BP Oil Dispersant Corexit Contained Cancer-Causing Agents

[GoLeft TV]

A new report on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster of 2010 is providing adequate cause for concern for residents and clean up workers along the Gulf Coast. The report from EarthJustice reveals that Corexit, the oil dispersant used by BP to aid in oil cleanup, is laden with cancer-causing chemicals.

The dispersant Corexit was dumped into the oil-stained waters of the Gulf of Mexico to help the oil coagulate and sink to the sea floor. Once the oil clumps reached the bottom, it was believed that they would disintegrate into the water, no longer posing a threat to marine life. But as EarthJustice’s report shows, the threat lingered.

An estimated 1.8 million gallons of Corexit were dumped into the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to displace the 206 million gallons of oil that spewed from a broken well-head on the Gulf floor. And while the dispersant itself was ruled to be less toxic than the oil, the study suggests that the combination mixture of crude oil and dispersant poses a significantly greater threat to both the environment and marine life than either substance on its own. The EPA says that studies have been done on some of the 57 chemical agents found in dispersants, but they also acknowledge that no long term studies have been conducted on the exposure to these chemicals in quantities as large as were poured into the Gulf.


Full story can be found at DeSmogBlog - http://desmogblog.com/bp-oil-dispersant-corexit-contained-cancer-causing-agents

[dipsydoodle]

1. If you check

you'll find that the same chemicals are used in some household cleaners and even baby wipes. This came up at the time of the event. Its worth comparing the volume of corexit used with the volume of water in the Gulf.

Neither above are an excuse - just a fact of life.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Then why does Great Britain ban it??

[dipsydoodle]

6. Don't start that again

Its use is only controlled here near rocky shores to protect limpets. Detergents can prevent them from attaching to shore line rocks which makes them prey for others.

From my understanding, the “limpet test” a.k.a. “rocky shores test” that is performed by the UK is primarily an evaluation of the ability of the limpet to adhere to a rock surface after exposure to a dispersant. The inability to adhere is a result of the slipperiness caused by the surfactant in the dispersant. “For the purposes of the test”, the limpet is assumed dead if it is unable to adhere to the rock after exposure. This is because a crustacean that is unable to adhere to the rock will likely die due to any of a number of causes including wave action, predation, etc.

While the negative effects on crustaceans are certainly of concern, the test result implies no toxic effects on other creatures OR on any creatures in areas where rocky shores are not present. In fact, the ban in the UK applies only to use of the dispersant in areas of rocky shores and has no effect in offshore applications (3 miles out and further).

Additionally, it’s important to point out that the UK ban on Corexit is specifically for rocky shoreline conditions and that (referencing Corexit 9500 and 9527): “Existing stocks of these products may still be used away from rocky shorelines in appropriate conditions.”

http://cleanthegulfnow.org/archives/why-the-uk-banned-corexit/

[ensho]

2. kick

nt

[valerief]

3. Yes, but rich people got richer and that's all that matters in the world. nt

[stuntcat]

4. also there was nothing down there but fish and turtles and junk like that

those un-patriotic animals :shrug:

[Nihil]

7. Newsflash: So does petroleum (in far larger quantities) ...

... so don't drink Corexit when mixed with crude oil & seawater.

:eyes: