Oil dispersant Corexit known to be toxic 20 years ago (videos)

Boat captain Preston Morris shows the oil on his hands while collecting surface samples from the oil

AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

 

Related articles

Despite outcry after oil spill, no new plans emerge for US energy

Go bald and barelegged to help clean up Gulf oil spill (see video demo)

Oaklahoma Senator Inhofe claims that oil and gas do not cause pollution

BP insertion tube vacuuming Gulf oil spew (slideshow)

Oil spill devastation (slideshow update)

While Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for ordering BP to use less toxic dispersant chemicals in the company’s cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, others have a hard time understanding why the EPA waited a month. No new science has cropped up that identifies new findings on Corexit.  This dispersant was known to kill 25% of all organisms in it's path since the Exxon Valdez oil dump 20 years ago.  BP has dumped 600,000 gallons of the Corexit 9500 on the surface and 55,000 gallons on the sea bottom.

Oil is toxic to marine life. Dispersant is toxic to marine life. According to Greenpeace, together, their toxicity exceeds the sum of their parts. The people running the spill response for BP are geologists, Greenpeace has called for biologists to be added to the response team..
 BP has been applying these chemicals deep underwater in an effort to mitigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. EPA’s announcement comes just three days after Rep. Markey sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that raised questions about the potential toxicity of the trademarked formulation, called Corexit, that BP had selected for use, and whether the chemical could be contributing to new reports of large undersea “plumes” of oil suspended thousands of feet below the water's surface.

“I commend the Obama administration for acting swiftly to address my concerns that the dispersant BP chose to use is more toxic than other available formulations,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution.”

Rep. Markey’s May 17, 2010 letter, which can be found here, noted that some formulations of Corexit, the substances being used in the Gulf of Mexico, were banned in Britain more than a decade ago due to their tested harmful effects to sea life. The letter also asks about the effects of water temperature and pressure on the chemicals, as they are currently and for the first time being used at 5,000 feet where the temperature is near freezing and the pressure of the water is extremely high. Rep. Markey also asked EPA whether these chemicals could accumulate in marine life over time, and what human health impacts could result from eating Gulf seafood.

“The tests used to measure the toxicity of dispersants involve only a 96-hour dose to the marine animals that will be exposed to them – clearly, their effects when they’re used over longer periods might be significantly more damaging,” said Rep. Markey. “The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans. We must ensure that these chemicals, which are being touted as a way to mitigate the effects of the spill, first do no harm to marine life.”

The dispersant goes by the trade name "Corexit." It's supposed to be a pun on the words "corrects it." Marine conservationist and oil spill expert Rick Steiner says “Corexit” is called “Hidez-It” by insiders because its purpose is not to correct but deceive.  These facts have been known for decades.  Corexit was banned in Great Britian over a decade ago.  Today the EPA finally ordered a change to a less toxic dispersant. 

.

 Rep. Nadler questions BP America chairman Lamar McKay and Transocean CEO Steven Newman over their response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Dispersant studies were done 20 years ago during the Exxon Valdez spill, but it appears this science was not applied to the emergency response plan, nor to the actual clean up response
 

Sources: Globalwarming.gov ,  Greenpeace