It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA: BP Must Use Less Toxic Oil Dispersant; BP Refuses Change and Continues Corexit Use

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

EPA: BP Must Use Less Toxic Oil Dispersant; BP Refuses Change and Continues Corexit Use


beforeitsnews. com

On May 20th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so that they are more easily degraded. BP is currently using Corexit.

The directive required BP to identify a less toxic alternative – to be used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil leak – within 24 hours and to begin using the less toxic dispersant within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Well it seems the chemical dispersant is not as safe and friendly as BP and the media would like us to think it is.

The article also has a FAQ in regards to the chemical dispersant and how BP should be handling the issue.

What are your thoughts on the chemicals ATS?

I don't know much about them, but using them at unprecendented volumes, above and beneath the surface of the water will surely have some sort of environmental impact.

~Keeper

beforeitsnews. com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I figured I would get the material safety data sheet for corexit.

From here-Corexit MSDS

A couple snippets from the MSDS-



WARNING
Combustible.
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition - No smoking. Keep container tightly closed. Do not get
in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. In case
of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After contact with skin, wash
immediately with plenty of soap and water.
Wear suitable protective clothing.
Low Fire Hazard; liquids may burn upon heating to temperatures at or above the flash point. May evolve oxides of
carbon (COx) under fire conditions. May evolve oxides of sulfur (SOx) under fire conditions.



SKIN CONTACT :
May cause irritation with prolonged contact.
INGESTION :
Not a likely route of exposure. Can cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into lungs following ingestion.
INHALATION :



FLASH POINT : 181.4 °F / 83 °C ( PMCC )



METHODS FOR CLEANING UP :
SMALL SPILLS: Soak up spill with absorbent material. Place residues in a suitable, covered, properly labeled
container. Wash affected area. LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by
diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Clean contaminated surfaces with
water or aqueous cleaning agents. Contact an approved waste hauler for disposal of contaminated recovered
material. Dispose of material in compliance with regulations indicated in Section 13 (Disposal Considerations).



PHYSICAL STATE Liquid
APPEARANCE Clear Hazy Amber
ODOR Hydrocarbon
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.95 @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C
DENSITY 7.91 lb/gal
SOLUBILITY IN WATER Miscible
pH (100 %) 6.2
VISCOSITY 177 cps @ 32 °F / 0 °C 70 cps @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C @ 104 °F / 40 °C
VISCOSITY @ 32 °F / 0 °C @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C 22.5 cst @ 104 °F / 40 °C
POUR POINT < -71 °F / < -57 °C
BOILING POINT 296 °F / 147 °C
VAPOR PRESSURE 15.5 mm Hg @ 100 °F / 37.8 °C



No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product.




Oh well, if I am reading this properly, which I am, I do not think this should be used. It is using one hydrocarbon to disperse another hydrocarbon.

Nice huh? Also, notice the no toxicity studies done. Isn't that JUST TYPICAL.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Thanks for the info.

It is just typical that it's some untested product they are realeasing by the gallon into our oceans.

I get so angry reading crap like this.

~Keeper



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Who owns the patent on the said chemical being used? And are they profiting from its use as we speak?

What a mess this has become. This calamity has made me believe that the current administration is the worst in US history. Given who they replaced that is one hell of an achievement.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
At this point in the game, I could care less what BP is using to clean up the spill. Just get the damn thing contained already. Here we have one of the, if not the biggest, ecological disaster of our time and generation, and the EPA is complaining cause the agent they are using is supposedly more toxic than another.
Good God

Don't take me wrong though. BP needs to get there act together and be tried for crimes against humanity. But lets get the mess cleaned up first.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by highfreq
At this point in the game, I could care less what BP is using to clean up the spill. Just get the damn thing contained already. Here we have one of the, if not the biggest, ecological disaster of our time and generation, and the EPA is complaining cause the agent they are using is supposedly more toxic than another.
Good God

Don't take me wrong though. BP needs to get there act together and be tried for crimes against humanity. But lets get the mess cleaned up first.


Yeah, agreed that they should be on this like white on rice. I have a problem with them poisoning the oceans, but I guess the alternative, poisoning the oceans, isn't really great either is it?

~Keeper


Lug

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
www.nalco.com...

nalco owns the dispersant.


That's good news for investor Warren Buffett. His Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)is Nalco's largest shareholder, with a 6.5% stake.

www.businessweek.com...


And BP's hand in the pie (Brightwater):


Now, TIORCO offers an alternative that promises to maximize your production: BrightWater chemical and application technology. Co-developed by Nalco, BP and Chevron, BrightWater is a sub-micron particulate chemistry that is injected downhole with flood water during a seconday recovery process
www.nalco.com...


