It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Former Valdez Cleanup Worker Warns of Toxic Dangers in the Gulf

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:12 PM
by Marian Wang, ProPublica - June 4, 2010 10:40 am EDT

At the time, it was the worst oil spill the United States had ever seen.

It was 1989, and Merle Savage, then a healthy 50-year-old, had heard the news about Exxon Valdez. Compelled to help, she spent four months cleaning up Alaska’s oil-contaminated waters and shores.

She has never been the same since. Now 71, Savage still feels the toll that summer took on her health, but as she watches the reports coming out of the Gulf, she’s felt something else:

Déjà vu.

After all, the symptoms [1] seem to line up [2]:

A flu-like illness [3]. Dizziness. Nausea. Nosebleeds. Vomiting. Headaches. Coughing. Difficulty breathing. Many of the same things she experienced two decades ago; some of the same things she still experiences today.

“I had an upset stomach all the time. I was throwing up, fainting, I was having trouble with my lungs,” Savage said. It’s been 21 years. She said her health has improved over the past two decades, but still, “everything is not back to normal. It’s still difficult to breathe.”

Asked if there’s any doubt in her mind that the health problems in the Gulf are due to workers’ chemical exposure, she was certain.

“No. There’s none,” Savage said. “Let’s face it, crude oil is toxic. There’s no question about it. Anybody who says it isn’t has to have some type of interest otherwise. The fact that you’re out there in it, and the heat and humidity and fumes, you breathe it and it’s going into your lungs. I can’t imagine anybody thinking different.”

But there are people who suggest otherwise. The Coast Guard has suggested that heat, fatigue, or the smell of petroleum [4] is causing the symptoms. BP CEO Tony Hayward suggested over the weekend that the symptoms could be caused by food poisoning, which he said was “a really big issue when you’ve got a concentration of this many people [5].”

The comment has prompted public ridicule [6]. But the suggestion that the illness is attributable in some way to crowded quarters is one that dates to the Exxon Valdez, when workers came down with what was then described as “a flu-like upper respiratory illness.”

Here’s an excerpt, from a 1999 article in the Anchorage Daily News [7]:

Exxon and its main cleanup contractor, Anchorage-based Veco, acknowledged that summer that many workers got sick. But Exxon said then, and in the prepared statement now, that the illnesses were “a flu-like upper respiratory illness” that spread because of crowded living conditions on the barges where workers bunked. The illness became known as the “Valdez Crud” and Exxon said it spread even to lawyers and claims adjusters who had little direct exposure to the cleanup and its materials.

Exxon never revealed, and government officials never discovered, precisely how widespread the problem was. But years later, Exxon’s internal medical reports showed up in court records. They revealed that an unspecified number of the 11,000 workers made 5,600 clinic visits for upper respiratory illnesses that summer. The source of the illness was never identified.

Then [7], like now [4], workers were assured by the oil company and the government that tests had been performed to check for harmful chemicals, and that the levels found were permissible by federal standards and were no cause for concern. (On its website, the EPA says it is “concerned about the potential for long-term health problems related to the spill [8],” and that it continues to monitor the air for toxic compounds.)

Then [7], like now, volatile organic compounds such as benzene [9] (PDF) were among the toxic chemical compounds found in air samples, but levels were low, and such chemicals are generally believed to evaporate quickly [8].

And then, like now, there were questions of whether appropriate safety equipment was provided [10]. Savage says she was not given a respirator, but was given a paper mask that “didn’t last long” once wet. Other Valdez cleanup workers, like Jacqueline Payne and her son Jacob, told The Boston Globe in 1992 that they had neither [11].

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that BP said it is providing protective equipment to workers who need it [12], but BP spokesman Graham MacEwen told Yahoo! News that “we haven’t provided respirators or masks [13] because all the environmental data shows the air is safe.”

BP spokesman Mark Proegler told me this morning that because air sampling results had been within permissible exposure limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “with respect to respirators, since they’re not required, we’re not providing them unless there are indications about volatile organic compounds in the area, which there haven’t been.”

“If volunteers have concerns, we deploy them to a different area,” Proegler said.

But the fact is, in spite of the air sampling data, cleanup workers in the Gulf are getting sick, as did their Valdez counterparts decades before. Numbers are sketchy, but a U.S. News & World Report piece published yesterday noted that reports of illness are on the rise [14].

We’ve reached out to the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, OSHA and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to obtain better figures on worker health complaints and hospitalizations related to the Gulf oil spill. We have yet to hear back.

I asked BP if it’s enough to say that data show conditions are safe for workers, given that they’re still coming down sick. I also pointed out that workers from Valdez who have been sick for two decades were told the same thing—that testing showed the levels of chemical exposures were safe. Proegler’s answer:

“Obviously it’s in our best interest to make sure everyone is safe, and every organization is here to test it and make sure it is.”

But despite such assurances, some are certain that crucial lessons from Exxon Valdez are going ignored.

“They’re not listening with what happened with Exxon,” said Savage. The workers “have to watch out for themselves. They cannot depend on BP and they cannot depend on the government.”

Savage has written a book, Silence in the Sound [15], about her experience as a female general foreman cleaning up a historic oil spill. I asked if she regretted the experience. She answered right away.

“Oh my goodness, yes, honey. Yes. A thousand times over,” she told me.

And then, as she had so many times, she stopped to cough and clear her throat.

Well I am certain all agencies involved have learned from the mistakes of the past and are just that, mistakes of the past.

Then...No respirators

And now... No respirators

Looks more like a family outing - sun hats and all... No respirators

At least their wearing boots... No respirators

I wonder why with all of the historical data from the valdez incident all of these workers have elected to go without respirators. Have we learned nothing?

[edit on 9-6-2010 by WWJFKD]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by WWJFKD]

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:15 PM

BP's plan to protect spill workers inadequate, experts say

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- BP's plan to protect workers fighting the massive oil spill in the Gulf, which the Coast Guard approved on May 25, exposes them to higher levels of toxic chemicals than generally accepted practices permit.

As a result, BP isn't required to give workers respirators, to evacuate them from danger zones or to take other precautions until conditions are more dangerous. The looser standards are due in part to federal regulations that don't specify safety thresholds for volatile organic compounds, or VOCs - the principal toxins that threaten the health of spill response workers, experts said.

BP's plan also fails to address the use of more than 1 million gallons of dispersants so far in the cleanup.

"This plan is not workable and offers a false sense of security," said Eileen Senn, a former state and federal health and safety official for more than 40 years. "It gives the impression that you can write a procedure to dodge chemical bullets that are coming at you constantly."

Critics are questioning the quality of the company's plan as a growing number of oil spill workers are becoming sick.

The illnesses have sparked a debate about whether the Obama administration should be pushing BP to take more stringent precautions or even wrest control of the company's health and safety response.

More than 24,400 people are working on the response to the spill. Of the 50 workers who have reported becoming ill in Louisiana, most of their symptoms cleared up quickly, but a majority of the workers think the dispersants were to blame.

"Overall, BP's plan is not responsive to the health complaints we're hearing about," said Franklin Mirer, a toxicologist and Hunter College professor.

The Coast Guard didn't respond to repeated requests for comment. As a result, it's unclear what role the Coast Guard had in independently evaluating BP's plan or in assessing the adequacy of the safety standards.

On Wednesday, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the Obama administration's point man on the oil spill, said he had "a lot of concerns about worker safety" given the hot weather and concerns about VOCs.

He said firefighting vessels have been dispatched to the area to spray a "water blanket" on the oil to prevent chemical vapors from rising.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and BP are monitoring the air offshore and so far haven't found levels of toxic chemicals that exceed federal standards.

The BP plan, known as the Offshore Air Monitoring Plan for Source Control, allows workers to stay in an area when vapors are at a level that's four times higher than accepted practice to prevent an explosion.

The Marine Spill Response Corp., an oil and gas industry organization, recommended lower levels in the mid-1990s, according to a document posted on OSHA's website.

Even the accepted level "is a very high exposure from a health point of view," Mirer said. "At that point, workers should be leaving the site," he said, rather than just monitoring the situation as the plan requires.

However, Ray Viator, a BP spokesman, called the company's plan "aggressive" in its monitoring of toxins in the air and protecting workers. The plan, he said, applies to workers who are burning off the oil, applying the dispersant, drilling the relief wells and performing other operations near the source of spill. The company installed charcoal ventilation systems in the crew quarters and made sure respirators are on hand in the boats directly in the spill area although so far the equipment has not been used.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:21 PM
$12/hr is not worth my health.

You guys working on clean up better wake up and get the right PPE and Wear It!

The Gulf coast is dying and there is not much we can do about it.

I could smell the crude all day at my house and at my work.

BP is gonna pay....

And so will the complacent Feds.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:28 PM
The whole field of Toxicology is downplayed again.

