Will someone please discredit this Russian report on Corexit (dispersant)-"toxic rain"

[mod mom]

I went to Current.com to see if I could find additional information on the dispersant used by BP and found this:


Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America

A dire report prepared for President Medvedev by Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources is warning today that the British Petroleum (BP) oil and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico is about to become the worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history threatening the entire eastern half of the North American continent with “total destruction”.

Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment due to BP’s use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public the full, and tragic, extent of this leak that is now estimated to be over 2.9 million gallons a day.

The dispersal agent Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco Holding Company of Naperville, Illinois that is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm). In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview” Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed. Even worse, according to this report, with higher water temperatures, like those now occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, its toxicity grows.

-snip

A greater danger involving Corexit 9500, and as outlined by Russian scientists in this report, is that with its 2.61ppm toxicity level, and when combined with the heating Gulf of Mexico waters, its molecules will be able to “phase transition” from their present liquid to a gaseous state allowing them to be absorbed into clouds and allowing their release as “toxic rain” upon all of Eastern North America.

-snip

http://current.com/news/92450125_toxic-oil-spill-rains-warned-could-destroy-north-america.htm

I can't sleep over this disaster and these reports are literally making me sick to my stomach!

:mad:

[donco6]

1. Interesting.

Pretty scary.

[Individualist]

2. That sounds logical

especially considering how often hurricanes/tropical systems move inland from the Gulf coast then go northeast.

Last night I had brought up the idea of dispersants being picked up by hurricanes in another post, but no one seemed to want to discuss it.

Heckuva job, BP!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Pseudoscience tabloid journalism.

You can safely ignore it.

[mod mom]

5. What do you base this conclusion on? From what i've read it's highly toxic:

A Lethal Concentration
Category: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • poison

The standard toxicity test for chemical compounds is called the LD50. LD stands for Lethal Dose and 50 indicates 50 percent. In other words, LD50 means the lowest dose at which a material kills half of the test subjects.

The results are usually given in milligrams of compound per kilograms of body weight. Many of these tests are conducted on laboratory rats. To give you a few rat results: the LD50 of table sugar (sucrose) is 29,700 mg/kg. For table salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) it's 3,000 mg/kg. Really poisonous substances, though, measure in the single digits: Sodium cyanide (NaCN), for instance, possesses an LD50 score of 6.4 mg/kg.

Basically, the lower the number, the deadlier the compound. Poisons in water and air are usually measured in lethal concentration rather than dose - in other words an LC50. Which got me wondering about the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's shattered oil rig. Not to mention the chemical dispersants being used in attempt to break down the spreading oil. What kind of lethal concentration might be building up in those waters?

-snip

Nearly 700,000 gallons of Corexit have already been poured into gulf waters. But that pales, obviously, beside the amount of Louisana crude, now estimated at a minimum of 6 million gallons. So, I wondered, what is the LC50 of Louisiana crude on small salt water dwellers?

Of course, I realize, that comparing lethal concentrations is not straightforward. The results differ by species and by time as well as by amount of poison, The EPA numbers for Corexit 9500 (the formula used most heavily by BP) show that at 2.62 ppm, the dispersant kills half the silver fish in 96 hours/ four days. At a slightly higher concentration - 3.4 ppm - the compound kills half the little shrimp in two days.

-snip

http://scienceblogs.com/speakeasyscience/2010/05/a_lethal_concentration.php

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. The dispersant is marginally more specific to certain organisms in certain conditions...

then competing dispersants.

It's far less toxic than the oil itself.

It's not volatile, so it's not going to be evaporating.

[mod mom]

7. sources?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. NPR and various web sources for the toxicity.

Basic science education for the volatility.

[mod mom]

13. I've searched NPR & the only folks siting it can be safely used is BP:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127105123&ft=1&f=1003

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127113328


Can you provide specific links where experts other than someone w vested interest says it's safe to use? Why was it banned in the UK and elsewhere? Did you know oil industry officials sit on Naprol's (manufacturer of Corexit) board?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. You know what?

Go ahead and believe the russian tabloid.

[mod mom]

20. because you have no sources to back up your claims.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Oh, I've got sources that back up my claims.

I just don't care if you believe me or not.

[mod mom]

23. Then please by all means...educate us.

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, I did a search to try to help you back up your claims

that we could 'safely ignore' the reports that this chemical is toxic. But I couldn't find a single article that backs you up on that statement.

[G_j]

41. on cue...... crickets.... nt

[SPedigrees]

36. Pron Syrup loves to take up the party line of big oil and big corn.

He has no reliable sources.

