BP oil spill Corexit dispersants suspected in widespread crop damage

[cory777]

UPDATED: June 26, 2010 - Last May 24, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised, "We will conduct our own tests to determine the least toxic, most effective dispersant available in the volumes necessary for a crisis of this magnitude... I am not satisfied that BP has done an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options."

As of today, those tests have not been completed, according to the EPA. In the meantime, BP has dumped 1.4 million gallons of Corexit on the gulf. Next week, we could have a hurricane pushing Corexit inland.

Promises... promises...

---ORIGINAL POST: June 10, 2010------------

Just when you thought the damages BP could cause was limited to beaches, marshes, oceans, people's livelihoods, birds and marine life, there's more.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?entry_id=65552#ixzz0s2Itw857

[sakabatou]

1. Well we knew it was toxic

[me b zola]

2. I've been wondering about this for over a week now

Will we be having toxic rain from the corexit hundreds of miles from the Gulf? It seems that may very well happen.:grr:

[dipsydoodle]

3. The dispersants have also been dispersed

by the US military over the Gulf. So - whose spraying did what ?

[aquart]

4. Are they still spraying that crap?

Which I assume was never tested on anything out of the water?

[TheWebHead]

5. there's a lot of things to be worried about regarding the spill

I don't see how Corexit has become so high on that list... if you look at what is in it and compare the amount used versus the volume of the Gulf of Mexico it seems to be a non issue.

http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4297.htm

One can argue whether dispersants are being used to mitigate the impact on beaches and BP liabilities, but I just don't get the hysteria about Corexit.

[Karenina]

10. Are you to be taken seriously? I would like to think your doubt sincere

and ask only if you are REALLY that poorly informed.

Talking point #!: COREXIT is POISONOUS. OIL is POISONOUS. COREXIT + OIL is EVEN MORE POISONOUS. It was used in Alaska and almost ALL of the cleanup workers are DEAD. Life expectancy, 51 years.

Those who forget history...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37935819

[Altoid_Cyclist]

6. I used this link yesterday, but it applies to this one as well.

The article contains some useful info. on what's known and what isn't known about the health and environmental impact. The unknowns are what seem to be the X factor that could make this much worse than what BP and the government are saying.

From an article in Science Daily:

A study of the blood of individuals who worked on the Exxon Valdez cleanup following the spill in March of 1989 found DNA damage in those subjects. "DNA damage in certain functionally important areas of the genome can be a precursor to various human cancers," Cho said.

"It has been reported that the size of the Gulf oil spill is unprecedented, much greater than that of the the (land mass) of New England area combined. You have to wonder about the fate of the crude oil that has not come ashore and recovered and what long term effects such toxins will have on the food chain," Cho said. "The pollutants from these toxins are going to be there for a long time."

Cho is worried about another phenomena from the spill-- the orange sheen seen on the surface of the gulf.

"That orange sheen is a result of a chemical reaction involving the sun, the crude oil and the oil dispersants," Cho said. "But nobody knows what's in that color and how toxic the chemicals are. Companies keep the chemical makeup of the dispersants secret.

Rest of article.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624104806.htm

[JoeyT]

7. Alright, this video is much better quality than the first one someone posted here.

That "White dust" is webs. Those are spider mites. The corn is corn blight.
That website reads like Timecube.

I'm a hundred miles south of them, our crops are fine.

Edited to add: The dispersant itself probably isn't that toxic, but it will make the oil a lot harder to clean up. Wikipedia actually has the chemicals it's made from listed, none of which are terribly toxic, IIRC. It may also make the oil more toxic to the people cleaning it up because of the gasses in it separating more rapidly. It's not going to destroy crops in one isolated area almost 150 miles from the coast and leave everything between the two points intact.

[JoeyT]

8. And now I eat my words.

The webs are a moth cocoon. That's what I get for trying to identify something so early in the morning.
The brown spots on the corn are probably either blight or just plain old heat damage.
They really should take it to their local agriculture department and have it tested.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

9. Oh, it's toxic. Here is the HAZMAT Data for Corexin 9500

http://corexithazmatdata.yolasite.com/

SAYS about 1/2 way down:

ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUSIONS (sic) and IN RED: "DO NOT CONTAMINATE SURFACE WATER" -- hmmm...

A BUNCH of Corexit 9527 was used before they switched to Corexit 9500. The proprietary composition of 9527 is not public, but the manufacturer's own safety data sheet on Corexit EC9527A says the main components are 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary organic sulfonic acid salt with a small concentration of propylene glycol (wikipedia)

[JoeyT]

11. Supposedly the 9500, which is what they switched to doesn't have the 2-butoxyethanol

which is why they made them stop using the 9527. Of course all of this is based on them actually telling the truth about what's in it, which they may or may not be. It's not like they're adverse to lying about things. For all any of us know they're still using the 9527.

The main thing of concern in the 9500 is the sulfonic acid. The common side effects of Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (Docusate) are "stomach pain, diarrhea, and cramping", which sounds remarkably like the "Food poisoning" that struck a bunch of the spill workers.

Propylene glycol + sorbital = KY Jelly, which gives new meaning to the word "Oil slick".

Of course that's before any of that is mixed with oil. I'll be damned if I know how toxic the stuff is once exposed to oil, and they don't seem to have done much testing to find out. I'm very much opposed to the use of the dispersants, but I don't think they're evaporating and being rained down on crops. I think they probably ARE making the workers sick and aren't good at all for the wildlife, which is more than enough reason to stop using them.

[Karenina]

12. bttt...

[fatbuckel]

13. 20 Billion will never cover this.

[blindpig]

14. Expropriate

Kill Capitalism before it kills us.

[lonestarnot]

15. No, damages are not limited or finite and they know it.