The Dispersants being dumped- here are the MSDS docs

"Dispersant Type 1"-- COREXIT(R)9500

MSDS pdf: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/COREXIT_9500_UsCuEg.539287.pdf

"Dispersant Type 2" COREXIT(R)EC9527A

MSDS pdf: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Master_EC9527A_MSDS.539295.pdf

Links/docs from the FEDS' Deep Horizon Response website at

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

" More than 156,000 gallons of dispersant have been deployed. An additional 230,000 gallons are available."

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/537663/

DUers who have been asking about what information there might be out there about the dispersants, and people in the Gulf and coastal areas especially, have a right to available information as it comes along.
They have a right to question and discuss the information, too.

Enough with the totally *assinine idiocy*.

I think I'm gonna lay off the "early morning" posting stuff for while.
I'm sure my family will like me better for it, too :-)

sometimes important things just sink.

But did you hear what Palin said today :)

on the chemicals and possible less toxic alternatives:

DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8280112&mesg_id=8280112

Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative (Wired)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants

:thumbsup:

we are in such uncharted territory with the questions and developments around the gusher.
One of the dispersant's data sheets says that if allowed to become waste, it must be treated
as hazardous waste and the article below that quotes the notion that there's no consensus on
the efficacy of this stuff, which I suppose is not surprising in and of itself, and I'm no environmental scientist or OSHA authority but ...??

:hug:

For example, the clean up worker who drops a container of the stuff and it gets all over their legs.

It has no meaning with regards to the environmental impact of dumping it into the ocean.

Maybe that's why people are unreccing your thread.

Just yesterday we had a Mother Jones article and lots of folk asking what was being used. Not only did I not know that had all been answered, I missed the DU scientific consensus on its safety between yesterday and this morning.

It's a carcinogen. It says right there in the MSDS. Sand. Beach sand.

Technically it's true. Workers who use a lot of sand on an industrial scale get exposed to a lot of dust, and if inhaled it can lead to silicosis in the lungs, which can lead to cancer.

Do people need to worry about all that toxic sand on the beach giving them cancer? No.

along the shore, but bad for fisheries and fisherman.” (Bellona's Frederic Hague)

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost

LOTS of questions and concerns about the environmental impact, it sounds like.

And to humans exposed untowardly.



The article speculates that it wasn't known which of two types would be in use. The MSDS docs I posted above indicate both. And some of the latter's effects ARE in the NALCO's sheets (injury to RBC's, kidney and liver), but I didn't see spleen and bone marrow. If it's in there, maybe someone else will spot it.

That's right, adding "toxic" chemicals to oil spills will actually do more to alleviate the problem than backseat driving on internet message boards.

Seems like the best anyone say at all about all of the argument as yet is a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" predicament.

I know you will persist in your opinion, because you seemed poised to mock the very question itself when raised by the Mother Jones article and posters a couple days ago-- even before it was even known what was being used.

That was nothing alarmist in my original OP. Just dry facts. That were only made available here and in the media just yesterday.

I'll continue to read more as it emerges and maintain in the meantime that only time will tell what the real long-term outcomes will be with the stuff, which as I understand, has never been used in these volumes, and is felt by some in the articles to be largely PR damage control at this date, since it's felt it's usefulness is mostly effective in the first 24-48 hours. at best. I'll take your gratuitous admonition on "backseat driving on internet message boards"- if that's what you think the mere act of posting the original information was-- with a large grain of "sodium chloride". You might be onto something, here. Preemptive mockery and trivializing on "internet message boards" is easy, too.

Link- "Controversial" - within Wired article to more:

Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost

about Bellona: http://www.bellona.org/subjects/1140449074.91/aboutussection_view

Ugh.

Dear brain,

We still have more work to get done tonight. Please don't clock out yet.

Thank you,
M. Kitteh

http://www.gbiosciences.com/ResearchUploads/ResearchProductIMGFile/634000349662070456.pdf

Please take note of the following:

After eye contact: Immediately flush eyes with copious amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Call a physician.
After skin contact: Immediately wash skin with soap and copious amounts of water.
After Inhalation: Remove to fresh air. If not breathing give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, call a physician.
After swallowing: Wash out mouth with water provided person is conscious. Call a physician.


-------------------------------


Not that I am dumping on your thread. I think it is fair to say that the dispersants being used are not harmless. You should consider however that MSDS forms tend to err on the side of overstating hazards (in order to discourage inaction on the part of exposed lab personelle) and are often written for compounds whose hazards are not well understood. You should also bear in mind that these are designed to lessen the impact of the crude oil, which is quite toxic to marine life.

litanies of possible side effects or adverse effects of pharmaceutical listings in the PDR -- or even the patient literature stapled to your prescription. I think most of us get it about the need and practice of overstating, erring on the side of caution and also limiting legal exposure, etc.

What's really important is that, while some of it is still being kept proprietary trade secret, we now have more public information in the time since the MSDS was released just less than 48 hrs ago, and that much, at least, has served as a jumping off point for more scientific and policy scrutiny. Enough question has emerged in short time, it seems, that now we're reading that FWIW, BP has said it has halted the treatment for further testing for safety.

My point in posting the OP was to disseminate information that we didn't have the day before.
Let's have more information- not suppression of it- and let it sort out however it will.
That's my view.