Is BP's cure worse than the spill? Maine toxicologist tells about swimming in gulf

Source: Bangor Daily News

Is BP's cure worse than the spill?
Maine toxicologist tells about swimming in gulf

5/29/10
By Dylan Riley
BDN Staff

BROOKLIN, Maine — A marine toxicologist from Maine who traveled to New Orleans earlier this month to get a firsthand look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the effects of the chemicals used to fight it said she was horrified by what she saw.

Dr. Susan Shaw of Brooklin, who accompanied a London Times crew to the gulf May 20-22, said the damage done by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is rivaled by the harm done by the dispersants British Petroleum is using to break up the viscous fluid.

“We’re actually doing a pretty good job of poisoning the sea, and we’re calling it a chemical remedy,” Shaw said.

-snip-

Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered BP to immediately select a less toxic dispersant. The company has used more than 800,000 gallons of Corexit, a chemical manufactured by Nalco Co. — to which BP has close ties — to treat the spill. Corexit 9527, which BP has sprayed in the gulf, contains 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that ruptures red blood cells and causes bleeding when ingested, according to Shaw. Its replacement, Corexit 9500, contains surfactants and petroleum solvents that are caustic, accumulate in animals and can cause chemical pneumonia if breathed into the lungs, she said. Corexit is more toxic and less effective than dispersants made by Nalco’s competitors, according to EPA data.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144655.html

Yes ended in a preposition.

I will NEVER buy gasoline from BP again.

BP, like all oil companies, sells their oil on the global market, not just to BP stations. More than likely boycotting a BP station will just hurt the local owner. That's why the offshore drilling argument doesn't work because any extra oil we extract doesn't go here, it goes global.

I'd say if we want to do something, we should write to our congressmen and women to get all subsidies to the oil industry repealed and have it re-invested in other alternative forms of energy. Then, we can look towards that windfall profits tax that Obama and the other dems have ignored.

:mad:

water clear, come down here and vacation...or words to that effect.

I would have found him a bit more believable if the photo shoot would have had Malia and Sasha frolicking in the waves.

As it is, of course it's a cesspool full of poisons.

How could Obama know the huge quanities of oil in the Gulf and be saying

anything like that!?

Wow ... that is worrisome!

I would find you a bit more believable if you provided a link, or at least a quotation and source of some sort.

I watched him, and he said the beach and water were nasty (or words to that effect) and unless you have a link it rather looks like you made some shit up.

Wat

He also called on Americans to help by visiting the region. Except for three beaches in Louisiana, all the Gulf beaches are open, safe and clean, he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/28/gulf.oil.spill/index.html


Do you have children? Would you let them swim in the cesspool previously known as the Gulf of Mexico?

Perhaps our differences are of perception.

In your initial post you seemed to be saying he was telling people to come to the beach he was on - the beach where he was picking up tar balls - and swim there.

You didn't mention that he was talking about the other beaches on the gulf, or that, rightly or wrongly, he was attempting to mitigate some of the financial damage to the people of that region.

Perhaps I overreacted to what I perceived to be another jump-on-the-bandwagon attack on this president. You are new here, and may not be aware of how strongly feelings are running right now on DU. On the other hand, perhaps that is why you are here.

In reply to your question, would I want my children swimming in the Gulf of Mexico? Short answer: No. Nor my grandchildren or great grandchildren.

But then, I would't have wanted them swimming in it two months ago, either. For years I have been trying to keep them from swimming in the Atlantic Ocean, or even in the river that flows near our home. Earth's waters were already critically diseased and not fit for swimming (or drinking or dining from), long before this new disaster.

Wat

"And in the meantime, I should also say that Americans can help by continuing to visit the communities and beaches of the Gulf Coast. I was talking to the governors just a couple of days ago, and they wanted me to remind everybody that except for three beaches in Louisiana, all of the Gulf’s beaches are open. They are safe and they are clean."


He is pretty much reading from the same BP script, AFAICT. He either doesn't quite understand the magnitude of this horror, or he does understand it and is just helping them with their coverup routine. In either event he is an enabler, and it's really pissing people off. Especially the locals, because they do understand the seriousness of the situation and they've been down this road before.

And at the moment, it appears what he is saying is true. I can't remember, is he supposed to be reassuring or should he break down crying in front of the cameras?

