Screenshot from online video about dispersants by Nalco, Corexit's manufacturer
The pressures (psi) of the sea at one mile down also are not accounted for by the chemical manufacturer. There is just simply no research to support ANY and ALL activities by BP a one mile down. There is no way the USA EPA should be endorsing any prolonged use of this chemical agent.
The Petroleum Industry is going to try to instill this mess as precedent, too. It is simply poor decision making from here on to continue this charade. The Petroleum Industry is trying to 'muscle' the citizens of the USA out of the picture by pursuing this as a strategy for every deep water rupture.
I am confident BP has the accolades of its peers and the likes of people by the name of Bush and Cheney. This is NOT the Valdez, its wave dynamics, biotic content and the currents are completely different.
In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf are banned for use [1] on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products [2], BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used [3] in the history of US oil spills.
by Marian Wang, ProPublica - May 18, 2010 2:24 pm EDT
BP is using two products from a line of dispersants called Corexit [4], which EPA data [2] appears to show is more toxic and less effective [5] on South Louisiana crude than other available dispersants, according to Greenwire.
We learned about the U.K. ban from a mention on the New York Times’ website. (The reference was cut from later versions of the article, so we can’t link to the Times, but we found the piece [6] elsewhere.) The Times flagged a letter [7] Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, sent to the EPA yesterday. The letter pointed out that both the Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the UK more than a decade ago. (Here’s the letter [7].)
As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after Exxon Valdez [8] and was “later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.” One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound associated with “headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses [9].”
Given that the dispersants are EPA-approved, the choice on which ones to use was left to BP, which had stockpiled large amounts of Corexit and is now ordering more....
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK
The EPA is not working in a vacuum regarding the 'knowledge' on record with allies in regard to these chemicals. They need to be banned by the USA as well. There is sea life and ocean currents at the bottom of the oceans and seas, too. International waters cannot continue to be used as a dumping ground for every OIL GOOF that occurs.
"While I understand the importance of mitigating the effects of this oil on our fragile wetlands to date, little or no substantive data has been provided to the state of Louisiana," Barham wrote in a letter to BP Vice President David Rainey.
No one is saying Secretary Lisa Jackson has done anything wrong. What is occurring is failure by BP to provide results in containing their emergency and the chemicals of all kinds have the potential to becomes a profound disaster locally and globally. THAT cannot be allowed to happen.
While I never thought this rupture would ever be contained and demanded a quick resolve to closing the drill sight with military explosives, I also recognized Secretary Jackson was willing to have faith in BP to end the emergency with a contained well head. In that, I stood with her in issuing the permit for the disperant, it has gone on too long and the danger from the chemical dispersant is too uncertain to continue to allow its use.
On May 18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified before the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works on the agency's involvement and activities related to the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil release. She noted that "In the last three weeks, EPA has dispatched more than 120 staff scientists, engineers, and contractors to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi to perform rigorous testing and monitoring of air and water quality. We are tracking any possible adverse impacts stemming from controlled burning of surface oil, possible chemicals rising from the oil itself, and any issues caused by the use of dispersants. We are working with state officials, with local university scientists, and other federal agencies to get the best available data, share that data in a timely fashion, and to ensure proper response for the Gulf Coast people and their environment."...
The moronity of the illogic of Neocons cannot be overlooked either, "It is the natural thing to do. It came from the sea it should be returned to the sea." It doesn't matter if BP drilled miles below the ocean floor to obtain it though.
Statement of Lisa P. Jackson Administrator, (click title to entry - thank you)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Testimony on Federal Response to the Recent Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Release date: 05/18/2010
Contact Information: EPA Press Office, press@epa.gov, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON - Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about EPA’s role in responding to the BP Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. As we all know, efforts by BP to stop the oil release continue. While there is no perfect solution to the environmental disaster that the Gulf of Mexico is facing right now, EPA is committed to protecting our communities, the natural environment and human health. That commitment covers both the risks from the spill itself, as well as any concerns resulting from the response to the spill....
...National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council publications indicate there is insufficient baseline data to determine the environmental and ecologic fate of petroleum spills and their effects in the marine environment, according to Sawyer. The lack of adequate research makes decision-making related to major spill containment and remediation dicey at best, he stated in a press release.
“The dispersants used in the BP cleanup efforts, known as Corexit 9500 and Corexit EC9527A, are also known as deodorized kerosene,” said Sawyer. “With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals....
http://www.baldwincountynow.com/articles/2010/05/17/local_news/doc4beda649770cd552607928.txt
