Guest Post: Toxicologists Say Corexit “Ruptures Red Blood Cells, Causes Internal Bleeding”, “Allows Crude Oil To Penetrate “Into The Cells” and “Every Organ System” « naked capitalism

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Guest Post: Toxicologists Say Corexit “Ruptures Red Blood Cells, Causes Internal Bleeding”, “Allows Crude Oil To Penetrate “Into The Cells” and “Every Organ System”

→ Washington’s Blog

As I have previously noted, Corexit is toxic, is less effective than other dispersants, and is actually worsening the damage caused by the oil spill.

Now, two toxicologists are saying that Corexit is much more harmful to human health and marine life than we’ve been told.

Specifically Gulf toxicologist Dr. Susan Shaw – Founder and Director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute – dove into the oil spill to examine the chemicals present.

Dr. Shaw told CNN [I can't post videos here, so either click on the link or go to my blog to read version with embedded videos]:

If I can tell you what happens — because I was in the oil — to people…

Shrimpers throwing their nets into water… [then] water from the nets splashed on his skin. …

[He experienced a] headache that lasted 3 weeks… heart palpitations… muscle spasms… bleeding from the rectum…

And that’s what that Corexit does, it ruptures red blood cells, causes internal bleeding, and liver and kidney damage. …

This stuff is so toxic combined… not the oil or dispersants alone. …

Very, very toxic and goes right through skin.

***

The reason this is so toxic is because of these solvents [from dispersant] that penetrate the skin of anything that’s going through the dispersed oil takes the oil into the cells — takes the oil into the organs… and this stuff is toxic to every organ system in the body. …

Similarly, marine biologist and toxicologist Dr. Chris Pincetich – who has an extensive background in testing the affects of chemicals on fish – says [click or see my blog] that Corexit disrupts cell membranes.

He also explains that EPA toxicity testing for Corexit is woefully inadequate, since EPA testing for mortality usually only requires a 96-hour time frame. His doctoral research found that fish that were alive at 96 hours after exposure to pesticide were dead at two weeks, so the chemicals were considered non-lethal for the purposes of the test.

Drs. Shaw and Pincetich are wildlife conservationists. But even industry scientists working for Exxon and the manufacturer of Corexit itself admit that the stuff is toxic.

More on this topic (What's this?)

Cold Flow Heavy Oil: The Most Profitable Oil in North America (Investment U, 6/28/10)

“America’s New Oil Haven — 3X Bigger Than Texas” (Stock Gumshoe, 6/9/10)

America’s New Oil Haven, part two — Tiny Company Sitting on 3.8 Million Barrels (Stock Gumshoe, 6/10/10)

Read more on Oil at Wikinvest

55 Comments:

Doc Holiday says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:33 am

Did you see my seagull blood post a few days ago?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080118-seagull-pollution.html

This is essentially for PAH levels, but seagulls could probably be used to look for other toxic things like 2-butoxyethanol.

EPA should be held criminally liable for the lack of data being provided for Corexit, e.g., human testing related to exposure from these high concentrations. For that matter FDA should be held accountable as should CDC — because at this point, all government agencies are working with BP and Homeland Security to downplay the health issues of this National Security risk.

I still maintain that any agency saying this stuff is safe, should have to drink this stuff everyday and be held accountable for the claims they make… which reminds me of this story …

==> “While company literature urges people to dilute Simple Green, it is sold in a spray bottle that some consumer advocates say promotes full-strength use. Owner FaBrizio used to drink a glass of the cleaner at trade shows to prove its safety. Krause said it is unfair to call a chemical mixture toxic based on one component. The formula, he said, was tested and found to be nontoxic by independent labs hired by Simple Green and verified by other labs.”

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0209-03.htm

==> Bruce is no longer amongst us that breath air and drink water, …. it’s just that simple!

Francois T says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:56 am

“EPA should be held criminally liable for the lack of data being provided for Corexit”

Hey Doc,

Ever read “Exposed”?
http://www.amazon.com/Exposed-Chemistry-Everyday-Products-American/dp/1603580581/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278737126&sr=8-1

After reading it, it’ll become obvious that the whole political elite should be held criminally liable.
Carol Chapin says:

July 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm

You are grossly incorrect – Bruce FaBrizio is quite alive and well. Simple Green contains FAR, FAR less 2-butoxyethanol than Corexit (on the magnitude of about 3% for SG, about 50% for Corexit.) Simple Green has been tested a number of ways to confirm that the product as a whole is non-toxic.
Please be careful of the information that you put out into the world – you could be wandering down the path of slander & libel.

