CONTAMINATION - Coming Soon to Food Near You - Produced by Nalco Corexit - Directed by Barack Obama

Investigating Obama, American Daughter ^ | 6/24/2010 | Nan Matthis

[CharlesWayneCT]

Here's a list of ingredients:

CAS #	Name	Common Day-to-Day Use Examples
1338-43-8	Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate	Skin cream, body shampoo, emulsifier in juice
9005-65-6	Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.	Baby bath, mouth wash, face lotion, emulsifier in food
9005-70-3	Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs	Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions
577-11-7	* Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)	Wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin, beverages
29911-28-2	Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)	Household cleaning products
64742-47-8	Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light	Air freshener, cleaner
111-76-2	** Ethanol, 2-butoxy	Cleaners

The EPA, the Centers for Disease Control, and 30 major industrial countries all think this is much better for the environment than the oil.

The environmentalist whackos say otherwise, as does apparently the Russian minister of energy or something like that.

[CharlesWayneCT]

According to a great many experts, this Corexit path is doing much more harm than good, compared to other options.

In my opinion, these people are not "experts", they don't seem to know how this stuff actually works, or what it's properties are. The people we pay to make these decisions certainly have come to a different conclusion.

And before you tell me that I can't trust the EPA, when is the last time you remember the EPA saying something that was dangerous is actually SAFE? They are known for telling us that safe things are dangerous.

And when is the last time the CDC told people things were safe when they were not? Isn't the CDC the group that had us all worked up over the swine flu?

Government doesn't underplay things, they are paid to overregulate.

[CharlesWayneCT]

but from the literature I was able to acquire, some of the contents are still proprietary

What I've read indicates we have all the ingredients, what we don't have is the relative concentrations. I posted the ingredients above this post in a table format, along with a list of household items that use them.

[mstar]

Those who profess to know the answers at this early stage are not to be trusted, but it is interesting to pick apart their agenda driven mantras that are trying to pass off as scientific knowledge.

Thank you. Excellent posts, good sound insight.

[Habibi]

“I posted the ingredients above this post “

Thank you very much for doing this. This is far more useful than listening to some Green’s babble. Get the numbers. Get the ingredients. It’s the start of moving towards an answer.

[Scythian]

Never look diretly at “Corexit” ....

But seriously, I think this is all bad news ....

[Scythian]

There are many freepers here from big pharma and big agra that carry water for their masters, I’m sure they are a few who will carry water on this issue here too, they are easy to spot as well.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It couldn’t be that they actually believe in what they do for a living, and are trying to provide their expertise?

[Scythian]

No, you’re right, that could be it, it’s just that they’re wrong and in large part brainwashed/uneducated ...

[kingu]

Reasonable observation.

Which will be about to be ignored...

However, the Corexit is separating the oil into its constituent parts, harming both the ocean and the air.

1,250 barrels of Corexit treating 1.6 million barrels of crude oil is doing all of this, rather than the 8,000 psi wellhead pressure, the 40% methane concentration, the mile long transit from release point to surface... So if they cease to treat the oil at the wellhead with Corexit, then everything will be just fine, and we can use all the great traditional clean up methods.

Sorry, I've run out of suspension of physics for this week.

[Eagle Eye]

I was at Pensacola Beach yesterday and ate supper at a beachfront restaurant while witnessing the giant photo op of a clean up.

Funny that the only beaches that were closed were the only beaches that would support the caravans of buses and media trucks. Just a half mile away the beaches were open and people swimming.

[boycott]

http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf

Personally, I wouldn’t want prolonged exposure to Skin cream, body shampoo, Baby bath, mouth wash, face lotion, Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions, Wetting agent in cosmetic products, Household cleaning products, Air freshener, or cleaners.

And I certainly wouldn’t want it in my eyes and I wouldn’t want to be inhaling it all day long. Unfortunately for our fish and other wildlife, they have no choice.

There are some dispersants that are as safe as drinking a cup of coffee (I know this for an absolute fact). I don’t recommend you drink Corexit 9500. Some of these would be cheaper too.

