Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
2010, A "Conspiracy Theory" But Now...Scientists Discover The Agent Used In Gulf Spill Cleanup Is Destroying Marine Life
test
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
2010, A "Conspiracy Theory" But Now...Scientists Discover The Agent Used In Gulf Spill Cleanup Is Destroying Marine Life
Three years after the BP oil spill, new truths come to light—from deep down inside the ocean.
Recent studies find that the chemical Corexit, used to clean the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, seem to have worsened the impact on marine life—from dolphins down to oysters.
Three years ago, when BP’s Deepwater Horizon began leaking some 210 million gallons of Louisiana Crude into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government allowed the company to apply chemical “dispersants” to the blossoming oil slick to prevent toxic gunk from reaching the fragile bays, beaches, and mangroves of the coast, where so much marine life originates. But a number of recent studies show that BP and the feds may have made a huge mistake, for which everything from microscopic organisms to bottlenose dolphins are now paying the highest price.
After the spill, BP secured about a third of the world’s supply of dispersants, namely Corexit 9500 and 9527, according to The New York Times. Of the two, 9527 is more toxic. Corexit dispersants emulsify oil into tiny beads, causing them to sink toward the bottom. Wave action and wind turbulence degrade the oil further, and evaporation concentrates the toxins in the oil-Corexit mixture, including dangerous compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), known to cause cancer and developmental disorders.
When BP began spraying the Gulf, critics cried foul. They said Corexit is not only toxic to marine life on its own, but when combined with crude oil, the mixture becomes several times more toxic than oil or dispersant alone.
Not surprisingly, BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley defended use of the dispersant. “The toxicity of Corexit is about the same as dish soap, which is effectively what it is and how it works,” he told stockholders. “In hindsight no one believes that that was the wrong thing and it would have been much worse without the use of it. I do not believe anybody—anybody with almost common sense—would say waves of black oil washing into the marshes and beaches would have been a better thing, under any circumstances.”
But many scientists, such as Dr. William Sawyer, a Louisiana toxicologist, argue that Corexit can be deadly to people and sea creatures alike. “Corexit components are also known as deodorized kerosene,” Sawyer said in a written statement for the Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group, a legal consortium representing environmental groups and individuals affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. “With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals.” When Corexit mixes with and breaks down crude, it makes the oil far more “bioavailable” to plants and animals, critics allege, because it is more easily absorbed in its emulsified state.
When Corexit mixes with and breaks down crude, it makes the oil far more “bioavailable” to plants and animals, critics allegeSawyer tested edible fish and shellfish from the Gulf for absorption of petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC), believed to have been facilitated by Corexit. Tissue samples taken prior to the accident had no measurable PHC. But after the oil spill, Sawyer found tissue concentrations up to 10,000 parts per million, or 1 percent of the total. The study, he said, “shows that the absorption [of the oil] was enhanced by the Corexit.”
In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life—including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws—possibly linked to oil and dispersants.
The shocking story was ignored by major U.S. media, but covered in depth by Al Jazeera. BP said such deformities were “common” in aquatic life in the Gulf and caused by bacteria or parasites. But further studies point back to the spill.
A just-released study from the University of South Florida found that underwater plumes of BP oil, dispersed by Corexit, had produced a “massive die-off” of foraminifera, microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Other studies show that, as a result of oil and dispersants, plankton have either been killed or have absorbed PAHs before being consumed by other sea creatures.
Hydrocarbon-laden, mutated seafood is not the only legacy left behind by Corexit, many scientists, physicians, environmentalists, fishermen, and Gulf Coast residents contend. Earlier this week, TakePart wrote about Steve Kolian, a researcher and founder of the nonprofit group EcoRigs, whose volunteer scientists and divers seek to preserve offshore oil and gas platforms after production stops, for use as artificial reefs and for alternative energy production.
levels of hydrocarbons in seafood were up to 3,000 times higher than safety thresholds for human consumptionEcoRigs divers took water and marine life samples at several locations in the months following the blowout. Now, they and countless other Gulf residents are sick, with symptoms resembling something from a sci-fi horror film, including bleeding from the nose, ears, breasts, and even anus. Others complain of cognitive damage, including what one man calls getting “stuck stupid,” when he temporarily cannot move or speak, but can still hear.
“If we are getting sick, then you know the marine life out in the Gulf is too,” Kolian said. The diver and researcher completed an affidavit on human and marine health used in GAP’s report.
