FDA reverses position on BPA in plastics, now admits concern over the chemical

E. Huff
Natural News
June 17, 2010

Following its 2008 declaration that the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) is a safe additive in food and beverage plastics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received criticism from consumer advocacy groups and others for neglecting scientific evidence that indicated the contrary. The agency reluctantly agreed to review its position and recently reversed its position, declaring that it now has concerns about the safety of BPA.

Several scientific studies have verified that BPA is a highly toxic endocrine disruptor that can impede proper reproductive function and lead to cardiovascular disease, liver problems, and diabetes. It is especially harmful during the early developmental stages because it hinders the proper development of organ tissues and glands and inhibits proper sexual maturity.

A 2009 Harvard University study found that people who drank from polycarbonate bottles containing BPA for just one week experienced a two-thirds increase of BPA in their urine. Published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the study verified that the BPA used in containers leaches very easily into food and beverages, especially when heated.

Manufacturers of plastic containers have been using BPA since the 1960s because it helps to harden plastic and make it more durable. It is also used in food can linings and other packaging materials where it leaches into food. According to many studies, nearly everyone is exposed to BPA, including unborn babies still in the womb.

Despite mounting evidence concerning its dangers, FDA officials, in conjunction with chemical industry spokesmen, have long denied that BPA is dangerous. After giving the chemical a thumb’s up in 2008, the FDA submitted its report to an independent panel of scientific advisors which lambasted the agency for failing to properly evaluate important evidence that indicated the dangers associated with BPA. Recognizing that scrutiny of its failure was only intensifying, the FDA finally conceded that BPA is dangerous and that further research is needed to verify just how dangerous it really is.

Many manufacturers have already begun to voluntarily remove BPA from their products, particularly those that produce products for babies and young children. Chicago, Suffolk County, New York, and Canada have all outlawed BPA from being used children’s products.

The FDA officially recognizes BPA as a food additive, a difficult category for which to make regulatory changes. FDA officials have expressed support for reclassifying BPA as a “food contact substance” which would allow the agency more control over how it is regulated.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/h…

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pr…

Who Died And Made BP King Of The Gulf Of Mexico?

The Economic Collapse
June 18, 2010

There is one question that I would really like an answer to.  Who died and made BP king of the Gulf of Mexico?  In recent weeks, BP has almost seemed more interested in keeping the American people away from the oil spill than in actually cleaning it up.  Journalists are being pushed around and denied access, disaster workers are being intimidated and abused and now BP has even go so far as to hire an army of private mercenaries to enforce their will along the Gulf coast.  Are we suddenly living in occupied Iraq?  How in the world did a foreign oil company get the right to start pointing guns at the American people?  The last time I checked, BP did not own the Gulf of Mexico and did not have the right to tell the American people where they can and cannot go.  The truth is that BP could have avoided all of this by running an open, honest and transparent operation from the start.  They could have welcomed help from all sources, they could have tried to be open with the media, and they could have tried to be fair with the volunteers and rescue workers.  But instead BP has been conducting this whole thing as if we are living in a totalitarian dictatorship and they are the dictators.

Over the last several weeks, members of the mainstream media attempting to cover the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been yelled at, harassed, kicked off public beaches and threatened with arrest.  The Obama administration keeps promising ”to improve media access”, but so far their promises haven’t seemed to make much difference.  In fact, a recent AP reportdetailed several recent highly disturbing incidents of journalist intimidation….  

On June 5, sheriff’s deputies in Grand Isle threatened an AP photographer with arrest for criminal trespassing after he spoke to BP employees and took pictures of cleanup workers on a public beach.

On June 6, an AP reporter was in a boat near an island in Barataria Bay when a man in another boat identifying himself as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee ordered the reporter to leave the area. When the reporter asked to see identification, the man refused, saying “My name doesn’t matter, you need to go.”

According to a June 10 CNN video, one of the network’s news crews was told by a bird rescue worker that he signed a contract with BP stating that he would not talk to the media. The crew was also turned away by BP contractors working at a bird triage area — despite having permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter the facility.

On June 11 and 12, private security guards patrolling in the Grand Isle area attempted repeatedly to prevent a crew from New Orleans television station WDSU from walking on a public beach and speaking with cleanup workers.But it is not just the media that are being pushed around.  The Louisiana Environmental Action Network is reporting that BP is actually threatening to fire fishermen hired to help with the oil spill cleanup for using respirators and other safety equipment that wasn’t provided by the company.Seriously.

The workers say that they are only using their own safety equipment because BP has not provided what they need.  It is a fact that a large number of rescue workers have already gotten sick enough to be admitted to the hospital, so it certainly makes sense that those working to clean up the oil would want to do whatever they can to stay safe.

But no, BP has to be a bunch of jerks about the whole thing.

Even the EPA says that workers need to be careful.  Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s office of solid waste and emergency response, made the following statement during an interview on Thursday….  

“There’s no way you can be working in that toxic soup without getting exposures.”

It’s not just the oil that is the problem.  The chemical dispersants that BP is using in the Gulf are even more toxic than the oil.  In fact, because it is so extremely toxic, the UK’s Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the North Sea, BP would not be able to use it.

But the Obama administration has allowed BP to dump over a million gallons of Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and other highly toxic dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico.

Apparently the truth is that BP would rather disperse the oil so that the spill doesn’t look so bad even if it means creating an ecological disaster of nightmarish proportions.

 

You see, these days BP does what it wants, and anyone who doesn’t like it gets pushed out of the way.

Monique Harden, the co-director and attorney at the New Orleans-based Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, is so outraged over BP’s behavior that she recently made the following statement….

“BP should not be running the Gulf region like a prison warden, and we’ve got to stop that.”

But rather than becoming more open and taking responsibility for their actions, BP has now hired private security contractors to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites.

In other words, BP has brought in a horde of private mercenaries (just like the U.S. uses in Iraq and Afghanistan) to muscle the American people around.

Yeah, we are really going to appreciate that.

Doesn’t BP understand that the American people do not respond well to this kind of nonsense?

In fact, it is being alleged that BP has actually attempted to manipulate the search results on sites like Google and Yahoo.

They seem absolutely obsessed with controlling what we see and think.

Perhaps what BP should be obsessed with is stopping the oil from shooting out of the ground.

Meanwhile, BP execs are busy testifying in front of Congress and making half-hearted apologies.

 

 

Carl-Henric Svanberg, the BP chairman, has even apologized for referring to those affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as “small people”.

Isn’t that nice of him?

While all of this is going on, BP is already trying to ensure that things go their way legally.  Back in May, BP requested that one particular judge be assigned to preside over all lawsuits related to the spill.  Well, it turns out that this particular judge gets tens of thousands of dollars a year in oil royalties and is paid travel expenses to attend oil industry conferences.