Yeah, it might be okay to touch skin cream, body shampoo, cleaners, household cleaning products, etc., but I wouldn’t recommend ingesting it or prolonged exposure.

[Habibi]

“I think this is all bad news ....”

Well, of course it’s not good news. It’s difficult to paint an ecological disaster as an Ivory Snow commercial. The situation is what it is. Pols will fight it with sound bites and photo ops, as they have neither expertise or capabilities to solve the problem.

Practitioners, on the other hand, tend to actually DO something about the problem. As yet, there is no perfect solution to the problem facing them. However, they know more than most about what will help the situation. Given the environmental problems we’ll be facing in the short term, I’m not willing to go “all wobbly” when it comes to taking constructive action.

Now, there are those that will go into hysterics simply from what their friends tell them. Others, will forgo parroting the PC mantra and actually expend the time and do some research. It’s not that hard with the internet. What is disheartening is listening to the number of folks that clearly don’t have a clue about what they are talking about. I’m specifically referencing the enviros, and their fellow travelers of the day, the press.

Neither is particularly well educated about the particular subject they are holding forth upon, yet that does not stop them from turning their amp volume up to 11. To listen to them, one might think they were politicians themselves. In truth they are minions of the same, which gets into agendas, and dark alleys that I’m not really not comfortable walking down.

I can’t emphasize this enough. Do your own research, if you are really interested in the problem. Don’t rely on others to do it for you. Most people are quite happy to be led, which accounts for why the country’s in such a pickle of late. There’s no reason you have to make the same mistake.

[Joya]

Thank you.

[unspun]

1,250 barrels of Corexit treating 1.6 million barrels of crude oil is doing all of this, rather than the 8,000 psi wellhead pressure, the 40% methane concentration, the mile long transit from release point to surface... So if they cease to treat the oil at the wellhead with Corexit, then everything will be just fine, and we can use all the great traditional clean up methods.

It's the argument of deceit, to put words in the mouth of one's adversary, then to diecredit them.

Choose your sides wisely.

Or, in this case, if you really wish to, keep arguing that the dispersant they are using is ineffective, therefore they should keep using it. I think I might find more challenging arguments at DU or HuffPo.

BTW, have you seen the video of the jets they are spraying into the petroleum, at its point of entry? BTW2, are you an expert in this field? I have communicated with one. Maybe you would like to be introduced. (Don't worry, this last paragraph is rhetorical.)

[unspun]

BP chose more toxic, less effective oil dispersant manufactured by company …

They didn't. The EPA asked them about this, and BP responded, and the EPA agreed with the response.

The statement is correct.

Toxicity and Effectiveness | Emergency Management | US EPA

• Dispersants
• Surface washing agents
• Surface collecting agents (none presently listed)
• Bioremediation agents
• Miscellaneous oil spill control agents

Appendix C to 40 CFR part 300 (PDF) (23 pp, 187K, About PDF) describes methods for required effectiveness and toxicity tests for specific product categories.

Dispersants

Product (1:10 Product-to-No. 2 Fuel Oil ratio)	Toxicity (LC50 values in ppm)		Effectiveness (%)
	Menidia (96-hr)	Mysidopsis (48-hr)	Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil	South Louisiana Crude Oil	Average of Crude Oils
BIODISPERS	5.95	2.66	51.00	63.00	57.00
COREXIT® EC9500A	2.61	3.40	45.30	54.70	50.00
COREXIT® EC9527A	4.49	6.60	37.40	63.40	50.40
DISPERSIT SPC 1000™	7.90	8.20	40.00	100.00	73.00
FINASOL OSR 52	5.40	2.37	32.50	71.60	52.10
JD-109	3.84	3.51	26.00	91.00	58.50
JD-2000™	3.59	2.19	60.40	77.80	69.10
MARE CLEAN 200	42.00	9.84	63.97	84.14	74.06
NEOS AB3000	57.00	25.00	19.70	89.80	54.80
NOKOMIS 3-AA	7.03	5.56	63.20	65.70	64.50
NOKOMIS 3-F4	100	58.40	62.20	64.90	63.55
SAF-RON GOLD	9.25	3.04	84.80	53.80	69.30
SEA BRAT #4	23.00	18.00	53.55	60.65	57.10
SEACARE ECOSPERSE 52 (see FINASOL® OSR 52)	5.40	2.37	32.50	71.60	52.10
SEACARE E.P.A. (see DISPERSIT SPC 1000™)	7.90	8.20	40.00	100.00	73.00
SF-GOLD DISPERSANT (see SAF-RON GOLD)	9.25	3.04	84.80	53.80	69.30
ZI-400	8.35	1.77	50.10	89.80	69.90
ZI-400 OIL SPILL DISPERSANT (see ZI-400)	8.35	1.77	50.10	89.80	69.90

