BP Crop Dusting U.S. Population Under the Cover of Night

This appears to be news that is being reported by the population and not the MSM.
______beforeitsnews/news/79/122/BP_Crop_Dusting_U.S._Population_Under_the_Cover_of_Night.html
Apparently Corexit is being sprayed, from the air, under cover of night near or on populated areas along the coastlines.

They are doing the best they can to disperse as much oil as they can.

This chemical is extremely toxic.

There are already quite a few articles on the internet about this 'news' but I have not yet found any MSM reporting on this.. i wonder how long that will take to happen.

Could this be the reason why the military and this private security company is down there? Are they there to prevent citizens from revolting at the outright poisoning of people and property?

A google search reveals several links;
www.google.co.uk...:en-GBfficial&client =firefox-a

If this is true then I have no doubt that a criminal act is taking place.

And it gets worse....

In an earlier post, I noted in haste some apparent discrepancies between EPA and BP acute toxicity data on the Corexit® dispersants. Little did I realize that the data mixup was actually telling me something much more significant: that the dispersant maker’s own test data demonstrate that the combination of oil plus dispersant is quite a bit more toxic than the dispersant alone and – even more significant – the combination is more acutely toxic than the oil by itself.

Let me repeat that: The data indicate that dispersed oil is more toxic than undispersed oil. EPA has posted the dispersant manufacturer Nalco’s “Technical Product Bulletins” for each of the dispersants that have been used in the Gulf: Corexit® EC9527A and Corexit® EC9500A.

Section VII of each of the bulletins shows the toxicity data for a) dispersant alone, b) the reference oil used in the test, No. 2 fuel oil, and c) a mixture of dispersant and test oil at a 1:10 ratio. Here are the data (remember, the lower the value, the more toxic the substance):

Just 2.61 parts per million of a 1:10 mixture of Corexit® EC9500A and oil kills 50% of silverside fish within 96 hours, at least under the test conditions.

* Assuming uniform mixing, that means that 1 gallon of that mixture added to 383,142 gallons of water would be sufficiently toxic to do the same.
* So far BP has added at least 1.2 million gallons of pure Corexit® dispersants to the Gulf. Assuming it’s mixed with 10 times as much oil, that’s enough dispersant to render equally toxic nearly 7,000,000 Olympic swimming pools worth of water. (There are about 660,000 gallons in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, the dimensions of which are about 164 x 82 x 6 feet.)

Assuming a water depth of 5000 feet at the spill site, that much water would occupy a block that is 10,600 x 10,600 x 5,000 feet, or 4 square miles on the surface of the water extending all the way down to the ocean floor. That's the volume of water that would be sufficiently toxic to kill half of the fish residing in it within 4 days. Diluting that another 10-fold (into the water underneath 40 square miles of the Gulf) would still kill 5% of the fish, and another 10-fold (400 square miles) would still kill 0.5% of the fish.

blogs.edf.org...

Can you imagine the impact that is going to have on shore life? That includes the birds and turtles and the people too.

I just wonder what will happen when a storm brews up and dumps a load of oil on top of the corexit that is supposedly bbeing sprayed on the land...

I dread to imagine..

If true, then I suppose we'll have to add that into the overall restitution BP will be paying.


If there are any witnesses left to testify, that is...or any "victims" still alive to repay....

Dispersant buys time for BP and makes money. And kills more stuff for the evil people who are likely behind this. I still don't see them lasting in their little DUMBs when the entire ecosystem is absolutely stuffed for such a long time.

I believe they should cease using dispersants, it only seems to make it worse. It's just the usual COUGH 'flouride style industrial waste dumping excuse with paid science type scam'.

[edit on 15/6/10 by GhostR1der]

And guess where all the waste is going..

Straight into a landfill...

About 35,000 bags — or 250 tons — of oily trash have been carted away from this beach, said Lt. Patrick Hanley of the Coast Guard, who is stationed at Port Fourchon. And as of Monday, more than 175,000 gallons of liquid waste — a combination of oil and water — had been sent to landfills, as had 11,276 cubic yards of solid waste, said Petty Officer Gail Dale, also of the Coast Guard, who works with at the command center in Houma.

Michael Condon, BP’s environmental unit leader, said that tests have shown that the material is not hazardous, and can safely be stored in landfills around the region that accept oil industry debris.

“There’s no way that isn’t toxic,” said Gladstone Jones III, a New Orleans lawyer.

toxic material could leach into local aquifers from which more than 300 homes draw water.

“BP oil is responsible for polluting our sand beaches and our estuaries,”

www.nytimes.com...

So yet again there are more major concerns about the environment on top of this dispersant they are pumping out..

If the corexit is currently sat on the ground, on property and buildings, then it is going to end up soaking into the ground once the rain comes.. it's going to end up in the sewer system and the water may possibly be recycled into many every day uses.

Just what could possibly happen to any oil in a landfill that comes into contact with corexit that has been soaked into the ground with the aid of rain? Is this going to kill the soil, the plants and many creatures?

reply to post by Extralien


I can't watch videos from here. What communities? I am in a Gulf Coast Community, and I have friends all along the Florida Coast. I haven't heard anything about this, as far as I knew all the aerial spraying was happening out over the ocean. Even if it were done a mile or so off-shore, I would still support it, because the dispersant will break up the oil and keep it off the beaches and marshes. I really don't see any benefit to spraying it within 1 mile of the beach, because it would still get carried inland.

In conclusion, I highly doubt it is being sprayed within 1 mile of the beach, and as long as they are at least 1 mile off-shore, I support the spray.

Am I missing something?

(Besides all the disagreement over Corexits toxicity. I've already argued that in other threads. It may be toxic, but so is everything in your kitchen cabinet, and it is making the situation better, not worse, so for now it is still a good idea to use it.)

reply to post by getreadyalready

The amorphous slick of oil mixed with chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, which now threatens Florida, Mississippi and Alabama, has already tarnished miles of treasured wetlands, marshes and beaches along the Louisiana coast.

"The view from the boat was pretty shocking. There is dispersed oil as far as the eye can see. You realize that wildlife simply have nowhere to go. If you are a dolphin, where to do you go? If you are a pelican diving for food, where do you go?"

When the group noticed a dead stingray floating in the water, they came to the conclusion that any number of things, including oil from the spill, could be responsible for killing the ray. Finally, the captain of the charter boat, an out of work fisherman, offered his opinion: “In all my years on the water, I’ve never seen a dead stingray floating on the water like that.”

www.nwf.org...

The 'news' about it being sprayed on land is not in the MSM as i have stated, but is being reported by other people and is taking a grip on the internet.
I too am not aware of any 'official' reports, but then why make it official if everything else is being covered up...

This corexit and oil is not going to stay 1 mile of half a mile or even 100 yards off the shore...it is going to end up spread all over the south of the USA once a storm gets hold of the sea..or even natural evaporation pickiung up both oil and chemical and starts forming rain clouds.. nowhere will be safe from getting splattered.

reply to post by getreadyalready


not if the allegations to the severity of the problem are true.

if the rumors are true, spraying anything is overkill. its like putting one of those little air fresheners over a 9 foot pile of triceratops poop. they know the situation better than nay of us.


so if the only point of the spraying is to satisfy those who are watching the cleanup....then that cant be very beneficial.

reply to post by Extralien


The Corexit and other dispersants work like soap. They break the surface tension of the oil (with surfectants) and they cause it to break into smaller and smaller particles that cling to the dispersant and sink.

I agree that there is a huge oil sheen, and that the problem is catastrophic, but I believe 100% that the dispersants are helping the situation and not making it worse. Without them, the oil would have spread at least 400% faster and it would be hitting the entire coast of Florida by now.

The use of the unprecedented amount of dispersants at the site of the leak 5000 feet below the surface is keeping a vast amount of the oil from ever reaching the surface. It is still dangerous below the surface, but it is slower moving and it has more time to naturally decompose before posing threats to the marshlands, mammals and beaches. If they were not using this stuff, the oil on the surface would be far, far worse and the dolphins, birds, turtles, whales, manatees, etc., etc. would be dying uncontrollably.

reply to post by LurkerMan


I agree with you to an extent, but then again, they can't just do nothing.

If they don't stop the leak with the relief wells by the end of August, I don't think any amount of effort will help. The Gulf will be a vast deadzone, all the Coastal communities will be ghost towns, the economy of Florida will be bankrupt, and the entire area that I love will be a 3rd world country by this time next year.

For now though, we have to keep spraying and fighting and cleaning and hoping that they will stop the leak and begin the recovery effort.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by LurkerMan

 

I agree with you to an extent, but then again, they can't just do nothing.

If they don't stop the leak with the relief wells by the end of August, I don't think any amount of effort will help. The Gulf will be a vast deadzone, all the Coastal communities will be ghost towns, the economy of Florida will be bankrupt, and the entire area that I love will be a 3rd world country by this time next year.

As will the UK as many people and companies, including the governments taxation system relies heavily on the money that BP generates. And if the spill cannot be stopped, then eventually the UK, Africa and Europe is going to get hit by a slow moving tide of oil and chemicals dispersant.

One of my other concerns is what happens to this chemical? How long does it stay in its condition in the sea water? What does it take to clean up the chemical? They say you gotta fight fire with fire, but this is a bit like fighting fire with gasoline...

It's a tough time for everyone.. We obviously all have concerns and rightly so. Stopping the oil reaching the shores might be ok in the short term, but if it is on the sea bed, then the sludge down there is going to eventually end up somewhere..

reply to post by Extralien


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your answers are all in this thread. It biodegrades in about 45 days. It is safe in pretty high concentrations, and it doesn't require any special protective gear or transport placards for handling or moving. Even if it were spilled on a road side it would not require special clean up. It is very non-toxic. See also www.nalco.com...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

More from their site. Of course they want to push their product, but they also want to protect their image and be remembered as some of the Good Guys in this horrible incident. They don't want to be lumped in with BP or the GOvernment. Therefore, I tend to believe what is on their site and press releases.

Also, the oil has not spread as far or as quickly as anybody predicted. Maybe this stuff is the reason. If it is breaking it down and sinking it to the sea floor, then it may be protecting those sensitive marshes? The whole situation stinks, but I can't demonize the Corexit just yet. It sounds like pretty good stuff.

Biodegradation
• A March, 1994, report created by France’s Institut National de L’Enviroenment Industriel et des Risques indicated that COREXIT 9500 largely biodegraded in 28 days. COREXIT oil dispersant was first applied to the Gulf oil slick on April 23.
Bioaccumulation

“Over the past few days, there has been substantial misunderstanding about the nature and composition of our product,” said Erik Fyrwald, President and CEO of Nalco. “COREXIT has played a significant role in mitigating the disastrous consequences of the Gulf oil spill and has done so effectively and safely.

Concentration
• At 840,000 gallons, the amount of dispersant in the region of the 3,850 square-mile slick represents an average concentration of about 30 parts per billion to the 10 meters of depth the dispersant will go – even without factoring in that a substantial portion of the product has already biodegraded.

• By comparison, the EPA allows drinking water to contain non-biodegradable contaminants -- including carcinogens and reproductive toxins -- that exceed the level of biodegradable chemicals present in COREXIT in the Gulf.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Actually becoming more and more of a fan of Corexit the more I read. Here are some quotes from the MSDS showing that it isn't considered harmful.

From the MSDS:

PRODUCT IS NOT REGULATED DURING TRANSPORTATION For Packages Greater Than 119 Gallons: Proper Shipping Name : COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID, N.O.S. Technical Name(s) : PETROLEUM DISTILLATES UN/ID No : NA 1993 Hazard Class - Primary : COMBUSTIBLE

Safe to transport. No special warnings.

None of the substances are specifically listed in the regulation. CLEAN AIR ACT, Sec. 111 (40 CFR 60, Volatile Organic Compounds), Sec. 112 (40 CFR 61, Hazardous Air Pollutants), Sec. 602 (40 CFR 82, Class I and II Ozone Depleting Substances) : None of the substances are specifically listed in the regulation.