Isn’t that convenient?

But that is how the game is played these days.

Meanwhile, the “oil volcano” on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico continues to pump out a nightmarish amount of oil every single day.  BP is even admitting that oil is escaping from the leak at such high pressure that if they try to cap it the entire well may blow.

So this crisis may keep getting worse for months.

By the time this is over, will anything in the Gulf be left alive?

Even now, hordes of dolphins, fish, sharks, crabs, rays and other sea creatures find themselves trapped between the rapidly advancing oil and the shore.  Unprecedented numbers are showing up just off the Gulf coast in an attempt to escape certain death, but once the oil reaches shore there will be nowhere else for them to go.  The tragedy will be unspeakable.

Things did not have to turn out this way.  BP and the Obama administration could have done things much differently.  But they didn’t.

Now we all have to live with the results.

Obama To Use BP Oil Spill As An Opportunity To Push His Economy Killing Climate Change Bill

Never one to to allow a "good crisis" to go to waste, Barack Obama is pledging to use the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an opportunity to push the U.S. Congress to pass his controversial climate bill.  In fact, during a recent interview Obama directly compared the current crisis in the Gulf to 9/11, and indicated that he believed that it would fundamentally change the way that we all look at energy issues from now on.  But the truth is that Obama’s climate bill is the same economy killing legislation that it was before the BP oil spill.  It would still drive gas and electricity prices through the roof, it would still cause large numbers of U.S. businesses to flee overseas, it would still be one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history and it would still usher in an unprecedented era of climate fascism.  But now thanks to the BP oil spill there is suddenly a lot more momentum in Congress for doing something about energy and about "climate change".

Of course the truth is that carbon dioxide is not causing climate changeand high levels of carbon dioxide are actually very good for the environment, but reducing carbon emissions has almost become a religion for radical environmentalists, and Barack Obama is absolutely determined to push through his "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme.  In fact, just as 9/11 completely changed the war that Americans viewed the fight against terrorism, Barack Obama sees the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico fundamentally changing the way that Americans see energy issues.  During a recent interview, Obama told Politico columnist Roger Simon the following….

"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come."

Not only that, but Obama considers it one of his greatest "leadership challenges" to make sure that we all "draw the right lessons" from the BP oil spill….

"One of the biggest leadership challenges for me going forward is going to be to make sure that we draw the right lessons from this disaster."

So what are those "right lessons"?

Well, apparently what we are all supposed to get out of this disaster are the lessons that Obama has been trying to "teach" us all along – that carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes are good for us.

But Barack Obama is not the only one urging us to learn the "right lessons" from the BP oil spill.

In a recent interview with ABC News, Microsoft’s Bill Gates also linked the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with "climate change".  Gates warned that if we don’t make the necessary changes soon that we will suffer severe consequences….

"We’ll have more crises like the oil spill and we’ll have the supply disruption. We’ll start to see more and more effects of the climate problem."

But would the climate bill that Obama is pushing really save us from "climate change"?

Of course not.

But Barack Obama’s climate change bill would do the following things….

*It would drive gas and electricity prices through the roof.

*It would crush the already fragile U.S. economy by piling a bunch of new taxes and regulations on U.S. businesses.  Needless to say, large numbers of them would begin looking for greener pastures.

*It would increase worldwide pollution by forcing companies out of the U.S. and into nations that have no restrictions on pollution whatsoever.

*When you add up all of the overt and hidden taxes in the bill, it would represent one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history.

*Since every action we take involves the production of carbon emissions (including every breath that we take), it would open the door for an era of tyrannical climate fascism where the U.S. government literally monitors every aspect of our lives to make sure that we are being "eco-friendly".

But Barack Obama makes this climate bill sound like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  In fact, he continues to promise that the number of "green jobs" gained by this bill will far outweigh the number of other jobs lost.

But is this true?

Of course not.

In fact, other countries that have tried a "cap and trade" scheme have experienced disastrous results.  For example, a leaked internal assessment produced by the government of Spain reveals that the "green economy" therehas been an absolute economic nightmare for that nation.  Energy prices have skyrocketed in Spain and the new "green economy" in that nation has actually lost more than two jobs for every job that it has created.

The unemployment rate in Spain is now hovering around 20 percent and the economy there is on the verge of complete and total collapse.  In fact, if the government of Spain does end up defaulting on their debts, it could make the financial crisis that has been unfolding in Greece look like a Sunday picnic.  

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that a climate bill like the one Spain implemented will devastate the U.S. economy.  But facts haven’t gotten in the way of Barack Obama pushing his agenda before, so why should they now?

However, it is not just Barack Obama that is pushing an agenda of trying to radically reduce carbon emissions.  All over the world, many of the global elite have joined forces with the radical environmentalists in an effort to "save the world" from the growing "threat" of carbon dioxide.

And since each person on this planet is a source of constant carbon emissions,  many of those who truly believe in this radical environmental agenda consider the rapidly growing population of the earth to be the number one cause of climate change.

  

You see, to those obsessed with "climate change", just getting corporations around the globe to radically cut carbon emissions is not nearly going to be good enough.  The truth is that they know that in order to get carbon emissions down to where they want them to be, they are going to have to do something about the growing world population.

To them, in the "war against climate change" anyone who breathes is the enemy.  In fact, according to an official UN report, no human can ever truly be "carbon neutral".

So please understand that for those obsessed with climate change, "carbon taxes" and "cap and trade" are just the beginning.  To truly achieve their goals, "one child policies" and "forced abortions" will also be necessary.

So if Barack Obama does get his climate bill pushed through Congress and it does kill the U.S. economy, that would only be a "first step" for those truly dedicated to the radical environmental agenda.  What they have planned down the road is a whole lot more horrific.

Cutting Through The BS Of The Afghanistan Resource “Bonanza” – Mineral deposits worth up to $3 trillion

Cutting Through The BS Of The Afghanistan Resource “Bonanza”

Louis James
Casey’s International Speculator
Friday, June 18th, 2010

Geological anomalies are like opinions: Everybody has one

There’s a great deal of chatter in the press and online about the tremendous US$1-trillion-dollar mineral “discovery” in Afghanistan headlined by The New York Times recently. Most of the discussion seems to centre on whether or not this is really news and whether or not the NYT was played by the powers that be for purposes of their own. Few, if any, people seem to be questioning the value of the so-called discovery itself. The US$1-trillion-dollar figure, at best, cannot be anything more than the wildest of hopeful guesses.

