>> ^cybrbeast:

WTF is this about? They are acting like this is being caused by modern farming or something. It could be, but nobody knows for sure yet, so it's a bit early to start pointing fingers. Ecotard documentary, at least that's how the trailer strikes me.


it is just a trailer.
and i agree with the penchant for hyperbole but thats a norm for most documentaries trying to make a point.
i remember following the disappearing bees mystery in 2006.
i had no idea until then just how vital bees were to agriculture.
there is a growing list of documentation on how industrialized farming/fishing practices have wreaked havoc on not just our food supply but on entire communities.

so while BP can spend 300 million on a PR campaign that attempts to convince us that corexit and crude oil are not only good for the fishes but good for us.we at least know who to point the finger at and call bullshit.
in this case there is no easy villain to flush out into the open but there has been a pattern over the last 50 years where some industrial practices have un-intended consequences.
so while i agree with you on the subject of "chicken little" syndrome, i dont think this is a situation we should take lightly nor dismiss quickly because the source is not easily identified.

>> ^laura:

He is saying "propanediol" & propylene glycol...
A quick wiki search tells me that propanediol can be formed by "Conversion from glycerol (a by-product of biodiesel production) using Clostridium diolis bacteria."
...so could bacteria be breaking down components of the oil into propanediol/propylene glycol? ...not necessarily that it had to have come from the Corexit? Just wondering....


"In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[16] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[17] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[18]" wiki

He is saying "propanediol" & propylene glycol...
A quick wiki search tells me that propanediol can be formed by "Conversion from glycerol (a by-product of biodiesel production) using Clostridium diolis bacteria."
...so could bacteria be breaking down components of the oil into propanediol/propylene glycol? ...not necessarily that it had to have come from the Corexit? Just wondering....

http://videosift.com/video/Water-Oil-analysis-of-Gulf-Coast-water

and here you have it, 150x the toxic level for fish because of the corexit. Well done BP, well done.

[redacted]

>> ^Simple_Man:

>> ^bcglorf:
Took me awhile to articulate what bothered me about this. The entire context we get from the editing of the clip is purely a commentary from a scientist stating that spraying the chemical on the oil spill is bad. My problem is that the relevant question is importantly different, to spray or not to spray. I'm not aware of anyone saying spraying is good, but more simply that spraying is better than that much extra oil hitting the shore. Sadly we don't see him speaking to that, only the more friendly to public outrage details of how horrible the spraying is.
Dumping millions and millions of barrels of oil into the environment is very bad for it. We live in a world that is not required to have a good solution to the problem. It's not even required to have ANY solution. Simply demonstrating and knowing that spraying is a bad solution does not prove that it may not still be the best that we've got, or at any rate a piece of the best we can get.

There are less toxic alternatives to Corexit that are more effective. In fact, the EPA has pushed BP to adopt a new dispersant called "Sea Brat No. 4". However, BP refused, on the grounds of a certain ingredient contains “potential endocrine disruptors” that “may persist in the environment for a period of years". This has been proven false, as the threshold for the ingredient to be considered toxic is 10% by weight, whereas the percentage in the Sea Brat dispersant is at 1.91%. Another is that they cannot obtain the quantity of the dispersant needed. This is false as well. There are thousands of gallons of alternative dispersant waiting to be shipped, with a manufacturing plant with sufficient capacity to produce large quantities everyday should BP need it.
On the other hand, a former BP executive sits on the board of Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit. Just some food for thought.


There, that is exactly what we need to be hearing from experts like this guy. I don't know if he never said it, or if it was just edited out. What matters though is that there is a very big problem that needs solutions. Poking holes in a solution without providing a better alternative though is NOT helping anyone. Even if the better alternative is simply to point out doing nothing is better than a proposal, at least it's helping.

>> ^bcglorf:

Took me awhile to articulate what bothered me about this. The entire context we get from the editing of the clip is purely a commentary from a scientist stating that spraying the chemical on the oil spill is bad. My problem is that the relevant question is importantly different, to spray or not to spray. I'm not aware of anyone saying spraying is good, but more simply that spraying is better than that much extra oil hitting the shore. Sadly we don't see him speaking to that, only the more friendly to public outrage details of how horrible the spraying is.
Dumping millions and millions of barrels of oil into the environment is very bad for it. We live in a world that is not required to have a good solution to the problem. It's not even required to have ANY solution. Simply demonstrating and knowing that spraying is a bad solution does not prove that it may not still be the best that we've got, or at any rate a piece of the best we can get.


There are less toxic alternatives to Corexit that are more effective. In fact, the EPA has pushed BP to adopt a new dispersant called "Sea Brat No. 4". However, BP refused, on the grounds of a certain ingredient contains “potential endocrine disruptors” that “may persist in the environment for a period of years". This has been proven false, as the threshold for the ingredient to be considered toxic is 10% by weight, whereas the percentage in the Sea Brat dispersant is at 1.91%. Another is that they cannot obtain the quantity of the dispersant needed. This is false as well. There are thousands of gallons of alternative dispersant waiting to be shipped, with a manufacturing plant with sufficient capacity to produce large quantities everyday should BP need it.

On the other hand, a former BP executive sits on the board of Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit. Just some food for thought.

Wow, I totally misread the title. Not knowing what corexit is, I thought a specific type of Marine Biologist was being sprayed onto the Gulf. Why would you spray people there? Do you need to grind them up first?

My only thought on this is that if they admit it now, after months, when people get ill later....there will be proof to go back on and say they knew it was dangerous and didn't alert people soon enough. If they play the game you see all the CEOs playing "I don't recall" "I wasn't aware" "Im deaf dumb and blind" during Congressional hearings, they stand a chance of being able to blame it on the very people they are denying access to study the side effects and such of this. It almost sounds like a conspiracy nut explanation, but I can't see the point in not telling people that this stuff can give them cancer 10 years down the line and that they shouldn't be letting their kids play in the water where the oil may be present.


>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Porksandwich:
And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. The argument that the 65 foot rule is because there are hazardous chemicals, oil and or corexit, being used. Not because they arbitrarily need to create safe zones, and media personnel are simply hampering their efforts.
But, Proksandwich, that would require BP and Government officials admit that there are hazardous chemicals in use; which are a direct danger to living things.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

He proposed a problem, but no solution. So he gets nothing. Stopping dispersants will keep the oil on the surface, and then it will just screw up the coastline. Dispersants will keep the coastline slightly more clear, but may harm creatures that live under the slick because it will create a column of oilwater.
Anyone could say dispersants are dangerous. This guy had nothing interesting to say except that one heartbeat a minute still gives an all clear rating by the EPA, and even that could just be big talk. He said he worked on those type of tests and has seen it before. Well, way to speak up before the spill. What other chemicals have been given an all clear when they are really toxic?



While it is always easier to poke holes in the boat rather than make it float, it still is valid concern. Moreover, what if breaking up the oil saves the beaches and kills the entire ocean for the next 200 years instead? These are questions you want the answers to before you start dumping millions of tons of chemical solvents in the ocean. Let it be known that all forms of corexit are not non-toxic. 2-Butoxyethanol, a main component of corexit is known to cause tumors in air breathing mamals after exposure. Heavy exposure via respiratory, dermal or oral routes can lead to hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hemolysis, pulmonary edema and coma. The cure in this case might be worse than the sickness. We might toxify (which isn't a word sadly even though detoxify is) the oceans to the point of causing a breakdown in the phytoplankton's ability to ability to survive in coastal waters for some generations.

The point is we don't know, the studies on corexit are limited, even by the EPAs own admission. This could be the equivalent of dumping cyanide in the base of the food chain for most life on the planet.

Your video, marine biologist:corexit being sprayed on the gulf, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^Porksandwich:

And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.


Now that's an argument I can get behind. The argument that the 65 foot rule is because there are hazardous chemicals, oil and or corexit, being used. Not because they arbitrarily need to create safe zones, and media personnel are simply hampering their efforts.

But, Proksandwich, that would require BP and Government officials admit that there are hazardous chemicals in use; which are a direct danger to living things.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

i love you

That's a fucking bad situation. How can proof like that be ignored, and is it really that bad?

I mean where's the science behind all of that? There's got to be some white papers out there on the study of the effects of those chemicals on Humans or other species.

Wait, that's right, BP is a corporation. That paper probably got lost in the shuffle.

If you would like to read about Corexit 9500, follow the link below, or search google for Corexit 9500 toxic effects

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ar-rEVfrn5VYJ%3Almrk.org%2Fcorexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf+Corexit+9500+toxic+effects&hl=en&gl=us

The EPA has found that Corexit 9500 is an "Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard". See section 15 of the html. It appears that there have been no toxicology tests on the product, according to section 11. The document is fairly complicated with corporate legislative language so I am probably misinterpreting things. Read it for yourself.