Francois T says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:44 am

If the situation is that bad, it won’t be long before we see a big increase in visits to emergency rooms with “unexplained” symptoms and signs.

Wonder if BP will send security people in hospitals, alongside with local law enforcement…

Also, what Dr. Pincetich explained about lethality testing is simply appalling: if I had evaluated my patients like that, I would’ve lost my medical license in no time!

IsabelPS says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:47 am

I was talking to m brother, a conservationist, the other day, and his point of view was that it was quite possible that what amounts to a moratorium on fishing caused by the spill could very well be beneficial for the conservation of the marine life in the region. But that was without the efforts of cleaning, that would be certainly a lot worse than the oil itself…

Scarlo says:

July 10, 2010 at 9:42 am

I’ve decided to treat Dems and Repubs alike, as the same party – because for all intents and purposes, over the last couple of decades they’ve been acting that way.

That leaves my options for voting as “not at all”, “actually like the DemRep candidate”, or “omg, there’s an alternative candidate?! – but is he/she any good?”.

I feel the ONLY option for progress in politics at this point is another party or two. There’s no downside, and competition can only be good. Perhaps a Liberty Party and a Labor Party? I don’t know, but we need to get busy with formation.
- Scarlo says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 9:44 am
  
  Darnit. I replied to the wrong post, meant for EmilianoZ just below. I don’t post here much, so didn’t realize the reply just above the name was for above post, not below. Yves – don’t ban me plz! hehe

EmilianoZ says:

July 10, 2010 at 2:13 am

So, how are we gonna punish the Democrats for allowing Corexit? Voting Republican? Democracy sure is a big help.

At least we’re solving the Medicare problem. We’re all gonna die young. We can start singing: “It’s better to burn out, than to fade away.”

The other guy was right. Our lives are worth less than rats’.

NOTaREALmerican says:

July 12, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Re: Our lives are worth less than rats’.

The trick is knowing it. A person can’t choose to born a peasant (or not). BUT, you can choose not to be dumbass and believe the country’s propaganda.

All you’ve got to do it get through life without getting screwed by the nobility (and the sociopaths they own) AND make the very important decision whether to reproduce. Btw, if you don’t reproduce that lowers your guilt (and carbon footprint) to near zero.

If you are young enough (or rich enough) you can always move to New Zealand. I know I would if I could.

doc holiday says:

July 10, 2010 at 3:16 am

CHEMICAL FOR OIL SPILL DISPERSANT

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY (United States of America)

2009-06-02

Patent Abstract

A formulation of chemical surfactants, solvents and inorganic salts is effective for dispersing heavy oils in both salt and fresh water. The formulation comprises a mixture of a sorbitan ester of an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid, a polyoxyethylene adduct of a sorbitan monoester of an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid, an alkali metal salt of a dialkyl sulfosuccinate, a polyoxyethylene adduct of a sorbitan triester of a monocarboxylic acid, a solvent comprising a hydrocarbon and/or aglycol ether and an inorganic salt containing a soluble divalent cation such as calcium or magnesium.

From: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/fra/brevet/2396786/sommaire.html

“““““`
Or try this: Patent 5618468 Issued on April 8,

Abstract
An improved dispersant formulation for dispersing oil which contains a mixture of a sorbitan monoester of an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid, a polyoxyethylene adduct of a sorbitan monoester of an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid, a water-dispersible salt of a dialkyl sulfosuccinate, a polyoxyethylene adduct of a sorbitan triester or a sorbitol hexaester of an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid and a glycol ether which has a maximum water solubility of 25 ml/100 ml as solvent.
1997http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5618468/fulltext.html

Or: http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Chemical-dispersant-oil-spills/WO1994013397.html

==> 2-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent with the formula BuOC2H4OH (Bu = CH3CH2CH2CH2). It is a colorless liquid with a sweet, ether-like odour.

==> It is a butyl ether of ethylene glycol. It is a relatively nonvolatile, inexpensive solvent with modest surfactant properties.