One does not have to be a geologist or an engineer to understand why. When geologists find outcropping mineralization, or other signs that an economic deposit of minerals may be present, that is not called a discovery. Even if the signs come from the latest scientific equipment flown over the country, as the U.S. government appears to have used, the result is still just an anomaly: a hopeful indication of where to look. And anomalies are like opinions: Everybody has one.

Once an anomaly is identified, it takes extensive and very expensive field work to determine the best locations for drilling holes in the ground, which you have to do to calculate a volume of mineralized rock, from which you can estimate the metal contained. It usually takes at least a year, and often several, to identify targets for drilling. And drilling off a deposit of any significant size takes several more years, usually after many false starts and setbacks, because you can’t see through rock to know where the goods are.

But even after you drill off a deposit, and know how big it is, how deep it is, and roughly what’s in it, you still don’t know what it’s worth. For that, you have to conduct extensive testing on the mineralized material, not just to quantify the metals or other desirable minerals within but also to see if there are contaminants, or other elements present that can complicate, or even make impossible the economic recovery of the valuable mineral.

In short, until you know how much it would cost to mine and process any sort of mineralized material into a saleable product, like gold bars, copper concentrate, etc., you cannot say what it’s worth. Even a huge deposit of gold may be completely worthless if the grade is low and there’s lots of carbon that would mess up the gold recovery.

Now, back to Afghanistan. A “small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists” cannot possibly have drilled off these deposits, let alone done the engineering required to value them. At very best, they’ve spotted some outcrops and taken some samples. This is not a discovery — no serious exploration geologist would call anything a discovery until enough holes have been drilled into it to outline a significant volume of potentially economic material.

What we have here is a regional survey that may or may not lead to significant discoveries.

Where do they get the trillion-dollar figure? We can only guess but given their own description, they cannot have done the work necessary to generate any reasonable estimate. It’s worth pointing out that the vast majority of mineral outcroppings and other anomalies never lead to economic discoveries, much less mines. Even a very rich vein sticking right out on surface can turn out to be the last dregs of a system that has been eroded away, leaving nothing but a tease behind. For gold, the odds of an anomaly leading to an economic discovery are often cited as being on the order of 300 to one, against.

No responsible geologist would circulate a valuation figure at this stage of the process in Afghanistan. In fact, if a public company put out a press release like this story in the NYT, the exchange would likely reprimand it severely and require a retraction.

Now, the soldier quoted admits that “There are a lot of ifs,” but that does not excuse putting out the US$1-trillion figure, a number that cannot be reasonably supported at this point.

Note that this doesn’t mean the minerals are not there — Afghanistan has, for obvious reasons, not seen any modern exploration, or even antiquated exploration, for decades. It is, in all likelihood, a terrific place to look for minerals. But the government’s story sounds like the sort of PR stunt put out by Pink Sheet scammers.

It will take time for any real discoveries to be made, especially given the time required to draft a workable mining law and for physical security to be established in the country. It would be a great benefit to the people of Afghanistan, and of the world, if this would happen.

 

Afghan mineral deposits worth up to $3 trillion

KABUL: Initial discoveries of untapped mineral deposits in poverty-stricken Afghanistan are "worth up to three trillion dollars", the country’s mines minister said Thursday.
The government tally came three days after US officials put their estimate of the value of the country’s reserves of iron, copper, cobalt and gold at at least one trillion dollars.
Mines Minister Wahidullah Shahrani said the US value of the Afghan resource wealth was a "very conservative estimate" and the Afghan evaluation was substantially more than that.
"Although it has not been confirmed yet and is subject to more exploration and drilling, the idea is that it could be up to three trillion (dollars)," Shahrani said.
"The scientists always use a very conservative approach to make sure that information will not be biased," he said.
Shahrani said it had been known for decades that the country has vast mineral wealth but the details of the deposits were only revealed in a survey recently conducted by the US Geological Survey.
"Our key mineral deposits are huge," he said, adding that there are vast reserves of the metal lithium, used to make batteries for electronics and produce medicines.
Some of the minerals are located in areas where the Taliban have a strong presence, a factor that could make the mines less attractive to foreign investors.
The mineral discoveries are also seen as potentially stoking the insurgency rather than bringing peace because the Taliban could fight more fiercely to regain control of the country and its newfound wealth.
The minister admitted that "still there are some challenges in terms of security in certain parts of the country" but expressed confidence that it was a short-term threat.
More than 120,000 foreign troops have been deployed in Afghanistan to battle an insurgency waged by the Taliban, which was ousted in a US-led invasion in late 2001.
Economic analysts said that with the country’s current poor infrastructure, it would need years to develop its mining industry while also worrying that the newfound wealth could be lost to graft as Afghanistan is ranked among the two most corrupt states in the world.
"Our focus will be mainly to enhance our capacities to make sure that we will get the maximum economic benefit from this opportunity in the most efficient and transparent manner," Shahrani insisted.
He said he hoped his country would attract foreign investment at a road show that his ministry would organise June 25 in London, to which more than 200 global organisations were invited.

American was on solo mission to kill Bin Laden, Pakistani police say

Gary Brooks Faulkner, a construction worker, was arrested in a mountainous region of Pakistan, armed with a pistol, dagger, night-vision goggles and a belief that he could kill the terrorist on his own, Pakistani police say.

 

 

 

By Alex Rodriguez and Zulfiqar Ali

June 16, 2010

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan —

The U.S. has spent nine years and billions of dollars trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden amid the rugged, lawless badlands along Pakistani-Afghan border.
But according to Pakistani officials, Gary Brooks Faulkner thought he could get the job done himself, with a pistol, a dagger and a pair of night-vision goggles.
The construction worker, whose age was variously reported as 52 and 40, was arrested early Monday in Pakistan’s Chitral region, a mountainous, forested expanse along the Afghan border. When questioned, he told authorities that he was "on a mission to decapitate Bin Laden," Pakistani police officers quoted Faulkner as saying.

