Tag Archives: corexit

The Real News Claims That 70% Of The People Living In Juarez,Mexico Are Murdered Everyday.

The Mexican army is a drug cartel. In part two of our interview with investigative journalist Bruce Livesey, we discuss the violence in Ciudad Juarez. Livesey, recently returned from Mexico's murder capital, says that the Mexican military is showing evidence that it is supporting the Sinaloa Cartel in it's bid to take out the local Juarez Cartel for this key transportation corridor. In addition to this corrupt government army that supports their handpicked cartel, the Mexican Zeta Cartel were U.S. trained at Fort Benning Ga AKA School of the Americas. We're forgetting that most of the Zeta Cartel Were Mexican army commandos that went rogue after being sent to the USA. They came back with all US/CIA training and developed a technically and efficient killing mercenary army and were hired by other cartels to kill and protect.They moved on and formed their own cartels. Once again here is another monster killing machine formed by the United States CIA. It really makes you wonder. added by: keithponder

Project Gulf Impact: Sea of Corexit with Dolphins & Jellyfish all up in it

The latest video from Project Gulf Impact, raw footage. Streams of Corexit still in powder form cover the surface of the Gulf of Mexico while Jellies and Dolphins swim in it. The team is collecting samples for independant testing. Learn more about the documentary they are making and how you can help: http://www.projectgulfimpact.org/ added by: samantha420

Gulf Chemist: Mercenaries Hired By BP Are Now Applying Toxic Dispersant – at Night and In an Uncontrolled Manner – Which BP Says It No Longer Uses

Bob Naman is an analytical chemist with almost 30 years in the field, based in Mobile, Alambama. When WKRG News 5 gave Naman samples of water from the Gulf of Mexico, Naman found oil contamination, and one of his samples actually exploded during testing due – he believes – to the presence of methane gas or Corexit, the dispersant that BP has been using in the Gulf (see comments section for video). A few days ago, Naman was sent a sample of water from Cotton Bayou, Alabama. Naman found 13.3 parts per million of the dispersant Corexit in the sample: More imporantly, Naman told me that he found 2-butoxyethanol in the sample. BP and Nalco – the manufacturer of Corexit – have said that dispersant containing 2-butoxyethanol is no longer being sprayed in the Gulf. As the New York Times noted in June: Corexit 9527, used in lesser quantities during the earlier days of the spill response, is designated a chronic and acute health hazard by EPA. The 9527 formula contains 2-butoxyethanol, pinpointed as the cause of lingering health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, and propylene glycol, a commonly used solvent. Corexit 9500, described by [Nalco's spokesman] as the “sole product” Nalco has manufactured for the Gulf since late April, contains propylene glycol and light petroleum distillates, a type of chemical refined from crude oil. Moreover, Naman said that he searched for the main ingredient in the less toxic 9500 version – propylene glycol – but there was none present. In other words, Naman found the most toxic ingredient in 9527 and did not find the chemical marker for 9500. Since BP and Nalco say that no dispersant containing 2-butoxyethanol has been sprayed in the Gulf for many months, that either means: (1) BP has been lying, and it is still using 2-butoxyethanol. In other words, BP is still Corexit 9527 in the Gulf or (2) The dispersant isn't breaking down nearly as quickly as hoped, and the more toxic form of Corexit used long ago is still present in the Gulf. Naman told me he used EPA-approved methods for testing the sample, but that a toxicologist working for BP is questioning everything he is doing, and trying to intimidate Naman by saying that he's been asked to look into who Naman is working with. I asked Naman if he could rule out the second possibility: that the 2-butoxyethanol he found was from a months-old applications of the more toxic version of Corexit. I assumed that he would say that, as a chemist, he could not rule out that possibility. However, Naman told me that he went to Dauphin Island, Alabama, last night. He said that he personally saw huge 250-500 gallon barrels all over the place with labels which said: Corexit 9527 Naman took pictures, and will send them to me later today (I'll post them as soon as I receive them). Naman further said he saw mercenaries dressed in all black fatigues, using gps coordinates, applying Corexit 9527 at Dauphin Island and at Bayou La Batre, Alabama. The mercenaries were “Blackwater”-type mercenaries, and Naman assumed they must have been hired either by BP or the government. Naman also confirmed – as previously reported – that the Corexit 9527 is being sprayed at night, and that it is being applied in such a haphazard manner that undiluted 9527 is running onto beach sand. added by: samantha420

It’s as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf

There are a few new, developing BP-related stories that should greatly disturb any American who values openness and transparency in their democracy. First, a chemist named Bob Naman claims samples he received from Orange Beach Alabama waters tested positive for the dangerous neurotoxin pesticide 2-butoxyethanol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9527A. The government has been claiming they discontinued the use of that version of Corexit in the Gulf. Now, Naman says he’s worried because BP called him and “threatened him.” Next, Dr. Nyman of Louisiana State University, who began comparative tests early May to determine the impact of oil and the impact of Corexit laced oil on maritime life, says, while marine life may recover quickly from oil exposure, the same cannot be said about exposure to Corexit. Large mammals were the least affected by the presence of oil, while the small bottom creatures, worms that are the food source for bottom feeders, were affected the most. The conclusion was that an oil spill is disruptive to maritime life but does not negatively impact the seafood population on a permanent basis. The impact is temporary and can reverse and restore itself over a period of time. The same cannot be said when natural waters contain a Corexit-oil mixture. Dr. Nyman’s studies show that the recovery period is twice or three times as long when maritime life is exposed to the toxic mixture of Corexit and oil. While the large mammals ultimately recover, the smaller fish population is reduced dramatically by 25% or more, depending on the concentration. The bottom of the natural food chain however, does not recover and is killed in its entirety which affects all the bottom feeders in the Gulf of Mexico, including shrimp, crawfish, crabs and lobster. Over at Counterpunch, Anne McClintock has a very good summary of the three vanishing acts playing out in the Gulf: the “disappearing” of oil courtesy of Corexit, the disappearing story in the media, and the disappearing of private contractors who are making a pretty penny helping BP and the Coast Guard keep a lid on the cover-up. Previously, I have written about the absolutely absurd claim that the oil has magically disappeared thanks to the Corexit fairy. Corexit simply hid the problem by sinking the oil, and there is no good way to clean up oil that is sitting deep in the ocean. Marine scientists have reported finding enormous oil plumes that could still exist in the Gulf due to the cold temperatures of the water. I recommend reading McClintock’s article in full, but I wanted to highlight this interaction with her source, a veteran named Steve who was hired to help in the clean-up effort. “It’s as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf,” he said. “The media is not telling the truth. No one is telling the truth. Let me tell you something. Yesterday on the beach where we work, my crew cleaned up seven hundred bags of oil. Today we went back and the beach was completely covered in oil, as if we had never been there. Today we carried away another seven hundred and fifty bags. Every day we clean up, then the tide brings it in again. The oil is everywhere, deep under the sand. Today I wanted to measure the oil, so I stuck my shovel into the sand and the oil was down there eight inches deep.” Steve leaned in close, “Do you want to know how long my contract is to work down here?” he asked. “Three years.” His jaw muscles tightened as if he wanted to suck his words back into his mouth, but could not. “They are telling everyone it is not so bad, but clean-up will take many years. I am going to be here a long time.” Steve wiped a hand heavily over his eyes as if they were burning. “Let me tell you something. Today we saw three sharks washed up dead on the beach. The insides of their noses were black with oil. The membranes of their mouths were black with oil. Their eyes were black with oil.” As I have repeatedly stressed, the full ramifications of this disaster won’t be understood for years. That’s why it’s so essential the media doesn’t buy the narrative that the crisis is over. Ever since they refused to allow workers to wear respirators during the clean-up, BP has been doing everything in its power to skirt liability for not only the oil volcano, but also the consequences of dumping two million gallons of experimental toxins into the ocean. They have bullied, intimidated, and used private contractors to suppress free and open media coverage of the unfolding events. BP is now desperately trying to get the victims of the Gulf disaster to quickly sign away their legal rights in order to secure swift payment as opposed to dragging things out in a lengthy, expensive court war like the one Exxon victims had to (and continue to) endure. All the right rich people want the Gulf squared in their rearview mirrors. The oil companies want to drill, and many politicians want the oil companies to stay happy so they can secure their donations come election time. The media is fatigued by the story, and eager to believe BP and state officials when they brushed off their hands and delivered the clarion call, “The End!” Focusing on the unknown consequences of Corexit is bad PR. It’s bad for deep-sea oil drilling. It’s bad for the politicians that need oil corporation donations. In all honesty, it’s bad for the local fishing industry, too. And I feel for those poor men and women, who will suffer years of financial devastation because of the irresponsible actions by BP (another reason not to let BP off the legal hook.) Of course, it’s also necessary to ask these questions. No one really understands the long-term consequences of Corexit. In fact, every day it becomes clearer and clearer that no one has any idea what this stuff is going to do to the food chain. ~ Visit the original article for embedded links ~ Related: The recent news that a new oil-eating microbe is eating BP's oil plumes comes from UC Berkeley, which received the largest BP grant ever ($500 million) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hnA8IqTr8c&feature=player_embedded added by: samantha420

