gas, deadly to marine life
* Hydrogen sulfide gas bubbled out of the seas into the
atmosphere, killing terrestrial animals and plants
Many of these chemical changes are exactly what some scientists
are already seeing today in our oceans and lakes.
Wake Up and Smell the Methane
We haven't heard much about the massive quantities of methane gas
spewing out from BP's leak.
Given that the mixture belching forth is roughly half methane and
other gases by mass, shouldn't we be concerned about the potential
effects on climate, since methane is 26 more times as potent a
greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide?[xvi]
Methane is a large enough part of the leak that some have even
suggested using it to measure how much crude has been released, since
tracking methane is easier than tracking oil in seawater[xvii].
Same Old Blame Games, Lame Excuses and PR Stunts
Rather than focusing on what is of critical importance, BP
continues to dump more toxic dispersants into the water to hide the
spoils, in spite of the EPA's demands to stop.
In a New York Times article[xviii] , Carl Safina, president and
co-founder of the Blue Ocean Institute is quoted as saying:
"It's not at all clear to me why we're dispersing the oil at
all. It seems to me you would want it as thick and as concentrated as
possible so we can deal with it right there. We seem to be saying
we're going to take this concentrated oil, and we're going to dissolve
it. It's an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It's a PR stunt to
dissolve this oil with dispersants. It's just to get it out of the way
of the cameras on the shoreline."
So, why hasn't the government stepped in?
Too many shared financial agendas between BP and the government,
and corporate interests that supersede your health and security.
Whether it's Big Pharma, Big Food or Big Oil曜ust pick one葉he
deplorable behavior is the same.
Sadly, BP's underlying motive is to prevent satellites from
capturing the extent of the leaked oil by dispersing it below the
water surface預nd on this BP has succeeded. Most of the underwater
"plumes" will never be successfully measured.
In a desperate attempt to hide the truth, BP has also pulled
strings with the Coast Guard by threatening to arrest journalists
trying to cover the story.[xix]
And you will continue to be distracted by the increasingly
rancorous debate over which dispersant is "best," rather than the real
issues, making it all the more obvious that the damage of greatest
concern to BP executives is the damage to their bonuses.
A Call to Action
The time to act is now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Two experts told a House panel on Friday that "the use of oil
dispersing chemicals should be halted until the ingredients and
effects are better understood." You can join the movement to stop
these dispersants by signing a petition that Ji has posted on his
site.
This issue does NOT ONLY affect the Gulf States, or just the
U.S.擁t has global ramifications that grow with each passing day. I
urge you to take action now, without delay, pressing your
representatives to hold BP accountable.
A special thanks goes to Sayer Ji for providing an abundance of
resources for this article.
[i] Mauer R and Tinsley A M. (May 8, 2010) "Gulf oil spill: BP has
a long record of legal, ethical violations"
[ii] Wheeland M. (May 27, 2010) "As gulf spill drags on, chemical
use remains a big question" GreenBiz
[iii] Wang M. (May 18, 2010) "In Gulf spill, BP using dispersants
banned in U.K." ProPublica
[iv] Guarino M. (May 18, 2010) "Gulf oil spill: Has BP 'turned
corner' with siphon success?" MinnPost.com
[v] "Oil spills and the dangers of chemical dispersants" (May 14,
2010)
[vi] "Nalco releases additional technical information on COREXIT"
(May 27, 2010) Market Watch
[vii] Feldman S. (May 13, 2010) "Criticism of secret oil
dispersant in Gulf grows louder in U.S."
[viii] Philpott T. (May 6, 2010) "Chemical dispersants being used
in Gulf clean-up are potentially toxic" Grist
[ix] Philpott T. (May 7, 2010) "Chemical dispersants being used in
the Gulf clean-up" Grist (posted by CounterCurrents.org)
[x] Blackburn B. (May 5, 2010) "Oil spill: BP prepares to place
dome over the leak, but spill continues" ABC World News
[xi] Scales H. "Coral reefs vanishing faster than rain forests"
(August 7, 2007) National Geographic News
[xii] "Deep sea chemicals" (February 16, 2005) PBS Online NewsHour
[xiii] "Coral reefs: There's still hope, but only just"
(March/April 2006) MotherJones
[xiv] Block B. "Coral reef loss suggests global extinction event"
(December 12, 2008) Environmental News Network
[xv] Ham B. "New clues about the 'Great Dying' traced in science"
MSNBC Science
[xvi] Eisenberg N. (May 19, 2010) "Could the largest oil drilling
catastrophe also end up the largest natural gas and climate disaster
in recent history?" AlterNet
[xvii] Cox J D. (May 23, 2010) "To measure the oil, measure the
methane" Discovery News
[xviii] Quinlan P. (May 24, 2010) "Secret formulas, data shortages
fuel arguments over dispersants used for gulf spill" New York Times
[xix] "BP, Coast Guard officers block journalists from filming
oil-covered beach" (May 19, 2010) Huffington Post
Buster Norris
<bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>
>http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/06/12/plans-to-clean-up-the-oil-spill--dolphins-with-mops-aquaman-or-blame-the-french.aspx?aid=CD945
>
>
>Dispersants Banned in the United Kingdom
>
Why is Obogus letting them do it???
sillapond
> Dispersants Banned in the United Kingdom
This ain't the UK.
Johnny Asia
alt.politics.usa, alt.rush-limbaugh
http://www.inewscatcher.com/timages/98b4c9d0caf1c59cd9908d6d453fe5d3.jpg
+
Pucker your butt for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Asshole from the Future
http://blindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-helen-thomas-birthday.jpg
sillapond
> Pucker your butt for the Apocalypse!
Remove your cranium from your retum.
Buster Norris
<johnnya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I want to suck out your puckered butthole for the Apocalypse!
>
>Johnny Asia, Asshole from the Future
>
>http://blindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-helen-thomas-birthday.jpg
HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!