At least EPA asked BP to switch from Corexit to other less toxic dispersants.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by jjjtir
The whole field of Toxicology is downplayed again.

At least EPA asked BP to switch from Corexit to other less toxic dispersants.

The EPA asked BP? I thought the EPA handed-out fines, and certain protocols to follow, or face more fines on top oif more fines until the issue is resolved?

OK. Everyday I come to ATS, I find how much more I need to educate myself, or rely on the scholars I trust here to teach me...

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:19 AM

Oil spill spurs illnesses in Louisiana, Alabama

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
June 9, 2010 7:10 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- States are tracking the health consequences of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, including respiratory and skin irritation problems in Louisiana and Alabama, health officials said.

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals is aware of 71 cases of oil spill-related illness as of Wednesday, said state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry. Of them, 50 involved workers on oil rigs or who participated in cleanup efforts, and 21 reports of illness came from the general public.

Symptoms reported by workers included throat irritation, cough, chest pain, headaches, and shortness of breath, he said. Eight workers were hospitalized, for an average of one day each, the department said.

In terms of the general public, odors from the oil spill have been related to most reported illnesses in Louisiana, the department said. Most people who reported oil-related sickness were 18 to 64 years old.

The state is keeping track of health complaints related to the spill through hospitals, clinics, first aid stations and a toll free number residents can call for Poison Control, Guidry said. People with oil-related symptoms are followed until they feel well again, which is usually fairly quickly, he said.

People who are sensitive to the smells should stay inside with doors and windows closed and with air-conditioning running, officials said. Consider contacting your physician if you are a Louisiana resident with symptoms and also have a pre-existing condition, such as asthma or other respiratory illness, the department said.

Monitoring of Louisiana's air has not found chemicals from oil that would cause a large negative health impact, Guidry said.

"It might cause people to have the symptoms we're seeing, but they're not long-term, and they're short-lived if you remove yourself from the exposure," he said.

Drinking water, also being monitored, is currently safe, he said. If hydrocarbons did get into the drinking water, that would mean that salt water has also infiltrated the system, which is also a problem; both oil and salt are being monitored, he said.

The state is working with the U.S. Coast Guard to make sure that ships coming from the Gulf are decontaminated and washed off before they come up the river, he said.

Local governments have closed beaches at Grand Isle and Port Fourchon, Guidry said.

In Alabama, which is also keeping track of oil-related health complaints, 15 cases of illness have been reported, said Dr. Don Williamson, state health officer. Ten of them had respiratory problems and five had skin irritation, he said. There was one additional hospitalization reported, but it is likely heat-related, he said.

The state has done extensive public awareness campaigns about avoiding oil exposure, Williamson said. The health department has issued advisories against swimming and all beaches have signs posted to that effect, but no beaches are closed, he said.

Based on air monitoring, there is no reason to close the beaches in Alabama, he said.

One source of concern is knowing when to lift the advisories against swimming, since they cannot be based on real-time water testing.

"This is not a tide of oil that comes in relentlessly," Williamson said. "You have these floating mats of oil and they may intrude onto the beach today, and tomorrow you may have no visible oil."

There are no known long-term health consequences of the oil spill, but the United States has never seen this kind of event before, Williamson said.

"You've got to put in place something beforehand; it's going to be very hard to reconstruct it after the fact," he said. "That will be an issue that we'll have to deal with across the Gulf."

Most dangerous chemicals in oil evaporate, and the substances in tar balls that have washed up on the coastline are not as toxic, because the oil has been weathered and the chemicals broken down, Guidry said. But coming into contact with oil could cause rashes, he said.

"Telling people to avoid the beach or to avoid the water, depending where the oil is, is probably wise, because for most people, if you keep it on your skin for any length of time, it will irritate your skin," Guidry said. "If there are a lot of fumes involved, it certainly will irritate your lungs, and your nose and throat."

Small children who swim in oil-contaminated water will likely swallow some of it, which may cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, Williamson said.

The beaches of Mississippi have so far been shielded from the effects of the oil spill, being somewhat protected by Louisiana and the barrier islands, said Liz Sharlot, spokeswoman for the Mississippi State Department of Health. There have not been any reported illnesses or beach closures, she said.

Florida does not have any reported illnesses connected to the oil spill either, said health department spokeswoman Susan Smith. Escambia County has posted advisories against swimming in the Gulf, but no beaches are closed, she said.

The Texas Department of State Health Services has not issued any warnings regarding the oil spill and is not aware of any related illnesses, a spokeswoman said.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:34 AM
9-11 workers anyone?

