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.

 

The MSDS for COREXIT® 9500

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Can we have an expert look this over and report back to us on the FULL dangers of this stuff?

Thanks


MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT

COREXIT® 9500

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S)
(800) 424-9300 (24 Hours)
CHEMTREC
Nalco Energy Services, L.P. P.O. Box 87 • Sugar Land, Texas 77487-0087 • (281)263-7000

For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access
1 / 10

1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
PRODUCT NAME : COREXIT® 9500

APPLICATION : OIL SPILL DISPERSANT

COMPANY IDENTIFICATION : Nalco Energy Services, L.P.
P.O. Box 87
Sugar Land, Texas
77487-0087

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) : (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING

HEALTH : 1 / 1 FLAMMABILITY : 1 / 1 INSTABILITY : 0 / 0 OTHER :
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

lmrk.org...




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   


Intersting, thanks for posting that.




16. OTHER INFORMATION

Due to our commitment to Product Stewardship, we have evaluated the human and environmental hazards and exposures of this product. Based on our recommended use of this product, we have characterized the product's general risk. This information should provide assistance for your own risk management practices. We have evaluated our product's risk as follows:

* The human risk is: Low

* The environmental risk is: Low



The most harmful ingredient seems to be propylene glycol, which most people come into contact with regularly.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I could have swore I read on the very last page of the MSDS that it should not be aerosoled onto the surface water. I don't see that here
Well I will try to find it again and be back in a bit...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ccsct203
 


Thats... surprising. I deal with MSDS on a daily basis and this seems like play-dough compared to some of the chemicals we use. Still, picking it apart and will be back soonish with an answer.

Cheers
Shane

edit: One strange thing, the flash point and the boiling point don't make any sense:
FLASH POINT : 181.4 °F / 83 °C ( PMCC )
BOILING POINT 296 °F / 147 °C
This is based on 1atm (the same pressure as at sea level). So thats kinda strange


[edit on 3/7/10 by shamus78]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
O.K. MSDS online Nalco CorExit 9500 A safety data sheet PDF. Line 6 under accidental release measures, enviornmental precautions do not contaminate surface water. Make of it what you wish... I report, you decide...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by shamus78
 


The flash/boiling point VERY strange indeed...

Whoops I forgot the second line. What do you make of my find ?
I do NOT suppose we would really knowingly want to contaminate surface water with anything ? Do you ? Is that pretty standard wording for most MSDS ?


[edit on 3-7-2010 by piercebitchone]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
some one in the higher-ups is a liar....they freakin lie to us...yeszzz they do. i don't like this...the flash point is the give-away. am i right?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 


I definately think there is something crazy about it. I was a volunteer firefighter for a lot of years and it doesn't make sense. I will let someone else be the judge though



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The more I read this, the more it seems it was hashed up without any real world experience in MSDS. And yes, I'm not in US but we do have global standards for MSDS.
Here's another example:

ACUTE INVERTEBRATE RESULTS :
Species Exposure LC50 EC50 Test Descriptor
Acartia tonsa 48 hrs 34 mg/l Product
Artemia 48 hrs 20.7 mg/l Product

LC50 = the amount it takes to kill 50% of the test samples.

To kill 50% of Acartia tonsa (teeny tiny crustacean like thing) it took 34mg/l over 48 hours.
To kill 50% of the brine Shrimp (Artemia) used in the study, the Lethal Concentration was 20.7mg/l over 48 hours.

Interestedly, it seems the more complex the organism the less the LC50 will be (although that's only based off the two studies here), so it takes less chemical to kill a more complex animal. This is not unusual. The chemical used was the actual Corexit product, not just an active ingredient.


"BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL
Component substances have a potential to bioconcentrate"

It's going to get passed down the food chain, where simple organisms (who may have a higher concentration of Corexit) get eaten by more complex organisms. See the LC50 findings above.

piercebitchone, I agree. One other thing - the "Methods Of Application" section is missing. The more I read, the more this seems (to me personally) as a spin of a MSDS missing alot of important data.

Making a step by step explanation now and will post up when finished. And I'm not usually one of the paranoid one's around here, but this just doesn't seem right.

Cheers
Shane

[edit on 3/7/10 by shamus78]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hey All,

Well, this is what I've learnt from reading the MSDS. Make of it what you will. Please read the above posts, as I think the bio-accumulation and LC50 levels are quite important. After this I'm running away back to the Philosophy forums.

