Corexit: One of Most Toxic Dispersants Ever Developed & Also Toxic to Plants:

[amborin]

Concerns About BP Relief Well Success Rise Along With Evidence of Chemical Damage, Spread of Oil





Breathing in Corexit is not recommended. It's not good for your lungs, eyes, skin or even your clothes!





snip

.....On other fronts, another concern raised early on, that the dispersant used by BP, Corexit, was dangerous and could cause additional harm, appears to be valid. Crops near the Gulf Coast are showing damage consistent with Corexit toxicity. From SFGate (hat tip reader Doc Holiday):
BP’s favorite dispersant Corexit 9500 is being sprayed at the oil gusher on the ocean floor. Corexit is also being air sprayed across hundreds of miles of oil slicks all across the gulf…
Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco of Naperville, Illinois (who by the way just hired some expensive lobbyists). Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).

In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview” Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed…

The UK’s Marine Management Organization has banned Corexit so if there was a spill in the UK’s North Sea, BP is banned from using Corexit. In fact Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago. The Environmental Advisory Service for Oil and Chemical Spills at IVL, Swedish Environmental Institute, has, upon request of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency evaluated Corexit extensively and recommended it not be used in Swedish waters.

The Swedish study concludes:

“The studies suggest that a mixture of oil and dispersant give rise to a more toxic effect on aquatic organisms than oil and dispersants do alone… The research on toxicity of oils mixed with dispersants has, however, shown high toxicity values even when the dispersant per se was not very toxic.” A report for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response concluded that Corexit actually inhibits bacterial degradation of crude oil. It may look good on the surface but it will take longer for natural bacteria to eat up the crude oil.

other studies show:

The degradation results in oxidized molecules that are more toxic than the original oil compounds.

In tests to observe this photo-enhanced toxicity, aquatic toxicologist Carys L. Mitchelmore of the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science said researchers have found that the toxicity under natural light can be up to 50,000 times greater than the toxicity seen in a lab. Neglecting real-world conditions, laboratory experiments could underestimate dispersed oil's toxicity.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?entry_id=65552#ixzz0sCQOyZYY


snip

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

http://www.ecschem.com/production/gold%20crew/dispersant/web_content_auto/technical_studies/Study%20-%20Gold%20Crew%20vs%20Corexit.pdf

[Angry Dragon]

1. 3000 die because of 9-11 attacks

and we start two wars because of it

10,000 to 15,000 die because a corporation gets greedy and causes an Ecocide of the Gulf
and it is called the cost of doing business
Not even considering the wildlife killed

[Nihil]

11. Pointless hyperbole really doesn't help your cause.

> 10,000 to 15,000 die because a corporation gets greedy and causes
> an Ecocide of the Gulf

I believe the total is 13 at the moment (11 on the rig + 2 suicides).

Get a grip.

[Angry Dragon]

12. I hope you are right and I am wrong

I just believe there will be many deaths
coming from the disaster.
Mostly due to health issues.

[Karenina]

2. . .

[me b zola]

3. K&R

[highplainsdem]

4. K&R

[lonestarnot]

5. K & R

[Cresent City Kid]

6. Anybody else notice this about the Corexit use

That it is the only thing BP is doing to the extreme? Let me clarify. Inadequate attempts to stop the leak, an underwhelming number of ships skimming the oil, insufficent booms to prevent oil getting to shore, the number of clean up workers is inadequate, the paying of claims is slow, etc. In every other case, BP is underdoing it, with the dispersant they are going all out at an industrial scale. Am I alone in this assessment?

[Angry Dragon]

7. I believe they own part of the company that makes it

Most other countries will not let them use it, so maybe they figure
they can take the cost of using it as a tax break.

[Cresent City Kid]

8. That may be

But I am convinced that it is nothing more than an attempt to make it look like less oil.

[Angry Dragon]

10. With the dispersant the oil stays below the surface in globs

There are other dispersant out there that are a lot less toxic.....

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. I've been railing against the Corexit factor since day 1.

I really cannot believe its use is ongoing. It is an indicator of how little we control our own destiny and it pisses me off to the nth degree.