See Exxon Patent Claim ==> (e) a propylene glycol ether solvent, said solvent being dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether wherein the dispersant has a HLB of from about 10 to about 11.

Butoxyethanol is also a major component (30-60% by weight) of Corexit 9527, an oil spill dispersant product.

** Bonus Material: The propylene glycol ethers used as solvents in the present invention (component (e)) have the formula where R is Ci to C6 alkyl, preferably C3-C4, especially n-butyl and n is an integer from 1 to 3, preferably 1-2, especially 2. Preferred solvents are dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether and propylene glycol n-butyl ether. Propylene glycol ethers are available commercially from Dow Chemical Co. under the trade name Dowanol ® . Propylene glycol monoethers possess favorable lipophilic properties for use in oil dispersant formulations and are also of low toxicity.

Material Safety Data Sheet Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether MSDS (DOWANOL ® )

Section 11: Toxicological Information Routes of Entry: Absorbed through skin. Inhalation. Ingestion.Toxicity to Animals:Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 5130 mg/kg [Rat]. Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): 9500 mg/kg [Rabbit].Chronic Effects on Humans: May cause damage to the following organs: liver, central nervous system (CNS).Other Toxic Effects on Humans:Hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, permeator).Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available.Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: Not available.Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: Causes mild skin irritation. It is not absorbed by intact skin in appreciable amounts.However, if absorbed through the skin, it can produce central nervous system depression (see ingestion). Eyes: Causeseye irritation. It is transiently painful to the eyes. It causes minor corneal irritation. Inhalation: Exposure to high concentrationof vapor causes marked respiratory tract (nasal mucous membranes and throat) irritation which is difficult to tolerate.Exposure to airborneconcentrations of 500 ppm or greater can produce central nervous system impairment/depression(see ingestion). Ingestion: It is of low oral toxicity. Hepatic and renal injury may occur following ingestion of extremely largeamounts. If may affect respiration, behavior/central nervous system and cause central nervous system depression (weakness,lightheadedness, dizziness, headache) Chronic Potential Health Effects: Inhalation and Ingestion: Repeated or prolongedexposure of high levels via inhalation and ingestion may affect the liver. Skin: Repeated or prolonged skin absorption mayaffect behavior/central nervous system (CNS depression), and metabolism (weight loss)

Neil D says:

July 10, 2010 at 7:19 am

If they wrote an MSDS for vodka, it would say nearly the same thing.
- Neil D says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 7:23 am
  
  And here it is:
  http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~choi/MSDS/Pharmco/Ethanolpure200proof.pdf
  
  Swallowing: May cause dizziness, faintness, drowsiness,
  decreased awareness or responsiveness, nausea, vomiting,
  staggering gait, lack of coordination, and coma
  Skin Absorption: No harmful affects with normal skin.
  Inhalation: High vapor concentration may cause burning
  sensation in nose and throat and stinging and watering in the eyes. At concentrations which cause irritation, dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting may also occur.
  Skin Contact: No evidence of harmful effects from available
  information.
  Eye Contact: May cause irritation including stinging, tearing, and redness
  Effects of Repeated Overexposure: Long term repeated oral
  exposure to ethanol may result in the development of
  progressive liver injury with fibrosis
  Other Health Hazards: Repeated ingestion of ethanol by
  pregnant mothers has been shown to adversely affect the central nervous system of the fetus, producing a collection of effects which together constitute fetal alcohol syndrome. These include mental and physical retardation, disturbances of learning, motor and language deficiencies, behavioral disorders and small size head.
  - Neil D says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 8:14 am
    
    Risking over stating my point, but here is the MSDS for Dawn dish detergent – a great oil dispersant!
    
    http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/safety/MSDS/DAWN%20LIQUID%20DISHWASHING%20DETERGENT–PROCTER%20%26%20GAMBLE%20–.htm
    
    Health Haz Acute And Chronic: EYE: MAY CAUSE MILD TRANSIENT IRRITATION.
    INGEST: MAY CAUSE TRANSIENT GASTROINTESTINAL IRRITATION. SKIN: TRANSIENT
    IRRITATION W/PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO CONCENTRATED MATERIAL.
    Signs/Symptoms Of Overexp: EYE: MAY CAUSE STINGING, TEARING, ITCHING, SWELLING, &/OR REDNESS. INGEST: MAY RESULT IN NAUSEA, VOMITING, &/OR DIARRHEA. SKIN: PROLONGED CONTACT W/CONCENTRATED MATERIAL MAY BE DRYING.
    