[bettyellen]

40. marginlly more specific? wtf are you attempting to say. oh... just give us a link or shutup

[sabrina 1]

15. It is banned in Britain.

This report may be exaggerated, but the chemical is known to be toxic to marine life and to humans. It was known 20 years ago. So it is irresponsible of people like you to claim that 'you can safely ignore it'.

It is likely, according to what is already known about it, to kill 25% of all life in its path. Try doing a little research before making misleading proclamations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersant

The Obama administration has ordered BP to use a less toxic form of chemical dispersant to break up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The decision, first reported in the Washington Post, comes only hours after Congress heard devastating testimony from BP executives and scientists on the high toxicity of two forms of Corexit, and their relative ineffectiveness against the type of crude now polluting the Gulf. The two versions of the chemical being used on the spill are banned in the UK because they are damaging to sealife.

Jerry Nadler has accused BP of using the chemical because they profit from its use:

Why would you use something that is much more toxic and much less effective, other than you have a corporate relationship with the manufacturer?" asked Jerrold Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York told a hearing on Wednesday.

Shame on the EPA also for having it listed as one of 14 chemicals that used to be permitted to clean up oil spills even though Lisa Jackson has admitted the danger of using it.

[Individualist]

31. It should be banned everywhere.

[inna]

17. Your comment above (and elsewhere) can be safely ignored, that's for sure.

[Feron]

35. For once I agree with you.

In his blog today, Jeff Masters discusses oil and hurricanes.

By the time any oil moves hundreds of miles inland, it's only in microscopic amounts. Too minute to affect anything.

I'd imagine any evaporated dispersant operates the same way. Really it poses the biggest threat to marine life and people that may come in contact with the treated water.

Not to mention that while almost a billion gallons have been dumped into the Gulf so far...a lot of it will be underwater and/or dispersed. Additionally it breaks down after 28 days.

While a major issue in the coming months and maybe years...it certainly won't bring about the scenario in the story.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. Thank you Cheney, and all the non-regulators! $$$$$$$$$...sICK.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

8. Catalysmic oil pollution

nor is cataclysmic oil pollution from an uncontrolled blow out.

[dgibby]

9. Not my area of expertise; however,

It's banned in Britian. Think about it: BP (BRITISH Petroelum) is banned by law from using this crap in BRITIAN. That's enough proof for me.

[BobbyBoring]

38. Yeah!

those Brits are still pissed about that silly revolution thing back in the 18th century. This is just more payback from that!

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. Lovely.

:grr:

[nyc 4 Biden]

12. k&r. lets get this on the front page. n/t

[FarCenter]

14. I don't see a 2.61 ppm number in the paper

The bottom end of some ranges given is lower than that, but it depends on the species, water temperature, stage of life, etc.

“Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview”

http://www.iosc.org/papers/00020.pdf

[mod mom]

26. EPA link:

COREXIT® EC9500A & No. 2 Fuel Oil (1:10) Menidia beryllina
Mysidopsis bahia 2.61
96-hr
3.40 48-hr

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/corex950.htm

[florida08]

16. that's quite terrifying indeed

Apparently it is one of the more toxic/less effective chemicals. Why they're using it is a good question. Rep. Nader question them on this. Britain has banned it for over a decade.

This dispersant was known to kill 25% of all organisms in it's path since the Exxon Valdez oil dump 20 years ago. BP has dumped 600,000 gallons of the Corexit 9500 on the surface and 55,000 gallons on the sea bottom.

“The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution.”

“The tests used to measure the toxicity of dispersants involve only a 96-hour dose to the marine animals that will be exposed to them – clearly, their effects when they’re used over longer periods might be significantly more damaging,” said Rep. Markey. “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. We must ensure that these chemicals, which are being touted as a way to mitigate the effects of the spill, first do no harm to marine life.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-4002-Green-Living-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Oil-dispersant-Corexit-known-to-be-toxic-20-years-ago-videos

I would say that we really don't know and Russia could be right.

[chill_wind]

19. And the proprietary ingredients? The science certainly seems unsettled and vague

at best. Congress authorized U.S. studies on dispersants in the 1990 law which followed on the Exxon Valdez disaster, but it never approved the funds to carry out them out. We've had 20 years since to get more than just the "gray science" we are left to still be wondering about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465O320100507?type=domesticNews
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8288487

Yet even if we had them, the chemicals have never been used/studied on this scale, and it still doesn't settle any questions about the undisclosed ingredients part of the formulas. The proprietary secret sauce.

[Catherina]

22. Can't. Repost about Corexit. Killed off 99.9 percent of herring eggs

Ecosystem in Peril After Gulf Oil Spill
by Matthew Cardinale

ATLANTA, Georgia - With engineers giving a best-case scenario of "weeks" before the catastrophic oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is sealed, some scientists are warning that the region's ecosystem could face major long-term damage.

As many as 70,000 gallons of oil per day have been gushing into the waters of the Gulf Coast since an oil rig operated by British Petroleum exploded on Apr. 20. The well itself is located at a depth of about 5,000 feet, presenting formidable obstacles to efforts to shut it down.

...

However, Riki Ott, a toxicologist who wrote two books about the Exxon Valdez spill, says she believes the scenario is far worse than officials are presenting to the public.

"BP is trying to say we're winning because oil has not hit the shoreline. That is far from the truth: we're losing. So much toxic oil is spilling every day, they're hammering it with dispersants, another toxic chemical," she said.

...

"This dispersed oil is extremely toxic to young life forms," Ott told IPS. "BP is saying that it's not that toxic, not that much of a problem. That is extremely misleading because the only toxicity data (is based on an experiment where) they douse adult shrimp and minnows in static beakers of dispersant or oil for 48 or 96 hours, and count how many die or live."

"But young life forms are a lot more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults," she said. "What we have in the open Gulf is a continuous exposure. The oil goes a mile down...It's in the whole water column."

She said that studies of dead herring after the Exxon Valdez spill found that parasites that normally lived in the fish's stomach had migrated into the muscle tissue to avoid toxic exposure, thus weakening its immune system and causing reproductive problems.

Some "99.9 percent of herring eggs exposed to oil died", she explained.

Ott added that the continental shelf ecosystem and open ocean ecosystem are linked very closely. "The shrimp that depend on wetlands and marshes for nurseries, when they migrate offshore, they become food for red snapper and grouper," she said.

"It's too much oil, too fast, not to have a pretty big impact on generations of wildlife that's in the water column. Birds eating shellfish getting sick and dying, marine mammals, land mammals getting sick and dying. You have birds feeding oiled fish to their chicks, the chicks have stunted growth," Ott said.

...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/14-8

Repost from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8373885

[inna]

24. From Guardian UK:

The heavy reliance on chemical dispersants to break up the spill has raised increasing concern among scientists and environmentalists. More than 600,000 gallons of chemicals have been sprayed on the surface of the Gulf with another 55,000 injected directly into the oil billowing out of the ocean floor.

Scientists say the chemicals could be doing more for the oil company's PR, than the overall clean-up of the Gulf. The chemicals that break up the oil in small droplets help prevent giant tides of oil washing up on shore, with their disturbing images of oil-encrusted wildlife.

But they are

carcinogenic, mutagenic, and highly toxic

, and it is unclear how much damage they are causing to marine life in deep water – a risk acknowledged by the EPA chief, Lisa Jackson.

The decision, first reported in the Washington Post, comes only hours after Congress heard devastating testimony from BP executives and scientists on the high toxicity of two forms of Corexit, and their relative ineffectiveness against the type of crude now polluting the Gulf. The two versions of the chemical being used on the spill are banned in the UK because they are damaging to sealife.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersant

[amborin]

27. +33 and it's now more than 700,000 gallons

[amborin]

25. toxicity here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8403329&mesg_id=8406934

[Catherina]

28. beat me to it. I was just coming to post that.

It merits being repasted here. From your link and excellent thread which I'm going to read now.

Serious health concerns loom over clean-up efforts

Though clean-up efforts have been under way for weeks, BP remains silent about the serious health effects upon workers and volunteers of the chemicals and procedures being employed. Concerns are mounting over the health effects of “flaring” on spill workers, the process of burning the gas after it has been piped to the surface of the water, exposure to chemical dispersants used to break up the oil in the water, and exposure to burning crude oil as it rests on the water’s surface. No public entity is currently monitoring the health effects of the spill, only scientists contracted to BP.

McClatchy reported that BP, with the full complicity of the Obama administration, continues to conceal safety data as proprietary information. The company has not released results from air sampling tests to the public. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has access to the data, and has “urged to do so.” Since the data was collected by BP contractors, an OSHA regional administrator said, “It isn’t ours to publish.” A BP spokesperson stated that the safety information has been shared with the “legitimate interested parties.” Director of the worker training program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Joseph Hughes, told McClatchy he didn’t think “anyone has seen much of that data at all.”

