Leaked!: Complete Assay Of The "Crude oil" & Corexit Warning Label

reply to post by burntheships


Can't be that bad, it is made by Amercian Company in the United States.

reply to post by skeptic_al


Many pesticides, and dispersants are made in China.
I was wondering where COREXIT AC9500A is manufactured.

I am not sure, China?

Originally posted by PsychoX42

Originally posted by BlubberyConspiracy
Be careful.

TPTB want us to notice that the EPA 'kindly' asked BP not to use corexit and then get angry at how the EPA has no power to enforce BP to not use the corexit.

Then the Cap and Trade comes in.

Obama wants the EPA to have policing powers, nothing other than this could have us all blindly screaming create an environmental police force.


This is how ruthless the elite are.



Algore failed.

Climate Summit failed.

And this is the third attempt.

You are definitely correct about this. My gut instinct says the same thing. Its the same way that they (the elite) are creating border problems to get Americans angry and agree to have the military patrol it and put up a fence which will inevitably lock us all inside. Yep, that border will serve two purposes. No one gets in, and NO ONE GETS OUT. Most people don't understand that there's a huge game of chess being played, and they (the elite) have thought of every option in every direction to ensure that they come out on top.

People need to understand the levels that these guys will drop in order to snare the American public by their own volition and vices. Believe me, if you beg for them to have more control over policing, eventually, they will gladly take it and politely say, "Well, this is what you asked for."

I hope more people saw your post. But hopefully, my reply to you will resurrect it, and give others the chance to see the brilliance in your statement and your ability to look ahead of the game. There's not many that have this sort of critical thinking skill. Its nice to see someone else who is awake.

Namaste and Love

[edit on 9-7-2010 by PsychoX42]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention again, I for one did not see BlubberyConspiracy's post earlier.

Originally posted by BlubberyConspiracy
Be careful.

TPTB want us to notice that the EPA 'kindly' asked BP not to use corexit and then get angry at how the EPA has no power to enforce BP to not use the corexit.

Then the Cap and Trade comes in.

Obama wants the EPA to have policing powers, nothing other than this could have us all blindly screaming create an environmental police force.


This is how ruthless the elite are.



Algore failed.

Climate Summit failed.

And this is the third attempt.

I'll bite. So, you are saying that this spill was done intentionally, so that the EPA would have power over maritime activities?

"They" have been trying to pass 'cap and trade' for a long time. Saying 'they' caused this oil rupture in order to pass it seems highly speculative. I mean, perhaps, but not certainly. I mean, one could also speculate that the Iraq war was waged to pass cap and trade. OR the space program. Or 'so who wants to be a millionare"?

Cause? Effect?

I think the government is damned if they do and damned if they dont. If they dont do 'something', a portion of the population will say they are incompetent. If they do 'something', another portion will say they are draconian.

I guess im just not as smart as you guys. It must be tough knowing the answers to EVERYTHING, but not having the power to do anything about it.
Ahh, the comforts of the apathetic cynic.

Well trying to keep this thread on track...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air
Air Data >>
EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with oil on the shore in the gulf region at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. Some people may be able to smell several of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems.

EPA is also conducting additional air monitoring for ozone and airborne particulate matter. The air monitoring conducted through July 8 has found levels of ozone and particulates ranging from the "good" to "unhealthy for sensitive groups" levels on EPA's Air Quality Index.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water
Water Data >>
EPA surface water samples collected June 16 and 25, and July 1-3, 2010 along the Gulf Coast found that nickel exceeded chronic aquatic life benchmarks in one sample. At these levels, nickel may cause risk to aquatic life.

Surface water results collected May 21 through June 29, 2010 along the coast of Louisiana were measured for two of the chemicals associated with dispersants (2-Butoxyethanol and 2-Ethylhexyl Alcohol) but did not detect either one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sediment
Sediment Data >>
Sediment samples collected on June 29 and 30, 2010 along the Gulf Coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waste Management
Waste Information >>
EPA deployed field teams to collect a small number of samples of oily debris, tar balls, mousse oil and other petroleum waste products that have washed up on the shore along the Gulf Coast. Preliminary results have only shown chemical constituents that are usually found in petroleum products and typical health precautions should be taken.
www.epa.gov...

I take this as proof that the EPA is activly monitering the Deepwater Horizon, as it is part of thier jurisdiction.

If BP ignores them that does not suprise me in the least.

This is a no win for us, sad day.

We dont want Cap and Spend, Trick and Deploy.


But we should not endure poisioning by the Feds that take our hard earned money by tax extortion.

Originally posted by brokedown
This oil is highly radiaoactive and off gassing highly toxic fumes.

Exactly how radioactive? In Bq, or rads? And what decay process?? Alpha? Beta decay? t must be alpha since you stuck an exatra "a" in the word. What percent of NORM? And what is NORM for light gulf crude from that area?

More Data on Corexit, toxicity when mixed with oil.

EDF.

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

www.justmeans.com...

www.nalco.com...

I wonder if the people flying these planes dispersing this stuff know how bad it is or if they are just told to do so, so they do it. They probably are getting sick from it too. But BP doesnt care, those people are expendable to them.

reply to post by burntheships


I am so glad that you posted this thread and allowed
the rest of us to see this information.I emailed this
info to my stepson in florida,I just hope he will listen.

reply to post by halobaby


The U.S. Coast Gaurd is the lead in spraying COREXIT. I think they are well aware of the dangers. The idea here is that this situation is escalating out of control. Initially, I doubt that BP forsaw the gusher would continue for this length of time.

IMO, they thought that they would contain it. It has been near 80 days now, or longer. That is an un precedented amount of dispersants sprayed into the ocean, along with an unprecedented amount of oil.




[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]

Originally posted by justadood

Yes, but i'm saying that isnt really a very significant 'industry' at all, which implies, to me, that your theory has a whole in it.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Not to get OT but here's some gulf facts from the EPA.

www.epa.gov...

Fisheries: Gulf fisheries are some of the most productive in the world. In 2008 according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation by weight. The Gulf of Mexico has eight of the top twenty fishing ports in the nation by dollar value.

Shrimp: Gulf landings of shrimp led the Nation in 2008 with 188.8 million pounds valued at $367 million dockside, accounting for about 73% of U.S. total. Louisiana led all Gulf states with 89.3 million pounds; Texas with 63.8 million pounds; Alabama with 17.2 million pounds; Florida (west coast) with 9.9 million pounds; and Mississippi with 8.6 million pounds.

Oysters: The Gulf led in production of oysters in 2008 with 20.6 million pounds of meats valued at $60.2 million and representing 59% of the national total.

The Gulf of Mexico yields more finfish, shrimp, and shellfish annually than the south and mid-Atlantic, Chesapeake, and New England areas combined.

www.businessweek.com...
Louisiana is the largest seafood producer in the lower 48 states, with annual retail sales of about $1.8 billion, according to state data. Recreational fishing generates about $1 billion in retail sales a year, according to the state.

This is a significant industry especially in light of the fact that we have already lost much of our land based industry. People often don't consider sport fishing but it provides income for many gulf residents. We have lost more than we realize.

reply to post by Morningglory


Thanks for that great info! Recent exports of Gulf Seafood to Canada alone were very significant!

Most of the seafood in the Gulf is exported. Last year, 5 states in the Gulf of Mexico exported US$11.6 million worth of fish and shellfish to Canada. ......

.........Food Safety News reports that yesterday, the area of the Gulf of Mexico closed to fishing because of the BP oil spill grew by 7 percent to 86,985 square miles. The area closed is now as large as the entire State of Minnesota.

“The closed area represents 36 percent of the U.S. economic zone in the Gulf. Four of the five Gulf states have closed state waters as well. The closures are imposed to ensure that seafood that is harvested is safe to eat.”
www.americanchronicle.com...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]

Originally posted by burntheships

It's not a surprise, it's not pure oil!

I hate to break it to ya but there is no such thing as "pure oil".


And that warning label doesn't say much. A typical warning label on a can off Goof Off (a crude derived solvent) is actually even worse.



Goof Off MSDS sheets

reply to post by Morningglory


Nicely done.

Thanks for that.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


www.epa.gov...

www.nalco.com...

and EPA DATA SHEET COREXIT EC9500A (Product # D-4)
www.epa.gov...

Toxicity
(LC50 values in ppm

Menidia (96-hr) Mysidopsis (48-hr)

COREXIT® EC9500A 2.61 3.40

www.epa.gov...
SECTIONS 311 AND 312 - MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR 370) :
Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the following
indicated EPA hazard categories:
X Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard

Who do you think you have convinced?

And as for "pure oil" Those words were from the article...not mine.
Crude oil is never without other elements.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And that warning label doesn't say much. A typical warning label on a can off Goof Off (a crude derived solvent) is actually even worse.

I don't doubt Goof Off is worse but we're talking wide scale exposure to seafood and human populations. I've read many labels that specify not for use around food, livestock etc. The dechlorinator I use in my aquarium specifically states it should not be used on fish intended for human consumption. There are many things we use everyday that are considered "safe" but only when handled properly.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I hate to break it to ya but there is no such thing as "pure oil".