    Emergency/First Aid Proc: EYE: FLUSH W/WATER FOR A MINIMUM OF 15 MINUTES.
    INGEST: DRINK 1 OR 2 GLASSES OF WATER. SKIN: IF PROLONGED CONTACT OCCURS, RINSE THOROUGHLY W/WATER. IF SPILLED ON CLOTHING, CHANGE CLOTHES. IF SYMPTOMS PERSIST OR REOCCUR, SEEK MEDICAL ATTN. INHAL: REMOVE TO FRESH AIR.
    
    I wonder if the pelicans know how irritating this stuff is. Probably better than crude oil though.
    - Kait says:
      
      July 12, 2010 at 1:12 pm
      
      Dawn is a great product for what it is intended to do. It cuts grease like nothing else. However, you don’t put soap in your eyes or it will sting, and it isn’t food. Duh.
      BTW, our dog got skunked this weekend. A small amount of Dawn mixed with Hydrogen Peroxide and baking soda got the stench out well enough for him to sleep inside our house that night. Secret: rinsing very well. BTW, our dog has extremely sensitive skin and he’s shown zero reaction to the protocol…and we did it twice.

screaming meme says:

July 10, 2010 at 4:52 am

http://www.protecttheocean.com/whats-in-corexit/

In fact, as we reported earlier in this ecological disaster, the EPA and BP are specifically prohibited from using it in that fashion by the Clean Water Act of 1972. (CWA)

Throughout all of the Congressional hearings, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, no one seems to want to call the EPA and Lisa Jackson on the carpet for issuing permits in direct defiance of the CWA. The simple fact is that using Corexit under water was, and still is, illegal. It’s also illegal for the EPA to have issued a permit to do so. The CWA specifically states that a permit may NOT be issued if there is reasonable question as to the toxicity and/or result of releasing that chemical into the water

Neil D says:

July 10, 2010 at 6:52 am

I give up. Corexit cannot be more toxic than the oil it is meant to disperse. These same “solvents” are in the oil itself. But debating this with folks who just want to believe BP is evil is rather pointless. The use of dispersants was always a trade-off; the (hopefully) least bad of really bad options.

So it will end up being another basis for claims against BP. Have at it. In doing so you become just another hack with an agenda – you become just like BP.

On 9/11 firefighters risked their lives and lost trying to save others from the towers. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, firefighters exposed themselves to deadly radiation because they had to put out the fire.

Sometimes there are no good options once disaster strikes.

Personally I find the BP spill to be a great teaching moment. We exceeded the limits of our ability to harness nature and lost. And we pretty much deserve whatever happens. This hysteria, while understandable, is rather amusing to watch.

Ina Deaver says:

July 10, 2010 at 8:09 am

Who the hell is “We,” paleface? That’s some awesome logic you got going there, assuming that you don’t live on the Gulf.

And when you figure out what the sea turtles, whales, and fish did to deserve destruction, let me know.
- Neil D says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 8:16 am
  
  We? I’m thinking anyone who ever uses gasoline or natural gas has joint and several liability with BP. That’s who. You are free to disagree.
  - alex says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 8:25 am
    
    Such a philosopher!
    
    And if “we” use hydropower, and a dam breaks, killing everyone in the valley below, are “we” responsible for it, or does responsibility rest with those who engaged in the reckless and negligent design, construction or maintenance of that dam?
  - wunsacon says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    
    >> I’m thinking anyone who ever uses gasoline or natural gas has joint and several liability with BP. That’s who.
    
    Screw you.
    
    I use gas and NG and expect to pay for businesses to extract it without causing spills. I’m happy to pay more for it if that what it comes down to.
alex says:

July 10, 2010 at 8:18 am

“We exceeded the limits of our ability to harness nature and lost. And we pretty much deserve whatever happens.”

Who is this “we” of which you speak? It’s a cheap rhetorical trick to spread the blame from those responsible to the entirety of the American people, or perhaps all of humanity. Shouldn’t you have added a reference to Greek mythology about the hubris of challenging the gods or something?

