Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,044 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 145,528
Pageviews Today: 273,069Threads Today: 126Posts Today: 2,221
05:13 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Do you believe this? "Inaccuracy vs Fact About COREXIT Products" They safe it's safe! Hah!

 
JaneDoeX0X
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 1027338
United States
07/09/2010 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Do you believe this? "Inaccuracy vs Fact About COREXIT Products" They safe it's safe! Hah!
This is from NALCO's own website. Everyone hurt by Corexit needs to be aware of these claims as evidence of Nalco's lies that's causing major harm to Gulf Coast residents, fishermen, clean up workers, etc.


First thing that stands out to me is that "Corexit is to be used more than 3 miles offshore in the United States". That contradicts a lot of reports from people on the ground in the Gulf who say it's being sprayed closer to land.

And also the bold lie that Coreit is safe as your everyday household products.

I'd like to see Nalco take this report and shove it up their A&& ......




Inaccuracy vs Fact About COREXIT Products
[link to www.nalco.com]



INACCURACY: The chemical formula of COREXIT has not been disclosed.

FACT: Nalco has provided the Federal Government with all information relating to the chemicals and compounds in our product and is willing to provide this data to any state government that wants the information to analyze the effects of dispersants and protects the confidentiality of the proprietary information. We have complied with every request for information and assistance we have received from the Federal Government that is needed to protect human health and the environment and will continue to do so as we help mitigate the damaging consequences of the oil spilling into the Gulf. The ingredients to COREXIT products are available at [link to www.nalco.com]



INACCURACY: COREXIT is banned in the United Kingdom.

FACT: Corexit is approved in over 30 countries and we are unaware of a single country that has “banned” Corexit. The UK does not allow the use of Corexit for rocky shoreline application because it results in snails and other crustaceans not sticking to rocks. Corexit was not designed for rocky coast application and is only applied in the United States at least 3 miles off shore. However, Corexit 9500 did pass the UK test for off-shore use (what it was designed for) and existing stock use is allowed for that intended application with notification to appropriate authorities.



INACCURACY: The EPA’s May 20 dispersant directive ordered BP to stop using COREXIT.

FACT: The EPA’s dispersant directive gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic and equally effective alternative if one existed, but as EPA Administrator Jackson said in a May 24 press conference, “there was no order they had to switch.” The directive indicated that If BP was unable to identify a less toxic and equally effective dispersant from the EPA’s approved list within 24 hours, BP would provide an explanation to the EPA as to why the current dispersant (COREXIT) was the least toxic and most effective option available. BP’s response to the EPA’s directive is available here.



In addition, during a press call hosted by Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development at EPA, on June 30 regarding the EPA's first round of independent dispersant testing, Anastas further clarified EPA’s directive, stating, “let me be clear about what we expected of BP. We expected them to, one, seek out the least toxic dispersant and to always be asking that question and always looking to identify that. And two, minimize the use of dispersant wherever possible to effectively deal with this crisis. And one of the things and I'll refer back to my statement that we've seen that after the Administrator made that communication to BP, we have seen the use of dispersants decrease by almost 70 percent from its peak usage.”

He went on to say, “I think the important thing to clarify is what the administrator directed BP to do is to look at other dispersants in order to always ask the question about, "Are we using the safest, most effective dispersant that we can?" It’s important that BP do that. It’s important that we always bring to bear the most effective and safe dispersants for human health and the environment. And I think that that's the request that the Administrator made and that's what we will continue to insist upon.” The full transcript of the June 30 press call can be found here.





INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant is the primary hazard to marine life in the Gulf.

FACT: The EPA has indicated that COREXIT has been safe and effective in mitigating the impact of the oil on the environment. According to the EPA, “toxicity data does not indicate any significant effects on aquatic life. Moreover, decreased size of the oil droplets is a good indication that, so far, the dispersant is effective.” EPA Administrator Jackson also said that COREXIT has been effective in speeding biodegradation, and USCG Rear Admiral Landry indicated that COREXIT has prevented “much more” highly toxic oil from reaching US shorelines. (source: May 24 EPA Press Conference on Dispersant Use in the Gulf of Mexico). According to Luann White, Director, Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health “It’s not the dispersants that cause the ecological effects — it’s the oil that’s toxic. None of these dispersants is so innately toxic -- once you use them out in the Gulf, they’re not going to cause toxic effects in and of themselves.” Tulane University, June 2, 2010



INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant is highly toxic.