Tests show metals in Louisiana Rain – BP oil spill news from the ground

Independent news on the BP Gulf oil/Corexit disaster from Kindra Arnesen She urges the local BP official to allow them to use Bio-Remediation instead of Corexit in our Gulf, which they are still dispersing to get rid of the oil that IS still there – but, she explains, weathered oil does not respond to Corexit. added by: samantha420

Stewart On Latest BP Developments: "We Are So F–ked" (VIDEO)

Funny, but sad! added by: kennymotown

Secret ingredients of Corexit now revealed by feds after their dumping on the Gulf

After weeks of silence on the issue, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally decided to go public with the list of ingredients used to manufacture Corexit, the chemical dispersant used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. There are two things about this announcement that deserve our attention: First, the ingredients that have been disclosed are extremely toxic, and second, why did the EPA protect the oil industry's “trade secrets” for so long by refusing to disclose these ingredients until now? As reported in the New York Times, Brian Turnbaugh, a policy analyst at OMB Watch said, “EPA had the authority to act all along; its decision to now disclose the ingredients demonstrates this. Yet it took a public outcry and weeks of complaints for the agency to act and place the public's interest ahead of corporate interests.” On the toxicity question, you could hardly find a more dangerous combination of poisons to dump into the Gulf of Mexico than what has been revealed in Corexit. The Corexit 9527 product has been designated a “chronic and acute health hazard” by the EPA. It is made with 2-butoxyethanol, a highly toxic chemical that has long been linked to the health problems of cleanup crews who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill. A newer Corexit recipe dubbed the “9500 formula” contains dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a detergent chemical that's also found in laxatives. What do you suppose happens to the marine ecosystem when fish and sea turtles ingest this chemical through their gills and skin? And just as importantly, what do you think happens to the human beings who are working around this chemical, breathing in its fumes and touching it with their skin? The answers are currently unknown, which is exactly why it is so inexcusable that Nalco and the oil industry giants would for so long refuse to disclose the chemical ingredients they're dumping into the Gulf of Mexico in huge quantities (over a million gallons dumped into the ocean to date). But it gets even more interesting when you look at just how widespread this “chemical secrecy” is across Big Business in the USA… and how the U.S. government more often than not conspires with industry to keep these chemicals a secret. It's time to end chemical trade secrets Armed with the accomplices in the FDA, EPA, FTC and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, powerful corporations have been keeping secrets from us all. It's not just the toxic chemicals in Corexit, either: Large manufacturers of consumers products — such as Unilever, Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson — routinely use toxic chemical ingredients in their products — ingredients which are usually kept secret from the public. Similarly, virtually every perfume, cologne and fragrance product on the market is made with cancer-causing chemicals that their manufacturers refuse to disclose, claiming their formulas are “trade secrets.” Throughout Big Business in America, the toxic chemicals used in everyday products such as household cleaners, cosmetics and yard care remain a dangerous secret, and the U.S. government actually colludes with industry to keep these chemical ingredients a secret by, for example, refusing to require full disclosure of ingredients for personal care products. The FDA offers us virtually no enforcement in this area, depending almost entirely on companies to declare their own chemicals are safe rather than requiring actual safety testing to be conducted. This is why the following statement is frightening yet true: What BP is doing to the Gulf of Mexico, companies like Proctor & Gamble are doing to the entire population. We are all being mass poisoned by the toxic chemicals in personal care products, foods, medicines, fragrance products and other concoctions created by powerful corporations that use toxic chemicals throughout their product lines… but who refuse to disclose those ingredients in the public. continued added by: JanforGore