“We” didn’t ignore pressure spikes, fail to test the BOP, or insist on reckless cost cutting measures. “We” don’t deserve to suffer the consequences of the recklessness and negligence of a specific party.
- Neil D says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 8:32 am
  
  You may be right, but you are assuming that BP was reckless. But what if they weren’t reckless? What if deep water drilling here is just impossible no matter the precautions? Don’t we risk another blow out by allowing that we have the technology (if only properly deployed) to tap oil this way?
  
  I would rather pat BP on the head and say they didn’t have a chance given the nature of the well. Saying BP was reckless leaves open the possibility that we’ll do it again.
  
  Let’s bankrupt BP and use the money to pay off everyone in the gulf. I’m OK with that. I’m just not willing to pretend my demand for their products doesn’t contribute to the problem.
  - alex says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 9:06 am
    
    “you are assuming that BP was reckless”
    
    It’s not an assumption – it’s based on numerous credible reports. Even if “we” decide that the risk of ecological disaster is too great to justify deep water drilling under any circumstances, it doesn’t excuse BP from behavior that’s negligent and reckless according to known good industry practices.
    
    BP created the Chernobyl of oil wells. Even if you believe that the risk of accident from nuclear power is too great to justify it in any circumstances, it doesn’t excuse the incredibly risky behavior, including gross deviation from established and mandated operating practices, that led to the accident.
    
    “I’m just not willing to pretend my demand for their products doesn’t contribute to the problem.”
    
    I eat too, but would that make me responsible if some producer was found to be using slave labor to grow food? You’re failing to distinguish between the intrinsic problems of production, and problems resulting from the behavior of a specific producer.
    - Neil D says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
      
      I guess I think of these deep water wells as analogous to the space program. We lost a lot astronauts, rockets and two space shuttles as we explored the limits of our technology. There were design errors and complacency about safety in those accidents too. I understand you think differently, but I just can’t muster the same outrage.
    - Skippy says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 9:23 am
      
      Neil with all due respect go read the 700+ violations BP committed in one year, then pontificate. In fact the entire history of this company is a violation of human principles, murder, poisoning, stealing etc.
    - Neil D says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 9:26 am
      
      Sorry skippy, I take a more expansive and nuanced view of cost / benefit than your comment allows. I guess that makes me a bad person, but that’s who I am.
  - Ming says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    
    Your thinking on responsibiliy and attribution is muddled ‘neil d’. A person shall be prosperous or impoverished based on the outcome of his/ her actions and it’s effects on others. Since BP initiateda nd operated the deepwater drill, they are responsible for the outcome. Any human factor that worked directly with bp in iniating or operating the deepwater drill are
    also responsible. However, bad luck, does not excuse them from their responisibility to cleanup and compensate for this mess. (there is still some level of consideration… Well instabilty, class 5 hurricanes, terrorism are all ‘bad luck’ issues that bp should contend with, a direct hit from a large meteor from outerspace could be forgiven..,) . The financial reward would have been ‘theirs’ if they were successful, conversley the pain is theirs if they are not successful.
    
    In general, people who have decision making authority, implementation authority, and/or people who have up-to-date information visibilty concerning the situation and the possible outcome of their actions, are the ones responsible for the outcome of the actions.
    
    if it can be proven that bp was reckless or negligent , then we should add punishment to BP’s woes
  - BP is destructive says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    
    We lost a lot astronauts, rockets and two space shuttles as we explored the limits of our technology. There were design errors and complacency about safety in those accidents too. I understand you think differently, but I just can’t muster the same outrage.
    
    Skippy says:
    July 10, 2010 at 9:23 am
    Neil with all due respect go read the 700+ violations BP committed in one year,
    
    NASA may have had a few problems, but not the 700 BP continues to have; BP has a pathological problem and they are more destructive than productive and they need to be shut down before they do more harm!
  - John L says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm
    
    Oh, they were reckless all right. Not putting enough safety features in the well, not testing the concrete plug at the bottom adequately enough, removing the mud and replacing it with seawater, and finally, ignoring the warning signs as the well began to blow all add up to BP cutting corners and ignoring safety to get this well done as soon as possible.
    
    That’s reckless any way you want to slice it. The reason why we’ve not seen other deepwater well disasters like this is because the other companies value safety a bit more than BP does.
- BP SUCKS says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 11:58 am
  
  We thank you for the clear thinking that disassociates most all of us from the mistakes that BP is making!!! We didn’t ask to drill baby and we want safe drilling that is regulated and we want BP to step up to the plate and admit that it made mistakes that killed people and that they have done massive amounts of damage to the GOM. We believe that BP will crawl away and not be held accountable for what they have done!
  
  Re: “It’s a cheap rhetorical trick to spread the blame from those responsible to the entirety of the American people, or perhaps all of humanity. Shouldn’t you have added a reference to Greek mythology about the hubris of challenging the gods or something?
  
  “We” didn’t ignore pressure spikes, fail to test the BOP, or insist on reckless cost cutting measures. “We” don’t deserve to suffer the consequences of the recklessness and negligence of a specific party.

Gonzalo Lira says:

July 10, 2010 at 9:42 am

What happens when this stuff starts to rain on people?

I saw a video on YouTube of the New Orleans Superdome—its white roof was streaked with what was very obviously oil.

This stuff—Corexit mixed with oil—will soon start raining down on people—it’s inevitable. What will happen then?

Neil D says:

July 10, 2010 at 10:19 am

Just like acid rain from power plants? Again, these things are the natural and predictable consequences of our industrial existence. We’ve destroyed habitats and killed off untolled thousands of species of plants and animals in the last 5000 years. It’s what we do. We are like a plague of locusts devouring resources in one area and then moving on to the next. Someone should stop us before we kill ourselves off.
- alex says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 10:54 am
  
  “Just like acid rain from power plants? Again, these things are the natural and predictable consequences of our industrial existence.”
  
  Does that mean that dramatically reducing sulfur emissions was unnatural and unpredictable?
  
  Saying that we’ll inevitability get some undesirable side effects from our industrial existence is hardly an excuse for not trying to reduce them.
  - Neil D says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 11:31 am
    
    Hi Alex – you know, I am on your side. I just think this talk about the dispersants is, well, kind of silly. I do not mean to leave the impression that we should not mitigate the damage we cause. Clearly it is in our interest to do so.
    
    Some thought, perhaps incorrectly, that dispersants would do exactly that. Sometimes you fight the fires and sometimes you let them burn. It’s a tough call.
    
    But to answer your question, no – efforts to reduce pollution are not unnatural. :) Neither are locusts.
    - alex says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 11:45 am
      
      I’m undecided on the dispersants issue. My favorite source of information on the disaster is theoildrum.com which, while populated by many peak oil apocalyptics and off-the-grid dreamers, is also populated by many who are experienced and knowledgeable about oil and related industries. No apologists, they’re happy to weigh in with informed pros and cons.
      
      Nevertheless by using a “shit happens” flippancy you’re saying that because shit happens, we shouldn’t worry about shit. That’s very different from trying to be realistic about tradeoffs, which may be your actual position.
    - Neil D says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 11:51 am
      
      Shit happens is my actual position. From my very first comment: “Sometimes there are no good options once disaster strikes.”
      
      But hey – the conversation often wanders and I do get flippant and sarcastic with my posts. Guilty as charged.
    - Neil D says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm
      
      Oops. Being realistic about trade-offs is my actual position. Shit occassionally happening is part of the trade/risk.
- Vangel says:
  
  July 10, 2010 at 11:42 am
  
  Just like acid rain from power plants?
  
  The acid rain scare turned out to be nothing and was not supported by the science.
  
  Again, these things are the natural and predictable consequences of our industrial existence. We’ve destroyed habitats and killed off untolled thousands of species of plants and animals in the last 5000 years. It’s what we do.
  
  We change the environment because our population grows. But we learn and have no desire to live in polluted conditions so we improve our immediate environment as soon as we can rise above a certain standard of living. Our sulfur dioxide emissions are a small fraction of what they used to be and most of those emissions came long before the federal government got into the act by regulating activities. There is no need to apologize for industrialization because without it our lives would be a lot worse and much shorter. (And so would the environment.)
  
  We are like a plague of locusts devouring resources in one area and then moving on to the next. Someone should stop us before we kill ourselves off.
  
