Disaster in the Gulf: Dead Zones

[phantom power]

"In previous spills, oil rose to the surface and was dealt with there," but hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersants used has kept much of the it submerged, "resulting in unprecedented underwater damage to organisms in the Gulf."

Once toxins enter the food chain, none of it escapes harm, and some may be lost forever, the result of what Marine Environmental Research Institute director Susan Shaw calls "the biggest environmental disaster of our time," saying:

She's been diving in damaged areas and "is horrified by the contamination caused by BP's continued use of dispersants. They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these - Corexit 9527 - is the one (most used. It) ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed." With so much in the water over large areas, "we can only imagine the death that will be caused."

Shaw explained that contaminated plankton and smaller shrimps will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain, "dismantling (it), piece by piece."

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=623643

[FirstLight]

1. I really want the dispersants addressed...

supposedly the govt ordered BP to stop using these, but they are still pumping thousands of gallons of the shit into the spill at the source.

WTF!!!???

why are they still using this crap?

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. So far as I can tell

the continued use of these dispersants is an indication that our government is complicit in hiding the extent of the damage.

Whether the EPA ordered or requested that BP cease the use of Corexit the fact that BP continues to use it also suggests that it is BP that is in control of the Gusher response not the government.

No surprise here on either count.

[Nihil]

4. If the EPA had banned it (*) then BP wouldn't be using it.

(*) like most European countries have done.

(Mind you, the same could be said for a lot of things that
you eat, drink & use in the US. Maybe you need a new EPA?)

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Ummmm......no

From The Wall Street Journal May 22, 2010 edition:

"BP PLC (BP, BP.LN), in response to a directive from the U.S. government to switch the type of chemical dispersant it's been using to break up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, said it still believes that the product it has been using is the best option."

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100522-702014.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines


Read through the frickin' article. EPA directed BP to stop using Corexit. BP thumbed their nose at the government and said, "we know better." BP and the EPA met. Wonder of wonders, EPA then backs off and decides BP knows best. BP is in control and calling the shots. The administration is little more than a spectator.

The issue isn't whether or not the shit is completely banned. The issue is whether of not BP complied with a government directive. They didn't. They responded with a "fuck you." And the administration didn't even whimper or complain.

[Nihil]

7. Ummmm......yes

Me: "If the EPA had banned it then BP wouldn't be using it."
You: "EPA directed BP to stop using Corexit."

"EPA directing" < > "EPA banning"

Or, to expand that somewhat terse summary,

"EPA making a half-hearted attempt to regain public favour for their
incompetence at allowing this toxic product (along with many others)
to be used in the USA despite being banned elsewhere"
does not equal
"EPA at long last banning a toxic product".

(FWIW, the Bush-gutted EPA are also the reason why you didn't
have skimmers working in the Gulf back in May. Mind you, the Bush-gutted
MMS are a lot of the reason why this happened in the first place.)

(Edited to take out the (*) in my original comment that is now out of context)

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. Ummmm......

Here's a link to the May 20 directive:
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/directive-addendum2.pdf

Section 2 clearly states that BP has 24 hours to identify a less toxic dispersant for both surface and subsurface use and must begin use of that dispersant - as opposed to the more toxic duspersant which was being used (Corexit) - within 72 hours. That is an oder not a request or a recommendation. An order to use a dispersant less toxic than Corexit. An order from an agency within the executive branch of the federal government. An order they are legally entitled to issue.

BP responded saying that they thought Corexit was the best available alternative. There is nothing to indicate that the fucking government idiots did any independent verification of that.

You do not seem to understand that the fuckng government idiots can prohibit the use of Corexit in the Gulf Gusher without completely banning its use in all circumstances.

Since BP responded to the directive to quit using Corexit with a "fuck you" the impotent government idiots were left to respond to BP by saying their analysis of alternatives was "insufficient" and a defense of their use of Corexit. In correspondence the dumbasses suggested that BP should reduce Corexit use by 75%.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/Rainey-letter-052610.pdf

The government dumbasses latest directive regarding dispersants is that BP should use no more than 15,000 gallons daily for subsurface application and must get prior approval for surface application.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/directive-addendum3.pdf

To summarize: BP was using a dispersant with documented toxicity issues at high volumes. Government agency ordered BP to identify an alternative and use it. BP said "fuck you." Government cowards knew BP didn't respond with a thorough and careful analysis of alternatives. But they ddn't do their own analysis and investigation or force BP to revisit the issue. They fuckng settled for less.

The EPA/Coast Guard did in fact order BP to identify and use a less toxic dispersant than Corexit. Go read the fucking documents.


Bottom Line: BP is in control.

[Nihil]

9. Ummmm......OK

Thanks for those links - better than third party reports/summaries. :hi:

> You do not seem to understand that the fuckng government idiots can
> prohibit the use of Corexit in the Gulf Gusher without completely banning
> its use in all circumstances.

I completely understand that the "FGIs" can scream & shout all they want and
that (in this respect) BP are in control as they went for the "pick & mix"
option ("We'll do the 'reduce underwater rate' and the 'stop surface use' but
not the 'find a different dispersant.").

My point - that I obviously failed to make originally - is that *had* Corexit
been banned in the US (as it is in many other countries where BP operate) then
BP would not have had a chance, not a leg to stand on, were it to attempt to
use the banned substance. (In practice, it wouldn't even have attempted it but
would have gone for whatever the strongest approved product happened to be.)


Your previous reply said:
>> The issue isn't whether or not the shit is completely banned.
>> The issue is whether of not BP complied with a government directive.
>> They didn't. They responded with a "fuck you." And the administration
>> didn't even whimper or complain.

I don't disagree with your modified "issue" but you made it such - that wasn't
what I was originally commenting upon.

My issue was that had it been banned in the US, the whole Corexit situation
would not have arisen. It was not banned because the EPA is/was corrupt.
This retrospective attempt at CYA by getting BP to stop once they'd been using
it was treated with the contempt that it deserved and even the EPA realised
that they were SOL with all the pussyfooting around in the middle ground.

:shrug:

I think we agree on more than we disagree on.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. OK

Thanks for clarifying.

We probably do agree on more than we disagree on.

Corexit should be banned here from what I've read of its effects.

There are alternatives.

[phantom power]

3. They're using it because...

they'd rather make the cleanup harder, and the damage to the GOM food chain much worse, than deal with the unpleasant optics of more oil on the surface.

Isn't that special?

[depakid]

5. Can't have tyhat unsightly mess, can we?