Two big questions I want to ask:
1.Where is the Methods Of Application section?
2. What is the Poison Schedule for this product?
No mention of either in the MSDS. Here's some highlights from it:
(Bold lettering is from the MSDS.)

Part 8. HUMAN EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION : Based on our recommended product application and personal protective equipment, the potential human exposure is: Low

Remember, this is based on the assumption that everyone is wearing the recommended personal protection equipment and is adhering to the guidelines. The guidelines are meant to apply to anyone with the potential to be contaminated. In this case it's a huge amount of people.

Obviously, in this case, people are not following the MSDS e.g swimming in Corexit polluted water, people walking on beaches that may be contaminated. This section has no real world application. For this section to be relevent: "Where concentrations in air may exceed the limits given in this section, the use of a half face filter mask or air
supplied breathing apparatus is recommended. A suitable filter material depends on the amount and type of chemicals being handled. Consider the use of filter type: Multi-contaminant cartridge. with a Particulate pre-filter. In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA should be used. If respiratory protection is required, institute a complete respiratory protection program including selection, fit testing, training, maintenance and inspection."
would have to followed by possibly quite a lot of people living nearby.

I don't understand why when a chicken sneezes in Japan everyone dons face masks, but when Corexit is being pumped into your waterways some of the population decides to go for a swim.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.95 @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C - It's going to float on the water, but only just. Some clouding will occur with waves.

DENSITY 7.91 lb/gal – Sorry, but this part is wrong. Should say something like: 24/0: 0.92 which would indicate the density of the material was determined at 24 C and it is being divided by the density of water at 0 C. This is not the way we label density.

SOLUBILITY IN WATER Miscible – So it spreads out like oil

pH (100 %) 6.2 Nothing strange with this, very slightly acidic.

VISCOSITY 177 cps @ 32 °F / 0 °C 70 cps @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C @ 104 °F / 40 °C – Like oil, the hotter it gets the more viscous it becomes

BOILING POINT 296 °F / 147 °C - I've already mentioned my confusion about the flash point and the boiling point in an above post

VAPOR PRESSURE 15.5 mm Hg @ 100 °F / 37.8 °C – So it doesn't release its components very well as a gas, rather binds them together to stay whole.

MATERIALS TO AVOID :
Contact with strong oxidizers (e.g. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid, perchlorate, concentrated oxygen,
permanganate) may generate heat, fires, explosions and/or toxic vapors

Ummm. Seawater contains quite a lot of oxiders...

LAND TRANSPORT :
For Packages Less Than Or Equal To 119 Gallons:
Proper Shipping Name : PRODUCT IS NOT REGULATED DURING
TRANSPORTATION
For Packages Greater Than 119 Gallons:
Proper Shipping Name : COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID, N.O.S.
Technical Name(s) : PETROLEUM DISTILLATES
UN/ID No : NA 1993
Hazard Class - Primary : COMBUSTIBLE
Packing Group : III
Flash Point : 83 °C / 181.4 °F
AIR TRANSPORT (ICAO/IATA) :
Proper Shipping Name : PRODUCT IS NOT REGULATED DURING
TRANSPORTATION
MARINE TRANSPORT (IMDG/IMO) :
Proper Shipping Name : PRODUCT IS NOT REGULATED


So, when transporting it anywhere apart from on the road (and then only in quantities above 199 gallons) you don't need a UN number? This is the number that lets first responders to an accident know exactly what they are dealing with.

For a product designed to be used on the water (although there is no proof of this in the MSDS) I simply can't understand why this is so. Theoretically, you could have 10,000 gallons of this stuff on a boat and not need to follow any specific packing class guidelines? That's insane.

CERCLA/SUPERFUND, 40 CFR 117, 302 :
Notification of spills of this product is not required


Do I need to say any more about this part?

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, 40 CFR 401.15 / formerly Sec. 307, 40
CFR 116.4 / formerly Sec. 311 :
None of the substances are specifically listed in the regulation.


This one annoys me a lot. They are not specifically mentioned in this Act because they are not commonly sprayed onto the water, or found in large quantities naturally (or even thru industrial pollution) Not having the Methods of Application section you can't say that Corexit is meant to be sprayed on the water.

The big one for me:

No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product.

So basically, they've studied the individual elements (or taken previous studies) that make it Corexit, but haven't performed (or released) an actual toxicological study. This is actually quite a worry, as individual elements of a product can interact differently depending on several factors.