The chemical dispersant used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, Corexit 9500, known to be more toxic and less effective than other approved mixtures, has been deployed in large amounts and at great depths in an attempt to break up the oil billowing out of the well head, and on the surface of the Gulf. The environmental effects of its unprecedented use at great depths are not known. Additionally, the contents of dispersants are treated as trade secrets, and so it is currently unknown what exactly is being pumped into the Gulf in great quantities, much less its long-term impact.

Corexit 9500 was reportedly banned in Britain for use in oil spills over a decade ago because of concerns over its environmental impact. There are also reports that health problems among workers involved in the cleanup following the 1989 Exxon-Valdez spill in Alaska, including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders, were linked to an earlier version of the Corexit dispersant.

On May 19, the chairman and president of BP American, Lamar McKay, was asked by a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee why the company had decided to use such a toxic dispersant. The next day, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered BP to use a chemical dispersant less toxic than the Corexit 9500 currently being used to disperse the crude.

The company issued a statement over the weekend flatly rejecting the EPA’s demand: “Based on the information that is available today, BP continues to believe that Corexit was the best and most appropriate choice at the time when the incident occurred, and that Corexit remains the best option for subsea application.” Recent reports indicate that over 600,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 have been poured onto the surface of the Gulf, and 55,000 in deep water.

In the course of questioning McKay, major health issues came to light. New York Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler stated, “Corexit is 2.61 in toxicity, which means it’s highly toxic. It has an effectiveness of 54.7 in the south Louisiana crude-oil spill. (Dispersit―another agent) is 7.9 toxicity, which means it’s a lot less toxic, but it has an effectiveness rate of 100%. Mare Clean 200, its toxicity rate is 42, which is much, much better. Its effectiveness rate is 84, compared to Corexit at 54.” Another representative voiced concerns about the effects on humans of eating fish contaminated with toxic dispersant. No systematic attention has been given to safety—either in the operation of the well before the explosion, or in regard to environmental questions afterwards, as BP continues to withhold key information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8403329&mesg_id=8406934

[mod mom]

32. severe headaches, dizziness, nausea and difficulty breathing” :

More Reports of Illness Emerge Among Gulf Cleanup Workers
by Marian Wang, ProPublica - May 26, 2010 12:09 pm EDT


Orange-colored chemical dispersant is seen in the water as it is used to help with the massive oil spill on May 5, 2010, in Breton and Chandeleur sounds off the coast of Louisiana. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Fishermen hired by BP to help with the oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico are coming down sick with “severe headaches, dizziness, nausea and difficulty breathing” after working long hours in oil- and dispersant-contaminated waters, according to the Los Angeles Times.

This follows a report we flagged on Tuesday about fishermen coming down sick. This one, done by a New Orleans TV station, told a similar story—fishermen reported feeling “drugged and disoriented,” “coughing up stuff,” and feeling “weak.”
-snip
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/more-reports-of-illness-emerge-among-gulf-cleanup-workers



Oil cleanup workers report illness
Some fishermen hired by BP to mop up the gulf spill report nausea and breathing troubles after contact with oil and dispersant. A congressman calls for mobile health clinics to treat them.

-snip
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-workers-sick-20100526,0,4604887.story

[amborin]

33. thanks for posting that! I hope people realize BP is compounding the damage w/this dispersant

articles suggest it mainly serves a cosmetic purpose, to minimize the apparent magnitude of the spill and to delay its detection.


I haven't read the news yet today. I hope BP has stopped using that variant at least by now!?

[florida08]

29. lordy you and I will never get to sleep tonight

here's one by Mother Jones. Seems that both the dispersant and oil separate are pretty toxic but put the two together...

Is BP creating a toxic soup in the Gulf
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/toxic-soup-gulf

here's your original one with links from another source
http://peopleforfreedom.com/new-world-order-news/globalism/toxic-oil-spill-rains-warned-could-destroy-north-america/

I'm going to get a drink now

[Individualist]

30. kick

[TheKentuckian]

37. I said not to be using that shit! I'm not sold on dilution over recovery anyway

BP doesn't give a single shit about the gulf, the wildlife, the environment, or We the People and wanted to hide what they did on the cheap. They probably even get a nice kick back from the manufacturer that acts as a coupon off the usual cost, a cost that has to be low considering nobody wants to use it.

The Administration should shut the use of this chemical cocktail down, even if it has to be at gun point.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.