  Nonsense. We only act as ‘locusts’ when property rights are ill defined and anyone is permitted to take as much as s/he wished from the commons. When resources are privately owned people have an incentive to look after them. Don’t you remember when alligators were an endangered species in Florida? When they were in the wild and could be killed because of the value of their skins or their meat the population crashed. But when people were allowed to make money from them, private individuals caused the population to explode because they could make a decent retun by running alligator farms.
  - Neil D says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    
    You have more faith in humanity than I do. :)
    
    Property rights may be a constraint on my ability to destroy your garden, but I can still turn my own into a sand box if I wish. And if enough of us like sand boxes… we can create a desert around your garden and cause a drought! If we refuse to let you pipe water across our land to your garden, it will die too.
    
    I’m sticking with the locust analogy.
    
    Everything is, in my opinion, natural. My house is no different from a bird nest, beaver dam, or ant hill.
  - alex says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    
    “We only act as ‘locusts’ when property rights are ill defined and anyone is permitted to take as much as s/he wished from the commons.”
    
    You’re absolutely right, but later on you make the mistake of assuming that rights to private property are the only type of property rights. There are also rights to common property, which requires regulation of how people are allowed to use the commons. This is a principle that has been used successfully, alongside rights to private property, for thousands of years. There is nothing new about it and you don’t have to wear Birkenstocks to appreciate it.
    
    The tragedy of the commons is a tragedy of poor regulation. While you may prefer private property rights to common property rights, it’s hard to imagine the former being useful without the latter. Exactly which individuals own the Gulf of Mexico, or which individuals do you propose selling it to? How about the rest of the ocean, as water is notorious for not respecting the boundaries of private property.
  - Neil D says:
    
    July 10, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    
    So do the ants whose ant hill that got flooded by the beaver’s damn have property rights too? Talk about pollution!
    
    OK, now I’m being silly.
    - alex says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm
      
      Ever seen a beaver covered in ants? What they lack in a formal system of torts they more than compensate for in “forest justice”.
    - Neil D says:
      
      July 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm
      
      Alex – “forest justice” – That is funny. Thanks for the conversation.
- NOTaREALmerican says:
  
  July 12, 2010 at 1:34 pm
  
  Re: Someone should stop us before we kill ourselves off.
  
  There is no need too. The pessimists will stop breeding, the optimists will keep breeding. This means human optimism will continuously increase; meaning that – long term – things will improve.
  
  Dude, these new life-time hazmat suits are – like – totally cool dude. Dude, like, dude, is this the greatest time in the world ever too live, Dude!? Dude, America, dude. F**** yeah!
John L says:

July 10, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Stop with the hysterics, please. Oil cannot be evaporated into water and then precipitated back out in the rain. The videos on YouTube showing “oil in the rain” ignored that oil is on every street in the country. I don’t know what you saw on the Superdome but I doubt it was oil.
Kait says:

July 12, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Pray tell, how does oil get into the atomosphere to rain down on us? That makes no logical sense. It does not evaporate as itself and go into the atmosphere…too heavy for one thing. I am not a scientist, but I do have logical thought process.

betty fords empty glass says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Is Corexit Cocktail going to cause leukemia in GOM??????

Ten years after the incident, New York State Health Department Commissioner David Axelrod stated that Love Canal would long be remembered as a “national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations.”[1] The Love Canal incident was especially significant as a situation where the inhabitants “overflowed into the wastes instead of the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

NOTaREALmerican says:

July 12, 2010 at 1:36 pm

The Indians and Chinese – with thousands of Love Canals (perhaps more?) – have proven that humans can happily and optimistically reproduce in toxic filth.

Are we saying that Americans are weaker than the Chinese?!

(That’s not very patriotic).

shit happening in GOM says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Love Canal, along with Times Beach, Missouri, share a special place in United States environmental history as the two sites that in large part led to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA is much more commonly referred to as “Superfund” because of the fund established within the act to help the clean-up of toxically polluted residential locations such as Love Canal. It has been stated that Love Canal has “become the symbol for what happens when hazardous industrial products are not confined to the workplace but ‘hit people where they live’ in unestimable amounts.

Superfund allows Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to be held liable for clean-up costs for a release or threatened release of a “hazardous substance.” But the law defines this term to exclude oil and natural gas (CERCLA 2008).
Consequently, the industry has little incentive to clean up its hazardous waste and to minimize leaks and spills. In 2006, oil companies in Campbell County, Wyoming reported five spills including 265 barrels of oil that leaked from a storage tank and 150 barrels from a valve left open. (Mall et al. 2008, NRS 2008). IHS data show that
Campbell County is one of the most intensively drilled counties in the West.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass-for-Oil-and-Gas/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Exemptions

crude investments says:

July 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Bottom line, BP walks away from all liability.

