UK Deepwater Drilling – implications of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, UK Parliament, Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, October 21, 2010:
The contingency plan also includes a provision to use the controversial dispersant Corexit 9500 manufactured by American company Nalco. [42] Use of Corexit is restricted in the UK, after failure of the rocky shore tests required for its approval, [43] and there remain concerns over the overall effects on shore-based animals and wildlife as well as the general toxicity of the product and its effects particularly on fish and marine mammals. [44] Two million gallons of the product has been used in cleanup operations in the Gulf of Mexico despite a public outcry and major concerns by lead scientists.
[44] See for example: Andrew Rogersona and Jacques Berger, ‘The toxicity of the dispersant Corexit 9527 and oil-dispersant mixtures to ciliate protozoa’ Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, 24 November 1980. Concluded that: “Chemically dispersed oil was more toxic than either the dispersant or crude oil alone.” And US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, ‘Analysis of Eight Oil Spill Dispersants Using In Vitro Tests for Endocrine and Other Biological Activity’, 30 June 2010 where Corexit ranks among the most cytotoxic of the eight dispersants in the study.
Cytotoxic: (i.e. toxic to cells) Treating cells with a cytotoxic compound can result in a variety of cell fates. The cells may undergo necrosis, in which they lose membrane integrity and die rapidly as a result of cell lysis. The cells can stop actively growing and dividing (a decrease in cell viability), or the cells can activate a genetic program of controlled cell death (apoptosis).
Gee, my mother knew that ("Chemically dispersed oil was more toxic than either the dispersant or crude oil alone.") from the beginning (see: "Researchers find "VAST VOLUMES" of oil on seafloor -- Includes "Thick Raw Crude"") and she's been out of the oil industry since 1986.
In fact, look up Byphenl on flippin' WIKIPEDIA and you can read that it is only activated out of crude when a solvent is added. Sounds like either BP had their heads up their asses the entire time or this is a true war on the American people!!! Hmmm!
IMHO, BP and the other energy czars want the GOM for oil and gas production, both on shore and off shore, and they need the human weeds to "relocate" out of their way.
The fact that our government allowed this
and continues to allow this is most disturbing.
and the silence of all media including prominent alternate media is deafening...
Any media source that aired BP ads had to sign a contract that they would never use the words 'toxic' and 'corexit' in the same sentence.
This is per Dr Susan Shaw, she mentioned on a radio interview that i can no longer find..
http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/portal.php?article=0&sid=b7d63e31bfaab57d1e4f5ac5182280a7
HOW about calling it CORE-EXIT
Chelsea
They also knew that deep water oil gushers would strip the most volatile of the oils components and put them in the waters with the sea-life. ... * BREAKING * "They Knew" ! (video)
on Sunday, October 31, 2010 ... http://beforeitsnews.com/story/244/228/
The WorldVision Portal link posted by READ is a great
document with citations, scarily detailed about what is
making folks and critters sick, facts about dispersants
and additives to them.
I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!