No specifically harmful ingredients listed. Just typical classes of compounds.

OTHER INFORMATION Due to our commitment to Product Stewardship, we have evaluated the human and environmental hazards and exposures of this product. Based on our recommended use of this product, we have characterized the product's general risk. This information should provide assistance for your own risk management practices. We have evaluated our product's risk as follows: * The human risk is: Low * The environmental risk is: Low Any use inconsistent with our recommendations may affect the risk characterization.

Low Human Risk, Low environmental risk.

INHALATION : Repeated or prolonged exposure may irritate the respiratory tract. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE : Acute : A review of available data does not identify any symptoms from exposure not previously mentioned. Chronic : Frequent or prolonged contact with product may defat and dry the skin, leading to discomfort and dermatitis. AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS : Skin contact may aggravate an existing dermatitis condition

Takes repeated or prolonged exposure to get acute symptoms. Even then the main symptoms are only aggravation of existing dermatitis or breathing problems. There was no dangers listed for ingestion other than the danger of aspirating it back into the lungs.

4. FIRST AID MEASURES EYE CONTACT : Immediately flush with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. If symptoms develop, seek medical advice. SKIN CONTACT : Immediately wash with plenty of soap and water. If symptoms develop, seek medical advice. INGESTION : Do not induce vomiting: contains petroleum distillates and/or aromatic solvents. If conscious, washout mouth and give water to drink. Get medical attention. INHALATION : Remove to fresh air, treat symptomatically. Get medical attention. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN : Based on the individual reactions of the patient, the physician's judgement should be used to control symptoms and clinical condition.

Treat by flushing with water, drinking water, and treating symptoms. No vomiting, no stomach pumping, not too many warnings. It even says for the physician to use their own judgement as to how much treatment of the symptoms should be given. Sounds less harmful than just about anything in my kitchen/bath/or garage.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by getreadyalready]

reply to post by getreadyalready


Thanks for the link to the thread and the quotes.

I just find it confusing when one group says it's safe and then another group says it's deadly..

from one of the quotes in my posts above

Just 2.61 parts per million of a 1:10 mixture of Corexit® EC9500A and oil kills 50% of silverside fish within 96 hours, at least under the test conditions.

And what with the stingray that was found floating (although they do state they are not sure how that died) it does tend to leave a bit of an odd reality floating about

is it deadly or is it not?

I guess we will find out in all good time

reply to post by Extralien


I think the thing is, it is BOTH: Great and Deadly.

It is the lessor of the evils at this time. It is serving to slow the spread of the oil and save the beaches and allowing nature a little more time to break it down, but it is also poisoning the sea beneath the surface.

If the leak stops, it was a good gamble, and if the leak doesn't stop, it won't matter anyway, because the Gulf will die!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
... It is very non-toxic.

How can you say this? From what I understand... no one has ever released a complete list of the ingredients in Corexit.

Keep drinking the cool-aid.

reply to post by HrdCorHillbilly


Some ingredients are proprietary, but the MSDS spells out the associated dangers, and basically there are none.

Imagine a concentrated dish soap along with some really good solvents for cleaning tools.

Everything, including Water and Air are toxic at some level, but it takes a lot of it, and a lot of exposure to it. I wish they weren't having to dump unprecedented amounts of it into the Gulf, but the sad case is that the oil is going there regardless, so we better do all that we can to fight it until the leak is plugged. There really is no other option. We have to keep fighting for now, until we win or lose the fight for the Gulf.

I don't know what MSDS you have been reading, but this is what I have read in the MSDS sheet.

Page 3:

ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS : Prevent material from entering sewers or waterways.

Why would it say this if it weren't toxic?


Page: 6

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS : No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product.

According to this... No one has done any toxicity studies on it.
Have YOU? I didn't think so.
Why are you so stuck on the idea that it's non toxic?? The experts don't even know.

reply to post by HrdCorHillbilly


Like I said "non-toxic" is relative. Even H2O is toxic!