Kolian’s team has done studies of their own to alarming results. “We recently submitted a paper showing levels of hydrocarbons in seafood were up to 3,000 times higher than safety thresholds for human consumption,” he said. “Concentrations in biota [i.e. all marine life] samples were even greater.”
Kolian’s friend and colleague, Scott Porter, described in his affidavit to GAP how Corexit had caused dispersed crude to coat the bottom of the sea in a sickening, deadly film. In July 2011, he and other divers traveled to a part of the Florida Panhandle, known as the Emerald Coast for its pristine seawater, to collect samples for the Surfrider Foundation.
“When we went diving, however, the water had a brownish white haze that resembled what we saw in offshore Louisiana at 30 feet below sea level,” Porter’s affidavit stated. “I have never witnessed anything like that since I began diving in the Emerald Coast 20 years ago. We witnessed…a reddish brown substance on the seafloor that resembled tar and spanned a much larger area than is typical of natural runoff.”
In areas covered with the substance, “we noticed much less sea life,” Porter continued. “There were hardly any sand dollars or crabs and only some fish, whereas we would normally see an abundance of organisms. It was desolate.”
Read on to learn more about the individual animals effected by the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:
OK, so what exactly was the point of this "conspiracy?" Was it originated inchoate with the Chinese or Japanese or Norwegian government to create some sort of fishing monopoly? What about the government of New England? They fish too. Hmmmm. Maybe the makers of Corexit needed a bunch of cash and were willing to share.
The BP guy was right, at least in saying that anything was preferable to an undispersed spill washing into the gulf coast and its estuaries. That's about all he was right about, though.
Let's just say that getting any amount of appropriations through the Teawipe House of Representatives for research into safer methods of environmental cleanup is not likely. But, that's OK since science and inventiveness should only be used to make money that can be contributed to political campaigns. No problem.
From April 2010 to June 2011, more than 8,000 seafood samples — including species such as shrimp, oysters, crabs, tuna and swordfish — were collected and subjected to rigorous sensory and chemical tests by trained experts. Samples were required to pass both forms of testing before an area was reopened to commercial fishing.
NOAA says that only 0.16 percent of seafood samples failed the sensory testing, most likely because the sampling began after oil had been dispersed from the region. All chemical test results were below the established level of concern. After all waters were reopened, periodic seafood samples continued to be tested to ensure ongoing safety.
All Gulf seafood has been long-declared safe for consumption by NOAA and the FDA, but consumers continue to be skeptical. Immediately following the spill, 70 percent of consumers said they were concerned about the safety of Gulf seafood, according to the Gulf Coast Seafood Coalition.
Nearly three years later, that number is down to 30 percent, but Nelson says the industry still has a long way to go. “The industry will fully recover, but it will take many more years of consumer education, marketing and public relations. [I] expect that this period will last for at least another five years,” he says
From April 2010 to June 2011, more than 8,000 seafood samples — including species such as shrimp, oysters, crabs, tuna and swordfish — were collected and subjected to rigorous sensory and chemical tests by trained experts. Samples were required to pass both forms of testing before an area was reopened to commercial fishing.
NOAA says that only 0.16 percent of seafood samples failed the sensory testing, most likely because the sampling began after oil had been dispersed from the region. All chemical test results were below the established level of concern. After all waters were reopened, periodic seafood samples continued to be tested to ensure ongoing safety.
All Gulf seafood has been long-declared safe for consumption by NOAA and the FDA, but consumers continue to be skeptical. Immediately following the spill, 70 percent of consumers said they were concerned about the safety of Gulf seafood, according to the Gulf Coast Seafood Coalition.
Nearly three years later, that number is down to 30 percent, but Nelson says the industry still has a long way to go. “The industry will fully recover, but it will take many more years of consumer education, marketing and public relations. [I] expect that this period will last for at least another five years,” he says
Why would you post timely and pertinent information?
How many of the "countless" sick people (from the OP) have to turn into bizarre mutants with no eyes or claws before you'll admit President Obama invented, produced, promoted, deployed and was the sole person to profit (other than his cronies) from the dispersant he ordered BP to buy, all while on his world wide apology tour?
2010, A "Conspiracy Theory" But Now...Scientists Discover The Agent Used In Gulf Spill Cleanup Is Destroying Marine Life