When BP gives that crap about it being food poisoning people need to rather forcefully say, NO. People like to be polite in trying to explain that this is something real but when up against this kind of corporate BS, being polite is not going to fly and people aren't going to pay attention.

To think that they're getting paid about 12 dollars an hour to ruin their health for who knows how long.. I don't really know how it happens. It might as well be radioactive. With radiation, we're hyperaware of the consequences but when it comes to nasty smells, we think they are somehow unable to give us a sign that something might be unhealthy.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:12 AM
I have a few friends that are working the on the clean up.

Now check this out when the asked about being issued respirators they were basically told that the EPA has done air testing and OHSA said they were not needed. " The air is safe to breath." They then asked about supplying their own and were told they cannot wear them at all.

I told them they need to quit.

So today I am going to my local EOC and I am going to talk to MDEQ and the local Hazmat Coordinator. I am going to ask for some independent air quality test.

If that don't work I am gonna gear up and get the equipment to go test the air may damn self.

The EPA lies all the time just look at 9/11 and the FEMA trailers. The EPA said they were safe to.

I am going to expose these bastards and get the word out if the air proves to be a health hazard.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:48 PM
Well I just got back from the EOC and had a talk with the ESF 10 Hazmat coordinator. They have the same questions we do where is the air data.

Well the EPA has it on a website and its the raw data and very difficult to read an understand.

The folks at the helm locally are not getting their questions answered by unified command.

I will have more later on today.

I am also working on obtaining a copy of the video of the Fight to and from Grand Isle LA. It shows a lot of oil in the marsh.

Edit to Add:

[edit on 10-6-2010 by SWCCFAN]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Signals
Take this for what it's worth.

Lindsey Williams' reports from a "secret source"..... level................recent EPA test of gulf area
Hydrogen Sulfide-------5-10 PPB----------------1,200 PPB !!!
Benzine------------------0-4 PPB----------------3,000 PPB !!!!!!!!!
Methalyne Chloride------61 PPB----------------3,000-4,000 PPB!!!!!!

(PPB = parts per billion)

I was listening to the show too and took notes

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Signals]

I just found this on another Thread. Thought you guys might want to know.

Also the MSNG is out taking air samples today but the wind is out of the wrong direction to pick up any thing today.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by SWCCFAN]

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM

People Fall ill in BP Spill Cleanup #1 - May 27, 2010

Must Watch!

I am not really sure why this thread has not taken off yet but everyone needs to watch the video!

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by WWJFKD

The answer as to why no respirators is a simple one, at least in my mind.
BP is concerned about its image, more than they are about people's safety who are working to clean this up. And I believe that there will be thousands of claims for health related issues relating to this spill. And of course BP knows that too; I believe the Exxon Valdez spill had
about 36,000 claims, plus or minus before it was over with if memory serves me right.

In their mind, they are probably thinking what is better for BP, to have hundreds or a few thousand persons walking around in only boots and a caps, looking like they are on a clam dig, or the same number dressed in hazmat suits/respirators with national television exposure to millions in the Gulf area; who may just realize or start thinking about how dangerous exposure to some of the toxic materials by air or rain might be, and who potentially could file millions of claims?

Perception and Deception can be very powerful tools.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by manta78]

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:52 PM
Out in the islands on the great lakes where there are no roads
every one gets there oil from fuel boats
they show up periodically and fill your bulk oil and/or gas tanks.

Just from hanging out at the nozzle while pumping has caused the fueler
I know to become totally FUBAR
he says"
"If only I had known."

Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM)
Benzene Toxicity
Physiologic Effects
Hematopoietic System
Benzene primarily affects the CNS and the hematopoietic system.
Benzene exposure affects the CNS and hematopoietic system and may affect the immune system. Death due to acute benzene exposure has been attributed to asphyxiation, respiratory arrest, CNS depression, or cardiac dysrhythmia. Pathologic findings in fatal cases have included respiratory tract inflammation, lung hemorrhages, kidney congestion, and cerebral edema.

Central Nervous System Effects
At very high concentrations, benzene rapidly causes CNS depression, which can lead to death.
Acute benzene exposure results in classic symptoms of CNS depression such as dizziness, ataxia, and confusion. These effects are believed to be caused by benzene itself rather than its metabolites, because the onset of CNS effects at extremely high doses is too rapid for metabolism to have occurred.