The point here is that a lot of people are claiming this stuff is worse than the oil? A lot of people are panicking at the use of this stuff?

This stuff is HELPING the situation for now. It isn't the ideal situation, but it is a slight improvement. If the fish are dying, and if the seaweed is dying, it is a result of the toxic oils and gases, not the dispersants.

If you go to the doctor because you were exposed, inhaled, ingested, or inundated with this stuff, the treatment is: flush with water, treat any symptoms. Thats it!

If you are transporting 50 tons of this stuff on Interstates, you don't need to label it, you don't need a double hulled tanker, and you don't need to take a special route or inform the police. If you happen to wreck, the fire department does not have to take any special precautions, they just flush it with lots and lots of water.

As for the warnings you posted, most of the things in your kitchen say the same thing! Do you throw away batteries in the trash can? Do you wash the mower gas off your hands in the sink? Or in the yard? Do you put the fryer grease down the garbage disposal? Hell, half the stuff I eat says not to put in the trash! I have a concoction of peppers/ginger/garlic at home now that is far worse than any Pepper Spray, and I have been putting it on everything I eat!

I bet a lot more batteries, greeting cards, musical balloons, thermomoeters, pagers, lighted shoes, and games go into the trash than everyday than Corexit goes in the Gulf!

• Common batteries: AA, AAA, C cells, D cells, and button batteries, such as those used in hearing aids. These batteries contain toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, as well as corrosive chemicals.
• Fluorescent light bulbs and lamps that contain mercury: Fluorescent light tubes and bulbs, high-intensity discharge (HID), metal halide, sodium and neon bulbs all contain mercury vapors. If broken, mercury can be released into the environment and may cause nerve damage as well as a host of other serious illnesses.
• Thermostats, thermometers and novelty items: Thermometers, greeting cards that play music, shoes with lighted soles, and certain maze games contain mercury.
• Electronic devices: Computer monitors, TVs, cell phones, pagers, printers, computer bodies (CPUs and processors), video cassette recorders (VCRs), cordless and regular telephones, radios, and microwave ovens contain lead, cadmium, chromium, and copper.
• Pilot light sensors, electric switches, barometers, blood pressure devices, stoves, ovens, water heaters, space heaters, clothes dryers, and furnaces frequently use mercury switches.
• Aerosol cans: Flammable propellants such as butane can remain in aerosol cans if not completely empty. If a can is marked “flammable” or “toxic,” it should not be tossed into the trash unless it is completely empty of all contents.

Here is a quote from teh MSDS of a popular Shampoo in Hair Color product:

Acute Health Effects:
From MSDS Health Hazard Data Route's) of Entry: Inhalation? Skin? Ingestion? Yes Yes Not likely. Health Hazards (Acute and Chronic) Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through skin. This product may cause serious irritant, respiratory, and/or allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure Irritation of eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Possible irritant/allergic dermatitis and respiratory signs and symptoms, the onset of which may be delayed. Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure Existing dermatological conditions, such as eczema, and respiratory conditions, such as bronchial asthma and/or chronic bronchitis, may be exacerbated.

Disposal:
Accordingly, incineration at a non-hazardous waste treatment facility is the preferred method of disposal.

Toxic is Relative. The label says not to inhale it or touch it to our skin, and to dispose of it by incinerating, yet we bathe in a shower with it, leave it in our hair for multiple minutes, and then put it down the drain?

reply to post by getreadyalready


My point is simple for anyone to understand.
Exxon or whoever makes Corexit has not released the entire ingredients it contains. How on Earth can anyone know if it is toxic? We don't know, the EPA/Government doesn't know, YOU certainly don't know if it is toxic or not. So why convince people otherwise?? You work for BP or are you just...

---off topic---
Now to reply to your silly questions & comments...
No I do not throw batteries in the trash. I recycle them at a local store.
I do not use gasoline yard equipment. I use rechargeable electronics.
I also recycle my fryer grease.
You eat stuff that says do not throw away?? What is in your diet??