FACT: All of the ingredients contained in Nalco’s dispersants are safe and found in common household products, such as food, hand and body lotion, packaging, cosmetics, and household cleaners. Corexit is approved for use by the EPA because it falls well within the agency’s range of allowable toxicity levels. Corexit products biodegrade rapidly, do not bioaccumulate, are not human carcinogens, do not degrade into endocrine disruptors, and are not reproductive toxins. Common household soaps are more toxic to marine life than Corexit.



In fact, Paul Anastas, the EPA’s assistant administrator for research and development, told reporters Wednesday (June 30) that the Corexit 9500 being used by oil company BP is among the least toxic to small fish of the eight products tested (Dispersants appear to break up in Gulf, EPA says, CNN Wire Staff, June 30, 2010).





INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant is hazardous to human health when used as directed.

FACT: All of the ingredients contained in Nalco’s dispersants are found in common household products, such as food, packaging, cosmetics, and household cleaners. Individually and collectively the ingredients are safe when used as directed. A May 13 Centers for Disease Control “Oil Spill Dispersant Information for Health Professionals” document notes that, “Because of the strict guidelines that must be followed to utilize dispersants it is unlikely that the general public will be exposed to straight product.” The report further states that “ingredients are not considered to cause chemical sensitization; the dispersants contain proven, biodegradable and low toxicity surfactants.”



INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant will evaporate into clouds and come back down in the rain

FACT: COREXIT dispersants are made to disperse oil into the water column and not to evaporate. They biodegrade into the water and are not released back into the atmosphere. In fact, Admiral Thad Allen noted at a June 11 press conference that the primary surface use of Corexit is to protect worker safety. [link to www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]



INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersants will drift to populated areas when sprayed from airplanes.

FACT: COREXIT is meant to be used at sea – away from the shoreline and has been used in more than 30 countries, including Sweden, France, Australia, Norway and Canada. Aerial spraying of dispersant is not to take place within 2 miles of a boat or 3 miles of a shoreline. With 30-mile per hour winds, the maximum expected drift for the dispersant is 2,000 feet. Spraying of dispersant from boats should only be done with personal protective equipment. Again, the Centers for Disease Control says it is “highly unlikely” that the general public will be exposed to Corexit dispersants. Mists of the dispersant will not stray far from the boat given the proximity of the spray to the surface of the water.


1dunno1


edited to add: the original text includes a lot of links to their source material.

Last Edited by JaneDoeX0X on 07/10/2010 03:25 PM
Philippines

User ID: 1003925
Philippines
07/10/2010 12:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you believe this? "Inaccuracy vs Fact About COREXIT Products" They safe it's safe! Hah!
CONTRADICTION: Spraying of dispersant from boats should only be done with personal protective equipment. Again, the Centers for Disease Control says it is “highly unlikely” that the general public will be exposed to Corexit dispersants.

AND: All of the ingredients contained in Nalco’s dispersants are safe and found in common household products, such as food, hand and body lotion, packaging, cosmetics, and household cleaners. Corexit is approved for use by the EPA because it falls well within the agency’s range of allowable toxicity levels.

FACT: If it is perfectly "safe", why the use of protective equipment?

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

I know, let's setup an experiment to prove the silly "myth debunking" and "fact checking" clowns in the media.

Put an equivalent amount of Corexit 9500 (and/or the other one) into a salt water tank with live fish. See if they live or die.

So much propaganda and foundation-less reporting in the media for far too long =(
Separate science and government.
JaneDoeX0X  (OP)

User ID: 1027338
United States
07/10/2010 03:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you believe this? "Inaccuracy vs Fact About COREXIT Products" They safe it's safe! Hah!
Exactly! The whole document reeks of lies!





GLP