Oil dispersant Corexit known to be toxic 20 years ago

Oil spill devastation (slideshow update) While Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for ordering BP to use less toxic dispersant chemicals in the company’s cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, others have a hard time understanding why the EPA waited a month. No new science has cropped up that identifies new findings on Corexit. 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.

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..
BP has been applying these chemicals deep underwater in an effort to mitigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. EPA’s announcement comes just three days after Rep. Markey sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that raised questions about the potential toxicity of the trademarked formulation, called Corexit, that BP had selected for use, and whether the chemical could be contributing to new reports of large undersea “plumes” of oil suspended thousands of feet below the water's surface.

“I commend the Obama administration for acting swiftly to address my concerns that the dispersant BP chose to use is more toxic than other available formulations,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “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.” Read More...

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

Index of Corexit Information

http://www.valdezlink.com/corexit.htm

http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/corexit.htm


Corexit: BP Using Dispersants In Gulf Banned In U.K. For Being More Toxic And Less Effective

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/corexit-bp-using-dispersa_n_580799.html

Why Are Dispersant Chemicals Secret?

Snip...

So, what is this stuff? There's a lot the public is not permitted to know about these concoctions. The EPA has published some information about them on a list of dispersants and other agents that were okayed for use in the clean-up of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. But a number of ingredients are listed as "confidential" or "proprietary," and their proportions in the mix are not disclosed.

Information provided by Nalco to EPA and the federal/BP task force on its website, known as the Deepwater Horizon Response, says that COREXIT EC9527A, contains three chemicals considered hazardous:

•2-Butoxyethanol
•Organic sulfonic acid salt
•Propylene glycol
From what we can discern, the active molecule that does the dispersing is "organic sulfonic acid salt," a generic term for class of chemicals. Its precise chemical name is apparently proprietary. We think that once a company, or the government, or both, decides to cover the sea with this molecule, it's time to tell us what exactly it is.

The company's disclosure statement says, "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product." It also says, "Based on our hazard characterization, the potential environmental hazard is: Moderate Based on our recommended product application and the product's characteristics, the potential environmental exposure is: Low." But how the company has reached that conclusion isn't clear. Read More...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-shannon/why-are-dispersant-chemic_b_575741.html

Is this the same chemical that BP has a financial interest in?

Wondering what possible tax advantages (yeah, like they need to pay LESS taxes than they already do, but hey tax dodges are part of business) to throwing, err, USING a lot of a bad thing they have probably had sitting around anyway?

Am just trying to understand all possible reasons for killing off huge chunks of ecosystems by big oil.

Board of Directors...

By Plain Dealer wire services
May 20, 2010, 10:26PM
JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- Federal environmental regulators on Thursday ordered BP to switch to less-toxic dispersants to break up oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, amid fears that the chemical now being sprayed over the sea and injected deep underwater could harm marine life.

Under the directive from the Environmental Protection Agency, BP has 24 hours to identify a less-toxic and potentially more effective option -- and must start using it within three days. Although the version BP has been using -- two formulations of the brand Corexit -- is on EPA's list of approved dispersants, there are 16 others, many of which fared better in toxicity and effectiveness tests.

"BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak -- a procedure that has never been tried before," the EPA said in a statement. "Because of its use in unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic product authorized for use."

The dispersants are detergent-like substances designed to help break down oil into tiny droplets that can be consumed by naturally occurring microbes. The EPA initially allowed BP to spray the dispersant over oil slicks on the surface of the Gulf -- during good weather and water conditions. On May 15, the agency allowed BP to inject the chemicals deep underwater, directly at the site of the gushing oil. Read More...

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/epa_tells_bp_to_switch_dispers.html

Toxic Tom Delay and now this killer Corexit...maybe we should write that place off.