Additionally, the Court has and intends to exercise its inherent powers to enforce its own directives. Circuit courts have the jurisdiction and the power to make any order to fully effectuate the circuit courts’ jurisdiction and judgments. See St. Clair Commercial
& Savings Bank v. Macauley, 66 Mich App 210 (1975); Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, 106 Mich App 452 (1981); Cohen v. Cohen, 125 Mich App 206 (1983); MCL 600.611. This case ended up in Court initially because no clean up of significant pollution had even begun
without Court intervention. The MDEQ, and subsequently the defendant, sought to invoke the equitable and statutory powers of the Court to bring about remediation of a dangerous contamination of the public’s water supply. Eventually a judgment was entered and remediation orders have been made by the Court to effectuate that
judgment and the goal of cleaning up this pollution. Despite the best efforts of the parties, it is not done. The extent of the contamination is deeper and greater than originally known, perhaps aggravated many years ago both by the initial resistance of Gelman and the initial ineffectiveness of the State agency.

http://www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/gelman/Court%20Order%20Dec%202004%20Unit%20E%20(1).pdf

Please buy BP stock and help America drill! Exxon didn’t pay, BP wont either; buy now and don’t get priced out!!!!!

Kait says:

July 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm

What about the 18 Billion that Obama has already extracted from BP? No liability? Really?
You’d think we’d never had an oil spill before. We have.
If you are so upset about oil drilling, I welcome you to stop using petroleum products in protest. For starters: Stop driving. Stop using plastic. Stop shipping or receiving packages, stop buying products that come via truck from elsewhere. Live off your land. Walk.
The oil spill is a disaster, a huge accident. Not one company at fault tho they will accept blame.
Accident means not on purpose. They are doing their best to fix it, with their hands tied by govt. red tape and laws, which is slow to help. Methinks that someone wants to make them look really bad for agenda purposes.
- NOTaREALmerican says:
  
  July 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm
  
  It’s pretty obvious who wants them too look bad too.
  
  The same Party that likes “those people”. You figure it out!

doc holiday says:

July 10, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Obama loses in court again over deepwater drilling moratorium

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0709/Obama-loses-in-court-again-over-deepwater-drilling-moratorium

Questioned by Judge Smith, US Attorney Gray said he did not know when Secretary Salazar might issue the new moratorium. “The secretary is looking at a new decision based on new information,” Gray said. “It is not tied to this court’s decision.”

Dispute on Oil Spill Panel Flares Before First Meeting

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704799604575357350741148766.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

John L says:

July 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Doesn’t matter; the MMS has already given the drilling companies new certification regs that they have to sign off on before getting a drilling permit. One requirement is that the CEO of the company has to agree that all safety devices are in working order, all safety regulations are followed, and there is no chance that a blowout will happen, under penalty of criminal law.

No one will sign off on that, meaning no permits will be issued.

Tore Fossum says:

July 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm

The corexit dilemma probably fans worry all out of proportion to its actual toxic potential. Any detergent, even dish detergent, will disrupt bacterial cell walls, when it is in high concentration. Diluted a million to one in seawater, the bacteria are safe. And, yes, it causes large globules of oil to disperse into thousands of small ones, all the better for the petroleum eating bacteria in the Gulf to consume them. If workers are dumping corexit into seawater, they better wear protective clothing. This is a matter of routine in any analytical chemical laboratory or chemical plant. Humans do not do well when exposed to solvents, surfactants, even seawater, over extended periods of time. Therefore we protect them when they work with these materials. But if you dip your buns into sea water with 1 ppm corexit, you are likely to never know it. Bioaccumulation is another issue, and we should probably wait 6 months or so, then assess if sea life in the Gulf is safe to eat. The petroleum in the Gulf, from natural seeps, as well as from the BP disaster, is probably far more likely to give you indigestion than the corexit dispersant. Keep in mind that oil has been seeping essentially forever, and the natural systems in the Gulf take care of it. The tarballs we had on Galveston beaches after the blowout in the Bay of Campeche in 1979 are long gone. In ten years, there will be little evidence of the BP well blowout, and probably less because of the use of dispersants.

Subscribe to: Post Comments