Air Water Soil/Sediment



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
The most harmful aspect of this chemical is that it causes the oil to sink.
At least that is my thought. Counterpoint, how harmful would this spill be if
all the oil was allowed to float on the surface?Would it be easier to manage
the spill in that manner? What are the risks? Now then, on the other hand,
treat the spill with Corexit and it sinks below the surface. Why? Less damage
to both plant and animal shorelife? Less visible impact to media? Bottom line
is the oil isn't going away. It is now in the food chain. It is now on the surface,
semi below the surface, and covering the bottom in places. What are the ACTUAL benefits of using this product? Does it allow for easier cleanup, does
it help neutralize and biodegrade the oil? If not, who is profiting from its use?
By The Way, can anyone confirm that this product being used by British Petroleum is banned from being used in U.K.waters?I.E. The North Sea ,Etc.
Because WOW B.P. can't use this in British waters if they have a spill there,
but they are using it in ours! Is this true? If it is, this should be front page news
hot off the press tomorrow morning. Oil control a side, the media does not seem to be questioning or concerned about the Gasses/Chemical Fumes
from this well. That is the real man behind the curtain. S&F Wildmanimal



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I don't understand how any chemical standard could be measured as `safe` for humans only but neglect the harm to microscopic lifeforms. After all, any ecosystem depends on EVERYTHING functioning normally.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I am not a scientist or chemist or anything. My knowledge of HazMat is limited through Fire Safety training and trucking and D.O.T. regs. The oil is in the ground as well as all that comes up out of the well. The CorExit is not and that is my concern. They have intoduced 1.4 million gallons of this stuff as of June 23. I think down the road this will be our biggest enemy of this whole disaster... We can only wait and see. Shane as far as the flash/boiling point it is very odd and not even possible unless they used some sort of very different controls. I just don't know



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Wow, great post. Having an analysis of the MSDS by someone with seemingly sufficient real-world experience is a rarity - and should be highlighted. This thread should get more attention, IMO.

This analysis combined with breaking news that suggests Corexit has entered the Gulf's food chain is scary, to say the least.

Why more aren't concerned is certainly puzzling ..



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
The most harmful aspect of this chemical is that it causes the oil to sink.
At least that is my thought. Counterpoint, how harmful would this spill be if
all the oil was allowed to float on the surface?Would it be easier to manage
the spill in that manner? What are the risks? Now then, on the other hand,
treat the spill with Corexit and it sinks below the surface. Why? Less damage
to both plant and animal shorelife? Less visible impact to media? Bottom line
is the oil isn't going away. It is now in the food chain. It is now on the surface,
semi below the surface, and covering the bottom in places. What are the ACTUAL benefits of using this product? Does it allow for easier cleanup, does
it help neutralize and biodegrade the oil?


Good questions. I would say the best aspect is it allows the oil to break down. Thats a good thing. Of course, theres all the awful side effects.

The best place for the oil would be on the beaches, breaking down naturally. But that would be bad for tourism, and photo-ops.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
i dont have to be very smart to know if it breaks down oil
it could break down my innards too.
lets wait till the birds fall from the trees and people are bleeding out their assholes-
the chamber of commerce can always touch up the photos .
and the waters warmer than ever-y'all come on down.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by p51mustang]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by p51mustang
i dont have to be very smart to know if it breaks down oil
it could break down my innards too.
lets wait till the birds fall from the trees and people are bleeding out their assholes


the article and topic isnt about corexitts effects on your body.

Its about the potential ability for the corexitt to make the oil droplets so small that they pass through cell walls and enter the food chain.

but yes, dont drink corexitt.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 
well if it's about entering the food chain , then isnt it about
birds fallin from the trees and folks bleeding out their assholes?
all i really need to hear is that it's from the rockefeller family of fine products
to think that it's of the devil.




[edit on 30-7-2010 by p51mustang]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Thank you !

This needs to get into every Gulf Coast Home.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Based on the clumping ability, smaller bottom dwelling animals will get the biggest dose, it will spread up the food chain into larger and larger animals. And, as is normal for something like this, the more complex the organism, the less Corexit you need to reach the LC50 dose.

So while a shrimp may have a non lethal dose of Corexit, the fish that eats it may find that the Corexit in the shrimp is enough to kill it.

The best place for this oil would have been on the beaches. It would have preserved the food chain a lot better then using this chemical.

[edit on 30/7/10 by shamus78]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join