Hematologic Effects
All three blood cell lines may be adversely affected by benzene.
Pluripotential stem cells and lymphocytic cells are the probable targets of benzene toxicity.
Benzene can cause dangerous hematologic toxicity such as anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, or pancytopenia after chronic exposure. These effects are believed to be caused by the metabolites of benzene, which most likely damage the DNA of the pluripotential stem cells. All of the blood's components (i.e., erythrocytes, leukocytes, and thrombocytes [platelets]) may be affected to varying degrees. The accelerated destruction or reduction in the number of all three major types of blood cells is termed pancytopenia. Potentially fatal infections can develop if granulocytopenia is present, and hemorrhage can occur as a result of thrombocytopenia. Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, a disorder in which the breakdown of the red blood cells is accelerated and results in bleeding into the urine during sleep when the condition is active, has been associated with benzene exposure. Cytogenetic abnormalities of bone marrow cells and circulating lymphocytes have been observed in workers exposed to benzene-abnormalities not unlike those observed after exposure to ionizing radiation. Myelodysplastic effects also can be seen in the bone marrow of persons chronically exposed to benzene.

Benzene-induced aplastic anemia is caused by chronic exposure at relatively high levels.
Aplastic anemia is caused by bone marrow failure, resulting in hypoplasia with an inadequate number of all cell lines. Severe aplastic anemia typically has a poor prognosis and can progress to leukemia, whereas pancytopenia may be reversible. Benzene-induced aplastic anemia is generally caused by chronic exposure at relatively high doses. Fatal aplastic anemia following benzene exposure was first reported in workers in the nineteenth century.

Benzene-induced leukemia has a usual latency period of 5 to 15 years and, in many cases, is preceded by aplastic anemia.
Several agencies (e.g., the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and the International Agency for Research on Cancer) classify benzene as a confirmed human carcinogen. EPA estimates that a lifetime exposure to 4 ppb benzene in air will result in, at most, 1 additional case of leukemia in 10,000 people exposed. EPA has also estimated that lifetime exposure to a benzene concentration of 100 ppb in drinking water would correspond to, at most, 1 additional cancer case in 10,000 people exposed.

Cohort studies of benzene-exposed workers in several industries (e.g., sheet-rubber manufacturing, shoe manufacturing, and rotogravure [a special printing process]) have demonstrated significantly elevated risk of leukemia-predominantly acute myelogenous leukemia, but also erythroleukemia and acute myelomonocytic leukemia. The latency period for benzene-induced leukemia is typically 5 to 15 years after first exposure. Patients with benzene-induced aplastic anemia progress to a preleukemic phase and develop acute myelogenous leukemia. However, a person exposed to benzene may develop leukemia without having aplastic anemia.

Studies addressing the risk of leukemia associated with occupational exposures to low levels of benzene (less than approximately 1 ppm) have been inconclusive. Death certificates do not reveal increased leukemia mortality among workers potentially exposed to low levels of hydrocarbons and other petroleum products.

However, in recent case-control studies, significantly more patients with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia were employed as truck drivers, filling station attendants, or in jobs involving exposure to low levels of petroleum products than were the controls.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
Well i suspect as much but having looked at the above images i now find i have to speak out.

The reason the press is not being allowed in is nothing realy to do with the oil but to do with the people cleaning the beach up and you would have to be color blind not to notice apart from the odd massa controling them that they are all non-white.

You see the same thing with the american military and you can bet the zionists have a plan that will see a lot of black/espanic military personal killed.

maybe they don't care to give the workers breathing equipment because it will slow them down and too bad if a lot of them die because oil is carsnagentic and whats the point of cleaning the beach untill the oil has been stopped and would they not do better to be stop the oil out at sea.

As always when it comes to oil somthing is not right.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:13 PM
This is now main stream news now according to this Thread

It's sad that ATS hasn't had the same response to this thread as it does to the one just posted in BAN. Proof that we still rely on the MSM to tell us what to think an believe.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:26 PM

We are continuing to review EPA Air Quality Monitoring data, and any other air monitoring data that becomes available. Please refer to my previous post on air quality for information prior to May 26th. Below, I’ll post new summaries on a weekly basis for all locations along the Gulf coast.

We are focusing on the following top-priority air pollutants: hydrogen sulfide, benzene and naphthalene, because these are among the most hazardous to health. Hydrogen sulfide smells like rotten eggs and causes immediate symptoms, such as confusion, headaches, and respiratory problems; benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans, and naphthalene is an anticipated human carcinogen that has been linked to neuroblastomas, and cancers of the nose and airways. We’re also reviewing data on other pollutants; if we find any levels of concern, we’ll post that information here.