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Thank you for the ping.

[kingu]

It's the argument of deceit, to put words in the mouth of one's adversary, then to diecredit them.

Your argument: the dispersant is harming the environment and will be a significant toxic source, and should be ceased immediately, and other methods used to clean up the crude oil spill. No words put in your mouth, that is your argument. Please correct me if I am not summarizing it to your satisfaction.

My argument: This isn't a crude oil spill in any conventional manner. What reaches the surface is a separated petrochemical spill that can be broken down into four major groups:

• Methane saturated water - something that if we really had a manner of cleaning up, we would have used already to clean up the dead zones along the gulf coast from years of runoff from the Mississippi. Unfortunately, this methane saturated water precludes the use of oil eating bacteria, as putting that bacteria into such an environment will cause a catastrophic leaching of what oxygen is in the water, creating even larger 'dead zones' in the gulf.
• Tar solids - The only effective manner of cleaning up this has been boom operations, or scraping it off of beaches. Conventional skimmer craft get clogged by the tars and have an extremely high maintenance cost to the environment to clean after a short period of use, both in money and dealing with the disposal of the toxic tars that has to be cleaned off.
• Light petrochemicals - the surface sheen you find in every port in America. Mother nature degrades this stuff faster than we can efficiently clean it up.
• Medium oils - Now this is the stuff we can efficiently clean up under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, the surface area where this stuff tends to come up, randomly, depending upon unpredictable subsurface currents, is over a 350 square mile area, with pools of it mixed with tar solids. Which means it really can't be cleaned up by conventional means, and is why they are using areal and subsurface dispersant. Since it breaks that medium oil into smaller droplets which is far easier for mother nature to clean up for us.

Use of underwater or surface dispersant is immaterial to the component parts I listed - that's what reaches the surface anyway. But using the dispersant helps reduce the damage done by that medium oil.

Now what about the toxic concerns of the dispersant itself? Bleach is a toxic substance. You absolutely don't want to drink the stuff. But put a few drops into contaminated water, or into water that will be stored for long time, you make it drinkable. The source material is deadly - you drink that bleach straight up, you could easily suffer severe health effects. But diluted, it serves as a very helpful substance.

The same can be said for the dispersant. Toxic alone, but so diluted by the volume of water that you're dealing with that it the beneficial effects of breaking apart that medium oil into smaller droplets outweighs any toxic effects.

I know this is completely against the propaganda you've been posting on here, and digs hard into the conspiracy theories, but if you've a credible source that disputes anything I've said in here, I'd love to read it.

The only component material in the dispersant that is not contained in larger quantities in the spill itself or the ocean environment is sulfur, and the sulfur content, according to material safety sheets, is about 6%, or when put into context of release amount including the spill itself, about 4 ppm. Enough that it would create an odor if the spill was on land, but mixed with the trillions of gallons of water in the gulf, unmeasurable by any scientific devices I know of.

To summarize: This isn't a conventional crude oil spill which we can use all the tricks and toys that we've designed over the years. The toxicity of the dispersant is diluted enough to pose no major health risk. Not using the dispersant leaves pools of medium oil which is difficult to clean up due to the surrounding tar solids, and poses a significant risk of damage to the ocean environment.

[opentalk]

bump

[CharlesWayneCT]

I guess i don’t understand the chart you posted. IT looks like the Corexit has the lowest “toxicity number” in your chart for both 24 and 48-hour. But I have no idea what that number means, or if smaller is better.