I think this is exactly the point the OP is making.

Originally posted by burntheships
The question to which no one knows the answer is to what extent and lethal combinations Corexit reacts to all the chemical and compound elements gushing from BP's volcanic crude oil disaster!
It is an unknown experiment because there are hundreds of variables at play.

I think the OP's concerns are justified and worthy of consideration.

Originally posted by burntheships
Who do you think you have convinced?

I'm not here to convince people of anything. You are, and from those labels that are supposed to be SHOCKING I'm not convinced. I see labels like those all the time.

ACUTE!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!

Goof Off is listed as acute also:

SARA 311/312 Hazard Class:
Acute: Yes
Chronic: Yes
Flammability: Yes
Reactivity: No

HMIS Codes
Health: 3
Flammability: 3
Reactivity: 1
PPE: X - See Section 8 for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Primary Routes of Exposure:
Inhalation
Ingestion
Skin absorption
Emergency Overview:
This section not in use.
This product contains ingredients that may contribute to the following potential acute health effects:
Inhalation Effects:
May irritate the lungs. May irritate mouth, nose, and throat. Harmful if inhaled. May affect the brain, nervous system, or
respiratory system, causing dizziness, headache, nausea or respiratory irritation.
Eye Contact:
May cause moderate eye irritation.

Skin Contact:
May cause moderate skin irritation.
Acute Ingestion:
None known
Other Effects:
May cause kidney damage. May cause liver damage.
This product contains ingredients that may contribute to the following potential chronic health effects:
Notice: Reports have associated repeated and prolonged occupational overexposure to solvents with permanent brain
and nervous system damage. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents may be harmful
or fatal.

Originally posted by Morningglory
I don't doubt Goof Off is worse but we're talking wide scale exposure to seafood and human populations.

I'm not arguing it is actually. Goof Off is probably 99.9% straight crude distillates. It's gushing up out of that well: Xylene, Toulene, Benzene. All of these things will literally evaporate into thin air.

What the OP and the crowd who want for Corexit to be the worst stuff ever in history need to find out about is the synthetic compounds in the formula. And that's if there are any. I've heard a lot of screaming about Corexit being toxic, but haven't seen any headlines talking about the synthetics it may or may not contain. Toxic is relative. There's levels of some chemicals, from the gusher, I've been hearing people scream about that are toxic levels, but the one I went and looked up is actually produced by the human body everyday. It's a matter of having too much in that case.

I haven't even bothered looking into it myself. But if you guys want a thread headline worthy of the front page of ATS it should be more than just a photo of a warning label that is no different than a paint thinner label.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Well I admit that myself and countless thousands of others, including expert Toxicologists and Marine Toxicologists are very concerned for peoples health, and the Gulf ecosystem.

Your point is still missed here. Are you suggesting that the Coast Gaurd should continue spraying COREXIT because Goof Off is toxic?

You are overlooking the long list of elements found in the oil itself. That is the main focus of this OP.

What proof do you have that the EPA does not? Even the EPA is unsure of the toxicity levels that COREXIT and this Crude Oil Mix form together.

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

www.justmeans.com...

www.nalco.com...

And for you to suggest that COREXIT may not contain chemical compounds that are toxic...? Well I dont know what to say about that, it is apparent you can read, but maybe you just dont understand?

Edit to add : you admit you have not even looked into it yourself?





[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

Well I admit that myself and countless thousands of others, including expert Toxicologists and Marine Toxicologists are very concerned for peoples health, and the Gulf ecosystem.

Your point is still missed here. Are you suggesting that the Coast Gaurd should continue spraying COREXIT because Goof Off is toxic?

Toxic is relative. There's levels of some chemicals, from the gusher, I've been hearing people scream about that are toxic levels, but the one I went and looked up is actually produced by the human body everyday. It's a matter of having too much in that case.

What needs to be known is how is corexit different than the crude oil itself. I'd really like to know. It's really amazing how many different compounds there are in crude. We're talking a laundry list of different types of solvents alone. All of them toxic. I don't know where you got that I said corexit isn't toxic. It's how it is different from standard oil distilled solvents that I'm interested in.

Any synthetic compounds in it is what we need to know.

Just spraying extra paint thinner (distilled from crude oil) isn't really much worse. I don't know that it is simple distillates. If you find out that it isn't, and what it is that's different, and some extra data on the synthetic compounds, and I'll star and flag that thread.

Of particular usefulness would be leftover residues after evaporation, especially if those residues are sythetic. Solvents like Xylene leave virtually no residues after they evaporate.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]