The Earth Is Bleeding...

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
So what is in this dispersant, Corexit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

One ingredient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-butoxyethanol
Butoxyethanol has an LD50 of 2.5g/kg in rats.[5] Laboratory tests by the United States National Toxicology Program have shown that sustained inhalation of high concentrations (100 - 500 ppm) of 2-butoxyethanol can cause adrenal tumors in animals.[6] American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) reports that 2-butoxyethanol is carcinogenic in animals.[7] OSHA does not regulate the butoxyethanol as a carcinogen.[citation

Moderate respiratory exposure to 2-butoxyethanol often results in irritation of mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and throat. Heavy exposure via respiratory, dermal or oral routes can lead to hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hemolysis, pulmonary edema and coma. The current ACGIH threshold limit value (TLV) for worker exposure is 20 ppm in the industrial atmosphere, which is well above the odor threshold of 0.4 ppm. Blood or urine concentrations of 2-butoxyethanol or its major toxic metabolite, 2-butoxyacetic acid, may be measured using chromatographic techniques to monitor worker exposure or to confirm a diagnosis of poisoning in hospitalized patients. A biological exposure index of 200 mg 2-butoxyacetic acid per g creatinine has been established in an end-of-shift urine specimen for exposed U.S. employees.[8][9]

U.S. Employers are required to inform employees when they are working with this substance.[10]

Butoxyethanol is listed in the U.S. state of California as a hazardous substance,[11] though it was removed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎'s list of hazardous air pollutants in 1994.[12]

2-Butoxyethanol has come under scrutiny in Canada, and Environment and Health Canada recommended that it be added to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).[13] The use of some common household cleaning products containing 2-butoxyethanol could expose people to levels 12 times greater than California's one-hour guideline, especially when indoor use is considered.[1] These products are not required to list it on the label when diluted to a certain point. The safety of the products as normally used is defended by the American Chemistry Council and the Soap and Detergent Association, industry trade groups.

I'll pass on being around this stuff and if it is harmful to lab rats and humans I'm betting it is harmful to fish, crab, shrim, etc.

Another ingredient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol
Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms need to survive. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol

Andrew, not saying you are off base with regard to who's profiting and such. Just saying that from an exposure standpoint those humans getting airborne exposure and those creatures getting depleted oxygen exposure seem to all the makings for suffering.
 
Ed, I never said I want to bathe in the stuff. I have no doubt it is bad, is it worse than oil? Is it a necessary evil? Could there be a 'conspiracy'? I doubt it, because there rarely if ever is, but I can say for sure you don't want Mr. Kaufman connecting the dots!
 

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
Andrew, I don't disagree with the challenge of "worse than oil" statement. If crude oil evaporates slowly, and it does, how much of it is airborne to expose workers? Not that much. If a dispersant is more violate and airborne, then its affect on the oil to put it down below the surface is one factor, but the exposure to workers is another.

Riddle me this. If more oil is on the surface, because it floats on water, would it not be easier to collect, contain, corral? Isn't there less total area affected, only the surface, essentially a two dimensional layer. Once dispersed chemically, you have added another pair of potentail hazards, air vapor exposure to humans, oxygen depletion for swimming creatures and now pushed a two dimensional problem that can be skimmed, boomed, contained and collected UNDER the surface and into three dimensions. Very few fish live on the surface of the ocean, but very many live in the depths covered by the surface.

Just a perspective I have.
 

salmonslug

Streamside in the Gorge
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, Split Bamboo and Mumbles. I'm generally not one to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon, but I am certainly more skeptical about things when the powerful oil lobby is presiding over what is possibly this country's worse environmental disaster to date. Interesting run-down on the financial ties, SB. However, setting the money trail aside, my degrees in environmental studies and fisheries make it difficult for me to believe that after dumping all of that oil and corexit into the Gulf that it would be safe to resume fishing a month or so later. The good news SB, is that I will not be helping to drive up the prices of Gulf seafood with my demand any time soon-- more for you, I guess.

Is corexit more dangerous than oil? Is the mixture of corexit and oil more toxic than just oil? My guess, after reading and hearing a bit about these issues over the last few months is an emphatic yes on both scores. There is also evidence that corexit has helped wick the toxic mess into the evapotransport system which later returns the junk as rain on the homes and crops of the already screwed Gulf Coast residents (and who knows where else). Rainwater testing has been performed in a randomized sampling effort organized by wives of the regional fishermen, and analysis of the samples supports this claim. But, if the EPA is not thinking to test the rainwater, maybe there is no need? I mean, the EPA is looking out for the American public, right? And, Kaufman is probably a nut-job anyway; who would possibly want to work for the same organization for 40 years? And, an engineer turned policy analyst probably can't really be expected to know too much about the "sciency" stuff; ie: w/o a footnote for every comment, he must be talking out his ass. For every rosey picture painted about the oil being gone, the seafood being safe to eat, etc, I believe you can find scientifically based reports exactly to the contrary. And, if you look into who is funding the research, you will often see that the findings are aligned with the funding agent's interests. However, I would say that for some reason the "rosier" pictures seem disproportionately represented in public's newsfeed (oh no, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist). I think the media is largely missing (or is it, ignoring) a big story, which will eventually come to light as cancer rates explode. We're not talking about some remote part of Alaska this time. Or, maybe I'll just look foolish for having been concerned...
 
I have read the reports from the USGS about all the oil lying under our own country. And the recent reports from Alberta. Seems the only problem is the expense of getting it up. I would rather spend the $$ on that , than repairing the damage from oil spills in the ocean. I think you are correct in your assessment of our dependency on oil.
 
I have read the reports from the USGS about all the oil lying under our own country. And the recent reports from Alberta. Seems the only problem is the expense of getting it up. I would rather spend the $$ on that , than repairing the damage from oil spills in the ocean. I think you are correct in your assessment of our dependency on oil.
I may be off a bit on my facts here...(I know I ripped Kaufman for that earlier, but I don't claim to be an expert...)I believe the oil in Alberta is in the form of oil sands. The industry in Alberta is growing like crazy as these sands are being tapped. There are also huge deposits south in the Dakota's as well in the form of shale. One of the problems with oil is the cost of extracting it. I believe the stuff in Alberta, the Dakota's and other spots around there is that is cost something like $35-$40 a barrel to extract the oil. Massive investment in infrastructure is needed. Companies were burned bad in the 1970's when they began operations, only to have the oil prices collapse. The oil companies want to see oil at a stable level before the invest heavily on infrastructure. For some perspective it cost the Saudi's around $4 a barrel and traditional drilling in the US about $7-$10 onshore, significantly higher offshore. New reserves are being found all the time, and the worldwide reserves have been growing over the past 30 years, despite what a lot of people say. I wish we could find a cheap, clean renewable alternative, but billions have been spent researching for one and it hasn't materialized. Hopefully one will soon.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
I'd like to learn about the safety of Gulf seafood from a source other than BP or the US government. The US gov't. said Agent Orange was not a health problem for US GIs in Vietnam. The US gov't. lied. The US gov't. said US soldiers were not exposed to nerve gas in Desert Storm. The US gov't. lied, and soldiers have since died of complications from exposure to nerve gas. The US gov't. has as bad a track record for telling the truth about adverse effects as industry.
 

Go Fish

Language, its a virus
If you start saying bad stuff about
BP "you know who" will start posting
again. Then we will have to wade through
tons of links, videos, and other nonsense.

Dave