This isn't all that complicated to me. There is reality, and there is BP propaganda. He has chosen to go with the propaganda, at least for now. I don't know why.

Usrename, we who've lived in or near coastal communities understand the fragility of the ecology. Many people do not understand. They think the seas are endlessly full of water which somehow refreshes itself. They don't realise for at least 50 years the oceans and the wetlands have been abused and degraded.

Heck, 40 years ago Jacques Cousteau was warning the world on his popular TV program. Some people were watching something else.

Are you putting words into his mouth?

EPA is just now asking them to use LESS of it --

Using a dispersant makes no sense, anyway --

Why disperse the oil when we're trying to capture it --

also makes it harder for animals to avoid it --

Crazy show all around!

perhaps you were being sarcastic. It's infuriating, isn't it?

and had it in stock/on hand --

????

But now it looks like another week/8 days is gone in the distraction of the

latest effort to close off the well --

I really thing Obama has to take this over . . .

BP doesn't have a clue, IMO, what the hell they are doing!!

gov't look stupid and scared of the big bad Corporation, BP. I'm sure Obama knows where the planes are taking off from that are spraying this crap. Send in some dudes with guns and stop the f*cking planes from taking off.

Shit. We've got more damn weapons than any other country. Use them on these BP dudes. STOP SPRAYING COREXIT. And here...let me put these handcuffs on you.

How hard is that?

how much of it there really is so they're making sure it's spread far and wide which makes it unmeasurable would be my guess. Unfortunately, that makes it worse for all life in the sea and all the rest of us. But, of course, BP doesn't care about that anymore than they've cared about what they've been doing to Lake Michigan and continue to do now. They're at this very moment building a facility to process oil sand in my county after we've been fighting what they've already been doing here for years. I detest BP and am truly livid about the oil, but I've been livid about BP for a long time so what I mostly think now is that I'm grateful that everyone else is waking up to what they're all about now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersit

Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 is an EPA reviewed, NCP listed water based dispersant to be used on oil discharges or oil spills in accordance with the procedures set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard and other governmental agencies. Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 has been included in the NCP Product Schedule for use as a dispersant for oil spills.

Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 is a unique aqueous composition with highly effective emulsifiers, dispersants and a water-soluble coupling solvent. Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 contains no petroleum solvents. Independent testing (J L Ross Env. Ltd.) confirmed that Dispersit has significant effectiveness in fresh and brackish water. Dispersit is particularly well suited for application via a vessel based education system because it maintains effectiveness when diluted with water unlike petroleum based products.

Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 has an overall effectiveness† of 73%, almost 50% better than the EPA requirement and the dominant product and has considerably less aquatic toxicity†† than the dominant petroleum based dispersant. Polychem Dispersit SPC 1000 contains no hazardous material and hence is user-friendly and environmentally safe.
.
EFFECTIVENESS TEST RESULTS:EFFECTIVENESS AS PER 40 CFR PART 300, USING THE SWIRLING FLASK METHOD WITH SOUTH LOUISIANA AND PRUDHOE BAY CRUDE OILS. (PERFORMED BY BATTELLE LABS, DUXBURY, MASSACHUSETTS).


South Louisiana Crude

100 %


Prudhoe Bay Crude

40 %


South Louisiana and
Prudhoe Bay Crudes, Average

73 %

http://www.uspoly.com/disspec.html

Why is this NOT being used?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/epa-chief-use-of-dispersants-in-gulf-down/1

snip: In a conference call with reporters Monday, Jackson said the federal government asked BP to "significantly scale back" its use of dispersants on the Gulf spill, ProPublica reports.

The EPA demanded last week that BP find an alternative to a dispersant called Corexit 9500. But the energy giant continues to spray that toxic chemical to break up the Gulf oil spill, saying it is the best option available, according to ProPublica.

There are lots of "better" chemicals which are "better" in a test tube.

The gulf is not a test tube.

It's a huge body of water, and hypotheticals aren't any help.

N&U for strawman headline.

:nuke:

Are you saying that BP claims that the dispersants do absolutely nothing? Surely they must have some purported reason for using them. What do you think that reason is? Do you honestly think that BP is unaware of the fact that the stuff is know to kill coral? Have you seen the pictures of the starfish annihilations?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What strawman are you referring to?

op MUST use the headline as it appears.

but I would probably enjoy it :hi:

"No, it's too perilous" :)

would be a smarter way to go --

I posted on this last week -- but evidently there is a coagulant ready to go

and it's non-toxic and get this . . . .

after you pick up the oil, this stuff is recoverable -- and reusable!!

