BP is NOT using Corexit because they have a stake in the company nor because it is 'helping.'

[Are_grits_groceries]

They may have a stake in the company, but that money is peanuts. Corexit has also been shown to be toxic in many ways, and it has been pointed out that dispersing the oil is not really a good idea after all.

I believe they are doing it for reasons that they will use legally.

They have been careful to always point out that Corexit is on the EPA's approved list. By using it, they blur the line between the damage done by the oil and the dispersant.

If a lawsuit is filed, BP will argue that it is impossible to tell what is really doing the damage. Both the oil and the Corexit are harmful. If what causes what can't be proven, then the government is also complicit in this action because it is on that list. Add to that the fact that the EPA told them to stop using it, and they said no. (That's a whole other area that is troublesome to say the least)

They will point to that EPA list over and over.

They are spraying it right into the oil at the wellhead. They want to make sure the oil is poisoned more than it already is.

Please don't tell me that they would never be so low as to stoop to this. They are going to do any and everything to avoid paying immediately. In addition, don't be so sure it won't be successful in court.

They are footdragging, lying, destroying evidence, and the Gulf is being run like Vichy France.
(Not Nazis and the holocaust! That isn't even remotely close. There are other similar factors in carrying oilicy out)

[Cresent City Kid]

1. This is criminal

I'm getting information in disjointed pieces, so maybe you can help me put it together. I thought the use of dispersants was stopped. I quess it was just the planes dropping it in broad daylight that stopped.

I can't see any way that dispersants help anything other than BP. We are really letting do this, what is essentially hiding the oil? I'm about ready to drive back home to Louisiana and raise hell about this.

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. I don't really know what is going on.

The issue has been muddled from the beginning. I'm sure that is the way they want most people to be.

The EPA told them to stop and they said no. So the government discussed it with them. Why?????

It has been pointed out a lot by now just how toxic it is. I don't watch the oilcam, and apparently there is a camera view that is labeled as dispersant OP. I hadn't even realized this until Bob Cavnar mentioned it on KO.

The fact that is still being used is baffling and mind boggling. There has been obfuscation about its use from the get go.

If I ever get a hint of a clue, I'll post it.

Maybe somebody else on DU has been following the actual use of it more than I have and will post the info.

[Cresent City Kid]

4. I heard it on KO too

Thanks for posting this. I'll try to dig something up tomorrow after some much needed sleep.

[Cresent City Kid]

8. It's true, the EPA authorized it on May 26th

BP is injecting a maximum of 15,000 gallons of dipersants per day at the site of the leak. I don't remember this being announced, but it was at the top of my google search.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html

They say it's to lessen the impact of the oil, I say it's to lessen BP's liability. Smaller particles of oil does not mean a smaller amount of oil.

Oil reaching the coast is bad but not the only problem. This seems like sweeping dirt under the rug to me.

[Doremus]

29. EPA told them to stop *or* tell them why they need to continue its use.

That's what I read some time ago. :shrug:

[Cetacea]

2. .

[Karenina]

5. . .

[Exultant Democracy]

6. I also think they will defend their "no oil plums" line in court using the dispersants as an excuse

[nashville_brook]

7. damn good point.

[amborin]

9. knr----and our gov't lets them!

[Laelth]

10. I suspect you are right.

As an attorney, I also suspect that their argument will be very effective in Court.

Tragic but true.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. I wish I wasn't and that

they weren't using it. I have learned to look for sneaky after living in SC.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one reading the news.

[Capitalocracy]

24. As an attorney, can I get your opinion on my reply below?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8542336&mesg_id=8546517

thanks

[cwydro]

11. K and R

and our government is complicit in this.

[Catherina]

12. Rec'd with disgust n/t

[mod mom]

13. EPA told BP to stop using it in May:

BP oil spill news: EPA tells BP to find new dispersant, stop using Corexit
May 22, 2010 (TopWireNews.com: - Law, press release)
http://news.topwirenews.com/2010/05/22/bp-oil-spill-news-bp-to-find-new-dispersant-_201005226633.html

[truedelphi]

15. Our whole Political system is run like the Vichy government of France.

Not supposed to say that, but it is true.

We can vote for the Corporate Controlled Dems or the neo Nazi Republicans. Neither party cares at all about the working class. Neither one cares one bit.

It is all about the Big Corporations, and that my friends, is the definition of fascism.

(BTW, Mussolini was one of the most acclaimed, charismatic people of the late nineteen teens. Writers, artists and poets and playwrights flocked to Italy to spend time with the man. Then he became a ruthless dirt bag, as charismatic people who' re so very charming and can get away with ANYTHING often do.)

[unblock]

16. that would be a pretty silly legal argument. they're liable even if they dumped vinegar or sugar.

if, for whatever reason, bp decided to dump a brazillian tons of vinegar or sugar or corn syrup or ho-hos or bundt cakes or souffles or dead cows or live turkeys or golf balls or hair or bad actors in the ocean and such dumping caused damage to innocent third parties, then they would be legally liable no matter what "approved" list such items were on.

they are responsible for the leak and any damage caused directly OR INDIRECTLY by it OR ANY EFFORTS TO STOP THE LEAK.



consider another example -- if i were to accidently set fire to your house, then put it out by getting the garden hose and spraying water all about, then i'm responsible not just for the fire/smoke damage but also for the water damage -- even if the 911 operator told me to turn on the garden hose.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. I don't think so.

The government is still letting BP use it even though there is a great deal of evidence about how toxic it is.

That makes its use even worse. In addition, it also is not a good idea to disperse it. The samller particles will travel further and have a poison attached to it.

If I let someone try to put my house out with something that I know is very dangerous in and of itself and it might damage other people and property, I think I would bear some of the liability. The government could stop BP.

Your example has 3 parties. You, me, and the operator. There is no operator in my argument. I know that you will do as much or more damage with the 'water hose.' If I stand there like a stump when I have the power to stop you, then I am going to be in the middle of it too.

Please don't tell me the government can't do that. If they can make an argument out of whole cloth that it is legal to kill someone they consider an enemy of the US inside another country without that country's knowledge or approval, then they can make an argument to stop BP.

I believe there was and is enough evidence of the toxicity of the dispersant that they could use to make them stop. I don't think they have to even really make something to use. I believe there is some law or whatever already at their disposal. We do not have clean hands unfortunately.

I still believe BP will use the argument I stated above, and I believe they might get away with it. An attorney who posted on this thread also agrees. If nothing else, they will have another point to keep using to appeal any verdict against them.

I am never sure about trials or legal decisions. I may be wrong here. However, I also believe my argument is one that is plausible to use. I also believe it may fly.

[unblock]

18. i still don't see the legal argument.

if i accidently set fire to your house, i'm responsible for all damages, no matter if or how or how effectively i put out the fire, and i'm responsible for water damage, corexit damage, or whatever other damages i inflict on your house, even if in a valiant and successful effort to stop the fire.

if a third party (say, the fire department) comes in and causes more damage, then i'm responsible for the damage they do as well (e.g., water damage, axing down doors, etc.).

the only time a third party helps get me off the hook SLIGHTLY is if THEY caused MORE damage than would otherwise have happened had they acted to the standards they were supposed to. so if the fire department fails to put out a fire it could have due to gross incompetence, or if they decide to tear down neighboring houses to prevent the fire from spreading when spreading was extremely unlikely, then i'm NOT generally liable for THAT damage, the third party is.

even that argument gets weaker when the third party is not some private party but is in fact a government or governmental agency. laws may limit the fire department's liability and almost certainly limit the federal government's liability.


your argument might have made sense if bp had done nothing and the federal government came in and used the corexit. but with bp doing it themselves, they're involved both in the original leak and the dubious solution, so i don't see how this permits them to escape liability for damages from either.

[HughMoran]

20. True - it's absurd. As if damage x2 would actuallly somehow save them lawsuit money

Some of the theories here are so hare-brained as to make my head hurt.

[Capitalocracy]

22. I think you're overlooking the fact that the rules are different for them.

We'll see.

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[unblock]

26. i fully understand that justice can and probably will be bought

that doesn't keep it from being a silly legal argument.

i suppose it may yet be part of the arguments that are used to justify a bp legal victory in court, but it won't be because the arguments have actual legal merit.

[paparush]

19. That's some mighty fine logic there, Lou. nt.

[Capitalocracy]

21. Here's my theory: The government will end up paying them.

I think it's entirely possible that the government will literally end up paying them, with a hefty profit margin, for their oil-cleaning services. Your point about Corexit sounds on the money, and I've also heard they're going to use the lax regulations to turn their willful negligence into an unforeseeable act of God. The basic argument in court will be, if we didn't actually break any regulations and complied with government safety standards, how can we be held criminally or civilly liable for the mess?

And yes, I know, blah blah blah, they're saying they'll pay for the whole thing now, but if you believe they're not going to do a cost-benefit analysis and try to get out of it if they think it's possible to do so, you don't know shit about shit. Sorry.

And once they hit whatever the liability limit is going to be and pay out a few fishermen, the cleanup effort that they've been leading on the cheap and the cost of which they've been proud to tout, they'll go to some friendly Texan judge in court and say look, we have limited liability in these cases, we paid that liability, and we continued with an emergency cleanup effort. We expect to be paid for those services, and of course, at a price that we name. And in the end, the U.S. government is going to hand them a bunch of money for a half-assed cleanup operation.

OK, I don't know if that's how it'll go down, but I'm 100% sure they'll try.

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[JDPriestly]

34. BP did violate rules. They did not, for example, have an adequate

emergency plan. They failed in many respects. There is evidence that they cut corners in their work. I suspect that Halliburton had a bigger role in the spill than we have been told.

[ProSense]

23. "They are footdragging, lying, destroying evidence" The problem with this theory is that

none of the penalities are going to be assessed based the effects of the dispersant. The major factor is the amount of oil flowing into the gulf:

* Clean Water Act - makes it illegal to discharge any pollutants into major bodies of water such as the Gulf. Civil penalties can be up to $1,100 per barrel of oil spilled in waterways but if negligence is found and proven, the fines can go up to as much as $4,300 per barrel.

* Migratory Bird Treaty Act - protects migratory birds and makes it illegal to harm some 836 species of birds as well as their nests and eggs. That list (found here: here) includes the brown pelican, which have been particularly affected by the oil spill. Fines can be up to $15,000 per violation.

* Endangered Species Act - makes it illegal to harm or kill any animal or plant on the endangered species list, including acts that change or degrade the habitat, feeding or breeding. The list includes several types of sea turtles and already a few dozen have been affected by the oil slick. Civil fines can go up to $25,000 per violation. (www.fws.gov/endangered/)

* Criminal violations: experts note that criminal penalties could be assessed and they could be as much as double the economic loss and recovery costs, however that will likely be negotiated.

Q: WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE TOTAL FINES?

The White House has already estimated that the costs for the response, cleanup and penalties will reach into the billions of dollars. Before the new flow rate of up to 40,000 barrels (1.68 million gallons/6.36 million liters) per day was revealed, some financial analysts estimated that the Clean Water Act fines could stretch from $700 million to as much as $4.2 billion.

With the new estimates, as much as 2 million barrels (84 million gallons/318 million liters) of oil may have spilled from the well when it ruptured on April 20 through June 3 when the underwater pipe was sawed off to clear the way for a new cap to be placed on it. The flow was estimated to have increased as much as 5 percent after that cut.

Just based on that initial 2 million barrels of oil, the range of civil penalties could be between $2.2 billion and $8.6 billion. Penalties could be applied to each company found responsible for the leak, though one expert said that they would likely share the burden instead and that there would probably be a limit to those penalties imposed.

link

The amount of oil will be the biggest factor in determining liability. Once that's determined, it will also factor into assessments based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act adn Endangered Species Act.

[penndragon69]

25. Corexit is banned in europe.

They know that it is a toxic chemical and have outlawed it's use over there.

Now we have a massive leak in the Gulf, in a country that allows it to be used.

The gulf of Mexico is BP's official dumping ground for their entire stockpile of
this toxic chemical. No need to pay for hazardous waste disposal when you can just dump it into
another country's water supply.

They are criminals!

[MadLinguist]

27. Jesus Wept! You have to be right about that.

Oh Hell hole, man. I thought the interest was just to improve appearances, but that seemed so hapless. even for this gang of ef-wads. What i cannot understand is why they cannot be compelled to cease and desist with the disperants. Even really wing-nutters are pissed off at this use (at least Louisiana wing-nutters). What would be the legal consequence, i wonder, of declaring the oil a foreign invader? National Emergency, military deployment, navy personnel on the beaches everywhere. Wouldn't that be better than letting these lame ass fuckers drag on and on with it? Ok, just venting here.

[grahamhgreen]

28. BP has corrupted their govt overseers. This does not absolve them of crimes, it adds another.

[William Z. Foster]

30. very possible

A few months ago, I would have been skeptical and dismissed ideas such as this. But I think now that over the last 12 months we have crossed some threshold, passed a point of no return. Wall Street is so desperate to keep the game going, the pressures to make money from money are so great, the lure of the quick kill is so seductive, that Capitalism has entered some new phase that is making the Robber Baron age look quite mild and tame by comparison. When all of the resources have been exploited or destroyed, and every last dime has been squeezed from the working people, a more and more frantic drive to extract and grab whatever is left takes over. So we have risky and dangerous enterprises that threaten the ecological integrity of the entire planet, while "austerity measures" and privatization are proposed everywhere to steal what little we still have from us and to drive us further into desperation and poverty. It seems to be accelerating. The sharks among us - desperate to make their quick killing - that word is taking on new significance isn't it? "make a killing on the market" - are running out of targets to rip and tear apart.

Is Wall Street taking all of us down into some sort of vortex, are we involuntarily caught up in an accelerating death spiral?

[Odin2005]

31. Ugh! The FUCKERS!

:grr:

[avaistheone1]

32. This sounds so sick and evil

that judging the ways things are going these days - it is probably true.

[JDPriestly]

33. Ultimately, a jury will decide what caused the damages and

whether BP was negligent. Applying Corexit is intentional and, if it causes more damages, BP will be responsible for the damages from the Corexit as well as for the damages from the spill.

BP could be liable for any damages that it causes to occur during the clean-up since BP caused the spill, seems to me. It would be different if the government were actually applying the Corexit. But the government is wisely letting BP handle things. The government is only "helping" in ways that cannot be blamed for causing damages.

This is precisely why Obama left handling the stopping of the spill up to BP as much as possible. I hope people begin to understand Obama's reasoning now. It is essential that BP pay for this. The American taxpayers simply cannot afford to clean this up. Not if we want to have money for things like schools, medical care, etc.

[Are_grits_groceries]

35. Amazing! Please read ALL of the following:

1- Bp has lied at every turn in some way about what is going on in relation to the gusher.
2- Tony Hayward has made such ludicrous statements trying to minimize it that if he said it would be dark at midnight, people would now look.
3- The risk of this type of drilling has been known for a long time. The MMS knew about it at some point.
4- BP and other oil companies were allowed to circumvent regulations and rules. They were not checked in any manner along the way by the MMS. It was the US government no matter who was President. That is who will be drawn into this mess legally.
5- BP has been in charge, and people want to argue that it is a good thing because that leaves all the liability on them. By leaving them in charge, they have been allowed to control the evidence of what went on when and where. Logs for part of the operation before the rig blew up have been destroyed.
6- Hazmat laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_goods
7-Get ready for more chemicals
<snip>
In the mean time, now that the top kill effort has failed, BP has announced it is resuming the spraying of chemical dispersants into the massive oil plumes that remain deep under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico water. This means more chemicals that will kill more forms of marine life throughout the Gulf.

But it's not just aquatic life that's being threatened by these chemicals: BP workers are increasingly being sent to the hospital complaining of symptoms like vomiting, dizziness, difficult breathing and others. The obvious cause of such symptoms is the huge amount of crude oil bubbling up to the surface (some of which evaporates into the air) along with the massive injection of chemical dispersants into the waters (some of which also evaporates). CNN is reporting that BP claims it is monitoring air quality, but so far BP has not gone public with any air quality test results.

None of the cleanup workers have been outfitted with chemical masks that might protect them from the volatile chemicals now present in the Gulf waters. Yet CNN is reporting that the warning label on the chemical product made by NALCO states: "Avoid breathing vapor."

The EPA, meanwhile, remains silent on this whole issue. Remember: It is the EPA that ordered BP to stop using its selected brand of chemical dispersant, but BP utterly ignored the EPA and continues to dump that very same chemical into the Gulf of Mexico right now.

What we are watching here, folks, is very nearly a chemical attack on America by BP and the oil industry. It's hard to say what's worse: The oil or the chemical dispersants. In fact, no one knows the answer to that question, and it can't even be studied by scientists because the disaster keeps growing by the day.

This is one environmental catastrophe that just keeps getting worse, and the cost to the marine ecosystem is incalculable. And that's not to even mention the economic cost to the region and all the people who depend on life in the Gulf of Mexico for their own livelihoods. Their lives are now being destroyed by this oil drilling catastrophe.
<snip>
http://www.naturalnews.com/028893_top_kill_Gulf_Coast.html

8- The Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1 Million Gallons
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.
<snip>
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.

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.

How effective is Corexit in dispersing Gulf crude?

Corexit 9500 is only 54.7% effective and Corexit 9527A is 63.4% effective in dispersing the crude oil found off the shores of South Louisiana.

BP has sprayed both Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 into the Gulf of Mexico to disperse the oil both of which have been banned in the UK since 1998 for failure to pass the Rocky Shores Test.

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.
<snip>
Why allow the use of these toxic dispersants?

Well the EPA has ordered BP to stop using the dispersants but BP has refused

Instead BP replied with its justification for using Corexit which the EPA responded to saying BP’s response “lacked sufficient analysis and focused more defending your initial decision” .

In general, the EPA justifies the use of dispersants because they are less toxic than oil and the cause less of an environment impact that oil along the coastline calling dispersants an environmental trade off which is the lesser of two evils.

However the choice of using Corexit contradicts both of those justifications.

Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million where oil is lethal in 11 parts per million meaning that Corexit is over 4 times more toxic than oil.

Furthermore scientific studies show that oil dispersed with Corexit is 11 times more lethal than oil alone.

In fact the study referenced showed that crude oil was lethal at 4250 parts per million to killifish but combination of oil mixed with Corexit was lethal in as little as 317.7 ppm.

“Dispersed oils were more toxic than crude oils,” noted the report.

The other justification of lessening the environmental impact along the shoreline doesn’t hold up either as the reason Corexit was banned in the UK is because it was in fact shown to have a “significant deleterious ecological change” on the shoreline.

The fact Corexit is 4 times as toxic as oil and up to 11 times as toxic when combined with oil it literally makes no sense to allow the use of such a toxic chemical that can “delete” the ecological systems along the Gulf coast.

A report in the journal Environmental Toxicology a decade ago concluded that lethality levels in “dispersed oil combinations were significantly more toxic to these organisms than .. crude oil.” Another study, this time of snails and amphipods reached exactly the same conclusion.
<snip>
What are the long term effects of Corexit?

The EPA has stated over and over that the long term effects of the use of Corexit are unknown yet there is plenty of data documenting the long term effects on humans (see below).

Further making the EPA claims questionable is EPA’s Deepwater horizon response sites site clearly states that between 1 million and 2.5 million gallons of the neurotoxin pesticide Corexit was used in the 1979 ixtoc oil spill which makes it unfathomable that the EPA doesn’t know what the long term effects are of a chemical that has been widely used, and eventually banned in certain countries, over a period of 30 years.

To the contrary of the EPA’s statement scientific studies widely state Corexit 9527 has been tested extensively in the laboratory and used on oil spills since 1978 and a considerable number of toxicity reports exist concerning a wide variety of species.

So why does the Federal Government continue to tell us the the long term effects of the dispersant usage are unknown?

Why does the Federal Government continue to pretend like they know so little about the dispersant BP is being used?
<snip>
What are the Chronic Health effects of Corexit?
Here are some of the highlights from the MSDS for the active ingredient (2-butoxyethanol) – of Corexit (up to 60% by volume)

•Severe over-exposure can result in death.
•MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast.
•The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, central nervous system (CNS).
•Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
•Repeated exposure to highly (this) toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
•Hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator), of ingestion, of inhalation.
•May cause adverse reproductive effects (maternal and paternal fertility, fetoxicity)
•May cause birth defects (teratogenic)
•May cause cancer (tumorigenic)
•Penetrates intact skin easily and can cause systemic effects and central nervous system depression
•Inhalation: May cause irritation of the respiratory tract. May affect behavior (analgesia), behavior/central nervous system (headache, drowsiness, dizzness, stuttering, coma, weakness, ataxia, slurred speech, loss of coordination and judgement, personality changes, analgesia, blurred vision, tremor, excitement, somnolence), sense organs, the gastrointestinal tract (nausea, vomiting), metabolism (metabolic acidosis), respiration (dyspnea), urinary system (kidneys – hematuria, albuminuria, polyuria, oliguria, renal failure), liver (liver damage).
•Exposure to high vapor concentration may also cause corneal or lens opacity of the eyes.
•Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. May affect behavior/central
nervous system (see inhalation), respiration (dyspnea), metabolism, cardiovascular system.
•Chronic Potential Health Effects: Inhalation and Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated inhalation or ingestion may affect the liver, blood (changes in red blood cell count, pigmented or nucleated red blood cells, microcytosis with or without anemia, erythropenia, reticulocytosis, granulocytosis, leukocytosis), urinary system (kidneys -hematuria), metabolism (weight loss), endocrine system (spleen, thymus, pancreas). Prolonged or repeated inhalation of high concentrations may also cause lung hemmorrhage, congestion, bronchopneumonia.
•Classified in Canada as CLASS D-1A: Material causing immediate and serious toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
•Classified in Canada as CLASS D-2B: Material causing other toxic effects (TOXIC)
What does the EPA say about the human health effects expected as a result of using the dispersants
The EPA warning about human health affects says:
People working with dispersants are strongly advised to use a half face filter mask or an air-supplied breathing apparatus to protect their noses, throats, and lungs, and they should wear nitrile or PVC gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants off skin and out of their eyes. CDC provides more information on reducing occupational exposures while working with dispersants during the Gulf Oil Spill Response.

•Material Data Safety Sheet for Corexit 9500A (PDF) (11pp., 88 K, About PDF)
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_MSDS.539287.pdf
•Material Data Safety Sheet for Corexit 9527A (PDF) (11 pp., 132 K, About PDF)
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9527A_MSDS.539295.pdf
<snip>
Hasn’t BP switched over to a new less toxic version of Corexit
BP does claim that since it now using the more environmentally friendly version of Corexit it can not be verified whether or not the newer version contains 2-butoxyethanol or not.

BP and the manufacturer to date have refused to release a list of all of the chemicals contained in Corexit 9500 claiming that the ingredients are proprietary.

It is quite possible that 2-butoxyethanol or an even more hazardous substance is contained in Corexit 9500.

Corexit 9500, like Corexit 9527, also contains Propylene Glycol a substance generally recognized as safe for human consumption.

However, Propylene Glycol depletes oxygen from water 5 times greater than raw sewage and the massive amounts used in the BP Gulf oil spill could help contribute to dead zones in the Gulf where aquatic life can not survive.
<snip>
What about the effects of Corexit on the oil spill clean up workers

During the Exxon Valdez another version of Corexit was used to clean up the oil.

CNN reports that the average life expectancy of workers who cleaned up the Exxon Valdez is 51 years old and most of those workers are now dead.

Here is a list of references that document what is in the above article:
There are over 20 from a variety of sources.

One is particularly germaine:
The BP Spill, litigation, and health dangers from Pesticides
<snip>
In this report: Corexit, BP, Oil Spill, Earth Justice, link between pesticides with organophosphates and ADHD, pesticide drift, roadside spraying, government ties between oil companies like BP, and companies that profit from manufacturing pesticides.

Patti Goldman,Vice President of Litigation at Earth Justice Environmental Law, joins us to talk about litigation involving British Petroleum, BP. Earth Justice filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Friday, May 29, 2010, seeking the full contents of the Corexit chemical dispersant being poured into the Gulf of Mexico by BP. The manufacturer, Nalco, and BP, have not made all of the ingredients in Corexit public, but has released the information that it may contain soap products and/or stain blocker chemicals in Corexit.

The chemical is supposed to break up the oil that has been destroyed fishing along Louisianaâs coast. Yet, some scientists worry that it may be more dangerous over the long run than the oil itself. Concerns have also been raised that the dispersant chemical has sent the oil much further into the ocean surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. Presently, the oil is moving toward the Florida coast.

BP is under criminal investigation by the US Justice Dept., and its not the first time. After a spill in Prudhoe bay in 2006 because of pipeline corrosion, and a faulty shut down valve, the company was fined put on probation for three years. A year later 15 workers died and 170 were injured in an explosion linked to safety violations at a BP facility in Texas, AGAIN bp WAS PLACED ON PROBATION. You can read more about the history at Truthout.org in a May story by Jason Leopold.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/05/amount-neurotoxin-pesticide-corexit-sprayed-bp-tops-1-million-gallons/

There is enough evidence about Corexit that should have stopped it from EVER being used.

The EPA and others in the government have sat on their hands or helped BP while it has used Corexit. They have their own regulations about hazardous materials and their use. they don't appear to be following them.

The last article alone has many sources which have links to other sources about the problems with Corexit. Those problems are extensive with very dangerous short term and long term consequences.

There are many other sources and I don't have time to google and list all of them.

In light of all this, you want to tell me I am hare-brained and prone to conspiracies? You want to tell me that none of this is will have an impact in court?

It has taken 20 years for the Exxon Valdez claims to reach a settlement agreement. Even then a judge dropped the amount a great deal. Many of the claimants were dead.

You want to tell me in light of all of this that justice will be served?

MEH!