Aftermath of Gulf of Mexico ecocide: benzene rain?

Truth be told, dispersants are far from a panacea. They are first and foremost a public relation tool to manipulate public opinion into believing the oil spill is disappearing, digested by microbes. The dispersants keep the oil underwater and together have created a deadlier mix than oil and water. Out of sight, out of mind, and the American public, with an increasingly short attention span buys into it. In reality an oil spill treated with chemical dispersants poses an even greater ecological threat than the oil spill left alone. Corexit is an extremely toxic chemical dispersant. It was favored by BP over other alternative dispersants more ecologically friendly and with a better track record, mostly for cost reasons. It is estimated that more than 870,000 gallons (3.2 million litres) of Corexit has been used so far, either sprayed on the surface or released underwater-150,000 gallons (570,000 litres). Dispersants rely on wave movements shearing the oil film mechanically in order to refine crude oil into separate chemicals. This may have worked to some extent on the Exxon Valdez spill of Alaska where waves are big but in the Gulf of Mexico? Ever heard of a surfing competition in the gulf? The waves are just not there for the dispersant to work. Seven cleanup workers were hospitalized last week after complaints of headache, dizziness, breathing problems and nausea. The workers are said to have told the doctors, according to the medical centre sources, that the chemical dispersant used to break up oil had made them sick. Doctors believe the likely cause to be chemical irritation as well as dehydration from working in the heat. Manufactured by Nalco Energy Services L.P., the Material Safety Data Sheets state that Corexit 9500 cause irritation when in contact with skin, chemical pneumonia if ingested and irritation to the respiratory tract with repeated and prolonged inhalation. MSD of Corexit EC 9527A states: Symptoms of Exposure – Acute : Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, aesthetic or narcotic effects. – Chronic : Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. No toxicity studies have been conducted for either product, so the extent of damage is still not known. However, according to a study by Exxon, Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9580 have low to “moderate toxicity to most aquatic organisms in laboratory tests.” Corexit 9527 is also known to damage the red blood cells, leaving fishes to bleed to death. snip Know this: Most of the hydrocarbon chemicals extracted by the dispersants stay at the surface. They are the first ones to evaporate alongside water into clouds overhead that later fly over the continent and provide rain to the southern states. We are talking about chemicals causing cancer or kidney failure such as benzene and pretty much any possible chemical that can be extracted from crude oil. These chemicals would end up in water supplies, rain on crops, and eventually imbibed by humans and animals alike. The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season began on June 1 and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts 8-14 hurricanes ,14-23 storms, and 3-7 major hurricanes-the figures higher than normal years. During the next few hurricanes, extreme shearing at the surface of the sea will boost the chemical action of dispersants which separate petroleum chemicals and suddenly increase the concentration of noxious chemicals evaporating from the spill. These hurricanes will carry this noxious cocktail across the southern US and north of Mexico, polluting the water supply and all that depend on it. snip How to recognize the signs that the spill aftermath rained inland: if after a downpour you notice that the road is slicker than usual, this is a sign the rain water may be contaminated if after a downpour any foliage appears waxy, and any white surface stained. crops and plants which whither unexpectedly after a downpour. The oily substance coating the leaves block respiration and photosynthesis. A lot of herbicides are petroleum-based (but so are fertilizers). cont. added by: JanforGore