In my previous post on air quality, I used short-term risk numbers as points of comparison, but now this disaster is dragging on for months so I’m going to start using benchmarks for longer-term exposure. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has set benchmarks for some oil pollutants for short-term (1-14 days), intermediate (15-364 days) and long-term (> 1 year) exposures. In the case of hydrogen sulfide, EPA is taking 1-hour air samples at different locations along the coast in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, so these numbers are best compared with an EPA 1-hour benchmark standard.

Hydrogen Sulfide benchmarks:

Short-term – 1 hour samples: 510 parts-per-billion (ppb) (Mississippi, Alabama, Florida sites)

Short-term – 1 day average: 70 ppb (Louisiana sites)

Intermediate: 20 ppb

Long-term: Not available

Benzene benchmarks:

Short term: 9 ppb

Intermediate: 6 ppb

Long term: 3 ppb

Naphthalene benchmarks:

Short term: Not available

Intermediate: Not available

Long term: 0.7 ppb

I want to remind readers that the EPA air monitoring data is limited; residents and workers may experience stronger fumes (e.g. spikes in levels of one or more chemical), while others may not smell any odors at all. Anyone who feels impacted by fumes should go into an air-conditioned indoor environment until they feel better. This is especially important for pregnant women, infants and young children, the elderly, asthmatics and others suffering from illnesses.

Symptoms of exposure to oil fumes could include dizziness, headache, irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat, cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, nausea and vomiting. If your symptoms don’t go away within a short time after you go inside to rest, please seek medical attention. To ensure that odors and health problems are documented and to get advice on the appropriate actions to take if you feel sick, call the following resources:
To report odors
In Louisiana call Chris Ruhl (214)789-9587 or Mike McAteer (214) 354-9371 from the EPA
In Florida, Mississippi and Alabama, call the Joint Information Center (985) 902-5231
If you’re experiencing health problems, seek medical attention. Medical information is also available from the Poison Control Center: 1-800-222-1222.
Get on the map. The Louisiana Bucket Brigade is collecting information on the impacts of the Gulf Spill. Go to and report anything you see or smell firsthand regarding the oil spill. You can also text the information to (504) 272-7645, e-mail it to or Twitter #BPspillmap.

The air monitoring data so far appear not to be cause for major concern for benzene and naphthalene. The levels of hydrogen sulfide EPA is reporting is some areas could cause short-term symptoms in sensitive people and could potentially pose a long-term risk if the elevated levels continue. EPA scientists have reported technical difficulties related to this data and their current methods may overestimate the health concerns. We will update this site as new information comes in that helps clarify the hydrogen sulfide data.

And now the air monitoring data. Please keep in mind that the data are only as accurate as what is available from EPA at the time this was posted and sometimes data is missing or there insufficient data to calculate an average. Click on a location below to go directly to the data for your region:

This is the best site I've found so far for monitoring toxic elements in the air, at least some of them. Check the body for readings in your area. I'll note that H2S seems to be broadly at at least 100 ppb, with some locations spiking to 400 ppb. There weren't samples for a lot of locations, so there are a lot of holes in the data.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:24 PM
I live here, I will try to get through to someone here in Louisiana, but I don't know where to start, Any suggestions, on whom I might try to get in touch with? This would be useful! I do have access to offshore employees, They frequent the restaraunt I work at, so I could talk to them, and maybe let them in on it, but after that I don't know where to go, from there. I don't think Bobby Jindell would take me seriously, but I could try sending a email with links to these articles to him.

Suggestions please?

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:47 PM
I sent an email to Bobby Jindal, I hope it gets to the right department, from there.
More suggestions would be helpful, and I will try to do whatever I can from here.
There are blocked off and security at the gulf, so you can't get through, Hopefully that will keep the general public safe, for a while, but this thing is one gigantic nightmare.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:02 PM
Well,this is some news.

I thought I read on this forum that all those involved with the Valdez spill were all dead!

I guess someone has survived.

Wearing a respirator is a pain and causes almost as much health problems over a period of time in hot humid weather as not.

They are usually worn in a confined space and not in the open air.

You would need a trained person just to monitor all those wearing the respirators full time.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by jjjtir

AT LEAST THE EPA WHAT???????????????????????????

Wake up!!!!


"F&*%CK YOU."


and they are using NEUROHYDROCARBONS......

Neuro...........perhaps that's why everyone
complacent and lethargic.

Both sighs of contamination.

God Help Us.


log in