Cairenn
Senior Member.
This set of posts were posted on the BP America page.
I have to thank metabunk, for understanding how to handle this. I have asked him to bring his posts here.
John Wathen
Evidence would be easy to get if BP hadn't bought off all of the science. I do not see the need to produce anything to you as you are obviously a shill for them and will only produce more of the company fertilizer. BP is still cleaning beaches from their "safe" drilling. Corexit is still being used.
John Wathen
Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[33][18][34] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[35] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".[23] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[5]
John Wathen
According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.[36] On May 19, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to change to a different dispersant than Corexit, or to produce a report within 24 hours on alternatives considered and reasons for their rejection.[37] BP took the latter option, sending its report the next day.[38] On May 26, the EPA told BP to reduce the use of dispersants by 75%;[39] surface use was prohibited unless a request for exemption in specific circumstances was granted, while subsurface use was capped at 15,000 gallons per day.[40] After May 26 daily average use dropped to a little more than 23,000 gallons per day, a 9% drop.[41]
John Wathen
During a Senate hearing on the use of dispersants, Senator Lisa Murkowski asked EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson whether Corexit use should be banned, stating she didn't want dispersants to be "the Agent Orange of this oil spill".[44][45][46]
Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said that oil mixed with Corexit is "more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface" because the dispersant allows the oil to stay submerged below the surface of the water.[47] Corexit 9500 causes oil to form into small droplets in the water; fish may be harmed when they eat these droplets.[5] According to its Material safety data sheet, Corexit may also bioaccumulate, remaining in the flesh and building up over time.[48] Thus predators who eat smaller fish with the toxin in their systems may end up with much higher levels in their flesh.[5] The influence of Corexit on microbiological communities is a topic of ongoing research.[49]
John Wathen
A study from Georgia Tech and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes (UAA), Mexico reported in late 2012 that Corexit used during the BP oil spill made the oil up to 52 times more toxic.[51][7][8] The leader of the study, Roberto-Rico Martinez (UAA), said “Dispersants are preapproved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters....but we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion”.
John Wathen
"EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public."[72]
Marine toxicologist Riki Ott blamed BP for poisoning locals with Corexit, which she alleges they used to hide their responsibility.[73] In August 2010 she wrote an open letter to the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that dispersants were still being used in secret and demanding that the agency take action.[74] The letter was published in the Huffington Post. Ott told Al Jazeera, "The dispersants used in BP's draconian experiment contain solvents, such as petroleum distillates and 2-butoxyethanol. Solvents dissolve oil, grease, and rubber. It should be no surprise that solvents are also notoriously toxic to people, something the medical community has long known."[75]
L
John Wathen http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-the-bp-gulf-syndrome-benzene-and-corexit-poisoning/19914
John Wathen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JybIBe02-6Y
John Wathen http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/07/toxicologists-corexit-ruptures-red.html
John Wathen http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/13/corexit-5-questions-about-chemical-dispersant-answered/
John Wathen http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-dispersants-more-toxic-121203.htm
John Wathen If you can deny all of these accounts then you need help. Shills are the reason for the mistrust of the BP reports. If BP would have simply told the truth about the dangers Corexit would not have been used in such high quantities and in unproven/untested depths and temps. The last hurricane spread the thick oil and corexit mixture all over Barataria and Lafitte.
I have to thank metabunk, for understanding how to handle this. I have asked him to bring his posts here.