---

Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up »

---

Faulkner didn’t get very far, they said. He had been staying at a hotel in the town of Bumburate in Chitral since June 3. Local police were providing security for him, not uncommon in regions along the border where kidnappings and killings of foreigners have occurred. But on Sunday, he sneaked out of the hotel without telling the officer who was assigned to him.
After a 10-hour manhunt, he was picked up on a mountain path as he was trying to make his way across the border and into Nuristan, an eastern Afghanistan province that abuts Chitral, according to Pakistani officials. He was moved to the northwest city of Peshawar for further questioning, they said.
Faulkner was not made immediately available to speak with the media about the Pakistani statements.
Police said Faulkner told them he was intent on scouring caves and remote villages in eastern Afghanistan for Bin Laden because he regarded the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist network as a "constant threat to America."
The area is one of many where Bin Laden has long been rumored to be holed up. Bin Laden has been the subject of an intensive search by U.S. officials, who have offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture.
According to the Associated Press, Faulkner told police that he had visited Pakistan seven times and that this was his third trip to Chitral, which is a mountainous region that attracts Western tourists and hikers. The news service reported that local police quoted Faulkner as saying, "God is with me, and I am confident I will be successful in killing him."
U.S. Embassy spokesman Richard Snelsire said the embassy had been notified of the arrest of a U.S. citizen, and was working on arranging a consular visit with that individual. Snelsire declined further comment.
alex.rodriguez@latimes.com
Times staff writer Rodriguez reported from Islamabad and special correspondent Ali from Peshawar.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527

Corexit: the Musical!

by M STYBORSKI on MAY 28, 2010 · 8 COMMENTS

A Nalco press release today on Rigzone restates the company’s claim that Corexit is the safest possible dispersant available for use in oil related disasters. Nalco claims that the “safer” Corexit 9500 is the only disperant they are manufacturing for use in the Gulf. Perhaps true but possibly misleading as BP lists 80,345 gallons of the more toxic Corexit 9527 among its weapons for fighting oil slicks and it has already been reported that both versions have been applied in the current disaster. (That’s one-tenth of the 830,000 gallons of Corexit which has been used to date in the Gulf.)

Nalco also claims that the EPA’s Lisa Jackson and RAdm Mary Landry have both touted the positive effects Corexit has had on the oil in the Gulf but this must be taken with a grain of salt. While I’ll refrain from commenting on Landry’s fine ombudsmanship of BP, on May 24th, Jackson is quoted as saying, “Our tracking indicates that the dispersants are breaking up the oil and speeding its biodegradation, with limited environmental impact at this time.” For the records, dispersants do nothing to biodegrade oil. Biodegradation is a natural process which happens with or without application of dispersants. The only thing dispersants do is help the oil lose cohesive bond with itself and the surface, allowing it to sink out of sight.

Unfortunaltely it also increases the area of the oil. From a May 11th Fast Company article:

“They’re also called dispersants for a reason. The chemicals break up the oil and then disperse it, so instead of having the oil collect at the surface, dispersed droplets of oil can spread more quickly and in more directions. This means the droplets linger longer in the water, collecting on the seabed and harming the ecosystem offshore.”

The article also mentions toxicology expert Dr William Sawyer’s claim that Corexit is also known as deodorized kerosene.

The press release then mentions six ingredients of Corexit –not by name, of course– and how they can be found in everyday products such as soap, shampoo, hand creams and household cleaners. Well, they must be safe, right? No one ever got sick from eating soap, right? Just because these chemicals are safe in one setting does not mean they are safe together! Bleach and ammonia by themselves are bad enough but mix them together and you can actually kill yourself from the resultant fumes!

In the “Safety” section of the press release there is this statement:

“Data published by Environment Canada, that country’s main environmental agency, in 1991 showed common household dish soap as having a substantially higher rainbow trout toxicity than COREXIT 9527. Put another way, COREXIT 9527 is more than 7 times safer than dish soap. COREXIT 9500 is the next generation of COREXIT products and features an improved formula.”

What? When you strip the blah-blah from that, it reads: Corexit 9527 is safer than dish soap for rainbow trout. Corexit 9500 is different from 9527 so it’s better. The two statements have NOTHING to do with one another but the spin certainly paints a pretty safe picture! As for the tests on trout, last time I looked there was a slight difference beetween trout and human biology.

The “Biodegredation” section reads thus:

“A March, 1994, report created by France’s Institut National de L’Enviroenment Industriel et des Risques indicated that COREXIT 9500 largely biodegraded in 28 days. COREXIT oil dispersant was first applied to the Gulf oil slick on April 23.”

Well, that’s cool. Gone in 28 days! Except for that “largely” stuck in the middle there. The fact is that the independent lab test –required by France but not the US– stated that 78% of the product degraded over 28 days as reported by theBellingham Herald. I don’t know how long the other 22% lingered but this means that after a month there may be as much as 182,600 gallons (of the 830,000 gallons used so far) of Corexit floating around in the Gulf. What is the half-life of the remaining 22%?

The Nalco data suggests that Corexits degradation happens from the time it hits the surface of the water to a depth of 10 meters (32 feet). Processes differ at different temperatures and pressures. Can Nalco’s data be trusted to remain accurate at a depth of 5000 feet?

The press release closes with a section on “Application” which again states that Corexit should be sprayed from planes and boats. Nowhere does it recommend dumping gallons of Corexit a mile below the surface.

-M Styborski

 

The dispersants Corexit 9500 and 9527 are of similar acute toxicity to animal life.

Abstract Title:

Comparison of acute aquatic effects of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 with those of other Corexit series dispersants.

Article Link:

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1996 Nov ;35(2):183-9.

Article Source:

Pubmed

Abstract Author(s):

I Lee, L L Weetman, M L Sowby, M M Singer, R S Tjeerdema, S George, S Jacobson

Article Affiliation:

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz 95064, USA.

Abstract:

The acute aquatic toxicity of a new Corexit series dispersant, Corexit 9500, was evaluated and compared with that of others in the series using early life stages of two common nearshore marine organisms: the red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) and a kelp forest mysid (Holmesimysis costata). Spiked-concentration testing was performed under closed, flowthrough conditions, with dispersant concentrations measured in real time using UV spectrophotometry. Median-effect concentrations ranged from 12.8 to 19.7 initial ppm for Haliotis and from 158.0 to 245.4 initial ppm for Holmesimysis. The difference in sensitivity of the two types of tests was consistent with patterns seen with other oil dispersants. Also, these data indicate Corexit 9500 to be of similar toxicity to Corexit 9527 and 9554. Corexit 9500 represents a reformulation of a long-time industry "standard," Corexit 9527, to allow use on higher viscosity oils and emulsions. The present data suggest that acute aquatic toxicity concerns surrounding the use of this newer dispersant should not be significantly different from those associated with the use of Corexit 9527.

 

 

Oil dispersants used in Gulf of Mexico spill causing alarm

Published: Monday, May 17, 2010, 3:32 PM     Updated: Monday, May 17, 2010, 3:38 PM

Dennis Pillion, al.com
Follow

A U.S. Air Force C-130 crew conducts a spray mission from Stennis International Airport, Kiln, MS in support of Deep Water Horizon. (Still shot from a video by Staff Sgt. Jose Contreras.)

 

BP has used almost 600,000 gallons of the oil dispersant Corexit at the surface of the Gulf of Mexico to break-up the slick from the Deepwater Horizon spill, but concerns are growing about the environmental impact of those chemicals on the Gulf ecosystems and human residents of the area.
Federal officials have expressed the need for more toxicology studies on the dispersants, and whether dispersed oil is any less of a threat than non-dispersed oil. One toxicology expert, Dr. William Sawyer, called the products "deodorized kerosene," and a group of Louisiana fisherman and marine toxicologist Riki Ott are asking President Barack Obama to order BP to stop using the compound.

Most experts won’t go that far, but even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco admitted in a recent conference callthat the effects of the dispersants are largely unknown. Most of the studies performed on the agents have been testing effectiveness on dispersing oil, not on toxicity.
"There are a diversity of types of habitats in the Gulf," Lubchenco said. "Many of them are very important in support of a variety of wildlife and fisheries. At this point many of them are at risk of being affected but we don’t have any direct way to know exactly which ones or in what amount."
Over the weekend, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the go-ahead to begin using the dispersants at depth to break up the oil, another largely untested process.
The exact chemical composition of the dispersants being used is not public information, but the products are called Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500. Corexit 9527 was used in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill, and contains 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical solvent that is used in paint thinners and varnish removers, among other products.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the CDC, describes 2-butoxyethanol as a toxic compound with a host of negative effects on humans, including kidney and liver damage at high doses. The data material safety sheets for both Corexit 9527 andCorexit 9500 advise "Do not contaminate surface water," under the heading "Environmental Precautions."
Corexit 9500 is a newer formula that does not include 2-butoxyethanol. Jackson said the EPA had approved both Corexit products for use, and did not know how much of the total 582,416 gallons used was 9527 and how much was 9500.
There is also concern that Corexit may not be the best choice to break up Louisiana crude.Greenwire‘s Paul Quinlan reported that 12 EPA-approved dispersants were more effective on southern Louisiana crude, and some of those were less toxic than the Corexit products.
Quinlan also reports that Nalco, the company that makes Corexit, "boasts oil-industry insiders on its board of directors and among its executives, including an 11-year board member at BP and a top Exxon executive."

 

Dispersant Stockpile

Type: Dispersant (Corexit 9500/9527)
Primary Use: Nearshore/Offshore

Use: COREXIT 9527 and COREXIT 9500 are used to disperse oil spilled on the sea, thereby minimizing its environmental impact.

Description: COREXIT 9527 is a blend of oxyalkylate polymers, organic sulfonic acid salt, substituted fatty ester, and glycol ether. This is a concentrated and highly effective oil spill dispersant for use on a wide range of oils. The unique formulation of COREXIT 9527 provides a self-mixing dispersant that is biodegradable and of low toxicity. Based on laboratory tests, COREXIT 9527 is effective on most spreading oils. As with all dispersants, timely application ensures the highest degree of success.

COREXIT 9500 is a high-performance, biodegradable, low toxicity oil spill dispersant that is effective on a wide range of oils, including the heavier, more weathered oils and emulsified oils. COREXIT 9500 contains the same well proven, biodegradable and low toxicity surfactants present in COREXIT 9527, with a new improved oleophilic solvent delivery system.

Aerial spraying: provides the most rapid method of applying dispersants to an oil spill and a variety of aircraft can be used for spraying. For aerial spraying the dispersants are applied undiluted. A typical treatment rate is two to ten US gallons per acre. Typical application altitudes of 30 to 50 feet have been used, although higher altitudes may be effective under certain conditions.

Boat spraying: the dispersants may also be used by boats equipped with spray booms, or fire water cannons.

Handling and storage: this material can be stored in high density polyethylene, stainless steel, or double epoxy phenolic coated carbon steel containers. The containers should always be capped when not in use to prevent contamination and evaporation. Carbon steel and aluminum are not recommended for long-term storage.

 

Dispersants such as COREXIT 9527 

Have Adverse Effects on Biological Processes

Corexit 9527 pdf  

 1-3-03 MSDS of the 6-14-92 Corexit 9527

looks the same as 6-12-92 reiterated?  *

 Doesn't look like very much is known about Corexit 9527 

& no other Corexit is found in this data base....

http://hazard.com/msds/tox/tf/q46/q49.html 

                     *** CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION ***

RTECS NUMBER            : GM2750000
CHEMICAL NAME           : Corexit 9527
CAS REGISTRY NUMBER     : 60617-06-3
LAST UPDATED            : 199710
DATA ITEMS CITED        : 2
COMPOUND DESCRIPTOR     : Mutagen
 
                       *** HEALTH HAZARD DATA ***
 
                            ** MUTATION DATA **
 
TYPE OF TEST            : Mutation in microorganisms
TEST SYSTEM             : Microorganism - not otherwise specified
DOSE/DURATION           : 24300 uL/L
REFERENCE :
   HEREAY Hereditas (Lund, Sweden).  (Gjoerloffsgatan 121, S-261 34 Landskrona,
   Sweden)  V.1-    1947-  Volume(issue)/page/year: 104,317,1986

                          *** STATUS IN U.S. ***
 
   EPA TSCA TEST SUBMISSION (TSCATS) DATA BASE, JULY 2000

 
                            *** END OF RECORD ***

http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/again.htm

Exxon’s Planning on Dumping Corexit in Alaska waters again?

Note: 8-1-89 version of Corexit only gives ethylene oxide as the dangerous ingredient & no others

Note:  6-14-92 only lists 2-butoxyethanol as an ingredient, no others  *

"The Corexit 9500 * is the primary chemical stockpiled in Alaska.

So far, in RCAC sponsored research, unfortunately,

9500 is more toxic and less effective than 9527,

but that is for Alaskan waters – considering temperature and salinity.

The 9527 is more effective in warmer waters.

The ingredients for Corexit 9527 include: 2-Butoxyethanol

(Ethylenenglycol Monobutyl Ether), Butyl Cellosolve, Butyl Glycol, Glycol Ether EB

(See above pdf document for more details).

For more info. you might want to try this website link:

http://msds.pdc.cornell.edu/msds/siri/files/bry/brybg.html

And, unfortunately, they still have plans to use these chemicals as a

tool for addressing spilled oil on water." says RCAC member.

So why use any dispersants?

It only ads chemicals that may never leave the water… & for what purpose?

Even the ‘purported’ bioremediation chemicals

only claimed to ‘speed things

up by a few days’

The damage to the herring … they’ll probably never recover…

www.valdezlink.com/inipol/no.htm

Biologists saying that a virus was the cause … is only a theory, too,

they didn’t input what chemicals could still be in the water.

"dispersants like Corexit 9527  (another Exxon formulation) are much less toxic than the dispersants used in the 1960s," Wells said, "but even these new dispersants have adverse effects on biological processes." quoted by ADN 8-15-89

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV147.html

 

MSDS information for Oil Spill Dispersants Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 and Safety Info from EPA, CDC, & OSHA

At MSDSonline, we have noticed a significant number of searches on our database for MSDS information related to Nalco products Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527, the two dispersants being used in the oil spill cleanup effort.

