61.6 ppm of Corexit in sediment near Florida border

[PatColo]

REVEALED: September tests show 61.6 ppm of Corexit 9527A marker 2-butoxyethanol in sediment near Florida border (VIDEO) (http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/revealed-616-ppm-corexit-9527a-marker-2-butoxyethanol-sediment-florida-border-video)

September 17th, 2010 at 07:21 AM Print Post Email Post

Independent lab tests reveal toxic dispersant in Gulf waters, Government denies, Film by James C. Fox in Cotton Bayou, AL on September 14, 2010:

In a video released on September 16 and filmed on Septmeber 14, Chemist Bob Naman revealed that tests completed last week showed 61.6 ppm of 2-butoxyethanol in the sediment near the Florida border.

14 sec clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUbIh54Yes&feature=player_embedded

7:24 clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muh-nJVhVEE&feature=player_embedded


Separately, Debra Dupre at examiner.com has been turning out some of the most reality based (IMHO) articles I've seen on thg Gulf op. For one thing, she calls it an op, aimed at genocide/ecocide, rather than a "disaster".

Here's her index of articles, which vary in topic, but look for those which start with "Censored Gulf News",
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/deborah-dupr

[madfranks]

How toxic is 61.6 ppm of Corexit?

[the white rabbit]

How toxic is 61.6 ppm of Corexit?
It is not harmful . Drink that Kool Aid kiddies

[PatColo]

How toxic is 61.6 ppm of Corexit?


Not toxic at all, gummit says so. :P Really though, gots me, many independent scientific & anecdotal sources seem to agree that we should run not walk from the stuff. Gummit/BP assure us that A)they're not spraying it any longer, and B)even if they accidentally were, it's safe, swim in the water, eat the seafood, etc. In other words run don't walk.

[Glass]

manufacturer's safety data sheet states "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product," and later concludes "The potential human hazard is: Low."[20] According to the manufacturer's website, workers applying Corexit should wear breathing protection and work in a ventilated area.[21] Compared with 12 other dispersants listed by the EPA, Corexit 9500 and 9527 are either similarly toxic or 10 to 20 times more toxic.[7] In another preliminary EPA study of eight different dispersants, Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water.[22] None of the eight products tested are "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator, and the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil is unknown, as is the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant.[22]

Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[14][23] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[24] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".[16] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[4]

According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.[25] On May 20, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives to Corexit, and later ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants, but BP responded that it thought that Corexit was the best alternative and continued to spray it.[3]




Wiki link...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit)

[gunDriller]

How toxic is 61.6 ppm of Corexit?


Corexit is considered toxic at 3 ppm. that was the number when we first heard about it 3 or 4 months ago.