Reply #59: read about Corexit's toxicity here: [View All]

"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. 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.

The ill effects of the clean-up efforts organized by BP may last long after those of the oil itself. On May 11, John T. Everett, formerly a climate change expert with NOAA who now operates a consulting firm to fisheries and ocean-related businesses, addressed a Senate subcommittee on Environment and Public Works. While he acknowledged “the importance of dealing with here and now threats to our sea-life and to ourselves,” Everett warned that “even the oil damage will eventually heal... The flow of chemical materials into our waters is another matter. There are too many insidious contaminants entering our estuaries, causing genetic harm and poisoning our birds, turtles, and seafood.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m24.shtm...


"Oil is toxic to marine life. Dispersant is toxic to marine life. According to Greenpeace, together, their toxicity exceeds the sum of their parts. The people running the spill response for BP are geologists, Greenpeace has called for biologists to be added to the response team..

...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 dispersant goes by the trade name "Corexit." It's supposed to be a pun on the words "corrects it." Marine conservationist and oil spill expert Rick Steiner says “Corexit” is called “Hidez-It” by insiders because its purpose is not to correct but deceive. These facts have been known for decades. Corexit was banned in Great Britian over a decade ago. Today the EPA finally ordered a change to a less toxic dispersant.
"

http://www.examiner.com/x-4002-Green-Living-Examiner~y2...