As a public service, and in an effort to assist the EPA in making MSDS information about these two dispersants more accessible to oil spill workers and the general public, here are links to the MSDSs.

• MSDS for Corexit 9500A [PDF]
• MSDS Corexit 9527A [PDF]

According to the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command’s website, as of June 14, 2010, over 1,262,000 gallons of dispersants have been used as part of BP’s oil spill cleanup efforts.  You can learn more about the dispersants, and their effects, on the EPA’s website.

• Dispersant Application
• Monitoring and assessment of dispersants used in the BP spill response
• EPA’s list of authorized dispersants (NCP Product Schedule)
• Dispersant effects
• Surface use of dispersants
• Underwater use of dispersants
• General Information about dispersants

If you are working with dispersants as part of the cleanup effort, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have the following recommendations:

• Mix and load dispersants in well ventilated areas.
• Use automated spraying systems to apply dispersants when available.
• Remain upwind of the mists that are generated if spray systems are manned.
• Wear nitrile gloves during mixing, loading, or spraying of dispersants to prevent skin irritation.
• Wear protective eyewear when mixing, loading, or spraying dispersants.
• Wash hands and any other body parts exposed to dispersants thoroughly with soap and water.
• If personal air monitoring indicates the above steps are not effective at reducing exposures below applicable OELs, then respiratory protection would be needed.

Read the CDC’s Reducing Occupational Exposures while Working with Dispersants During the Gulf Oil Spill Response for more details.

OSHA also has a page dedicated to oil spill workers and their safety. On it you’ll find information on specific hazards faced by workers, contact information for local officials and the latest news on the cleanup effort.

Anyone with questions about any of the chemicals used in the cleanup effort is encouraged to search our MSDS database.

Read more: http://blog.msdsonline.com/2010/06/msds-information-for-dispersants-corexit-9500-and-corexit-9527-and-safety-info-from-epa-cdc-osha/#ixzz0rDPexQ4E

 

 

What the Hell Is Corexit?

By bmartin on June 3, 2010 7:23 AM

 

Corexit, the chemical dispersant being used by BP to break up its massive and growing oil spill, is not the cause of physical symptoms among cleanup workers, says the product’s manufacturer, Nalco.

Several news sources, including the NYT, are reporting today that the Naperville, Illinois-based company is defending the safety of Corexit, "when used as directed," although Nalco advises that BP’s direct application of Corexit to the spewing oil well is "unprecedented." The Naperville Sun Times says that 993,000 gallons of Corexit have been sprayed or dumped in the Gulf of Mexico as of yesterday. In May, the EPA asked BP to back off on its use of Corexit in the Gulf spill.

So what’s in Corexit? It’s hard to know exactly, because part of the formula is proprietary. According to the material safety datasheet for Corexit 9500, the "clear, hazy, amber" liquid contains

• 10%-30% hydrotreated light petroleum distillates (a mineral spirit-type solvent, as far as I can tell);
• 1%-5% propylene glycol (a widely used solvent and chemical cousin of ethylene glycol); and
• 10%-30% "organic sulfonic acid salt," which is proprietary (the EPA evidently has the full formula, according to the NYT).

For humans, Corexit appears to be merely a short-term irritant; it is not defined as hazardous or toxic by EPA standards. Safety precautions (eg, gloves, splash goggles) are intended to keep the product away from the skin and eyes. Filter masks are recommended when air concentrations are expected to reach a certain threshold.

Today’s PubMed search for "Corexit" returns 59 articles, dating back to 1974. No article pertains to human safety, and 37 articles concern the product’s effect on sea life. A search for "Corexit 9500" returns 22 articles, dating back to 1996; 12 pertain to animal or plant effects.

The upshot: Products like Corexit 9500 are very effective oil dispersants, but they may increase (at least temporarily) the concentrations of toxic polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in oil-contaminated water, presumably through their dispersant effects. And there are evidently A TON of variables to consider when deciding to use dispersants—like, the concentration of the crude oil, the "weathered" condition of the oil, water salinity, oil-exposure conditions (eg, whether declining or continuous), and the myriad, myriad, myriad species at risk and their life cycles.

Singer et al (1996). Comparison of acute aquatic effects of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 with those of other Corexit series dispersants. Corexit 9500 was found to be similarly "toxic" to other Corexit products on early-life stages of the red abalone and kelp forest mysid. The authors, from the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote that Corexit 9500 is a "reformulation of a long-time industry ‘standard,’ Corexit 9527, to allow use on higher viscosity oils and emulsions."

George-Ares and Clark (2000). Aquatic toxicity of two Corexit dispersants. Two Exxon employees described the in-vitro "low to moderate toxicity" of Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 on "most aquatic species." They also described the variables affecting toxicity (such as species, life stage, duration of exposure, and temperature) and addressed environmental factors that inform the use of dispersants.

Pollino and Holloway (2002). The toxicity of testing of crude oil and related compounds using early life stages of the crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melantotaenia fluviatilis). Australian academicians determined that Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 were less acutely toxic than naphthalene and crude oil-water-dispersant mixtures on the larvae of freshwater rainbowish.

Ramachandran et al (2004). Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil. Canadian researchers concluded that the use of dispersants, like Corexit 9500, actually increases the exposure of fish to toxic crude-oil hydrocarbons.

Fuller et al (2004). Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant, and oil plus dispersant to several marine species. Scientists at Texas A&M observed that crude oil with dispersant was equally or less toxic that crude oil alone on 2 fish and 1 shrimp species. "Unweathered" crude oil (dominated by "soluble hydrocarbon fractions") was more toxic than weathered oil (which was dominated by "colloidal oil fractions"). In declining exposure conditions, weathered and unweathered oil with dispersant were equally toxic to a standardly tested fish species, Menidia beryllina. Both media were dominated by the less toxic "colloidal oil fractions." The consistent finding in this variable-results study: declining-exposure conditions were less toxic than continuous-exposure conditions.

Couillard et al (2005). Effect of dispersant on the composition of the water-accommodated fraction of crude oil and its toxicity to larval marine fish. Researchers from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that Corexit 9500, when added to seawater-accommodated fractions of light crude oil, multiplied the concentrations of PAH and was associated with higher mortality rates in larvalmummichog.

Liu et al (2006). Field investigation on the toxicity of Alaska North Slope crude oil (ANSC) and dispersed ANSC crude to Gulf killifish, Eastern oyster and white shrimp. Investigators at Louisiana State University found that Corexit 9500 was an effective oil dispersant and facilitated the rapid reduction of hydrocarbon concentrations. At testing conditions, most of the tested juvenile organisms (>83%) survived "well" after 24 hours of exposure. A crude oil concentration higher than 30 ppm was required for "any significant toxic effect."

Ramachandran et al (2006). Influence of salinity and fish species on PAH uptake from dispersed crude oil. Water salinity reduced PAH exposure (by reducing PAH solubility) and the efficiency of dispersants (but only at the highest tested salinity). The Canadian authors concluded that the risk of PAH exposure from dispersed oil will be greatest where salinity is lowest—that is, in coastal waters.

Anderson et al (2009). Preliminary investigation of the effects of dispersed Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil on developing topsmelt embryos, Atherinops affinis. Again, Corexit 9500 increased the hydrocarbon concentrations in water-accommodated oil fractions and this effect appeared to adversely affect the survival of topsmelt embryos, according to researchers of the University of California, Davis.

Jung et al (2009). Biochemical changes in rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli, exposed to dispersed crude oil. Korean investigators confirmed that oil dispersants, like Corexit 9500, increase the exposure of fish to oil hydrocarbons.

Lin et al (2009). Characterization of the metabolic actions of crude versus dispersed oil in salmon smolts via NMR-based metabolomics. Taiwanese scientists concluded that "dispersant treatment significantly decreased the lethal potency of crude oil to salmon smolts," and described several variable metabolic effects that may be useful for monitoring sublethal actions of dispersed oil on fish.

Duarte et al (2010). Acute effects of chemically dispersed crude oil on gill ion regulation, plasma ion levels and haematological parameters in tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Investigators in the Amazon reported that chemically dispersed crude oil impairs gill function (ie, ion regulation) in tambaqui to a greater extent than untreated crude oil or Corexit 9500 alone.

Video still of burning Deepwater Horizon rig from YouTube.

06/07/10 addendum: BP’s use of 1 million or so gallons of dispersant may also confound the cleanup effort in the Gulf. It’s certainly to BP’s advantage to obscure the scope of the spill, and Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard says that dispersants "have succeeded at fragmenting one giant spill into ‘hundreds of thousands’ of mini spills," reports today’s Politics Daily. BP’s use of dispersant directly on the wellhead is also likely to prevent crude oil from rising to the surface, where it is easier to spot and clean up. 

National Contingency Plan Product Schedule

As required by Subpart J of the National Contingency Plan, EPA maintains the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule.

• NCP Product Schedule (June 2010) (PDF) (20 pp, 235K,About PDF) is also available in its entirety.
• NCP Product Schedule Technical Notebook (June 2010) (PDF) (222 pp, 1M, About PDF) presents summary information on the conditions under which each of the products may be used.

The table below shows all products currently listed in the NCP Product Schedule. To limit the view to a specific category, use the drop down box in the "Category" column.

• Product Categories under NCP Subpart J includes regulatory definitions of the product types used below.
• NCP Product Schedule Toxicity and Effectiveness Summaries of these products are also available.

For more information on the Product Schedule, contact the NCP Product Schedule Information Line.

Product

Category

View by: All CategoriesBioremediation AgentDispersantMiscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent (MOSCA)Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCASurface Washing Agent

ALSOCUP

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

AQUACLEAN

Surface Washing Agent

AQUA N-CAP™ POLYMER

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

B&S INDUSTRIAL (see STEP ONE)

Bioremediation Agent

BET BIOPETRO (formerly BET BIOPETRO HEAVY)

Bioremediation Agent

BG-CLEAN™ 401

Surface Washing Agent

BILGE CLEAR (see S-200)

Bioremediation Agent

BIODISPERS (formerly PETROBIODISPERS)

Dispersant

BIOSOLVE^®HYDROCARBON MITIGATION™ AGENT

Surface Washing Agent

BIOWORLD BIOREMEDIATION HYDROCARBON TREATMENT PRODUCTS

Bioremediation Agent

CIAGENT (formerly CI AGENT, CHEAP INSURANCE, and PETRO-CAPTURE)

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

CLEAN SPLIT (see SPLIT DECISION SC)

Surface Washing Agent

CN-110

Surface Washing Agent

COREXIT^®EC7664A (formerly COREXIT 7664)

Surface Washing Agent

COREXIT^®EC9500A (formerly COREXIT 9500)

Dispersant

COREXIT^®EC9580A (formerly COREXIT 9580 SHORELINE CLEANER)

Surface Washing Agent

COREXIT^®EC9527A (formerly COREXIT 9527)

Dispersant

CYTOSOL

Surface Washing Agent

DISPERSIT SPC 1000™

Dispersant

DO-ALL #18

Surface Washing Agent

DUO-SPLIT (see SPLIT DECISION SC)

Surface Washing Agent

ELASTOL

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

ENVIROCLEAN (formerly ENVIRO CLEAN 165)

Surface Washing Agent

E-SAFE^©

Surface Washing Agent

F-500

Surface Washing Agent

FINASOL OSR 52

Dispersant

FIREMAN’S BRAND SPILLCLEAN (see SPILLCLEAN)

Dispersant

GENISIS WE-F (see OPPENHEIMER FORMULA)

Bioremediation Agent

GOLD CREW SW

Surface Washing Agent

INIPOL EAP 22

Bioremediation Agent

JD-109

Dispersant

JD-2000™

Dispersant

JE1058BS

Bioremediation Agent

LAND AND SEA RESTORATION

Bioremediation Agent

MARE CLEAN 200 (formerly MARE CLEAN 505)

Dispersant

MARI-ZYME (see ZYME-FLOW)

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

MICRO-BLAZE^®

Bioremediation Agent

MICRO CLEAN (see NATURE’S WAY HS)

Surface Washing Agent

MIGHT MIKE BPT (see OPPENHEIMER FORMULA)

Bioremediation Agent

NALE-IT

Surface Washing Agent

NATURAL ENVIRO 8000 BIOREMEDIATION (see OPPENHEIMER FORMULA)

Bioremediation Agent

NATURE’S WAY HS

Surface Washing Agent

NATURE’S WAY PC (see NATURE’S WAY HS)

Surface Washing Agent

NEOS AB3000

Dispersant

NOKOMIS 3-AA

Dispersant

NOKOMIS 3-F4

Dispersant

NOKOMIS 5-W

Surface Washing Agent

OIL BOND^®

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent (MOSCA)

OIL SOLUTIONS POWDER

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent (MOSCA)

OIL SPILL EATER II

Bioremediation Agent

OPPENHEIMER FORMULA

Bioremediation Agent

PES-51

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

PETRO-CLEAN

Surface Washing Agent

PETRO-GREEN ADP-7 (formerly D-14)

Surface Washing Agent

PETROTECH 25

Surface Washing Agent

PETRO-TREAT (see OPPENHEIMER FORMULA)

Bioremediation Agent

POWERCLEAN (see NATURE’S WAY HS)

Surface Washing Agent

PREMIER 99

Surface Washing Agent

PRISTINE SEA II

Bioremediation Agent

PROCLEANS

Surface Washing Agent

PX 700™

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

RAPIDGRAB 2000™

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

S-200

Bioremediation Agent

S-200C (see S-200)

Bioremediation Agent

SAF-RON GOLD

Dispersant

SC-1000™

Surface Washing Agent

SEA BRAT #4

Dispersant

SEACARE E.P.A. (see DISPERSIT SPC 1000™)

Dispersant

SF-GOLD DISPERSANT (see SAF-RON GOLD)

Dispersant

SHEENCLEAN (see S-200)

Bioremediation Agent

SHEEN-MAGIC^©

Surface Washing Agent

SIMPLE GREEN^®

Surface Washing Agent

SPILL GREEN LS

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent (MOSCA)

SPILLCLEAN (SW-36) or SPILLCLEAN ["Concentrate"] (a/k/a FIREMAN’S BRAND SPILLCLEAN)

Surface Washing Agent

SPILLREMED (MARINE)^®

Bioremediation Agent

SPLIT DECISION SC (formerly SPLIT DECISION)

Surface Washing Agent

STEP ONE

Bioremediation Agent

SUPERALL #38 (see TOPSALL #30)

Surface Washing Agent

SX-100®

Surface Washing Agent

SYSTEM E.T. 20 (formerly MCW.B 20)

Bioremediation Agent

The OPPENHEIMER FORMULA I (see OPPENHEIMER FORMULA)

Bioremediation Agent

TOPSALL #30

Surface Washing Agent

TXCHEM HE-1000™

Surface Washing Agent

UNITED 658 PETRO-ZYME (see ZYME-FLOW)

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

VB591™, VB997™, BINUTRIX® (formerly MYCOBAC TX-20)

Bioremediation Agent

WASTE-SET #3200®

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

WASTE-SET #3400®

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

WMI-2000

Bioremediation Agent

ZI-400

Dispersant

ZI-400 OIL SPILL DISPERSANT (see ZI-400)

Dispersant

ZYME-FLOW

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

ZYME-TREAT (see ZYME-FLOW)

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent – MOSCA

Matt Simmons Revises Leak Estimate To 120,000 Barrels Per Day, Believes Oil Covers 40% Of Gulf Beneath The Surface

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/15/2010 17:53 -0500

• Mexico

Matt Simmons was on Bloomberg earlier, adding some additional perspective to hisoriginal appearance on the station, in which he initially endorsed the nuclear option as the only viable way to resolve the oil spill. Simmons refutes even the latest oil spill estimate of 45,000-60,000 barrels per day, and in quoting research by the Thomas Jefferson research vessel which was compiled late on Sunday, quantifies the leak at 120,000 bpd. What is scarier is that according to the Jefferson the oil lake underneath the surface of the water could be covering up to 40% of the entire Gulf of Mexico. Simmons also says that as the leak has no casing, a relief well will not work, and the only possible resolution is, as he said previously, to use a small nuclear explosion to convert the rock to glass. Simmons concludes that as punishment for BP’s arrogance and stupidity the government "will take all their cash." Now if only our own administration could tell us the truth about what is really happening in the gulf…

 

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

BP Admits That – If It Tries to Cap the Leak – the Whole Well May Blow

As I previously noted, oil industry expert Rob Cavner said that BP must "keep the well flowing to minimize oil and gas going out into the formation on the side":

This has just been confirmed by BP.
Specifically, BP’s Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles told CNN last Thursday that BP’s data indicates that BP can’t cap the leaking oil, or it might cause the well casing to blow out:

Suttles denies that there is evidence that the well casing has already blown out beneath the sea floor.
But many experts – including experts working for BP – say that there is damage beneath the sea floor. Indeed, Matt Simmons told Bloomberg today that America’s top research vessel – the Thomas Jefferson – found that the well casing is gone, and can no longer even be seen on the sea floor, having been destroyed:

Another 9/11? Strange Events In the Gulf

June 7, 2010 by NotForSale2NWO
Filed under Featured, Health & Environment, Intel Hub Exclusives, New World Order, U.S. News

16 Comments

A staged press meeting has taken place on a Louisiana beach

Intel Hub

Shepard Ambellas and Alex Thomas

June 7, 2010

Last night on our radio show the“Decompression Session” we broke the updates from our reporter in the Gulf, confirming the presence of troops(not the coast guard) in the area. This report has now been confirmed by multiple sources. We are anxiously waiting for Roberts video and photo evidence. Also there are reports of no oil on the beaches and reports that the Coast Guard stated there was no oil on the beaches. At the same time we are getting reports from locals that they are all getting very ill and that oil is everywhere. After the updates from our reporter Robert Rutherford on last nights show, it took a twist.

Richie Vehas a reporter for the St. James News Examiner called into the show. On Sunday May 3oth, Richie took a drive on a whim to Grand Isle, Louisiana. He passed a roadblock and was stopped by law enforcement. Law enforcement went on to say that he can not go into the area and that the press will be here in 30 minutes. At that point Richie said he knew it was a staged press event for the corporate media.

Richie went to grab a bite to eat and returned 30 minutes later. The authorities then ushered him and the mainstream media to a small contained area of the beach. They told every one to stay together, Richie reported. Halliburton was present as well.  ”Less than one acre of beach” Richie stated. Military, Coast Guard and ARMY were present. “There was visible oil in the contained area and in the waters around the area” Richie said.

He went on to say how the military was acting very funny, and things seemed out of place. The reporter stated how “there was acres and acres of untouched beach as far as the eye could see outside of the contained area”. He stated that “If I was to leave the contained area or try to cross I would have been arrested on site”.

Richie stated that if he asked questions about BP or the oil rig they would deny him an answer. They stated that they could not talk about that.

Also Richie’s friend Allen earlier photographed 5 armored HUMVEE’s with 50 cals on them. Confirming our reports of activity in the area.

The major question that needs to be answered is this. Is this oil spill so big that they have to close off most of the area to reporters or is this spill being blown out of proportion and if reporters were able to go where they wanted, would they see that oil wasn’t everywhere? According to reports this spill is horrible, that being said, it makes you wonder when the authorities refuse to let journalists investigate.

The Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Is Making A Lot Of People Really Sick

Alex Jones Explains the Elite’s Master Plan

Infowars.com
June 17, 2010

Alex Jones gives an analysis of the elite’s master plan, from GMO food to life extension technology, to mass depopulation.