:)

Don't know if the same can be said about the dispersants.

Don't get confused by the word "organic". It only means "carbon-based chemistry" in modern usage; no longer connected to the word "organism". Butoxyethanol, the principal component, is an alcohol, and probably the first thing that microbes will begin to consume. Hydrocarbons in oil will take longer, and photo-oxidation often helps (i.e. a little sun and O2 will break the first bond(s) in the HC, after which it becomes much more reactive. The surfactants may well be the last, for all I know -- even the MSDS doesn't specify exactly what they are.

Source: The Independent

The world's most damaging oil spill – now in its 41st continuously gushing day – is creating huge unseen "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, according to oceanologists and toxicologists. They say that if their fears are correct, then the sea's entire food chain could suffer years of devastation, with almost no marine life in the region escaping its effects.

While the sight of tar balls and oil-covered birds on Louisiana's shoreline has been the most visible sign of the spill's environmental destruction, many scientists now believe it is underwater contamination that will have the deadliest impact. At least two submerged clouds of noxious oil and chemical dispersants have been confirmed by research vessels, and scientists are seeing initial signs of several more. The largest is some 22 miles long, six miles wide and 3,300 feet deep – a volume that would take up half of Lake Erie. Another spans an area of 20 square miles.

More than 8,300 species of plants and animals are at risk. Some, such as the bluefin tuna, which come to the Gulf to spawn, could even face extinction. Scientists predict it will be many months – even years – before the true toll of the disaster will be known.

...

"It's the biggest environmental disaster of our time and it's not even over yet," said the marine toxicologist Dr Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute based in Maine. She has been diving among the damage and is horrified by the contamination caused by BP's continued use of dispersants. "They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these – Corexit 9527 – is the one they've been using most. That ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed. With 800,000 gallons of this, we can only imagine the death that will be caused."

According to Dr Shaw, plankton and smaller shrimps coated in these toxic chemicals will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain. "This is dismantling the food web, piece by piece," she said. "We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."


Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oil-spill-creates-huge-undersea-dead-zones-1987039.html

---

Uggh, the dispersants are seemingly more deadly to marine life than the oil :(

Source: Independant

By Emily Dugan

Sunday, 30 May 2010



The world's most damaging oil spill – now in its 41st continuously gushing day – is creating huge unseen "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, according to oceanologists and toxicologists. They say that if their fears are correct, then the sea's entire food chain could suffer years of devastation, with almost no marine life in the region escaping its effects.

While the sight of tar balls and oil-covered birds on Louisiana's shoreline has been the most visible sign of the spill's environmental destruction, many scientists now believe it is underwater contamination that will have the deadliest impact. At least two submerged clouds of noxious oil and chemical dispersants have been confirmed by research vessels, and scientists are seeing initial signs of several more. The largest is some 22 miles long, six miles wide and 3,300 feet deep – a volume that would take up half of Lake Erie. Another spans an area of 20 square miles.

More than 8,300 species of plants and animals are at risk. Some, such as the bluefin tuna, which come to the Gulf to spawn, could even face extinction. Scientists predict it will be many months – even years – before the true toll of the disaster will be known.

According to Dr Shaw, plankton and smaller shrimps coated in these toxic chemicals will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain. "This is dismantling the food web, piece by piece," she said. "We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oil-spill-creates-huge-undersea-dead-zones-1987039.html

---

The already endangered blue-fin tuna spawn in this area. We could see the extinction of several species I fear.
The dispersants were such a horrid mistake, especially given that the shoreline will be destroyed anyway.

Bhopal, Chernobyl, and Exxon Valdez included---when will the sheeple WAKE UP?

This has indeed slammed the Gulf fishing and tourism industry. It will now be interesting to see how the residents of the Gulf states react to new oil drilling regulations. Being red states, will they follow their Teabaggers and vote NO to any regulation, or will they finally see the light of day and allow the government to put the screws to these sloopy greedy oil giants? Time will tell.

a long, hard investigation. Why did they allow Corexit in the first place? Doesn't BP have to apply for a permit to spray 800,000 gal of toxic "2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that ruptures red blood cells and causes bleeding when ingested"? How did BP spray this without EPA's OK to begin with?