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.


"Doubts over safety tests on Gulf oil dispersants"

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:09 PM
Attn: ATS Members

As a scientist in the field of molecular chemistry, I have warned everyone that I know living near the Gulf Coast Region of the US about the toxicological reports of the use of Corexit oil dispersant. Here is another example of the blatant lack of scientific data and the manipulation of that data by BP and Nalco. When will these madman stop using this highly toxic chemical mixture that causes several death threatening illnesses not only to marine life but, to humans as well.

"It screams to me that I can't make a judgement on any of these data," says Carys Mitchelmore, a toxicologist at the University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biology Laboratory in Solomons, and co-author of a 2005 National Research Council report on the use of oil dispersant.

Please read the above article if this is of any concern of yours or to your respected families living near the Gulf Coast Region of the US.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
I remember listening to NPR Radio a few weeks back - my recollection may be wrong but my understanding is that:

1) The "regulators" that are supposed to be monitoring ALL chemicals being used in the environment or elsewhere are using standards going back I believe to 1984.

2) Furthermore, that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty - that is to say they are deemed safe until such times as the onus of evidence against them proves otherwise.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:47 PM
cant be to good

"As of 14 June, more than 3.34 million litres of dispersant had been sprayed onto oil on the sea surface. At least a further 1.52 million litres had been pumped into the oil gushing from the stricken well some 1500 metres below sea level"

Compound Concentration (ppm)
Arsenic 0.16

"Acute inhalation exposure to arsine by humans has resulted in death; it has been reported that a half-hour exposure to 25 to 50 parts per million (ppm) can be lethal. (4)
The major effects from acute arsine exposure in humans include headaches, vomiting, abdominal pains, hemolytic anemia, hemoglobinuria, and jaundice; these effects can lead to kidney failure. (4,8)
Arsine has been shown to have extreme acute toxicity from acute animal tests."

So if 25 to 50 ppm can be lethal, whats prolonged exposure to 0.16 ppm over a couple of months time or longer?

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:57 PM
I read over the article you linked, and nowhere did I see anything substantiated. There are some serious discrepancies in the test results, but nothing beyond that.

I checked on Peter Aldhous, the author:

Peter Aldhous, Ph.D., Lecturer (Policy and Investigative Reporting). San Francisco bureau chief with New Scientist. Peter got his start in journalism in 1989 as a reporter for Nature, then fresh from a Ph.D. in animal behavior. Subsequent roles included European correspondent for Science, and news editor with New Scientist. Prior to moving to California in October 2005, he spent five years as chief news & features editor with Nature. Peter's main interests lie in the biological and social sciences, from genetics and stem cells, through ecology and conservation, to the psychology of addiction and crime. He is a keen roving correspondent, having reported from countries including Cameroon, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Vietnam. His articles have won awards from the Association of British Science Writers, the Association of Health Care Journalists, the U.K. Guild of Health Writers, and the Wistar Institute

While he does appear to be learned in biology, it would also appear his interests are more to the conservation side than the technical. I just penned a thread on Corexit 9527A and Corexit 9500 which shows that the chemicals used in them are not extraordinarily hazardous, especially when compared to the crude oil mixture they are intended to remove. I would be much more open to this argument if I could see some chemical information that reactions taking place during the dispersion process could or would produce known harmful chemical combinations more hazardous than the oil they remove.


posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:43 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

log in