"Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Say"
Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Sayhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html
"SNIP......................
A just-released study from the University of South Florida found that underwater plumes of BP oil, dispersed by Corexit, had produced a “massive die-off” of foraminifera, microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Other studies show that, as a result of oil and dispersants, plankton have either been killed or have absorbed PAHs before being consumed by other sea creatures.
Hydrocarbon-laden, mutated seafood is not the only legacy left behind by Corexit, many scientists, physicians, environmentalists, fishermen, and Gulf Coast residents contend. Earlier this week, TakePart wrote about Steve Kolian, a researcher and founder of the nonprofit group EcoRigs, whose volunteer scientists and divers seek to preserve offshore oil and gas platforms after production stops, for use as artificial reefs and for alternative energy production.
EcoRigs divers took water and marine life samples at several locations in the months following the blowout. Now, they and countless other Gulf residents are sick, with symptoms resembling something from a sci-fi horror film, including bleeding from the nose, ears, breasts, and even anus. Others complain of cognitive damage, including what one man calls getting “stuck stupid,” when he temporarily cannot move or speak, but can still hear.
“If we are getting sick, then you know the marine life out in the Gulf is too,” Kolian said. The diver and researcher completed an affidavit on human and marine health used in GAP’s report.
.....................SNIP"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Corexit was removed from our approved list in 1998 because it failed a test on use in proximity to rocky shorelines - the detergent prevents limpets etc from attaching to rocks thus making them prey to other sea creatures. Non approval meant it couldn't be used as matter of routine - license of consent for use would be needed from DEFRA and the material used need to come from existing stocks as tested at the time. With no demand on usage those stocks may sit there forever. So - its not illegal which would bar its use completely : its a controlled substance which could be licensed for used dependent on where an event occurred.
The background to the claim that it was illegal in the UK was an NYT article in 2010 which all and sundry copied but never corrected when the NYT removed the article completely presumably in the knowledge that the claim was false or at best a half truth.
Past events here particularly with respect to tanker disasters indicate the public would regard an intact oil slick hitting the coast being the greater evil than the use of dispersants and so I suspect would DEFRA. Others here in the UK may disagree with me on that. For an example of the consequences of a major slick hitting our coasts see here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/27/torrey-canyon-oil-spill-guernsey
DEFRA mentioned above is the UK Gov. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
cracking a hole so deep into the ocean that it nearly impossible to get to, not knowing how to close said hole once it's been tapped, after cramming it with everything with everything we've got, hmmm................. I know let's cover the toxic solution floating on the water with illegal chemicals.
What could go wrong!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
FFS
-p
