Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BP sprays more chemicals into main Gulf leak, Creating A Toxic Soup?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:47 PM
Original message
BP sprays more chemicals into main Gulf leak, Creating A Toxic Soup?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-10-oil-rig-blast_N.htm
***************
BP sprays more chemicals into main Gulf oil leak

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) — A remote-controlled submarine shot a chemical dispersant into the maw of a massive undersea oil leak Monday, further evidence that authorities expect the gusher to keep erupting into the Gulf of Mexico for weeks or more.
Crews using the deep-sea robot attempted to thin the oil which is rushing up from the seabed at a pace of about 210,000 gallons (795,000 liters) per day after getting approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, BP spokesman Mark Proegler told The Associated Press.

The agency had halted two previous rounds of the dispersant to test its potential impact on the environment, and approved a third round of spraying that began early Monday, Proegler said. The EPA said in a statment the effects of the chemicals were still widely unknown

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/toxic-soup-gulf

Is the BP Clean-Up Creating A Toxic Soup in the Gulf?
— By Kate Sheppard
| Mon May. 10, 2010 9:32 AM PDT

As part of the effort to mitigate the more than 3 million gallons of oil that have been released into the Gulf of Mexico, BP is using chemical dispersants to break down the oil and prevent it from hitting land. But the exact make-up of those chemical compounds is unknown, and some environmentalists believe that BP's solution might actually be worse than the problem.

The chemical compounds break down the oil into smaller globs, causing it to sink and biodegrade faster. In the past week, more information has been released out about what BP and the Coast Guard are dumping into the Gulf. And while it's a relief to have some information, what we're hearing is less than reassuring. The combination of oil and chemicals, say critics, is creating a "toxic soup" in the Gulf.

The Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, the unified command office set up to deal with the spill, reports that 308,885 gallons of dispersant have been spread over the spill site as of Sunday. The two main chemicals being used in the clean-up effort are Corexit 9500 and Corexit(R) EC9527A. BP has reportedly ordered 15 million gallons of Corexit (and says it has stockpiled a third of the world's supply of dispersants).

While BP won't disclose the make-up of these compounds, arguing that this is proprietary information, the Coast Guard has posted the safety data sheets for both the 9500 and (R) EC9527A varieties online. And the documents raise serious questions about the environmental impact of the chemicals being used to clean up the spill.

The compounds contain 2-butoxyethanol, which can cause headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses. The "Human Health Hazards" section of the document on (R) EC9527A notes:

-Can cause moderate irritation. Harmful if absorbed through skin.

-May be harmful if swallowed. May cause liver and kidney effects and/or damage. There may be irritation to the gastro-intestinal tract.

-Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.

-Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where is the government oversight?!!!!!!!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. They had approval from the EPA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. This admin. is as bad as the last when it comes to regulating big oil (or not). nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. It is about the environment, not regulating big oil
The chemicals will help contain the oil spill and lesson the damage it will cause. The EPA has reservations on it before because they haven't been tested deep underwater and don't know the exact effects on the environment.

The choice is between a bigger oil spill or using some medicine that will help manage it, but might have some unknown side effects. I am guessing the EPA decided that the benefits are worth the risks after the containment domes failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's impossible to protect the environment without regulating big oil...
Edited on Mon May-10-10 03:46 PM by polichick
This admin. has shown which side its on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm convinced that they have no idea what the hell they are doing! Before
the oil disaster, I think that the big wigs were just praying that nothing like this would ever happen. Now that it has, they have not a clue as to how to deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. We must love our corporate rapist/masters
Next up they are going to shoot golf balls, used tire scraps, and other garbage into the leak. My money says they rupture the damn thing within a week causing thespill to get about worse by a factor of 12-15x.

You shouldn't be allowed to drill until you have a proven backup plan in place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Please contact the WH:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hahahahaha! Superman Obama will swoop in...
If that doesn't work, we could try telling our mommies. Obama supported opening up the East coast to more of this shit. Obama uses terms like "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" while he cashed their checks.

Call the White House. If that doesn't work why don't we start on online petition to email....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Superman he's not - that's the point. We can't let the admin. get away...
...with trashing natural resources for the sake of big oil profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. still good to let them know we care enough
to act in some way. Though I very much share your pessimism, it never stopped me from at least being an irritant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Why unrec this important info?

Head in the sand time? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Yep - fear of the incredibly ugly truth. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Here's a rec. More, not less, information
is always preferable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wonder if they'll be posting
any cancer stats in about 3-5 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. ==
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. yes, apparently very toxic and for cosmetic purposes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC