water samples from the gulf (citizens effort)

[Large Sarge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq65E7rmO_k

[DMac]

Get out of the water!!!


Must see video - you don't have to see oil in the water to be poisoned by the Corexit


Oil and water samples were taken from both the Shores of Grand Isle and from 20 miles out. The preliminary analysis was done at an academic analytical chemistry laboratory. Looking for the likely pollutants from the deep water Horizon Oil spill. It was focused on the detection of benzene and propylene glycol. Benzene and other highly toxic contaminants were very low however the concentration of propylene glycol was between 360 and 440 parts per million. Just 25 parts per million is know to kill most fish and propylene glycol is just one of many ingredients found in Corexit. In short, the Gulf is being poisoned by BP's usage of the dispersants even after the EPA asked them to stop back in May. We are willing to provide ANY respected/known laboratory these samples or provide them with more. This is very serious to all people and marine life in and around the Gulf.

[SLV^GLD]

What is up with everyone fear mongering over Propylene Glycol?

You do realize people are exposed copious amounts of it daily, right? It's in all gel-tabs, lotions, deodorants, toothpastes, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't kill fish because of toxicology, it kills fish because of the dramatically high oxygen demand during decomposition in water.

Yes, it kills fish and this is very bad for us, but the danger is in decimated aquatic life not in skin exposure.

The presence of PG in the water IS a huge problem but it is not something to fear in terms of skin exposure.

Sorry for the rant but I have yet to see any responsible mention of the presence of PG in Corexit. It's all been screams of "stay out of the water".

[DMac]

What is up with everyone fear mongering over Propylene Glycol?

You do realize people are exposed copious amounts of it daily, right? It's in all gel-tabs, lotions, deodorants, toothpastes, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't kill fish because of toxicology, it kills fish because of the dramatically high oxygen demand during decomposition in water.

Yes, it kills fish and this is very bad for us, but the danger is in decimated aquatic life not in skin exposure.

The presence of PG in the water IS a huge problem but it is not something to fear in terms of skin exposure.

Sorry for the rant but I have yet to see any responsible mention of the presence of PG in Corexit. It's all been screams of "stay out of the water".


Could it be that PG is basically antifreeze? Are you going to suggest next that flouride is also safe in small amounts?

http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-ehp-12.pdf

This stuff is bad for you. What happens if that mouthful of seawater some child ingests happens to have a concentrated dose of chemical? There are too many unknowns and for every airing of the Governor of Florida saying "Go swimming, the water's safe!" there needs to be some "fear mongering" of get the fk out of the water bluntskulls!

[Horn]

True Dmac, not to mention large quantities released into the environment tend to have totally different results then do hypothesized and small sample test results of lab testing.

The warm gulf becoming some witch's brew of man made & induced toxins could hardly turn out with some low level impact event.

[SLV^GLD]

Look, I'm not taking the position that the water is safe.
I'm taking the position that there needs to be some degree of integrity in these claims.
Benzene is super duper bad stuff. There is no amount small enough to consider safe. There's all the evidence you need to convince people to get out of the water. Making the claim that propylene glycol kills fish so therefore the water is unsafe has no integrity whatsoever. Propylene glycol doesn't kill fish, asphyxiation from PG decomposition does. There are far more harmful compounds in naturally occurring seawater than propylene glycol in terms of human exposure hazard.

The water is unsafe is a claim that can be substantiated with ample evidence. So, why does it seem that no one wants to use any integrity in making the claim? Additionally, anyone standing up for integrity is rebutted simply for pointing out rational facts.

[Horn]

Like to see if SLV is willing to chow down on a fresh gulf catch as a sign of integrity.

Who is supposed to provide IT?

Only your Government?

Do only they provide such untampered integrity?

[SLV^GLD]

No, I acknowledge the gulf water is poisoned. I acknowledge that propylene glycol presents an tremendous problem for the livelihood of any aquatic life.

However, I also acknowledge that it is misleading and fear mongering to state that water contaminated with propylene glycol is inherently unsafe to expose to your skin or even ingest. Especially in light of the fact that there are entirely valid exposure concerns as a result of the spill.

My concerns with eating gulf catch at this point have NOTHING to do with propylene glycol and EVERYTHING to do with Mercury and other bio-accumulating compounds. Propylene Glycol does not bio-accumulate as it is readily decomposed by anaerobic bacteria.

I'm not even following your line of reasoning about government providing untampered integrity. I have no faith in the government to provide integrity much less anything untampered with. You brought up the government, not me.

[Horn]

So where's the anti-freeze cocktail party?

Your place, or mine?

Do you work for Prestone?

maybe it should be your place?

[SLV^GLD]

Your description of propylene glycol as antifreeze is accurate but is just as disingenuous as the fear mongers because the anti freeze that appears in automotive use is ethylene glycol and is moderately toxic upon ingestion by mammals. It's primary concern is the sweet taste which attracts ignorant children and unsuspecting pets. Interestingly enough, it doesn't exhibit the oxygen demands on water during decomposition that propylene glycol does so if it were an alternative ingredient in Corexit the claims of human harm would be valid but could not be so neatly highlighted by stating that small concentrations kill fish (when in reality, as stated earlier, it is the dwindling concentrations of oxygen actually doing the killing).

I do not work for Prestone or any other group that would be interested in the propagation of chemicals of any kind whatsoever. I work for a privately owned general contractor in commercial construction and one of my specialties is assessing and mitigating environmental risks; not only to the developed area but to the workers involved. My knowledge on propylene glycol, while basic to any studies in chemistry, was primarily derived during the design and subsequent construction of a FedEx air hub. The nearby waterways had to be risk assessed and the primary risk was the run-off of PG being used as a wing de-icer. My mitigation strategy involved proper grading, sloping and concrete embedded collection channels that protected the waterways from run-off and actually resulted in recycling of the material.

As for the "anti-freeze cocktail party" that is being held everywhere every day. No need to visit. Try reading the labels on your pill bottles and bathroom products sometime, maybe even your dish soap.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread or are you just going to continue attacking the person who has done nothing more than deliver facts and with full disclosure? I can see you do not offer the same degree of respect you are given.