Wheee!!! We all get richer!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
WOW!!! It has a flahspoint of 181 degrees farenheit! a mtch would most definetly set it iff in flames : X hope no one smokes thier



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
While I don't trust EPA on what is "safe" neither do I trust BP. So who knows, I guess we'll see if the EPA has any power to enforce this. I heard Obama is finally getting around to doing something about the leak. Interesting how his actions reflected Rand Paul's philosophy.(for a few days)

[edit on 23-5-2010 by filosophia]

Realistically speaking, the president would only need to help out EPA enforce this. So this should be the proper thing to do. But as the libertarian mindset is a intellectual philosophy, we ought to consider the fact that the markets should respond to this by boycotting BP, and the clean up can go to the most effective, as contracted by the areas affected. Internationally, the UN isn't going to do much about this, how could they? The U.S. practically funds them, so it's just the U.S. acting as the one world order behind the U.N. In a free market society, the looters would act like vulchers and clean up the oil. Hey pirates, here's some oil for you.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by filosophia]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I'm not surprised one bit by Obama's behaviour. BP was the Number 1 donator of Campaign funds to him during the 2008 Presidential Race.

That's why he's kept his mouth shut, he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

~Keeper



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I am getting so tired of seen how our government has given the power to a foreign company to do as they wish in our own backyards with this incredible man made disaster in the history of this nation.

Is our coast the one been destroyed and the president needs to get his head out of the BP corporate butt and take matters into his hands and give the power to the states been affected to find all means to fix this problem.

The way this spill is been handle is despicable and nothing but slap on the face of American people by the hands of a foreign company.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Please, boycott ALL BP Gas stations, and go to f u ckbp.net, sign the petition and let's FINALLY grow some balls.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by PublicDefenseCorp]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Question OP. You mention that British Pacific donated money to Obama's Campaign.

Remember the debacle of the Supreme Court ruling that people kept screaming would allow foreign money into US politics?

I would like to know from anyone, WHY THE HELL a foreign corporation was allowed to donate to the Obama campaign.

I would like anyone to wade into this question.

Any Obama backers out there want to field this.(do I hear crickets?)



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Thanks for the info!

I like this

LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by
diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Clean contaminated surfaces with
water or aqueous cleaning agents. Contact an approved waste hauler for disposal of contaminated recovered
material.

Yes, take the contaminated GOM water and dispose of it elsewhere.


Hey, maybe they can put it in plastic bottles and sell it for souvenirs, or filter it and put it in plastic bottles, along the lines of Perrier, call it Derriere.

Seriously now...whatever happened to the oil eating bacteria/microbes? Are they being used along with dispersants?

Re Obama etal... corporate money needs to be kept out of politics. Like oil and water, they don't mix for the benefit of We the People.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I think the SCOTUS decision was about the ammount of money that corporations could invest into Presidential Campaigns.

BP is a foreign company but I'm sure they have US offices which is why they were allowed to contribute.

~Keeper



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
One major concern I have heard out of the main stream is that this dispersant is causing some SERIOUS problems. I've even heard reports of several creatures being found dead, not caused by the oil but some unknown agent.

Face it guys, by the time this is over with the gulf will be a dead zone. And no one will pay for their crimes.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Alternative confirming source for the OP from an
Alabama News Station:


BP to continue using dispersant
Updated: Saturday, 22 May 2010, 5:19 PM CDT
Published : Saturday, 22 May 2010, 5:19 PM CDT

GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer
COVINGTON, La. (AP) - BP PLC says it's going to stick with the main chemical dispersant it's been using to fight the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because it's the best option for breaking up the ooze before it reaches the surface.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday directed BP to use a less toxic form of the chemical dispersant to break up the oil. The agency said Corexit 9500, one of the chief agents used, can pose health hazards.

But BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles tells the EPA in a letter released Saturday that "Corexit remains the best option for subsea application."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, members of Congress and environmental groups have raised questions about the dispersants, which are being shot into the oil plume thousands of feet beneath the sea.


IMO the big story here is that a foreign-owned company is not following the orders of our own EPA. What happened here? There are more biologically friendly agents, well documented in the press. Besides, the dispersant is merely used to hide the extent of the spill in deep water.

As many lies as have been told up to now, I would bet that the "siphon tube" that is supposed to suck up oil, is doing nothing more than injecting dispersant directly into the leak at the source.

So many outrages, so little time.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
This stuff is nasty business, here's a snippet from one of my recent threads...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by twitchy
Source
"The EPA had to approve and the Unified Command and the Coast Guard had to approve the use of that product. It is approved and in fact we've been using it and it has been effective," BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles told "Good Morning America" today....
"Any living organism that contacts this stuff, particularly the mixture of dispersant and oil, is at significant risk of acute mortality," said marine biologist Rick Steiner.

In fact, EPA testing released Thursday indicates that where the dispersant had been used, 25 percent of all organisms living at 500 feet below the surface died.

I'm going to miss All You Can Eat Shrimp...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This topic really is important, it really is. I've written two threads on this topic in the last several days with almost zero interest from ATS readers - the latest: BPs Lying, CNN is too… and EPA will be too if they accept BPs response!

The product BP has chosen (Corexit 9500) is twice as toxic and half as effective as other products that are readily available according to the EPA itself! The only reason BP is doing this is because the company that produces the product that is TWICE AS EFFECTIVE AND HALF AS TOXIC (Dispersit) is a COMPETITOR to the JOINT PARTNERSHIP between BP and EXXON (Nalco) that produces... get ready... ready for it?.... COREXIT 9500.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join