Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

After 1 month & 600,000 Gallons of Corexit, EPA tells BP: "Stop" But BP Disses EPA & Continues

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 02:22 PM
Original message
After 1 month & 600,000 Gallons of Corexit, EPA tells BP: "Stop" But BP Disses EPA & Continues
Corexit is so toxic, it's banned in Britain.


Scientists have railed against its use. It's main purpose is cosmetic.

BP already dumped 600,000 gal of Corexit; This Thursday, our EPA told BP to find something less toxic. But BP continues to use Corexit.


Why is BP allowed to do this?



more on Corexit here:

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Cor ...

"SKIN CONTACT :
Can cause moderate irritation. Harmful if absorbed through skin.

INGESTION :
May be harmful if swallowed. May cause liver and kidney effects and/or damage. There may be irritation to the
gastro-intestinal tract.

INHALATION :
Harmful by inhalation. Repeated or prolonged exposure may irritate the respiratory tract.

SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE :
Acute :
Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.
Chronic :
Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the
liver.

AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS :
Skin contact may aggravate an existing dermatitis condition.
HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS - CHRONIC :
Contains ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (butoxyethanol). Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation
or extensive skin contact with EGBE may result in damage to the blood and kidneys."


HUMAN HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION :
Based on our hazard characterization, the potential human hazard is: High

**************************************************************************************


Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous. Consult Section 15 for the
nature of the hazard(s).

Hazardous Substance(s) CAS NO % (w/w)


Corexit was reformulated again as the new and improved Corexit 9527, now with up to *38%* super-strength neurotoxin 2-butoxyethanol. But hey - why stop there?

Currently used in the Gulf of Mexico: COREXIT(R) EC9527A with a whopping 30 - 60% by weight of your favorite mutagen and hepatotoxic insecticide 2-butoxyethanol. Exxon was pretty much able to weasel out of any health and environmental testing so it's just never *been* tested at any strength, even back in the whimpy 13% Inopol days.


2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 30.0 - 60.0

Organic sulfonic acid salt Proprietary 10.0 - 30.0

Propylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.0 - 5.0

3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

http://www.cleancaribbean.org/docs/COREXIT_EC9527A_UsCu ...


But both oil and oil spill dispersants are known to cause a variety of health effects in animals, she added, "including death and a variety of sublethal impacts including reduced growth, reproduction, cardiac dysfunction, immune system suppression, carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects and alterations in behavior."

Lisa Jackson, EPA, said that Corexit is at most one-tenth "as toxic as oil."

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100513/criticism-secret -...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. BP could give a shit
about what happens to the Gulf. The goal is to hide the scale of the disaster. Disperse the oil so it becomes invisible, while lying about the amount pouring out of their hole in the sea floor. First the crime, then the cover-up. Bastards in full panic mode. And the Obama administration sat on its hands for a month doing nothing, while things spun out of control. Let BP take care of it. They're the experts. I'm beyond pissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. BP has ordered less toxic dispersent but isn't using it
Video from CNN's Anderson Cooper
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bp-had-alte...
Look on the video starting around the 3:30 mark

Excerpt:
As Ed Lavandera discovered, BP had an alternative bought and paid for, ready to go, just sitting on shore since early this month. Again, the question is why.

Ed Henry -- Ed Lavandera tonight "Keeping Them Honest."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hundreds of containers are just sitting here in the Houston sun. To some, it's just another example of the mismanagement of the oil spill. The containers are full of a chemical dispersant calls Sea Brat 4. Why is it sitting here, and not in the ocean instead? No one really knows, especially since BP's on record as saying it would use the stuff.

DOUG SUTTLES, COO, GLOBAL EXPLORATION, BP: We also have a second product now identified to use called Sea Brat 4, which we will begin introducing into the -- the process as well.

LAVANDERA (on camera): That's what BP said almost a week ago. But we found the Sea Brat 4 just sitting here in an industrial park outside of Houston, Texas. You're looking at it, almost 100,000 gallons of the less toxic dispersant. Guess who ordered it? BP did, on May 4, almost three weeks ago.

JOHN SHEFFIELD, PRESIDENT, ALABASTER CORPORATION: This is Sea Brat. It's in totes ready for delivery.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): John Sheffield is president of the company that makes Sea Brat 4.

(on camera): Do you think it's weird that stuff's just sitting here in the Houston area?

SHEFFIELD: It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. You know, I think something's intentionally trying to stop us from getting our product in the water.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): EPA and Coast Guard officials say there's nothing stopping BP from using Sea Brat 4. Sheffield says that, by now, he could be making 50,000 to 100,000 gallons of dispersant a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Long-term effects can be absolutely disastrous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. ghastly! for both humans and wildlife
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's not your fucking ocean!
Time to take over the situation and tell BP to go the hell home.

Bring in the big guns...the real scientists, engineers and environmentalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC