Reply #22: "There's no way of knowing how many generations of life are going to be affected."

[mhatrw]

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/mobile_scientists_warnings_abo.html

Crozier said it was clear to him in his conversation with the BP scientist that using dispersant underwater was a forgone conclusion and that the BP scientist was not interested in Crozier's scientific opinion. "He spent the first five minutes lecturing me about the dispersant toxicity. I told him I wasn't worried about that. I was worried about the toxicity of the dispersed oil. He didn't want to address that," Crozier said.

The Press-Register found a short online biography for Peter Carragher, head of discipline for exploration, on BP's website. The biography described Carragher as a geologist. "He was lecturing me on my lack of knowledge about the marine environment. I told him we were most concerned about the oil getting in the food web if they sink it with dispersants," Shipp said. "When we started talking about the sediments and the food web, they turned off. They were all about chemical reactions and that sort of thing. They just kept saying, 'EPA approved it.'"

The scientists said that when the oil was allowed to come to the surface, many of the most toxic components -- hexane, benzene, other volatile gases -- were evaporating. But when the oil is trapped underwater through the use of dispersants, those toxic chemicals also are trapped in the water. Plus, the breakdown of the oil by aquatic microbes robs the water of oxygen. "The concerns about a hypoxic (low-oxygen) issue are very real," Crozier said. "Whether it happens, how fast it happens, I can't predict, but the idea of that much microbial activity using oxygen, that is totally predictable."

Crozier said he fears that a decision was made to protect beaches in the short term at the risk of jeopardizing the long-term health of the Gulf.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19325

Which brings us to what may be BP's greatest aide in furthering this aim: the chemical dispersants. BP's plan to spray the dispersants on the leak from the source -- as well as dump them from planes flying above -- will effectively prevent oil from reaching the shore in the same form that the notorious slicks did in famous spills like the Exxon Valdez.

Despite the fact that nobody is sure exactly how toxic the stuff is, or how being deployed on such a large scale will effect ecosystems, it will have at least one effect: it will delay public outrage by masking the apparent extent of the spill's damage. After all, BP must know how damaging the Valdez spill was for Exxon's image -- some people still conjure up pictures of oil-coated birds at the mention of the brand. But make no mistake -- chemical dispersants will disrupt ecosystems in a massive way, even if you never see the true effect with your own eyes.

http://www.gulfoildisasterrecovery.com/web/index.asp?mode=full&id=650&ReturnId=index.asp?mode=archive

"It's very scary," said John Williams, executive director of the Tarpon Springs-based Southern Shrimper Alliance, which has written to federal officials to challenge the use of chemical dispersants on the oil. "They say it's the lesser of two evils, but how do we know it's the lesser evil?"

Fishermen say they are afraid the dispersants could create a series of widespread dead zones in the gulf, contaminating or killing marine life. "Our entire seafood industry in the gulf is at risk here," said Williams, whose group represents shrimpers from North Carolina to Texas.

No one but the Texas-based manufacturer, Nalco Energy Services, knows exactly what's in Corexit 9500, the dispersant BP has been spraying on the slick. The company says it may pose a risk for eye and skin irritations and can cause respiratory problems, but "no toxicity studies have been conducted on this product." ....

"It's kind of disturbing," said Robert McKee, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who's part of a consortium of attorneys representing the United Commercial Fishermen's Association and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "There's no way of knowing how many generations of sea life and how many generations of human life are going to be affected."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/051810Lendman.shtml

According to University of Georgia researcher Samantha Joye, "There's a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to" what's visible on the surface, the tip of a big and growing iceberg, this one containing oil. "There's a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column." ...

It's why Defenders of Wildlife Richard Charter (a marine biology expert) says using them is "a giant experiment (because their) chemical toxicity (in) many ways is worse than oil."

Because of the spill's size over a vast area, BP has available around one-third of the world's dispersant supply, so imagine the amount toxicity to be unleashed, with its clear risks to sea life and humans. Former University of Alaska marine conservation professor Richard Steiner and other experts wonder how much the public is being deceived by coverup and denial. The combination of oil and dispersant toxins will kill millions of organisms they contaminate, what Richard Charter explains saying: "You are trying to mitigate the volume of the spill with dispersant, but the price you pay is increased toxicity," or, in fact, making a horrific disaster worse.

As for BP and the Obama administration, dispersant use is all gain and little pain, the idea being to break up as much oil as possible, let it sink, be out of sight and declare success, when, in fact, we may end up with a far greater catastrophe that's our problem, not theirs. That's how a business-government cabal works, stealing our wealth, civil liberties, and health for profit and dominance while claiming they're on our side.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/21/many-scientists-believe-that-toxic-dispersants-could-be-more-dangerous-than-the-oil-itself/

Many of the human health problems evolving from the BP oil disaster are insidious and unknown. The effects of the oil are the most pressing and most obvious. This is mostly a risk for those living near the coast, and workers cleaning up oil as it washes ashore. But the effects from exposure to the dispersants BP is using to “clean up” oil also pose a serious health threat. In fact, some believe the chemical toxicity of what’s in the dispersant could be more dangerous than the oil itself. ...

The most obvious comparison to the burgeoning BP crisis is the response that was mounted after the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989. Eleven million gallons of oil emptied from the tanker, exposing cleanup workers to oil mist that was much higher than government-approved limits. Thousand of workers came down with “the Valdez Crud,” a condition that caused respiratory problems and flu-like symptoms. Though most of these were dismissed as simple cases of colds and seasonal flu, many of the exposed workers developed much more severe complications. Unfortunately, there were not proper monitoring entities in place to track this development.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-have-potential-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-93424899.html

The chemical dispersants being used to break up the oil leaking into the gulf following the explosion of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig have the potential to cause just as much, if not more, harm to the environment and the humans coming into contact with it than the oil possibly would if left untreated. That is the warning of toxicology experts, led by Dr. William Sawyer, addressing the Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group, a group of lawyers working to protect the rights and interests of environmental groups and persons affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The group represents the United Fishermen's Association and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), among others. ...

"The dispersants used in the BP clean-up efforts, known as 'Corexit 9500' and 'Corexit EC9527A,' are also known as deodorized kerosene," said Dr. Sawyer. "With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals. Additionally, I have considered marine species which surface for atmospheric inhalation such as sea turtles, dolphins and other species which are especially vulnerable to aspiration toxicity of 'Corexit 9500' into the lung while surfacing." ...

"Toxicity of the petroleum products is increased when it is dissolved into the water by dispersants," said Co-Counsel Robert McKee, Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group. "In essence, this activity is making aquatic organisms more exposed to chemicals' harm. The attempt to make these floating tars and oils disappear from view by the use of dispersants increases the likelihood of poisonous effects in these oil polluted waters."

Mr. McKee added, "The use of dispersants, without knowing the cascade of toxic events which may flow from the practice, mandates that those who may be forced to prove their losses in a court of law obtain competent and environmentally knowledgeable legal representatives who can establish the pre-damage baseline ecology now, in order to compare to post-oil spill contamination effects seen later. Without that immediate effort, victims who did not seek that type of early assistance may lose their ability to prove a full accounting of their rightful compensation for losses they actually sustain. The use of dispersants not only hides the amount of oil actually being discharged from view, but also serves to undermine damage proof for the unwary victim who chooses to wait to see what is going to happen."